Network Vision/LTE - Rochester Market (Rochester, New York)

[Chasingchase]

What kind of signal strength you getting? If you have a weakish Sprint signal, but the Verizon is strong then that can account for the difference. LTE has a fragile airlink. Performance degrades proportionate to the signal going down. There are many places Sprint will be faster too.

 

If 9Mbps is not fast enough inside your home, where most people don't even need LTE, then you should probably switch to Verizon. The 9Mbps may even go down some.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

First off, I am never switching to big red or any other carrier. All I am saying is, where I live the Verizon and Sprint tower are side by side. 1350 Turk Hill road, the Verizon tower gives off full bars and super fast lte. I know it's about the bandwidth. I just wish sprint would be honest and say, we will never be like Verizon.

[jamisonshaw125]

First off, I am never switching to big red or any other carrier. All I am saying is, where I live the Verizon and Sprint tower are side by side. 1350 Turk Hill road, the Verizon tower gives off full bars and super fast lte. I know it's about the bandwidth. I just wish sprint would be honest and say, we will never be like Verizon.

Propagation of Verizons 750mhz  effects the "full bars" and better LTE coverage for inside buildings and long distances. Remember, with any frequency there is only so far that LTE can go and it drops out sooner than 3g because it requires a stronger signal. As for "never be verizon"....Eh to that statement. I think 800 mhz is going to surprise a lot of people. Also, Sprint wouldn't admit that it would never be as good as Verizon. In fact, no company should do that ever To admit that their products and or services are inferior is bad for business. 

[S4GRU]

First off, I am never switching to big red or any other carrier. All I am saying is, where I live the Verizon and Sprint tower are side by side. 1350 Turk Hill road, the Verizon tower gives off full bars and super fast lte. I know it's about the bandwidth. I just wish sprint would be honest and say, we will never be like Verizon.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find anywhere Sprint compares itself to Verizon or any other provider ever. So I'm not sure what you're referring to. Sprint is faster than Verizon in many places. And Sprint is faster than Tmo and AT&T in a lot of places. And they are faster than Sprint in lots of places.

 

Wireless networks are not like a plug in network. Radio signals are fickle things. Different devices act differently. Different spectrum and different size channels, interference, locations. There is just too much variability to draw finite conclusions from one speed test in one spot.

 

If you come into our forums and start talking negative about Sprint, you'll have to know what you're talking about. But it sounds like you don't just want usable LTE in your home. You sound like you want something to impress your friends. But don't worry. Your friends can't keep running speed tests or they'll blow through their data caps. Your YouTube will still run without buffering, just like theirs. Except they'll start freaking after a few clips. And you can just keep going and going.

 

I'll take 9Mbps unlimited over 18Mbps with a data cap. 18Mbps will not feel faster than 9Mbps for 99.9% of what you'll use on a smartphone.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[ryman101]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find anywhere Sprint compares itself to Verizon or any other provider ever. So I'm not sure what you're referring to. Sprint is faster than Verizon in many places. And Sprint is faster than Tmo and AT&T in a lot of places. And they are faster than Sprint in lots of places.

 

Wireless networks are not like a plug in network. Radio signals are fickle things. Different devices act differently. Different spectrum and different size channels, interference, locations. There is just too much variability to draw finite conclusions from one speed test in one spot.

 

If you come into our forums and start talking negative about Sprint, you'll have to know what you're talking about. But it sounds like you don't just want usable LTE in your home. You sound like you want something to impress your friends. But don't worry. Your friends can't keep running speed tests or they'll blow through their data caps. Your YouTube will still run without buffering, just like theirs. Except they'll start freaking after a few clips. And you can just keep going and going.

 

I'll take 9Mbps unlimited over 18Mbps with a data cap. 18Mbps will not feel faster than 9Mbps for 99.9% of what you'll use on a smartphone.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I totally agree with this, 18Mbps on a cap just means you can burn through your limit faster, what's the point? I know I have friends on Verizon and AT&T now who run through their data caps in two weeks. They sit there and tell me how fast it is, and are reluctant to add the fact that they're unable to use their smartphone as a smartphone without wifi for the rest of the month. Meanwhile, I chug along with my 2Mbps Sprint 3G, streaming Pandora, watching Netflix, and attracting jealous stares....

