Sprint engineering study

[Proxcee]

Not good...but expected considering the way Sprint is choosing to roll out LTE.

 

http://webcast.broadcastnewsroom.com/article/Advanced-Frequency-Engineering-Releases-Results-of-Initial-Study-of-Availability-and-Performance-of-Sprint-4G-LTE-Network-and-Comparison-with-ATT-and-Verizon-in-Selected-Markets-2223860

[irev210]

Sprint's whole mantra of "under promise, over deliver" has really gone out the door.

 

The results of site surveys and 4G LTE availability tests show that while Verizon and AT&T had ubiquitous LTE availability in the test markets, Sprint LTE service was not present or not accessible in 75-90% of Sprint's advertised LTE coverage area in the cities tested at time of testing.

 

 

I am glad they are just letting people connect to towers in Boston while not formally "launching". It prevents situations like this.

[Ascertion]

Sprint's whole mantra of "under promise, over deliver" has really gone out the door.

 

 

 

 

I am glad they are just letting people connect to towers in Boston while not formally "launching". It prevents situations like this.

True, I hope they do that in the Jacksonville market, too!

[Rawvega]

700MHz vs. 1900MHz, plus how long has at&t and VZW been deployed in those markets vs. Sprint? I don't believe that either at&t or VZW are redoing their entire network in the upgrade to LTE. Unfortunately, it's going to take time.

[JeffDTD]

Sprint's only real fault here are those coverage maps on the site...take those down or get them right tower by tower that comes online, and you shut this super critical judgement down.

[Boosted20V]

What device did they use to test the sprint network?

[Rawvega]

Galaxy S III for all three networks.

[el_oh_el88]

Sprint's only real fault here are those coverage maps on the site...take those down or get them right tower by tower that comes online, and you shut this super critical judgement down.

 

I came in here to say this, but you beat me to it. It actually seems a bit disingenuous to me; why advertise what the network will become in a year or so rather than advertise what is currently up? To pull in unsuspecting customers, of course. Problem with that is the fallout associated with not having service where it was promised leaves a very bad stigma in my opinion.

[Ascertion]

I came in here to say this, but you beat me to it. It actually seems a bit disingenuous to me; why advertise what the network will become in a year or so rather than advertise what is currently up? To pull in unsuspecting customers, of course. Problem with that is the fallout associated with not having service where it was promised leaves a very bad stigma in my opinion.

Exactly, Sprint's using this tactic is only going to make customers question Sprint's statements or claims in the future. It leads to unhappy customers. Sprint's Wimax coverage says all of 32259 is covered, but 60% of my zip code doesn't have usable Wimax.

[lynyrd65]

Not good...but expected considering the way Sprint is choosing to roll out LTE.

 

http://webcast.broad...Markets-2223860

 

I suspect two factors are at play here. Sprint is assuming sites that some sites are projecting LTE signal when in fact they are still blocked, (business teams be damned, stupid idiots). Also, they probably expected LTE to work as well as EVDO at the 1900 band which it certainly does not. From what I see on that map I can count 18 functioning LTE sites. Sprint has many more sites complete and capable of broadcasting LTE but they are blocking users (seriously, whatever jackass thought this was a great idea should be fired, immediately).

[jcrowder3]

From what I see on that map I can count 18 functioning LTE sites. Sprint has many more sites complete and capable of broadcasting LTE but they are blocking users (seriously, whatever jackass thought this was a great idea should be fired, immediately).

Keep in mind the study was done August - Early September. I agree Sprints overstating the coverage is going to make for some unhappy customers.

[S4GRU]

 

I suspect two factors are at play here. Sprint is assuming sites that some sites are projecting LTE signal when in fact they are still blocked' date=' (business teams be damned, stupid idiots). Also, they probably expected LTE to work as well as EVDO at the 1900 band which it certainly does not. From what I see on that map I can count 18 functioning LTE sites. Sprint has many more sites complete and capable of broadcasting LTE but they are blocking users (seriously, whatever jackass thought this was a great idea should be fired, immediately).[/quote']

 

Yea, EVDO and LTE do not have the same coverage from the same site on 1900Mhz (or any similar frequency for that matter). If you measure both in RSSI, there is a 10dBm difference in maximum threshold. And that is very significant. Its much better than WiMax's 20dBm difference, but it is far from equal.

 

In my observations, even VZW EVDO 850 is usable farther from the same site with LTE 750 on it. Because VZW LTE fades out between -93dBm and -95dBm RSSI in my testing. The same as Sprint LTE.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[Feech]

I'm always suspect of articles like this for example, "AFE is offering its detailed findings and methodologies in a comprehensive report which is available for sale to interested parties and industry participants"

 

Who would be buying this info and for what reason? It really looks like someone already paid them to do this to give Sprint a black eye. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the other carriers commisioned this little "study"

[Rawvega]

Was thinking the same thing.

[Feech]

There is a reason that Verizon never contested the merger of T-Mobile and AT&T and that was so they could get their hands on Sprint once the dust settled. I don't put it past them to use any method available to make Sprint look like a 3rd rate carrier and possibly pick them up on the cheap if it came to that. I want to email the author and ask him who paid for the study but I'm sure he won't answer..

