Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

[nexgencpu]

Drove up from DC to NYC while my girl streamed showtime with almost no buffering (only buffered twice for about 15 seconds each) then continued. She watched nearly 4 hours of video. 

 

Sprint network is pretty solid along i95 in the northeast with small pockets of 3G (never roamed once) 

I cant wait till we get some CA action, hit nearly 100mbs in DC on multiple occasions, average speeds hovered between 40-60mbs on my girls G4 and about half on my N6.

[oli.almeida]

Now this AWESOME!!!

 

 

Staten Island NY 10314

Victory Boulevard and Richmond Ave

 

This is the way it should be always

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited September 3, 2015 by oli.almeida

[prodeq12]

Recently moved to Mamaroneck, NY and I'm contemplating switching to VZ or AT. Sprint service is great in the Bx and most of Manhattan, but in Westchester I'm on 3G about 70% of the time. I got faith Sprint will improve B41 coverage here soon but not sure when. If anyone in here were to switch to another carrier, which one would you choose and why.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Wfmets45]

Recently moved to Mamaroneck, NY and I'm contemplating switching to VZ or AT. Sprint service is great in the Bx and most of Manhattan, but in Westchester I'm on 3G about 70% of the time. I got faith Sprint will improve B41 coverage here soon but not sure when. If anyone in here were to switch to another carrier, which one would you choose and why.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Verizon.

Great voice network, LTE network, and now that they have launched band 4 LTE, speeds have improved dramatically and provides more capacity.

 

At&t is about $10 cheaper and their service is also great but one thing I enjoy about Verizon is VoLTE. It's amazing call quality and at&t has yet to announce when they will be launching VoLTE in NYC.

[prodeq12]

Verizon.

Great voice network, LTE network, and now that they have launched band 4 LTE, speeds have improved dramatically and provides more capacity.

 

At&t is about $10 cheaper and their service is also great but one thing I enjoy about Verizon is VoLTE. It's amazing call quality and at&t has yet to announce when they will be launching VoLTE in NYC.

I'm leaning towards Verizon because they have a cell site on the roof of the building I moved into. The only thing holding me back is that AT&T has better plans and you can pretty much use any unlocked GSM phones, but im not sure how the capacity stacks up against Verizon's.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[twospirits]

I was up there recently and much like where my sister lives further north near Hopewell Junction, I stay connected, but its only 3G.

 

Sent from my SM-N915P using Tapatalk

[payturr]

I'm leaning towards Verizon because they have a cell site on the roof of the building I moved into. The only thing holding me back is that AT&T has better plans and you can pretty much use any unlocked GSM phones, but im not sure how the capacity stacks up against Verizon's.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Verizon has much better capacity; 20x20 B4 + 10x10 B13, while AT&T is 10x10 B2, 10x10 B17. Also, VZW has 10x10 B2 incoming soooo...

 

I don't like going with Verizon because they're evil, but if I had to pick between the two always Verizon. AT&T's spectrum holdings are all over the place, and deployment is sloppy. They're kinda disgraceful despite where they stand.

[WiWavelength]

I'm leaning towards Verizon because they have a cell site on the roof of the building I moved into. The only thing holding me back is that AT&T has better plans and you can pretty much use any unlocked GSM phones, but im not sure how the capacity stacks up against Verizon's.

 

With AT&T deploying boutique spectrum in band 29 supplemental downlink and band 30, you will not be able to use most any unlocked handset -- or you will be missing out on a lot of spectrum bandwidth.  It will vary from market to market, even site to site, but AT&T is having a hard time keeping pace with usage on more standard bands.  If you want the best experience on AT&T, you likely will be limited to AT&T destined handset variants.

 

Just FYI...

 

AJ

[prodeq12]

With AT&T deploying boutique spectrum in band 29 supplemental downlink and band 30, you will not be able to use most any unlocked handset -- or you will be missing out on a lot of spectrum bandwidth. It will vary from market to market, even site to site, but AT&T is having a hard time keeping pace with usage on more standard bands. If you want the best experience on AT&T, you likely will be limited to AT&T destined handset variants.

 

Just FYI...

 

AJ

Yep, that settles it. Thanks to you all, I will be going with Verizon [emoji25] until Sprint finishes deployment in Westchester. I will keep checking in here for more info. I will be back for that CA B41 goodness. [emoji1]

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[cortney]

Yep, that settles it. Thanks to you all, I will be going with Verizon [emoji25] until Sprint finishes deployment in Westchester. I will keep checking in here for more info. I will be back for that CA B41 goodness. [emoji1]

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

Verizon in Westchester?   

 

And I know it's a cobbled mess in certain areas, but I don't know of AT&T remedying any density or capacity problems in the near-term outside of NYC with B29 (in particular)/B30 (someone correct me if I'm wrong). So any B2/B4/B17 phone should be fine for the next several months or year at the very least...

 

I hope you're primarily in NYC, then that could be fine. 

[orangeblue]

This is the oft cited comparison map:

 

 

I question its accuracy.  Mosaik Solutions is not independently measuring native footprint; it is just aggregating coverage data available online from the operators themselves.

 

Now, no doubt, T-Mobile has been more aggressive in the past decade at expanding its native footprint in places such as Oklahoma and New Mexico.  And that is because T-Mobile has anemic roaming coverage -- lots of no service.  But what I see in the map is overly conservative Sprint projection and overly optimistic T-Mobile projection.

 

Look at the Oklahoma/Texas Panhandle, for example.  See the clean, sweeping curve?  That is one PCS and/or AWS-1 site that purports to have something like a 60 mile coverage radius.  Well, that must be one boomer.  Yeah, I do not believe it.

 

AJ

 

This map must include roaming because T-Mobile does not offer roaming in central Nevada. Sprint offers some native coverage.

[cortney]

This map must include roaming because T-Mobile does not offer roaming in central Nevada. Sprint offers some native coverage.

 

Also nowhere does the map state it is using "native" coverage as the source, which is the argument the degenerates who keep throwing that link around whine about. So after you account that Mosaik didn't retrieve the info personally, but from the carriers, this map used as evidence is baseless until proven otherwise. And common sense and various real-world anecdotal accounts quickly start doing just the opposite. 

 

A great argument derailing tool. Meanwhile, people still routinely note T-Mobile's extensive 2G (where 3G/LTE should be). They also have numerous W-CDMA holes (LTE or 2G), not good for a GSM or any network. Every network needs a 3G fallback. For those of you not parked in cities, you'll know what I mean.

[orangeblue]

Also nowhere does the map state it is using "native" coverage as the source, which is the argument the degenerates who keep throwing that link around whine about. So after you account that Mosaik didn't retrieve the info personally, but from the carriers, this map used as evidence is baseless until proven otherwise. And common sense and various real-world anecdotal accounts quickly start doing just the opposite. 

 

A great argument derailing tool. Meanwhile, people still routinely note T-Mobile's extensive 2G (where 3G/LTE should be). They also have numerous W-CDMA holes (LTE or 2G), not good for a GSM or any network. Every network needs a 3G fallback. For those of you not parked in cities, you'll know what I mean.

 

I noticed this this weekend in Las Vegas, a city that should be fully LTE covered, yet there are some large areas that only provide 4G (HSPA+).

[WiWavelength]

I noticed this this weekend in Las Vegas, a city that should be fully LTE covered, yet there are some large areas that only provide 4G (HSPA+).

 

That is because Little Sisters of the Poor aka T-Mobile is not licensed any band 12 spectrum for better propagation in Las Vegas.  God really should do something about that.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

The Las Vegas 700A license fell into the hands of speculators, AB License Co. in this case which is owned by Columbia Capital.

 

On the importance of low band spectrum, here's a slide by T-Mobile that illustrates the benefits:

 

[WiWavelength]

The Las Vegas 700A license fell into the hands of speculators, AB License Co. in this case which is owned by Columbia Capital.

 

On the importance of low band spectrum, here's a slide by T-Mobile that illustrates the benefits:

 

Ryan, I think that we all know the benefits of low band spectrum.  The problem is that T-Mobile practically throws itself at the charity of the court of public opinion on this matter.  "Oh, if only we had low band spectrum, we would be so great.  We could be the "uncarrier" VZW.  Please help us."

 

Pay the freight, T-Mobile.  What did Sprint pay, $40 billion, for Nextel?  And Sprint then paid billions more for public safety rebanding.  That is how it got a national portfolio of low band SMR and high band BRS/EBS.  T-Mobile could have been the Nextel merger partner instead.  T-Mobile could have bid in Auction 73 in 2008 for Lower 700 MHz or Upper 700 MHz spectrum.  Today, T-Mobile can buy up the Lower 700 MHz spectrum speculators.  It will cost billions, but that is the going rate.

 

No, T-Mobile trumps itself up as an underrepresented minority and basically wants low band "Affirmative Action" in the wireless industry.  It wants charity, not equality.

 

AJ

[Deval]

No, T-Mobile trumps itself up as an underrepresented minority and basically wants low band "Affirmative Action" in the wireless industry.  It wants charity, not equality.

 

AJ

 

I'm going to print this out and leave it in my cube to laugh at when I'm bored.

[orangeblue]

That is because Little Sisters of the Poor aka T-Mobile is not licensed any band 12 spectrum for better propagation in Las Vegas.  God really should do something about that.

 

AJ

 

Not sure if the 700Mhz band or the lack off is to blame on the bad LTE network. Their network was much better but can't handle the amount of traffic. Speeds have gone down and you get more 4G coverage now in places that had LTE in the past.

[IsaiahL]

http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/09/08/verizon-to-begin-testing-5g-wireless-network-in-2016

 

Looks like Verizon is testing 5G. I hope Sprint hops on that boat sooner rather than later. I definitely don't want them lagging behind again when it comes to service and stuff.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/09/08/verizon-to-begin-testing-5g-wireless-network-in-2016

 

Looks like Verizon is testing 5G. I hope Sprint hops on that boat sooner rather than later. I definitely don't want them lagging behind again when it comes to service and stuff.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There are advantages to doing it later. No one knows exactly what Verizon plans on doing since there isn't any true 5G standard yet. It's really all marketing mumbo-jumbo to basically say "Look how far ahead of our competitors we are! We're already thinking about 5G." So far they're talking about gigabit speeds in tests, but Sprint has been able to replicate that in tests since 2+ years ago using just LTE advanced technologies.

[nick]

http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/09/08/verizon-to-begin-testing-5g-wireless-network-in-2016

 

Looks like Verizon is testing 5G. I hope Sprint hops on that boat sooner rather than later. I definitely don't want them lagging behind again when it comes to service and stuff.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think 3 carrier aggregation, (potential for 6 band 41 carriers per tower in some markets)  plus tens of thousands of small cells, plus thousands of new macro sites will serve sprint well into the future.... and  http://www.laptopmag.com/articles/sprint-spark-hands-on-1-gbps  this is old from 2013 mind you.

[prodeq12]

Has anyone tried Google's project fi? I'm curious as to how well it works in NYC.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

Has anyone tried Google's project fi? I'm curious as to how well it works in NYC.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

There is a whole thread dedicated to Project Fi on this site. But I don't think anyone is in NYC.

[Fraydog]

Carrier aggregation live there yet? 

 

But yeah, if someone wants to guinea pig for Fi in NYC I'd be interested to see what network it primarily uses and what speeds are like. 

[nexgencpu]

Carrier aggregation live there yet? 

 

But yeah, if someone wants to guinea pig for Fi in NYC I'd be interested to see what network it primarily uses and what speeds are like. 

No CA yet, we are thinking around the wimax shutdown. The concentration of Clear sites here is quite high.