Thomas L.

What's the round looking antenna in the post-NV picture?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2

The first I recall reading about these was back in September. Earlier this year there was talk of Sprint using these new products. http://www.fiercewir...gear/2012-02-14 Telefónica announced the first LTE network using Alcatel-Lucent’s lightRadio technology, at Mobile World Congress.http://www.dailywire...o-in-barcelona/

 

http://www.dailywire...ly-2012-launch/

 

 

 

Oh God, that looks like the cube toy in the Hellraiser movie, lol.

Is it a uniquely device dependent feature? I could have sworn it also required network side support.

HD Voice IS a NV contingent feature but NOT an LTE contingent feature, is that correct?

I can confirm that I'm getting eHRPD in my house in the Willow Glen neighborhood of San Jose (SF South Bay).

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2

Robert, do you know anything additional/of interest about these early sightings, maybe...?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2

I'm not sure if you the admins want to merge this with the thread talking about coverage coming from Appleland, but I thought it was interesting. Maybe it's also coming from Google's campus? I haven't a clue. It's very interesting though, to say the least.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/07/sprint-lte-bay-area/

Tommy

Cricket and MetroPCS have been in deep doo doo for the past couple quarters. They are not in a position to help Dish build out a LTE network especially since they have to worry about their own network. Besides Sprint has brand new cell tower infrastructure in Network Vision that would easily accommodate Dish's needs. I really hope that Dish and Sprint can hammer out a network hosting contract that will be beneficial for both parties. Anything that can help investors get off Sprint's back about lack of cash reserves to pay back loans would be appreciated.

Would the multimodal nature of Network Vision allow Sprint to easy deploy on Dish's spectrum? What would be involved in them adding that to their towers?

Ask and ye shall receive. I put together an ERP comparison table:

 

https://docs.google....dUFodGoycE1hRXc

 

AJ

The Samsung S3 LOOKS like it holds up very well against the other phones in the LTE line up, and seems to best the EVO 4G LTE in a few cases... I am glad I didn't let the reputation of Samsung's radios keep me from buying the phone. Once Robert releases his article on radio performance it will all be much clearer I am sure.

I live in the land of stucco. I didn't know they used the stuff in Minnesota. I think the absolute worst structure to be in is an adobe with a refurbished stucco finish. If the RF can get through the chicken wire, it can't get through the mud bricks. Add some LO-E coated windows to the mix and you almost have a perfect RF shield. Many high end homes in Santa Fe cannot get a good signal, even being one block from a tower.

 

My first home when I moved to New Mexico was a partial adobe. In the wood structure part of the house, I could get Sprint EVDO at approximately -87dBm. Moved to the adobe portion (which was the side closest to the tower), and I would get either nothing or -106dBm.

 

Robert

Oh you're up in Los Alamos right? My grandmother's family is from Pagosa Springs, CO and they almost all live in Santa Fe now, I know there they force them to use adobe to do the houses and I imagine if you have the chicken-wire in there you're pretty screwed no matter what. Don't you ever get hopeless with LTE so far out on the horizon for you and the prospect of not getting it at home when it comes?!

Thank you very much for these updates Robert, I appreciate them very much.

I must say,us LTE fands west of the Rockies are feeling awful lonesome...

None that I know of. Are you thinking of SDARS (e.g. Sirius XM) terrestrial repeaters?

 

AJ

He's probably thinking about about WAAS (http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html) and the European equivalent EGNOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Geostationary_Navigation_Overlay_Service) - I won't be redudant and repeat what the links say, but they essentially work to increase the accuracy of exisiting GPS:

Easy going

Just because I buy something does not mean I can afford it. There is a huge difference.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

That makes me feel better :DDDDDD

That's so ridiculous, lol. It looks ridiculous too... phallic isn't the first thing that comes to mind, but it does look ridiculous.

It is not the same device across carriers. Sprint Verizon and AT&T all have different LTE setups in each phone.

 

From JBtoro on Forum Runner

But aren't the actual chipsets and capabilities the same? I was under the impression that the problems are more related to antennas than to the actual capabilities of the unit.

Interesting, I'm really curious to see what AT&T will do here. What did you mean about the nature of the spectrum auction west of the Mississippi?

Check this out, who do you think the carrier will be, and, more interestingly, why these particular frequencies? It's pretty anomalous considering it's a GSM/HSPA+ device on cellular and PCS with LTE 700/850/1700/1900 - that is to say bands LTE bands 2, 4, 5 and 17, so obviously excluding the G block of PCS spectrum that Sprint uses for its LTE currently. The immediate assumption is AT&T because of the cellular/PCS HSPA+, but what's with the LTE bands? Not to mention it's a pretty middle of the road phone. As a side note, doesn't band 5 overlap almost entirely with Sprint's ESMR spectrum?

I'm really anxious to hear what you guys think:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/25/samsung-sgh-i547-runs-through-cert-gauntlets-with-quad-band-lte/

Tommy

The premise of this article is like a sort of Straw Man fallacy... "Sprint is going to set up a single carrier in the ESMR band, so we're going to write this article like that's the ONLY spectrum Sprint has to launch CDMA on." - it's just not based on Sprint's actual spectrum situation. Lame.

Hey people, I just saw one of the areas I'm interested in is the the "North LA" market (specifically 93015 zipcode) - do any of you have any idea when we might see work in that area?

Thanks!

Tommy

I have been surprised by how good the speed reports that people have been posting are, but I am curious as to what we can expect in terms of speeds once the network is actually under everyday loads... also, in areas with high traffic, is Sprint planning on limiting the bandwidth available to each user?

Thanks for your insight!

Tommy

Im all over San Antonio all day everyday. Ive been seeing LTE come alive today all over town.

These are some of the speed Ive gotten so far.

 

34.06 Mbps down ----- 12.80 Mbps up

27.62 Mbps down ------ 11.74 Mbps up

26.07 Mbps down ------ 8.97 Mbps up

 

My Average out of seven test is

 

18.65 Mbps down ------ 9.71 Mbps up

 

These were all test in the Universal City, Selma, Schertz area

 

Im fairly impressed.

The one thing im not to happy about is that for some reason I dont get LTE at my home. I dont know why because Im only about a mile and a half away from a LTE tower.

My tower is acually a water tower and Im beginning to think that maybe only one side of that water tower has LTE. If go to the other side of the tower in question I have LTE, I go to the opposite side and I get 3g. Im kind of dissapointed in this.

 

Oh, also the fact that I must manually cycle my EVO from CDMA to LTE to get the LTE connection. I have to do this everytime I drop LTE signal. The EVO will not reconnect on its own.

 

I hope sprint/HTC does something about this connection issue very soon.

Wow, those speeds are pretty awesomely high, especially compared to what others seem to have been getting in the Kansas Market for example. I wonder if it has to do with the fact that a lot of people seem to be using the S3 in the Kansas market and you were using an EVO?

The couple times i got it last night kinda sucked....2.5 down, 1.8 up. Is this gonna be normal? Do y'all think they were just getting ready to flip it on or something?

The official date is the 15th (Sunday), so you can assume it's going to be a bit choppy until then and then even for the first few days while they get everything worked out.

Thank you for explaining that. RevC is coming out soon, do you think Sprint will jump on that or just focus 100% on LTE?

I can't see any reason for them to do that, they're pretty much all in with Network Vision and since it's a complete network overlay and LTE is better with spectral efficiency with data I believe, it just isn't useful long term. Also, real EV-DO Rev. C had its name changed by Qualcomm to UMB (Ultra Mobile Broadband) - it competed with LTE and WiMax but when adoption was essentially 0% and it was clear WiMax and then LTE had the market locked up, they discontinued its development. I think what you're talking about is DO Advanced, which is essentially a software upgrade to more efficiently manage traffic/up capacity. It's just an extension of EV-DO Rev. B in the end and doesn't offer higher speeds than the theoretical maxes of Rev. B.

From what I can Sprint is looking to use CDMA pretty much for voice from here on out. They will most likely try to shift data traffic to LTE and refarm as much CDMA spectrum as possible to use for LTE.

But was wimax really better than RevB? It looks like wimax was a bad choice, just basing it on what's happened since it's release.

Wimax was more established at the time, I don't think EV-DO Rev. B had launched anywhere in the world by the time Sprint needed to have WiMax launched because of the conditions placed on their 2500mhz spectrum. In addition, it was apparent that for WiMax there was going to be an evolution of some sort - EV-DO Rev. B was recognized as being a sort of dead-end, especially considering it also needed a hardware upgrade. In addition, at the time WiMax was chosen, it was far ahead of LTE in its development and availability... the World GSM Association also hadn't chosen to endorse LTE at the time, if I remember correctly... if WiMax had been chosen by the GSMA, WiMax would have been an incredibly good decision. There was also the fact that Intel was a huge backer of WiMax at the time and it just plain looked like a really good decision at the time...