Softbank - New Sprint - Discussion

[WiWavelength]

Isn't 8 possible in a 5 + 3 arrangement? Not that it matters, because if they 8 contiguous MHz they probably have at least 10. 

 

Yes, but that would not be a so called "8*8" aka 8 MHz FDD carrier.  Plus, go back and check my FCC OET authorization article series.  As I recall, you will not find many Sprint handsets that support the 3 MHz FDD bandwidth configuration for band 25.

 

AJ

[SpenceSouth]

Yes, but that would not be a so called "8*8" aka 8 MHz FDD carrier. Plus, go back and check my FCC OET authorization article series. As I recall, you will not find many Sprint handsets that support the 3 MHz FDD bandwidth configuration for band 25.

 

AJ

This isn't critical of your post, I just want to hear your insight into this. Theoretically, if they had the bandwidth to create a 3 MHz FDD PCS carrier they would not do it even not do it even though there are devices that could utilize it (albeit not many)? So a none over some approach?

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[S4GRU]

This isn't critical of your post, I just want to hear your insight into this. Theoretically, if they had the bandwidth to create a 3 MHz FDD PCS carrier they would not do it even not do it even though there are devices that could utilize it (albeit not many)? So a none over some approach?

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

The cost probably doesn't have the pay off since it will only help a handful of people.  If there is a market that is suffering under overly burdened Band 25, Sprint needs to do the other things in its arsenal to have a much bigger impact.  Like Band 26 or Band 41.

 

Robert

[DaQue]

AJ say in St Louis doesn't Sprint have room for several 5x5 LTE carriers? Why don't the add more where its painfully slow on the LTE accepted sites?

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

 

 

[DaQue]

Sorry Robert's answer wasn't up when I posted.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Terrell352]

What troubles me is that there are markets that will suffer from not having band 41 because they never seen wimax. 3 years to cover only 100 cities is not bad but could be better. I do think 5*5 pcs and 5*5 smr with eventually TD LTE is better than 10*10 750 and eventually AWS by Verizon. The fact that most of sprint customers dont have triband is a blessing.

[duddys31]

Hopefully once some of the other carriers start to slow down we will get more contractors to do our work and they will be able to deploy more than what they are saying faster. Also it should help once they start turning on 800lte but i dont know if anyone knows when that will be. But hopefully soon.

[duddys31]

So what i was wondering was the places that have 1 to 2 wimaxx sites whats gonna happen with those now since we have softbank are they gonna get some love.

[S4GRU]

What troubles me is that there are markets that will suffer from not having band 41 because they never seen wimax. 3 years to cover only 100 cities is not bad but could be better. I do think 5*5 pcs and 5*5 smr with eventually TD LTE is better than 10*10 750 and eventually AWS by Verizon. The fact that most of sprint customers dont have triband is a blessing.

 

 

Band 41 deployment starts on Network Vision sites in 2Q 2014.  Sprint is committing that the Top 100 markets will be fully covered with Band 41 in two years.  Not just a launchable amount of service.  That includes additional macro sites and pico cells for total coverage.  That's huge.  Likely, the existing Network Vision sites can be up and running much sooner than that.

 

In the short term, Band 41 doesn't need to be on every Network Vision site.  It is needed on every under performing LTE site as soon as possible.  If the Band 25 site is performing 8Mbps or better, then Band 41 can just show up when it's ready.  But if the Band 25 site is languishing, it needs to be a high priority Band 41 deployment on that site.

 

I believe Sprint will do this though.  They are targeting the WiMax conversions in order of the highest data use.  I believe they will do the same with Band 41 additions to NV sites.

 

Robert

[coorsleftfield]

I

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Johnner1999]

Band 41 deployment starts on Network Vision sites in 2Q 2014. Sprint is committing that the Top 100 markets will be fully covered with Band 41 in two years. Not just a launchable amount of service. That includes additional macro sites and pico cells for total coverage. That's huge. Likely, the existing Network Vision sites can be up and running much sooner than that.

 

In the short term, Band 41 doesn't need to be on every Network Vision site. It is needed on every under performing LTE site as soon as possible. If the Band 25 site is performing 8Mbps or better, then Band 41 can just show up when it's ready. But if the Band 25 site is languishing, it needs to be a high priority Band 41 deployment on that site.

 

I believe Sprint will do this though. They are targeting the WiMax conversions in order of the highest data use. I believe they will do the same with Band 41 additions to NV sites.

 

Robert

I want so badly to see this occur :-)

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Dave]

My 30 Mbps LTE has been slowing down to the low 20s lately. I really, really need some of this band 41 soon before I go insane from this slow speed.

