Sprint Declares Their Network Vision 'Substantially Complete'

[joshnys8913]

Probably not willing to invest heavily in backhaul in case of hurricane.

not sure where you got that idea, because they are moving along with Florida just fine (as an example), did you ever think at them? Incorrect statement sorry, I just had to say that, I am not being mean about it but think about what you write before pressing reply.... Just saying.... 

[payturr]

not sure where you got that idea, because they are moving along with Florida just fine (as an example), did you ever think at them? Incorrect statement sorry, I just had to say that, I am not being mean about it but think about what you write before pressing reply.... Just saying....

That awkward moment when you forget Florida is a place, lol I'm sorry. Hm. Perhaps something about Louisianna's geography?

[joshnys8913]

That awkward moment when you forget Florida is a place, lol I'm sorry. Hm. Perhaps something about Louisianna's geography?

lol, no problem 

[BigJohn2]

I think sprint needs to invest in putting up more towers in every market.  In my option towers are to far away from each other.

[JossMan]

I think sprint needs to invest in putting up more towers in every market.  In my option towers are to far away from each other.

Sprint hasn't done many new sites in the last six years, I don't look for them to start adding new sites anytime soon until they start wrapping up their 2.5 TD-LTE deployment.  I could see them coming back and adding new sites later on down the road.   

[z250kid]

I will second this! It amazing how much better there network was compared to two years ago.   Some towers have been delayed for various reasons but will be done.  My old tower at my parents house is a 3g only

[jonathanm1978]

I'm gonna throw my .02 in here,  as I got that 'coonass' blood coarsing thru my veins...and regularly visit Slidell to see my family...

I think it may actually be something in the geographical part that keeps Sprint from jumping ahead by leaps and bounds in Louisiana. If you think of Louisiana's land, it's mostly marsh - swamp, or just plain inhabitable in some spots. Many places would not suffice to hold a few thousand pounds of metal to be erected, not to mention the cranes + trucks + etc to erect such things...

You can't dig too far in Southern Louisiana or Mississippi without hitting water. The laws about burying people shows just how serious the problems are with ground saturation...a few inches of rain, and they have a major issue in some places. I have to assume this has been an issue with erecting new towers, and possibly running backhaul to existing towers. I don't know of many places in Slidell where you drive over 2 miles without seeing some sort of water ...it's a crapshoot...so I'd guess underground wiring is kept to a minimum.

I have a hard time even smelling the tap water when I visit...it just smells...BAD. At any rate, that's my thoughts on it.

I live in Alabama, and I can say that in the places where Sprint has a tower or two near me, it's improved by leaps and bounds.

Do I get LTE at home? No...i do not. I still need an airave to get native coverage at home, but what's different from 6 years ago when I  joined Sprint is I can at least roam with 5 bars at home (because AT&T has a tower up the road, with VZW colocated on it)...

I would hope for Sprint to eventually (in the next 2 years) add their equipment to that same AT&T tower and make me a VERY content Sprint customer. I've had so many chances to upsell Sprint to friends and family who live near me, but I can't very well tell someone to deal with the same service level that I am willing to deal with...there's a drastic difference in what I've accepted as a continuing customer and what other people will accept...so I usually don't say anything. In 6 years, the only "referral" I've had was my aunt in Houston..which I've never visited nor do I know where she lives in relation to towers, but she switched off of Sprint because last year, apparently, they had NV problems in the suburban areas outside of Houston (Hockley, TX to be exact).

And the other was my mom in law last year...she switched to Sprint. And she hasn't really complained, but she mentions not having service at her house from time to time, and I try to convince her that it'll improve, and B26 is being deployed here...which I can currently pick up if I shut off my Airave and walk outside. Just isn't strong enough to consider it "great".

 

Sprint has their work cut out for them, even still, to get up to a level that's considered acceptable to most. But, people who suddenly switch from VZW and are used to a certain service and signal availability which not be happy with Sprint in some rural areas...just how it is right now, and if I couldn't accept that, I'd have to find one that was better.

I've not had any life / death situations where my phone caused loss of life because signal was not available...and no sudden urges to go Facebooking in places where i can't get data right now...so I'm fine with Sprint and look forward to their future and what Maya-Son does with Marcello at the helm. I really like the moves that Marcello has been making -- the only thing I don't like is being sub'd to his twitter feed, and he suddenly wakes up to piss at 2am and starts blowing out tweets by the dozens...(or retweets).

[sigxbill]

I personally don't think OP's question is unreasonable. I live in the greater Los Angeles area and endure the same slow experience, despite the fact that just about all the towers have been 3G upgraded, and most have also been LTE upgraded. The main question I would love for someone in 'the know' to answer for me is: Why is virtually all the "3G upgraded" eHRPD that I connect to so slow still (usually less than 0.1 mb/s)? I know eHRPD is potentially much faster than that. Also, why is it, despite the fact that LTE is all around me, that it seems like I am rarely connected to LTE? And when I am connected to LTE, it is often slow too ... Thanks in advance

[k24]

In SE Michigan the network is far from complete. It has improved over a few years ago - no more dropped calls - but data speeds are just awful. In the Ann Arbor Campus area, 0.2/2. No service at the football stadium (during a game) , intermittent, slow service at the basketball stadium. Near the periphery about 2/5. One area has B41 , getting 40/10 - hopefully the remaining towers well be upgraded shortly. Most of the Detroit area is similar. There are still too many 3G towers, and no B26 anywhere.

 

Tmo, Verizon and ATT work most everywhere and average about 20/10.  ATT & V also have better rural coverage. Sprint isn't great in this area.

 

If NV is substantially complete, Sprint must be running out of cash.

[jroepcke51]

I personally don't think OP's question is unreasonable. I live in the greater Los Angeles area and endure the same slow experience, despite the fact that just about all the towers have been 3G upgraded, and most have also been LTE upgraded. The main question I would love for someone in 'the know' to answer for me is: Why is virtually all the "3G upgraded" eHRPD that I connect to so slow still (usually less than 0.1 mb/s)? I know eHRPD is potentially much faster than that. Also, why is it, despite the fact that LTE is all around me, that it seems like I am rarely connected to LTE? And when I am connected to LTE, it is often slow too ... Thanks in advance

Ehrpd is just a technology for you to connect to LTE. The 3G is swamped. band 25 LTE is most likely what you are connecting too which is swamped as well. Band 41 is the savior and will remedy your slow.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6 64GB using Tapatalk

[newboyx]

 

 

I know eHRPD is potentially much faster than that.

eHRPD is no faster than evdo.

 

 

Sent from my Sprint LG G3

[sigxbill]

I Understand the EHRPD is no faster than EVDO. My point in specifying EHRPD was to indicate that the 3G cell sites have been upgraded. My question is why is the upgraded 3G so slow? my friends on Verizon usually run about .5 to 1.5 Mb per second in 3G. If the answer is that band 25 is swamped, doesn't that mean that Sprint is overselling its resources? Or couldn't Sprint have added more carriers to increase capacity when upgrading?

[pokefan02]

The part of the Louisiana Market that was UsUnwired is pretty good from a network spacing perspective, great call quality, but Sprint just does the minimum data backhaul wise. Recently the data speeds have become quite stable between 5 and 15mbps down and 3 to 7 up depending on which tower you are on. I have been told that the remaining legacy towers left are owned by AT&T and they are not allowing them to be upgraded. Verizon is in the process of having a third-party build new sites to move their equipment away from the AT&T owned sites.

 

 

Sent from my HTC M8

[tybo31316]

I Understand the EHRPD is no faster than EVDO. My point in specifying EHRPD was to indicate that the 3G cell sites have been upgraded. My question is why is the upgraded 3G so slow? my friends on Verizon usually run about .5 to 1.5 Mb per second in 3G. If the answer is that band 25 is swamped, doesn't that mean that Sprint is overselling its resources? Or couldn't Sprint have added more carriers to increase capacity when upgrading?

There's really no need to increase carriers when you are going to deploy LTE anyways. Sprint could use that spectrum for LTE.

[JossMan]

I Understand the EHRPD is no faster than EVDO. My point in specifying EHRPD was to indicate that the 3G cell sites have been upgraded.

eHRPD does not mean that a site has been upgraded.  eHRPD is just a software upgrade to sites that will accept  it including legacy sites which will allow for smooth transitions between EV-DO and LTE.

[S4GRU]

Yea, eHRPD rolled out network wide in 2012. To all sites, even legacy sites. Verizon also has/had eHRPD rolled out to all sites, even legacy sites.

[sigxbill]

I am obviously asking my question wrong, so let's try again: According to the NV sites complete map listed on this website, all of the sites around me have been 3G upgraded and most have been 4G upgraded. Now here is the two part question: why is the upgraded 3G still so slow, and why is it that it seems like most of the time I am on 3G when there is lots of 4G around me?

[bigmachine]

I am obviously asking my question wrong, so let's try again: According to the NV sites complete map listed on this website, all of the sites around me have been 3G upgraded and most have been 4G upgraded. Now here is the two part question: why is the upgraded 3G still so slow, and why is it that it seems like most of the time I am on 3G when there is lots of 4G around me?

Where in Los Angeles is this happening? Are you using a tri-band device?

[JossMan]

I am obviously asking my question wrong, so let's try again: According to the NV sites complete map listed on this website, all of the sites around me have been 3G upgraded and most have been 4G upgraded. Now here is the two part question: why is the upgraded 3G still so slow, and why is it that it seems like most of the time I am on 3G when there is lots of 4G around me?

To answer your question regarding the 3G completed sites:  This means that the site has received the new network vision hardware (panels, RRUs, basestations, etc) the backhaul on 3G completed sites is usually the legacy backhaul (bundled T1) until the ISP can get to the site to upgrade the backhaul for LTE, this is why when your on 3G its still slow but you should have a better signal.  The maps here on S4GRU mean that 4G is "accepted" which means its not necessarily broadcasting a live LTE signal, the LTE side of the site still needs to be integrated by a technician.  This could takes days, weeks, or even months depending on how many techs are in and around your area.  

[sigxbill]

At big machine. I live in Redlands, but travel to Los Angeles and Orange county regularly. I have spent a number of nights in a hotel across from the staple center, where I even get an LTE signal, but it is so slow that it is unusable. And the 3G in the LA area is slow. when I am between Redlands and Fontana, I am on slow 3G. The 3G in orange county is slow. I have an iPhone 6+

[bigmachine]

I have spent a number of nights in a hotel across from the staple center, where I even get an LTE signal, but it is so slow that it is unusable. And the 3G in the LA area is slow. when I am between Redlands and Fontana, I am on slow 3G. The 3G in orange county is slow. I have an iPhone 6+

There are still a number of sites without upgraded backhaul on your route. That is probably a big factor.

 

Downtown Los Angeles surprises me, it's been pretty speedy for me on B41.

[jroepcke51]

I Understand the EHRPD is no faster than EVDO. My point in specifying EHRPD was to indicate that the 3G cell sites have been upgraded. My question is why is the upgraded 3G so slow? my friends on Verizon usually run about .5 to 1.5 Mb per second in 3G. If the answer is that band 25 is swamped, doesn't that mean that Sprint is overselling its resources? Or couldn't Sprint have added more carriers to increase capacity when upgrading?

I have already answered this.

 

1. your 3G connection is swamped.

2. If LTE is slow, then that carrier (Band 25 1900 LTE or Band 26 LTE) is swamped as well.

 

Finally, yes more carriers will have to be deployed to increase capacity but Sprint is doing that through Band 41.

[jroepcke51]

I am obviously asking my question wrong, so let's try again: According to the NV sites complete map listed on this website, all of the sites around me have been 3G upgraded and most have been 4G upgraded. Now here is the two part question: why is the upgraded 3G still so slow, and why is it that it seems like most of the time I am on 3G when there is lots of 4G around me?

I will answer this again.

If a site is 3G upgraded, that means the upgraded backhaul is not available yet (i.e., 4G has not been accepted). This will be improved when backhaul is upgraded.

Second, if the tower is 3G/4G accepted, the 3G carrier is overloaded or known as a high capacity site.

Third, I have heard of issues of the 6+ not wanting to catch band 41.  I don't know if there is any of that available for San Bernadino County though.  My assumption is that Band 26 has not been deployed for your area. In parts of the country that I frequent (i.e., Missouri for example). Band 26 greatly improved coverage and speeds as there was an additional carrier.

[S4GRU]

If a site is 3G NV accepted but has no LTE, that means IT DOES NOT HAVE NEW HIGH SPEED/CAPACITY BACKHAUL. So if it has legacy backhaul, it will almost always be slow.

 

If the NV 3G site did have new upgraded backhaul, they would have fired up the LTE already. So 3G only sites that have received Network Vision upgrades but do not have LTE are almost always going to be dog slow unless they are way under utilized. Not only do NV 3G only sites do not have upgraded backhaul, but they also do not have any LTE to help capacity. They are going it all alone.

 

So it's no surprise that NV sites with only 3G accepted are slow. No surprise at all.

[greencat]

Since Marcelo was appointed has there been an increase in the speed at which the sites are receiving upgraded backhaul across the country?

 

LA is a mess with regards to the rollout (87% of 3G complete after I think 3+ years of work), but they could at least get the backhaul to the sites that could use it asap.

 

Edit: It looks like Sprint has about 70-75% (Rough guess) of it's sites with LTE service... That seems pretty bad. And about 90-95% have the equipment at the site. So 5-10% of the sites haven't been upgraded and about 25-30% have no LTE. They have a lot of work left to do, but that means service could improve quite a bit.

 

The thing that gives me hope is all these towers once completed will reduce some strain on the current sites, them being over a year behind schedule kinda kills that hope.

Edited December 13, 2014 by greencat