Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[dnicekid]

Is anyone noticing this?

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sprint/comments/45keb5/sprints_finally_brining_the_heat/czyjatr

 

 

 

 

4x4 Mimo?

Are you serious? Any else doing 4x4?

 

I thought ct was Alcatel ?

[WiWavelength]

 

i think portion speaks louder...   Sprint users passed the least amount data.  compared to the big two, huge difference.  the sprint network should have been faster by 3x

 

 

 

• AT&T –  5.2 Terabytes
• Sprint – 1.6 Terabytes
• T-Mobile – 2.1 Terabytes
• Verizon –  7 Terabytes

 

 

Nah, that is not how the game is played.  The amount of data transferred by the others is irrelevant to Sprint users, who did have the fastest data speeds in the stadium.  That is an objectively tested fact.  Trying to pass it off as a lesser achievement because non Sprint users transferred more data is irrelevant to those non Sprint users, who had slower speeds -- again, an objectively tested fact.  Why should any of them care how much data their operators transferred?  

 

For an analogy, a car repair shop might have the fastest service because it is not very popular.  So, its service is fast, though it does not serve a lot of cars in volume.  But then it grows in popularity for its fast service, inevitably causing that fast service to slow down.  And another car shop down the street then surpasses the other in speed.  Thus, customers shift their business accordingly.

 

Yeah, that generally is how entropic systems work.  Do not worry so much about it.  Seriously, some of the navel gazing in this thread and the T-Mobile thread is beyond the pale.  But that dissection mostly is directed at Sprint.  Yes, we must take anything positive about Sprint with a grain of salt -- Sprint probably is skewing the stats.  Oh, but the other operators, they tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

Look, T-Mobile staked a big part of an ad campaign on it having greater bandwidth per user than VZW.  That primarily was because T-Mobile had the fewest subs of any of the majors.  Yet, T-Mobile gets a free pass on that.

 

AJ

[Terrell352]

Marcelo tweeted Sprint average speed nationwide for the past 14 days is 20MB highest among the 4 carriers and 40 MB in Florida! Hopefully part of these claims are true.

Where in Florida? Usually they are the slowest in many counties in the state and nokia deployment is slow.

[Johnner1999]

Nah, that is not how the game is played.  The amount of data transferred by the others is irrelevant to Sprint users, who did have the fastest data speeds in the stadium.  That is an objectively tested fact.  Trying to pass it off as a lesser achievement because non Sprint users transferred more data is irrelevant to those non Sprint users, who had slower speeds -- again, an objectively tested fact.  Why should any of them care how much data their operators transferred?  

 

For an analogy, a car repair shop might have the fastest service because it is not very popular.  So, its service is fast, though it does not serve a lot of cars in volume.  But then it grows in popularity for its fast service, inevitably causing that fast service to slow down.  And another car shop down the street then surpasses the other in speed.  Thus, customers shift their business accordingly.

 

Yeah, that generally is how entropic systems work.  Do not worry so much about it.  Seriously, some of the navel gazing in this thread and the T-Mobile thread is beyond the pale.  But that dissection mostly is directed at Sprint.  Yes, we must take anything positive about Sprint with a grain of salt -- Sprint probably is skewing the stats.  Oh, but the other operators, they tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

Look, T-Mobile staked a big part of an ad campaign on it having greater bandwidth per user than VZW.  That primarily was because T-Mobile had the fewest subs of any of the majors.  Yet, T-Mobile gets a free pass on that.

 

AJ

 

 

So just asking - hopefully this isn't edited forme... 

 

how does the DAS function? Does it have unique/dedicated panels for each of the four carriers, and data drops?   Or does each carrier supply their own backhaul?   

 

i'm sure that i'm wrong -- but id assume more devices on any carrier would degrade QoS... 

[lilotimz]

So just asking - hopefully this isn't edited forme...

 

how does the DAS function? Does it have unique/dedicated panels for each of the four carriers, and data drops? Or does each carrier supply their own backhaul?

 

i'm sure that i'm wrong -- but id assume more devices on any carrier would degrade QoS...

A carrier neutral DAS has numerous antenna nodes set across the building.

 

These antennas are multi frequency capable and are connected by fiber optic cable to a central base station.

 

Carrier plugs into the DAS system by placing their own RF hardware in a equipment room somewhere close by connected to the DAS systems.. The carriers RF signals are then transported to the antenna nodes by RF over Fiber cables and then broadcasted by the antennas to be used by compatible UE.

[reedacus25]

Nah, that is not how the game is played. The amount of data transferred by the others is irrelevant to Sprint users, who did have the fastest data speeds in the stadium. That is an objectively tested fact. Trying to pass it off as a lesser achievement because non Sprint users transferred more data is irrelevant to those non Sprint users, who had slower speeds -- again, an objectively tested fact. Why should any of them care how much data their operators transferred?

 

Yeah, that generally is how entropic systems work. Do not worry so much about it. Seriously, some of the navel gazing in this thread and the T-Mobile thread is beyond the pale. But that dissection mostly is directed at Sprint. Yes, we must take anything positive about Sprint with a grain of salt -- Sprint probably is skewing the stats. Oh, but the other operators, they tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

AJ

I still don't get how they came to their conclusion, not that I am looking to you for answers.

 

The DAS operator showed total throughput figures in xTB, and an average throughput in MB/s.

 

We can either accept an off by factor of 8x error for B vs b, or we can assume that this should equate to total average backhaul throughput being metered for each carrier on the backside of the DAS.

 

If the backhaul being metered is the sampling data used for the average throughput metric, I do not see how those figures, over equal time, equal the same total traffic count.

 

I've also seen other, albeit older, DAS architecture in person, and can't imagine how else they would measure individual carrier throughput in that manner considering the radios behind the node antennas have been dumb in the past.

RF from BTS to light, back to RF to clean and base line, then to light again for distro, then back to RF from radio to node.

 

More to your post I quoted, I believe everyone is taking a slight angle at the data to fluff their own stats.

 

But I don't think there is enough data from this report for me to take it at face value is all. Need more info and variables to compute "network potential" aka excess speed metric than what is given in the report. But bottom line it sounded like everyone performed mostly well across the board, so yay progress right?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

I still don't get how they came to their conclusion, not that I am looking to you for answers.

 

The DAS operator showed total throughput figures in xTB, and an average throughput in MB/s.

 

We can either accept an off by factor of 8x error for B vs b, or we can assume that this should equate to total average backhaul throughput being metered for each carrier on the backside of the DAS.

 

If the backhaul being metered is the sampling data used for the average throughput metric, I do not see how those figures, over equal time, equal the same total traffic count.

 

I've also seen other, albeit older, DAS architecture in person, and can't imagine how else they would measure individual carrier throughput in that manner considering the radios behind the node antennas have been dumb in the past.

RF from BTS to light, back to RF to clean and base line, then to light again for distro, then back to RF from radio to node.

Levi's Stadium is only two seasons into its existence. The DAS is new, brand spanking new -- because the DAS already was significantly overhauled after the first season. I thought that was incredibly poor planning. But the DAS must possess substantial diagnostic capabilities in order for the vendor and operators to determine that the originally installed 2014 DAS was in way over its head after just one season.

 

So, I do not buy your premise. With a state of the art DAS, it should not be that difficult to measure both throughput and total traffic at the radio, at the base station, at the backhaul router, etc.

 

More to your post I quoted, I believe everyone is taking a slight angle at the data to fluff their own stats.

 

But I don't think there is enough data from this report for me to take it at face value is all. Need more info and variables to compute "network potential" aka excess speed metric than what is given in the report. But bottom line it sounded like everyone performed mostly well across the board, so yay progress right?

The problem is with the peanut gallery analysis here and elsewhere. For Sprint, they frequently are moving the goalposts -- football pun all too apropos.

 

For example, if Sprint posted that it carried greater total traffic than T-Mobile at the Super Bowl, they would retort that mattered only to network engineer types.  Actual users should not care how much total traffic an operator carries, only about individual end user speeds.  And they would say that T-Mobile was faster.

 

On the other hand, if Sprint claimed that it had faster speeds than T-Mobile at the Super Bowl -- and by objective measure, Sprint did -- many of the same people would say that overlooked the total data transfer.  All of a sudden, they turn into network engineer types.  And they would say that T-Mobile traffic was greater.

 

That is why I discourage Average Joes from trying to dissect these statistics.  Their biases are as bad as or worse than any statistical biases.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

I still don't get how they came to their conclusion, not that I am looking to you for answers.

 

The DAS operator showed total throughput figures in xTB, and an average throughput in MB/s.

 

We can either accept an off by factor of 8x error for B vs b, or we can assume that this should equate to total average backhaul throughput being metered for each carrier on the backside of the DAS.

 

If the backhaul being metered is the sampling data used for the average throughput metric, I do not see how those figures, over equal time, equal the same total traffic count.

 

I've also seen other, albeit older, DAS architecture in person, and can't imagine how else they would measure individual carrier throughput in that manner considering the radios behind the node antennas have been dumb in the past.

RF from BTS to light, back to RF to clean and base line, then to light again for distro, then back to RF from radio to node.

 

More to your post I quoted, I believe everyone is taking a slight angle at the data to fluff their own stats.

 

But I don't think there is enough data from this report for me to take it at face value is all. Need more info and variables to compute "network potential" aka excess speed metric than what is given in the report. But bottom line it sounded like everyone performed mostly well across the board, so yay progress right?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Or there might have been fewer Sprint subscribers at the stadium, consuming less data.

[gusherb]

Or there might have been fewer Sprint subscribers at the stadium, consuming less data.

That was my theory. If every carrier worked, then the overall consumption numbers may be a good indicator as to the percentage of subs from each carrier that were there.

[Johnner1999]

Or there might have been fewer Sprint subscribers at the stadium, consuming less data.

That's what stated above as well. Among other variables

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

Nah, that is not how the game is played. The amount of data transferred by the others is irrelevant to Sprint users, who did have the fastest data speeds in the stadium. That is an objectively tested fact. Trying to pass it off as a lesser achievement because non Sprint users transferred more data is irrelevant to those non Sprint users, who had slower speeds -- again, an objectively tested fact. Why should any of them care how much data their operators transferred?

 

 

Sorry, but you're not looking at this objectively. I think both data speeds and data used are very important to both current and potential customers in determining how robust a network is. I understand this is a Sprint site, but there is no need to dismiss the importance of the amount of data used.

 

 

The fact is that while Sprint did win on speedtests, its network was not challenged like At&t or Verizon networks were. Not acknowledging this would be like saying that you won an Olympic-style Hammer Throwing competition, but leaving out that you threw a 10 pound hammer while your opponents threw a 70 pound hammer. It's not all relative like the T-Mobile, Verizon, or Sprint commercials would want us to believe.

[markjcc]

Anybody see DJ Khalid's snapchat stories today?!?

 

Looks like he uses Sprint

 

 

 

 

WE THE BEST NETWORK [emoji23]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JonnygATL]

Anybody see DJ Khalid's snapchat stories today?!?Looks like he uses SprintWE THE BEST NETWORK [emoji23]Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Helping verbs (or lack thereof) aside, we are.

[markjcc]

He also gets close to full signal in his mansion home [emoji1362][emoji122]

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Sorry, but you're not looking at this objectively. I think both data speeds and data used are very important to both current and potential customers in determining how robust a network is. I understand this is a Sprint site, but there is no need to dismiss the importance of the amount of data used.

 

 

The fact is that while Sprint did win on speedtests, its network was not challenged like At&t or Verizon networks were. Not acknowledging this would be like saying that you won an Olympic-style Hammer Throwing competition, but leaving out that you threw a 10 pound hammer while your opponents threw a 70 pound hammer. It's not all relative like the T-Mobile, Verizon, or Sprint commercials would want us to believe.

