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

[Johnner1999]

http://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/mobile-network-performance-in-the-us-a-special-report

 

Root Metrics report is out. Sprint and Magenta trail.

After just scrolling through that report - no wonder VZW is not budging much like AT&T has been.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NYC126]

Basically Verizon is in a league of its own, while the others are fighting among each others.

 

Sprint overall score is in the mid 80s because once again they got a low 70s in speed.

[Paynefanbro]

Basically Verizon is in a league of its own, while the others are fighting among each others.

 

Sprint overall score is in the mid 80s because once again they got a low 70s in speed.

 

Hardly a league of their own considering that AT&T is still pretty close to them but yes they won outright in every category. What's pretty amazing to me though is the difference between TMUS and VZW. TMUS is constantly trying to draw comparisons to VZW's network and this just shows how far they still have to go to achieve that.

 

At least Sprint's network reliability claims are substantiated by this report.

[utiz4321]

Basically Verizon is in a league of its own, while the others are fighting among each others.

 

Sprint overall score is in the mid 80s because once again they got a low 70s in speed.

The fact the NV 1.0 remains unfinished and they failed to deliver on their goal of putting 2.5 on every macro site that is killing them in the speed category.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[NYC126]

Hardly a league of their own considering that AT&T is still pretty close to them but yes they won outright in every category. What's pretty amazing to me though is the difference between TMUS and VZW. TMUS is constantly trying to draw comparisons to VZW's network and this just shows how far they still have to go to achieve that.

 

At least Sprint's network reliability claims are substantiated by this report.

I don't see AT&T one point behind Verizon, but four in the overall score. Regarding Sprint the only reason their reliability was 3rd was because of their call and text scores.

 

In 2016 I look at data and speed performances, and Sprint got a lot of work to do. If you look at the 1st half 2015 and 1st half 2016 scores Sprint pretty much has been stagnant.

[NYC126]

The fact the NV 1.0 remains unfinished and they failed to deliver on their goal of putting 2.5 on every macro site that is killing them in the speed category.

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

HESSE and Son wanted to do that but Marcelo scrapped those plans. Sprint will not have 500k+ phone adds quarters until they fix their data and speed performances nationwide.

[Paynefanbro]

I don't see AT&T one point behind Verizon, but four in the overall score. Regarding Sprint the only reason their reliability was 3rd was because of their call and text scores.

 

In 2016 I look at data and speed performances, and Sprint got a lot of work. If you look at the 1st half 2015 and 1st half 2016 scores Sprint pretty much has been stagnant.

 

4 points is much closer than you'd think. According to RootMetrics, AT&T remains a strong number two behind Verizon on the national, state, and metro levels. That doesn't mean VZW was significantly better, just that they performed better on average.

 

And in the case of Sprint, they acknowledged Sprint's improving LTE performance on the metro level and mention that if Sprint could bring that to a statewide level they could narrow the gap. If this proves anything it's that Sprint is reaping the fruits of its labor. They're intentionally focusing on urban areas and establishing themselves as a carrier that cares about reliability first. Carriers aren't dumb pipes just yet, so complaining about Sprint having better call, text, and reliability (which is not an aggregate of call and text, but a separate category that takes into account data performance as well) is really nitpicky.

 

They came in third place or better in 3 out of 5 categories. Thus they're third place overall.

[nexgencpu]

HESSE and Son wanted to do that but Marcelo scrapped those plans. Sprint will not have 500k+ phone adds quarters until they fix their data and speed performances nationwide.

NV 1.0 is pretty much completed. Right now they need to solidify metro markets first, then worry about expansion later. T mobile's approach made perfect sense.

[utiz4321]

NV 1.0 is pretty much completed. Right now they need to solidify metro markets first, then worry about expansion later. T mobile's approach made perfect sense.

"Pretty much" is a vague way of putting it. Probably a good 1000 towers are still with out LTE of any kind and at least 30 percent of towers don't have 2.5. It is a very inconsistent customer experience on the sprint network.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[NYC126]

NV 1.0 is pretty much completed. Right now they need to solidify metro markets first, then worry about expansion later. T mobile's approach made perfect sense.

I am not talking about NV 1.0 but putting 2.5 radios in every tower.

[payturr]

I am referring primarily to Sprint. You know that some here and elsewhere who are pining for Sprint to enable VoLTE for simultaneous voice/data immediately will turn into ingrates if they then cannot use VoLTE on certain unlocked handsets.

 

As for VoLTE, it seems like a solution in search of a problem. Who needs it? I have seen no evidence that VoLTE QoS is absolutely necessary. By its own nature, LTE is a fragile airlink. VoLTE QoS is unlikely to save a call from dropping if the LTE airlink becomes unstable. Robustness comes not from QoS but from signal quality and capacity -- both of which are being achieved through densification.

