3G IS flying for me

[purpleunicorn]

I find myself realizing that 1 to 2 mbs is really all you might really need for daily data usage.... and now that I get that in Atlanta my complaints are out of the window

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

[t3lancer2007]

Wait till you get good LTE speeds. I used to get around 20 Mb/s all day on Verizon, and I could run around town streaming absolutely anything I wanted.

[kct1975]

Using my current OG EVO, I'm actually getting pretty good 3G speed on vacation here in Ocean City MD.

 

Better 3G than in Northern Virginia.

 

KCT - "No Matter Where You Go, There You Are!"

[purpleunicorn]

Wait till you get good LTE speeds. I used to get around 20 Mb/s all day on Verizon, and I could run around town streaming absolutely anything I wanted.

I do get consistent 20 megs down on lte when I'm at HOME which is good other than that when I'm out and about around Atlanta and don't have lte the 3G I'm connecting to isn't horrible

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

[WiWavelength]

Wait till you get good LTE speeds. I used to get around 20 Mb/s all day on Verizon, and I could run around town streaming absolutely anything I wanted.

 

You do not need anything close to 20 Mbps for mobile streaming. In fact, no one really *needs* 20 Mbps for any WWAN use. Speeds that high are more about the size of your e-penis than anything legitimate.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

 

You do not need anything close to 20 Mbps for mobile streaming. In fact' date=' no one really *needs* 20 Mbps for any WWAN use. Speeds that high are more about the size of your e-penis than anything legitimate.

 

AJ[/quote']

 

To the people who mock Sprint LTE when I mention 20Mbps speeds because they aren't as high as Verizon LTE, I just shake my head. It makes me imagine that they are compensating for something. To boast about 30Mbps speeds over 20Mbps speeds makes me think of the guys who put rubber testicles on their pickups.

 

Its kind of like saying that someone is an idiot for buying a Pontiac Grand Prix instead of a GTO. Because the GTO is faster. Even though they don't even need the top speed of the Grand Prix.

 

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

[leerage]

I am content with consistent 6 mbps. Anything higher is just an added bonus.

 

Just food for thought, I was by an LTE tower last night and ran a speedtest. I got around 33mbps down and 10mbps up. The Root Metrics app said in that 1 speed test, 46MB was used. It wouldn't take too long for those users who brag about 30+ mbps LTE download speeds to hit their 2GB threshold. By my count at those speeds.... all it would take would be 44 speed tests

[Ascertion]

I am content with consistent 6 mbps. Anything higher is just an added bonus.

 

Just food for thought, I was by an LTE tower last night and ran a speedtest. I got around 33mbps down and 10mbps up. The Root Metrics app said in that 1 speed test, 46MB was used. It wouldn't take too long for those users who brag about 30+ mbps LTE download speeds to hit their 2GB threshold. By my count at those speeds.... all it would take would be 44 speed tests

I just pulled 1.73 mbps and it used ~5 mb. It must use more with faster speeds.

[feteru]

It was odd, when I was in New Orleans this past weekend (since thursday), I was getting great 3G speeds, but pings around 200ms, so I don't think it was Network Vision upgraded, or even had its backhaul updated. Is it possible that I was just getting great 3G speeds (2mb/s down, about .6 mb/s up) just due to an uncongested carrier/area?

I don't think it was NV because NOLA is said to have 0 sites upgraded.

Edited August 27, 2012 by feteru

[S4GRU]

It was odd, when I was in New Orleans this past weekend (since thursday), I was getting great 3G speeds, but pings around 200ms, so I don't think it was Network Vision upgraded, or even had its backhaul updated. Is it possible that I was just getting great 3G speeds (2mb/s down, about .6 mb/s up) just due to an uncongested carrier/area?

I don't think it was NV because NOLA is said to have 0 sites upgraded.

 

It's likely due to Network Maintenance by Ericsson. Not likely because of Network Vision. Although NV subcontractors are scheduled to start mobilizing soon. But we won't see any results from their work for a few more months still.

 

Robert

[caleuche]

 

To the people who mock Sprint LTE when I mention 20Mbps speeds because they aren't as high as Verizon LTE, I just shake my head. It makes me imagine that they are compensating for something. To boast about 30Mbps speeds over 20Mbps speeds makes me think of the guys who put rubber testicles on their pickups.

