Jump to content

Stay Connected This Summer: Sprint 4G LTE Expands into 22 New Cities

Rawvega
 Share

Recommended Posts

digiblur Member Level: LTE Advanced

digiblur

Posted
Posted

I smell an article coming....

 

Look at your quote. Is this another example of Yabbadabbadotalk...er, I mean...Tapatalk necro quote?

 

 

:P

 

 

AJ

Hahaha.. Yep. The browser is too cumbersome on the phone to fit my A.D.D. needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S4GRU Member Level: LTE Advanced

S4GRU

Posted
Posted

 

I don't know about the other maps, but the Lansing one isn't just generous on LTE. It's claiming LTE coverage in places where there is no PCS EVDO service at all (even according to Sprint's own maps).

 

 

If you flip between the two, the boundary lines for LTE claim to go out farther than Sprint's own map for voice service. It's showing LTE data coverage in places where they claim to only have voice roaming.

 

As strange as it sounds, I almost have to wonder if Sprint marketing's cartography department does not have the ability distinguish between CDMA2000 RSSI and LTE RSRP. Robert, what was the figure of merit that we saw Sprint determine for the edge of LTE coverage, -119 dBm RSRP? Could it actually be that the maps are being projected out to -119 dBm RSSI instead?

 

 

AJ

This was one of my early hypotheses when the initial coverage maps came out last summer. I believe I even built a signal map with CloudRF software that would support that as a possibility.

 

The LTE coverage map are notoriously bad and just give a really bad image to Sprint and Network Vision. If this is intentional, it's a bone headed move. I have to believe it is just an error along these lines.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
digiblur Member Level: LTE Advanced

digiblur

Posted
Posted

This was one of my early hypotheses when the initial coverage maps came out last summer. I believe I even built a signal map with CloudRF software that would support that as a possibility.

 

The LTE coverage map are notoriously bad and just give a really bad image to Sprint and Network Vision. If this is intentional, it's a bone headed move. I have to believe it is just an error along these lines.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

A very bad error indeed...I hope.  I really hope they don't base their CSR calls and even network planning for new/filler sites on this.  As there are many many areas on the map that show LTE coverage yet you'll struggle to hold 1X there.  So instead their network group says "nope, that area is covered! move along" when in reality the area needs a site very badly.  Look at the side by side comparison below.  That's a bunch of LTE coverage in a roaming 1X area! I know this site pretty well and I will say the voice coverage for this one is very close.

 

incorrect_LTE.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
S4GRU Member Level: LTE Advanced

S4GRU

Posted
Posted

 

A very bad error indeed...I hope. I really hope they don't base their CSR calls and even network planning for new/filler sites on this. As there are many many areas on the map that show LTE coverage yet you'll struggle to hold 1X there. So instead their network group says "nope, that area is covered! move along" when in reality the area needs a site very badly. Look at the side by side comparison below. That's a bunch of LTE coverage in a roaming 1X area! I know this site pretty well and I will say the voice coverage for this one is very close.

 

 

That's just so bad. LTE 1900 shown with greater range than 1x on 1900? Crazy. I don't even think LTE 800 is going to provide but just a small improvement over 1x voice in distance (raw coverage).

 

I think LTE 800 biggest advantage will be signal strength and usability at the edge of current CDMA coverage. I don't expect huge coverage gains on LTE 800. But I do expect pretty good coverage gains on CDMA 800.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ascertion Member Level: LTE Advanced

Ascertion

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

A very bad error indeed...I hope. I really hope they don't base their CSR calls and even network planning for new/filler sites on this. As there are many many areas on the map that show LTE coverage yet you'll struggle to hold 1X there. So instead their network group says "nope, that area is covered! move along" when in reality the area needs a site very badly. Look at the side by side comparison below. That's a bunch of LTE coverage in a roaming 1X area! I know this site pretty well and I will say the voice coverage for this one is very close.

 

 

 

 

That's just so bad. LTE 1900 shown with greater range than 1x on 1900? Crazy. I don't even think LTE 800 is going to provide but just a small improvement over 1x voice in distance (raw coverage).

 

 

 

I think LTE 800 biggest advantage will be signal strength and usability at the edge of current CDMA coverage. I don't expect huge coverage gains on LTE 800. But I do expect pretty good coverage gains on CDMA 800.

 

 

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

 

 

I thought LTE travelled further, but was more fragile (meaning it's more prone to suffer signal loss if there's any obstacles in the way.) You think if I have relatively no 1x signal on 1900 at work as of now, LTE 800 will not either? My signal on 1x is usually around -102dBm at work, I know CDMA 800 will help, but you're making it sound like lte 800 won't help much in my case. (Not that bad since I'll have a Clearwire site right outside my work providing LTE 2500. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
S4GRU Member Level: LTE Advanced

S4GRU

Posted
Posted

I thought LTE travelled further, but was more fragile (meaning it's more prone to suffer signal loss if there's any obstacles in the way.) You think if I have relatively no 1x signal on 1900 at work as of now, LTE 800 will not either? My signal on 1x is usually around -102dBm at work, I know CDMA 800 will help, but you're making it sound like lte 800 won't help much in my case. (Not that bad since I'll have a Clearwire site right outside my work providing LTE 2500. :D

 

In the same exact deployment and all things being equal...1x and LTE on the same frequency will be practically the same signal strength in the same conditions.  The difference being that LTE will not be usable beyond approximately -93dBm and -95dBm RSSI, and 1x will be usable up to -103dBm to -107dBm.  And that is a huge difference when indoors or nearing the edge of service.  LTE does not travel further than 1x, no matter how you define it.  You may be confusing that LTE travels further than WiMax, being that WiMax maxed out around -83dBm to -85dBm and LTE maxes out around 10dBm weaker.