 

With Sprint, the PCS LTE is kind of a mixed bag in terms of starting performance. You don't have the extended coverage of the LTE 800 that's coming, and you miss the mark on the blazing speeds to come with LTE on the Clear spectrum, so it's easy to put it down compared to a fully mature VZW 750 LTE. However, Sprint has resources at the moment unlike any other carrier in the country, and both better signal in more places as well as faster possible speeds compared to any other LTE carrier in the nation are in the works.

 

And it's unlimited, but I said that already ;-)

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

[bigdaveyl]

I've never had an issuse with Sprint even before NV it was SOMETIMES a little frustrating when I tried streaming music (depending on where I was). I never have had a dropped call, unless I am up near the Adirondacks. I think Sprint is very good!! I always say "keep your head up high with a positive outlook and good things will come"!

 

 

Even the vaunted Verizon coverage has issues in the Adirondaks.

 

We go camping up at Fish Creek Ponds.  There are only a few spots where you can get reliable signal. 

[bigdaveyl]

Propagation of Verizons 750mhz  effects the "full bars" and better LTE coverage for inside buildings and long distances. Remember, with any frequency there is only so far that LTE can go and it drops out sooner than 3g because it requires a stronger signal. As for "never be verizon"....Eh to that statement. I think 800 mhz is going to surprise a lot of people. Also, Sprint wouldn't admit that it would never be as good as Verizon. In fact, no company should do that ever To admit that their products and or services are inferior is bad for business. 

 

 

Verizon generally has the best coverage and AT&T have the best speeds on average, so I have read.  But you pay a premium for that service.

 

Sprint (and T-Moble) have their niche.  I think they can do very well with "We may not have the best coverage but we will compete on price if coverage and speed are not an issue."  My wife and I had Verizon and moved to Ting and saved at least $50/mo

[S4GRU]

Verizon generally has the best coverage and AT&T have the best speeds on average, so I have read. But you pay a premium for that service.

 

Sprint (and T-Moble) have their niche. I think they can do very well with "We may not have the best coverage but we will compete on price if coverage and speed are not an issue." My wife and I had Verizon and moved to Ting and saved at least $50/mo

Sprint does have pretty good coverage in the Rochester market. It has way more rural data coverage than Tmo. And it will get even more solid once they are able to deploy 800MHz. However, Sprint's coverage gets more paltry as you go east in Upstate. Between Syracuse and the VT/MA border it is just in major towns and along the freeways.

 

AT&T's speeds are highly variable by market. In places they have 10MHz channels and an average number of customers, they can have the fastest speeds. In markets where they have 5MHz channels and a high market share, they can have the worst speeds.

 

Marketers would have us all believe that one provider trumps all the others. In reality, there is so much variability in how dense site deployment is, the width of the channels deployed, how many channels are available, the quality of the backhaul used in a region, the number of LTE customers in a market, and even more factors...it just is a big difference on how each provider performs in a data intensive world. And it varies drastically from city to city.

 

In places where Verizon has only deployed one 10MHz channel and they have average to high market share, their performance is getting bad. VZW LTE 750 is dropping below 1Mbps at high use sites during peak times in these areas. However, in places where VZW has recently added a new LTE channel on AWS band, speed as have gone way up and performance is among the best. At least for customers who have devices that support the new band.

 

And AT&T has the least enviable spectrum position of all the providers. When their sites start getting to capacity, it can only add 5MHz channels. Or 3MHz channels. And they cannot add very many. In some places they cannot add any at all without refarming 3G/2G spectrum early and to the detriment of those customers.

 

Meanwhile, Tmo and Sprint have started deploying 20MHz channels to add performance and capacity. Because they have the spectrum to do it. AT&T will not likely be the fastest network in any market in the not too distant future. Don't get me wrong, AT&T will be able to maintain a good LTE network. But it will be consistently the slowest of the 4 in the Top 100 cities after Tmo, VZW and Sprint finish building out their 20MHz networks.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

[ryman101]

Sprint does have pretty good coverage in the Rochester market. It has way more rural data coverage than Tmo. And it will get even more solid once they are able to deploy 800MHz. However, Sprint's coverage gets more paltry as you go east in Upstate. Between Syracuse and the VT/MA border it is just in major towns and along the freeways.

 

AT&T's speeds are highly variable by market. In places they have 10MHz channels and an average number of customers, they can have the fastest speeds. In markets where they have 5MHz channels and a high market share, they can have the worst speeds.

 

Marketers would have us all believe that one provider trumps all the others. In reality, there is so much variability in how dense site deployment is, the width of the channels deployed, how many channels are available, the quality of the backhaul used in a region, the number of LTE customers in a market, and even more factors...it just is a big difference on how each provider performs in a data intensive world. And it varies drastically from city to city.

 

In places where Verizon has only deployed one 10MHz channel and they have average to high market share, their performance is getting bad. VZW LTE 750 is dropping below 1Mbps at high use sites during peak times in these areas. However, in places where VZW has recently added a new LTE channel on AWS band, speed as have gone way up and performance is among the best. At least for customers who have devices that support the new band.

 

And AT&T has the least enviable spectrum position of all the providers. When their sites start getting to capacity, it can only add 5MHz channels. Or 3MHz channels. And they cannot add very many. In some places they cannot add any at all without refarming 3G/2G spectrum early and to the detriment of those customers.

 

Meanwhile, Tmo and Sprint have started deploying 20MHz channels to add performance and capacity. Because they have the spectrum to do it. AT&T will not likely be the fastest network in any market in the not too distant future. Don't get me wrong, AT&T will be able to maintain a good LTE network. But it will be consistently the slowest of the 4 in the Top 100 cities after Tmo, VZW and Sprint finish building out their 20MHz networks.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Do you mean that VZW has 20MHz of available contiguous spectrum to build an LTE network like Sprint and T Mobile? I wasn't aware of this, I thought they were just adding another 10MHz channel on some other band to supplement their 10MHz on 750.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

[S4GRU]

Do you mean that VZW has 20MHz of available contiguous spectrum to build an LTE network like Sprint and T Mobile? I wasn't aware of this, I thought they were just adding another 10MHz channel on some other band to supplement their 10MHz on 750.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

No.  Around the country Verizon has either 10, 15 and 20MHz of AWS.  It varies by market.  But they probably have 20MHz in half the Top 100 markets.  T-Mobile has 20MHz in about half the country too.  Only Sprint can do 20MHz in all the country.  In fact, Sprint can deploy between 3 and 7 20MHz channels in every market.

 

Robert

 

Robert

[ryman101]

No. Around the country Verizon has either 10, 15 and 20MHz of AWS. It varies by market. But they probably have 20MHz in half the Top 100 markets. T-Mobile has 20MHz in about half the country too. Only Sprint can do 20MHz in all the country. In fact, Sprint can deploy between 3 and 7 20MHz channels in every market.

 

Robert

 

Robert

Ah yes, I understand now. I didn't realize there were markets where they had more than 10MHz to deploy. I certainly wish more people understood the performance Sprint is capable of in high population areas like cities simply because of the vast Clear spectrum holdings.

 

I honestly cannot wait to see the day when smartphones are using 20GB of data a month and all the other providers literally choke with the limited spectrum for new carriers.

 

It has nothing to do with Rochester yet, but it'll be awesome to see a Sprint that says to its customers "we want you to use our network because it can handle it, unlike those other guys!"

 

Maybe in about five years, if that, at the rate things are going? NV 1.0 to being Sprint alongside its competitors, NV 2.0 to blow them away.

 

On another note, now that the weather has broken back into a little bit of a warm spell, do you think we ought to see some more backhaul upgrades and therefore 4G acceptances around? I am also curious as to whether or not most of the sites that have been done have had fiber backhaul installed versus microwave. Is microwave more of an out of the city type thing? I imagine that would be less common but also less dependant on weather?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

[S4GRU]

On another note, now that the weather has broken back into a little bit of a warm spell, do you think we ought to see some more backhaul upgrades and therefore 4G acceptances around? I am also curious as to whether or not most of the sites that have been done have had fiber backhaul installed versus microwave. Is microwave more of an out of the city type thing? I imagine that would be less common but also less dependant on weather?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Deployment is still going strong. 8 more sites accepted on Friday in this market.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

[johnd515]

Sweet cant wait for west greece and some hilton

[Conan Kudo]

 

No.  Around the country Verizon has either 10, 15 and 20MHz of AWS.  It varies by market.  But they probably have 20MHz in half the Top 100 markets.  T-Mobile has 20MHz in about half the country too.  Only Sprint can do 20MHz in all the country.  In fact, Sprint can deploy between 3 and 7 20MHz channels in every market.

 

Robert

 

Robert

 

 

Ah yes, I understand now. I didn't realize there were markets where they had more than 10MHz to deploy. I certainly wish more people understood the performance Sprint is capable of in high population areas like cities simply because of the vast Clear spectrum holdings.

I honestly cannot wait to see the day when smartphones are using 20GB of data a month and all the other providers literally choke with the limited spectrum for new carriers.

It has nothing to do with Rochester yet, but it'll be awesome to see a Sprint that says to its customers "we want you to use our network because it can handle it, unlike those other guys!"

Maybe in about five years, if that, at the rate things are going? NV 1.0 to being Sprint alongside its competitors, NV 2.0 to blow them away.

On another note, now that the weather has broken back into a little bit of a warm spell, do you think we ought to see some more backhaul upgrades and therefore 4G acceptances around? I am also curious as to whether or not most of the sites that have been done have had fiber backhaul installed versus microwave. Is microwave more of an out of the city type thing? I imagine that would be less common but also less dependant on weather?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

To be clear, those 20MHz allocations don't mean the same thing. Because AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile use FDD allocations, the entire 10/15/20 MHz is used for downlink, since another set of 10/15/20 MHz is used for uplink. This gives them a slight edge over Sprint's TDD 20MHz network in terms of downlink performance, and a slightly more significant edge in the (oft-derided) uplink performance.

 

Under "ordinary" circumstances (where a TDD carrier is set up to be "equivalent" to an FDD carrier), a 20MHz TDD carrier would be equal in performance to a 10MHz FDD carrier (if not slightly lesser due to temporal guards). However, the advantage of TDD systems is that equivalent allocations for downlink and uplink aren't required. In fact, TDD systems are least efficient at 1:1. Depending on the operator's needs, the TDD system can be set up to be downlink dominated, uplink dominated, or a mix of the two depending on the needs at that particular moment.

 

In a downlink dominated scheme, the temporal scheduling factor is set up so that more "time" is allocated for downlink operations than uplink operations. This improves the effective bandwidth of the downlink channel and improves the downlink performance considerably. This allows a 20MHz TDD carrier to offer better downlink performance than a 10MHz FDD carrier. Depending on how extreme the ratio is, you could achieve nearly the downlink performance of a 15MHz FDD carrier. The cost of this scheme is uplink performance, which many believe is an acceptable trade-off.

 

In an uplink dominated scheme, this is completely reversed. Deployments with uplink dominated schemes are rare. One particular use case for this would be for LTE-based IP streaming (where studio cameras are hooked up to LTE and are sending video data over the Internet to another destination). Let's construct an example where this would be useful. Let's say Sprint was contracted to provide service in an area where traditional connection options are unavailable for doing on-location filming. Sprint could set up picocells with high quality backhaul to provide an uplink-dominated TDD network for the purposes of the filming. This would make filming easier when operating in "complex" environments. Sprint has enough 2.6GHz spectrum that this is possible to do without turning down the regular downlink-dominated TDD network. It would just have to control the provisioning so that only the camera devices could connect to it.

 

There's also the ability to change the ratios in a given area based on the need. For example, if an emergency is occurring somewhere that emergency services use the Sprint network, Sprint can temporarily switch the area to uplink dominated to allow dispatch and other half-duplex systems to work more effectively.

 

There is a lot of potential with LTE TDD systems that we haven't quite figured out yet. But one thing is for sure: LTE TDD is really only useful at the high frequency bands, where you can have large spectral allocations. Since Sprint has that in spades, it's definitely good to go on that front!

[S4GRU]

To be clear, those 20MHz allocations don't mean the same thing. Because AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile use FDD allocations, the entire 10/15/20 MHz is used for downlink, since another set of 10/15/20 MHz is used for uplink. This gives them a slight edge over Sprint's TDD 20MHz network in terms of downlink performance, and a slightly more significant edge in the (oft-derided) uplink performance.

 

Under "ordinary" circumstances (where a TDD carrier is set up to be "equivalent" to an FDD carrier), a 20MHz TDD carrier would be equal in performance to a 10MHz FDD carrier (if not slightly lesser due to temporal guards). However, the advantage of TDD systems is that equivalent allocations for downlink and uplink aren't required. In fact, TDD systems are least efficient at 1:1. Depending on the operator's needs, the TDD system can be set up to be downlink dominated, uplink dominated, or a mix of the two depending on the needs at that particular moment.

 

In a downlink dominated scheme, the temporal scheduling factor is set up so that more "time" is allocated for downlink operations than uplink operations. This improves the effective bandwidth of the downlink channel and improves the downlink performance considerably. This allows a 20MHz TDD carrier to offer better downlink performance than a 10MHz FDD carrier. Depending on how extreme the ratio is, you could achieve nearly the downlink performance of a 15MHz FDD carrier. The cost of this scheme is uplink performance, which many believe is an acceptable trade-off.

 

In an uplink dominated scheme, this is completely reversed. Deployments with uplink dominated schemes are rare. One particular use case for this would be for LTE-based IP streaming (where studio cameras are hooked up to LTE and are sending video data over the Internet to another destination). Let's construct an example where this would be useful. Let's say Sprint was contracted to provide service in an area where traditional connection options are unavailable for doing on-location filming. Sprint could set up picocells with high quality backhaul to provide an uplink-dominated TDD network for the purposes of the filming. This would make filming easier when operating in "complex" environments. Sprint has enough 2.6GHz spectrum that this is possible to do without turning down the regular downlink-dominated TDD network. It would just have to control the provisioning so that only the camera devices could connect to it.

 

There's also the ability to change the ratios in a given area based on the need. For example, if an emergency is occurring somewhere that emergency services use the Sprint network, Sprint can temporarily switch the area to uplink dominated to allow dispatch and other half-duplex systems to work more effectively.

 

There is a lot of potential with LTE TDD systems that we haven't quite figured out yet. But one thing is for sure: LTE TDD is really only useful at the high frequency bands, where you can have large spectral allocations. Since Sprint has that in spades, it's definitely good to go on that front!

This a good post, but it is off topic. The subject is AT&T's illusion of LTE performance dominance. AT&T is no longer the fastest, Tmo and VZW are the fastest, and since AT&T is doomed from ever getting faster because they have no ability to deploy 20MHz carriers and cannot even add 10MHz carriers. Not TDD or FDD.

 

And of course, you know that I'm well aware of the difference between TDD and FDD. So I'm left wondering why you're bleeding all over my post? Does my point still not stand to even the scrutiny you have provided? AT&T has no options for 20MHz LTE channels of any flavor and will not be able to compete with Tmo, Verizon or even Sprint in performance as they build out their 15 & 20MHz networks.

