Jump to content

LTE Plus / Enhanced LTE (was "Sprint Spark" - Official Name for the Tri-Band Network)


Recommended Posts

Well, it *might* be a Clear site.

 

A number of Sprint-only sites also go live with Band 41, but without backhaul fully present. (We've got two here, and they roughly match the performance you describe. Definitely not clear sites, since Clear never had service on/near them)

 

But either way, backhaul will increase that speed eventually.

Highly unlikely to be Nokia sites as those are as rare as unicorns in Nokia markets compared to clear band 41.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it *might* be a Clear site.

 

A number of Sprint-only sites also go live with Band 41, but without backhaul fully present. (We've got two here, and they roughly match the performance you describe. Definitely not clear sites, since Clear never had service on/near them)

 

But either way, backhaul will increase that speed eventually.

Signalcheck pro see's it as a clear site.[emoji6]

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been having slow speeds from band 41 here in Austin Texas. It's just concerning to me as I expect much more from this "new" network. I checked that I was connected to band 41 in my iPhone's field test and performed a speed test. The result: 4.20 MBPS down and 5.80 MBPS up. I had 4 bars. It's just disappointing. Will this get any better?

 

What's wrong with 4.20mbps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4.2 is not bad if it is B25 or B26 but with a good signal, that's kinda sad on B41.

 

Again though, why is that kinda sad?

 

That's more than enough to do anything and everything you'd want to do on a mobile device. I was streaming content from my media server the other day waiting for my wife to get out of the store. Speeds averaged 3-5mbps, and it was perfect for watching videos.

 

The true definition of a network should be the most consistent network experience, not 150mbps in one particular location. The ability to blanket coverage, both inbuilding and outdoors, and keep it consistent, is what will win customers.

 

Sure you'll have those fickle e-pen folks, but I truly believe the vast majority would rather appreciate and want a consistent service.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure you'll have those fickle e-pen folks, but I truly believe the vast majority would rather appreciate and want a consistent service.

I'm sorry to disagree, but for the vast majority of folks that I know all they care about is fast speeds, faster speeds, and fastest speeds. We here are a small minority compared to the millions out there. The media burns it in our brains, in speed tests, commercials and marketing too. It is a shame, but it is what it is. 

 

TS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with 4.20mbps?

I got around 4 MBPS on AT&T HSPA+ 14 like 3 years ago when I had att. :) It scares me to see speeds like that, since I'm patiently awaiting band 41 at my saturated band 25 house. I want more than 4 Mbps. Basically. I can't get wifi at my house.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got around 4 MBPS on AT&T HSPA+ 14 like 3 years ago when I had att. :) It scares me to see speeds like that, since I'm patiently awaiting band 41 at my saturated band 25 house. I want more than 4 Mbps. Basically. I can't get wifi at my house.

Why can't you get WiFi in your home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apparently live to far to be serviced by AT&T Uverse or Time Warner Cable. So I basically live my life from my phone. I'm too heavy of a data user to use a mobile hotspot on like my laptop. All data intensive services run from my phone like YouTube or Netflix, thus making fast service not exactly needed, but it would be very nice for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apparently live to far to be serviced by AT&T Uverse or Time Warner Cable. So I basically live my life from my phone. I'm too heavy of a data user to use a mobile hotspot on like my laptop. All data intensive services run from my phone like YouTube or Netflix, thus making fast service not exactly needed, but it would be very nice for me.

That sucks, I have a friend in the same boat. They are currently trying to petition Time Warner to run cable to their home. TWC offered to do it, for the small fee of $22,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sucks, I have a friend in the same boat. They are currently trying to petition Time Warner to run cable to their home. TWC offered to do it, for the small fee of $22,000.

 

I have three words for you:  network infrastructure nationalization.

 

The for profit corporations have failed and can go to hell.

 

AJ

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have three words for you: network infrastructure nationalization.

 

The for profit corporations have failed and can go to hell.

