Jump to content
Dkoellerwx

Sprint Launches LTE in New York, Philadelphia, Portland and 56 other communities, July 30, 2013

Recommended Posts

Sprint launches 41 new "markets," and 59 new cities July 30, 2013.

  • Fremont, CA
  • Hayward, CA
  • King City, CA
  • Oakland, CA
  • Salinas, CA
  • Daytona Beach, FL
  • Deerfield Beach, FL
  • Deltona, FL
  • Fort Lauderdale, FL
  • Homosassa Springs, FL
  • Jacksonville, FL
  • Ocala, FL
  • Ormond Beach, FL
  • Palm Coast, FL
  • Pompano, FL
  • Port Charlotte, FL
  • Punta Gorda, FL
  • Kokomo, IN
  • Morgan City, LA
  • Fitchburg, MA
  • Leomister, MA
  • Springfield, MA
  • Worcester, MA
  • Big Rapids, MI
  • Cadillac, MI
  • Flint, MI
  • Grand Rapids, MI
  • Greenville, MI
  • Holland, MI
  • Saginaw, MI
  • Fairbault, MN
  • Northfield, MN
  • Columbus, MS
  • Greenwood, MS
  • Tupelo, MS
  • Chapel Hill, NC
  • Durham, NC
  • Fayettville, NC
  • Greenville, NC
  • Mooresville, NC
  • Rocky Mount, NC
  • Wilson, NC
  • Bronx, NY
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Ponca City, OK
  • Tulsa, OK
  • Portland, OR
  • Lebanon, PA
  • Philidelphia, PA
  • Dyersburg, TN
  • Jackson, TN
  • Nashville, TN
  • Brownsville, TX
  • Harlingen, TX
  • Laredo, TX
  • Nacogdoches, TX
  • Baraboo, WI
  • Beaver Dam, WI
  • Wausau, WI
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally Greenville, NC and NYC is on that list! If they announce each of these cities, then Sprint just got pushed in front of T-Mobile again!

 

You can definitely tell that Sprint felt the heat when those 116 cities were announced as covered. Now Sprint is going to play a numbers game and push itself ahead in terms of cities announced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally Greenville, NC and NYC is on that list! If they announce each of these cities, then Sprint just got pushed in front of T-Mobile again!

 

You can definitely tell that Sprint felt the heat when those 116 cities were announced as covered. Now Sprint is going to play a numbers game and push itself ahead in terms of cities announced.

 

Certainly looks that way. A number of those cities (NYC, Jacksonville, Nashville) shouldn't be on there given the number of pretty big holes in coverage, but they're feeling the pinch from T-Mobile. That's the only reason I can come up with that they came out with this list.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Tmobile is forcing them to announce more markets.  I honestly don't think Sprint will be a viable player across all markets until 800LTE turns on and tri-band phones come out.  There are just too many gaps with 1900.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly looks that way. A number of those cities (NYC, Jacksonville, Nashville) shouldn't be on there given the number of pretty big holes in coverage, but they're feeling the pinch from T-Mobile. That's the only reason I can come up with that they came out with this list.

I can confirm Nashville shouldn't be anywhere near launch status from my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's up with the underlined cities? I'm in Jacksonville Florida is the reason I asked. Also I agree that Jacksonville shouldn't be on the list there's a big chunk of the south side that isn't covered at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can say the same about NYC. But they are saying select area of NYC(Bronx and Brooklyn) so can't complain. But NYC has Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island and Westchester(?). That's a HUGE hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's up with the underlined cities? I'm in Jacksonville Florida is the reason I asked. Also I agree that Jacksonville shouldn't be on the list there's a big chunk of the south side that isn't covered at all.

 

The underlined are the "larger" cities/markets that Sprint has had a noticeable absence, at least according to the other carriers and critics. Just noting that Sprint is trying to make things look better by adding more larger cities, and not just the outskirts this time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can say the same about NYC. But they are saying select area of NYC(Bronx and Brooklyn) so can't complain. But NYC has Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island and Westchester(?). That's a HUGE hole.