 

The best AT&T can do is add 3 & 5MHz LTE carriers to add enough capacity to keep their LTE network from degrading completely. But the peak speed on AT&T's 10MHz carrier will not be anywhere near as high as it used to be. People will be happy to see peak speeds 20-25Mbps on AT&T in 2014-2015. Most will see 5-12Mbps.

 

But fortunately for AT&T, they have enough options to keep speeds between 5-12Mbps. Which is enough to keep 80% of their customers satisfied. They just will not be able to claim to be the fastest LTE anymore. And they can't claim the largest LTE network. It's going to be painful for them to become the slowest LTE network. But I have to admit I'm looking forward to it.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

[Conan Kudo]

This a good post, but it is off topic. The subject is AT&T's illusion of LTE performance dominance. AT&T is no longer the fastest, Tmo and VZW are the fastest, and since AT&T is doomed from ever getting faster because they have no ability to deploy 20MHz carriers and cannot even add 10MHz carriers. Not TDD or FDD.

 

And of course, you know that I'm well aware of the difference between TDD and FDD. So I'm left wondering why you're bleeding all over my post? Does my point still not stand to even the scrutiny you have provided? AT&T has no options for 20MHz LTE channels of any flavor and will not be able to compete with Tmo, Verizon or even Sprint in performance as they build out their 15 & 20MHz networks.

 

The best AT&T can do is add 3 & 5MHz LTE carriers to add enough capacity to keep their LTE network from degrading completely. But the peak speed on AT&T's 10MHz carrier will not be anywhere near as high as it used to be. People will be happy to see peak speeds 20-25Mbps on AT&T in 2014-2015. Most will see 5-12Mbps.

 

But fortunately for AT&T, they have enough options to keep speeds between 5-12Mbps. Which is enough to keep 80% of their customers satisfied. They just will not be able to claim to be the fastest LTE anymore. And they can't claim the largest LTE network. It's going to be painful for them to become the slowest LTE network. But I have to admit I'm looking forward to it.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

I quoted the wrong post.

 

However, don't count your chickens before they hatch. There's still AWS-3, which will be an auction of 2x25MHz of spectrum. While T-Mobile has been a huge driver in the AWS-3 efforts, I actually expect AT&T to be the big bidder for that auction. It's the only shot AT&T has toward offering competitive LTE network performance.

 

My estimation is that T-Mobile will bid for up to 2x10MHz of AWS-3, maybe even 2x15MHz in some markets (*cough*Cincinnati*cough*), but AT&T will try to grab as much of it as it can. I'd rather see Sprint, T-Mobile, and regional operators go after this auction, but the likelihood of Sprint participating is pretty low in the face of SoftBank's desired direction for Sprint.

[johnd515]

Is sprint going to become a major player? Put it simple. 4g?

[ryman101]

Is sprint going to become a major player? Put it simple. 4g?

 

Yes, and they already are in lots of places. Beyond being carrier #3 in the country in terms of subscribers, they are one of only 2 nationwide carriers to offer unlimited data, and have network performance superior to the duopoly in some markets now.

 

Furthermore, as these two gentleman have been discussing, AT&T is poised to struggle unless they score big at an upcoming AWS-3 spectrum auction, because they simply don't have the radio space to deploy enough LTE carriers to keep truly competitive

 

Personally, I agree with Robert. For comedy's sake, I'd love to see AT&T become the slowest LTE network in the country. For a while now their ads have completely centered on being the fastest (that whole "faster is better" thing in the commercial with the little kids). I might die laughing when I see what AT&T's advertising comes up with when they become the target of their own crosshairs.

 

By the way, this is why mudslinging against others to try and promote yourself is always a bad idea. It never takes much for the tables to turn and then you just look like a fool. Poor foolish AT&T. Well, not exactly poor...... yet. 

[S4GRU]

I quoted the wrong post.

 

However, don't count your chickens before they hatch. There's still AWS-3, which will be an auction of 2x25MHz of spectrum. While T-Mobile has been a huge driver in the AWS-3 efforts, I actually expect AT&T to be the big bidder for that auction. It's the only shot AT&T has toward offering competitive LTE network performance.

 

My estimation is that T-Mobile will bid for up to 2x10MHz of AWS-3, maybe even 2x15MHz in some markets (*cough*Cincinnati*cough*), but AT&T will try to grab as much of it as it can. I'd rather see Sprint, T-Mobile, and regional operators go after this auction, but the likelihood of Sprint participating is pretty low in the face of SoftBank's desired direction for Sprint.

 

Yes, it is their last hope.  And it will take some time before they can even deploy on it and get devices in people's hands too.  And they may even be limited where they end up getting it.  It is not likely to be a mad sweep across the nation for them.  And the worst part for AT&T is they have to get all of it in a specific market to be able to deploy a 20MHz carrier.  That becomes unlikely.

 

I expect AT&T will not walk away with spectrum out of AWS-3 that is going to make them a player against Tmo, Verizon or Sprint for speed.  And when and if they do in a few places, it will be well after the other three are completely built out and advertising their faster than AT&T networks.  AT&T will be well known as the slowest LTE network, and their AWS-3 spectrum winning will not be enough for them to promote a faster network than anyone else.

 

"Well, we are no longer the slowest in Oklahoma City and Omaha!" is not much of a slogan.

 

Robert

[joshnys8913]

Found another interesting LTE signal from a tower I was not expecting to see have LTE for a while, but hey Ontario county is lighting up fast too, the whole Rochester market is the fastest ive seen on here (at least for 3rd and 4th rounds for LTE)

 

On a side note they took down the legacy antennas off one of the towers  

[bigdaveyl]

Hi folks...

 

Are you all seeing any issues with data connectivity in the area?

 

For the last few days or so, I went back to the stock ROM on my HTC EVO 4g LTE.  I'm not able to connect to data unless I go into settings and select "CDMA only" instead of "CDMA/LTE"

 

Things seem to work out of the box on a Cyanogenmod 11 nightly I was running. 

 

I talked with Ting and they think it may be tower issues since they are upgrading stuff around here at a fast pace.  Any thoughts?

[Boosted20V]

Hi folks...

 

Are you all seeing any issues with data connectivity in the area?

 

For the last few days or so, I went back to the stock ROM on my HTC EVO 4g LTE.  I'm not able to connect to data unless I go into settings and select "CDMA only" instead of "CDMA/LTE"

 

Things seem to work out of the box on a Cyanogenmod 11 nightly I was running. 

 

I talked with Ting and they think it may be tower issues since they are upgrading stuff around here at a fast pace.  Any thoughts?

I had this occur to me in areas when LTE was first coming live. Frustrating before I figured out how to get around it. It's as if it keeps attempting to connect to LTE and won't pass data through 3G.

[bigdaveyl]

I had this occur to me in areas when LTE was first coming live. Frustrating before I figured out how to get around it. It's as if it keeps attempting to connect to LTE and won't pass data through 3G.

 

Thank you.  I have known working back ups  And I have done all the carrier resets/updating profiles/new prls/etc.

 

I am sitting at Corporate Woods right now and I know I didn't get data this morning on 390 as well.

 

Voice and Text work perfect as well as WiFi.

[S4GRU]

The EVO LTE is an awful device when it comes to RF performance.  Especially LTE RF performance.  You will always be frustrated with Sprint LTE using it.

 

Robert

[bigdaveyl]

The EVO LTE is an awful device when it comes to RF performance.  Especially LTE RF performance.  You will always be frustrated with Sprint LTE using it.

 

Robert

 

 

Yeah that's what I heard, but we bought them second hand and use TIng because that's all we can afford at the moment.

[S4GRU]

Yeah that's what I heard, but we bought them second hand and use TIng because that's all we can afford at the moment.

 

Understood.  As long as you know what to expect, then you will probably be able to cope.  However, if you pay full retail price and expect it to be equal to other LTE devices, you would sorely be disappointed.

 

Robert