Jump to content
joshuam

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, radem said:

If I had to guess, I would say that it is likely that with a strong signal, B41 upload CA will be enabled and with a weak signal B41 upload CA will be disabled and HPUE will be enabled.  That would give the best experience to the user.

That is the idea.

1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

Are there criteria which determine whether UL B41 CA is active and that disable HPUE?

Is this determined by the network or on the device itself?

Or, will a device like the iPhone XS always have HPUE enabled, which disables UL B41 CA?

I don’t know the exact threshold for switching but I would imagine it’s between -100 and -110 RSRP. The device would most likely make the decision as to when to switch between UL CA and HPUE because it needs to regulate itself to stay within FCC maximum power levels. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, tyroned3222 said:

Got one more question.. I have a few friends that are using Sprint in market's that are part of the soft launch for volte.. are reporting lots of drops to 1x now and toggling airplane mode isn't helping much. Could that be because of the volte launch ?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

This has been happening to me for the last few weeks. I'm hoping it's connected with my area being included in the soft launch for VoLTE. What's strange is when I can connect to B41, my DL is around 0.3 Mbps. I know it's not my phone since last week in the south bay market I successfully completed a speed test around 100 Mbps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how much difference from 16 Qam to 64 qam upload. I could not go past 8 mbps for upload and now only get to 9.5 to 10 mbps upload, that sound about right slight jump in qam for upload ? I am not good with  math behind qam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shannonbrian said:

how much difference from 16 Qam to 64 qam upload. I could not go past 8 mbps for upload and now only get to 9.5 to 10 mbps upload, that sound about right slight jump in qam for upload ? I am not good with  math behind qam.

It should be about a 33% increase, I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, RAvirani said:

It should be about a 33% increase, I believe. 

from 16 to 64 Qam or 16 to 256 qam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2018 at 2:04 PM, lilotimz said:

When UL B41 CA is active, HPUE is disabled. FCC exposure regulations. 

I assume this issue would be largely resolved with 5G, unless non-contiguous or shared with 4G.  Of course we also have b25 + B41 + B41 siting out there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that 25 upload along with 41+41 download would be the best possible combination. Maybe there is some type of issue with this that I am not aware of.  It just seems to me that this combination would make band 41 so much more valuable. This needs to be active everywhere and the sooner the better unless there is some issue that we do not know about.There should be plenty of upload bandwidth available especially with 10X10  band 25.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice!

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good addition for this area.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say “huge news” is an understatement. Check out the FCC news release that Marcelo links to in his Tweet: DOC-354283A1.pdf?linkId=57407697

Link: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354283A1.pdf?linkId=57407697

There are two new shot clocks:

• Establishes two new shot clocks for small wireless facilities (60 days for collocation on preexisting structures and 90 days for new builds);
• Codifies the existing 90 and 150 day shot clocks for wireless facility deployments that do not qualify as small cells that were established in 2009;

And there’s much more in that news release....

Municipalities won’t be able to delay deployments and gouge providers in the process.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

To say “huge news” is an understatement. Check out the FCC news release that Marcelo links to in his Tweet: DOC-354283A1.pdf?linkId=57407697

Link: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354283A1.pdf?linkId=57407697

There are two new shot clocks:

• Establishes two new shot clocks for small wireless facilities (60 days for collocation on preexisting structures and 90 days for new builds);
• Codifies the existing 90 and 150 day shot clocks for wireless facility deployments that do not qualify as small cells that were established in 2009;

And there’s much more in that news release....

Municipalities won’t be able to delay deployments and gouge providers in the process.

If Sprint would make an appearance in our town for small cells, I doubt anyone would take it to a federal level. This just means they get a good rent until they sell out in a couple quarters on the few poles they have built in large metros.

Source: Mobilitie entered into an agreement with one municipality in the CO and has seen no obstacles, yet has built nothing since Jan of 17 http://www.nmb.us/files/pdf/uploads/pressPublic/752-Nov 21 NMB City Council Mtg Agenda.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, belusnecropolis said:

If Sprint would make an appearance in our town for small cells, I doubt anyone would take it to a federal level. This just means they get a good rent until they sell out in a couple quarters on the few poles they have built in large metros.