 

The interesting thing is, even though they have only officially talked about Bronx and Brooklyn, the coverage maps are showing LTE in all five boroughs. Not complete coverage, there are holes, but the coverage is showing, which is odd if they aren't actually launching them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they're going to launch Philly with 23% LTE? makes no sense LTE coverage for the most part is scarce and I have been having issues with them turning off LTE for a few days then turning it back on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they're going to launch Philly with 23% LTE? makes no sense LTE coverage for the most part is scarce and I have been having issues with them turning off LTE for a few days then turning it back on...

 

23% of sites LTE, yes. But they're looking at POPs coverage, supposedly launched at 40% POPs coverage, which still seems very low for a launch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they're going to launch Philly with 23% LTE? makes no sense LTE coverage for the most part is scarce and I have been having issues with them turning off LTE for a few days then turning it back on...

 

I think itll do more harm then good.

 

"LTE LAUNCHED AND IT NEVER EVEN WORKS!!!! Ive been waiting twelve years and now that LTE is here you can barely get it anywhere!!11"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty ridiculous to launch Portland when there still isn't a single site broadcasting LTE... not in Gresham, Beaverton, or Vancouver, but in downtown Portland. If I'm in a tall enough building I'll pick up a weak signal from a site in SE, over 2 miles away.

 

At least the legacy network is holding up pretty well in most places, with sub-100ms ping times more often than not. I'm hoping the story is very different 6 months or a year from now, with ESMR's building penetration, hopefully a TDD rollout as large as the existing WiMax footprint in town, and 100% sites NV complete. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty ridiculous to launch Portland when there still isn't a single site broadcasting LTE... not in Gresham, Beaverton, or Vancouver, but in downtown Portland. If I'm in a tall enough building I'll pick up a weak signal from a site in SE, over 2 miles away.

 

At least the legacy network is holding up pretty well in most places, with sub-100ms ping times more often than not. I'm hoping the story is very different 6 months or a year from now, with ESMR's building penetration, hopefully a TDD rollout as large as the existing WiMax footprint in town, and 100% sites NV complete. 

 

I was looking at Portland a little bit ago. I do not understand how they came to the decision to launch Portland. I noticed right away a lack of any real coverage in the middle part of the city. Maybe they expect something to change in the next 6 days. We shall see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at Portland a little bit ago. I do not understand how they came to the decision to launch Portland. I noticed right away a lack of any real coverage in the middle part of the city. Maybe they expect something to change in the next 6 days. We shall see.

 

Suddenly, by chance 20 towers go live with LTE...not.

 

I am just praying that the sites that had LTE previously, but got turned off, will turn on again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at Portland a little bit ago. I do not understand how they came to the decision to launch Portland. I noticed right away a lack of any real coverage in the middle part of the city. Maybe they expect something to change in the next 6 days. We shall see.

 

Using that logic, St. Louis is a go for launch. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using that logic, St. Louis is a go for launch. :)

 

Ha! Portland outlying has a little bit better coverage than the edges of St. Louis. But, pretty much, yeah. Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've already heard about Sprint launching Bronx and Brooklyn on July 30, but according to the coverage maps, they're also preparing to launch several other cities, including:

 

 

  • Tulsa, OK

This is a preliminary list based upon coverage maps. I will update when we get official information.

So, does this mean I can report a botched site install and have them fix it now?

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, does this mean I can report a botched site install and have them fix it now?

 

:)

 

On the 30th, yep! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at Portland a little bit ago. I do not understand how they came to the decision to launch Portland. I noticed right away a lack of any real coverage in the middle part of the city. Maybe they expect something to change in the next 6 days. We shall see.

I'm sure the reasoning is that the footprint in the suburbs is over 40% POPs. That's great if I pass through for 10 minutes on my way to the mountains or something, but the mind boggles to think it was logistically easier to light up LTE in the middle of nowhere compared to upgrading the very busy downtown, inner SE, and inner NE areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, looks like Sprint still hasn't bothered to fix the fact that the LTE coverage maps are massively innacurate. There are spots around where I live that are definitely "voice roaming" (both on the map and in reality), but show "fair" LTE. What a complete joke.

