Jump to content

iPhone and lte


Turboxsloth

Recommended Posts

In the "Current Sprint PRLs" thread in General topics, digiblur says that it sounds like it may be a legacy non-LTE prl, and I think it's safe to assume that it may be a mix-up on Sprints end. I doubt they would purposely force us off of LTE, because I see no benefit to Sprint in that.

Thanks for the clarification. I'll head over to that thread and see what's the fuss.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the "Current Sprint PRLs" thread in General topics, digiblur says that it sounds like it may be a legacy non-LTE prl, and I think it's safe to assume that it may be a mix-up on Sprints end. I doubt they would purposely force us off of LTE, because I see no benefit to Sprint in that.

Talk about incompetence. Whoever was responsible should be fired.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just iPhone forced off LTE with this PRL, my G2 has it and wife said her PRL updated at work, but I dunno what number HTC one is. Haven't done PRL on my iPhone 4S or my gs3 yet. May not until this gets sorted.

 

Sent from my LG-LS980 (G2) using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about incompetence. Whoever was responsible should be fired.

On the bright side, maybe we'll be able to confirm the theory that the flood of upgraded iPhones this fall was largely responsible for the reduction in LTE speed & SNR there ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the bright side, maybe we'll be able to confirm the theory that the flood of upgraded iPhones this fall was largely responsible for the reduction in LTE speed & SNR there ;-)

That could work, except, I don't think many iPhones will get this prl as (to my knowledge) it wasn't pushed. I manually did a ##update# to get it. I usually check for updates once a week. Just so happens I pulled one that disabled the biggest feature of my phone. Hopefully, Sprint has a plan with this mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the update PRL again, and it updated to 55017 this morning...apparently they caught their mistake rather quickly. Still won't be out until later today in definite LTE territory to see what this does for my G2, but hopefully LTE is restored.

 

*edit*

 

My GS3 updated to 25017...so, **017 is apparently the one they meant to push...and **017 should be what phones are going to. going to check the HTC One right now and update PRL on it. I'm sure it'll roll to 55017 too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I believe that for iPhone users you can restore your phone as new and go through the activation screens. This should reset the factory PRL to 31000 (or whatever it is) which I believe is LTE without roaming. You can then restore your phone from a backup. I'm not worried about it b/c I have neither LTE or SMR near me, but I think that should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was a mistake, it's one that shouldn't have lasted longer than an hour.

Except for the fact that the only people who manually update their PRL are us here...which in the scheme of things is minuscule to Sprint. I bet the issue won't bubble up to them for a few days at best more from new activations than people updating their PRL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the fact that the only people who manually update their PRL are us here...which in the scheme of things is minuscule to Sprint. I bet the issue won't bubble up to them for a few days at best more from new activations than people updating their PRL.

That could be a good possibility. Could a customer service rep push a prl to your phone if I tell them this problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the fact that the only people who manually update their PRL are us here...which in the scheme of things is minuscule to Sprint. I bet the issue won't bubble up to them for a few days at best more from new activations than people updating their PRL.

That's not entirely true. Don't forget: Sprint's #1 customer care quick-fix is always a PRL update.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could be a good possibility. Could a customer service rep push a prl to your phone if I tell them this problem?

You can try, but I just called in to try and make them aware of the issue and the guy had no idea what I was even talking about, "a PRL simply tells your phone what towers are around you and selects the best one..." Then I dropped the call because, well that's what happens in my market when I go from a NV to legacy tower. I'm cool with it though....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not entirely true. Don't forget: Sprint's #1 customer care quick-fix is always a PRL update.

Well yes, it is, however there has to be an updated PRL to be pushed to your phone...their first go to move is to tell you to update your PRL, however the running humor in that is that does absolutely nothing for you if you're already on the most up to date PRL - which in this case is 60657. The fix need to come from wherever the PRLs are updated and pushed out to the devices, then "updating the PRL" will in fact fix the problem. Again, I go back to the fact that the quantity of Sprint users that has updated their PRL in the past 24 hours is probably in the single digits (us on this forum), and the only way that I know of to bring awareness to them is by customers calling in. Bottom line - this is yet another self-imposed debacle....WTF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tried to update today also, because it seems that 60657 also doesn't allow roaming, considering I'm at school where I always get 5 bars of Extended 1x/3G on my iPhone 5 but right now I am currently getting "No Service" and "Searching" constantly :td::wall:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're still on 60657 update your PRL again (##UPDATE#) and you should get 51099. Worked for myself as well as others here. I'm not in an LTE area so I can't say you'll connect back, but logic would say 51099 is the next progression after 51098 and therefore your LTE scan should once again be active.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51099 was fixed in the system. You can update now.

Putting aside this whole 60657 debacle (thanks for taking the lead and getting it fixed BTW) you have any way of seeing what changes 51099 brings to 51098?
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

  • Posts

    • I assume that any agreement is not perpetual and has an end date. - Trip
    • I think it is likely that T-Mobile will be forced to honor any existing US cellular roaming agreements in those areas as a condition of them taking over the spectrum.  In that case, there would be no improvement of service unless T-Mobile improves the service offering in those areas.
    • My understanding is the MNO carriers are the one who have objected to the use of cell phones in commercial planes.  I understand that it ties down too many cell phones at once, thus I can not see this changing. However this depends on how it is structured. Use of a different plmn for satellite service might make it possible for planes only to connect with satellite. Private pilots have been using cellphones in planes for many decades. Far fewer phones at a lower altitude.
    • 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.
  • Recently Browsing

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