 

Its kind of like saying that someone is an idiot for buying a Pontiac Grand Prix instead of a GTO. Because the GTO is faster. Even though they don't even need the top speed of the Grand Prix.

 

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

 

I think that it's more knowing that it's 30 vs 20 mbps shared among everyone (in the sector) and the feeling that 30 mbps unloaded is going to stay usable for longer as load increases than 20 mbps.

 

Of course sprint may be stacking sectors so that portion of the comparison is somewhat moot but it is sort of a comforting feeling on Verizon that there is a fair amount of bandwidth to go around (even though it's really only 20 mhz).

 

On Verizon EVDO I usually see something like 2 mbps and in terms of individual use, it feels a little constrained to me now. So I'm not sure when it goes from utility to just bragging but it certainly is over 2 mbps.

[supert0nes]

There's a lot to how much bandwidth is needed. Sprint is deploying on 1900mhz frequency with 1900mhz tower spacing, which doesn't travel as far as Verizons 700 frequency on 850 frequency tower spacing. There will be more customers on Verizon's network because of this and the fact that Verizon is the largest national carrier.

 

As you know Sprint will be deploying LTE in 800 and 2600, but they don't currently have any phones that use either of those spectrums, so those networks will be less congested for a time, especially if the next Iphone doesn't include them.

 

Verizon is in the same situation with their AWS 1700/2100, no phones and we don't know if the Iphone will support it.

 

My last point is that AJ has done plenty of analysis and in most markets Sprint will be able to add another 5x5 1900 LTE carrier if needed. So both networks should be able to grow with demand quite nicely in the short to medium term.

[caleuche]

There's a lot to how much bandwidth is needed. Sprint is deploying on 1900mhz frequency with 1900mhz tower spacing, which doesn't travel as far as Verizons 700 frequency on 850 frequency tower spacing. There will be more customers on Verizon's network because of this and the fact that Verizon is the largest national carrier.

 

As you know Sprint will be deploying LTE in 800 and 2600, but they don't currently have any phones that use either of those spectrums, so those networks will be less congested for a time, especially if the next Iphone doesn't include them.

 

Verizon is in the same situation with their AWS 1700/2100, no phones and we don't know if the Iphone will support it.

 

My last point is that AJ has done plenty of analysis and in most markets Sprint will be able to add another 5x5 1900 LTE carrier if needed. So both networks should be able to grow with demand quite nicely in the short to medium term.

 

What would be the advantage of adding another 5x5 at some point in the future instead of making that market 10x10 right off the bat?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[pyroscott]

 

What would be the advantage of adding another 5x5 at some point in the future instead of making that market 10x10 right off the bat?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

Certain phones only support 5x5 LTE carriers (GS3) and the spectrum would need to be contiguous. Also, once they upgrade to LTE advanced, the carriers will be aggregated anyway. A 10x10 carrier only gives higher speeds when it is not burdened and can devote extra spectrum to your connection, there is no difference in capacity between a 10x10 and 2 5x5 carriers.

[S4GRU]

What would be the advantage of adding another 5x5 at some point in the future instead of making that market 10x10 right off the bat?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Certain phones only support 5x5 LTE carriers (GS3) and the spectrum would need to be contiguous. Also' date=' once they upgrade to LTE advanced, the carriers will be aggregated anyway. A 10x10 carrier only gives higher speeds when it is not burdened and can devote extra spectrum to your connection, there is no difference in capacity between a 10x10 and 2 5x5 carriers.[/quote']

 

Like Scott mentions, no current Sprint LTE spectrum being deployed (PCS G Block) is contiguous with any other PCS spectrum they would dig up another 5x5 carrier. So a 10x10 carrier is not an option for Sprint.

 

Carrier Aggregation is not an option for LTE right now. It won't be available until next year. And then it only works for devices that support CA (which there currently aren't any), and there is likely to be a battery performance hit.

 

If I were Sprint, I would just deploy additional 5x5 LTE carriers as needed and avoid carrier aggregation. Since Sprint is going to have the densest LTE network of all the wireless carriers, I don't think they are going to have problems with capacity between additional PCS carriers, 800MHz and Clearwire LTE capacity.

 

I believe over time that Sprint will perform better at 5x5 than AT&T will with their 10x10 because of density and more options for additional LTE carriers.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[WiWavelength]

Like Scott mentions, no current Sprint LTE spectrum being deployed (PCS G Block) is contiguous with any other PCS spectrum they would dig up another 5x5 carrier. So a 10x10 carrier is not an option for Sprint.

 

As a glutton for accuracy, I have to clarify. The PCS C5 10 MHz block is contiguous with the PCS G 10 MHz block. Sprint does not hold much PCS C block spectrum anywhere -- as it was intended for small business entrants (cough, NextWave, cough) -- but Sprint does hold the PCS C5 block in at least the Seattle and Austin markets. So, Sprint could technically deploy 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE in those markets. I detailed this possibility in a very early article that I wrote on The Wall back in February.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-27-spectrum-analysisdoes-sprint-have-more-options-for-additional-lte-carriers/

 

The insurmountable problem for the next few years is, as Scott notes, that some Sprint LTE devices (I am looking at you, Samsung) do not support 10 MHz channel bandwidths.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

As a glutton for accuracy, I have to clarify.

 

I always appreciate your accuracy.

 

The insurmountable problem for the next few years is, as Scott notes, that some Sprint LTE devices (I am looking at you, Samsung) do not support 10 MHz channel bandwidths.

 

Perhaps Samsung doesn't support 10MHz channels in Sprint devices because they are copying the new iPhone in advance?

 

Robert

[purpleunicorn]

I just found out today out of curiosity that I used over 7,000,000 KB of 4G data last month....that's a lot..how did that happen wow? Thank goodness for unlimited

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

[caleuche]

 

As a glutton for accuracy, I have to clarify. The PCS C5 10 MHz block is contiguous with the PCS G 10 MHz block. Sprint does not hold much PCS C block spectrum anywhere -- as it was intended for small business entrants (cough, NextWave, cough) -- but Sprint does hold the PCS C5 block in at least the Seattle and Austin markets. So, Sprint could technically deploy 10 MHz x 10 MHz LTE in those markets. I detailed this possibility in a very early article that I wrote on The Wall back in February.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-27-spectrum-analysisdoes-sprint-have-more-options-for-additional-lte-carriers/

 

The insurmountable problem for the next few years is, as Scott notes, that some Sprint LTE devices (I am looking at you, Samsung) do not support 10 MHz channel bandwidths.

 

AJ

 

This is after the fact, of course, but I imagine that they could have supported 10 mhz if they had made that requirement to the OEMs up front. Which category of UE are sprint devices? I (incorrectly) presumed that all >= category 2 devices could support 20 mhz channels

[pyroscott]

This is after the fact, of course, but I imagine that they could have supported 10 mhz if they had made that requirement to the OEMs up front. Which category of UE are sprint devices? I (incorrectly) presumed that all >= category 2 devices could support 20 mhz channels

 

It's a non factor. Why are you so adamant about 10x10 carriers?

 

Edit: the GS3 is UE category 3

[WiWavelength]

This is after the fact, of course, but I imagine that they could have supported 10 mhz if they had made that requirement to the OEMs up front. Which category of UE are sprint devices? I (incorrectly) presumed that all >= category 2 devices could support 20 mhz channels

 

No. I will stand to be corrected, but I do not believe that LTE bandwidth capability and UE category are related. The max bandwidth that LTE (i.e. non LTE Advanced) devices support is 20 MHz. So, max throughput capability is expressed as a function of 20 MHz downlink x 20 MHz uplink. However, that does not mean that all category devices in the field support 20 MHz bandwidth. In fact, very few seem to have FCC authorization beyond 10 MHz.

 

As an aside, VZW has some lesser LTE UE category 2 devices (I am looking at you, Motorola). But all disclosed Sprint devices seem to be category 3, not surprisingly, since most so far are based on the superb Qualcomm MSM8960.

 

AJ

[caleuche]

 

It's a non factor. Why are you so adamant about 10x10 carriers?