 

AJ

From the same government that brought us Amtrak and the postal service, both of which lose massive amounts of money every year. No thanks. The private sector is our best hope. Government always finds ways to screw everything up it puts it's hands in. The best thing that ever happened was when the government ordained telco monopoly was busted up. For those who remember, long distance rates went from over $1 a minute to just a few cents a minute in a matter of a few years.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 edition

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry to disagree, but for the vast majority of folks that I know all they care about is fast speeds, faster speeds, and fastest speeds. We here are a small minority compared to the millions out there. The media burns it in our brains, in speed tests, commercials and marketing too. It is a shame, but it is what it is. 

 

TS

 

 

You're right, but without that consistent network in place, those faster speeds won't mean much.

 

Think of it this way. Once NV is 100% complete in NYC, and every site is tuned, the second, and third B41 carrier with CA will give you those crazy top speeds, and no one will be able to compete.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got around 4 MBPS on AT&T HSPA+ 14 like 3 years ago when I had att. :) It scares me to see speeds like that, since I'm patiently awaiting band 41 at my saturated band 25 house. I want more than 4 Mbps. Basically. I can't get wifi at my house.

 

You shouldn't be scared of that, but depending on distance from the tower, you may never get the full theoretical speeds at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the government busted up a business monopoly that is.    For the efficient use of such a limited resource streamlining wouldn't be such a bad thing.  Imagine how our infrastructure would be if there weren't incentives to build this out or limitations on who can broadcast on what.  I can see companies trying to blast other ones out just to make a buck.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 mile is a long way when it comes to B41. Especially if you are in an urband/suburban area.

Honestly... I've found band 41 to be very cooperative no matter what signal. My iPhone 6 has some of the best RF performance you can find in a spark device. From experience it isn't afraid of a poor signal and I've seen the signal get down to -123 and still hold on band 41, still being functional around 5-6 Mbps. I've also been in thick buildings and even with two or three bars received around 20-30 Mbps down. Basically Band 41 is not WiMAX. Not even close to what it was like. It's similar to band 4 on T-Mobile (2100 MHz) it works well even under a very poor signal and doesn't completely "dissapear" or fade badly. I'm excited to see what can be done, but I'm also having to build an iron patience in the process. Good things take time.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly... I've found band 41 to be very cooperative no matter what signal. My iPhone 6 has some of the best RF performance you can find in a spark device. From experience it isn't afraid of a poor signal and I've seen the signal get down to -123 and still hold on band 41, still being functional around 5-6 Mbps. I've also been in thick buildings and even with two or three bars received around 20-30 Mbps down. Basically Band 41 is not WiMAX. Not even close to what it was like. It's similar to band 4 on T-Mobile (2100 MHz) it works well even under a very poor signal and doesn't completely "dissapear" or fade badly. I'm excited to see what can be done, but I'm also having to build an iron patience in the process. Good things take time.

 

Band 41 had much better edge of cell performance, that is true. This is why connections down to -130dBm are allowed. 

 

The point was, in an urban area, 1 mile is a long way for any LTE signal. In more rural areas, sites are configured for a much larger coverage area. Not so in cities.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Band 41 had much better edge of cell performance, that is true. This is why connections down to -130dBm are allowed.

 

The point was, in an urban area, 1 mile is a long way for any LTE signal. In more rural areas, sites are configured for a much larger coverage area. Not so in cities.

Oh. Well in that case I'm in a rural area. Nothing but grass and long roads. I'm close to suburbs though. By about 3 or 4 miles away. For reference, I get a 1900 LTE signal of about -105 to -89 in my house depending on where I'm at. Edited by TangerineAir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks Like Band 41 deployment is going to get big real fast. Just got a PCN (Prior Coordination Notice) Fancy term for Microwave Path Coordination. for  over 100 locations across the US for Sprintcom. Equipment Spec'd was Dragonwave (what Clearwire deployed before they halted ). Spread across the US 80 corridor mainly but with Huge clusters in WA state-Seattle area, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio.

  • Like 8
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.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

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