[SpenceSouth]

My 30 Mbps LTE has been slowing down to the low 20s lately. I really, really need some of this band 41 soon before I go insane from this slow speed.

Sarcasm?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[anthony.spina97]

Sarcasm?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I sure hope so haha, it is pretty obvious.

 

 

-Anthony

[The Dave]

It is...although I was a little saddened over Thanksgiving when I only managed an 18 Mbps speed test. Still faster than my Comcast cable connection, though. A lot better latency, too.

[Ascertion]

It is...although I was a little saddened over Thanksgiving when I only managed an 18 Mbps speed test. Still faster than my Comcast cable connection, though. A lot better latency, too.

Sprint back in March at my home used to get 36mbps, now it gets 13-15 during peak hours. Not slow, but it is getting slower. Better than my cousins speeds on Verizon during peak hours. (He gets 47mbps at night, 5mbps during the day. Lol) T-Mobile surprisingly has a solid 38mbps through my home, and they're on the same site.

 

Sent from my LG-G2

 

 

[utiz4321]

Sprint back in March at my home used to get 36mbps, now it gets 13-15 during peak hours. Not slow, but it is getting slower. Better than my cousins speeds on Verizon during peak hours. (He gets 47mbps at night, 5mbps during the day. Lol) T-Mobile surprisingly has a solid 38mbps through my home, and they're on the same site.

 

Sent from my LG-G2

I don't get. What is the difference in use between 13 Mbs and 38 Mbs?

[SpenceSouth]

Sprint back in March at my home used to get 36mbps, now it gets 13-15 during peak hours. Not slow, but it is getting slower. Better than my cousins speeds on Verizon during peak hours. (He gets 47mbps at night, 5mbps during the day. Lol) T-Mobile surprisingly has a solid 38mbps through my home, and they're on the same site.

 

Sent from my LG-G2

I want to say I usually see 5-10mbps in the areas I frequent, which I am perfectly fine with. Just want to see the increase in coverage and capacity; speed can take the backseat for the time being.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[S4GRU]

I want to say I usually see 5-10mbps in the areas I frequent, which I am perfectly fine with. Just want to the increase in coverage and capacity; speed can take the backseat for the time being.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

This!  On AT&T up here in the Upper Plains, I don't notice if my phone is running at 5Mbps or 30Mbps.  But I sure as hell notice when I find a site running at 500kbps.  Which happens at about one out of every 10 AT&T sites.

 

Robert

[IamMrFamous07]

I'm fine with 6-8 Mbps but I still think sprint needs to build out a super fast network that's a lot faster than it's competition to attract new subscribers.

[Mr.Nuke]

I'm fine with 6-8 Mbps but I still think sprint needs to build out a super fast network that's a lot faster than it's competition to attract new subscribers.

I really don't want them to blow money on an e-penis network. If they complete NV with a sustainable network that provides consistent data at usable speeds and a competitive price point subscribers will come. This notion that Sprint has to have a 100 mb/s+ network for cell phone data to compete right now is ludicrous.

[IamMrFamous07]

I really don't want them to blow money on an e-penis network. If they complete NV with a sustainable network that provides consistent data at usable speeds and a competitive price point subscribers will come. This notion that Sprint has to have a 100 mb/s network for cell phones to compete right now is ludicrous.

I completely agree but if someone sees one provider can offer speeds 100mbps and the other 50-60 Mbps then that person will more than likely go with the provider that's faster.

 

It's sad because the average consumer doesn't understand, anything really over 8-10mbps you don't see a difference.

 

I feel they don't necessarily need to be the fastest but certainly not the slowest.

[IamMrFamous07]

And please I'm not one those people who needs faster data. Like I said I'm fine with 6-8mbps. I'm just saying if sprint wants to bring in a lot of new subscribers, having and proving your network is the fastest will definitely get people's attention

[Rawvega]

I really don't want them to blow money on an e-penis network. If they complete NV with a sustainable network that provides consistent data at usable speeds and a competitive price point subscribers will come. This notion that Sprint has to have a 100 mb/s+ network for cell phone data to compete right now is ludicrous.

 

Yes, it is ludicrous. However, it's a mindset that's being perpetuated by the tech bloggers, among others. When some random blog runs a headline about how Sprint finished in last place in some company's latest speed survey, that's all the average person sees. They don't care that Sprint may actually be fast enough for all practical purposes, they just care that it's not the fastest. The e-penis mentality has bee carefully cultivated and it runs deep.

[jamisonshaw125]

That's why sprint is going to have to really go for best pricing, unlimited data, and thanks to 800,1900, and 2500... Amazing to spectacular coverage literally everywhere sprint says there is. It'll be like att or Verizon, except less expensive. Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk