coverage.sprint.com LTE Map

[gregoryleeds]

 

Do you guys have any idea what the LTE coverage maps are based on? Given the completed sites map and my own experience I think this coverage map is a little bit optimistic.

[pyroscott]

Lol...I'd agree

 

From JBtoro on Forum Runner

[Proxcee]

It seems to me that the coverage maps are based on a 12/31/2012 projection of 100% completed network vision cell sites. Strictly for PR and marketing purposes.

[iansltx]

It seems to me that the coverage maps are based on a 12/31/2012 projection of 100% completed network vision cell sites. Strictly for PR and marketing purposes.

 

Incorrect. There are cities that aren't showed as covered in a given market right now that would be covered at 100% for that market...because they aren't covered yet. My guess is that the maps are just a bit optimistic with RF patterns, but do represent completed/accepted Sprint cell sites on the day that they were made, or maybe a few days/weeks into the future.

[chong67]

I find it hard to believe that LTE will blanket everything.

 

You mean there is no such thing as inside the building or outside the building LTE coverage?

 

Isnt this misleading map coverage will get somebody angry/mad later?

[digiblur]

I find it hard to believe that LTE will blanket everything.

 

You mean there is no such thing as inside the building or outside the building LTE coverage?

 

Isnt this misleading map coverage will get somebody angry/mad later?

 

It will be everywhere their native voice coverage is now.

 

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

[gregoryleeds]

It will be everywhere their native voice coverage is now.

 

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

 

However the rules they have put in their phones for when they switch between LTE and CDMA don't provide anything near that right now.

[Proxcee]

Incorrect. There are cities that aren't showed as covered in a given market right now that would be covered at 100% for that market...because they aren't covered yet. My guess is that the maps are just a bit optimistic with RF patterns, but do represent completed/accepted Sprint cell sites on the day that they were made, or maybe a few days/weeks into the future.

 

Can someone please help me make sense of this? Specifically:

 

"There are cities that aren't showed as covered in a given market right now that would be covered at 100% for that market...because they aren't covered yet."

[iansltx]

Can someone please help me make sense of this? Specifically:

 

"There are cities that aren't showed as covered in a given market right now that would be covered at 100% for that market...because they aren't covered yet."

 

Example: Fredericksburg, TX. It's part of the San Antonio market, however its sites aren't ready yet. So no coverage on the coverage map.

[Proxcee]

Example: Fredericksburg, TX. It's part of the San Antonio market, however its sites aren't ready yet. So no coverage on the coverage map.

 

So basically what your saying is that certain cities in a market wouldnt be shown as covered until the market is at 100%?

[iansltx]

So basically what your saying is that certain cities in a market wouldnt be shown as covered until the market is at 100%?

 

Almost. I'm saying that certain cities won't be shown as covered in the market until those cities are...well...actually covered. It might be at 70% of completion, it might be earlier, it might be later.

[Proxcee]

Almost. I'm saying that certain cities won't be shown as covered in the market until those cities are...well...actually covered. It might be at 70% of completion, it might be earlier, it might be later.

 

Strange...I wonder what sprint is doing then...because there are a total of 4 sites that have been completed in Snellville (confirmed by s4gru and sprint) yet the whole city shows orange on sprints coverage maps....and the funny thing about it is that there are only a couple spots where you can actually get an LTE signal. Wonder what thats about...

[S4GRU]

The maps are extremely optimistic. They are based on -110dBm RSSI thresholds while the device is used outside without ground clutter obstacles. But they are only currently showing coverage from sites that have been completed, not future sites. And of course, when you factor in the mid range LTE thresholds on most devices, you can see how inaccurate these maps would be in most situations.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[boomerbubba]

I still wonder if Waco wouldn't be a more representative test of LTE coverage because it was designed as a Field Implementation Test area in the first place. When I compare sponsor site maps -- "completed" as of July 22 vs the total project -- a large majority of the towers in Waco seem to have been completed. (By that same comparison, for example in Houston, the towers completed were a thin fraction of the total sites.) Also several months ago there was a theoretical RF coverage map built at S4GRU using the CloudRF tools, and even then the coverage seemed pretty complete.

 

I have almost persuaded myself to pull the trigger on buying the GS3 early just so I could drive up to Waco and test. But I don't have any trustworthy apps that would log LTE signal and connectivity automatically for me as I traversed the area.

[S4GRU]

I still wonder if Waco wouldn't be a more representative test of LTE coverage because it was designed as a Field Implementation Test area in the first place. When I compare sponsor site maps -- "completed" as of July 22 vs the total project -- a large majority of the towers in Waco seem to have been completed. (By that same comparison' date=' for example in Houston, the towers completed were a thin fraction of the total sites.) Also several months ago there was a theoretical RF coverage map built at S4GRU using the CloudRF tools, and even then the coverage seemed pretty complete.

 

I have almost persuaded myself to pull the trigger on buying the GS3 early just so I could drive up to Waco and test. But I don't have any trustworthy apps that would log LTE signal and connectivity automatically for me as I traversed the area.[/quote']

 

Waco has complete LTE density and would be a great area to test and get an idea of what a completed Sprint LTE network would feel like.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[Proxcee]

The maps are extremely optimistic. They are based on -110dBm RSSI thresholds while the device is used outside without ground clutter obstacles. But they are only currently showing coverage from sites that have been completed, not future sites. And of course, when you factor in the mid range LTE thresholds on most devices, you can see how inaccurate these maps would be in most situations.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Need you to speculate for a minute....is there any reason why sprint would complete a site but not turn LTE on? And an even better question....Does anyone know what the process is for completing a site and turning it up?

[MacinJosh]

Need you to speculate for a minute....is there any reason why sprint would complete a site but not turn LTE on? And an even better question....Does anyone know what the process is for completing a site and turning it up?

 

If the backhaul isn't ready then there is no reason for them to turn the LTE on. Why give customers the same cruddy data on LTE as they have for legacy 3G sites? I sure wouldn't want that.

[bq91]

Waco has complete LTE density and would be a great area to test and get an idea of what a completed Sprint LTE network would feel like.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Wow this explains a lot. I live in Georgetown, Texas just north of Austin. My wife has a new Galaxy SIII. I had to go to Dallas early this week on Business, and LTE was very spoty almost non existant in Dallas it seemed. On our way back to Austin we stoped in Waco for Dinner and to see a old friend. Best reception yet on Sprint. She thought we must be right next to a LTE tower, she had almost full bars the whole 4 hrs we were in Waco, and we drove across town from Baylor campus area to west side of Waco that day.

 

At the time we thought we were near a tower or as she said , lol the only ones in Waco with a Sprint LTE phone. FYI, it was blazing fast.

 

Reading this thread I see why Waco, of all places was better. Will this fit upgrade be coming to North Austin Suburbs (williamson County)? Hopefully Georgetown, will someday get reception like we got in Waco earlier this week.

Edited July 27, 2012 by bq91

[boomerbubba]

Waco has complete LTE density and would be a great area to test and get an idea of what a completed Sprint LTE network would feel like.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Well, I can almost talk myself into this adventure. The downside is that after that exciting daytrip -- the Dr. Pepper Museum! -- I would be back in Austin with crummy 3G service. And I would have retired my current Wimax device that actually works in my office.

 

Meanwhile, the Austin LTE rollout seems to be slipping into September, and there is nary a live tower to play with here. (I don't believe it's birds. I suspect that Sprint and Ericsson diverted resources to Houston, DFW, etc, to fight the marketing fires caused by too-high expectations.)

[Proxcee]

If the backhaul isn't ready then there is no reason for them to turn the LTE on. Why give customers the same cruddy data on LTE as they have for legacy 3G sites? I sure wouldn't want that.

 

Thanks....that explains a lot. Might also explain why one tower broadcasts LTE and a mile or two down the road other towers are only eHRPD broadcasting 3G.