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

[Paynefanbro]

Looks like there may have been some butchered results within the testing.

http://www8.pcmag.com/media/images/468732-national-3g.jpg?thumb=y

 

Verizon's EvDo has a maximum upload of 17mbps!

 

That's at least the second time someone has brought that up. Seems like it was either a Sensorly fluke or when they were inputing the data, someone made a mistake.

[nexgencpu]

So, for the 120mhz of 2.5 band 41, Sprint has, it is 120mhz for the up and the down. Sounds alot better than FDD.

More efficient and flexible use of spectrum.

 

Not necessarily better or worse..

[WiWavelength]

Arysyn, it is basically the same way your wifi at home is used. You are on the same channel for up and download.

 

I know that this is tangential to the actual TDD topic, but from several of Arysyn's posts, I would not assume that he is on Wi-Fi at home.  Instead, it sounds like he is using "unlimited" data.  If so, that is a shame.

 

AJ

[lilotimz]

For the 6:3 configuration that sprint uses, a 40MHz slice has the same download bandwidth as a 24MHz FDD slice.

Not 6:3 it's something else. When you carrier aggregate you only do it with the downlink on the scc.

 

So sprints TDD carriers are configured to do about 80/16 so when you aggregate it you get about 160/16 theoretical.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

[jreuschl]

Unfortunately, Sprint still has an uphill battle in the press.  BGR headline on the PC Magazine article:

 

"Mammoth Study Finds Sprint’s 4G Network is the Worst – And It’s Not Even Close"

 

Yet 12.7mbps average download is pretty good and adequate.

[nexgencpu]

Unfortunately, Sprint still has an uphill battle in the press.  BGR headline on the PC Magazine article:

 

"Mammoth Study Finds Sprint’s 4G Network is the Worst – And It’s Not Even Close"

 

Yet 12.7mbps average download is pretty good and adequate.

BGR

[Arysyn]

I know that this is tangential to the actual TDD topic, but from several of Arysyn's posts, I would not assume that he is on Wi-Fi at home. Instead, it sounds like he is using "unlimited" data. If so, that is a shame.

 

AJ

I'll explain this...

 

I have AT&T Uverse service which is fairly crappy where I live. While Uverse service is available in speed packages of 24mbps and 45mbps options, which AT&T has been promising me for a few years would be available here as it is in many areas, I'm still stuck with 18mbps service I'm overpaying for that doesn't even work as it should, due to an overloaded node AT&T just doesn't seem to want to upgrade. Hence likely why I still can't get any faster speed options, despite AT&T's promises to have them available a few years ago. I have a 26" inch 1080p television which while viewing 1080p and even 720p video on Hulu and Netflix, often buffers while streaming, which shouldn't happen with 18mbps speed. Trying to do anything else online using that connection at the same time, ruins both functions.

 

So, while the Uverse internet streams video, something I take advantage of on my one television connected to it, since I'm home quite often and am overpaying for the service as it is, a service which is not cellular/wireless and doesn't impact users on a network, I'm left with an issue of my online searching tech and health sites. I use the T-Mobile service only for web viewing and occasional speed tests while I'm watching a movie with the Uverse service. Since I'm getting over 50mbps at home on the T-Mobile service most of the time I'm using it, which again is only for web browsing and a few speed tests to check on network congestion, so that I know my generally mild network usage isn't negatively affecting the network.

 

I'm not abusing the T-Mobile network. The most usage of it I have is when I am out, which rarely do I stream video on it. Mostly Tidal HiFi music streaming, which T-Mobile seems fairly capable at handling.

[Rawvega]

Unfortunately, Sprint still has an uphill battle in the press.  BGR headline on the PC Magazine article:

 

"Mammoth Study Finds Sprint’s 4G Network is the Worst – And It’s Not Even Close"

 

Yet 12.7mbps average download is pretty good and adequate.

 

Of course, the second sentence of the 'article' reads: 

 

 

But the study,conducted by PC Mag across 30 U.S. cities, revealed that competition amongst carriers is closer than it’s been in quite some time.

