Jump to content

Sprint lte vs Verizon lte


Recommended Posts

I know there is a sprint and att rollout thread so I thought id start one with verizon and sprint.

 

My main question is what is the difference between lte release 8 and 9, and was the reasoning for Verizon using release 8 to roll out lte earlier and faster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you judging that based on performance in NYC, where Verizon is also the Baby Bell?

 

AJ

 

Sorry for being so general, NYC. Its just that I was in the mall roaming on Verion 1x and pages were loading perfectly and fast, but as soon as I went outside and connected back to Sprint, it was taking forever to load pages. This is not always the case though. Just wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for being so general, NYC. Its just that I was in the mall roaming on Verion 1x and pages were loading perfectly and fast, but as soon as I went outside and connected back to Sprint, it was taking forever to load pages. This is not always the case though. Just wondering.

 

I may be wrong on this, but here is my assumption:

Verizon has 4G LTE on most sites in NYC, and to support LTE, upgraded backhaul is required. That backhaul is shared with 3G and 1X. The fiber/microwave backhaul provides more capacity, and higher speeds. The Sprint sites are still running off of T1s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VZW has been upgrading its EVDO backhaul for the past two years, not to mention they also have been adding additional EVDO carriers as needed. Sprint allowed its 3G network to get overwhelmed by all these unlimited data hogs while expecting Clearwire to come through with 4G WiMax to help relieve the burden from the 3G EVDO network. And once it was apparent that Clearwire was not going to be deploying anymore WiMax (or even properly maintaining the current WiMax network where deployed), Sprint was already knee deep in Network Vision/LTE planning and starting deployment.

 

When you are starting Network Vision, you don't go invest billions on upgrading the legacy network that is about to be ripped out. So they have piecemealed some band aid 3G fixes to limp into Network Vision. Network Vision is the fix for Sprint's network problems.

 

They cannot go back and change the past now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Given their financial position at the time, the was the best course of action to take. But Clearwire and the 4G WiMax offload solution failed miserably and never delivered as promised. Otherwise, if we all had a good 4G WiMax network to carry us, waiting on LTE and 3G upgrades would have been much easier.

 

Robert

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry for being so general, NYC. Its just that I was in the mall roaming on Verion 1x and pages were loading perfectly and fast, but as soon as I went outside and connected back to Sprint, it was taking forever to load pages. This is not always the case though. Just wondering.

 

When 3g is bad on Sprint, I force my phone to 1x and it works good too.

 

Sent from a little old Note 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my thing is i'm curious why sprint isn't leveraging their tier 1 sprintlink backbone more instead of buying backhaul from competitors...i know they have microwave so that's theirs i guess..but they have a huge backbone on sprintlink.

 

Their backbone is not directly connected to their 38,500 sites. And it would cost billions and take years to try and connect them now.

 

Robert via Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my thing is i'm curious why sprint isn't leveraging their tier 1 sprintlink backbone more instead of buying backhaul from competitors...i know they have microwave so that's theirs i guess..but they have a huge backbone on sprintlink.

 

Sprintlink isn't everywhere. In Vegas, they could use it, but they may still have a contract from Embarq that CenturyLink is bound by to provide backhaul to Sprint's towers. Afterall, Embarq was part of Sprint until May 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprintlink is in every major city..:) I understand about the more rural locaiton like my neck of the woods..and yes i don't know about the backend legalese...but there's got to be a better way..:)

 

I vote for you to be the next sprint VP of network expansion. You obviously know how to run fiber to towers way better than the current people making 6 figures to plan and execute network vision.

 

Maybe the power of positive thoughts will run fiber from Sprint's backbone to the cell sites. Positive thoughts are cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was a fast and economical way to run their own fiber to their own sites, it would be so. But alas, there is not.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for you to be the next sprint VP of network expansion. You obviously know how to run fiber to towers way better than the current people making 6 figures to plan and execute network vision.

 

Maybe the power of positive thoughts will run fiber from Sprint's backbone to the cell sites. Positive thoughts are cheap.

nice...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was a fast and economical way to run their own fiber to their own sites, it would be so. But alas, there is not.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

actually running fiber to their densely populated areas isn't that expensive....ok folks i simply made an observation and i admitted the deficiency in my theory...if folks including the site admin want to pile on at this point...this shows me the kind of "community" that is here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok folks...actually the information i base my thoughts about sprintlink isn't hard to find and you don't need insider access. The same goes for vz and att backbone as well. If you folks want to mock me(along with the site admin) go for it..you just make yourselves look uneducated. This isn't positive thinking but thoughts from years of reading and research. No insider access is needed. I know i don't know any legalities involved on the backend...otherwise do some research instead of mocking somebody who already has.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok folks...actually the information i base my thoughts about sprintlink isn't hard to find and you don't need insider access. The same goes for vz and att backbone as well. If you folks want to mock me(along with the site admin) go for it..you just make yourselves look uneducated. This isn't positive thinking but thoughts from years of reading and research. No insider access is needed. I know i don't know any legalities involved on the backend...otherwise do some research instead of mocking somebody who already has.

You really need to back up your postings with facts when said postings are challenged. That's the kind of site this is. Having said that, even if fiber was "cheap" Sprint would still have to run fiber to approx 40,000 towers. That by itself could make it cost prohibitive. I will say that IMO it would make sense to phase in your own backhaul especially in those areas where the backhaul providers have historically been problematic.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok folks...actually the information i base my thoughts about sprintlink isn't hard to find and you don't need insider access. The same goes for vz and att backbone as well. If you folks want to mock me(along with the site admin) go for it..you just make yourselves look uneducated. This isn't positive thinking but thoughts from years of reading and research. No insider access is needed. I know i don't know any legalities involved on the backend...otherwise do some research instead of mocking somebody who already has.

I don't see how Robert's posts are mocking you in any way, actually. pyroscott was mocking you. S4GRU was just stating what he knows to be true.

 

I understand that you're upset and frustrated with this conversation. So this is the last thing you want to hear. Just... don't take things people say on the internet personally. Hell, I'd say it applies to everywhere, but the internet especially. Ignore those who mock you, and proudly state facts and back up your arguments. Because, frankly, stating that you have done your research, and showing what that research is, the results of it, and a source for said research... are two very different things. Thus far, it seems like you've done merely the former.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok folks...actually the information i base my thoughts about sprintlink isn't hard to find and you don't need insider access. The same goes for vz and att backbone as well. If you folks want to mock me(along with the site admin) go for it..you just make yourselves look uneducated. This isn't positive thinking but thoughts from years of reading and research. No insider access is needed. I know i don't know any legalities involved on the backend...otherwise do some research instead of mocking somebody who already has.

 

Robert didnt mock you in anyway. Plus, how can you tell someone to do some research when you yourself admit your lack thereof and own ignorance. You shouldn't become angry when someone points out a blatantly bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from a technical standpoint and knowing sprtlink's network it's sound.. just because the legalese is my unknown doesn't make the premise invalid.

 

Sprint only owns backbone now. Their local branch fiber networks went to Embarq and now in the hands of Century Link. Century Link treats Sprint like any other carrier. No preference whatsoever.

 

Sprint's currently owned backhaul is convenient to less than 10% of their sites. So roughly 35,000 of their sites are going to have varyingly difficult connections that would have to be made. From 10 miles to hundreds of miles. Can you imagine installing 10-250 miles fiber cables to 35,000 sites? It would take billions of dollars and 5+ years.

 

Or, a smarter and less expensive plan for Sprint is to have other companies install backhaul to these 35,000 sites that are far away from their backbone and have that backhaul be a Ethernet bridge to your backbone? This is what Sprint is doing. It's cheaper and faster to do. It actually makes a lot of sense. And it offers tremendous operational savings over all the T1's Sprint has been using.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, Sprint going into the CLEC business doesn't make a lot of sense (spinning off Embarq in the first place wasn't necessarily a wise move, in retrospect, but getting back in as a new player would just be silly). And the only way running a lot of new local fiber makes sense for Sprint is if they're selling access to it to other folks to amortize the costs, not just running it to their own towers.

Link to comment
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.

Guest
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.

 Share


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • The Kendall/Kerr/Gillespie PCS swap is a very nice win-win for AT&T and T-Mobile. Means both of them will have a 20x20 PCS channel, though in exchange T-Mobile goes from 10x10 to 5x5 on one of their spectrum blocks. I figure AT&T will start running n2 DSS on that channel, as they have enough customers in those areas to need the capacity, while T-Mobile will probably just run B2 LTE, as once Auction 108 finally clears they'll have plenty of n41 to play with. Guessing we'll see the non-G-block 5x5 slice running n25, but it would get aggregated with n71 rather than n41 I figure as n71 will remain 20x20 there until the STA goes away (and maybe after that, as if T-Mobile gets 700 MHz as the result of VZW buying West Central Wireless's spectrum there's no reason to run LTE in 600). Which makes me think that the next move is T-Mobile trading 700A for the 5x5 of orphaned PCS (E block) to VZW once the WCW transaction closes, as that would give VZW 20x20 PCS in the area, and would give T-Mobile 700 MHz in an area where they have none. Then VZW can either trade 700B to T-Mobile as well in exchange for the AWS I block in those areas (gives T-Mobile 10x10 B12, gives VZW 15x15 B66) or they can cut a deal with AT&T to give AT&T 10x10 B12 (AT&T has the lower C block), but I'm not sure what that deal would be if trading like for like (vs. AT&T handing VZW their upper tiny slice of B5, giving VZW 15x15 to play with in that band post-WCW-acquisition). EDIT: Just looked at AWS spectrum again, and if AT&T would rather have 10x10 B12 than 2x 10x10 AWS, they could swap AWS-D for VZW's 700B block. That would give VZW 20x20 AWS, and would take AT&T down to 10x10 + 5x5...which they'd likely be fine with as they have 20x20 PCS, small cells in the busy areas, and as a result of the transaction three 10x10 chunks of spectrum in the area below 1 GHz. And if VZW traded 700A to T-Mobile for PCS-E VZW would have 20x20 PCS as well. Which is quite useful in an area that's macro-only for VZW and likely not dense enough for proper mobile usage of CBRS or C-Band (and an area where VZW doesn't even run DSS now).
    • Yeah, $250 credit for an S22 is awful. tbf last year they didn't have solid upgrade credits until mid-late April, which is when I paid $225 to swap my S21 for an S22. Happy to wait 'til then for that kind of deal, though I'll be annoyed at battery life in the mean time.
    • Miserable upgrade credits from Samsung this year unless you want to rely on carrier financing. Sticking with S22U for a while. 
    • So far we've documented close to 100 Sprint conversions in NYC with permits still rolling in and that's only what we've identified manually. Tons of sites get converted/updated without permits so there's potentially a lot more that we haven't spotted yet. There are also dozens of sites that are still broadcasting the keep PLMN, some have been decommissioned but historically the vast majority have been converted.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...