S4GRU

And to add to the chorus, it's the same reason why Verizon customers shouldn't freak out because their new devices don't support LTE on AWS. It would be better if Sprint supported 800 LTE and 2600 LTE now, but since those networks will not even start to come online for 14 to 18 months, it's just not a big deal.

Ironically, AT&T is the only major carrier thinking long term as their LTE devices support LTE on AWS. However, they just had to jettison a lot of their AWS spectrum to Tmo as part of the breakup. So even though AT&T devices will support LTE on AWS, they will likely not be able to deploy much of a meaningful LTE network there.

I still really like Sprint's long term spectrum position and future LTE capacity. I'm quite bullish on it. However, I think Sprint will need to complete a buy out Clearwire in the long term to completely secure their future spectrum. Although things are currently quiet and peaceful with Clearwire, Sprint is counting on their spectrum for the future. And they will need to secure it a little better...

Robert

 

I was in orlando last summer attending a family reunion. My sister has a thunderbolt which I was using and we had lte coverage where ever we went' date=' same goes for atlanta where we both live, lte coverage is pretty consistent.[/quote']

 

Coverage, yes. Density , no.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

Sprint is deploying LTE over its entire network between now and Spring 2014.

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

Here is a list of places not getting Sprint LTE:

.

.

.

.

pear cocktail

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

pecan orchard

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

Off on a tangent...

 

I saw Sim-X's small avatar and thought that we might actually have a woman who had joined us in the forums. But then I saw the larger version and realized, "Oh, it's just Megan Fox."

 

That piqued my interest. So, I followed up with a bit of research into our Member List. Out of nearly 1000 members, we have only 32 declared female members. They account for a whopping 41 posts in the forums, and none of them are S4GRU sponsors.

 

Guys, sorry to say it, but the stats do not lie -- the ladies just do not like us.

 

http://www.hulu.com/...e-tenth-reunion

 

AJ

41? That's two tenths of one percent of all posts!

So, only 99.8% of all posts are by men...

Robert

I didn't mean to say that Sprint won't be able to handle the demand. I'm just saying it might be higher than VZ (especially per capita).

And I wasn't trying to lump you into the "naysayer" category. I mean Sprint naysayers in general. But I can see why you may think I was referring to you.

And I definitely agree that Sprint will have a higher LTE adoption rate than VZW. How much higher? We are all speculating at this point. However, it is going to take some time for Sprint to catch up to Verizon's LTE deployment rate. Even if Sprint customers do it at double the rate, it will still take 12 months for Sprint to get to the same adoption level.

Robert

cinnamon roll

I live in a "Well Covered" wimax area (Minneapolis Market) I use to get max speeds 10 megabits all the time. As of late it's been more like 5-8 range which is still decent. However wimax is completely useless when driving down the road or moving. We did use it when our worked moved to a new office for about a week till we could get a DSL line in. We had good coverage and had an evo running the entire office it held up rather nice. The trick is not moving. I have a 15 min drive home from work to the home and wimax cuts in and out the entire trip home it's a complete joke. The only reason it's somewhat usable for me is I have my phone wimax reconnect time to 15 seconds instead of the default 5 min. So the signal dumps, it will reconnect by itself. Sure I can get it to stream Rhaposody while driving at 65MPH only to quick follow by a signal dump. Ask any regular (non poweruser) that has a wimax device. Everyone that I know never uses it, cause it's crap. I do get wimax coverage at work and home but have real broadband so always using wi-fi. I will use wimax to stream rhapsody sometimes but when it's cutting in and out between tracks so does the music. I hope LTE isn't like this. Yes I do use wimax cause when the 3G network is overloaded, it's nice to have but the signal dumping non-stop while driving is so annoying.

The problem with WiMax and moving more is a handoff issue and the spotty coverage caused by 2600MHz propagation, constantly going in and out of coverage. Sprint's LTE network will be superior at LTE to LTE handoffs and will have much more solid coverage after each market is completed. The difference will be night and day.

Robert

Robert, have you seen any internal data on 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE 1900 carriers? I do not think that will be a viable solution, as I do not recall FCC approval for other than 5 MHz x 5 MHz or 10 MHz x 10 MHz operation. But I would have to go back and check the FCC OET certifications for the Viper, Galaxy Nexus, and EVO 4G LTE to be certain.

 

AJ

The only reference I can recall seeing is in LTE FIT reports that say that the each of the OEM's can support 3MHz channel LTE. I don't remember anything speaking about devices.

Robert

I want to know if sprint will be able to handle the same amount of customers as verizon, with the same percentage of smartphone users they have now. Because if they keep unlimited data, keep their pricing below their competitors, and can get near the same speeds as their rivals, then I think their customer growth will grow rapidly. The reason people are leaving is because the service doesn't work and they will pay more for consistent and working service. If you have reliability and functioning data, then people will not leave, but new subscribers will come.

You probably didn't see my response to AJ (above) when you posted this. Sprint can support almost the same number of customers of Verizon if they need to do in dense urban areas because Sprint has a much denser LTE site deployment. Even though a Sprint LTE carrier has half the capacity of a Verizon LTE carrier, there are more Sprint LTE sites covering the same geographic area.

Currently, as Verizon is deploying their 700MHz LTE network, they are deploying it with the number of sites it takes to provide seamless 700MHz coverage. Density is pretty thin at 700MHz. Verizon is not putting 700 LTE on every one of their PCS sites. So in a generic city, Verizon would have 100 700LTE sites.

However, Sprint is deploying their LTE nationwide on every 1900 site. 1900 cells are considerably smaller than 700. So in that same city, Sprint would deploy approx 300 1900 LTE sites. Each Sprint site might serve 100 customers, whereas each Verizon site might serve 200 customers. So over that city, Sprint could serve 30,000 LTE customers, whereas Verizon could only serve 20,000 LTE customers before adding additional carriers. Verizon is just now making its 700MHz denser in some markets to build capacity. They will take this as far out as they can before they start adding AWS LTE carriers.

This cell density is a real thing. And this is yet another advantage Sprint has in its LTE capacity. Sprint will be building it a much higher capacity than they need in the beginning because of this.

Robert

I'm going to have to say that's an unfair comparison. It is much more expensive for Verizon customers to get smart phones, their data plans are extremely expensive. As a result, Verizon has a much, much lower percentage of smart phone users compared to Sprint.

 

From my experience, it is extremely rare to see a Sprint customer using a non-smartphone.

 

Additionally, your site, sprintfeed and others are living proof that Sprint users tend to be much more tech savvy than the average consumer. We are all chomping at the bit to devour that unlimited LTE data. The Galaxy Nexus likely sold out all of its inventory so quickly for this very reason.

This is only one comparison given over many that I have provided why Sprint's LTE plan is completely viable for the future. I never stated that I knew what Sprint's adoption rate will be. I only used it as a starting benchmark. The fact is that Sprint's LTE plans are equal or better than Verizon in almost every comparable aspect when it comes to plans for additional capacity.

I don't want to stop anyone from going somewhere else. If any of you would prefer to bet on someone else's network, be my guest. We all are betting on the next 24 months whenever we sign a contract with any carrier. However, I'm just making the point that Sprint only needs to bridge LTE to next summer. And there is more than an ample plan to get there.

Once Sprint starts using 800MHz and Clearwire LTE for additional capacity (and the devices are out that run on it), the sky is the limit for Sprint LTE. Sprint will be in a better position at that time than ANY other carrier in America when it comes to being able to add LTE capacity.

And Sprint's plans are more than adequate and sound to get there. Irregardless of the naysayers.

Robert

Regardless of the possibility of a Sprint LTE iPhone or the condition of the EV-DO network, Sprint will greatly surpass VZW in LTE penetration rate. In general, Sprint subs seem more likely to embrace early adoption, while VZW subs seem more conservative, even downright stodgy. That said, I am still frankly astonished that VZW's LTE uptake is/was only five percent.

 

Now, I do not have any stats to back this up -- it is just my perception. So, take with a grain of salt.

 

AJ

This is a great point, that I didn't even take into consideration in my explanations. Sprint's LTE is based on 1900 PCS, which they are deploying in much smaller cells than VZW is with their 700 LTE. So in urban areas, Sprint will actually have more user capacity than Verizon will, one carrier deployment versus one carrier deployment. If Sprint is having LTE troubles, so will Verizon. Because their capacity will be similar.

Robert

 

The adoption rate is going to skyrocket once the new iPhone ships. The iPhones account for 50%-70% of all smartphones sold for all carriers. The reason why LTE adoption is low is due to the majority of smartphones sold are 3G only iPhones. Once the LTE iPhone comes out this fall' date=' the amount of LTE devices is going to double, if not triple. 35 million iPhones were sold last year, if 35 million LTE iPhones are sold in 1 year, that is a lot of new LTE subscribers.[/quote']

 

Even if everyone who bought an iPhone 4 or 4S on Sprint all bought LTE iPhones in October, it wouldn't crash the new LTE network. iPhone growth is already in the projections. And, Sprint can emergency add additional 5x5 and 3x3 carriers if growth does exceed their very liberal projections. And adding carriers to the Network Vision platform is cheaper, easier and faster.

 

You said earlier that you didn't trust Sprint to handle the LTE network because of current EVDO performance. However, current EVDO performance is mostly related to backhaul. There is a lot of talk about you feel this is going to be the doomsday LTE scenario. Give me some realistic projected growth numbers and I will tell you whether Sprint can handle it.

 

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

I believe that sprint will have a higher LTE adoption rate than any other carrier.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

Even if they have double the adoption rate of Verizon, they still will not have issues with their current LTE capacity plans.

If they have triple the adoption rate (which is hard to fathom), then they will have issues at their top 5% of sites for a few months next summer. But that's it. That's how sound Sprint's plans are.

If Sprint's customers adopt LTE at a higher rate than VZW customers, it will likely be around 50% higher, not 100% to 200% higher. This is not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

But I do believe you're right. The adoption rate should be higher. Just because of the state of EVDO alone will drive more people to LTE.

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

 

The problem I have is that we have been living with sub 80kbps data speed here for a year. Plus our area is not scheduled to get NV until sometime next year. I don't know how long I can wait and I don't think I have 100% trust that Sprint can work this out (it is Sprint after all ;-) ).

 

I am nervous about them only using 5x5 where VZW is using 10x10. The reason I am nervous is because Sprint said that with their subscriber base' date=' the 5x5 will be fine since they have 50% the subscribers that VZW has. But, if Sprint gets their speed to come close to VZW and they are still offering unlimited data, then don't you think people will flock in droves to Sprint? And if this happens, wouldn't their network start creeping to a crawl again like it is now? Which leads me to believe that the unlimited will be a thing of the past once their subscriber base starts to grow. And since Sprint is notorious to not grandfather people into old data plans; they need to change their plan if they want to activate a new smartphone, I don't feel comfortable that I will get to keep their unlimited data. And then for all the support that people showed by staying with them through all the bad times, due to the potential silver lining by 2014 and unlimited data, I think they will reward us with tiered data.[/quote']

 

This is an overly simplistic view of what is occurring. Sprint is not just deploying one 5x5 carrier nationwide and stuck indefinitely. Sprint has the ability to install additional 5x5 and 3x3 LTE carriers in most markets in 1900. Also Sprint is also adding 800 LTE carriers and 2500 LTE carriers with Clearwire next summer. Sprint is actually sitting in a very good spectrum position, all things considered. Which, once you consider their subscriber numbers, Sprint is actually in a superior position than Verizon to handle additional network capacity.

 

Sprint projections for their one LTE carrier to capacity is 20 to 24 months in most locations. However, at the most dense sites (approx. 5%), the capacity will only last 10 to 12 months. But Sprint has already worked out additional capacity at these sites.

 

Also even Verizon only has a 5% device adoption rate. Meaning only 5% of all the devices that access the network are LTE capable. It will realistically take a long time for Sprint customers to adopt LTE devices en masse. So I think even Sprint's projections are much sooner than reality. I don't see this as a problem by my estimation.

 

More important than carrier capacity is backhaul. Backhaul is the culprit at 85% of the 3G sites experiencing speed issues now, not carrier capacity. And backhaul problems are being solved with Network Vision.

 

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

red tide

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

In reality, microwave backhaul is most often limited where it connects to the internet, not in the microwave links themselves.

In most instances, where microwave is connected to the internet, it is a fiber connection. However, it may possibly be an AAV connection. Also, not all fiber connections are equal.

I am not able to completly answer your question, as there are too many variables to come up with a comprehensive response. I just know that even with microwave backhaul vendors, they have minimum performance standards. I believe that scalability is included in all the contract requirements based on the things I have read. Sprint is smart not to get itself in a corner with future backhaul needs at these sites its adding backhaul at now.

When and if they need more, it should be a simple request from the backhaul vendor for more. The contract probably spells out 45 day or 90 day response time to the request. And now with the much improved network monitoring, Sprint should be able to keep way ahead of the backhaul curve. But I also believe the initial backhaul is enough to service several loaded LTE carriers. As Sprint was planning LTE 1900, LTE 800 and two LS LTE carriers when it was planning Network Vision.

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

Blue Bayou

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

Things are going very well, all things considered. Sprint is reworking its entire network from top to bottom. There are going to be pains and a learning curve.

There is no reason to conclude that the completion date at the end of Network Vision is in jeopardy at this time. One of the things about a site like S4GRU is that it gives so much detail that myopically it can appear that there are more problems or worse problems than there really is.

This kind of upgrade has never been done before on this scale ever. It is a huge logistical feat. And we can expect more issues to arise. And we get to follow along and see how Sprint works through the issues.

One thing about a schedule slow down is it allows Sprint to spend money slower than the cash projections called for. Which in turn allows them to accelerate later Network Vision deployment. So, these up front hiccups will likely have no net effect on the final completion.

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

living dead

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

front lines

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

 

Why is that?

I'm not certain why. The NV schedule doesn't show reasons, just dates. And in many of the early work markets it shows a disparity between 3G on air dates and 4G on air dates. One before the other by 30 to 90 days. By summer end, most sites the difference between 3G and 4G on air dates is 5 to 10 days.

If I were left to speculate, it is likely due to equipment deliveries, backhaul, switches/4G cores being ready or combinations thereof. But I have not seen or heard officially.

In the case of Boston, I now know that their 4G core will not be ready until May 18th. So even if all the Boston sites had everything else ready for LTE, the earliest LTE could start to go live is the 18th. I also know that only approx half the Chicago sites that have NV upgrades complete have their backhaul in place. These half can't run LTE now until their backhaul arrives in the next 30 to 90 days.

In the Ericsson markets, they aren't turning NV 3G on at all. Why? Don't know. Obviously new backhaul isn't an issue there, because the LTE wouldn't be live. Maybe Ericsson is getting the 3G switches upgraded? Maybe Ericsson EVDO equipment is backordered? I don't know.

What I do know is Sprint and their OEM's have known this for a long time that this disparity was going to happen because the live dates between 3G and 4G have been different on the schedule in early markets since the first day I received it.

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

cold front

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner