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

[WiWavelength]

According to the information provided by sprint beamforming increase cell edge performance by 20 percent and beamforming +carrier aggregation increases cell edge performance by 50 percent. So it does.

 

Yes, but...

 

Performance ≠ Coverage

 

AJ

[utiz4321]

Yes, but...

 

Performance ≠ Coverage

 

AJ

Sprint seems to claim that it does. From the end user's perspective doesn't it? If network management is working properly isn't there circumstances where the increase cell edge performance would allow my phone to stay on b41 during a data session that I wouldn't in the absences of CA. Isn't that effectively "increased coverage"? Or am I might be misunderstanding things.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

Sprint seems to claim that it does. From the end user's perspective doesn't it? If network management is working properly isn't there circumstances where the increase cell edge performance would allow my phone to stay on b41 during a data session that I wouldn't in the absences of CA. Isn't that effectively "increased coverage"? Or am I might be misunderstanding things.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

It depends on what one considers coverage to be. According to RootMetrics coverage is a combination of speed and reliability. By that definition carrier aggregation does increase coverage.

 

But if you see coverage as something that is strictly measured in square miles regardless of how good or bad the service is, then no coverage is not better with carrier aggregation implemented.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

It depends on what one considers coverage to be. According to RootMetrocs, coverage is a combination of speed and reliability. By that definition, carrier aggregation does increase coverage.

 

But if you see coverage as something that is strictly measured in square miles regardless of how good or bad the service is, then no, coverage is not better with carrier aggregation implemented.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I think from an end user perspective the former is a better definition. And that is certainly the context in which the original question was asked.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[EvanA]

Sprint seems to claim that it does. From the end user's perspective doesn't it? If network management is working properly isn't there circumstances where the increase cell edge performance would allow my phone to stay on b41 during a data session that I wouldn't in the absences of CA. Isn't that effectively "increased coverage"? Or am I might be misunderstanding things.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

The cell range is mostly limited by the uplink power of the phone. Once uplink fails, the phone cannot stay on B41 anymore. CA can't improve on this aspect since at this point it's downlink only, so there isn't a change in coverage from a sq. miles perspective.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[payturr]

The cell range is mostly limited by the uplink power of the phone. Once uplink fails, the phone cannot stay on B41 anymore. CA can't improve on this aspect since at this point it's downlink only, so there isn't a change in coverage from a sq. miles perspective.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Isn't that just for FDD because of the fact it's two different swaths of spectrum?

[EvanA]

Isn't that just for FDD because of the fact it's two different swaths of spectrum?

No. Physics doesn't change just because it's TDD. It's even worse in B41 TDD because the phone is transmitting on the same frequency as it is receiving on.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

The cell range is mostly limited by the uplink power of the phone. Once uplink fails, the phone cannot stay on B41 anymore. CA can't improve on this aspect since at this point it's downlink only, so there isn't a change in coverage from a sq. miles perspective.

 

And uplink CA -- aka ULCA Bruins -- will not make coverage matters any better.  We like to see a max EIRP of 23 dBm or greater on band 41.  But almost no chance will uplink CA pump out 23 dBm or max EIRP on each of two carriers.  I fully expect optional or mandatory power reduction to be implemented if ever uplink CA is active.  Got to conserve that mobile battery life and suppress RF intermodulation products.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

The cell range is mostly limited by the uplink power of the phone. Once uplink fails, the phone cannot stay on B41 anymore. CA can't improve on this aspect since at this point it's downlink only, so there isn't a change in coverage from a sq. miles perspective.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

It depends what you're doing with your phone. If you're talking on the phone, CA does not increase your coverage. If you're uploading pics then it will not increase your coverage. But if you're downloading, then CA will increase your effective coverage since you will have decent download performance at the cells edge and beyond.

[greenbastard]

It depends what you're doing with your phone. If you're talking on the phone, CA does not increase your coverage. If you're uploading pics then it will not increase your coverage. But if you're downloading, then CA will increase your effective coverage since you will have decent download performance at the cells edge and beyond.

It is important to note that this only applies to Band 41. All Triband phones benefit from beamforming on Band 41 regardless of CA or not.

[WiWavelength]

It depends what you're doing with your phone. If you're talking on the phone, CA does not increase your coverage. If you're uploading pics then it will not increase your coverage. But if you're downloading, then CA will increase your effective coverage since you will have decent download performance at the cells edge and beyond.

 

No, not really.  Folks, coverage is service -- defined as a functioning uplink and downlink.  Performance is a different matter.

 

Now, while in an active data session, CA may be able to expand band 41 coverage by extending band 41 cell edge.  But it cannot expand coverage "beyond" cell edge.  That would be akin to inflating a balloon beyond its bladder.  Additionally, CA is unlikely to expand overall Sprint coverage -- unless only band 41 is available, no other bands are available.

 

AJ

[RAvirani]

No, not really. Folks, coverage is service -- defined as a functioning uplink and downlink. Performance is a different matter.

 

Now, while in an active data session, CA may be able to expand band 41 coverage by extending band 41 cell edge. But it cannot expand coverage "beyond" cell edge. That would be akin to inflating a balloon beyond its bladder. Additionally, CA is unlikely to expand overall Sprint coverage -- unless only band 41 is available, no other bands are available.

 

AJ

That scenario is not unheard of. CA will probably help where I live...

[shannonbrian]

I still like know whats deal with backhaul its getting close 2017 and sites been completed with nv 1.0 upgrades and still no lte almost been years now. Just does not make sense anymore .

[JonnygATL]

I still like know whats deal with backhaul its getting close 2017 and sites been completed with nv 1.0 upgrades and still no lte almost been years now. Just does not make sense anymore .

Neither does writing with improper punctuation.

[banananuts87]

I still like know whats deal with backhaul its getting close 2017 and sites been completed with nv 1.0 upgrades and still no lte almost been years now. Just does not make sense anymore .

 

$$$$ unfortunately

[Johnner1999]

Got to say pretty impressive

 

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/lte-advanced.htm

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

Got to say pretty impressive

 

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/lte-advanced.htm

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey but sprint demoed 3xca in Chicago and a couple of other places. Lol.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[Jones]

Hey but sprint demoed 3xca in Chicago and a couple of other places. Lol.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

 

Are you trying to make fun of Sprint for doing this?

[rackhivee]

So Sprint's GS7 and GS7E are also capable of 4X4 mimo since it's the same SKU.

 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

Hey but sprint demoed 3xca in Chicago and a couple of other places. Lol.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

 

You do realize 3xCA is live on more than 500 sites in Chicago and will be live on more than 100 sites in Kansas City by the end of September.

 

Sprint is testing/doing initial deployments, along with these demos, to ensure reliability.

[utiz4321]

Are you trying to make fun of Sprint for doing this?

Yes. For only being this far.

You do realize 3xCA is live on more than 500 sites in Chicago and will be live on more than 100 sites in Kansas City by the end of September.

 

Sprint is testing/doing initial deployments, along with these demos, to ensure reliability.

It is a rather sad showing compared to the competition. This really shows that sprint is under funding their network. They might have to, but their network will start falling further behind the competition if this keeps up.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[Terrell352]

You do realize 3xCA is live on more than 500 sites in Chicago and will be live on more than 100 sites in Kansas City by the end of September.

 

Sprint is testing/doing initial deployments, along with these demos, to ensure reliability.

Regardless, this announcement makes Sprint's look like trash in comparison. I wonder if this is some type of b.s. or its real because everyone here said the s7, s7 edge and note 7 couldn't do 4x4 mimo.

[shannonbrian]

Lets see what real world results are first.

[RedSpark]

Yes. For only being this far.

It is a rather sad showing compared to the competition. This really shows that sprint is under funding their network. They might have to, but their network will start falling further behind the competition if this keeps up.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

 

Sprint's 3xCA is supposed to launch by Early 2017... but it may happen sooner. We'll see when it actually happens.

[dnicekid]

This is exactly what I meant by sprint always being behind. It was taken as complaining. This is a prime example, Tmo has changed out (based on the article) the hardware or whatever was needed to do 4x4. Sprint has announced 3xca in one or 2 cities. How the hell does Tmo and vzw get all this work done on towers while sprint can't seem to get past permits?? It just seems like sprint has all these issues while everyone is building out. We know they cut back spending... How will you keep up if you can't keep the build outs going??? Is this some sneaky stuff by masa to try and merge?? Is this him tired of putting money in and trying to sell??

It certainly doesn't seem like the masa/Marcelo team that said in 2 years sprint would have the best network..