boomerbubba

This is a great point. I was using CDMA only. I will switch and try it a different way on Monday. I just assumed that the CDMA/LTE radio would drain the battery quicker because it would always be searching for an LTE signal....

This is probably beyond your control right now. I don't think you will be able to test the LTE downlink strength until after Sprint turns it on in your area. With few exceptions, even the LTE sites that are finished are still being blocked.

One thing to consider when digesting these dBm readings is that the antenna output being measured is the Rx level from the legacy 3G/CDMA network. The device has a separate antenna configuration for LTE use, with two Rx antennas, that no one is able to test today. I think I recall reports here on S4GRU that the EVO LTE model, which has its own separate, LTE-specific antenna layout, also showed some unexplained weakness in initial Rx measurements using the legacy network.

So maybe this generation of LTE-enabled Sprint handsets is optimized for the next-generation NV Sprint network, rather than for the network we are all using today.

1bar -101dbm

2bar -97dbm

 

This is what I have been averaging all day inside work.

And your old Epic 4G was typically 3 bars or better in the same location? (That would correspond to -91 dBm or better on my reference scale.)

If that is so, it's hard to swallow the new GS3's antenna underperforming the antenna on its own grandfather phone by about 10 dB. (The antenna output is what you theoretically are measuring so far, assuming no change in the Sprint network's RF performance.)

I really do hope that when Robert gets his unit, he will follow through with his suggestion to do some controlled comparison tests. I also hope for something that puts the phones through end-to-end performance testing of some kind, not just antenna output readings, that exercises the Tx/Rx functionality of the radio.

Im finding the signal on this phone is terrrrrible. I get half the bars indoors that my OG EPIC would get

How about standard dBm units instead of "bars," which can vary among products?

On my Epic 4G, the "bars" display corresponds to the following levels:

• 0 bars = -106 dBm
  
• 1 bar = -101 dBm
  
• 2 bars = -96 dBm
  
• 3 bars = -91 dBm
  
• 4 bars = -86 dBm
  
• 5 bars = -76 dBm
  
• 6 bars = -65 dBm
  

What are the equivalent levels on your Galaxy S III?

Still researching this topic, especially focused on whether the booster-repeaters now on the market would support Sprint's forthcoming LTE service. (I'm interested in areas of marginal coverage in West Texas, which I occasionally traverse.)

I contacted Wilson Electronics, which seems to be the market leader in this field, and asked specifically about support for Sprint LTE. (Wilson already advertises certain products targeting Verizon and AT&T LTE.) The response indicated that compatible products are on the drawing boards:

.. while we are developing products for LTE for the carriers, it is not based on the protocols but on the frequencies they are using. Verizon is using a specific band of the 700 MHz and AT&T is using a different band. Sprint will be using the 1900 MHz but it is slightly off the frequencies our amplifiers now cover. Hopefully that will be resolved in the near future. That is why they are labeled specific to the carrier.

 

We are working on increasing our products for the frequencies the carriers will be using. Unfortunately we don’t have an estimated time of completion.

So I will keep an eye on this. There does not seem to be any immediate danger that Sprint's NV buildout will reach the West Texas market (or El Paso, which is west of West Texas) anyway. I doubt that I would need any booster where I actually live in Central Texas.

If he can could you take a screenshot of net monitor while connected to LTE and report back here?

Do we even know for sure that netmonitor detects and supports LTE-based status?

I have always been supportive of ISN. However, we are two separate types of sites. We are a network focused site. Inside Sprint Now is mostly made up of info that is available in the Sprint system for customer service reps. ISN posts very little network stuff. We post very little Sprint program and sales info. ISN is a blog, S4GRU offers forums and maps and PRL's, etc. in addition to our articles. We have a staff, he is a guy.

 

I wish ISN all the successes possible. However, I am concerned for him. I think Sprint is on the war path, and I'm trying to fly under the radar. I have some stories myself, but I am not prepared to discuss them publicly at this time.

 

If you want S4GRU to degress our features and just be a blog where I control the dialog and you guys can only comment on my posts, then you are going to be disappointed. That is contrary to the posted mission of S4GRU. Our site will continue forward based on the dynamic changes that occur, within the framing of our mission. We also appreciate the opinions put forth by our sponsor members and especially Premier sponsor members to help keep the community geared toward their interests.

 

Thousands of people appreciate S4GRU and the type of community we provide. And I think the majority of users like the site and its format. We will not please everyone. I guess you are one of them.

 

Robert via Galaxy Nexus using Forum Runner

If I were Sprint management, I would consider the S4GRU site, with it's focus on forward-looking network builds, to be a big positive right now. After all, the NV story on balance is good news.

Projects like this have inherent uncertainties, and timelines can always slip. A public corporation like Sprint is quite constrained legally about making speculative projections in public about future rollouts. But unofficial, third-party reporting of expected network improvements can encourage customers and maybe investors. If the schedules slip, there is not much liability for the company (unless the leak of the original projections could be traced to Sprint itself).

If the news turns bad -- for example, if there are major delays -- Sprint might feel differently about this site, and be more inclined to shut down any leaks. The key to this site's credibility is to maintain independence, and report news based on facts -- good or bad.

... He was overseeing stuff in Houston, and has now come over to Austin, will be here a another couple of Months after setting up and moving on to Florida.

 

He explained that Sprint is doing some amazing things that will really be cutting edge over the next year, and I was lucky as I would expirence alot of new network before others, by sometime this fall in fact he told me.

I was sorta hoping for an LTE launch in Austin during August, wilh complete tower infill built out by the fall.

The location shown on NetMonitor appears to be off. It looks like this is Site# HO03XC328. Which is on a monoploe behind a strip mall at Jones Road and Crescent Moon. It's less than a half mile from you, and about 2/3 mile south of where NetMonitor shows. It was scheduled to be complete at the end of May. So this is probably the site.

In general, is there any way to translate the Network ID (NID) and Base Station ID (BID) values reported by netmonitor, which also seem to be the standard on-phone values detected by the Android utility Android System Info, to the site numbers reported in your maps? Is there a table somewhere that can cross-reference these?

Does the repeater technology really just amplify everything (all RF signals and noise) across the entire bands that are covered? So there is no dependency upon the communications protocol -- GSM, CDMA, LTE, etc?

What is the informed consensus about cell RF boosters for buildings and vehicles?

I'm referring to a general configuration of products with an external antenna, an internal antenna and a Tx/Rx amplifier in between.

Do these work, and if so how? Can they just amplify all the RF traffic within the entire bands they cover? I notice some vehicle products advertised to work on the 800 and 1900 Mhz bands.