 

Meanwhile, VoIP OTT has been around for years. Maybe the operators should get out of the voice business altogether. Various VoIP OTT dialers have almost ubiquitous compatibility and can figure out interoperability -- even if the latter means a lowest common denominator of dumping the call onto the PTSN most of the time. Google already is doing that with the Hangouts Dialer, while Apple and Microsoft easily are capable of doing likewise.

 

Forget VoLTE. Let the operators be just the "dumb pipes" that consumers by and large want them to be.

 

AJ

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here AJ. VoLTE answers a huge problem other than simultaneous voice and data for Sprint, and that's the use of spectrum. Sure Sprint could just run 1x voice carriers forever on PCS, but it's not efficient. More work today is data intensive, as you know, and LTE makes the most efficient use of spectrum for both voice and data. While I agree that ISPs should be a dumb pipe, VoLTE should be present on all networks once their LTE networks are dense enough. Phone numbers have a purpose, and it's impossible for society to embrace one service as their primary standard for VoIP to replace the traditional dial the number system. I understand your argument regarding its fragile air link, but this is something Verizon has been working hard to solve by throwing as many towers and small cells into the fray as possible without breaking their bank and making subscribers happy.

[bigsnake49]

A merger would NEVER help Sprint for many reasons, and here's why:

 

1) The cost of adding up debts - if Sprint was to buy T-Mobile, or T-Mobile buy Sprint, they would have to combine their total debts. Think about it. They would have to go further in debt just to buy the other one, and Sprint has large debts to pay for soon.

2) The cost of new equipment - not only would they have to remove redundant cell sites, but they would need to get all new panels and radios and cabinets to support band 4 and 12 at Sprint sites, band 41 25 and 26 at T-Mobile sites.

3) Conflicting tech - this new carrier would have to find a way to bring VoLTE everywhere because of T-Mobile's existing VoLTE plans, but CDMA network subs wouldn't have access to VoLTE because no handoff unlike the UMTS subs.

4) Regulatory hell - you think FCC would let them get 600MHz or 5G frequencies with their total spectrum holdings?

5) This wouldn't fix a damn thing - what Sprint needs is more capex going to an efficiently fast install of new towers and small cells. Why would buying a second, more redundant network with totally different tech help?

 

We have a greater chance of seeing Sprint go bankrupt than a merger happen because a merger of the two would be complete hell.

 

There will be no conflicting tech. It will all be LTE and VOLTE. CDMA will be phased out and so will WCDMA. They will have to shed some of their spectrum holdings or not (depending on 5G allocations and or Dish spectrum being sold to Verizon and/or AT&T). But the avoided capex will be tremendous, same with opex. They won't have to get all new panels and cabinets, they will just be moved/merged to either Sprint's or T-Mobile's sites. 

[nexgencpu]

"Pretty much" is a vague way of putting it. Probably a good 1000 towers are still with out LTE of any kind and at least 30 percent of towers don't have 2.5. It is a very inconsistent customer experience on the sprint network.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

NV1.0= Complete physical replacement of sprints legacy network. New modular gear will be installed including modular base stations, multi band and remote ccontrollable antennas that support 800/1900 and upgraded backhaul. 

 

NV 1.0 did not include 800/2.5 That would be NV 2.0

[avb]

http://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/mobile-network-performance-in-the-us-a-special-report

 

Root Metrics report is out. Sprint and Magenta trail.

 

Cue T-Mobile reddit discrediting Rootmetrics.  T-Mobile fans are also blaming the 4th place finish and reliability on VoLTE and saying how it's unfair, yet last half year report they were claiming bias because VoLTE wasn't turned on for T-Mobile.

[utiz4321]

NV1.0= Complete physical replacement of sprints legacy network. New modular gear will be installed including modular base stations, multi band and remote ccontrollable antennas that support 800/1900 and upgraded backhaul.

 

NV 1.0 did not include 800/2.5 That would be NV 2.0

Right. And that still isn't done. I separately complained about the lack of 2.6 precisely because I realize they are different projects. But nice try.

Oh...and you are misrepresenting NV 1.0 as it included b25 being installed.

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

Right. And that still isn't done. I separately complained about the lack of 2.6 precisely because I realize they are different projects. But nice try.

Oh...and you are misrepresenting NV 1.0 as it included b25 being installed.

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

I do not know how many sites still have legacy hardware, but I seriously doubt its a thousand as you mentioned. But even at 1,000, that's nothing compared to the nearly 50K sites that are in place. 

[utiz4321]

I do not know how many sites still have legacy hardware, but I seriously doubt its a thousand as you mentioned. But even at 1,000, that's nothing compared to the nearly 50K sites that are in place.

It is not "nothing" as root metrics attests to. It is wholes in LTE coverages in major metros. Is is swaths of 3g only coverage on major highways and in towns and small cities across the country, especially in North East.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

It is not "nothing" as root metrics attests to. It is wholes in LTE coverages in major metros. Is is swaths of 3g only coverage on major highways and in towns and small cities across the country, especially in North East.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Your concern is more of a site spacing issue. Not a NV 1.0 not being completed issue.

[Fraydog]

Cue T-Mobile reddit discrediting Rootmetrics. T-Mobile fans are also blaming the 4th place finish and reliability on VoLTE and saying how it's unfair, yet last half year report they were claiming bias because VoLTE wasn't turned on for T-Mobile.

I do think there are plenty of legitimate complaints about Root. Off the top of my head:

 

1. Testing methodology is almost always vague and has got more unclear since they were acquired by IHS.

2. Testing more heavily slants toward road testing which is always going to favor carriers with larger and more deployed low band networks.

3. Sample slants too much toward voice calls which are still important but not nearly as important to data for a lot of users.

 

Meanwhile a lot of the T-Mobile base is in what I would call heavily urban areas where a lot of people not only don't use voice much at all but also don't drive nearly as much as rural people who do care about rural usage, are more likely to use voice calls on the road, and have a native Verizon network for those voice calls, and most of those people are using CDMA.

 

I'm betting Root disabled VoLTE on their Verizon devices. No way VoLTE reliability is that high.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

Your concern is more of a site spacing issue. Not a NV 1.0 not being completed issue.

No. Site spacing is a separate issue. 1900 doesn't exist on all of sprint original 40000 towers they planed to have it on with NV 1.0. My guess is around 1000 are 3g only or not upgraded at all. This is the problem to which I am referring. It is a major problem showing up in sprint's speed averages as measured by root and as experienced by customers. There are almost 20 or so sites in my city alone that have no LTE.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

No. Site spacing is a separate issue. 1900 doesn't exist on all of sprint original 40000 towers they planed to have it on with NV 1.0. My guess is around 1000 are 3g only or not upgraded at all. This is the problem to which I am referring. It is a major problem showing up in sprint's speed averages as measured by root and as experienced by customers. There are almost 20 or so sites in my city alone that have no LTE.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Sprint's lower average speed is not the result of 2.5% of their sites not having LTE. That metric likely remains the same across all 4 national carriers.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

Your concern is more of a site spacing issue. Not a NV 1.0 not being completed issue.

No. Site spacing is a separate issue. 1900 doesn't exist on all of sprint original 40000 towers they planed to have it on with NV 1.0. My guess is around 1000 are 3g only or not upgraded at all. This is the problem to which I am referring. It is a major problem showing up in sprint's speed averages as measured by root and as experienced by customers. There are almost 20 or so sites in my city alone that have no LTE.

Sprint's lower average speed is not the result of 2.5% of their sites not having LTE. That metric likely remains the same across all 4 national carriers.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

To have 2.5 percent of your speed tests fall well below 1 mbps because they are being pulled off a 3g only tower is going to have a heavy negative effect on overall speed averages.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[Deval]

The fact the NV 1.0 remains unfinished and they failed to deliver on their goal of putting 2.5 on every macro site that is killing them in the speed category.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

 

Any proof on NV 1.0 not finished in its entirety? Perhaps there are at most 1-5% of the total sites left.

 

Also who said they stopped the 2.5 deployment?

[Steve Dean]

In 2016 I look at data and speed performances, and Sprint got a lot of work to do. If you look at the 1st half 2015 and 1st half 2016 scores Sprint pretty much has been stagnant.

 

I would not say that Sprint's Data Performance is stagnant.  We have to remember that the data performance of Sprint compared to the other three is a target that is always moving forward at this point and time.  As Sprint improves their network, the other three are doing the same.  If Sprint's performance numbers were declining versus the other three, I would have concern.  I would believe at some point in the future, VZW will reach their ceiling with data performance the gap with the other three will close.

[utiz4321]

Any proof on NV 1.0 not finished in its entirety? Perhaps there are at most 1-5% of the total sites left.

 

Also who said they stopped the 2.5 deployment?

Proof? Look at sprint's own coverage map or take a road trip or live in the north east.

 

Who did say they stopped 2.5 deployment? I didn't. I said their failure to deploy 2.5 on every tower, their state goal when NV 2.0 was announced, has hurt their average speed tests.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk