Network Speed

[MrZorbatron]

I've explained this elsewhere but there is a major difference when we're talking about something loading. The biggest factor in hunan perception of fast or slow on Internet connections is the latency or ping.

 

A 5mbps connection with 60 ping will 100% of the time be faster than 30mbps with 200 ping. The greatest factor we can physically observe is the time it takes for our input for an action to go to the server and return. That is what we think of when we say fast or slow. Not the connection speed.

 

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

This is and is not true.  Latency is a big part when the page is comprised of lots of simple elements.  Some of these modern pages, however, have +1MB data to load per page.  Once the size per item begins to overshadow the number of items, the relevant statistic becomes bandwidth and not latency.  200ms to establish connections, which conclude 200ms later after carrying 150K each, would be rather fast.  Think of if you had 80ms latency but to load each 150K item took 400ms.  Overall, you are still feeling slower, despite the lower latency connection.

[lilotimz]

 

 

I've explained this elsewhere but there is a major difference when we're talking about something loading. The biggest factor in hunan perception of fast or slow on Internet connections is the latency or ping.

 

 

A 5mbps connection with 60 ping will 100% of the time be faster than 30mbps with 200 ping. The greatest factor we can physically observe is the time it takes for our input for an action to go to the server and return. That is what we think of when we say fast or slow. Not the connection speed.

 

 

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

This is and is not true. Latency is a big part when the page is comprised of lots of simple elements. Some of these modern pages, however, have +1MB data to load per page. Once the size per item begins to overshadow the number of items, the relevant statistic becomes bandwidth and not latency. 200ms to establish connections, which conclude 200ms later after carrying 150K each, would be rather fast. Think of if you had 80ms latency but to load each 150K item took 400ms. Overall, you are still feeling slower, despite the lower latency connection.

That is why I say 5 mbps. I've done another post elsewhere as well that explains this. There is a certain limit (around 6 mbps) where connection speeds become mostly irrelevant for most things to do on a cell phone.

 

Sent from my SPH-D710

 

 

[Mobilesolutions]

One, VZW LTE is 10 MHz FDD bandwidth -- twice Sprint's LTE 5 MHz FDD -- so peak speeds are going to be twice as fast.  And, two, I guarantee that you are not always averaging 65 Mbps down, 17 Mbps up on VZW.  Those are near theoretical peak speeds for VZW's LTE configuration, and like many users, you are just cherry picking results that show what you want to think.

 

Moreover, VZW LTE average speeds are on a consistent decline across the country.  VZW has twice as many subs as Sprint does, and VZW has already maxed out its Upper 700 MHz C block spectrum with its initial LTE deployment.  The only room for additional bandwidth is in VZW's AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum, and your handset does not support that band.  So, with VZW and your current handset, you are already on the downslope.

 

AJ

 

Day one with the VZW ipad, 13 down 6 up seems to be the norm thus far. Pings are between 60-90ms,

[z250kid]

I think the testing was fair, I read the entire story and looked at the data and I didn't see anything that seemed out of place. On top of that I live in Houston and have an LTE phone and the LTE speeds are good but nothing outrageous. I could care less because anything above say 3mbps on a phone is not needed in my mind at this point. 

 

Also, I run into plenty of slow spots here in Houston but Sprint is behind because of backhaul and the level of work they are doing on sites which I understand, I know they are making progress and i wouldn't have switched to them if I didn't think they were serious about the work they said they were going to do. 

I agree that's why att 4g that's actually 3g on my friends phone is average 4down 1 up.  if sprints was like that id be happy with 3g

[z250kid]

if you can find tmobiles 3g its mostly 2g around me but they  have been adding lte antennas around me,  Maybe in two years ill try them out if its around here.  http://www.techhive.com/article/2039307/t-mobile-wins-3g-shootout-sprint-and-verizon-speeds-fade.html

[cjbanks]

My speeds are fine! https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yaavg9m14s6pew/2013-05-30%2017.52.50.png

Average 10 around town and 30 sitting in my downtown fort wayne office. Most sites in town completed, and it rocks.

[rhg84]

Seems to confirm what I already knew in the Dallas area.  Sprint is pathetic when compared to everyone else.  LTE is nothing special and 3g is nearly unusable.  Waiting to see what happens after the IDEN shut down.

[S4GRU]

Seems to confirm what I already knew in the Dallas area.  Sprint is pathetic when compared to everyone else.  LTE is nothing special and 3g is nearly unusable.  Waiting to see what happens after the IDEN shut down.

 

Only 66% of sites have been upgraded to LTE 1900 in the DFW market.  So still aways to go for full coverage on PCS.  Additionally, when LTE 800 starts to be deployed around DFW, you will need a new device to use it.

 

Robert

[cletus]

Only 66% of sites have been upgraded to LTE 1900 in the DFW market.  So still aways to go for full coverage on PCS.  Additionally, when LTE 800 starts to be deployed around DFW, you will need a new device to use it.

 

Robert

Robert, Can you explain this quote from the techhive.com article linked above? 

 

“In some markets, such as Atlanta and Dallas, the 4G LTE deployment is nearly complete, while 3G work has just begun.”

Sprint 3G’s worst showings came in Atlanta (200-kbps downloads) and Dallas (300-kbps downloads). The service did not hit average download speeds of greater than 1 mbps in any of the cities we tested. Upload speeds were no better, reaching the 500-kbps mark in only one city, San Francisco.

I thought the antennas Sprint uses have 3g and 4g together connected to the same backhaul. However, I have also seen NV posts of over 1.5 mpbs. So what is going on here? I've noticed this in Austin as well where LTE capable towers are often an extremely slow .1 - .2 mbps on 3G. Or are these towers just active but without improved backhaul?

[lilotimz]

Robert, Can you explain this quote from the techhive.com article linked above? 

 

I thought the antennas Sprint uses have 3g and 4g together connected to the same backhaul. However, I have also seen NV posts of over 1.5 mpbs. So what is going on here? I've noticed this in Austin as well where LTE capable towers are often an extremely slow .1 - .2 mbps on 3G. Or are these towers just active but without improved backhaul?

 

Cluster launches for 3g. They will test and accept the 3g equipment at a NV cell site and turn it off and keep the legacy stuff running till the entire cluster is complete. Then they'll turn on the network vision 3g gear.

[S4GRU]

 

I thought the antennas Sprint uses have 3g and 4g together connected to the same backhaul. However, I have also seen NV posts of over 1.5 mpbs. So what is going on here? I've noticed this in Austin as well where LTE capable towers are often an extremely slow .1 - .2 mbps on 3G. Or are these towers just active but without improved backhaul?

 

I have discussed this phenomenon in many posts. Sprint brings up 3G in clusters. The 4G LTE can be brought online one at a time when each is ready.

 

So many 3G sites that are accepted are still on legacy. Not until all the sites in a cluster are ready will they switch over the 3G to the NV side. The only exception of when 3G can go live immediately when complete is if the site is an island and doesn't have RF seams with other sites or if the site is GMO. Those can be brought online immediately.

 

3G sites have to be brought online in clusters because of interference issues with adjacent legacy sites. If not done in clusters, the user experience would go way down. Especially on voice. They would be running around trying to take care of problems all over the market. Problems seams would appear and disappear every day. It would be mayhem.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[packerrd]

it's disappointing to hear some you here. even knowing it's a hard fact that Sprint data speeds are worse than AT&T and Verizon on average, they come with the "Sprint is deploying NV and will get better" response and get mad when someone points that out how bad sprint is compared to other carriers. yall should be acknowledging the bad things about Sprint not just repeat good thing sprint say the will do. 

[WiWavelength]

it's disappointing to hear some you here. even knowing it's a hard fact that Sprint data speeds are worse than AT&T and Verizon on average, they come with the "Sprint is deploying NV and will get better" response and get mad when someone points that out how bad sprint is compared to other carriers. yall should be acknowledging the bad things about Sprint not just repeat good thing sprint say the will do. 

 

Not a good first post, packerrd.  

 

S4GRU is a wireless enthusiast site focused on the future of Sprint via Network Vision.  It is not a consumer advocacy site for Sprint or any other operator.  And it is certainly not a place to grouse about the current state of some Sprint markets.

 

Read the rules:

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/1197-s4gru-posting-guidelines-aka-the-rulez/

 

If you want to stick around -- and we hope that you will for the insider info that S4GRU is able to provide -- you need to respect the mission here at this completely non profit, volunteer run site.  Otherwise, you are free to leave.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

it's disappointing to hear some you here. even knowing it's a hard fact that Sprint data speeds are worse than AT&T and Verizon on average, they come with the "Sprint is deploying NV and will get better" response and get mad when someone points that out how bad sprint is compared to other carriers. yall should be acknowledging the bad things about Sprint not just repeat good thing sprint say the will do.

Our members do not want to hear about where the Sprint network is bad and how bad it is there. They come here to discuss wireless technology and what/where things are occurring.

 

I did not make the rules at S4GRU. They were made with our Sponsor Members. We have created a forum that they want to be a part of and support financially. They were very clear they did not want this site to host Sprint complaints and whining about how Sprint is not the best carrier for others needs.

 

We have been upfront and communicated that with everyone. It's in our posting guidelines and our mission statement. There are many places for people who want to complain about Sprint to go. But no place for anyone else, except S4GRU.

 

S4GRU is not for everyone. If it's not for you, then we understand.

 

Robert from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[themuffinman]

My god, what is with all the negative posts all of a sudden

 

it's disappointing to hear some you here. even knowing it's a hard fact that Sprint data speeds are worse than AT&T and Verizon on average, they come with the "Sprint is deploying NV and will get better" response and get mad when someone points that out how bad sprint is compared to other carriers. yall should be acknowledging the bad things about Sprint not just repeat good thing sprint say the will do. 

No one is denying hard facts here, no one here is in a state of denial.  We all have/had sprint service and we all have been experiencing the same issues, we all know that service has tanked over the last few years.  Personally at one point I had it with sprint and for the most part I was all but ready to switch to att but I found this site over a year ago and s4gru gave me the information I needed to make the choice I felt was best for me.  Based on the information I got, it seemed that it would be worth it for me to stay with sprint a little bit longer and it turned out to be the right decision.  If I had switched, I probably would be kicking myself in the ass right now.  If you are in a market thats not going to get upgraded soon enough for you then simply leave.  S4gru is a place where you can come to get information you really can't get anywhere else so you can make an informative decision.  I made my decision, you can make yours but no sense in complaining about things we all already know.

[Rawvega]

The grass isn't always greener on the other side either: http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1797552

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[S4GRU]

The grass isn't always greener on the other side either: http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1797552

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

Tell me about it. I was down to 1.2Mbps on Verizon LTE today in Española, New Mexico today with a full signal. I was around 500kbps on Verizon LTE in Farmington, New Mexico last week.

 

I just had to switch back to Sprint 3G just now at the mall in Santa Fe, NM when my Tmo HSPA+ just dropped down to 400kbps with a full signal. Sprint 3G is running 600k at least.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Everyone by now knows my solution.  Cap the data to discourage the streaming of so much crap.  We are breeding a society of now mobile moronic media consumers.  Yuck.

 

AJ

[greg4lte]

I got 25-30mpbs on an LTE tower in Middle Tennessee today.....

 

 

[Mobilesolutions]

Everyone by now knows my solution.  Cap the data to discourage the streaming of so much crap.  We are breeding a society of now mobile moronic media consumers.  Yuck.

 

AJ

Id love to sit down and talk about some long term broadband solutions.

[packerrd]

Our members do not want to hear about where the Sprint network is bad and how bad it is there. They come here to discuss wireless technology and what/where things are occurring.I did not make the rules at S4GRU. They were made with our Sponsor Members. We have created a forum that they want to be a part of and support financially. They were very clear they did not want this site to host Sprint complaints and whining about how Sprint is not the best carrier for others needs.We have been upfront and communicated that with everyone. It's in our posting guidelines and our mission statement. There are many places for people who want to complain about Sprint to go. But no place for anyone else, except S4GRU.S4GRU is not for everyone. If it's not for you, then we understand.Robert from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

i was not directly complaining about Sprint, it would be useless here because it's not an official sprint site.

 

I was stating how most of you, even with evidence being shown, are in denial that Verizon and AT&T are better than Sprint. Like this site most of ya here were just assuming the test had flaw just because it showed that Sprint is slower.

and i don't see how discusting and understating why Sprint has slower data speeds is comlaning. it ok to understand the reason why Sprint is slower and accepting at the sametime that it's inferior as well

Edited May 31, 2013 by packerrd

[Mobilesolutions]

i was not directly complaining about Sprint, it would be useless here because it's not an official sprint site.

I was stating how most of you, even with evidence being shown, are in denial that Verizon and AT&T are better than Sprint. Like this site most of ya here were just assuming the test had flaw just because it showed that Sprint is slower.

and i don't see how discusting and understating why Sprint has slower data speeds is comlaning. it ok to understand the reason why Sprint is slower and accepting at the sametime that it's inferior as well

Sprint legacy 3G is slow, 4G is not near complete. We all know the reasons for why this is the case. At the moment Verizon & At&t are faster yadda yadda. There is no denial here. Go to bed

 

[S4GRU]

i was not directly complaining about Sprint, it would be useless here because it's not an official sprint site.

 

 

I was stating how most of you, even with evidence being shown, are in denial that Verizon and AT&T are better than Sprint. Like this site most of ya here were just assuming the test had flaw just because it showed that Sprint is slower.

 

and i don't see how discusting and understating why Sprint has slower data speeds is comlaning. it ok to understand the reason why Sprint is slower and accepting at the sametime that it's inferior as well

 

AT&T and VZW are not better than Sprint. Networks for all three carriers are vastly different in different places. And everyone has different needs. It is foolish to say that AT&T and VZW are better for everyone, everywhere. Just as foolish as saying Sprint is best for everyone. We don't even say that.

 

I personally have Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile. Tonight I was in a place in Santa Fe, New Mexico where my Sprint 3G was actually faster than my Verizon LTE and T-Mobile HSPA+. In that instance, Sprint was the best carrier for my data needs. This is often not the case, but illustrates that no network is perfect.

 

VZW LTE performance is rapidly declining. And I have noticed Tmo performance declining since they reinstituted unlimited. No network is immune.

 

The bottom line is we are very open about the current state of the Sprint network. It's all throughout our forums. I don't bullshit, sugar coat or lie. And we do not advocate for any service. We openly and frankly tell people they should leave Sprint if they do not meet their needs or cannot wait out the upgrades.

 

However, I don't know what you expect from a Sprint forum site made up of Sprint customers who are excited about and track the network upgrades? It's not a pro AT&T or Verizon forum, that's for damn sure.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[packerrd]

AT&T and VZW are not better than Sprint. Networks for all three carriers are vastly different in different places. And everyone has different needs. It is foolish to say that AT&T and VZW are better for everyone, everywhere. Just as foolish as saying Sprint is best for everyone. We don't even say that.I personally have Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile. Tonight I was in a place in Santa Fe, New Mexico where my Sprint 3G was actually faster than my Verizon LTE and T-Mobile HSPA+. In that instance, Sprint was the best carrier for my data needs. This is often not the case, but illustrates that no network is perfect.VZW LTE performance is rapidly declining. And I have noticed Tmo performance declining since they reinstituted unlimited. No network is immune.The bottom line is we are very open about the current state of the Sprint network. It's all throughout our forums. I don't bullshit, sugar coat or lie. And we do not advocate for any service. We openly and frankly tell people they should leave Sprint if they do not meet their needs or cannot wait out the upgrades.However, I don't know what you expect from a Sprint forum site made up of Sprint customers who are excited about and track the network upgrades? It's not a pro AT&T or Verizon forum, that's for damn sure.Robert via Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Yea not everywhere Sprint is worse than Verizon or AT&T because all carriers have different coveage in different location. But on average AT&T and Verizon got faster data and better data coverage. And Sprint speeds are also going decline, and they still be slower.

and im happy about Sprint expanding as well. I prefer their plans as compared to its conpetitors. but it doesnt mean i wont acknowledge their network currently perform worse than their competitors on Average.

sorry for bad grammar, im typing from a phone.

[Rawvega]

i was not directly complaining about Sprint, it would be useless here because it's not an official sprint site.

 

I was stating how most of you, even with evidence being shown, are in denial that Verizon and AT&T are better than Sprint. Like this site most of ya here were just assuming the test had flaw just because it showed that Sprint is slower.

and i don't see how discusting and understating why Sprint has slower data speeds is comlaning. it ok to understand the reason why Sprint is slower and accepting at the sametime that it's inferior as well

 

It's also ok to understand that "better" is a subjective term and it will vary from person to person. What's better for you isn't necessarily better for me. If you're convinced that Sprint is so "inferior" then why are you bothering to grace us with your presence at a Sprint focused site? I'm sure there are AT&T and Verizon sites where you can go and gush over their alleged superiority.