Jump to content

Sprint LTE coverage maps online @ sprint.com


Recommended Posts

I drove all through the orange on my way to work and at work in San Antonio and I haven't picked up anything yet.

 

Is your data mode set to LTE/CDMA? if so trying toggling that option, and or rebooting to see if that picks it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit disappointing, my part of town still has yet to be completed( I drove around). But even then, Although I have four towers within 2 miles of my house, coverage in the street is around -100dBm. LTE can't help that.

 

I had to get an Airave to make calls inside the house, but it's a piece of junk and has been replaced several times. It freezes up time to time as well and sends 10+ of the same text message to people. I guess it's a waiting game to see when they upgrade my area.

 

If I can just get better speeds away from home where I don't have wifi, I'll be happy. But right now, areas with full signal are still creeping at 56k speeds. I feel like i'm stuck in the 90s.

 

I'll be going into Houston tonight, will test the speeds/coverage there :-)

 

If you get 100 db right now, you might have something really workable when the NV comes, and even more when 800 mhz comes along, if you love the phone, hang out a bit longer and bet you will like it.

 

Rickie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is your data mode set to LTE/CDMA? if so trying toggling that option, and or rebooting to see if that picks it up.

 

Yes, I have also updated my profile and toggled airplane mode. I rebooted by my house earlier today and it did not work. I won't make a huge fuss about it yet as it has not officially launched until tomorrow. I'm downtown right now and its up. Ill be patient it might take through tonight or longer for them to turn on the lte all over the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have also updated my profile and toggled airplane mode. I rebooted by my house earlier today and it did not work. I won't make a huge fuss about it yet as it has not officially launched until tomorrow. I'm downtown right now and its up. Ill be patient it might take through tonight or longer for them to turn on the lte all over the city.

installed the htc software update??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes' date=' I have also updated my profile and toggled airplane mode. I rebooted by my house earlier today and it did not work. I won't make a huge fuss about it yet as it has not officially launched until tomorrow. I'm downtown right now and its up. Ill be patient it might take through tonight or longer for them to turn on the lte all over the city.[/quote']

 

Yeah, it will not be ubiquitous and comprehensive coverage over the whole city. I'm glad Sprint turned it on now and not waiting for more coverage. More and more sites will be added every week. Adding more coverage and more capacity.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy S-III 32GB using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint updated their coverage maps to display LTE coverage. I wonder how often Sprint is going to update these coverage maps for each market since more and more tower sites will be added over time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will we start to see LTE-Advanced? I read somewhere that it should start showing up around 2013.

 

I don't think we will see LTE-Advanced on Sprint until 2014 when Network Vision is complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will we start to see LTE-Advanced? I read somewhere that it should start showing up around 2013.

 

No kidding. LTE has been live for three days already. Yesterday's news. Blasé. Time to move on to the next big thing.

 

;)

 

AJ

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a more specific look at LTE Coverage get your GPS location with something like GPS Logger for Android and input it at http://srv.so/sprint (Web app I made.).

 

Pretty nice little app, but how up to date is it?

I had 3G turned on in my town about 2 months ago and your app isn't reflecting that, just wanted to let ya know.

 

Looks good and works pretty quick though, good job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty nice little app, but how up to date is it?

I had 3G turned on in my town about 2 months ago and your app isn't reflecting that, just wanted to let ya know.

 

Looks good and works pretty quick though, good job.

 

it pulls info directly from sprints website, it gets your location from a GeoIP database. If the location is wrong it's due to the GeoIP database being wrong or you ip having a different city registered to the ip/ip block. If it's displaying the wrong city you can get your gps coords from the speedtest.net app or gps logger.

 

EDIT: I did some searching through apache's logs and I found your ip, checked it against a GeoIP database and it shows you're covered with 3G. In the legend it says EVDO which is colored purple for your entire area. In short EVDO is 3G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coverage maps for LTE are very extensive.*

 

* Note, coverage maps not typical.

 

 

 

 

I know that the roll-out isn't complete, but the maps aren't even close to accurate in the Kansas City area. They show LTE coverage where there absolutely isn't any at all. I doubt if the coverage is even half what they're saying. There's some, but not a lot of coverage in Blue Springs and Independence. I traveled in and around Lee's Summit and found no LTE at all anywhere that I went. I didn't get any LTE west of Independence while travelling down I-70 until I got to downtown. Downtown appears to have one LTE tower that's probably up north close to the river, as best I can tell by the spotty connection that I managed to get to it.

 

Results based on a Galaxy Nexus, by the way.

Edited by Dees_Troy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coverage maps for LTE are very extensive.*

 

* Note, coverage maps not typical.

 

 

 

 

I know that the roll-out isn't complete, but the maps aren't even close to accurate in the Kansas City area. They show LTE coverage where there absolutely isn't any at all. I doubt if the coverage is even half what they're saying. There's some, but not a lot of coverage in Blue Springs and Independence. I traveled in and around Lee's Summit and found no LTE at all anywhere that I went. I didn't get any LTE west of Independence while travelling down I-70 until I got to downtown. Downtown appears to have one LTE tower that's probably up north close to the river, as best I can tell by the spotty connection that I managed to get to it.

 

Results based on a Galaxy Nexus, by the way.

 

It's the same here in Houston - it looks live Sprint's coverage maps just blanket an entire market where they have launched LTE instead of showing the actual coverage area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's the same here in Houston - it looks live Sprint's coverage maps just blanket an entire market where they have launched LTE instead of showing the actual coverage area.

 

If you want to see what sites are actually completed, just donate a few bucks to become a sponsor on S4GRU. You can see the NV site completion maps in that forum.

Sent from my GS3 on Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to see what sites are actually completed, just donate a few bucks to become a sponsor on S4GRU. You can see the NV site completion maps in that forum.

Sent from my GS3 on Tapatalk 2

 

Look at my tag - I'm a sponsor. This thread is about Sprint's coverage map on Sprint's website, and that is what I commented on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Look at my tag - I'm a sponsor. This thread is about Sprint's coverage map on Sprint's website, and that is what I commented on.

 

Sorry, I can't see the tag on tapatalk. I guess what I should've said is that the Sprint coverage map is not an accurate representation. The S4GRU information gives a better reflection of what's actually available.

 

Sent from my GS3 on Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I can't see the tag on tapatalk. I guess what I should've said is that the Sprint coverage map is not an accurate representation. The S4GRU information gives a better reflection of what's actually available.

 

Sent from my GS3 on Tapatalk 2

 

No problem, I actually posted that reply pretty quickly, then after reading my post it sounded very snarky. It wasn't intended to come out that way.

 

But I do agree with you, anyone that wants more detailed information about completed towers should become a sponsor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I can't see the tag on tapatalk. I guess what I should've said is that the Sprint coverage map is not an accurate representation. The S4GRU information gives a better reflection of what's actually available.

 

Sent from my GS3 on Tapatalk 2

 

But we should understand that the S4GRU tower maps do not purport to be coverage maps, like Sprint's own maps do.

 

To compute geographical signal coverage for the towers, it would be necessary to use software that includes lots of other inputs, such as azimuths and downtilt angles for each sector on a tower, along with physical and man-made topography. I think there once was an ambitious goal in these parts to built such theoretical coverage maps using the resources at CloudRF.com, but that apparently was not feasible.

 

So we just have to tower points which are way better than nothing. And since Sprints coverage maps seem to be, uh, optimistic, having the actual tower sites is a good reality check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No problem, I actually posted that reply pretty quickly, then after reading my post it sounded very snarky. It wasn't intended to come out that way.

 

But I do agree with you, anyone that wants more detailed information about completed towers should become a sponsor.

 

No problem. I wish Sprint was as good at communicating useful information as this site does. There's no reason they couldn't give information about which towers are upgraded and activated. They probably could prevent thousands of customer service phone calls simply by communicating clearly. That said, they're still better at customer communication than AT&T...but who isn't?

 

Sent from my GS3 on Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we should understand that the S4GRU tower maps do not purport to be coverage maps, like Sprint's own maps do.

 

To compute geographical signal coverage for the towers, it would be necessary to use software that includes lots of other inputs, such as azimuths and downtilt angles for each sector on a tower, along with physical and man-made topography. I think there once was an ambitious goal in these parts to built such theoretical coverage maps using the resources at CloudRF.com, but that apparently was not feasible.

 

So we just have to tower points which are way better than nothing. And since Sprints coverage maps seem to be, uh, optimistic, having the actual tower sites is a good reality check.

 

Yeah, it was taking a lot of time and money to create those maps. I think it was scrapped.

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...