Jump to content

How BEHIND is Sprint's deployment as of now ?


Recommended Posts

I remember reading somewhere that LTE would be partially available in/around Los Angeles and Riverside by Feb, March.

 

So far I haven't seen anything...the one time I did get a LTE signal, it only lasted for a brief moment and speedtests reviewed 2mbps which is slower than T-mobile which isnt LTE.

 

This isn't a post to complain or vent, as I'm merely wondering how behind they are.

 

It almost reminds me of when I waited for wimax which never came.

 

Is Sprint planning on rushing through anytime soon or are they merely working at a glacial pace?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading somewhere that LTE would be partially available in/around Los Angeles and Riverside by Feb, March.

 

So far I haven't seen anything...the one time I did get a LTE signal, it only lasted for a brief moment and speedtests reviewed 2mbps which is slower than T-mobile which isnt LTE.

 

This isn't a post to complain or vent, as I'm merely wondering how behind they are.

 

It almost reminds me of when I waited for wimax which never came.

 

Is Sprint planning on rushing through anytime soon or are they merely working at a glacial pace?

 

They are running 3-4 months behind in most markets. Finding skilled labor is the latest challenge. There are only so many people out there with the skills to do the work, and all 4 major carriers and most regional carriers all doing upgrades at once, straining the labor market.

 

LA County has about 50% of its Sprint service area with at least some outdoor LTE coverage now. And more is being added daily. In the Riverside/San Bernardino market, about 1/4 of the sites have been worked on, but only two have had LTE completed and signed off. More will be coming in the next few weeks.

 

It is going to be slowish going, but steady. About a dozen sites a week will go live in LA on average through the rest of the year at the current pace. It may pick up, but not likely. It will just slowly get better and better.

 

This deployment is nothing like WiMax. The WiMax network was owned and installed by a 3rd party called Clearwire. Clearwire ran out of money and hadn't even finished planning the Inland Empire, let alone deploy anything meaningful. Sprint has completely planned and already has the money to complete the LTE deployment and they are doing this themselves. And work is already underway.

 

The reason for the slow speed is signal strength. LTE performance is very signal strength dependent. And this is true no matter which wireless carrier you use. The stronger the LTE signal, the better the speeds. For more info about that, you can visit this thread: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/2040-bars-lie-for-lte-signal-strength-how-to-determine-your-actual-lte-signal-strength/

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are running 3-4 months behind in most markets. Finding skilled labor is the latest challenge. There are only so many people out there with the skills to do the work, and all 4 major carriers and most regional carriers all doing upgrades at once, straining the labor market.

 

LA County has about 50% of its Sprint service area with at least some outdoor LTE coverage now. And more is being added daily. In the Riverside/San Bernardino market, about 1/4 of the sites have been worked on, but only two have had LTE completed and signed off. More will be coming in the next few weeks.

 

It is going to be slowish going, but steady. About a dozen sites a week will go live in LA on average through the rest of the year at the current pace. It may pick up, but not likely. It will just slowly get better and better.

 

This deployment is nothing like WiMax. The WiMax network was owned and installed by a 3rd party called Clearwire. Clearwire ran out of money and hadn't even finished planning the Inland Empire, let alone deploy anything meaningful. Sprint has completely planned and already has the money to complete the LTE deployment and they are doing this themselves. And work is already underway.

 

The reason for the slow speed is signal strength. LTE performance is very signal strength dependent. And this is true no matter which wireless carrier you use. The stronger the LTE signal, the better the speeds. For more info about that, you can visit this thread: http://s4gru.com/ind...ignal-strength/

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

Maybe a bit off-topic for this thread..but I've never understood why LTE at 1900 MHz will be any better at building penetration than Wimax was???? Pray tell as you mentioned signal strength; are LTE signals going to be that much stronger than Wimax at 1900 Mhz?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a bit off-topic for this thread..but I've never understood why LTE at 1900 MHz will be any better at building penetration than Wimax was???? Pray tell as you mentioned signal strength; are LTE signals going to be that much stronger than Wimax at 1900 Mhz?

 

WiMAX is deployed in BRS/EBS 2600 MHz spectrum, not PCS 1900 MHz spectrum. And WiMAX uses OFDMA on the uplink. It is not an apples to apples comparison to LTE in PCS 1900 MHz spectrum.

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to spring board off AJ's points, WiMax signal air link was even more fragile and maxed out between -82 and -85dBm RSSI. Any weaker than that and your device couldn't get a signal back to the sites. Whereas LTE signal peters out around -93 to -95dBm RSSI.

 

So even if WiMax and LTE are deployed on the same band, LTE would go farther. About 10dBm farther. But since there is also a gain in the better band of PCS over EBS/BRS, Sprint LTE 1900 is considerably better in signal strength and coverage than WiMax in most deployment scenarios.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LTE would go farther. About 10dBm farther.
Which is "inside your average building" vs "only on the street", if I'm remembering my numbers correctly.

 

Which... if "dBm" is a logarithmic scale, a reduction of 10 dBm is equivalent to the signal being reduced by a factor of 10, or 90% loss. If that's true, houses are brutal, and I'm surprised we ever get in-building coverage at all with anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is "inside your average building" vs "only on the street", if I'm remembering my numbers correctly.

 

Which... if "dBm" is a logarithmic scale, a reduction of 10 dBm is equivalent to the signal being reduced by a factor of 10, or 90% loss. If that's true, houses are brutal, and I'm surprised we ever get in-building coverage at all with anything.

 

Considering the power outputs that cell sites broadcast at, I am not surprised.

 

I was at a site and felt the onset of a headache about an hour into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the power outputs that cell sites broadcast at, I am not surprised.

 

I was at a site and felt the onset of a headache about an hour into it.

Actually, it seems (waiting for AJ, Rob, et. al. to join in) cell sites broadcast an exceptionally small amount of power. The strongest signal I've ever seen is -60 dBm, which according to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm

is 1.0 nW, or 10^(-9) watts. Compare this to some of the handheld low-power ham radio equipment, which blasts out 5 Watts without thinking about it. Quick edit: funny, the same table actually includes handheld ham radio equipment at +37 dBm, or 5 Watts. Legal limit, ho!

 

Edit2: So, -60 dBm has the note of "The Earth receives one nanowatt per square metre from a magnitude +3.5 star." The Andromeda Galaxy, which is barely visible on a moonless night in an area with barely any light pollution, is magnitude 3.44. So being within a few hundred feet of a cell site hits you with the same amount of radiated power as a single star you can barely see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never felt any effect from being around panels and radios, nor living next to a site. Why does it differ from the power of your device which is immediately adjacent to your body? I would say it is coincidence.

 

On another note, when I go out in the field I tend not to drink as much water and end up getting dehydration headaches.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it seems (waiting for AJ, Rob, et. al. to join in) cell sites broadcast an exceptionally small amount of power. The strongest signal I've ever seen is -60 dBm, which according to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm

is 1.0 nW, or 10^(-9) watts. Compare this to some of the handheld low-power ham radio equipment, which blasts out 5 Watts without thinking about it. Quick edit: funny, the same table actually includes handheld ham radio equipment at +37 dBm, or 5 Watts. Legal limit, ho!

 

Edit2: So, -60 dBm has the note of "The Earth receives one nanowatt per square metre from a magnitude +3.5 star." The Andromeda Galaxy, which is barely visible on a moonless night in an area with barely any light pollution, is magnitude 3.44. So being within a few hundred feet of a cell site hits you with the same amount of radiated power as a single star you can barely see.

 

Not true. The 10^-9 watts is the radiated power received by the total area of the cell phone antenna, not the transmitting power of the cell phone tower. You can stand next to a 100w transmitter and receive a signal several orders of magnitude lower than what is being transmitted, simply because that power is being radiated in many directions.

Edited by jsncrso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it seems (waiting for AJ, Rob, et. al. to join in) cell sites broadcast an exceptionally small amount of power. The strongest signal I've ever seen is -60 dBm...

 

Well, cell sites can transmit a fair amount of power -- from several watts to several hundred watts. And if you are only 1 m from the antenna, then you are going to bear the brunt of that output. But path loss is logarithmic. Even using the free space model, at 50 m from the antenna, path loss is already 34 dB greater than it was at 1 m from the antenna. So, say that power at 1 m is 500 W (highly unlikely, but for the sake of argument). Then, power at 50 m is already down to 0.19 W.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. The 10^-9 watts is the radiated power received by the total area of the cell phone antenna, not the transmitting power of the cell phone tower.

Oh, yes, so I gathered. I used -60 dBm as an example, but I can see that being immediately next to a site could be... a lot?

 

My idea is "signal passing through a human", which what I've learned (thanks to wiki, AJ, and you) is that in almost all cases the power you could be exposed to by an average cell tower is exceedingly small, even compared to what mobile devices themselves put out... and we put those by our heads.

Well, cell sites can transmit a fair amount of power -- from several watts to several hundred watts. And if you are only 1 m from the antenna, then you are going to bear the brunt of that output. But path loss is logarithmic. Even using the free space model, at 50 m from the antenna, path loss is already 34 dB greater than it was at 1 m from the antenna. So, say that power at 1 m is 500 W (highly unlikely, but for the sake of argument). Then, power at 50 m is already down to 0.19 W.

 

AJ

Free space is worse than buildings!!!!</badmath>

 

Now, the answer is probably "yes but unfeasible", but... couldn't someone then reverse that equation to figure out how much power a cell site is radiating? I imagine it would require something like the area of the phone's antenna or something like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free space is worse than buildings!!!!</badmath>

 

Free space path loss is predicated on the decrease in field strength density over distance as the signal spreads omnidirectionally like a growing sphere. Or, to put it in simpler terms, power is quartered with every doubling of distance. So, 1 m to 50 m is a doubling of distance about 5.5 times. That is a 34 dB path loss. But 1 km to 50 km is also a doubling of distance about 5.5 times and the same 34 dB path loss. Thus, the degree of path loss seems to diminish with distance. The greatest degree is close in to the transmitter.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are running 3-4 months behind in most markets. Finding skilled labor is the latest challenge. There are only so many people out there with the skills to do the work, and all 4 major carriers and most regional carriers all doing upgrades at once, straining the labor market.

 

I'm too much of a wimp to climb a tower, but I can configure routers and swap out chassis cards. Where do I put in my application to help with NV? :-P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free space path loss is predicated on the decrease in field strength density over distance as the signal spreads omnidirectionally like a growing sphere. Or, to put it in simpler terms, power is quartered with every doubling of distance. So, 1 m to 50 m is a doubling of distance about 5.5 times. That is a 34 dB path loss. But 1 km to 50 km is also a doubling of distance about 5.5 times and the same 34 dB path loss. Thus, the degree of path loss seems to diminish with distance. The greatest degree is close in to the transmitter.

 

AJ

The density of a sphere is actually a great visual metaphor. I got it! It's similar to a video game portrayal of a shotgun, actually.

 

So can we, like, sit down some day, sip some whiskey, and just talk about nerdy things? I'd like to pick your brain for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So can we, like, sit down some day, sip some whiskey, and just talk about nerdy things? I'd like to pick your brain for a while.

 

Sure, I would enjoy that. Are you coming to the S4GRU National Convention at McCormick Place in Chicago this summer? We have to decide if we wish to nominate Robert for a second term.

 

AJ

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I would enjoy that. Are you coming to the S4GRU National Convention at McCormick Place in Chicago this summer? We have to decide if we wish to nominate Robert for a second term.

 

AJ

 

Honestly, would anyone else in their right mind even take the position?

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Sure, I would enjoy that. Are you coming to the S4GRU National Convention at McCormick Place in Chicago this summer? We have to decide if we wish to nominate Robert for a second term.

 

AJ

give me the time and the place, and I'll get it off of work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one of those things. Could be the 30 degree snowy weather I was standing in as well.

 

Was roughly 6 feet away from the RRH/Panel.

 

So u were up high climbing the tower?... That's only way ud be that close to the panel really, no?

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So u were up high climbing the tower?... That's only way ud be that close to the panel really, no?

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

Nope, was at a roof site.

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

  • Recently Browsing

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