 

I even switched to the Note II for coverage, just to make sure they weren't trying to map LTE 800 before there were any sites at all for it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured they would roll out nyc in parts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, looks like Sprint still hasn't bothered to fix the fact that the LTE coverage maps are massively innacurate. There are spots around where I live that are definitely "voice roaming" (both on the map and in reality), but show "fair" LTE. What a complete joke.

 

I even switched to the Note II for coverage, just to make sure they weren't trying to map LTE 800 before there were any sites at all for it.

The map for my area is very well off not even close to accurate, this is sad Sprint get your shit together. It shows LTE all around me and that's the furthest thing from the truth.

Edited by BlueAngel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the mind boggles to think it was logistically easier to light up LTE in the middle of nowhere compared to upgrading the very busy downtown, inner SE, and inner NE areas. 

 

Not really. The more rural sites probably have better access for techs on site. There is likely less headache with permitting as county permits are usually easier to get acceptance for than city in many areas, less red tape. As long as the backhaul can be installed quickly (possibly already has much of the infrastructure on site if other carriers are in the area with adequate backhaul), then there isn't much else other than getting boots on the ground with the equipment to install it.

 

Cities usually have more permit restrictions and red tape to go through, sites may be installed on buildings with more access restrictions and requiring more precise scheduling to get everything in place to be installed, and backhaul installation may be more difficult if it's not already in place due to their own permit requirements and technicians note directly related to Sprint.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • By EntrepreneurKid
      Given the fact that Virgin has access to Extended Coverage ever since it's Inner Circle plan still now with it's current one at least according to customer service. Shouldn't Virgin be using PRL 55070 like it was with Inner Circle or is 7080 correct? I feel like there's an issue that isn't being paid attention too. Does PRL 7080 have the necessary stuff to make the device roam on Sprints extended partners.
    • By EntrepreneurKid
      When Virgin Mobile introduced their Inner Circle plan they added Extended coverage giving them the same coverage as Sprint Postpaid. And a few months ago when Virgin did away with its Inner Circle plan and its iPhone only to the current plan lineup and devices I figured they'd backtrack on the roaming and go back to Sprint only. While they may not have updated their coverage map it would seem they are not allowing roaming as my LG Tribute Dynasty which is compatible with US Cellular roaming is being restricted and blocked post activation. Before hands free activation began I was able to go into the devices network and roaming settings and switch on voice roaming, which worked, it immediately connected to US Cellular, then the hands free activation started which couldn't complete due to no data until I switched on wifi, but after the device rebooted, the voice roaming was turned off and greyed out so it couldn't be switched back on.
      I know this device is capable of roaming, it has band 12 and band 5 for LTE and the CDMA band necessary to roam onto US Cellulars CDMA network, which again it was able to due prior to activation. If Virgin Mobile is going to continue having roaming as an option then it should work otherwise they need to remove it from their coverage map. I've attempted to take the issue up with Virgin but they tell me that they'll help me with any other issue, except roaming. I believe it has something to do with the PRL since it is what determines the devices roaming. I found a old Virgin device from before Inner Circle started, in it was PRL 7080 the same one as it has now, back then Virgin was the home network on Sprint only, no data or voice roaming.
      I don't know where the issue is with this and I'm hoping after filing a complaint with the FCC which has been served that it is either corrected and fixed and roaming starts working, or Virgin removes it from their coverage map if they're not going to allow it. I've asked customer service if the coverage map and the roaming on it applies to current customers or if it was just Inner Circle and they say it does apply to the current plans. If so, and if I have a device that is compatible (LG Tribute Dynasty), why is it being restricted.

    • By danlodish345
      Hey guys I was browsing one of my news applications and I found interesting article about Verizon Wireless in Maine I'm sharing the link.
      http://wcyy.com/verizon-is-dumping-an-entire-chunk-of-maine-from-their-wireless-network/
      Tell me what you think.
    • By clbowens
      Does Sprint have an LTE roaming deals with any carrier anywhere currently?  If so, does it show up on their coverage map?
    • By RedSpark
      Any S4GRU members going to the Super Bowl or planning to be near the stadium? Could you let us know how Sprint's coverage is?

      ----------

      About the DAS: http://www.rcrwireless.com/20150129/network-infrastructure/digging-das-superbowl-tag4
       
  • Posts

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...