Jump to content

Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile reveal network traffic stats from Super Bowl


IamMrFamous07

Recommended Posts

The nation's largest wireless carriers offered some insights into how they prepared for Sunday's Super Bowl XLIX game between the New England Patriots and the Seattle Seahawks, as well as how much traffic they saw on their networks during the game.

 

Sprint didn't provide an exact network traffic figure, but said it saw a 259 percent increase in traffic in and around the stadium in 2015 compared with last year.

 

For its part, Sprint said it added mobile cell sites and that, inside the stadium, it offered a 2X20 (40MHz) cellular system running on its 2.5 GHz spectrum.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-att-sprint-and-t-mobile-reveal-network-traffic-stats-super-bowl/2015-02-04

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The nation's largest wireless carriers offered some insights into how they prepared for Sunday's Super Bowl XLIX game "

 

 

 

Just a reminder to not directly copy and paste other people's full articles without linking it back. It's considered a bad manner.

 

Anyways, it sounds like they brought in some cows equipped with 2.5 and broadcasted two carriers like they did in the world series. If fully back hauled then sprint would've been providing the capacity equivalent to 30 mhz of FDD lte.

 

Service must've been competitive compared to the other.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I would construe the use of 2x20 to specifically mean CA was deployed. It could be. But I could see someone referring to two separate B41 carriers live the same way. They may have not been linked by CA.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I would construe the use of 2x20 to specifically mean CA was deployed. It could be. But I could see someone referring to two separate B41 carriers live the same way. They may have not been linked by CA.

Carrier aggregation is not enabled on eNB or any UE. This is just them saying that they had two 20 MHz carriers active.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So quick question, how can Sprint deploy B41 in this area temporarily, then remove it without proper permitting?  Phoenixan here, the area around the Stadium has no B26, and only 1 or 2 towers have B41, however the game was blanketed in B41 come gameday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if Sprint leaves the two carriers live after the game?

They were on cows. Pack it up and they leave by days end.

 

Heard they deployed 4 cows and erected a temporary cell site.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

COWs do not require building permits. Most temporary sites do not require permits. Even most DAS systems don't require permits so long as all of the electrical needs are already installed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were on cows. Pack it up and they leave by days end.

 

Heard they deployed 4 cows and erected a temporary cell site.

 

Is that enough to say they deployed a herd of COWs? :roflmao:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it seemed like Sprint held their own and thats a good thing. I read the article and of course John had to chime in on being the fastest but it they used only 430gb. Either the connection wasn't too reliable or people were just connecting to wifi. Who knows who cares. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article was updated:

 

 

Sprint didn't initially provide its traffic numbers, but after FierceWireless published this article with statistics from AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, Sprint decided to change course and provide specific figures for its traffic. "Our 4G LTE data usage in and directly outside the stadium on game day was 754 GB," wrote Sprint spokeswoman Adrienne Norton, noting that Sprint decided to release the numbers in part because "we don't want to give the impression we didn't do well or have something to hide."
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it seemed like Sprint held their own and thats a good thing. I read the article and of course John had to chime in on being the fastest but it they used only 430gb. Either the connection wasn't too reliable or people were just connecting to wifi. Who knows who cares. 

Probably due to the fact that there were far more AT&T/Verizon subs at the Super Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it seemed like Sprint held their own and thats a good thing. I read the article and of course John had to chime in on being the fastest but it they used only 430gb. Either the connection wasn't too reliable or people were just connecting to wifi. Who knows who cares. 

Probably due to the fact that there were far more AT&T/Verizon subs at the Super Bowl.

 

Yes, as Robert noted elsewhere, the T-Mobile demographic does not really line up with the Super Bowl attendee demographic.  And if Seattle had not made the Super Bowl, then T-Mobile usage likely would have been even lower.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Phoenix Stadium"?  Uh, John, it is University of Phoenix Stadium.

 

Is Legere one of those awkward non sports aware guys who refers to places like "Seattle Stadium"?

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor John, thinking speed is everything. :lol:

 

Someone who is ditching T-Mobile because of continued coverage shortcomings or Legere's clownish antics should write him a "Dear John letter" and post it on Twitter.  Now, that would be funny.

 

AJ

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone who is ditching T-Mobile because of continued coverage shortcomings or Legere's clownish antics should write him a "Dear John letter" and post it on Twitter.  Now, that would be funny.

 

AJ

That would make my day, poor guy thinks speed is the only thing that matters. Coverage is everything, WiFi calling to make up for your short-comings? aka coverage lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...