Source: Mobilitie entered into an agreement with one municipality in the CO and has seen no obstacles, yet has built nothing since Jan of 17 http://www.nmb.us/files/pdf/uploads/pressPublic/752-Nov 21 NMB City Council Mtg Agenda.pdf

I guess he meant Tmobile to build 5G more quickly. I know Marcelo wants to get his merger bonus and run back to Miami permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYC126 said:

I guess he meant Tmobile to build 5G more quickly. I know Marcelo wants to get his merger bonus and run back to Miami permanently.

Yeah I am tossing that agreement in with the 180m loss we heard about today via Fierce Wireless. This is one terrible manager after another cashing out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news for people passing through Austin’s Airport.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bob Newhart said:

11 Mbps upload would be nice.

I see it from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bob Newhart said:

11 Mbps upload would be nice.

 

10 minutes ago, BlueAngel said:

I see it from time to time.

I see 10+Mbps pretty regularly now that UL CA has been enabled on Nokia B41. And anywhere that has decent B41 coverage, the B25 speeds are generally 10+ as well on the upload. With a decent signal of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bob Newhart said:

11 Mbps upload would be nice.

The nice thing is that once CA UL and 64QAM were powered on, uploads are alot more stable as well. Whereas signal had to be good to very good to see 5mbs+ now even lower signal situations are able to achieve closer to that more often than not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Good news for people passing through Austin’s Airport.

Am I the only one who finds 11 megabits upload speed rather shameful, and that Sprint would be better with more timeslices given to the uplink? 

In fact, I've received 30 megabits upload before in good signal on a lightly used 10x10 LTE sector T-Mobile runs just north of me in Denver.  I'm far happier with a "similar" download to upload speed, downloads > 10 megabits, vs having "extremely limited" upload capability of 0.1 megabits compared to 20+ download in low signal areas on Sprint.

I've further found 5mhz E-CLR to have faster uplink than B41 in a lot of cases, and have had to physically force my phone into that carrier by holding my hands around the antenna to attenuate the higher frequency just so I could do anything.

Edited by mystica555

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you uploading that makes 11 Mbps insufficient? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, briank86 said:

What are you uploading that makes 11 Mbps insufficient? 

Video. If I buy an unlimited plan, and I take 1080p video, perhaps I require it to be archived at Google while on the go, so that if I don't get to wifi "soon" i still can share the video with friends.  I also take large amounts of photos on the go, and also like video would prefer to wait 1 minute for 50 pictures to sync, vs 10, or perhaps never at all if I'm in an area where uploads commonly max at half a megabit.

Edited by mystica555
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JThorson said:

First the article about the monopole buildout and now Sprint stating their LTE network is trash. 

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/28/17914230/sprint-lte-network-coverage-bad-tmobile-merger

 

All that shows is their market coverage is lacking.

What that overview doesn't show, is that _in-market_ coverage is...sporadic...  Even in "good" sprint markets (those with good Clear buildouts) like Denver and Atlanta. Chicago seems to be their pride and joy; Sadly I've never been through Chicago when I've had a Sprint phone, so I can't directly compare. I could take some time on Cellmapper and review that market, and at some point come to a conclusion..

In Denver, some areas there's multiple sites within 1 mile of each other. In other areas, specifically greater suburbia, spacing of 1.5-2 miles seems to be what I'm finding.  It's sad finding the site density far lower than similar areas covered vs T-Mobile in this market. 

So indeed, my view is that both T-Mobile and Sprint subscribers benefit here: T-Mobile gets more spectrum to make their spacing last longer, and not need to densify as much to hit a target per-user speed.  Sprint customers get the FAR better in-market coverage of the T-Mobile site locations.   

And only then, would ATT and Verizon BOTH have a third true competitor to deal with, instead of only those 2 fighting for #1 and #2 all the time.  The way it is now, Sprint hasn't got the assets, or time, to make their network competitive with the rest, before they outpace it greatly. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×