 

Edit: the GS3 is UE category 3

 

With HSPA, at least, I had read a paper detailing the advantages of a bonded 10 MHz channel vs two 5 MHz channels, throughput for the geographic sector was 10 or so percent higher due to less control overhead per unit bandwidth on the 10 MHz system. I had read similar things for LTE but don't want to quote that too strongly as I do have the HSPA paper handy but don't have the LTE one and am going from memory.

 

There is a vague side advantage in that performance further from the tower should be better (remember that a fair amount of the tower is going to be serving customers with QPSK and 3/4 fec, 64QAM has been studied to be only in use up to about 1/3 cell radius) so it's not a question of 20 vs 30 MHz at 1/3 cell radius I'm interested in so much as 2 vs 3 mbit at 5/6ths cell radius.

 

I suppose in return my question should be why is everyone here so against 10 MHz channels? We don't all live outdoors at close distances to cell towers.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[caleuche]

 

No. I will stand to be corrected, but I do not believe that LTE bandwidth capability and UE category are related. The max bandwidth that LTE (i.e. non LTE Advanced) devices support is 20 MHz. So, max throughput capability is expressed as a function of 20 MHz downlink x 20 MHz uplink. However, that does not mean that all category devices in the field support 20 MHz bandwidth. In fact, very few seem to have FCC authorization beyond 10 MHz.

 

As an aside, VZW has some lesser LTE UE category 2 devices (I am looking at you, Motorola). But all disclosed Sprint devices seem to be category 3, not surprisingly, since most so far are based on the superb Qualcomm MSM8960.

 

AJ

 

At least some Msm8960 devices had planned support for even 15 and 20 MHz channels (mentioned here http://www.anandtech.com/show/6022/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-review-att-and-tmobile-usa-variants/8 though I'd seen it on Qualcomm product papers too). I realize that there's more to it than chipset support but it doesn't seem like it would have been difficult to get 10 MHz support in

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[caleuche]

 

No. I will stand to be corrected, but I do not believe that LTE bandwidth capability and UE category are related. The max bandwidth that LTE (i.e. non LTE Advanced) devices support is 20 MHz. So, max throughput capability is expressed as a function of 20 MHz downlink x 20 MHz uplink. However, that does not mean that all category devices in the field support 20 MHz bandwidth. In fact, very few seem to have FCC authorization beyond 10 MHz.

 

As an aside, VZW has some lesser LTE UE category 2 devices (I am looking at you, Motorola). But all disclosed Sprint devices seem to be category 3, not surprisingly, since most so far are based on the superb Qualcomm MSM8960.

 

AJ

 

This comment is a little ambiguous :

 

The OFDM signal used in LTE comprises a maximum of 2048 different sub-carriers having a spacing of 15 kHz. Although it is mandatory for the mobiles to have capability to be able to receive all 2048 sub-carriers, not all need to be transmitted by the base station which only needs to be able to support the transmission of 72 sub-carriers. In this way all mobiles will be able to talk to any base station.

 

 

From: http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/lte-long-term-evolution/lte-ofdm-ofdma-scfdma.php

 

But I understand that to mean it is mandatory that any LTE device must support reception across 20 MHz.

 

I realize also that this isn't an authorative source too.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[WiWavelength]

This comment is a little ambiguous :

 

The OFDM signal used in LTE comprises a maximum of 2048 different sub-carriers having a spacing of 15 kHz. Although it is mandatory for the mobiles to have capability to be able to receive all 2048 sub-carriers...

 

Well, 2048 LTE subcarriers would have an occupied bandwidth of 30.72 MHz. So, that would not be the 20 MHz configuration. For example, LTE FDD 5 MHz configuration (Sprint and AT&T) occupies 4.5 MHz bandwidth and uses 300 subcarriers, while LTE FDD 10 MHz configuration (VZW and AT&T) occupies 9 MHz bandwidth and uses 600 subcarriers. LTE FDD 20 MHz configuration would occupy 18 MHz bandwidth and use 1200 subcarriers. While it may be that all LTE basebands must be fully capable of receiving 2048 subcarriers, no real world network that I know of even approaches that configuration.

 

As an aside, writing this post made me think that a great T-shirt slogan for wireless nerds would be "Occupy Bandwidth."

 

AJ