iansltx

MIMO and beamforming are two different techs, strictly speaking. Now base stations with 4x4 MIMO probably have beamforming built in, and beamforming does increase signal levels by multiple dB (translating directly into better LTE throughput), but it's not a direct side effect of just throwing more antennas/spatial streams at the problem.

A couple miles west of Fredericksburg, TX, tethering my GSIII via TrevEMod AndroidWiFiTether because Sprint's OLAM is being stupid...and it looks like speeds are higher this way... traceroute to s4gru.com (50.28.75.70), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 [AS28513] 192.168.2.254 (192.168.2.254) 4.167 ms 1.846 ms 2.129 ms 2 [AS65534] 10.156.76.109 (10.156.76.109) 50.875 ms 34.345 ms 46.806 ms 3 [AS65534] 10.156.77.77 (10.156.77.77) 43.913 ms [AS65534] 10.156.77.73 (10.156.77.73) 49.793 ms [AS65534] 10.156.77.77 (10.156.77.77) 52.192 ms 4 [AS65534] 10.32.144.10 (10.32.144.10) 42.398 ms [AS65534] 10.32.144.14 (10.32.144.14) 44.164 ms [AS65534] 10.32.144.10 (10.32.144.10) 39.241 ms 5 [AS65534] 10.156.76.198 (10.156.76.198) 39.823 ms 63.242 ms 52.672 ms 6 [AS65534] 10.156.76.193 (10.156.76.193) 35.919 ms 35.550 ms 39.924 ms 7 [AS0] 66.1.76.243 (66.1.76.243) 41.845 ms 42.870 ms [AS0] 66.1.76.242 (66.1.76.242) 50.677 ms 8 [AS0] sl-crs2-hou-.sprintlink.net (144.228.11.49) 42.346 ms [AS0] sl-crs1-hou-.sprintlink.net (144.228.11.45) 37.490 ms 48.543 ms 9 [AS0] 144.232.1.76 (144.232.1.76) 48.789 ms [AS0] sl-crs2-fw-0-2-0-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.86) 72.051 ms [AS0] sl-crs1-fw-0-1-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.249) 67.240 ms 10 [AS0] 144.232.1.163 (144.232.1.163) 67.710 ms [AS0] 144.232.1.161 (144.232.1.161) 51.135 ms 58.573 ms 11 [AS0] 144.232.25.188 (144.232.25.188) 60.801 ms [AS0] 144.232.11.178 (144.232.11.178) 54.022 ms [AS0] 144.232.11.210 (144.232.11.210) 53.121 ms 12 [AS0] 144.232.25.90 (144.232.25.90) 55.290 ms 68.947 ms 57.474 ms 13 [AS0] dpr1-ge-2-0-0.dallasequinix.savvis.net (204.70.204.146) 63.899 ms 61.480 ms 59.512 ms 14 [AS0] cr2-tengige0-7-5-0.dallas.savvis.net (204.70.196.29) 61.961 ms 46.656 ms 58.797 ms 15 [AS0] cr1-te-0-2-0-0.chd.savvis.net (204.70.194.73) 88.542 ms 91.825 ms 87.293 ms 16 [AS0] ber1-te-1-0-0.chicagoequinix.savvis.net (204.70.196.22) 80.591 ms 80.942 ms 93.828 ms 17 [AS0] 208.173.176.222 (208.173.176.222) 80.569 ms 83.858 ms 97.191 ms 18 [AS32244] lw-dc2-core4-te9-1.rtr.liquidweb.com (209.59.157.226) 89.894 ms 94.465 ms 97.009 ms 19 [AS32244] lw-dc3-dist14.rtr.liquidweb.com (69.167.128.79) 99.734 ms 97.869 ms 91.643 ms 20 [AS32244] 69.167.128.70 (69.167.128.70) 93.749 ms 91.852 ms 90.531 ms 21 * * * 22 * *^C traceroute to 4.2.2.4 (4.2.2.4), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 [AS28513] 192.168.2.254 (192.168.2.254) 4.722 ms 3.972 ms 1.862 ms 2 [AS65534] 10.156.76.109 (10.156.76.109) 35.168 ms 38.359 ms 39.909 ms 3 [AS65534] 10.156.77.73 (10.156.77.73) 42.348 ms [AS65534] 10.156.77.77 (10.156.77.77) 46.816 ms [AS65534] 10.156.77.73 (10.156.77.73) 40.877 ms 4 [AS65534] 10.32.144.14 (10.32.144.14) 42.017 ms [AS65534] 10.32.144.10 (10.32.144.10) 40.798 ms [AS65534] 10.32.144.14 (10.32.144.14) 36.112 ms 5 [AS65534] 10.156.76.198 (10.156.76.198) 39.102 ms 41.974 ms 39.713 ms 6 [AS65534] 10.156.76.193 (10.156.76.193) 