 

 

So which is it? The difference nationwide between first place Verizon and Sprint is 6.4 Mbps. Definitely not insignificant, but as mentioned 12.7 Mbps is adequate for just about any mobile task. The difference between Sprint and AT&T and T-Mobile is 2.3 Mbps and 2.6 Mbps respectively. Is that really such a big deal?

 

Typical BGR click-bait.

 

Still, last place isn't the place to be, but the game plan is easy enough; continue Band 25 and Band 26 rollouts and get Band 41 deployed as much and as quickly as possible and get 2x and 3x CA enabled.

[jamisonshaw125]

Odd. Root metrics reports several markets with sprint having the fastest data speeds, and sensorly says only 1. Does it say how long the test was? Because if it took a year, at least 50% of the results are probably outdated based on the recent increase in speeds, at least according to root metrics.

[Deval]

Unfortunately, Sprint still has an uphill battle in the press.  BGR headline on the PC Magazine article:

 

"Mammoth Study Finds Sprint’s 4G Network is the Worst – And It’s Not Even Close"

 

Yet 12.7mbps average download is pretty good and adequate.

 

BGR is The National Enquirer of the tech reporting world, keep that in mind.

[Jones]

One of the best lines from the HBO show Silicon Valley about tech blogs:

 

"Keep in mind, these aren't real journalists, Richard. They're tech journalists."

 

LOL

[Mr.Nuke]

Sprint could then sell off much of its 1.9 PCS spectrum to help cover a lot of those costs for the network densification.

No.

[WiWavelength]

Sprint could then sell off much of its 1.9 PCS spectrum to help cover a lot of those costs for the network densification.

 

 

AJ

[derrph]

http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/indianapolis-in/2015-1H

 

Sprint won another one. That pc mag report...idk about it too much.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ascertion]

http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/indianapolis-in/2015-1H

 

Sprint won another one. That pc mag report...idk about it too much.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The PCmag report screams flawed data.  In numerous tests, Verizon/Sprint's 3G pulled data speeds that isn't possible.  The ping on the speedtests are incredibly too high.  They should have a better server to test with.  The PCMag results only accounted for speeds, not reliability or call/text performance, where Sprint mostly shines.  Sensorly is good for map coverage, but not speed analysis.

[S4GRU]

Unfortunately, Sprint still has an uphill battle in the press.  BGR headline on the PC Magazine article:

 

"Mammoth Study Finds Sprint’s 4G Network is the Worst – And It’s Not Even Close"

 

Yet 12.7mbps average download is pretty good and adequate.

 

Yeah, it's completely contrary to the piece their quoting from.  PC Mag says things like:

 

Sprint only won one city, Denver, but I don't want to minimize its achievements. If we handed out a "most improved" award—we don't—Sprint would win it by a landslide. The carrier flipped over from an old WiMAX network to a spotty LTE network in 2013, filling in coverage gaps in 2014 but offering very low speeds. This year, the carrier's Network Vision and Spark initiatives finally took hold, and Sprint's speeds doubled or even tripled in most of our test cities.

Sprint's years of painful network upgrades are finally taking hold. Sprint is still the fourth-best carrier in terms of overall network quality, but for the first time, it's within striking distance of the rest. The carrier isn't focused on spectacular peak speeds—of 35,000 tests, we only saw 157 downloads over 50Mbps—but it nearly tripled its average download speeds in key markets like New York and Baltimore, and more than tripled them in Denver and Las Vegas.<br>

Sprint's LTE network also now extends significantly into suburbs, rather than stopping at the city lines. If it continues to improve at this rate, Sprint finally has a network it can build a business on—and by next year, it'll be a threat to fast-growing T-Mobile.

 

I say this is actually pretty good news for Sprint.  A perfectly adequate network that is improving at a good rate.  Also, when you consider that they used a Galaxy S5 (not a strong RF performer on Sprint) and used Sensorly (which is not a good speed test app, especially for measuring ping), I am pretty happy with the results.  BGR just completely re-wrote PCMag's narrative into something they preferred.

[S4GRU]

The PCmag report screams flawed data.  In numerous tests, Verizon/Sprint's 3G pulled data speeds that isn't possible.  The ping on the speedtests are incredibly too high.  They should have a better server to test with.  The PCMag results only accounted for speeds, not reliability or call/text performance, where Sprint mostly shines.  Sensorly is good for map coverage, but not speed analysis.

 

It's more likely a Sensorly app problem.  In the app, it reports what it is connected to.  Likely, there were lots of times where the Sprint and Verizon network handedup to LTE, but the app reported it was still connected to eHRPD/EVDO.  The same thing could have happened in reverse too, where the app was testing EVDO/eHRPD and still saying LTE.  But, all in all, the LTE results are exactly what I would expect from Sprint, on average, nationally.

[marioc21]

Looks like Sprint is replacing its CTO to carry out Marcelo's NGN plan.   

 

 

 

Sprint (NYSE: S) confirmed that CTO Stephen Bye will leave the company effective July 24 to "pursue other personal opportunities." The company did not immediately give any further details, including how Bye's departure will impact the carrier's network densification efforts and whether it would restructure its executive team.

 

 

 

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-cto-stephen-bye-resigns-company-amid-new-network-densification-progr/2015-06-23?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Editor&utm_campaign=SocialMedia

[coccydynia]

Looks like CTO of Sprint is leaving in a hurry.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-cto-stephen-bye-resigns-company-amid-new-network-densification-progr/2015-06-23

[Arysyn]

No.

My mention of "could" doesn't mean they will, or even that I think they will. I know Sprint wants the three bands together as part of their Spark system. My point is that the 1900mhz PCS is slow and much less spectrum rich in contrast to Sprint's 2.5 band 41. Slow meaning more easily congested than band 41, due to differences in the spectrum amount.

 

Most likely, the aspect of Sprint's "cost effective" nature of the NGN project is to have the density with band 41 in cities and mass/moderate suburban areas, while allowing the less moderate, smaller suburban, and rural areas to be served by adequate PCS coverage, while still adding some towers to fill in coverage gaps, hoping that will ease some of the congestion despite the less spectrum amounts of their PCS holdings.

 

Doing this certainly will allow Sprint to improve their service, though the only areas likely to match or beat Verizon and AT&T will be those areas densely covered with band 41. Other areas served by PCS will likely see some improvement, though doubtfully anything that will match or beat the Duopoly in those areas. I know from my experience in the areas I've been to with PCS, the speeds are quite slow, especially in contrast to those areas I've been to with band 41, where speeds are quite fast.

 

I'm not bashing Sprint at all by saying this, but if Sprint were to decide on a less cost effective plan by expanding band 41 as their primary band in conjunction with 800mhz band in most areas, except for mid-rural to really rural areas, where there truly is no need for band 41, that strategy would help Sprint have a network where they could crush the competition much more than with their current plan. Although, it would also cost much more to do it the larger way.

 

Therefore, if they were to do that, it would help for Sprint to financially cover those additional costs by selling the excess PCS spectrum. After all, it would be much better for Sprint to sell some PCS spectrum to cover network densification costs, in which are far more financially beneficial for Spint, in selling for more money than what selling band 41 spectrum would earn for Sprint, which many of these analysts have been suggesting for Sprint to sell its band 41, to which I say "No!!!" to, which is the insanely idiotic thing for Sprint to do. Whereas selling off PCS spectrum that Sprint doesn't have enough of to easily avoid congestion, in favor of expanding their plentiful, capacity-rich spectrum, is quite smart.

[Rawvega]

 

Yeah, it's completely contrary to the piece their quoting from.  PC Mag says things like:

 

 

 

I say this is actually pretty good news for Sprint.  A perfectly adequate network that is improving at a good rate.  Also, when you consider that they used a Galaxy S5 (not a strong RF performer on Sprint) and used Sensorly (which is not a good speed test app, especially for measuring ping), I am pretty happy with the results.  BGR just completely re-wrote PCMag's narrative into something they preferred.

 

Yeah, they did and that's why BGR sucks. One thing that PC Mag wrote that I take issue with and your quote reminded me was this:

 

 

Sprint is still the fourth-best carrier in terms of overall network quality

 

Unless I'm mistaken, they (PC Mag) didn't test overall quality, they only tested speed. Or at least that's the impression that I got from their title, Fastest Mobile Networks 2015. Speed is obviously very important in this day and age, however it is not the only measure in determining overall network quality. That's an error on Mr. Segan's part imo.

[joshnys8913]

Looks like Sprint is replacing its CTO to carry out Marcelo's NGN plan.   

 

 

 

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-cto-stephen-bye-resigns-company-amid-new-network-densification-progr/2015-06-23?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Editor&utm_campaign=SocialMedia

Lots of changes past year or so lol

[Arysyn]

Yeah, they did and that's why BGR sucks. One thing that PC Mag wrote that I take issue with and your quote reminded me was this:

 

 

Unless I'm mistaken, they (PC Mag) didn't test overall quality, they only tested speed. Or at least that's the impression that I got from their title, Fastest Mobile Networks 2015. Speed is obviously very important in this day and age, however it is not the only measure in determining overall network quality. That's an error on Mr. Segan's part imo.

The mention of the S5 not being a strong Sprint RF performer makes me wonder. Which devices are the strongest for RF on Sprint?

[avb]

My mention of "could" doesn't mean they will, or even that I think they will. I know Sprint wants the three bands together as part of their Spark system. My point is that the 1900mhz PCS is slow and much less spectrum rich in contrast to Sprint's 2.5 band 41. Slow meaning more easily congested than band 41, due to differences in the spectrum amount.

 

Most likely, the aspect of Sprint's "cost effective" nature of the NGN project is to have the density with band 41 in cities and mass/moderate suburban areas, while allowing the less moderate, smaller suburban, and rural areas to be served by adequate PCS coverage, while still adding some towers to fill in coverage gaps, hoping that will ease some of the congestion despite the less spectrum amounts of their PCS holdings.

 

Doing this certainly will allow Sprint to improve their service, though the only areas likely to match or beat Verizon and AT&T will be those areas densely covered with band 41. Other areas served by PCS will likely see some improvement, though doubtfully anything that will match or beat the Duopoly in those areas. I know from my experience in the areas I've been to with PCS, the speeds are quite slow, especially in contrast to those areas I've been to with band 41, where speeds are quite fast.

 

I'm not bashing Sprint at all by saying this, but if Sprint were to decide on a less cost effective plan by expanding band 41 as their primary band in conjunction with 800mhz band in most areas, except for mid-rural to really rural areas, where there truly is no need for band 41, that strategy would help Sprint have a network where they could crush the competition much more than with their current plan. Although, it would also cost much more to do it the larger way.

 

Therefore, if they were to do that, it would help for Sprint to financially cover those additional costs by selling the excess PCS spectrum. After all, it would be much better for Sprint to sell some PCS spectrum to cover network densification costs, in which are far more financially beneficial for Spint, in selling for more money than what selling band 41 spectrum would earn for Sprint, which many of these analysts have been suggesting for Sprint to sell its band 41, to which I say "No!!!" to, which is the insanely idiotic thing for Sprint to do. Whereas selling off PCS spectrum that Sprint doesn't have enough of to easily avoid congestion, in favor of expanding their plentiful, capacity-rich spectrum, is quite smart.

 

Still no.  In fact if any other carrier decided to sell their PCS spectrum Sprint should jump on it.

[jamisonshaw125]

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-cto-stephen-bye-resigns-company-amid-new-network-densification-progr/2015-06-23?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

 

Oh?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Crapatalk