Jump to content

Sprint - add a second PCS 2x5 LTE carrier


Recommended Posts

Probably not until Network Vision is done or close to being done.  I think Sprint needs to see how much LTE capacity is available once most of the 38,000 NV towers are upgraded with LTE.  If anything I see the larger metros receive a second 5x5 LTE carrier first.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you have to wait for good phones that can even USE that much bandwith (GS3 and GS4 limited to only 5mhz x 5mhz LTE).

 

I don't mind the wait, just saying.  :-)

Edited by clbowens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the current G Block LTE carriers anywhere near capacity?  Nope, no need for additional carriers until the existing carrier is filled up.

 

Let's get NV finished so all the towers are upgraded, then see about this

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you have to wait for good phones that can even USE that much bandwith (GS3 and GS4 limited to only 5mhz x 5mhz LTE).

 

I don't mind the wait, just saying.  :-)

An additional carrier would provide more capacity, IE if the G block 5x5 carrier is filled up, a 2nd A-F block carrier is available.  Similar to the current EVDO setup with multiple carriers from a tower to spread load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you have to wait for good phones that can even USE that much bandwith (GS3 and GS4 limited to only 5mhz x 5mhz LTE).

 

I don't mind the wait, just saying. :-)

 

All of Sprint's LTE phones are rated for band 25 LTE, which encompasses all of the PCS blocks, A-G. All Sprint LTE phones can switch to any available LTE frequencies in the PCS frequency range if LTE is enabled on a particular block. They don't need to be rated for anything higher than 5x5 LTE unless they are going to use carrier aggregation or adjacent blocks of PCS to build a bigger data pipe.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An additional carrier would provide more capacity, IE if the G block 5x5 carrier is filled up, a 2nd A-F block carrier is available.  Similar to the current EVDO setup with multiple carriers from a tower to spread load.

 

:tu:

 

Adding a second carrier wouldn't improve peak speeds but it would double average speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the current G Block LTE carriers anywhere near capacity? Nope, no need for additional carriers until the existing carrier is filled up.

 

Let's get NV finished so all the towers are upgraded, then see about this

 

I agree that they need to wait until all the sites are done. But then again I sit here with a decent LTE signal, the site pulls 12-14 in the morning even more if you are close to the site of course. Wait till lunch and it goes dead with 1x speeds and 5000ms pings. I don't want to believe it is overloaded with such a small customer base here but this same pattern has happened 4 days in a row so far. Don't know what to think.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:tu:

 

Adding a second carrier wouldn't improve peak speeds but it would double average speeds.

Unless Sprint has spectrum sitting in a market unused, that would potentially harm EVDO/CDMA by taking away carrier from non-LTE users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

:tu:

 

Adding a second carrier wouldn't improve peak speeds but it would double average speeds.

 

 

Unless Sprint has spectrum sitting in a market unused, that would potentially harm EVDO/CDMA by taking away carrier from non-LTE users.

 

They're gonna do it eventually even if it does harm nonLTE users.

 

I expect they'll hold off until the average goes below the 6-8mbpa they're advertising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're gonna do it eventually even if it does harm nonLTE users.

 

I expect they'll hold off until the average goes below the 6-8mbpa they're advertising.

Once all the towers are upgraded and the carriers are getting loaded, then this is valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that they need to wait until all the sites are done. But then again I sit here with a decent LTE signal, the site pulls 12-14 in the morning even more if you are close to the site of course. Wait till lunch and it goes dead with 1x speeds and 5000ms pings. I don't want to believe it is overloaded with such a small customer base here but this same pattern has happened 4 days in a row so far. Don't know what to think.

 

Sent from my little Note2

I've noticed in Lansing, MI that at peak times I get slower, but no where near what you've posted.  I'm also typically around -100 - -110dBm for my LTE signal so I'm hitting some distant towers.  At home, i'm typically -90dBm and run into some signal oddities, but I think I'm right on the border between two of the three sectors and I bounce between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the current G Block LTE carriers anywhere near capacity?  Nope, no need for additional carriers until the existing carrier is filled up.

 

Let's get NV finished so all the towers are upgraded, then see about this

 

Really?  Sure about that?

 

8788255024_8b5d481307.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of Sprint's LTE phones are rated for band 25 LTE, which encompasses all of the PCS blocks, A-G. All Sprint LTE phones can switch to any available LTE frequencies in the PCS frequency range if LTE is enabled on a particular block. They don't need to be rated for anything higher than 5x5 LTE unless they are going to use carrier aggregation or adjacent blocks of PCS to build a bigger data pipe.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

An additional carrier would provide more capacity, IE if the G block 5x5 carrier is filled up, a 2nd A-F block carrier is available.  Similar to the current EVDO setup with multiple carriers from a tower to spread load.

 

Ah, ok.  Now it get it.  Thx for the explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?  Sure about that?

 

Any judgements prior to 100 percent site completion are premature.  Plus, no matter how much spectrum you throw at them, some areas are always going to have slow data speeds in certain situations, just as certain freeways are always going to be bumper to bumper during rush hour.

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any judgements prior to 100 percent site completion are premature.  Plus, no matter how much spectrum you throw at them, some areas are always going to have slow data speeds in certain situations, just as certain freeways are always going to be bumper to bumper during rush hour.

 

AJ

 

 

 

Saying that "Are the current G Block LTE carriers anywhere near capacity?  Nope, no need for additional carriers until the existing carrier is filled up." is a bit misleading - that's my only point.

 

If you want to talk about premature... we can talk about how many live LTE sites sprint had in Boston before the marketing team launched the market.  If I recall correctly, I want to say about 12 out of about 100.  Now THAT is premature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that "Are the current G Block LTE carriers anywhere near capacity?  Nope, no need for additional carriers until the existing carrier is filled up." is a bit misleading - that's my only point.

 

A couple of thoughts...

 

One, there is only one LTE carrier in the PCS G block.  And, two, you are not a sponsor, so you do not necessarily know the Sprint site density nor the LTE site completion percentage in the area where you are running speed tests.

 

As a parallel, would you judge the overall traffic carrying capacity of a highway while one of the lanes was still under construction?

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should be lighting up as many LTE carriers as a particular tower/region has available, particularly at the beginning since LTE tower is spread thin, you get many more phones utilizing individual towers as when there is a full build out and load is distributed more evenly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm the argument that shifting spectrum from EVDO to LTE would adversely affect EVDO users is certainly valid and by all means correct. However, the EVDO experience is already unusable in many places regardless so would the loss (potentially indistinguishable) be worth the reward?

 

I'd have to guess it to be worth it considering how much more efficient LTE is. Even if they only setup a 3x3 carrier.

 

Just my thoughts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts...

 

One, there is only one LTE carrier in the PCS G block.  And, two, you are not a sponsor, so you do not necessarily know the Sprint site density nor the LTE site completion percentage in the area where you are running speed tests.

 

As a parallel, would you judge the overall traffic carrying capacity of a highway while one of the lanes was still under construction?

 

AJ

 

Carrying capacity of highways and cell networks are ALWAYS under construction.  We saw the same thing with Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile.  Nobody launches with every tower converted (as my T-Mobile HSPA+ on PCS experiment clearly showed).

 

But by the time they add LTE to the rest of the sites in the area, those too will become overburdened.  We see this in highway construction; by the time people plan, design, build, the expansion is already at capacity.

 

Instead of adding one lane at a time, they need to add 6 lanes (aka clearwire's spectrum).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of adding one lane at a time, they need to add 6 lanes (aka clearwire's spectrum).

Well, sure; a few tri-band devices have been announced, and phones are soon to follow. The FIT for 800 MHz is done, and Clear already has thousands of sites converted to LTE. It's not like they're sitting on their hands going "hm, I wonder".

 

That being said (and this may seem obvious), but for slow speedtests like that, are you certain you're getting a solid 4G signal? Signal bars typically show 1X signal, iirc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm the argument that shifting spectrum from EVDO to LTE would adversely affect EVDO users is certainly valid and by all means correct. However, the EVDO experience is already unusable in many places regardless so would the loss (potentially indistinguishable) be worth the reward?

 

I'd have to guess it to be worth it considering how much more efficient LTE is. Even if they only setup a 3x3 carrier.

 

Just my thoughts...

 

You can't use EVDO speeds pre-NV as the baseline for "what's gonna happen if they decide to remove an EVDO carrier".

 

From my reading of this forum, backhaul is the primary (?and only?) reason why EVDO speeds on Sprint are horrible.

Once they add fiber backhaul to every site, then you can say "well given current EVDO speeds, if they removed an EVDO carrier . . ."

 

But even if EVDO speeds continue to be "unusable" after NV, which they won't, if Sprint was able to actually survive having unusable 3G speeds and no LTE, I think they'll think it worth the sacrifice to maintain usable LTE speeds and unusable 3G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm the argument that shifting spectrum from EVDO to LTE would adversely affect EVDO users is certainly valid and by all means correct. However, the EVDO experience is already unusable in many places regardless so would the loss (potentially indistinguishable) be worth the reward?

 

I'd have to guess it to be worth it considering how much more efficient LTE is. Even if they only setup a 3x3 carrier.

 

Just my thoughts...

 

 

Network Vision EVDO != t1 based EVDO

 

Don't hamper a decent airlink while the majority of Sprint users are stuck on it, especially if LTE doesn't have complete blanket coverage in an area.

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


×
×
  • Create New...