Jump to content
Nextel49

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Flompholph said:

There is no big demand for upload unless you run p2p server on phone.

This is wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is wrong.
Very wrong. Sprint has alots of complains about there upload. Some people have even left for another carrier over it. I have seen everyone else get 60 up before but not Sprint. Tho Sprint needs higher FDD channels to do that and so far they don't have any 20x20 and 15x15 is a small footprint. That's why they need to host Dish's spectrum if the merger does fail

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

I can tell you from experience, 5G uploads are exponentially more stable than 3xCA LTE. Where I see 1-3mb on B41 ill see 10-30mbs on 5G coming from the same site.

There are more devices are on 4g than 5g meaning more noise and chance some one is on the edge of signal using up the RS Blocks. More noise then they have to lower the qam to pass the data. The more RS Blocks used on the edge is less RS Blocks

1 hour ago, though said:

This is wrong.

OK that is between you and the white papers I have read. But sorry I believe white papers by Cisco and others over you unless you have white papers showing that upload is used more than downloads. Personally I think it is funny you must believe carriers limit downloaded video to 720p but uploaded videos there is not limit on that. What ever leave your 3 word respond proving me wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Tengen31 said:

Very wrong. Sprint has alots of complains about there upload. Some people have even left for another carrier over it. I have seen everyone else get 60 up before but not Sprint. Tho Sprint needs higher FDD channels to do that and so far they don't have any 20x20 and 15x15 is a small footprint. That's why they need to host Dish's spectrum if the merger does fail

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

Complaints have nothing to do with average data usage and where that data is used. Sorry to brake your bubble but people measure this stuff and write reports on this. But I guess the new mantra is to say something enough times or loud enough then it is the truth.

Share this post


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

OK that is between you and the white papers I have read. But sorry I believe white papers by Cisco and others over you unless you have white papers showing that upload is used more than downloads. Personally I think it is funny you must believe carriers limit downloaded video to 720p but uploaded videos there is not limit on that. What ever leave your 3 word respond proving me wrong.

White papers? Umm ok cool.

"Used more"? Nobody is saying that UL is "used more" than DL. However, having a download speed of 200Mb and upload speed of 1Mb available will make the user experience pretty shitty overall for the majority of people compared to say 40/20.

Having a fast and wide open UL speed will give the user a much faster overall experience.

Go read some more white papers and get back to us... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Flompholph said:

OK that is between you and the white papers I have read. But sorry I believe white papers by Cisco and others over you unless you have white papers showing that upload is used more than downloads. Personally I think it is funny you must believe carriers limit downloaded video to 720p but uploaded videos there is not limit on that. What ever leave your 3 word respond proving me wrong.

"Upload is used more than downloads" is not justification for hundreds of megabits of excess downlink capacity and 1-2 megabits of excess uplink capacity. 

6 minutes ago, though said:

"Used more"? Nobody is saying that UL is "used more" than DL. However, having a download speed of 200Mb and upload speed of 1Mb available will make the usuable experience pretty shitty overall for the majority of people compared to say 40/20.

Having a fast and wide open UL speed will give the end user a much faster overall experience.

Go read some more white papers and get back to us... 

This is spot on. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

This is wrong.

 

5 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

Very wrong.   .  .  .

3 hours ago, Flompholph said:

.  .  .

Complaints have nothing to do with average data usage and where that data is used. Sorry to brake your bubble but people measure this stuff and write reports on this. But I guess the new mantra is to say something enough times or loud enough then it is the truth.

 

Gentlemen, calm down.  You are pushing the limits of civility.

1st, this discussion really doesn't belong in this thread at all, which is (at least in theory) supposed to be about the attempted merger, not about the technical aspects of bands and FDD and TDD and all that other technical stuff.  There are other threads for that.  It would be nice if we could stick to the topic.

2nd, even if we do discuss the "technical stuff", you are blurring your arguments.  There are at least 2 major aspects of Band 41 uplink which come into play here:  Time-division allocations and signal propagation.  In an ideal, strong-Band-41 signal situation, Sprint's roughly 5:1 time slice allocation is adequate for the vast majority of mobile users, as it is (for example) on my Comcast wired connection, which runs at a ratio of about 10:1.  The bigger problem is that, in the absence of Carrier Aggregation (i.e., when you are ONLY on Band 41), if you are at any significant distance from the tower antenna or you are blocked in any way, your handset simply cannot transmit enough watts of signal to feed the uplink.  So the downlink may be fast and robust, but your anemic little cell phone cannot push back.  Sprint can't fix that, nor can the handset manufacturers, simply because FCC rules (and common sense) limit the transmit power so that you will not fry your brain.

So, can we please return to our irregularly scheduled merger arguments?  Thank you.

  • Like 6
  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tommym65 said:

 

. . .

1st, this discussion really doesn't belong in this thread at all, which is (at least in theory) supposed to be about the attempted merger, . . . 

2nd, even if we do discuss the "technical stuff", you are blurring your arguments.  There are at least 2 major aspects of Band 41 uplink which come into play here:  Time-division allocations and signal propagation.  In an ideal, strong-Band-41 signal situation, Sprint's roughly 5:1 time slice allocation is adequate for the vast majority of mobile users, as it is (for example) on my Comcast wired connection, which runs at a ratio of about 10:1.  The bigger problem is that, in the absence of Carrier Aggregation (i.e., when you are ONLY on Band 41), if you are at any significant distance from the tower antenna or you are blocked in any way, your handset simply cannot transmit enough watts of signal to feed the uplink.  So the downlink may be fast and robust, but your anemic little cell phone cannot push back.  Sprint can't fix that, nor can the handset manufacturers, simply because FCC rules (and common sense) limit the transmit power so that you will not fry your brain.

So, can we please return to our irregularly scheduled merger arguments?  Thank you.

The argument put forth before I posted was that sprint needed (merger even with DISH) spectrum because of uploads speeds. 

 

5 hours ago, though said:

White papers? Umm ok cool.

"Used more"? Nobody is saying that UL is "used more" than DL. However, having a download speed of 200Mb and upload speed of 1Mb available will make the user experience pretty shitty overall for the majority of people compared to say 40/20.

Having a fast and wide open UL speed will give the user a much faster overall experience.

Go read some more white papers and get back to us... 

So how did your phone request the data at 200Mbps if it was upload limited? "faster overall experience" to whom? Which is my point of the white papers most people will notice they can't watch a video more so than my iCloud/google photos won't back up in the background. Professional IRL streamers are less than 1 in 100,000  and they should be using a bonded connection that is using multiple carriers and wifi point 2 point for coverage reasons besides walking between good and bad areas for each carrier. Skype like I said only needs ~.2 Mbps.

5 hours ago, RAvirani said:

"Upload is used more than downloads" is not justification for hundreds of megabits of excess downlink capacity and 1-2 megabits of excess uplink capacity. 

Downloads are multiplied many times over by MIMO and qam. When adjusting the Config timing so how is zero download excess and have excess uplink and how is that helpful? But without going into "technical stuff" I don't know how to show with "feelings". Used download/upload data and comparing that to capacity the different config capacity with MIMO and QAM included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I just want some decent lowband. If the merger doesn't work and Sprint has to get in bed with Dish, so be it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all just want someone who is going to be serious about growing Sprint unlike SB. In the slim chance the merger is denied, it would be nice for SB to sell off Sprint to someone who is serious about taking Sprint to the level we all know it can go. If Sprint was in better hands, this merger would not be needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I think we all just want someone who is going to be serious about growing Sprint unlike SB. In the slim chance the merger is denied, it would be nice for SB to sell off Sprint to someone who is serious about taking Sprint to the level we all know it can go. If Sprint was in better hands, this merger would not be needed.

Who would that be? 

Share this post


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

Not if qam is the reason no matter how much B41 thrown at upload it won't matter. It would only go from .1 to .2 Mbps. As long as downloads are working then there is enough uploads. Or you would not be able to request data packets. 

If someone needs upload that bad they should be forced off the band(load balancing) like they do for downloads. If someone is skyping that is only .1 to .5Mbps upload. If live streaming that is only ~1Mbps. There is no big demand for upload unless you run p2p server on phone.

If Sprint were to use 100Mhz 5g channels, that alone could make b41 uploads 2.5 to 5 times faster.  5 to 10 times faster if all B41 was 5G using 100Mhz and a less than 94Mhz channel where allowed for carrier aggregation.  Rumors are also out there that 5G B41 may be allowed to use 400Mhz channels in the future.  These would also make CA with other bands much more feasible.

The other possibility which has been discussed before is 5G evidently has the ability to restart the frame cycle if more upload is needed.  This is all theoretical at this point.

Facebook Live, Facetime, and Skype come to mind as apps that could use lots of upload.  Instagram would be another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dkyeager said:

The other possibility which has been discussed before is 5G evidently has the ability to restart the frame cycle if more upload is needed.  This is all theoretical at this point.

NR timeslots are not strictly DL/UL. There is also something called a flex timeslot. This are dynamically allocates to DL or UL as needed. NR TDD config 2 is exclusively flex timeslots. 

I'm hoping we see Sprint move towards this setup in the future as it gives the network ultimate flexibility, although I'm hearing equipment isn't ready for flex configs as of today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dkyeager said:

If Sprint were to use 100Mhz 5g channels, that alone could make b41 uploads 2.5 to 5 times faster.  5 to 10 times faster if all B41 was 5G using 100Mhz and a less than 94Mhz channel where allowed for carrier aggregation.  

Sprint will be running 100 MHz of NR when DSS is ready. Of course, all of that spectrum won't consistently be available due to LTE traffic, but it will definitely be a step up from the 40-60 MHz they are using now. 

Keep in mind massive MIMO radios have a 120 MHz bandwidth limit. Sprint cannot broadcast more than 120 MHz (NR, LTE or both) through a single massive MIMO antenna. 

19 hours ago, dkyeager said:

Rumors are also out there that 5G B41 may be allowed to use 400Mhz channels in the future.  These would also make CA with other bands much more feasible.

BWs greater than 100 MHz are only standardized for n257/n258/n260/n261. n41 is 2496-2690 MHz. Only 194 MHz are contained by the band. The largest NR carrier that would fit is 100 MHz. The only channel sizes greater than 100 MHz are 200 MHz and 400 MHz. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...