[S4GRU]

This is all about Sprint and their unlimited differentiator. The other carriers are scared to death that Sprint will now have a good network with unlimited that they will have to compete with. So they are going to claim that Sprint has an inferior network so that they can promote their superior network as their differentiator.

 

They just needed an independent entity to come along and make the claim so they can cite it. And, voila!

 

Why didn't companies like this check out Verizon and AT&T LTE networks at the same time in their deployment?

 

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

[shockerengr]

Another key info on the data is this "NOTE: These percentages reflect 4G LTE availability in the regions tested, as observed in the Sprint-advertised coverage areas, immediately accessible by the handset without power-cycling."

 

That's something that could be really affected by their testing methodology, esp with the older software loads that took longer to connect, and dropped 4G easier.

[S4GRU]

Another key info on the data is this "NOTE: These percentages reflect 4G LTE availability in the regions tested, as observed in the Sprint-advertised coverage areas, immediately accessible by the handset without power-cycling."

 

That's something that could be really affected by their testing methodology, esp with the older software loads that took longer to connect, and dropped 4G easier.

 

Good observation. Yeah, with that disclaimer, I'm surprised they got much coverage at all.

 

Robert

[irev210]

Good observation. Yeah, with that disclaimer, I'm surprised they got much coverage at all.

 

Robert

 

Just to play the devils advocate here - to be fair, this is what the customer would experience. Testing Verizon 4G LTE in Boston right after it formally launched, I was greeted with great coverage.

 

Frankly, Sprint shouldn't have launched the markets. They should have gotten to the point where coverage was good enough to not drop off, scan, and hopefully reconnect.

 

I am much more pleased with their "we are working on it but you can use it while we work on it" method.

 

They "launched" those first markets because they didn't want to disappoint investors. I think that was the wrong thing to do. For the nerds that don't hover on s4gru, they feel like Sprint's LTE is inferior based on the experience they get in a launched market and faux 4G LTE maps.

 

The million dollar question is - how is sprint going to finish 12000 sites by the end of the year? I've been scratching my head on this for a while. It seems like a best case scenario is about 5000 sites.

 

I wish I knew what was holding back NV progress. It seems like samsung has their groove on in Chicago but the other markets are still just limping along.

 

Do you think we are going to see a spike in production with AL and Ericsson like we did Samsung? Or is it going to be a slow ramp?

[bigzeto]

Just to play the devils advocate here - to be fair, this is what the customer would experience. Testing Verizon 4G LTE in Boston right after it formally launched, I was greeted with great coverage.

 

Frankly, Sprint shouldn't have launched the markets. They should have gotten to the point where coverage was good enough to not drop off, scan, and hopefully reconnect.

 

I am much more pleased with their "we are working on it but you can use it while we work on it" method.

 

They "launched" those first markets because they didn't want to disappoint investors. I think that was the wrong thing to do. For the nerds that don't hover on s4gru, they feel like Sprint's LTE is inferior based on the experience they get in a launched market and faux 4G LTE maps.

 

The million dollar question is - how is sprint going to finish 12000 sites by the end of the year? I've been scratching my head on this for a while. It seems like a best case scenario is about 5000 sites.

 

I wish I knew what was holding back NV progress. It seems like samsung has their groove on in Chicago but the other markets are still just limping along.

 

Do you think we are going to see a spike in production with AL and Ericsson like we did Samsung? Or is it going to be a slow ramp?

 

Great post. When Verizon formally launched here last year, the coverage was really good as well. Same with ATT who just recently launched LTE here. Seems like a formal launch should have been with 40-50% of sites complete.

[Josh]

I agree with you that they should have approached this differently with respect to the 'officially launched' cities, and especially the coverage maps. But I am most interested in the deployment pace that you referenced here, as this will probably be affected by weather and other conditions here. The fall seems like the best time to be doing tower work (at least in the northeast where I live), this I would imagine to benefit the crews working on the sprint sites, mainly because of pleasant working weather. Also, hopefully soon the birds will be migrating south, so any affected sites here should soon be vacated (hopefully). And if sprint wants to keep their pace of 12000 towers online by the end of the year (AKA: by Christmas gift time) they should ramp up spending to meet this goal. Because I know that working on towers in the middle of winter anywhere that gets winter (AKA, the entire northern part of the US) work will be slowed to a halt, and everything will be much further behind schedule...

[irev210]

And if sprint wants to keep their pace of 12000 towers online by the end of the year (AKA: by Christmas gift time) they should ramp up spending to meet this goal.

 

12k is out the window. I think 5k is an optimistic number, but at least reachable.

[Proxcee]

 

12k is out the window. I think 5k is an optimistic number, but at least reachable.

Wasn't the original number of people covered by EOY like 160 million or something? That might have been too aggressive.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[irev210]

Wasn't the original number of people covered by EOY like 160 million or something? That might have been too aggressive.

 

No, not even AT&T is projecting 160 million.

 

Sprint was planning on 120 million pops, att was planning on 150 million pops.

[Fifth313ment]

Looking at the one coverage chart in Dallas from Sprint LTE it kind of scares me as the signal around the tower doesn't look to travel very far? It's hard to tell via the map but it looks to be only a few blocks if even that far? How far should a signal travel from the tower? Normally with normal obstacles?