Jump to content

NEW SPRINT COVERAGE MAPS WITH LTE COMING SOON!


Recommended Posts

Yeah I saw that too. Didn't find anything else different on it though.

 

No coverages yet shown. But this is a good first step.

 

Robert via Galaxy Nexus using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint has announced their estimated 4G LTE Speeds with their average download speeds at 6 - 8 Mbps and peak download speeds at 25 Mbps.

 

Source: http://shop2.sprint....html#tab_speeds

 

interesting tidbit

 

1Peak speeds may not apply to all markets. Actual speeds may vary.

 

So they may be deploying 3x3 in places?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint has announced their estimated 4G LTE Speeds with their average download speeds at 6 - 8 Mbps and peak download speeds at 25 Mbps.

 

Source: http://shop2.sprint....html#tab_speeds

Lol, I love how they say 3G speeds are average of "600 Kbps - 1.4 Mbps" as in my area I have never gotten higher than 20-300 Kbps for average and my peak has been 600 Kbps! I have a 35MB/down & 8MB/up home connection attached to a 3G Airave and my "Peak" 3G speeds using my super-fast connection are like 1.2 Mbps over my Airave! If I ever got Peak download speeds of "3.1 Mbps" I would fall off my chair or crash my car, lol!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, I love how they say 3G speeds are average of "600 Kbps - 1.4 Mbps" as in my area I have never gotten higher than 20-300 Kbps for average and my peak has been 600 Kbps! I have a 35MB/down & 8MB/up home connection attached to a 3G Airave and my "Peak" 3G speeds using my super-fast connection are like 1.2 Mbps over my Airave! If I ever got Peak download speeds of "3.1 Mbps" I would fall off my chair or crash my car, lol!

 

I love how they say 4G LTE speeds are up to 10 times faster than 3G. That's like swapping out DSL for a high-speed cable modem. Or your Model T for a Maserati!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting tidbit

 

1Peak speeds may not apply to all markets. Actual speeds may vary.

 

So they may be deploying 3x3 in places?

 

No, 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE does not make any rational sense in the PCS G block, as it is a consistent 10 MHz (5 MHz x 5 MHz) license.

 

The peak speeds caveat may be due to limitations on backhaul or differences in infrastructure vendor performance.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how they say 4G LTE speeds are up to 10 times faster than 3G. That's like swapping out DSL for a high-speed cable modem. Or your Model T for a Maserati!

Lol, I know as 10 times faster then 3G in my area would only be 2 Mbps for LTE avearage and 8 Mbps Peak! WTF?! I agree with WiWavelength as Sprint needs to get a new vendor for backhaul as they are slower than dirt for even WiMax in my area! Forget about 3G, I think they have 10 ATT U-VERSE DSL modems connected together, LMFAO! *Wink, wink* 4GHoward!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see that Sprint is ramping up its coverage maps on its website to account for LTE. Also Sprint was smart to isolate coverage maps between 4G LTE and 4G WiMax instead of bundling them together as 4G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the quick second of looking around I couldn't find the gradient maps anymore. Looks like Verizon maps now of basically coverage or no coverage. I see the still don't have the roaming coverage in Louisiana for Verizon fixed yet. Still white for no coverage yet Verizon has added coverage a while back in many areas due to the centennial acquisition.

 

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the quick second of looking around I couldn't find the gradient maps anymore. Looks like Verizon maps now of basically coverage or no coverage. I see the still don't have the roaming coverage in Louisiana for Verizon fixed yet. Still white for no coverage yet Verizon has added coverage a while back in many areas due to the centennial acquisition.

 

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

You have to zoom in further now to get detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the quick second of looking around I couldn't find the gradient maps anymore.

 

The coverage gradients still exist. However, you now have to drill down to the 5.0 scale level. If I recall correctly, the gradients previously became visible at the 25 or 50 level.

 

VZW may routinely kick sand in Sprint's face and steal Sprint's lunch money, but Sprint has a much better coverage tool. The VZW coverage tool is a POS.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two complaints about Sprint's coverage maps. One...they load really slow. Two...they need to have a variable map size. The default is way too small.

 

Robert via Galaxy Nexus using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6-8 Mbps average download speed? Am I the only one who feels let down?

 

Andy

 

Yea... You may be the only one let down. Have you checked VZW's "advertised" speeds?? Besides.. why would you need more then 8Mbps on a phone? Two or 3 will usually suffice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two complaints about Sprint's coverage maps. One...they load really slow. Two...they need to have a variable map size. The default is way too small.

 

Well, there always is this workaround.

 

WebImageStream10.gif

 

AJ

  • Like 1
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.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...