Jump to content
bucdenny

Sprint had more successful connected calls at the Super Bowl.

Recommended Posts

That's the best use of NFL season tickets I could imagine.

 

Agreed, it is.  Even though my dad and I live only 100 miles apart, I probably see him just 15 times per year.  Over half of those are during football season.  He is the practical businessman, while I am the idealistic intellectual.  But home games at Arrowhead have brought us together for many years now.

 

AJ

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't that 50k including sprint and tmo subs.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

 

Not every person there had AT&T and verizon only. You'd need to figure the average percent of American cell phone users that have verizon and AT&T. Then you can math it. :)

Yes, that's correct, so my numbers were merely estimates. I figured as such: 1900 MB (VZW) + ~630 MB (ATT) ~= 2,530. VZW and ATT combined account for anywhere from 50-75% of total wireless subscribers in an area. Thus, a 20% increase in overall data usage gets us up to 3,000 MB (3 TB), getting us a close estimate of data usage.

 

For another way to do it, 2,500,000 MB [1.9 TB + 0.6 TB] / (50,000 [approx people at game] * 67% [combined ATT+VZW subs]) = 75 MB. 75 MB * 30 days = 2,250 MB/month. Once again, right around that 2 GB/month figure we see quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to consider is that Super Bowl cellular data usage probably does not correlate much with typical cellular usage -- unless you account for the "Look, Ma, I'm at the Super Bowl" factor.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to consider is that Super Bowl cellular data usage probably does not correlate much with typical cellular usage -- unless you account for the "Look, Ma, I'm at the Super Bowl" factor.

 

AJ

All of those Instagram selfies. #totes #at #the #superbowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those Instagram selfies. #totes #at #the #superbowl

Someone should find a way to annihilate the words "selfie" and "hashtag."  #feelinghomicidal

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should find a way to annihilate the words "selfie" and "hashtag."  #feelinghomicidal

 

My local news channel told viewers to send in their "snow selfies" using #SnowySelfie during recent snow storm coverage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My local news channel told viewers to send in their "snow selfies" using #SnowySelfie during recent snow storm coverage.

Vomit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should find a way to annihilate the words "selfie" and "hashtag."  #feelinghomicidal

 

OEMs should install squirting mechanisms in self facing camera lenses for a little operant conditioning.

 

24389.jpg

 

AJ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is LTE live in East Rutherford?  Either way, I'd call it a win.  Who uploads 20 MB files while watching a football game?

 

 

Sprint said in a statement that its network "performed exceptionally well during the Super Bowl on Sunday, besting our competition in voice performance and providing consistent, solid data performance. Sprint saw 4G LTE data traffic increases over a typical game day of 83% and 150% for download and upload speeds respectively. And, Sprint was using a single channel of LTE, so about half of what our competitors are using today. With the deployment of Sprint Spark, Sprint will be able to aggregate multiple channels of LTE to boost throughput speeds that will match and ultimately exceed competitor speeds."

 

Read more: Super Bowl XLVIII: How did Tier 1 wireless carriers' networks hold up? - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/super-bowl-xlviii-how-did-tier-1-wireless-carriers-networks-hold#ixzz2sPcLwEW3 

 

As for the uploading 20 MB files while watching football. I remember 2 years ago an article stated upload data outweighed downloads.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/superbowl-att/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://www.mobilesportsreport.com/2012/02/att-super-bowl-crowd-breaks-wireless-data-sending-records/

 

Probably even worse now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say getting speeds of 1.15Mbps DL and 97% successful voice connections is a triumph for Sprint given it was the Super Bowl.  It would have been ZERO before Network Vision.

 

Robert

I will go one further. Sprint should have been crowned the winner. Usable data AND excellent voice coverage should win out over excellent data speeds and an 80% chance of completing your call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there Spark coverage at the super bowl?  I wonder how it would had performed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there Spark coverage at the super bowl?  I wonder how it would had performed.

 

 

 And, Sprint was using a single channel of LTE, so about half of what our competitors are using today. With the deployment of Sprint Spark, Sprint will be able to aggregate multiple channels of LTE to boost throughput speeds that will match and ultimately exceed competitor speeds."

 

Read more: Super Bowl XLVIII: How did Tier 1 wireless carriers' networks hold up? - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/super-bowl-xlviii-how-did-tier-1-wireless-carriers-networks-hold#ixzz2sPcLwEW3 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is one LTE site that serves that stadium which is kind of amazing. However I'm sure that because many of the surrounding sites had LTE it performed a but better.

 

And I'm wondering if Sprint increased backhaul specifically for that site to keep users connected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there Spark coverage at the super bowl?  I wonder how it would had performed.

The problem is, even if there was Spark coverage, the testing company used a Galaxy S3. I've seen a few articles written that test Sprint's new network but they end up using some dated handset. I won't be surprised if next Superbowl we will see the same testing done with another non Spark handset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will go one further. Sprint should have been crowned the winner. Usable data AND excellent voice coverage should win out over excellent data speeds and an 80% chance of completing your call.

I wouldn't crown Sprint the winner, who makes calls during the Super Bowl? I'd place more weight on the data performance. But I'm surprised service (on all carriers) performed as well as it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My local news channel told viewers to send in their "snow selfies" using #SnowySelfie during recent snow storm coverage.

suicide-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't crown Sprint the winner, who makes calls during the Super Bowl? I'd place more weight on the data performance. But I'm surprised service (on all carriers) performed as well as it did.

A smartphone is still a phone. Even at the Superbowl you may have an emergency requiring the use of your phone. IMO an 80% completion rate is a fail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A smartphone is still a phone. Even at the Superbowl you may have an emergency requiring the use of your phone. IMO an 80% completion rate is a fail.

 

No way.  Your thinking is blatantly wishful.  When upwards of 80,000 people congregate together in a small area, network congestion is inevitable.  So, that 80 percent completion rate is a downright success.  And it will not get better until there are small cells in every section of the stadium and on every light pole in the parking lot.  Do not hold your breath.

 

For a parallel, have you ever seen an ambulance try to exit a stadium parking lot against the flow of thousands of other cars filing in to the parking lot?  I have.  The lights may be flashing, the sirens blaring, but that ambulance is moving as slow as molasses.  Sorry, but an NFL football game is simply a bad place for anyone to have an emergency.  Those are the breaks.  The crush of people is too great.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way.  Your thinking is blatantly wishful.  When upwards of 80,000 people congregate together in a small area, network congestion is inevitable.  So, that 80 percent completion rate is a downright success.  And it will not get better until there are small cells in every section of the stadium and on every light pole in the parking lot.  Do not hold your breath.

 

Fortunately Sprint didn't share that line of thinking and sought to do better. If they can pull off a 97% call completion rate, then the duopoly, with all their resources, can aim to do just as well. The timing and nature of the event an ambulance is responding to is inherently unexpected- the demand on cellular networks is not.

 

Forget what Sprint accomplished for a moment (since it is statistically likely there were far fewer Sprint subs in attendance) - just the difference between a 1-in-10 and 1-in-5 chance of a call not going through is pretty darn notable, in my opinion. AT&T definitely has some room for improvement.

 

It's too bad they don't have any figures for T-Mobile. I'd have been curious to see if their smaller size (like Sprint) would have been a benefit, or if the technology they deployed (GSM/W-CDMA like AT&T) would have also fallen behind. The data speeds I mostly disregard, since they weren't using VZW's B4 LTE.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately Sprint didn't share that line of thinking and sought to do better. If they can pull off a 97% call completion rate, then the duopoly, with all their resources, can aim to do just as well. The timing and nature of the event an ambulance is responding to is inherently unexpected- the demand on cellular networks is not.

 

Forget what Sprint accomplished for a moment (since it is statistically likely there were far fewer Sprint subs in attendance) - just the difference between a 1-in-10 and 1-in-5 chance of a call not going through is pretty darn notable, in my opinion. AT&T definitely has some room for improvement.

 

It's too bad they don't have any figures for T-Mobile. I'd have been curious to see if their smaller size (like Sprint) would have been a benefit, or if the technology they deployed (GSM/W-CDMA like AT&T) would have also fallen behind. The data speeds I mostly disregard, since they weren't using VZW's B4 LTE.

This!

No way.  Your thinking is blatantly wishful.  When upwards of 80,000 people congregate together in a small area, network congestion is inevitable.  So, that 80 percent completion rate is a downright success.  And it will not get better until there are small cells in every section of the stadium and on every light pole in the parking lot.  Do not hold your breath.

 

For a parallel, have you ever seen an ambulance try to exit a stadium parking lot against the flow of thousands of other cars filing in to the parking lot?  I have.  The lights may be flashing, the sirens blaring, but that ambulance is moving as slow as molasses.  Sorry, but an NFL football game is simply a bad place for anyone to have an emergency.  Those are the breaks.  The crush of people is too great.

 

AJ

While I will agree to using overly dramatic language gnoj put the situation in the perfect perspective. To use your example of the ambulance in the parking lot. There are ways to mitigate that situation. It is all in the planning. From the outside looking in it seems that Sprint did a better job on the voice planning than AT&T. I think they deserved the win on this one versus another blatantly biased opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you consider that VZW and ATT customers were paranoid about pushing their data caps, and Sprint's customers unlimitedly using their data to their hearts content...then it really becomes impressive that Sprint could maintain a usable speed at all.

 

If I had at least 1Mbps speeds in a small area with tens of thousands of other customers, I'm happy.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, even a 1 Mbps sustained speed is more than enough for any Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, email, MMS, pulling up ESPN, etc. This is also looking at the fact that it is just one 5x5 band and not including band 26 and band 41. Having a 97% call connection rate is ridiculously great, too. This Super Bowl has been regarded as the largest test of the cell networks to date. Sprint isn't halfway complete with their LTE upgrades and they put on a great showing. Just think what next February will bring. I hate to be a blogger come next year. How the heck can you spin it so that Sprint still looks bad when Sprint may very well crush all the other networks next year on both voice and data.

  • Like 6

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.


×
×
  • Create New...