NEW SPRINT COVERAGE MAPS WITH LTE COMING SOON!

[themuffinman]

6-8 Mbps average download speed? Am I the only one who feels let down? WiMAX performs better than that.

 

Andy

 

You do realize that sprint advertises 3 to 6 mbps with peak speeds of 10 for wimax right? Let me see wimax do this:

[BenChase7]

You do realize that sprint advertises 3 to 6 mbps with peak speeds of 10 for wimax right? Let me see wimax do this:

 

I wish my home ISP could do that! If i could get a 1/8 of that on my phone... I'd be ecstatic!! Thanks for your reports.. good things are obviously coming to Sprint!

[gopher_otis]

10 times faster than 3G for me would be 4350 kbps. I'm just going to pretend I didn't see what was advertised and wait to see what it's like in the field.

 

Andy

[iansltx]

To clear the air a bit, Verizon advertises 5-12 Mbps down, 2-5 Mbps up, for their LTE network. Sprint advertises 6-8 Mbps down for LTE, 3-6 Mbps down for WiMAX. T-Mobile advertises around 10 Mbps down for HSPA+.

 

Of the four networks, T-Mobile's is by far the most loaded...any 3G-enabled T-Mobile phone uses their HSPA+ network in some form or fashion, and every single T-Mobile-branded smartphone uses 3G. Thus, it comes as no surprise that advertised and delivered speeds are comparable in many places on their network, though in others T-Mobile exceeds expectations by 50-100%. This is speaking from experience.

 

Next comes Sprint WiMAX. It's about as loaded as it's ever going to get; prepaid customers will continue to be added, but Sprint postpaid customers will end up on LTE in relatively short order. On the other hand, WiMAX service is poor in some areas where it's deployed. The upshot of all this is that, when you average the lousy speeds (in some areas) the the stellar speeds (in others, e.g. 12 Mbps down and 1.5 up), you get 3-6 Mbps.

 

Then comes Verizon LTE. The network doesn't have very many customers on it right now, since the only devices that use the network are ones that came out in the past year and a half, none of which can be had for free from VZW's website. The result: speeds on the network are well above advertised in many cases. I've seen 25 Mbps down, 10 Mbps up on my iPad. It's wonderful, but don't expect speeds to stay that way as Verizon loads more customers onto its network and doesn't add any more capacity beyond the 10x10 LTE Rel 8 carrier they have now. Remember that every single VZW LTE device on the market at this point can only use upper C block 700MHz for LTE, and while 700MHz is great for coverage, adding capacity to the network on such a low frequency will be a more delicate maneuver (surprise, surprise, Verizon wants more spectrum, at higher frequencies, to alleviate this issue).

 

Finally, you have Sprint LTE (does AT&T post expected speed numbers for its LTE network? If not, it's because 5x5 behaves very differently than 10x10). Sprint's smaller cells (due to higher frequencies) allow it to provide a more consistent experience on LTE than Verizon (6-8 Mbps vs. 5-12) because you're covering a smaller territory (less customers)...with less spectrum (a single 5x5 carrier now...more later). That said, Sprint's network will start off lightning-fast, since as of July they'll only have four high-end phone models (the lowest-end being the Viper) and a couple of mobile broadband devices riding on the network.

 

Eventually speeds will slow down to the 6-8 Mbps that Sprint is talking about, though my bet is it'll happen more slowly than with Verizon since Sprint will be making incremental upgrades to its network (refarming PCS A-F CDMA to LTE, adding LTE to SMR, upgrading to LTE-A) over the next 18-24 months.

 

All that said, if I can get a reliable 6-8 Mbps down and 2-3 Mbps up on my Sprint LTE phone from the time LTE launches until the time my contract is up, that's enough for me. If I ned to download something super-fast, I'll have a 30M down, 5M up cable connection at my apartment for that (or whatever TIme Warner Cable lets me get that has higher upload speeds).

[supert0nes]

I would think a lot higher percentage vzw users use lte than Sprint Wimax. The battery efficiency of Wimax chips is so terrible I would never leave it on where many Verizon users I know never turn their lte off. Lte chips get more battery efficient all the time. Mmm qualcomm. Whereas wimax is a bastard chip in any device

[supert0nes]

You hit most of the major points on the capacity issue but it is very complicated even beyond that. Sprint should get help from clear wire, any device out now won't support lte 800 or clear wire freqs tho, so that matters in the short term. Same with vzw phones out now without 1700 support. One issue always fun to talk about is that H pcs spectrum auction.

 

Plus many more opportunities and difficulties. Each one probably deserves and has its own thread here lol. I don't have any real point here other than to say it's awesomely complicated

[WiWavelength]

One issue always fun to talk about is that H pcs spectrum auction.

 

This may make me the killjoy, but I now do not think that Sprint will be overly aggressive in pursuing the PCS/AWS-2 H block. Among its PCS A-F, PCS G, ESMR, and Clearwire's BRS/EBS spectrum, Sprint has plenty of available bandwidth in most markets for the foreseeable future.

 

AJ

[supert0nes]

Too bad they aren't in better shape financially. Spectrum seems like one of those things you only get one shot at. And this spectrum fits so well!

[ericdabbs]

This may make me the killjoy, but I now do not think that Sprint will be overly aggressive in pursuing the PCS/AWS-2 H block. Among its PCS A-F, PCS G, ESMR, and Clearwire's BRS/EBS spectrum, Sprint has plenty of available bandwidth in most markets for the foreseeable future.

 

AJ

 

I hope that the FCC delays the PCS H block auction until 2015 so that by that time Sprint will be in better financial shape to make a decision on the PCS H Block auction. I really do hope that Sprint is aggressive in trying to obtain the H block because it fits so nicely next to the G block and deploy a 10x10 carrier which Sprint desperately needs. To be honest, I do NOT trust Clearwire in its TDD-LTE build out to supply all the necessary capacity it needs for years and years to come and would much rather have Sprint take control of its own future than relying on Clearwire. Sprint can show this by being aggressive with the H block spectrum.

[Rawvega]

The only thing about the PCS H block, and perhaps it's not a big deal, is that it would require yet another band class since it is not currently covered by band class 25. Of course, that's not to say that Sprint shouldn't pursue it.

[S4GRU]

Advertised speeds...who cares? We know what the network is capable of. Besides, I have mentioned Sprint's planned advertised speeds since March in several threads and in a few articles. This shouldn't be a surprise.

 

The most important factor in determining LTE speed is signal strength...no matter whether it's Sprint, Verizon, or anyone. If you have a site that has speeds capable of 30Mbps, but the majority of the users in a sector of that site have a signal of -95dBm, their speeds are going to be around 8 to 12Mbps.

 

So Sprint is setting average speeds mostly based on the lowest average experience based on geography, not so much because of the limited capability. It is a lowest common denominator situation. You set the average based on the worst average consumer experience, and the advertise peaks speeds in ideal situations.

 

When looking at heat maps of speeds from FIT testing, it became obvious that Sprint cannot advertise their fastest speeds. On average, if you look at signal dependent download speed heat map, the cell would produce 25% coverage of 20Mbps+, 25% 12Mbps - 20Mbps, 25% 6Mbps - 12Mbps and 25% less than 6Mbps (edge of cell areas).

 

How do you advertise that? Do you say 12Mbps in advertisements, even though only 50% of a cell will likely achieve that on average? It makes sense to advertise 6-8Mbps, because that's includes approx 3/4 of the users in a cell. And the ones in lesser performing areas are in the fringe of service with barely a signal. So if you have zero or one bar of LTE service, but still squeaking out 3 to 5 Mbps...I think most reasonable people would be happy with that.

 

And remember, AT&T only has 5x5 LTE in almost half of their markets. I'm looking forward to Sprint LTE, myself. What Sprint advertises as average doesn't mean anything to me. Plus, I live next to a site. I know I'm going to be in the 25% to the good!

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[S4GRU]

I would stick with 5x5 LTE myself. I think consumers are going to start rejecting ridiculous mobile download speeds. Your smartphone won't notice the difference. It will just become a gimmick. Give me a consistent 8Mbps over the entire network, and I'm happy. And we aren't going to be able to do much more than occassional tethering in the future. So it is not going to matter much once we have ubiquitous LTE.

 

Once wireless carriers see that consumers aren't willing to pay more for super fast LTE over fast LTE, they are going to stop throwing money at making LTE faster and faster. There will be no greater return on making it faster. If wireless carriers made speeds a la carte, and priced it based on speed, the majority of users would probably pick some where between 8Mbps and 10Mbps.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[jefbal99]

I would stick with 5x5 LTE myself. I think consumers are going to start rejecting ridiculous mobile download speeds. Your smartphone won't notice the difference. It will just become a gimmick. Give me a consistent 8Mbps over the entire network, and I'm happy. And we aren't going to be able to do much more than occassional tethering in the future. So it is not going to matter much once we have ubiquitous LTE.

 

Once wireless carriers see that consumers aren't willing to pay more for super fast LTE over fast LTE, they are going to stop throwing money at making LTE faster and faster. There will be no greater return on making it faster. If wireless carriers made speeds a la carte, and priced it based on speed, the majority of users would probably pick some where between 8Mbps and 10Mbps.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Hopefully once that point is reached, then the focus of coverage gaps can be addressed again. Sprint is very generous on their coverage maps, hopefully the "20%" gain with NV will make them a bit more true.

[S4GRU]

 

Hopefully once that point is reached' date=' then the focus of coverage gaps can be addressed again. Sprint is very generous on their coverage maps, hopefully the "20%" gain with NV will make them a bit more true. [/quote']

 

Exactly. I would much rather Sprint spent money on increased native coverage of CDMA/LTE than to have faster LTE. At this point if I had another 10MHz of PCS, I would just deploy another 5x5 carrier as needed. If consumer demand changes in the future, you can just aggregate them. But I wouldn't even bother at this point. Just be ready if you have to.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[pyroscott]

I would stick with 5x5 LTE myself. I think consumers are going to start rejecting ridiculous mobile download speeds. Your smartphone won't notice the difference. It will just become a gimmick. Give me a consistent 8Mbps over the entire network, and I'm happy. And we aren't going to be able to do much more than occassional tethering in the future. So it is not going to matter much once we have ubiquitous LTE.

 

Once wireless carriers see that consumers aren't willing to pay more for super fast LTE over fast LTE, they are going to stop throwing money at making LTE faster and faster. There will be no greater return on making it faster. If wireless carriers made speeds a la carte, and priced it based on speed, the majority of users would probably pick some where between 8Mbps and 10Mbps.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Exactly, I have the option of increasing my home internet download speeds from 30Mbps to 100Mbps for $10 per month. I thought about it, but for what I do on the internet, I probably wouldn't even notice the difference. Streaming works fine, and downloads are usually limited by the other site's upload speed. One of the only reasons that people want faster mobile connections is to brag to their friends how fast their speed test is. While that form of advertising might have some value to the carrier, they are all using LTE, and will have similar speeds once it all shakes out. I hope Sprint stays on top of their 4G network, unlike what they did with the 3G network, and keeps up with demand. I would hate to see them neglect the network and be at the bottom of the barrel once again.

[Rickie546]

Hey all, the Sprint LTE Coming soon is no longer on the map....can't find any LTE coverage on the map yet...

[digiblur]

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

 

C'mon..VZW maps are great! LOL..j/k. Just like the Droid I saw yesterday at the camp. A relative asked me if I had charger that fit his phone. I brought his phone inside and plugged it in. It had almost full signal of 3G! I knew that was wrong as I was roaming inside as well on VZW with a very marginal signal. I looked in the settings and sure enough, it was reporting -102 signal with 3 bars of signal. I hate the stupid "bars" thing on cell phones!

 

I was able to play around the maps a bit more, I do say I miss being able to see the gradient maps at a higher level. But I guess it didn't make things look too good in some areas so they adjusted things, at least we can still see the gradient levels though.

[NiteSnow]

Well, there always is this workaround.

 

 

AJ

 

That work around is quite nice especially if you want to pull a big map from gps coordinates.

[JeffDTD]

 

Exactly' date=' I have the option of increasing my home internet download speeds from 30Mbps to 100Mbps for 10 per month. I thought about it, but for what I do on the internet, I probably wouldn't even notice the difference. Streaming works fine, and downloads are usually limited by the other site's upload speed. One of the only reasons that people want faster mobile connections is to brag to their friends how fast their speed test is. While that form of advertising might have some value to the carrier, they are all using LTE, and will have similar speeds once it all shakes out. I hope Sprint stays on top of their 4G network, unlike what they did with the 3G network, and keeps up with demand. I would hate to see them neglect the network and be at the bottom of the barrel once again.[/quote']

 

The obsession with speed testing the network is.... just comical. If the ability to speed test did not exist, I often wonder how much happier people would be. I would argue that the difference between 3 and 6mb is negligible to the perception of the average mobile user... until they speedtest it

[digiblur]

 

That work around is quite nice especially if you want to pull a big map from gps coordinates.

 

So what's the work around? I hope it isn't splicing them together by hand

 

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

[pyroscott]

The obsession with speed testing the network is.... just comical. If the ability to speed test did not exist, I often wonder how much happier people would be. I would argue that the difference between 3 and 6mb is negligible to the perception of the average mobile user... until they speedtest it

 

Speed testing also wastes a pile of bandwidth. The person performing the speedtest is using every last drop of the speed of their connection to the tower.

 

See also: slowing down everyone else...

 

Speed tests on the mostly vacant Sprint LTE network as it gets booted up, however, are exciting. Keep posting the speedtests from the newest LTE towers guys!

[S4GRU]

 

So what's the work around? I hope it isn't splicing them together by hand

 

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

 

You can right click on the image in the coverage map, select copy image location. Then paste the harvested URL in the browser. You can then modify the query string for a larger image, change the resolution, change the GPS coords, etc.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[Fifth313ment]

Hopefully once that point is reached, then the focus of coverage gaps can be addressed again. Sprint is very generous on their coverage maps, hopefully the "20%" gain with NV will make them a bit more true.

Holy crap you're so right. In my area the Sprint coverage maps are so far off! I remember their WiMax map showing coverage in my area only outside and it's not true unless you are just about line sight to the tower. Also my friends house is supposedly in the range of WiMax in his house but no go there either. Also the 3G maps are way off as it says my house I should get best signal, yet in my house I get 1 bar and even standing outside I only get 3! I wish there was a site that would have true coverage maps. I would rather get 3MB/sec UP/DOWN EVERYWHERE then 30+MB/sec down here and then none over there. I mean I'm only getting 200Kbps now on Sprint 3G in most spots but it has large coverage gaps in which my phone just returns no connection found even-though it says I have a connection. Does anyone else feel that way? I would rather get the same coverage EVERYWHERE, in an elevator, basement, etc and I would sacrifice speed to get it.

[jefbal99]

Holy crap you're so right. In my area the Sprint coverage maps are so far off! I remember their WiMax map showing coverage in my area only outside and it's not true unless you are just about line sight to the tower. Also my friends house is supposedly in the range of WiMax in his house but no go there either. Also the 3G maps are way off as it says my house I should get best signal, yet in my house I get 1 bar and even standing outside I only get 3! I wish there was a site that would have true coverage maps. I would rather get 3MB/sec UP/DOWN EVERYWHERE then 30+MB/sec down here and then none over there. I mean I'm only getting 200Kbps now on Sprint 3G in most spots but it has large coverage gaps in which my phone just returns no connection found even-though it says I have a connection. Does anyone else feel that way? I would rather get the same coverage EVERYWHERE, in an elevator, basement, etc and I would sacrifice speed to get it.

 

That is not possible, due to the physics of RF, you are going to have stronger signals at the source and weaker signals at the edges. Then you have to consider are you inside or outside, what is the building made out of, how many barriers do you have to get through, etc. I know that when I'm in the lower floors of my building, my signal is shit, its just a given.

 

As for the coverage maps, they are crap. I would like to see someone like Google attach cell receptors for each of the major carriers to their rover cars and create a nationwide, accurate coverage map.

[WiWavelength]

Also the 3G maps are way off as it says my house I should get best signal, yet in my house I get 1 bar and even standing outside I only get 3!

 

Never judge wireless coverage indoors. No wireless carrier promises indoor coverage from its macro network.

 

And I have found Sprint's CDMA1X/EV-DO coverage maps to be quite accurate, even conservative.

 

AJ