Jump to content

Sprint LTE (and Verizon LTE, and T-Mobile HSPA+) in central Fort Worth

Recommended Posts

Right now I'm tethered (via the official Sprint Mobile Hotspot app; I bought the 2GB data pack last week) to Sprint LTE via my GSIII in central Fort Worth, specifically 1709 E Hattie St (yes, bad part of town...it's a mission trip).


I also have LTE on my iPad on Verizon, plus HSPA+ (not sure if it's dual-carrier) on my T-Mobile ZTE Rocket 3.0.


Over the next few days, when I find the time, I'll be pounding all three carriers' networks with speed tests, traceroutes, etc. and will post with the results that I find.


Results have been encouraging so far...I've been able to hit 27 Mbps down, 10 Mbps up (see this speedtest result for example: http://www.speedtest...d/214310452.png) on the network while inside one of the buildings here, though I just hit 17 Mbps down, 7 Mbps up on SoftLayer's speedtest while WiFi tethered.


Latency-wise, I've hit sub-40ms to SoftLayer in Dallas, which is a good measure of network-specific latency since SoftLayer is extremely well-connected and is pretty much right next door. I'll post a traceroute sometime tomorrow. I just did a quick ping to (Level3 anycasted DNS, with one cluster in Dallas) and hit 25ms at one point. Crazy stuff, for a cellular network.


I'm being served (according to NetMonitor) by the tower at 140 Beach St., 2.07 miles away according to Google Maps. The signal from where I'm at right now (on the second floor, inside) is in the high -80s to low -90s according to my system status in Android settings (RSRP I assume?). Side note: it appears as though NetMonitor kicks the hotspot functionality offline :/.


One side note: I didn't hit LTE on my trip from DFW to here until maybe ten minutes away. I had eHRPD from the moment I turned my phone on near the E concourse, and speeds were decent (1+ Mbps). But the way we drove I didn't hit 4G until a couple dozen cell sites, and a dozen miles, later (I have my NetMonitor logs turned on). So yeah...I can see why people are kvetching about LTE coverage being nowhere near complete in the DFW market :)


EDIT 1: For some odd reason tethering seems to sporadically drop its connectivity (solution: restart tethering, reconnect my computer). Other than that, the web browsing experience is like I'm sitting on my home connection. Which is saying a lot...I have a $115/mo cable connection hooked to a $130 (today's dollars) 802.11n high power router :)

Edited by iansltx
  • Like 6

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its crazy to consider a sub 40ms ping through a wireless connection. Where we have come from with technology? Thank you for your observations.


Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

You at Beautiful Feet? Definitely watch yourself around there (18 years PD all in and around that area). Thanks for posting that info too! It's nice to know LTE is up when I get back from vacation next week.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you compare those results against a 3G connection in the same location? I know people are geeked about LTE but I'm more into the comparisons between the two.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Treadhead Affirmative, and I will.


@Feech I will. Need to turn off LTE to do it but I will compare. Will update momentarily.


EDIT: 3G speeds are still slowisb here. Actually, the word is probably "unreliable". I can hit a megabit down and 600k up with around 100ms latency to Dallas sites, but my guess is that there aren't enough EvDO carriers to keep up with the load. Voice works perfectly though.


EDIT 2: Interesting fact: none of my LTE usage has shown up on My Sprint/Self Service yet. Not on 4G data, not on Mobile Hotspot.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

LTE speeds this evening are phenomenal. Better tham VZW (at least on downloads) and T-Mobile.


I'll add comparisons and traceroutes shortly.


Sent from my Galaxy SIII-32GB using Forum Runner



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I finally got around to sitting down and conducting a round of tests, between my Sprint SIII, my VZW iPad and my T-Mobile Rocket 3.0). These devices are all pretty much the cream of the crop for their respective networks; the Rocket is a DC-HSPA+ modem, while the other two devices have LTE.


All devices/services were tested via my early 2009 MacBook, running Mac OS X 10.7 with the latest dev build of Chrome and the latest patches etc. The computer got upgraded to 8GB of RAM as of a couple months ago, so the machine performance isn't a bottleneck on any of these tests :)


The SIII was connected to my computer via Mobile Hotspot (WiFi…which is fine because I can hit 60 Mbps in both directions over WiFi with this computer). The iPad will be connected via wired tethering. The ZTE Rocket…well, it's a USB modem :)


There are two types of tests that I performed on the services: traceroutes and speed tests. Speedtests were performed via speedtest.net, on all six (or seven in the case of T-Mobile) locations in the DFW metro area. Traceroutes…well, I'll tell ya about trace routes…


Traceroutes are a good way of seeing how a cell network makes it to the Internet, revealing weird routing issues and average latency in one fell swoop. I used the "traceroute -aw1" command/switches for all traceroutes.


For each test, I traced to multiple destinations in the DFW area:


1. Level3's anycasted DNS server cluster

2. Google

3. HawkHost (they have their main web server in one of SoftLayer's Dallas data centers)


These routes won't go outside the DFW metro, since there's an internet exchange point nearby and all of the above are well-connected. So the air interface and 4G core performance determines latency.


I also traced to a Los Angeles game server (one owned by Riot Games, which makes the League of Legends MMORTS). There are more variables in that route, but the game server is supposed to be on a connection optimized for low latency. I threw it in to see how attempting to gem over 4G would fare (I've actually played loL on both VZW and T-Mobile 4G, with decent results). The final hops prior to reaching the server don't respond, but the trace route is still an interesting metric.


Anyway, to the results.




I mentioned my signals (high -80s, low -90s) on Sprint last night. They've been holding solid, though it appears as though I'm now bouncing between two cell sites, one at 140 S Beach St and the other at 825 Elmwood Ave. The former site is about 2.07 miles to the east, while the latter is 1.25 miles to the southwest. The phone seems to prefer the Beach St site, at least for now, though I wasn't looking at NetMonitor while doing these tests (doing so appears to break the connection). Signals are comparable between the two sites, despite the distance difference.


Anyway, trace routes:


traceroute to (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS8151] ( 2.402 ms 1.541 ms 2.111 ms

2 * * *

3 [AS65534] ( 46.841 ms 28.704 ms 29.675 ms

4 [AS65534] ( 27.744 ms 25.759 ms 31.000 ms

5 [AS65534] ( 31.986 ms 29.558 ms 33.932 ms

6 [AS0] ( 37.304 ms 28.054 ms 31.316 ms

7 [AS0] sl-crs3-fw-.sprintlink.net ( 41.015 ms 25.423 ms 37.316 ms

8 [AS0] ( 39.794 ms 30.025 ms 38.854 ms

9 [AS0] ( 69.245 ms 32.335 ms

[AS0] ( 40.343 ms

10 [AS3356] ae-42-90.car2.dallas1.level3.net ( 26.670 ms *

[AS3356] ae-22-70.car2.dallas1.level3.net ( 41.526 ms

11 [AS3356] d.resolvers.level3.net ( 23.501 ms 26.760 ms 33.687 ms


traceroute to google.com (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS8151] ( 3.854 ms 2.644 ms 2.270 ms

2 * * *

3 [AS65534] ( 48.743 ms 45.255 ms 38.453 ms

4 [AS65534] ( 47.706 ms 31.540 ms 32.022 ms

5 [AS65534] ( 31.919 ms 30.257 ms 39.014 ms

6 [AS0] ( 28.720 ms 31.719 ms 24.332 ms

7 [AS0] sl-crs3-fw-.sprintlink.net ( 26.680 ms 36.220 ms 30.845 ms

8 [AS0] ( 43.688 ms 32.624 ms 27.808 ms

9 [AS0] ( 41.304 ms 35.326 ms 37.922 ms

10 [AS15169] ( 39.091 ms 26.790 ms 39.628 ms

11 [AS15169] ( 40.034 ms 31.108 ms 41.041 ms

12 [AS15169] dfw06s17-in-f2.1e100.net ( 38.971 ms 25.529 ms 39.765 ms


traceroute to hawkhost.com (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS8151] ( 3.072 ms 1.519 ms 1.978 ms

2 * * *

3 [AS65534] ( 47.948 ms 34.675 ms 30.455 ms

4 [AS65534] ( 31.169 ms 32.130 ms 30.519 ms

5 [AS65534] ( 31.298 ms 36.638 ms 28.947 ms

6 [AS0] ( 39.199 ms 34.246 ms 31.075 ms

7 [AS0] sl-crs3-fw-.sprintlink.net ( 40.203 ms 58.584 ms 49.778 ms

8 [AS0] ( 29.413 ms 37.149 ms 30.622 ms

9 [AS0] ( 51.995 ms

[AS0] ( 37.028 ms

[AS0] ( 37.290 ms

10 [AS3356] softlayer-t.edge2.dallas3.level3.net ( 38.267 ms 31.048 ms 25.645 ms

11 [AS36351] ae1.dar01.sr01.dal01.networklayer.com ( 51.114 ms

[AS36351] ae1.dar02.sr01.dal01.networklayer.com ( 49.808 ms

[AS36351] ae1.dar01.sr01.dal01.networklayer.com ( 30.909 ms

12 [AS36351] po1.fcr04.sr05.dal01.networklayer.com ( 32.889 ms

[AS36351] po2.fcr04.sr05.dal01.networklayer.com ( 28.788 ms

[AS36351] po1.fcr04.sr05.dal01.networklayer.com ( 35.019 ms

13 [AS36351] hawkhost.com ( 32.614 ms 24.745 ms 40.126 ms


traceroute to (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS8151] ( 4.191 ms 1.549 ms 1.939 ms

2 * * *

3 [AS65534] ( 36.927 ms 28.519 ms 30.773 ms

4 [AS65534] ( 27.947 ms 22.358 ms 30.028 ms

5 [AS65534] ( 30.576 ms 24.353 ms 28.630 ms

6 [AS0] ( 30.310 ms 24.222 ms 29.605 ms

7 [AS0] sl-crs3-fw-.sprintlink.net ( 31.358 ms 23.301 ms 29.283 ms

8 [AS0] ( 31.055 ms 19.127 ms 30.489 ms

9 [AS0] ( 61.083 ms 58.585 ms 59.481 ms

10 [AS0] ( 57.682 ms 49.928 ms 96.599 ms

11 [AS0] sl-st21-la-0-0-0.sprintlink.net ( 53.728 ms 58.446 ms 58.866 ms

12 [AS0] sl-internap-96007-0.sprintlink.net ( 60.127 ms 56.133 ms 58.847 ms

13 [AS10912] border1.po1-20g-bbnet1.lax010.pnap.net ( 59.916 ms

[AS10912] border1.po2-20g-bbnet2.lax010.pnap.net ( 55.250 ms 59.200 ms

14 * * *

15 * * *


Speed Tests


All of the below speed tests were taken at the same location, one after the other. I'd say that I pummeled the network, but my guess is I'm the only person on the tower, or close to it!


Fort Worth - One Source: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073517462.png

Fort Worth - Charter: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073518596.png

Dallas - SoftLayer: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073520136.png

Dallas - 10gb.ru: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073521195.png

Dallas - Partnership Broadband: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073522239.png

Dallas - FrostHost: http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073524238.png


So yeah, phenomenal speeds at this time of day. Latency and jitter are both very low, giving me an Internet experience that pretty much feels like I'm using the fiber connection that the Sprint cell site is connected to. It's wonderful, really…looking forward to having this all the time!

  • Like 7

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



As a disclaimer, I don't know what tower I'm connecting to. All I know is that my connection manager shows "3G" and -89 dBm signal (40% according to the connection manager). In short, I've seen much, much better from my modem (20+ Mbps speeds down, ~3 Mbps up)…but I'm in DFW, not south Florida. But despite the 3G moniker, latency is decently low…though the modem seems to flip between a slow 3G tower (with high latency) and a snappy 4G (HSPA+/HSPA+ DC) one. As a result, these tests took a while to execute.


SIde note: pretty sure I'm running on single-carrier H+ in these tests. So it's a good comparison of performance between Sprint's 5x5 network and T-Mobile's.




traceroute to (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS65534] ( 89.611 ms 58.840 ms 60.001 ms

2 [AS65534] ( 69.955 ms 219.360 ms 29.770 ms

3 [AS65534] ( 29.850 ms 29.176 ms 29.885 ms

4 [AS65534] ( 29.850 ms 29.271 ms 49.449 ms

5 [AS65534] ( 69.517 ms 88.746 ms 79.843 ms

6 [AS65534] ( 99.960 ms 49.248 ms 89.971 ms

7 [AS65534] ( 80.082 ms 68.764 ms 49.601 ms

8 [AS65534] ( 49.605 ms 29.404 ms 29.726 ms

9 [AS65534] ( 40.006 ms 29.136 ms 29.939 ms

10 [AS65534] ( 30.066 ms 38.893 ms 39.990 ms

11 [AS3356] ge-8-13.car2.dallas1.level3.net ( 39.978 ms 29.234 ms 29.846 ms

12 [AS3356] d.resolvers.level3.net ( 30.025 ms 28.999 ms 29.856 ms


traceroute to google.com (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS65534] ( 49.871 ms 44.084 ms 39.684 ms

2 [AS65534] ( 50.229 ms 49.326 ms 40.076 ms

3 [AS65534] ( 39.752 ms 39.100 ms 39.998 ms

4 [AS65534] ( 40.110 ms 49.002 ms 39.553 ms

5 [AS65534] ( 39.529 ms 39.111 ms 49.494 ms

6 [AS65534] ( 99.863 ms 39.054 ms 39.979 ms

7 [AS65534] ( 49.966 ms 39.109 ms 39.881 ms

8 [AS65534] ( 50.114 ms 51.272 ms 37.974 ms

9 [AS65534] ( 49.907 ms 38.593 ms 49.974 ms

10 [AS7018] ( 50.035 ms 119.499 ms 29.014 ms

11 [AS7018] cr84.dlstx.ip.att.net ( 29.867 ms 29.340 ms

[AS7018] cr83.dlstx.ip.att.net ( 29.597 ms

12 [AS7018] cr1.dlstx.ip.att.net ( 29.581 ms

[AS7018] cr2.dlstx.ip.att.net ( 29.389 ms 39.175 ms

13 [AS7018] gar23.dlstx.ip.att.net ( 70.131 ms 38.864 ms

[AS7018] ggr1.dlstx.ip.att.net ( 29.668 ms

14 [AS7018] ( 88.291 ms 117.174 ms 79.855 ms

15 [AS15169] ( 30.018 ms 29.115 ms 39.512 ms

16 [AS15169] ( 30.066 ms 29.152 ms 29.833 ms

17 [AS15169] dfw06s17-in-f8.1e100.net ( 30.038 ms 29.030 ms 29.724 ms


traceroute to hawkhost.com (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS65534] ( 49.957 ms 49.489 ms 39.863 ms

2 [AS65534] ( 53.342 ms 70.607 ms 48.061 ms

3 [AS65534] ( 49.815 ms 49.050 ms 40.172 ms

4 [AS65534] ( 49.859 ms 50.105 ms 49.019 ms

5 [AS65534] ( 42.207 ms 49.358 ms 39.938 ms

6 [AS65534] ( 49.842 ms 49.515 ms 49.573 ms

7 [AS65534] ( 48.094 ms 49.411 ms 49.556 ms

8 [AS65534] ( 49.243 ms 48.768 ms 149.547 ms

9 [AS65534] ( 42.535 ms 29.018 ms 30.286 ms

10 [AS65534] ( 29.584 ms 59.291 ms 39.946 ms

11 [AS3356] ge-8-13.car2.dallas1.level3.net ( 52.089 ms 226.401 ms 242.064 ms

12 [AS3356] ae-3-80.edge2.dallas3.level3.net ( 27.938 ms 47.560 ms 39.257 ms

13 [AS3356] softlayer-t.edge2.dallas3.level3.net ( 52.095 ms 37.344 ms 61.150 ms

14 [AS36351] ae1.dar01.sr01.dal01.networklayer.com ( 27.833 ms 29.548 ms 49.694 ms

15 [AS36351] po1.fcr04.sr05.dal01.networklayer.com ( 39.963 ms 35.215 ms

[AS36351] po2.fcr04.sr05.dal01.networklayer.com ( 29.205 ms

16 [AS36351] hawkhost.com ( 36.746 ms 37.125 ms 39.608 ms


traceroute to (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS65534] ( 49.653 ms 48.712 ms 50.094 ms

2 [AS65534] ( 49.823 ms 49.044 ms 40.407 ms

3 [AS65534] ( 29.545 ms 29.534 ms 29.453 ms

4 [AS65534] ( 39.823 ms 29.296 ms 29.331 ms

5 [AS65534] ( 29.766 ms 28.998 ms 29.771 ms

6 [AS65534] ( 50.021 ms 38.684 ms 30.071 ms

7 [AS65534] ( 29.530 ms 29.363 ms 29.851 ms

8 [AS65534] ( 30.025 ms 29.014 ms 39.962 ms

9 [AS65534] ( 29.950 ms 29.026 ms 29.899 ms

10 [AS7018] ( 30.028 ms 48.976 ms 29.719 ms

11 [AS7018] cr84.dlstx.ip.att.net ( 69.434 ms 59.051 ms 70.009 ms

12 [AS7018] cr2.dlstx.ip.att.net ( 69.908 ms 59.494 ms 59.770 ms

13 [AS7018] cr2.la2ca.ip.att.net ( 69.939 ms 69.542 ms 70.063 ms

14 [AS7018] ( 59.840 ms 69.437 ms 59.813 ms

15 * * *

16 [AS10912] border1.po1-20g-bbnet1.lax010.pnap.net ( 67.100 ms 79.715 ms 69.842 ms

17 * * *

18 * * *


Speed Tests


Charter - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073587248.png

OneSource Communications - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073588662.png

Partnership Broadband - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073590006.png

T-Mobile - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073594592.png

10gb.ru - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073597154.png

SoftLayer - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073598048.png

FrostHost - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073600515.png


The latency here is great…when the service is on H+. However the network tends to swap between H+ and standard, high-latency HSPA (probably even HSDPA). And speeds are a fraction of what I got on Sprint. Don't get me wrong…T-Mobile has a pretty solid network, but Sprint LTE beats T-Mobile with the same amount of FDD spectrum usage.

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I post the third of the tests (I don't have access to an AT&T LTE device) I'll open the floor to anyone who wants me to do some other tests in the area, though I have a limited data allotment on all devices and won't be straying much from this location until Sunday…so don't ask me for coverage reports around the entire city, beyond the NetMonitor info I'll post later :)


One interesting occurrence that I noticed was that my IP geolocated to DFW only with T-Mobile during these tests, despite routing definitely being right through Dallas or Fort Worth. Sprint was somewhere in Indiana, while Verizon was in the Wichita, KS area…showing just how inaccurate GeoIP databases are.




Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out a way to get dBm signal readings on my iPad, since I don't want to jailbreak it (at this point anyway). So we'll just have to rely on the 4 bars I got on LTE during my tests.




traceroute to (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS0] ( 0.852 ms 0.524 ms 0.456 ms

2 [AS6167] 97.sub-66-174-45.myvzw.com ( 34.379 ms 43.545 ms 51.992 ms

3 [AS6167] 49.sub-69-83-101.myvzw.com ( 31.130 ms 38.971 ms 52.552 ms

4 [AS6167] 195.sub-69-83-101.myvzw.com ( 58.988 ms 32.592 ms 55.979 ms

5 * * *

6 [AS6167] 71.sub-69-83-96.myvzw.com ( 125.429 ms 30.755 ms 43.970 ms

7 [AS0] tengige0-0-2-0.gw15.dfw9.alter.net ( 45.977 ms 46.721 ms 40.969 ms

8 [AS0] 0.xe-0-0-1.xt4.dfw9.alter.net ( 46.775 ms 47.808 ms 38.950 ms

9 [AS0] 0.xe-6-0-3.xl4.dfw7.alter.net ( 52.921 ms 48.616 ms 52.047 ms

10 [AS0] 0.ae4.br1.dfw13.alter.net ( 64.197 ms 43.554 ms 51.132 ms

11 [AS3356] ae6.edge2.dallas3.level3.net ( 52.435 ms 50.786 ms

[AS3356] ae7.edge2.dallas3.level3.com ( 43.982 ms

12 [AS3356] ae-12-60.car2.dallas1.level3.net ( 77.908 ms 192.500 ms

[AS3356] ae-22-70.car2.dallas1.level3.net ( 244.998 ms

13 [AS3356] d.resolvers.level3.net ( 61.476 ms 35.614 ms 40.047 ms


traceroute to google.com (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS0] ( 1.164 ms 0.493 ms 0.480 ms

2 [AS6167] 97.sub-66-174-45.myvzw.com ( 32.741 ms 52.162 ms 25.999 ms

3 [AS6167] 49.sub-69-83-101.myvzw.com ( 46.977 ms 31.190 ms 41.801 ms

4 [AS6167] 195.sub-69-83-101.myvzw.com ( 39.404 ms 32.178 ms 40.077 ms

5 * * *

6 [AS6167] 71.sub-69-83-96.myvzw.com ( 112.034 ms 50.286 ms 56.950 ms

7 [AS0] tengige0-0-2-0.gw15.dfw9.alter.net ( 54.124 ms 58.368 ms 59.093 ms

8 [AS0] 0.xe-0-0-0.xt3.dfw9.alter.net ( 47.792 ms 85.608 ms 79.857 ms

9 [AS0] 0.xe-5-0-0.xl3.dfw7.alter.net ( 135.971 ms 58.661 ms 45.833 ms

10 [AS0] tengige0-6-4-0.gw4.dfw13.alter.net ( 51.054 ms 39.707 ms

[AS0] tengige0-6-1-0.gw4.dfw13.alter.net ( 53.135 ms

11 [AS0] google-gw.customer.alter.net ( 120.032 ms 120.552 ms 119.013 ms

12 [AS15169] ( 55.986 ms 78.567 ms

[AS15169] ( 49.979 ms

13 * * *

14 * * *

15 [AS15169] ( 123.307 ms 81.750 ms

[AS15169] ( 152.032 ms

16 * * *

17 [AS15169] yh-in-f139.1e100.net ( 135.474 ms 69.755 ms 78.881 ms


traceroute to hawkhost.com (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS0] ( 0.861 ms 0.505 ms 0.475 ms

2 [AS6167] 97.sub-66-174-45.myvzw.com ( 31.686 ms 35.415 ms 39.564 ms

3 [AS6167] 49.sub-69-83-101.myvzw.com ( 41.001 ms 42.333 ms 45.824 ms

4 [AS6167] 195.sub-69-83-101.myvzw.com ( 32.965 ms 53.344 ms 28.909 ms

5 * * *

6 [AS6167] 71.sub-69-83-96.myvzw.com ( 124.296 ms 48.215 ms 52.064 ms

7 [AS0] tengige0-0-2-0.gw15.dfw9.alter.net ( 58.053 ms 55.385 ms 53.956 ms

8 [AS0] 0.xe-5-0-2.xt4.dfw9.alter.net ( 60.961 ms 181.657 ms 73.956 ms

9 [AS0] 0.xe-3-1-2.xl4.dfw7.alter.net ( 57.024 ms 119.571 ms 45.701 ms

10 [AS0] tengige0-7-4-0.gw4.dfw13.alter.net ( 58.524 ms

[AS0] tengige0-7-1-0.gw4.dfw13.alter.net ( 58.822 ms

[AS0] tengige0-7-4-0.gw4.dfw13.alter.net ( 54.706 ms

11 [AS7381] teliasonera-gw.customer.alter.net ( 60.121 ms 46.713 ms 35.048 ms

12 [AS1299] te3-3.bbr02.eq01.dal01.networklayer.com ( 43.691 ms 65.465 ms 44.911 ms

13 [AS36351] ae0.dar01.sr01.dal01.networklayer.com ( 47.977 ms 42.683 ms 45.879 ms

14 [AS36351] po2.fcr04.sr05.dal01.networklayer.com ( 31.256 ms 60.503 ms 54.886 ms

15 [AS36351] hawkhost.com ( 34.164 ms 57.673 ms 71.080 ms


traceroute to (, 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

1 [AS0] ( 1.144 ms 0.606 ms 0.484 ms

2 [AS6167] 97.sub-66-174-45.myvzw.com ( 49.450 ms 42.326 ms 52.136 ms

3 [AS6167] 49.sub-69-83-101.myvzw.com ( 50.068 ms 43.425 ms 39.095 ms

4 [AS6167] 195.sub-69-83-101.myvzw.com ( 48.531 ms 72.233 ms 42.906 ms

5 * * *

6 [AS6167] 71.sub-69-83-96.myvzw.com ( 99.923 ms 57.336 ms 53.966 ms

7 [AS0] tengige0-0-2-0.gw15.dfw9.alter.net ( 38.902 ms 39.316 ms 42.900 ms

8 [AS0] 0.xe-0-0-1.xt4.dfw9.alter.net ( 35.016 ms 38.822 ms 69.913 ms

9 [AS0] 0.xe-6-1-3.xl4.lax15.alter.net ( 96.835 ms 69.829 ms 78.784 ms

10 [AS0] pos7-0-0.gw3.lax15.alter.net ( 94.910 ms 72.971 ms 77.961 ms

11 [AS0] internapgige-gw.customer.alter.net ( 85.957 ms 71.689 ms 78.768 ms

12 [AS10912] border1.po1-20g-bbnet1.lax010.pnap.net ( 91.025 ms 72.877 ms 70.893 ms

13 * * *

14 * * *


Speed Tests


Charter - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073664393.png

One Source - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073665293.png

SoftLayer - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073666142.png

Partnership Broadband - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073667304.png

10gb.ru - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073669435.png

ForstHost - http://www.speedtest.net/result/2073672055.png




Verizon and T-Mobile are a different animal than Sprint. Both have a large number of subscribers already on the network (T-Mobile more so than Verizon, since any 3G or better T-Mobile phone draws from the available HSPA+ bandwidth). Both carriers are hitting within their advertised speed bracket (T-Mobile says their network should run around 10 Mbps, while Verizon says theirs is 5-12 Mbps down)…at least for download speeds (VZW is still turning in some nice upload numbers).


This means that speed numbers are significantly less spectacular than with Sprint…but it also means that speeds are unlikely to slip from where they are right now. By contrast, print's speeds will definitely drop a bit from what I'm seeing as more folks get and use LTE phones and devices, though smaller cell sites compared with Verizon should help a lot with this.


T-Mobile was, out of the three, the most unreliable, due to switching between higher-latency, lower-speed HSPA (or maybe even HSDPA) and HSPA+. You could tell that you were on a cellular network, though the exerpeince was still decent. With Verizon and Sprint on the other hand, it felt like I was on a wired connection, and a good one at that (DOCSIS 3 cable or something). I'll give Sprint the edge from a subjective quality standpoint (page load times etc., though I didn't put a stopwatch to anything…but I trust my gamer instincts as to latency perception). Which is great because..well…I have unlimited on-phone data and a couple gigabytes of tethering to chew through on Sprint, assuming Sprint is even counting my LTE mobile hotspot usage at this point.


And, again, if Sprint's LTE network is going to end up like I'm seeing at this location, nationwide, I won't mind going from three diverse cellular connections to one.

  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The exciting thing is that this is just the beginning! Assuming that they keep scaling their backhaul upwards, I don't see why they can't maintain excellent speeds as they add LTD on 800 and 2500. The next couple of years in telecom are going to be exciting...for all of the major carriers.


Sent from my PG41200 using Tapatalk 2

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd run some side by side tests with AT&T LTE, Verizon LTE, and Sprint LTE via tether on 3 HTC Andrioid Phones (HTC VIVID, HTC Thunderbolt, and HTC EVO 4G LTE [all owned from day 1 on their respective launch days]); unfortunately, Sprint's flavor is not yet active in my part of the Metroplex (Lewsiville/Coppell near 121 and 35E). I have to go over to Far North Dallas later today and was going hop a few roads over to north Richardson where I know there is an active site and see what I get.


I had a TMo HSPA+ HTC phone until a few weeks ag; I traded it for a few $ to help pick up the EVO 4G LTE. I guess you could say I like to early adopt. (As does my best friend/roommate)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are AT&T LTE speeds looking at this point? That's the only service I'm unable to test, due to lack of equipment.


Sent from my Galaxy SIII-32GB using Forum Runner

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

@bluepoint951 It does not appear that Sprint has LTE in certain parts of Mansfield, either. The good news is that my 4G LTE experience has improved since Sunday. More sites have been coming online...or at least I have been able to connect to more sites..as the week progressed. A great launch for Sprint? Not by a long shot. However, Sprint is on the right track.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are AT&T LTE speeds looking at this point? That's the only service I'm unable to test, due to lack of equipment.


Sent from my Galaxy SIII-32GB using Forum Runner


AT first, it was just like Verizon, I'd get some crazy 35-45Mbps down and 15Mbps up with 40-60 pings; these days its still a high 10s sometimes the occasinal 20 and 5-10up. It also depends on weather you keep the LTE or get pushed back to HSPA+, for some reason the Vivid will prefer a strong HSPA+ siginal over a weak LTE signal unless you force LTE only.


My Thunderbolt with VZW still gets 12-15 Mbps down consistently and 3-7 up; though, I will say at the convention in Downtown Ft. Worth I was at, at the beginning of June (10k~ish ppl in 1 or 2 sectors) I was have some trouble getting more thank 6Mbps down and 1.5Mbps up and an 80-120 ping. That was better than the avg 80kbps down and 66kpbs up with 1500-2500ms ping my EVO LTE was getting in the same areas, you could tell the Sprint network was struggling those 3 days.

Share this post

Link to post
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.

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

    • By Paynefanbro
      I figured since Verizon's 5G-NR network officially launched it would make sense for there to be a thread for it.
    • By Paynefanbro
      I recently went on an 8 day cruise from NYC to the Caribbean that stopped in Turks and Caicos, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. My first stop was Grand Turk and there I opted for the free roaming. My S9+ automatically connected to Flow's (Cable & Wireless) LTE network where I received speeds of around 120kbps on average with boosts of up to 150kbps. Something worth noting is that on speed tests, the server prefers to default to Sprint's Miami server as opposed to local servers. Speeds were more than adequate for any amount of web browsing and honestly felt much faster than in reality. It helps that using Chrome will save you data by not loading pictures on certain sites unless you click them.
      In Puerto Rico, I connected to Band 13 on the way into the port in San Juan but once I was in the city, my phone never left Band 41. While the phone was usable, speeds remained significantly lower than what I've come to expect from 3xCA in the mainland U.S. Data speeds peaked at around 25-30Mbos but on average were in the 5-10 Mbps range even on LTE+. Signal remained strong everywhere though. 
      Finally in the Dominican Republic, I entered in Amber Cover which is in Puerto Plata. My phone latched onto a weak Band 2 LTE signal in the port from Altice (called Orange Dominicana in SignalCheck). I had trouble loading pages though. Once off of the ship and out in the open, I had a much stronger signal which allowed me to browse the internet without a hitch. Because it was the last day of my trip, while at the beach I decided to purchase the 24 hour high speed pass for $5. My speeds went from 120kbps to 65Mbps in less than 5 seconds. In some areas speeds were slower, particularly at the port where it struggled to break 2Mbps. Now, back on the boat my phone is flipping between weak Band 4 LTE and overloaded Band 5 HSPA+ from Claro (called Verizon Dominicana in SignalCheck Pro). Here is the difference in speed from before and after purchasing the high speed pass. 
    • By legion125
      by Jeff Foster
      Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
      Friday, April 20, 2012 - 11:31 AM MDT
      Is there a "spectrum shortage?" Those two words send shivers down the spines of wireless industry executives. New services demand ever more spectrum, and, the story goes, there simply isn't enough spectrum available. An Internet search engine will easily find hundreds of thousands of links to the term "spectrum shortage." Many claim that it will be the downfall of America.
      The dwindling availability of a finite resource that can't be seen or touched threatens to possibly disrupt the mobile lifestyle that virtually every American has embraced. Dropped cellphone calls, delayed text messages and choppy video streams could become more frequent occurrences because the airwaves on which that data travel are nearing capacity at a time when mobile usage shows no signs of slowing.
      Federal regulators and industry players are searching for ways to fend off the supply-and-demand collision. Dish Network recently acquired a large block of vacant wireless spectrum that pending regulatory approval could be used for mobile broadband services.
      Short-Term Plan

      AT&T tried to merge with T-Mobile to solve its own capacity problem. It wanted to get its hands on T-Mobile spectrum. Still, that would have been only a temporary fix at best. Remember all the terrible stories about the quality of AT&T's wireless data network over the last few years? They say they simply don't have enough.
      The reason is that during the last few years, smartphones like the Apple iPhone and the many devices running Android emerged, and wireless data traffic grew like crazy. This problem jumped up and bit AT&T in the rear end. Suddenly, so many people were sucking so much data that the network could not handle it, due to spectrum shortage. Spectrum is like the size of the hose, and a wider hose is needed to carry more data for more customers.
      A couple good things are suddenly happening that may give carriers a little time to solve this increasing problem. Perhaps Verizon starting to sell the iPhone last spring has something to do with it. If so, then now with Sprint selling the iPhone, AT&T will have more breathing room, at least temporarily. That's the good news. However, that reprieve will only last a short while before the exploding smartphone and wireless data growth catches up. Then the other carriers will be faced with the same problem that's confronting AT&T.
      In the first quarter of 2011, the amount of data the average smartphone user consumed each month grew by 89 percent to 435 megabytes from 230 MB during the same quarter in 2010, according to Nielsen research. That's up from about 90 MB in 2009. For reference, the average size of an MP3 music file is about 4 MB.
      "Texting has always been traditionally viewed as a lightweight consumer of bandwidth, but if I start adding videos and pictures to my texts, that also starts consuming more bandwidth," said Tom Cullen, an executive vice president with Dish. But the primary growth driver will be video. Consumers can go through 5 gigabytes a month simply by streaming 10 minutes of standard definition video daily, he said.
      Data use is skyrocketing
      Data from the FCC indicate that more Americans are looking at their phones rather than talking on them. In 2009, 67 percent of available spectrum was utilized for voice and 33 percent for Internet data. Those percentages are now at 75 percent for data and 25 percent for voice. With each new iPhone release, data consumption grows. The iPhone 4S eats up twice as much data as the iPhone 4 and three times as much as the iPhone 3G, according to a study by network services firm Arieso. The new iPhone features Siri, a bandwidth-heavy voice recognition feature.
      The FCC estimates the U.S. will face a spectrum deficit of 90 MHz in 2013 and 275 MHz in 2014. To address the crunch, the federal government hopes to unleash 500 MHz of spectrum currently used for other purposes for wireless broadband by 2020. To put that figure in perspective, there is currently 547 MHz of spectrum allocated for mobile services, and AT&T and Verizon each own about 90 MHz.
      The government plans to hold so-called incentive auctions, which will try to lure spectrum owners such as TV broadcasters to sell their licenses. Verizon Wireless has agreed to purchase spectrum from a group of cable-TV companies. Sprint has expressed interest in working with Dish, which acquired the bulk of its 45 MHz of spectrum through two deals for bankrupt satellite technology companies. Dish chairman Charlie Ergen has said that the satellite-TV provider would prefer to partner with an existing wireless carrier on a high speed, 4G network. In response to recent comments by Sprint Chief Financial Officer Joe Euteneuer about the company's interest in working with Dish, Cullen said other wireless carriers are in the same situation. After failing to acquire T-Mobile, analysts expect AT&T to make a play for Dish, a long-rumored merger partner.
      As for T-Mobile, perhaps the most logical buyer is CenturyLink. T-Mobile's German-based parent company has indicated that it might exit the U.S. market. CenturyLink, which acquired Denver-based Qwest last year, is the third-largest landline phone company but does not own a wireless service, unlike the top two, AT&T and Verizon.
      Carriers are trying to offload as much traffic as they can to Wi-Fi networks, which ride on unlicensed spectrum. In some areas, they're installing picocells, which are smaller cell sites that can help boost capacity in dense areas.
      Finally, they're spending billions of dollars on LTE networks that use the airwaves more efficiently. Verizon and AT&T already have 4G LTE networks in place, and Sprint is moving to the technology. Dish says it hopes to enter the mobile broadband market with advanced LTE technology by late 2014 or early 2015. If Dish were to also offer voice service, it would come through VoLTE, which is similar to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone services. Dish still needs the FCC to drop a condition tied to its spectrum that requires devices to have the ability to communicate with satellites, not just ground-based cell sites. The rule-making process that will likely remove the requirement is underway and could be completed by summer's end.
      Is there really a shortage problem?
      The problem, analysts argue, is that the operators that control the greatest amount of unused spectrum may be under-capitalized or unwilling to build out networks to use the spectrum. "We do not believe the U.S. faces a spectrum shortage," Jason Bazinet and Michael Rollins wrote in their Citigroup report. "Too much spectrum is controlled by companies that are not planning on rolling out services or face business and financial challenges. And of the spectrum that is being used, 90 percent of it has been allocated to existing 2G, 3G, and 3.5G wireless services by larger wireless carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA.
      In total, U.S. operators have licenses for about 538MHz of wireless spectrum. Only about 192MHz of that spectrum is currently being used. Most of the unused wireless spectrum is owned by companies such as Clearwire, LightSquared, and Dish Network. But so far, LightSquared has been stopped and the other companies have been slow to build networks using their available spectrum.
      "There is definitely a mismatch when it comes to spectrum in the wireless industry," said Paul Gallant, an analyst with MF Global in Washington, D.C. "There are some companies that have spectrum, but they're struggling financially. Or they aren't quite sure what to do with the spectrum. And others that have the money and business model, but need the spectrum." The move to 4G is very important for these operators because it offers them a more efficient way to deliver service. 4G LTE uses the available spectrum roughly 700 percent more efficiently than the 3G wireless technology EV-DO. Carriers will soon be refarming 3G spectrum to 4G LTE in several years.
      A key factor in encouraging efficient use of spectrum has been largely overlooked in carrier boardroom discussions. Wireless providers can add capacity, without obtaining more spectrum, by adding more and more cell sites. Additional cell sites in spectrum constrained areas allow the same spectrum to be used by even more consumers, as well as adding picocells and microcells to denser population areas. So far, the carriers have not expressed too much interest in this method due to additional capital expenditures and overhead. Their strategy is like what Microsoft, Apple and Google have used. It's just cheaper to buy what you need than to invest the time and energy to do the actual work.
      So what can the wireless companies do? To some extent, re-farming their existing networks will help. But so will finding ways to use other spectrum. For example, only T-Mobile lets users make phone calls using Wi-Fi, yet most of the mobile devices available from carriers have this capability; the carriers just don't enable it.
      Allowing Wi-Fi calling could unload millions of voice and data users on to alternative networks and ease the spectrum crunch, at least to some extent. Encouraging VoIP use would also help for two reasons. VoIP doesn't require a lot of bandwidth, and it means that the phone in question uses only the data spectrum, not both voice and data while this is going on.
      These points illustrate that the carriers do have options beyond just buying up spectrum. They can offload more wireless traffic than they do now, build more cell sites into their networks and they can allow the use of other types of communications. While the spectrum crunch isn't going away, that doesn't mean that the process can't be slowed.
      Sensational graphic extolling the dire spectrum crisis. Maybe a tad exaggerated???
      Images courtesy: Spectrum Bridge, iqmetrix.com
      Source: FierceWireless.com, Denver Post, Ecommercetimes.com, CNET
    • By S4GRU
      by Jeff Foster
      Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
      Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - 7:46 PM MST
      Since last fall, there had been talk of a Samsung Galaxy Nexus launching on American carriers other than Big Red. Sprint has finally announced several weeks ago that it is the another vendor slated for release in the U.S. Suffice to say, many of us out there, especially those adverse to heading to Verizon and paying its premium prices, are excited about the impending release.
      The good news is that Google could be working on an updated version of the Galaxy Nexus. It has unofficially been dubbed the Galaxy Nexus Plus. There is much anticipation that it will be released before Sprint turns on LTE this summer. It’s not the first time an OEM has refreshed a device and re-released it to the market place, which works to our advantage. It’s rumored that the new Galaxy Nexus will have either a 1.5 or 1.8 GHz Texas Instrument OMAP4670 dual core processor. This would be a significant upgrade from the 1.2 GHz dual core processor found in the current Verizon version.
      We don’t know anything about official specs, but it’s also rumored to have an 8 MP camera. This is a noteworthy upgrade to the 5 MP shooter on the Verizon model (which has been lauded by many techies). We already know that the Sprint model will come installed with Google Wallet, per previous announcements. Some rumors also point to a beefier battery as well. The phone should have all the other features that’s on the current Galaxy Nexus, so now all we have to do is wait.
      Source: http://androidandme....era-on-the-way/
    • By S4GRU
      by Rick Layton
      Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
      Monday, June 25, 2012 - 4:27 PM MDT
      As technologies advance, the equipment to use the technology must advance as well. With the upcoming release of 4G LTE in our area (Houston), new equipment will be required to be able to use it. Although Sprint will have numerous data devices to handle the usage by the end of the year, only the Sprint Tri-Band Modem will be available at the rollout of the 4G LTE service.
      Due to the enormous dependence my business has on accessing data in a mobile environment, plus the great increases in data speed available with 4G LTE, this makes getting access to 4G LTE imperative to me. I depended heavily on the Sierra Wireless data devices when I started this business 7 years ago for my source of a reliable method of mobile data transmission. This relationship continued on until the release of the original Hotspot with the 4G service in my area.
      At one point, I was so displeased with past models, that I had sworn I would never buy another Sierra Wireless device as long as I live. This conclusion was reached after having numerous issues with previous hotspot models. There were so many problems that it seemed as if the device was never even tested on the networks it was to be used on. Also Sprint actively blocked reviews of the device, likely to not hinder sales in spite of the problems.
      My need for a new device with both WiMax and LTE capability outweighed my outright dislike of Sierra Wireless products. I proceeded against better judgment, and the Tri-Band modem was ordered even though the possibility of getting a substandard unit once again was always at the forefront of my mind.
      On with the show

      The official part number of the Tri-Band Modem is 803S. Along with the modem, I also ordered the SSX7077-V desktop cradle. I had to dig through a lot sites to find the information necessary to make this decision for my business. Much to my surprise, even though I was told the cradle was not available yet, I got a Sprint telesales person who was able to use the part number and find they had it in stock.
      Upon arrival I unpacked the unit and cradle...while holding my breath. The device that came out of the box was a pleasant departure from the previous Hotspots I had owned. Above is a picture of the device as it was shipped with all components. There was a small user guide as well but to get the real instructions the user guide must be downloaded from Sprint.
      Gone was the one piece blow molded plastic case which allowed no air circulation and caused the prior Hotspots to overheat quickly. Although the display is still too small for my aging eyes (it is actually the same display size as prior units) the change to the case makes it much easier to see in the interior of my van where the device will mostly be used.
      In this picture of the front you can see that there is a new button arrangement as compared to the older Hotspots. Also in the picture is the USB cable for use with the charger or to connect a computer, the AC to USB adapter, the battery and the battery cover. I opened the cradle, which was surprisingly inexpensive, and was delighted to find an additional AC to USB adapter which meant the cradle could be left in place without having to move the adapter around.
      As you look at the modem from the side you can see the antenna ports (the covers are open), the USB connector in the middle and the slot for the memory card. The round hole just right of the left antenna port is the reset button for the unit.

      Here is the same view with the battery and cover installed. Notice that the SD card slot is covered by the
      battery cover.

      The opposite side has two switches. The one on the left is a WPS setup button while the one on the right is a slider to mute the unit.

      The unit sits nicely in the cradle and looks to me to be a solution to help keep the USB port for the charger/interface cable from failing. This has been a major issue with the prior Hotspots. The case of the unit also helps support the USB port to take some of the load off of the circuit board.
      It took quite a bit of digging on the Sierra Wireless site to find out that the antenna ports are for the 4G WiMax band only. The cradle contains 2 5dbi omnidirectional antennas to allow full use of the WiMax network architecture.
      Initial testing

      The initial testing of the unit looks promising. The antennas in the cradle for 4G WiMax actually seem to get 3 – 5dBm gain in all conditions tested. The new unit has the ability to search the other bands for signals while staying connected. This allows less downtime between band changes. I notice a lot less disruption when switching bands.
      This unit has better reception on 3G and 4G WiMax than the previous hotspots and even the U600 USB modem I use as well. 4G WiMax is able to connect quickly even at 10% and the cradle has improved stability of WiMax and decreased ping times. For a short time I had access to Sprint 4G LTE as they were testing the towers in my area. The speeds were incredilbly faster. A 10% 4G LTE signal averaged 8.12Mbps download and 1.85Mbps upload. An 80% signal was able to get 35.8Mbps down on my best test and 22.1Mbps up.
      The upload speeds was very unexpected, and much higher than Sprint LTE smartphone devices have reported. This is likely due to much stronger transmit capabilities of the hotspot. I also discovered that when the modem is tethered the cable limits the bandwidth to approximately 20Mbps total speed. It will be interesting to see how it works in the 12 to 14 hour days of hot Houston Weather.
      First week in the field
      The Tri Band Modem got pressed into service a little quicker than planned, as my main unit went down with a bad transmission and the U600 USB modem with a Cradlepoint that was in this unit appears to have been damaged by the wrecker’s radio which runs on the edge of the WiMax frequency at 5 watts. The units have been sent in to determine cause of failure and for repairs but I think next time I will make sure all electronics are powered off before getting that close to a transmitter (OUCH!!).
      I am running the same routes in a rental van with the Tri-Band Modem that I normally use the other units on. There is less downtime in the signal gaps I am familiar with and areas where I have had signal problems in both 3G and 4G WiMax are much improved. I have yet to encounter any more 4G LTE signals but am looking forward to the service coming online soon. The unit seems to be running hotter than I would like with a fully charged battery but is actually cooler that the previous Hotspots. The temperature is supposed to soar over the next few days without the cloudiness we have had this past week. So it will be interesting to see if the overheating problems of previous models still occur.
      Week 2 – The True test
      The unit is getting worked really hard this week with temperatures outside up near 100 degrees. The GPS is useless with this kind of sun load as the unit will overheat if left in direct sunlight (as the instructions state) in about 20 minutes. The good news is that this is about twice as long as my original Hotspot will last. How anyone can make a unit that requires a clear view of the sky for GPS but can’t handle sunlight is beyond comprehension. A quick check of the Tri-Band’s temperature specs shows that the unit is only rated for 95 degrees. The prior Hotspot was rated well above the century mark but couldn’t even handle 90 degrees for any length of time. The crappiest laptop on the market will handle 105 degrees plus all day long. The true test will be my afternoon calls when the temperatures are high. Battery life has been about 8 to 9 hours which is far better than the prior Hotspots.
      The unit started overheating one afternoon. I can’t say I’m a bit surprised at that, but what is surprising is that it will run steadily as long as the air temp is below 98 degrees. This is a first for Hotspots as they always overheated well before the rated temperature spec. The bad news is the crappy overheat shutdown doesn’t turn off the unit before damage starts to occur, nor does it turn the unit off completely.
      Removing the battery cover seems to help air circulation and overheating some. The button lights are flickering after one overheating but the unit seems to be working fine other than this. It will be interesting to see what happens when it really gets hot here.
      According to the specs 4G LTE takes the least amount of wattage to run so it may not overheat as fast when using 4G LTE. I had the chance to try the modem in the old school 3G EVDO mode as one of my locations is 40 feet underground and that is all that is available at this location. I shut the unit down after 30 minutes as the unit was so hot you could barely handle it even though the temperature underground is around 70 degrees. I would not recommend trying to use this for any length of time if you want the Tri-Band to not overheat!!
      My Opinion
      Although Sierra Wireless has made some major improvement in the 3rd generation Hotspot, this is still a unit for the casual user. It is not designed to handle heavy use or outdoor summer temperatures for any length of time. It will be going in my climate controlled cabinet to protect it from the heat next week. I will let you know how it works when the temperature stays below 85 degrees. The improvements in connectivity, reception and stability are worth the investment. As long as you know and adjust your usage for the limitations of the unit.
  • Posts

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...