Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Now wouldnt it make sense if sprint used wifi calling like tmobile? Instead of using femtocells they could use wifi, cut costs down and fill in some major coverage gaps that they currently have. Like for instance, i live in yuma, az (podunk desert mountain town lol) that gets decent coverage in all the towns and cities and along MOST of the major fareways. But i work at yuma proving grounds (army military testing site in the middle of the desert, with little to zero urban encroachment) and i get no coverage. The only carrier that gives GOOD coverage here is verizon. Why do you guys think the major three carriers dont provide for wifi calling?

 

The only thing that i can think of is MONEY. They want to make subsidies of femtocell devices, and charge for the monthly use of them. Tmobile uses it, but tmobile sucks and thats just the way the cookie crumbles. I like sprint (mostly cause their main color is yellow and i LOVE their symbol) and they are the one of the few companies that are pro consumer.

 

thoughts? :)

Edited by Ryan
  • Like 1
Posted

Sprint loses money in Airaves. If you are paying monthly then you must have the old Samsung Airave. If so, see about getting a monthly credit to offset the charge.

Posted

Also, I hope you are not going to be irrational here. It is not the best forum for that. Those posts are better suited for the Sprint.com Community forums.

Posted

Now wouldnt it make sense if sprint used wifi calling like tmobile? Instead of using femtocells they could use wifi, cut costs down and fill in some major coverage gaps that they currently have. Like for instance, i live in yuma, az (podunk desert mountain town lol) that gets decent coverage in all the towns and cities and along MOST of the major fareways. But i work at yuma proving grounds (army military testing site in the middle of the desert, with little to zero urban encroachment) and i get no coverage. The only carrier that gives GOOD coverage here is verizon. Why do you guys think the major three carriers dont provide for wifi calling?

 

The only thing that i can think of is MONEY. They want to make subsidies of femtocell devices, and charge for the monthly use of them. Tmobile uses it, but tmobile sucks and thats just the way the cookie crumbles. I like sprint (mostly cause their main color is yellow and i LOVE their symbol) and they are the one of the few companies that are pro consumer.

 

thoughts? :)

 

There already is Wi-Fi calling using one of the various apps out there on the market. Wi-Fi calling is not very good quality in comparison to what Sprint offers with CDMA. Unfortunately, people on the borders of calling area have to choose their provider wisely because there is not that much incentive for a carrier to install all the equipment for a few additional subscribers. Military bases are notorious for poor coverage because the training areas are vast expanses of uninhabited space. Carriers don't want to put up a tower in a place with no permanent residents and I'm pretty sure military bases don't want the carriers putting up towers in their training areas either.

Posted

not sure what you meant about being irrational. but i wasnt talking about voip, just wifi calling like tmobile offers.

 

i was just trying to start a conversation about a subject, i guess ill try not to be "irrational" about it lol :)

Posted
not sure what you meant about being irrational. but i wasnt talking about voip, just wifi calling like tmobile offers.

 

i was just trying to start a conversation about a subject, i guess ill try not to be "irrational" about it lol

 

Wi-Fi calling would absolutely be voip. They just offer a free voip app because they have the worst coverage of any nationwide carrier. As I said before, there are voip apps out there in the market.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Posted
not sure what you meant about being irrational. but i wasnt talking about voip' date=' just wifi calling like tmobile offers.

 

i was just trying to start a conversation about a subject, i guess ill try not to be "irrational" about it lol :)[/quote']

 

Duffman is just seeing red flags in your comment. Its all too often that someone starts out with the tone of your thread then goes into some berzerker tangent or goes into flame mode.

 

So definitely don't be offended by his comment, but don't go bat shit crazy on us either. ;)

 

:lol:

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

  • Like 1
Posted
not sure what you meant about being irrational. but i wasnt talking about voip' date=' just wifi calling like tmobile offers.

 

i was just trying to start a conversation about a subject, i guess ill try not to be "irrational" about it lol :)[/quote']

 

Wi-Fi calling would absolutely be voip. They just offer a free voip app because they have the worst coverage of any nationwide carrier. As I said before' date=' there are voip apps out there in the market.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk[/quote']

 

Yes, WiFi calling is a form of VoIP. However, it would be a good solution for a lot of people. Not as a substitute for an Airave in the home. But its great for those workplaces where people cannot install an Airave, but they do have WiFi.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

Posted

i totally understand where he is coming from. i wasnt trying to go on a tangent. i love sprint as a company, i guess its just the way i talk. im gay so i tend to exaggerate when i speak or talk. so my apologies :)

Posted

i totally understand where he is coming from. i wasnt trying to go on a tangent. i love sprint as a company, i guess its just the way i talk. im gay so i tend to exaggerate when i speak or talk. so my apologies :)

 

Actually, I think it's more that the desert heat has melted your brain once too many. That happens to me all the time, and it's worse in the summertime.

 

And as for wi-fi calling like T-Mobile HotSpot @ Home, Sprint chose to integrate Google Voice for people who wanted to receive calls outside of their cell phone to save on minutes. It does take some getting used to. I tried once but really didn't want to give up my Google Voice number and didn't have the extra money to pay for it.

