Jump to content

What type of 3G speeds should expect after NV is completed?


Recommended Posts

Right now in Honolulu Hawaii? Lately, I average about 400KB download.

The signals are pretty strong all over. Before last December 3G used to be 500-700KB max.

There was a time between December and couple of weeks back my speeds wouldn't go below

1.4 MB download max of 2.4MB. And now it seems if Hawaii was updatd last December? My question is?

What was acutally updated? Because the it seems like the speed went back to what it used to be.

And so what will 3G speeds theoretically average after NV completion?

 

http://newsroom.sprint.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2120

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now in Honolulu Hawaii? Lately, I average about 400KB download.

The signals are pretty strong all over. Before last December 3G used to be 500-700KB max.

There was a time between December and couple of weeks back my speeds wouldn't go below

1.4 MB download max of 2.4MB. And now it seems if Hawaii was updatd last December? My question is?

What was acutally updated? Because the it seems like the speed went back to what it used to be.

And so what will 3G speeds theoretically average after NV completion?

 

http://newsroom.spri...article_id=2120

 

I hear very often about sites who get the temporary upgrades shown on network.sprint.com improve suddenly, but then go back down after time. That is because there are a lot of customers who stopped using data at that site because of the poor speeds. But when they discover their tower is now working again, they start using more and more data, until the site is back to where it was.

 

In post Network Vision sites with upgraded backhaul, the 3G EVDO speeds should be between 1.0Mbps and 2.6Mbps, depending on sector load. After NV, the backhaul will no longer be the bottleneck on the 3G network. The biggest limiting factor post-NV is carrier capacity.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I hear very often about sites who get the temporary upgrades shown on network.sprint.com improve suddenly, but then go back down after time. That is because there are a lot of customers who stopped using data at that site because of the poor speeds. But when they discover their tower is now working again, they start using more and more data, until the site is back to where it was.

 

In post Network Vision sites with upgraded backhaul, the 3G EVDO speeds should be between 1.0Mbps and 2.6Mbps, depending on sector load. After NV, the backhaul will no longer be the bottleneck on the 3G network. The biggest limiting factor post-NV is carrier capacity.

 

Robert

 

Thanks Robert for that explanation.

 

I don't remember where I read it or if I remember correctly?

But I though that after NV is completed? Sprints 3G will be EVDO 1x

which would have speeds approaching 7MB download?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks Robert for that explanation.

 

I don't remember where I read it or if I remember correctly?

But I though that after NV is completed? Sprints 3G will be EVDO 1x

which would have speeds approaching 7MB download?

 

 

Negative. Sprint 3G EVDO will be exactly the same, only with much improved backhaul. Sprint also is deploying 1xAdvanced, but that doesn't do a lot for data speeds.

 

There were lots of rumors early that Sprint may use EVDO-Revision B in Network Vision. That would likely produce 7Mbps speeds. But that was ruled out last Fall.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... Sprint 3G EVDO will be exactly the same, only with much improved backhaul....

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

However, additionally, Sprints current EVDO rev. A is being upgraded to EVDO-Advanced (rev A), Correct??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

However' date=' additionally, Sprints current EVDO rev. A is being upgraded to EVDO-Advanced (rev A), Correct??[/quote']

 

Sort of, but not really. You are thinking of DO Advanced. Which are more like network controls. It will allow a lot more network control over the 3G network. But no improvement in EVDO-A speeds.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev B would have required additional carriers and they've got a finite amount of spectrum, using the bulk of it for their LTE build out was the right decision.

 

Besides, 3G performance is going to quickly become an afterthought once we're all on LTE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of, but not really. You are thinking of DO Advanced. Which are more like network controls. It will allow a lot more network control over the 3G network. But no improvement in EVDO-A speeds.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Thanks, Robert! Excuse my ignorance, but is it safe to say that, in a way, DO-Advanced will help balance the load among adjacent towers. Essentially, helping off-load a tower that is overburdened... to a "better" nearby tower?

Edit: I understand DO-Advanced wont increase overall speeds, but, if my understanding is correct, it will help maintain 3G speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks' date=' Robert! Excuse my ignorance, but is it safe to say that, in a way, DO-Advanced will help balance the load among adjacent towers. Essentially, helping off-load a tower that is overburdened... to a "better" nearby tower?

Edit: I understand DO-Advanced wont increase overall speeds, but, if my understanding is correct, it will help maintain 3G speeds.[/quote']

 

It is definitely going to help.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the current back haul bandwidth now, before NV? I always thought it was too many clients on the tower caused slow downloads not bandwidth. Isn't cdma2000 32 clients Max? I've seen speeds as low as 50kbps with full bars. That would mean they have a T1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the current back haul bandwidth now' date=' before NV? I always thought it was too many clients on the tower caused slow downloads not bandwidth. Isn't cdma2000 32 clients Max? I've seen speeds as low as 50kbps with full bars. That would mean they have a T1?[/quote']

 

More than 95% of Sprint legacy sites use bundled T1's for backhaul. They almost cannot have enough of them at dense usage sites. Its time for enhanced backhaul like they are getting through Network Vision (which includes microwave, fiber and AAV).

 

It is possible that you can have too many data users and plenty of backhaul and get slow speeds too. However, at legacy sites, we cannot even experience that particular problem, because the backhaul supplied rarely can even support the maximum carrier load. So performance starts to degrade before carriers can even overload with number of data connections.

 

Once NV backhaul is complete, the reverse will be true in most situations. If 3G service starts to drop below 1Mbps, then the carrier is most likely overloaded and they need to add another one. There is an EVDO carrier add plan through 2014 at each site. And with the management controls of DO Advanced, Sprint will be able to much better monitor the data burdens than in the past and be able to dispatch Ericsson for carrier adds before problems arise.

 

Sprint is attempting to change from reactive network management to proactive in post Network Vision sites.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now in Honolulu Hawaii? Lately' date=' I average about 400KB download.

The signals are pretty strong all over. Before last December 3G used to be 500-700KB max.

There was a time between December and couple of weeks back my speeds wouldn't go below

1.4 MB download max of 2.4MB. And now it seems if Hawaii was updatd last December? My question is?

What was acutally updated? Because the it seems like the speed went back to what it used to be.

And so what will 3G speeds theoretically average after NV completion?

 

http://newsroom.sprint.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2120[/quote']

 

I was in Honolulu last week and got at least 1Mbps on Sprint's 3G everywhere except the airport. I also saw at least a faint WiMax signal, but performance on 3G beat WiMax everywhere except the airport. WiMax was actually pretty zippy at the airport, around 4Mbps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One quick question about back haul: is "fiber" optical from the IlEX and AAV optical from anyone else? Or what exactly is the distinction?

 

If Sprint drives a decently hard bargain with AAV, they should be able to slash bandwidth costs per site, even with more bandwidth coming in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One quick question about back haul: is "fiber" optical from the IlEX and AAV optical from anyone else? Or what exactly is the distinction?

 

If Sprint drives a decently hard bargain with AAV, they should be able to slash bandwidth costs per site, even with more bandwidth coming in.

 

AAV can be a very bad idea when you want good performance and reliability. It's best to just have Sprint get fiber from someone like Level3 or use their own fiber network when they can. They could also use another provider to do a local loop back to their own fiber instead of running their own fiber all the way out to the tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AAV can be a very bad idea when you want good performance and reliability. It's best to just have Sprint get fiber from someone like Level3 or use their own fiber network when they can. They could also use another provider to do a local loop back to their own fiber instead of running their own fiber all the way out to the tower.

 

How are you defining AAV?

 

I thought that AAV simply described fiber (or maybe microwave?) connectivity provided by someone other than the area ILEC. This connectivity would serve as a private line between the tower and Sprint's backbone network. If I understand correctly, Metro Ethernet from someone like Zayo or Comcast (yes, cable companies are HUGE in cellular backhaul...Verizon and T-Mobile both use them, as I'm sure does AT&T when they feel like it) would fit in here.

 

It's not like Sprint would be running a NV tower off of a business-class HFC connection; there isn't enough bandwidth available there anyway.I'd be surprised if something as small as a DS3 (delivered over fiber) would get used, even for a single tower.

 

Honestly though, if an AAV vendor (which, using my definition, would include Level3, though last I checked they didn't do much cell tower backhaul) offers (and lives up to an SLA for X latency, Y bandwidth and Z uptime (where Z is four or five nines), the service could be delivered over two tin cans and a string and it wouldn't matter. Though I'd be curious of the modulation techniques involved in sending 100 Mbps over non-fiber-optic-grade string more than a few meters :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Sprint, AAV is any other high speed backhaul not provided by an ILEC or microwave. Sometimes AAV is fiber. Sometimes AAV is from the cable company. Its basically any alternative high speed backhaul other than from an ILEC or microwave.

 

In this situation, for the most part, all backhaul in NV is equal. And here is why...

 

Sprint put out all the NV backhaul to bid. In the bid requirements, it spells the minimum specifications the bidder must achieve at each site. Minimum speed, minimum throughput and capacity, maximum allowable down time...every performance criteria. The bidders then could use any backhaul solution at each site that meets the criteria outlined in the bid documents and subsequent contract.

 

If Sprint limited the type of backhaul that could be used at each site, it would have taken years longer and a lot more money to complete NV. And since all the backhaul has to meet all the same specifications, there is no loss to Sprint for alternative backhaul uses.

 

The reality with 38,000 different locations needing high speed backhaul in a small schedule window means that Sprint needed to be flexible and open minded with the backhaul and do something different. I think this was a brilliant solution, because the site conditions at every site and what is available is very unique. Let private market people local to each market find the best backhaul solution to each site. Most markets have more than one backhaul vendor.

 

And if Sprint ends up having a problem with backhaul at a specific site, because it is not meeting contract specification requirements, all Sprint has to do is make a call. And the vendor has to do something to bring it back up to contract specifications. If they don't within 30 days, Sprint can hire someone else to provide backhaul and backcharge the original vendor.

 

This is a great system that will serve Sprint well, and ultimately their customers. No need to worry about AAV. In fact, we should embrace it. It is going to provide a brilliant backhaul solution to us all and allow us to have NV sooner. Viva la AAV!

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How are you defining AAV?

 

I thought that AAV simply described fiber (or maybe microwave?) connectivity provided by someone other than the area ILEC. This connectivity would serve as a private line between the tower and Sprint's backbone network. If I understand correctly, Metro Ethernet from someone like Zayo or Comcast (yes, cable companies are HUGE in cellular backhaul...Verizon and T-Mobile both use them, as I'm sure does AT&T when they feel like it) would fit in here.

 

It's not like Sprint would be running a NV tower off of a business-class HFC connection; there isn't enough bandwidth available there anyway.I'd be surprised if something as small as a DS3 (delivered over fiber) would get used, even for a single tower.

 

Honestly though, if an AAV vendor (which, using my definition, would include Level3, though last I checked they didn't do much cell tower backhaul) offers (and lives up to an SLA for X latency, Y bandwidth and Z uptime (where Z is four or five nines), the service could be delivered over two tin cans and a string and it wouldn't matter. Though I'd be curious of the modulation techniques involved in sending 100 Mbps over non-fiber-optic-grade string more than a few meters :P

 

I was pretty much defining AAV as Fiber or Metro ethernet from a cable co or other residential/"Business" provider (Even on Fiber from a residential provider you get absolute shit.) which in general is a bad idea in my area at least, the local cable co has 30ms latency at the very least before you even attempt to reach the outside of their network. If AAV is temporary I can see it working out well for quick deployment but otherwise it's a very bad idea, I rather have microwave to a tower serviced by proper fiber than AAV via string and a largely incompetent NOC/Group of Server Monkeys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was pretty much defining AAV as Fiber or Metro ethernet from a cable co or other residential/"Business" provider (Even on Fiber from a residential provider you get absolute shit.) which in general is a bad idea in my area at least, the local cable co has 30ms latency at the very least before you even attempt to reach the outside of their network. If AAV is temporary I can see it working out well for quick deployment but otherwise it's a very bad idea, I rather have microwave to a tower serviced by proper fiber than AAV via string and a largely incompetent NOC/Group of Server Monkeys.

 

A cableco's HFC network is no indication of how well it does at pushing bits point-to-point over fiber. Though if your cableco were that bad at getting a low latency fiber connection, they likely wouldn't meet the backhaul provider specs anyway and thus would not be used.

 

Who is the cableco in your area btw? In the Denver area Comcast actually does a good job with their network from a latency perspective; I can get to local sites in Denver in about 12ms, 10ms of which is latency due to being on HFC. Granted, across the street at my alma mater I can get to those sites in 1.5-2ms, but my guess is that if I had MetroE on Comcast I'd have similar performance.

 

Also, where did you get the idea that residential FTTH is crappy? Do you work for Level3 or something? :P I've never heard a bad review of network performance from someone who actually has FTTH (none of this AT&T U-Verse crap). That said, it's highly unlikely that an AAV provider would slap a cell site onto a shared GPON branch, the fiber tech that's used in most areas for residential FTTH (some use active Ethernet, which is the exact same tech that the "big boys" use for serving up MetroE circuis to cell towers anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was pretty much defining AAV as Fiber or Metro ethernet from a cable co or other residential/"Business" provider (Even on Fiber from a residential provider you get absolute shit.) which in general is a bad idea in my area at least' date=' the local cable co has 30ms latency at the very least before you even attempt to reach the outside of their network. If AAV is temporary I can see it working out well for quick deployment but otherwise it's a very bad idea, I rather have microwave to a tower serviced by proper fiber than AAV via string and a largely incompetent NOC/Group of Server Monkeys.[/quote']

 

Server Monkeys?

 

Sent from my LG Viper 4G LTE using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, in Japan...

 

monkeywaiter.jpg

 

AJ

 

I am going to send PETA to Japan about this problem and I'm going to send them after Sprint if they don't stop using those poor monkeys like that. :rofl:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cableco's HFC network is no indication of how well it does at pushing bits point-to-point over fiber. Though if your cableco were that bad at getting a low latency fiber connection, they likely wouldn't meet the backhaul provider specs anyway and thus would not be used.

 

Who is the cableco in your area btw? In the Denver area Comcast actually does a good job with their network from a latency perspective; I can get to local sites in Denver in about 12ms, 10ms of which is latency due to being on HFC. Granted, across the street at my alma mater I can get to those sites in 1.5-2ms, but my guess is that if I had MetroE on Comcast I'd have similar performance.

 

Also, where did you get the idea that residential FTTH is crappy? Do you work for Level3 or something? :P I've never heard a bad review of network performance from someone who actually has FTTH (none of this AT&T U-Verse crap). That said, it's highly unlikely that an AAV provider would slap a cell site onto a shared GPON branch, the fiber tech that's used in most areas for residential FTTH (some use active Ethernet, which is the exact same tech that the "big boys" use for serving up MetroE circuis to cell towers anyway).

 

FTTH preforms amazingly well at least from what I've seen with Verizon's network. I was specfically speaking about fiber from a company like Timewarner cable/Roadrunner as you can see below.

 

Even if we remove the latency from HFC we still have latency of ~27ms to get outside of their network

 

 

traceroute to google.com (74.125.225.32), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1  cpe-71-72-32-1.neo.res.rr.com (71.72.32.1)  10.374 ms  11.444 ms  30.483 ms
2  tge1-4.elyroh1-swt401.neo.rr.com (24.164.104.161)  11.246 ms  11.316 ms  11.368 ms
3  tge1-50.vermoh1-swt402.neo.rr.com (24.164.113.114)  12.251 ms  12.654 ms  12.705 ms
4  tge1-49.vermoh1-swt401.neo.rr.com (24.164.113.112)  12.546 ms  12.613 ms  12.647 ms
5  tge1-1.peruoh1-swt402.neo.rr.com (24.164.110.45)  13.021 ms  18.500 ms  19.564 ms
6  tge1-2.peruoh1-swt401.neo.rr.com (24.164.110.46)  19.444 ms  12.847 ms  13.385 ms
7  tge1-2.lodioh1-swt401.neo.rr.com (24.164.110.60)  14.291 ms  15.179 ms  15.239 ms
8  tge1-2.bathoh1-swt402.neo.rr.com (24.164.117.94)  15.293 ms  15.018 ms  15.004 ms
9  tge1-6.bathoh1-swt401.neo.rr.com (24.164.117.70)  21.012 ms  21.922 ms  21.985 ms
10  tge1-3.stvloh1-swt401.neo.rr.com (24.164.117.83)  21.676 ms  20.967 ms  20.063 ms
11  tge1-1-0.clevoh1-rtr01.neo.rr.com (24.164.117.157)  19.997 ms  16.220 ms  15.299 ms
12  tge11-0-0.ncntoh1-rtr1.neo.rr.com (24.164.118.96)  19.519 ms  19.626 ms tge11-0-0.ncntoh1-rtr2.neo.rr.com (24.164.118.98)  19.429 ms
13  tge1-0-1.ar01.clmkohpe.mwrtn.rr.com (65.25.137.233)  33.001 ms  32.964 ms  32.951 ms
14  ae0.tr00.clmkohpe.mwrtn.rr.com (65.189.140.142)  26.105 ms  26.349 ms  29.887 ms
15  ae-9-0.cr0.chi30.tbone.rr.com (107.14.19.16)  42.995 ms  47.295 ms  41.616 ms
16  107.14.17.147 (107.14.17.147)  36.953 ms ae-1-0.pr0.chi10.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.155)  39.657 ms 107.14.17.147 (107.14.17.147)  37.464 ms
17  * * *
18  209.85.254.122 (209.85.254.122)  40.271 ms * *
19  * * *
20  * * *
21  * * *
22  * ord08s06-in-f0.1e100.net (74.125.225.32)  32.571 ms  39.052 ms

 

Also... what the hell did I just start by saying server monkeys.... I was more or less using it to refer to incompetent IT workers. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...