 

I don't believe that LTE 800 will travel much farther than CDMA 1900.  It will some, but not a lot.  There will be a significant difference between CDMA 800 and CDMA 1900, though.

 

Robert

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
maximus1987/lou99 Member Level: 4G WiMax

maximus1987/lou99

Posted
Posted

This was one of my early hypotheses when the initial coverage maps came out last summer. I believe I even built a signal map with CloudRF software that would support that as a possibility.

 

The LTE coverage map are notoriously bad and just give a really bad image to Sprint and Network Vision. If this is intentional, it's a bone headed move. I have to believe it is just an error along these lines.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

If it's really an "error", wouldn't they have noticed it by now?

How many complaints before they seriously take a look at the coverage maps?

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
Go to topic listing

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • 4GHoward
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By 4GHoward · Posted

      This has been approved.. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/fcc-approves-t-mobiles-deal-to-purchase-mint-mobile/  
    • dkyeager
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By dkyeager · Posted

      In the conference call they had two question on additional spectrum. One was the 800 spectrum. They are not certain what will happen, thus have not really put it into their plans either way (sale or no sale). They do have a reserve level. Nationwide 800Mhz is seen as great for new technologies which I presume is IOT or 5g slices.  T-Mobile did not bite on use of their c-band or DOD.  mmWave rapidly approaching deadlines not mentioned at all. FWA brushes on this as it deals with underutilized spectrum on a sector by sector basis.  They are willing to take more money to allow FWA to be mobile (think RV or camping). Unsure if this represents a higher priority, for example, FWA Mobile in RVs in Walmart parking lots working where mobile phones need all the capacity. In terms of FWA capacity, their offload strategy is fiber through joint ventures where T-Mobile does the marketing, sales, and customer support while the fiber company does the network planning and installation.  50%-50% financial split not being consolidated into their books. I think discussion of other spectrum would have diluted the fiber joint venture discussion. They do have a fund which one use is to purchase new spectrum. Sale of the 800Mhz would go into this. It should be noted that they continue to buy 2.5Ghz spectrum from schools etc to replace leases. They will have a conference this fall  to update their overall strategies. Other notes from the call are 75% of the phones on the network are 5g. About 85% of their sites have n41, n25, and n71, 90% 5g.  93% of traffic is on midband.  SA is also adding to their performance advantage, which they figure is still ahead of other carriers by two years. It took two weeks to put the auction 108 spectrum to use at their existing sites. Mention was also made that their site spacing was designed for midrange thus no gaps in n41 coverage, while competitors was designed for lowband thus toggles back and forth for n77 also with its shorter range.  
    • Yuhfhrh
      Dish Network/Boost Mobile cell/5G buildout thread

      By Yuhfhrh · Posted

      The manual network selection sounds like it isn't always scanning NR, hence Dish not showing up. Your easiest way to force Dish is going to be forcing the phone into NR-only mode (*#*#4636#*#* menu?), since rainbow sims don't support SA on T-Mobile.
    • dkyeager
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By dkyeager · Posted

      "The company’s unique multi-layer approach to 5G, with dedicated standalone 5G deployed nationwide across 600MHz, 1.9GHz, and 2.5GHz delivers customers a consistently strong experience, with 85% of 5G traffic on sites with all three spectrum bands deployed." Meanwhile they are very close to a construction deadline June 1 for 850Mhz of mmWave in most of Ohio covering 27500-28350Mhz expiring 6/8/2028. No reported sightings.  Buildout notice issue sent by FCC in March 5, 2024 https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/letterPdf/LetterPdfController?licId=4019733&letterVersionId=178&autoLetterId=13060705&letterCode=CR&radioServiceCode=UU&op=LetterPdf&licSide=Y&archive=null&letterTo=L  No soecific permits seen in a quick check of Columbus. They also have an additional 200Mhz covering at 24350-25450 Mhz and 24950-25050Mhz with no buildout date expiring 12/11/2029.
    • Paynefanbro
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      T-Mobile Delivers Industry-Leading Customer, Service Revenue and Profitability Growth in Q1 2024, and Raises 2024 Guidance https://www.t-mobile.com/news/business/t-mobile-q1-2024-earnings — — — — — I find it funny that when they talk about their spectrum layers they're saying n71, n25, and n41. They're completely avoiding talking about mmWave.

  • Recently Browsing

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