Posted

i totally understand where he is coming from. i wasnt trying to go on a tangent. i love sprint as a company, i guess its just the way i talk. im gay so i tend to exaggerate when i speak or talk. so my apologies :)

 

This is not a stereotype I am familiar with. And I thought I knew them all! :wavey:

 

Robert

Posted
i totally understand where he is coming from. i wasnt trying to go on a tangent. i love sprint as a company' date=' i guess its just the way i talk. im gay so i tend to exaggerate when i speak or talk. so my apologies :)[/quote']

 

My daughter is gay but very reserved. I am not sure that is linked sexual identity. Lol.

 

I am all for looking at Sprint critically and do not think they are any better or worse than the others. I just do not want this place to end up as another place where people just complain about how evil Sprint is. After all, there are already places for that like sprint.com.

 

Sorry about jumping you. I am a bit edgy lately.

  • Like 1
Posted

i totally understand where he is coming from. i wasnt trying to go on a tangent. i love sprint as a company, i guess its just the way i talk. im gay so i tend to exaggerate when i speak or talk. so my apologies :)

lol

 

Not in a million years would I have thought I would see gay being brought up in this forum, nor that being a gay person would lead to exaggerating. lol

 

I guess there is a first for everything. lol

 

and for the record I'm gay too.

 

anyway, back on topic. WiFi calling?. again, learn something new everyday, never heard that term before. interesting.

 

TS

  • Like 1
Posted

i know wifi calling is voip. but to me it just seems like it would be more cost efficient for any carrier including sprint to subsitute a wifi hotspot for coverage, instead of using femtocells. it just seems like both parties would win. the carrier and the consumer, ya know?

Posted

i know wifi calling is voip. but to me it just seems like it would be more cost efficient for any carrier including sprint to subsitute a wifi hotspot for coverage, instead of using femtocells. it just seems like both parties would win. the carrier and the consumer, ya know?

 

It is more cost efficient, however, it depends on the customers home internet connection. I rely on Clear when I'm in California, and I rely on my neighbors wifi router to access his internet when I am home (at&t is a crappy company). I don't have the ability to use a landline based broadband connection to have the service, although I would love it if I could. If I had DSL, I would have an Airave in a heart beat.

 

lol

 

Not in a million years would I have thought I would see gay being brought up in this forum, nor that being a gay person would lead to exaggerating. lol

 

I guess there is a first for everything. lol

 

and for the record I'm gay too.

 

anyway, back on topic. WiFi calling?. again, learn something new everyday, never heard that term before. interesting.

 

TS

 

I grew up being an over-exaggerating person.

Posted
and for the record I'm gay too.

 

...Adding you to the gay list....

 

I grew up being an over-exaggerating person.

 

...Adding you to the gay list, too....

Posted

...Adding you to the gay list, too....

 

You can't add me to the gay list, my mom is at fault that I am like this. She always over- exaggerated, lol.

Posted

This thread got derailed pretty quickly, LOL.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Cellular phone calling is about 150 ms lag, which is pretty bad already (2 cell phones then is 300 ms)

 

Wifi calling tends to be double that, and makes for a bad to terrible experience...1/2 second and longer delays piss people off. Also wifi calling often has volume issues, and the higher latency results in echo and bigger echo cancellation problems.

Edited by strung
Posted

I'm not sure it has to be that way. I use Broadvoice VOIP at home and often run 200ms pings and it works great. You would think that if someone had WiFi in the 200ms ping range or better, they would be able to devise something that worked well with that.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

Posted (edited)

I'm not sure it has to be that way. I use Broadvoice VOIP at home and often run 200ms pings and it works great. You would think that if someone had WiFi in the 200ms ping range or better, they would be able to devise something that worked well with that.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

 

That's interesting and I was thinking about that. Maybe in New Mexico you are a lot closer to the POTS termination. That POTS termination is like long distance lag in addition to the internet lag. I think in Minnesota I've got the latency to the data center, plus the POTS network latency on top of that...gets pretty high, I suspect data centers are on west/east coast. Maybe near the coasts it's better. Just a hunch. But I've tried many VoIP sprint, tmobile, a few other voip providers and Airrave in MN on a fast low lag conneciton and its been noticably bad for voice calls -- not just me but the people on the other end basically say "i can't talk to you over this connection"!

Edited by strung
  • Like 1
Posted

 

That's interesting and I was thinking about that. Maybe in New Mexico you are a lot closer to the POTS termination. That POTS termination is like long distance lag in addition to the internet lag. I think in Minnesota I've got the latency to the data center, plus the POTS network latency on top of that...gets pretty high, I suspect data centers are on west/east coast. Maybe near the coasts it's better. Just a hunch. But I've tried many VoIP sprint, tmobile, a few other voip providers and Airrave in MN on a fast low lag conneciton and its been noticably bad for voice calls -- not just me but the people on the other end basically say "i can't talk to you over this connection"!

 

I think it is dependant on the connection, router, and phone. I have done speed tests with Wi-Fi on my phone and had 17ms pings and I am also in mn.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Posted (edited)

My ping to the SIP/RTP server had been under 40ms (one way would be 1/2 that, or 20ms then) and when I used a VoIP adapter I set the buffer to 10ms the minimum. Yet VoIP voice lag was still about 300ms (one way) or about double that of a cell phone. That means VoIP was adding about 270ms somehow, after traversing the internet to the VoIP terminal. Yuck. I never measured with airrave/tmobile but subjectively it felt about the same using the "click test", just call yourself on a landline (so hold one phone up to each ear), and "click"/pop your mouth in one end, and you can get a good feel the lag. If you use google voice try adding that into the mix too for fun, GV adds another 130ms lag on top :)

Edited by strung
Posted

Yeah. I never thought it all the way through the process. Now I remember using a voip on my tablet and the lag was awful. But we had a voip home line and it had very little, if any, lag. At least I never noticed.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

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

    • Vinegar Hill is getting the Brooklyn Heights treatment now with regard to small cells. I mapped two more small cells in the neighborhood in the past few days so now T-Mobile is up to 8 of them in such a tiny neighborhood. While it's cool they're doing this since it means outdoors you get a consistent 400Mbps+ almost everywhere, it sucks because they're obviously deploying so many of them to make up for their lack of a macro site in the entire neighborhood. Because there isn't a macro, the small cells have a greater coverage area than you see in other neighborhoods and you often connect to them while indoors but coverage and speeds fall off indoors much faster on small cells than on macros in my experience.  Even Dish has better coverage than T-Mobile in Vinegar Hill since they added the site on top of the Extra Space Storage building alongside AT&T and Verizon. T-Mobile needs to get in line with their competitors there.
    • It seems like that is the smallest Google Play System change that google releases. I see 12 MB updates really regularly. 
    • Went back to Greenville last week and what an insane change 4 years has made! Every site in the city has n25/41/71 now and T-Mobile has even added new sites in the city since the last time I was there. As a result, their coverage and speeds are great everywhere. Unfortunately I don't have my Verizon line anymore so I'm unable to compare their performance to T-Mobile but they definitely had better coverage and speeds than AT&Tin my testing.  On the LTE side of things, T-Mobile has 5MHz Band 71, 10MHz Band 66, and 5MHz Band 2 deployed. On the 5G side, they have 190MHz n41, 15MHz n25, and 15MHz n71 deployed. As you'd expect 5G is several times faster than LTE here because of that. One thing I noticed though is that T-Mobile's speeds pretty much never go above 1Gbps here. I'm not sure if it's a backhaul limitation or if they're seriously pushing their 5G home internet product here but on most sites I was seeing 500-600Mbps with some sites having peaks in the high 800s-low 900's. I also noticed that upload speeds weren't nearly as good as they were in NYC. I attribute this to the fact that site spacing often cause the phone to drop to n25 or n71 for uploads as opposed to using n41. I have a handful of high (>100Mbps) upload speed tests but that was with me virtually right next to a site. Since I drove my own car instead of riding with family, I used the opportunity to map a ton of rural roads outside to Greenville to see what kind of coverage I'd get. T-Mobile has stepped up their game a ton in this regard as I found that coverage matched and in many cases surpassed what I was seeing on AT&T. areas where AT&T dropped to 1 bar or even no signal, I held onto weak n71 and was still able to place calls using VoNR. There are still areas where I would drop signal but those were areas where I'm certain the only carrier available was U.S. Cellular since they still have a ton of macros that they're the only tenant on. The U.S. Cellular merger won't add much to T-Mobile's spectrum coffers there; they'll increase 600MHz from 20MHz to 30MHz, gain another 10MHz of AWS, and acquire the rest of the 24GHz band, but they'll gain a ton new sites to bolster their rural coverage in this area and make it pretty much the best in the region.  — — — — — I also mapped Dish while down there. Dish's doesn't have much spectrum in Pitt County, they only have 5MHz n71, 25MHz n70 and 5MHz n29. This lack of spectrum combined with what is pretty much a skeleton/license protection network meant that in most cases I was only on 1-2 bars of n71 indoors and while outdoors I wasn't seeing speeds nearly as good as I get in NYC. While directly in front of a site I could get over 300Mbps but in most cases while out and about I wasn't seeing over 100Mbps. In fact, at my hotel I was only able to get about 5Mbps down and 2Mbps up on n71. Maybe as they densify I'll see more consistently high speeds but their lack of spectrum will remain a huge bottleneck much like it was for T-Mobile pre-Sprint merger. — — — — — AT&T and Verizon are the only carriers with small cells in Greenville. Verizon has a significantly larger deployment than AT&T though, with AT&T having it along some roads where they have weaker coverage while Verizon seems to be using them for added capacity Uptown and especially around ECU. They started being installed around 2019 but none of them have 5G as far as I can tell, only LTE. AT&T also has C-band and DoD deployed on every site in the city, giving me speeds in the range of 350-400Mbps in most areas. — — — — — Here are some photos of small cells in Greenville.  
    • Just checked and found a 12MB Google Play System update ready to download.    Still October 1 for the date after however. 
    • Looks like my little area finally has some decent mobile connectivity. Still have a few dead spots on both tmo and firstnet... https://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/10549791800  
  • Recently Browsing

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