40.528 ms 41.669 ms 53.557 ms 7 [AS0] 66.1.76.242 (66.1.76.242) 47.445 ms 41.084 ms 53.205 ms 8 [AS0] sl-crs2-hou-.sprintlink.net (144.228.11.49) 39.006 ms [AS0] sl-crs1-hou-.sprintlink.net (144.228.11.45) 40.542 ms [AS0] sl-crs2-hou-.sprintlink.net (144.228.11.49) 42.086 ms 9 [AS0] sl-crs2-fw-0-1-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.251) 48.446 ms [AS0] sl-crs2-fw-0-2-0-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.86) 58.324 ms [AS0] sl-crs1-fw-0-1-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.249) 59.018 ms 10 [AS0] 144.232.1.163 (144.232.1.163) 60.653 ms 48.780 ms [AS0] 144.232.1.161 (144.232.1.161) 57.875 ms 11 [AS0] 144.232.25.188 (144.232.25.188) 53.208 ms [AS0] 144.232.11.178 (144.232.11.178) 58.633 ms 79.378 ms 12 [AS0] 144.232.24.18 (144.232.24.18) 73.200 ms 63.148 ms 52.022 ms 13 [AS3356] ae-1-60.edge3.dallas1.level3.net (4.69.145.8) 61.298 ms [AS3356] ae-2-70.edge3.dallas1.level3.net (4.69.145.72) 58.679 ms 53.319 ms 14 [AS3356] d.resolvers.level3.net (4.2.2.4) 54.696 ms 56.860 ms 45.587 ms 1 [AS28513] 192.168.2.254 (192.168.2.254) 4.305 ms 3.578 ms 1.820 ms 2 [AS65534] 10.156.76.109 (10.156.76.109) 33.945 ms 45.723 ms 42.071 ms 3 [AS65534] 10.156.77.73 (10.156.77.73) 41.034 ms [AS65534] 10.156.77.77 (10.156.77.77) 43.722 ms [AS65534] 10.156.77.73 (10.156.77.73) 38.017 ms 4 [AS65534] 10.32.144.14 (10.32.144.14) 37.707 ms [AS65534] 10.32.144.10 (10.32.144.10) 45.018 ms [AS65534] 10.32.144.14 (10.32.144.14) 37.840 ms 5 [AS65534] 10.156.76.198 (10.156.76.198) 36.075 ms 44.898 ms 39.840 ms 6 [AS65534] 10.156.76.193 (10.156.76.193) 39.559 ms 45.893 ms 40.377 ms 7 [AS0] 66.1.76.243 (66.1.76.243) 41.466 ms 37.829 ms [AS0] 66.1.76.242 (66.1.76.242) 54.308 ms 8 [AS0] sl-crs1-hou-.sprintlink.net (144.228.11.45) 45.677 ms [AS0] sl-crs2-hou-.sprintlink.net (144.228.11.49) 49.360 ms [AS0] sl-crs1-hou-.sprintlink.net (144.228.11.45) 37.678 ms 9 [AS0] sl-crs1-fw-0-1-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.249) 67.391 ms [AS0] 144.232.1.78 (144.232.1.78) 51.198 ms [AS0] sl-crs2-fw-0-14-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.6.116) 70.877 ms 10 [AS0] 144.232.1.161 (144.232.1.161) 52.153 ms [AS0] 144.232.1.163 (144.232.1.163) 45.431 ms [AS0] 144.232.1.161 (144.232.1.161) 46.746 ms 11 [AS0] 144.232.11.178 (144.232.11.178) 56.755 ms [AS0] 144.232.11.210 (144.232.11.210) 66.894 ms [AS0] 144.232.11.178 (144.232.11.178) 51.534 ms 12 [AS0] 144.232.24.18 (144.232.24.18) 59.556 ms [AS0] 144.232.24.30 (144.232.24.30) 46.053 ms [AS0] 144.232.24.18 (144.232.24.18) 64.612 ms 13 [AS3356] softlayer-t.edge2.dallas3.level3.net (4.59.36.94) 65.248 ms 57.269 ms 53.896 ms 14 [AS36351] ae5.dar02.sr01.dal05.networklayer.com (173.192.18.217) 52.430 ms 66.318 ms 70.729 ms 15 * * * 16 [AS36351] speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com (173.192.68.18) 168.132 ms 45.851 ms 57.905 ms I can't find a site that I can trace to in Houston that doesn't double back to Dallas first...guess Sprint doesn't have many corporate customers in HOU anymore. The connection looks quite jittery from the traceroutes, but it's incedibly usable, especially considering that it's over 10x faster on downloads than my parents' DSL connection (Verizon, 1.5M down, 384k up...it's all we can get this far out) and over 20x faster on uploads.

On the flip side, heavier MIMO usage has a similar effect to the TD-LTE overlay: customers closer to the base station use up a smaller percentage of available site capacity, thus making service better for everyone.

I'm glad LUS succeeded as well. For wireline broadband infrastructure, it makes sense to allow the electrical utility to put stuff in if people want it.

Should I link to my mid-July traceroutes from my LTE testing in Fort Worth?

To clarify, TWC has two "Business Class" products. One is their HFC (Hybrid Fiber Coax) system, in either DOCSIS 2 or 3 flavors. AKA cable modem service. Sprint isn't using that. The other is fiber. Sprint *is* using that. My question is, where did you hear that TWC is being used in Austin? I'm incluned to believe you, but Sprint could be using any of a number of carriers, depending on the area. Zayo (former AboveNet, plus I think some non-AboveNet stuff), Grande Communications, AT&T and Alpheus come to mind. As an aside from a months-ago post, CenturyLink covers a lot of territory that never belonged to Sprint; Las Vegas is the largest market that was legacy Embarq. Everything comparably-sized or larger was Qwest. Who, by the way, was a Sprint MVNO not too long ago Also, Sprint owns its own backbone still, which they use exclusively as the backbone for their mobile network. As opposed to VZW (they use Level3 and maybe others in addition to alter.net), T-Mobile (Level3, AT&T and others), CricKet (Level3, XO, maybe others)...and the same as AT&T, which uses AS7018 for all mobile traffic. Yes, Sprint is mostly out of the wireline game, but they're far from the cellular-only presence that is T-Mobile USA. There are actually cell sites out there that have honest-to-goodness Sprint fiber from them all the way to the nearest network peering point.

BPL was tried, and there were interference isues, so it was dropped. Also, some states have made it illegal for the utilities to provide residential 'net service. You can thank the telecom giants for that one.

Original story: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8B20XC20121203?irpc=932 My opinion: Samsung is bidding lower than Ericsson on some projects and winning those bids...and deploying faster than Ericsson in some cases (e.g. NV). So Ericsson wants to stop looking slow and expensive...by slowing Samsung down and making them more expensive. I really hope that they can come to a reasonable resolution on this issue, since otherwise both Ericsson and Samsung NV builds could be slowed. And Ericsson in particular shouldn't get any slower than it already is.

More likely: refarming their rather large PCS holdings away from GSM and HSPA and on to LTE.

Your repeater won't work for SMR-band CDMA, as it runs outside the 824-869MHz band for which your repeater was designed, more 'n' likely. As for SMR deployment so far, it's all happening in Chicago (with the exception of the Waco LTE FIT, and maybe one or two other sites). It'll spread eventually, but not quite yet.

I've got a reason to use LTE-A for voice: if you're in a good signal area, you're transmitting for less time because the modulation is higher. i.e. your cell has more capacity. If a carrier is using AMR-HR to skimp on...er...conserve capacity then they might do this as well. As far as VoLTE battery life is concerned, these days voice isn't what people are using their phones for, so chances are they'll run their battery down from something other than voice calls anyway, VoLTE or not. Not that I'm excusing subpar battery performance, but I am stating a fact for smartphone users (which VoLTE users will be for the next year or two). I'm also curious about how much battery life WCDMA voice uses as compared to GSM or CDMA. I'll bet there's just as much difference as between VoLTE and CDMA, despite the fact that we're comparing two circuit-switched techs, versus one circuit-switched and one packet-switched. The difference is probably even more marked if you rewind to 2007, when WCDMA was a relatively new technology.

Yep. I remember a few friends switching from Nokia 5165s (TDMA + Analog) to 6340is (GAIT, TDMA + GSM + Analog), and then to Razrs (GSM only), the latter probably due to AT&T pushing them with the TDMA fee.

Since Sprint spun off its ILEC (telephone company) division several years back to what is now CenturyLink (formerly Embarq), I'd imagine that there is very, very little Sprint fiber-to-the-tower out there. Know of any markets where any significant number of towers are connected via Sprint fiber? Kansas market, maybe? EDIT: Did some sleuthing of the Premiere Sponsor maps. Interesting stuff...

An update to the Running List will be posted soon. Here are some tidbits: The PR/VI market has about 55% of its sites converted to Network Vision. Most are 3G-only right now, but the count of LTE-enabled sites has doubled since the last update. Network Vision sites have been accepted for the first time in Minnesota. 4G is live on 17% of sites in the Indianapolis market. Network Vision sites are being accepted in most markets that have gotten updates in past weeks. However numbers over the past couple weeks are on the low side, so completion percentages haven't budged much in most markets. This information is based on more detailed data that is available to S4GRU Sponsors. Donate to S4GRU and you will be able to access the Sponsor-only forums and view this data, for example where work is in progress in West Washington (no sites have been marked as NV complete in that area, however).

Doubt it, for cellular carriers anyway. The thing EoC has going for it is that it's cheap for a relatively low amount of bandwidth (say, 30 Mbps symmetric or less). So small and medium businesses might pick that up as a higher end alternative to business-class cable or NxT1 (N=1 or more, bonded). However it's just not enough bandwidth for a cell site broadcasting LTE.

Extremely unlikely. In the extreme majority of cases, handoff would be via Ethernet. Whether this Ethernet is carried over Cat5e/6 or SM/MM fiber will depend on the backhaul vendor, but my guess is that most AAV handoffs are/will be gigabit Ethernet over a nice high-end Cat6 cable (copper, shielded twisted pair).

I think they'll be okay. There's this little think called Snapdragon that they've been making for awhile. I don't see that going out of style any time soon.

Unfortunately, the only activity reported over the last few weeks has been in Miami/West Palm and Jacksonville. Hopefully that changes.