 

Yes, I am looking at this objectively.  And, no, I am not.  Many of you are missing my intelligently constructed point.

 

Your hammer throwing analogy does not fly -- pun intended -- because other people do not really care about the weight of the hammers.  The competitors care, but other people do not really care about the competitors either.

 

Here, try another analogy.  You can shop at Walmart.  Or you can shop at Target across the street.  Both carry the same products at the same prices.  Walmart does twice the volume of Target, but because of that volume and greater car/foot traffic, it takes 10 minutes longer to complete the same shopping trip.  So, you say, "Well, Walmart still is pretty fast, and it does so much more volume.  Color me impressed.  Volume × speed is more important to me than pure speed.  I am shopping at Walmart."

 

Would you or any rational consumer say that?  Hell no.  You let the business worry about the volume -- whether it is hundreds served or billions served.  You care about the service, which you want to be good, better, or even best at any volume level.

 

Think about that for a while.  Then, try again to explain why not just pure data speeds but data volume each network transferred should matter -- other than to wireless network hammer throw jock sniffers.

 

AJ

[JeffDTD]

Stock buyout? http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article60579966.html

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

Sorry, but you're not looking at this objectively. I think both data speeds and data used are very important to both current and potential customers in determining how robust a network is. I understand this is a Sprint site, but there is no need to dismiss the importance of the amount of data used.

 

 

The fact is that while Sprint did win on speedtests, its network was not challenged like At&t or Verizon networks were. Not acknowledging this would be like saying that you won an Olympic-style Hammer Throwing competition, but leaving out that you threw a 10 pound hammer while your opponents threw a 70 pound hammer. It's not all relative like the T-Mobile, Verizon, or Sprint commercials would want us to believe.

Its like winning a race with a 500hp car that weighs 500lbs less than a 700hp car....

 

Bottom line is...

[Mr.Nuke]

Sorry, but you're not looking at this objectively. I think both data speeds and data used are very important to both current and potential customers in determining how robust a network is. I understand this is a Sprint site, but there is no need to dismiss the importance of the amount of data used.

I don't see how anyone can objectively say that the average consumer cares how much data is going through a network much less that they have an understanding of wireless network infrastructure. The average consumer cares about 1) price and 2) does the service work where I need it to?

 

Data used can indirectly become very important when you get too many users on a network in a given place without adequate site spacing or spectrum. That said, your average person isn't going to have a clue that the reason their experience degraded was everyone was using more data. All they'll care about, if they care enough to move at all, is finding another carrier where the service works where they need it to.

[always_learner]

Yes, I am looking at this objectively.  And, no, I am not.  Many of you are missing my intelligently constructed point.

 

Your hammer throwing analogy does not fly -- pun intended -- because other people do not really care about the weight of the hammers.  The competitors care, but other people do not really care about the competitors either.

 

Here, try another analogy.  You can shop at Walmart.  Or you can shop at Target across the street.  Both carry the same products at the same prices.  Walmart does twice the volume of Target, but because of that volume and greater car/foot traffic, it takes 10 minutes longer to complete the same shopping trip.  So, you say, "Well, Walmart still is pretty fast, and it does so much more volume.  Color me impressed.  Volume × speed is more important to me than pure speed.  I am shopping at Walmart."

 

Would you or any rational consumer say that?  Hell no.  You let the business worry about the volume -- whether it is hundreds served or billions served.  You care about the service, which you want to be good, better, or even best at any volume level.

 

Think about that for a while.  Then, try again to explain why not just pure data speeds but data volume each network transferred should matter -- other than to wireless network hammer throw jock sniffers.

 

AJ

Volume may matter just to signify that a provider is capable of handling that amount of volume.  Verizon/AT&T do a decent job considering the amount of customers they have.

 

I'm curious when Sprint starts attracting more customers, would its network be able to keep up with all the new volume?

[Mr.Nuke]

Stock buyout? http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article60579966.html

It isn't a buyout it is a buyback. it is being discussed already here.

[WiWavelength]

Volume may matter just to signify that a provider is capable of handling that amount of volume.  Verizon/AT&T do a decent job considering the amount of customers they have.

 

Sheesh, you can go down the rabbit hole in so many different ways.  Maybe we instead should consider volume × speed ÷ deployment cost ÷ deployment time.  Ooh, we even could factor into the equation monthly plan price, ARPU, and Net Neutrality.  Is that the objective measure you want?

 

That, again, is my point.  This discussion largely, ironically is a pointless exercise.  The results can be qualified ad nauseam.

 

The problem I have is that when T-Mobile gets a positive consumer facing network measurement result, most accept it -- because the end user experience is all that really matters.  But when Sprint gets a positive consumer facing network measurement result, so many dismiss it -- because Sprint has become unpopular and lost so many subs, Sprint has so much more spectrum, Sprint carries less data volume, etc.

 

AJ

[nexgencpu]

Sheesh, you can go down the rabbit hole in so many different ways.  Maybe we instead should consider volume × speed ÷ deployment cost ÷ deployment time. Ooh, we even could factor into the equation monthly plan price, ARPU, and Net Neutrality. Is that the objective measure you want?

 

That, again, is my point.  This discussion largely, ironically is a pointless exercise.  The results can be qualified ad nauseam.

 

The problem I have is that when T-Mobile gets a positive consumer facing network measurement result, most accept it -- because the end user experience is all that really matters.  But when Sprint gets a positive consumer facing network measurement result, so many dismiss it -- because Sprint has become unpopular and lost so many subs, Sprint has so much more spectrum, Sprint carries less data volume, etc.

 

AJ

 

Verizon kept boasting about how much money they put into their deployment for the Superbowl (I'm sure it was a huge sum of money) Sprint most likely spent considerably less.

 

Yet, somehow lowly Sprint beat them and everyone else on average. That's saying a whole lot.

[Johnner1999]

Verizon kept boasting about how much money they put into their deployment for the Superbowl (I'm sure it was a huge sum of money) Sprint most likely spent considerably less.

 

Yet, somehow lowly Sprint beat them and everyone else on average. That's saying a whole lot.

I'd agree if Sprint had as many devices on that network.

 

Which they very well might have had.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnner1999]

Sheesh, you can go down the rabbit hole in so many different ways. Maybe we instead should consider volume × speed ÷ deployment cost ÷ deployment time. Ooh, we even could factor into the equation monthly plan price, ARPU, and Net Neutrality. Is that the objective measure you want?

 

That, again, is my point. This discussion largely, ironically is a pointless exercise. The results can be qualified ad nauseam.

 

The problem I have is that when T-Mobile gets a positive consumer facing network measurement result, most accept it -- because the end user experience is all that really matters. But when Sprint gets a positive consumer facing network measurement result, so many dismiss it -- because Sprint has become unpopular and lost so many subs, Sprint has so much more spectrum, Sprint carries less data volume, etc.

 

AJ

I do agree in that when sprint has very positive press --- it seems it's taken with serious doubt and negativity.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reedacus25]

Sheesh, you can go down the rabbit hole in so many different ways. Maybe we instead should consider volume × speed ÷ deployment cost ÷ deployment time. Ooh, we even could factor into the equation monthly plan price, ARPU, and Net Neutrality. Is that the objective measure you want?

 

The problem I have is that when T-Mobile gets a positive consumer facing network measurement result, most accept it -- because the end user experience is all that really matters. But when Sprint gets a positive consumer facing network measurement result, so many dismiss it -- because Sprint has become unpopular and lost so many subs, Sprint has so much more spectrum, Sprint carries less data volume, etc.

 

AJ

Just to be clear, my questioning of the results had no correlation to who "won" other than the methodology of the sampling not being clear, with results being given in Bytes per second, versus bits, and my assumption being that if the measurement is in Bytes, then it must be a total throughput over time, which should directly correlate to total traffic measured for each provider.

 

Sprint having the prevailing speeds in the race wasn't what made me question it, it was 2x3=4 that I was confused about.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk