CriticalityEvent

Freakin Sprint, makes sense. I should have known their entire footprint wouldn't be covered!

Haha... You're jokingly upset, right?

This might be a dumb question but will sprint lte only be in "markets?" Or is their entire network (every tower) going to receive lte? Will they at least be fixing every tower in the country to operate at faster 3G and more reliable calling? Thanks

They have about 38,000 towers, and all but 100 won't get LTE.

http://www.gsmarena....p-news-4812.php

[quote}

An image and some specs of the yet unannounced HTC phablet device have risen from the rumor pool. Currently the device is only known by its DIx codename, which when put together with the red stripe and naming history of HTC could coincide with Droid Incredible X.

I guess I could be satisfied with a 5" DIx...

Confirmed- 4G at the Sox game right now! Just recorded some Sensorly data from the east-facing seats. Couldn't pick it up from the north-facing ones though...

I see it on Sensorly. Yeehaw!

 

Robert

Correction: couldn't get it from the south-facing seats.

This has been the one positive event at this game so far...we're getting thrashed. :-(

Confirmed- 4G at the Sox game right now! Just recorded some Sensorly data from the east-facing seats. Couldn't pick it up from the north-facing ones though...

With the new equipment Sprint will be able to easily detect unauthorized tethering. Which is a good thing IMHO, even though I would like to tether.

Just out of curiosity, how will they do this? Will they see multiple IPs on a connection or something? Historically, I thought they did it by seeing the amount of data the phone was pulling down, but with phones being able to run BitTorrent apps these days, I’m not sure how they could keep distinguishing that way.

That functionality apparently is available on the EVO 4G LTE, but it does not exist on my Galaxy GS3 -- or, I believe, on other devices..

 

BSIDs are IDs for CDMA, not LTE. I don't think we know what the undocumented EVO screen means. I think it might just mean the CDMA sector IDs that were detected while the phone was concurrently connected to an LTE radio. But that does not necessarily mean that the CDMA tower and the LTE tower were the same place. We just don't know for sure.

Oh shoot, really? My bad! I thought that since the BSID of the tower was recorded in the “LTE available file” list that it would correspond to source of the LTE signal.

What tools are people using to monitor your connections? Speedtest and netmonitor are two obvious ones but are there *good* other ones?

What I do is go to the ##DATA# (##3282#) menu from the dial pad, then select View Mode->LTE record->LTE available file. You can get the BSID of the LTE-enabled towers that you have connected to. Once you have those numbers, you can correlate them to the towers that you see on NetMonitor.

Note that the BSID number for a tower can be 1 or 2 values off, since there are 3 sectors to a tower. For example, you might see a BSID of 22753 in your LTE available file, but the tower on NetMonitor might be shown as 22752 or 22751.

I believe it is software as well... It needs to be fixed though! Needs to be their number one priority.

 

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn’t we contact HTC directly? Aren’t they the ones that tailor the phones to the specific carriers’ frequencies? I would hope that the complaint handling process is not set up so that the problems can only be reported through the carrier…

Has anyone tried changing both LTE options in ##3282# to 1? I did that this morning and during my commute in to work it seemed to switch to 4g in an area it never had before and kept it constantly until I was about four miles from the tower. I only encounter one area during my commute that has 4g so it may have been a coincidence. Has anyone else tried those settings?

 

I did not do any airplane mode/reboots to force it to 4g.

 

Sent from my EVO LTE

Just to be clear, are you talking about the LTE scan timer and BSR max timer?

I’m not sure what was going on last night, but my phone was automatically connecting fairly well on its own (relatively speaking). This was in an area where I hadn’t been before when 4G was active. This was with my scan timer and max timer set to 15 and 8, respectively. However, with these same settings, my phone was still having issues picking up LTE on my way to work through active areas.

Is it possible that the EVO might only connect to towers in a certain area? Is there a difference between the towers in the Lake County area and the ones in the Palatine/Arlington Heights area? According to the maps, I apparently connected to towers with a different RF switch more easily.

I tried this on my phone but it asks for a password to access the edit menu. What is the password?

It’s your MSL password. You need to download “MSL Reader” from the app store if you’re rooted. Otherwise, you’ll have to call Sprint.

I didn't notice any differences when I tried changing the settings in our Waco LTE performance testing.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy S-III 32GB using Forum Runner

Well shucks. I don't suppose there are any custom radios that have been made for this thing? I might try re-flashing my radio to see if that helps. If not, I've been meaning to do a factory reset (I feel that there's a lot of app remnants that I need to get rid of anyway).

As a side question, why do you delete the poster's name and post link of the post that you quote? I live for that little red notification at the top of the page! :-P

Meanwhile, would anyone think it would be worthwhile for EVO LTE users to fiddle with the LTE scan timer and BSR max timer settings in the ##3282# menu? I was thinking of trying to band people together on here and XDA to try combinations of settings. We could make it a coordinated effort by assigning people ranges of values to try as they pass by sites known to be active.

For example, I pass by several towers which are known to be transmitting LTE. Starting last night, before I passed near these towers, I tried the following settings to see if my phone would detect LTE on its own:

scan timer    max timer
30            16           (default)
1             16
15            8

Someone on XDA already tried setting his scan timer to 60, so I know to try avoiding that. However, I have no idea what these values represent… does 30 correspond to 1/30th of a second? 30 milliseconds? Is it an exponent? Do the values have to be multiples of each other? Kinda shooting in the dark here.

Of course, if someone here can tell me that this is just a waste of time, I’d very much like to hear it before I make an attempt at this. Even better would be a suggestion for a more effective test setup (e.g., ranges of values to try, different menus, slaughtering of a virgin goat, etc…).

I made a more detailed post about this in the sponsor’s section, but I can’t re-post here since I’m citing info found on the interactive maps.

I have a hunch that this is a software issue since my phone seems to have trouble finding LTE signals from towers which are known to be transmitting LTE. When I use the *#*#4636#*#* menu and choose “LTE only,” I am able to lock on to a tower about 1.5 miles away when I’m near a window at work. Then, as I move deeper into the building, the signal goes down to -131dBm RSRP before cutting out entirely. There is a closer tower that’s supposedly transmitting LTE is about 0.75 miles from me, but my phone can’t seem to detect the signal.

I think that the phone is sensitive enough to detect the signal and maybe even strong enough to hold it, as evidenced by the phone detecting and holding LTE after cycling through airplane mode. However, whatever is telling the phone to jump to LTE is majorly flawed.

There are a few threads on this subject over at XDA that I'm also involved in-

http://forum.xda-dev...d.php?t=1898433

http://forum.xda-dev...d.php?t=1901905

http://forum.xda-dev...d.php?t=1905007

I'm not sure if dialer codes work in CM10, but on a stock ROM, you'd enter ##3282# (##DATA#) into your dial pad, then select View Mode->LTE record->LTE available file.

...aint that the truth.

Just to be clear, I think that he’s speaking out against people who refuse to use their home internet connection in favor of Sprint’s network.

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you use your wireless at your house?

 

Just out of principle...I feel I shouldn't have to...that's part of what I pay Sprint for.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

I really think we are the ones who started this whole thing.

New here, been a lurker for a bit. Anyhow, I'm skeptical. Very skeptical.

 

I live in Mokena, about 8 miles west of Matteson, right along Interstate 80. NEVER got WiMax on our orig EVOs here. Heck, right now, this instant, in our "downtown area", no Sprint coverage whatsoever. This is truly Sprint's last chance, otherwise, we gone ASAP.

 

Don't get me wrong, I've been pleased with dealing with Sprint, but selling me services that never arrive for 2.5 years, kinda makes me look like a fool.

WiMAX is a whole other animal. Sprint licensed WiMAX from Clearwire. Sprint is now building its own LTE network. There are only about 100 towers out of 38,000 across the country that won't get LTE by 2013/2014.

…

Lastly, unlimited usage can still be attainable with LTE. The original idea behind the unlimited data plan is that customers would not have to worry about how much they used, and no fears about overage charges (which I can attest that AT&T was terrible if you even slightly went over your limit). From what I have read on other sites, the average user still uses less than 2Gb of data a month, and that includes people that are in larger tiered data plans and unlimited plans. The average will start to increase as more carriers have networks that will allow customers to blow past the 2Gb mark, but sprint knows this is going to happen and is planning a network that will be able to keep up with this increase.

 

I would even argue that Sprint/Clearwire eventually would like to take market share away from the cable co's by offering more home router options, and they will have this use built into their plans for network vision. As I do not work for sprint, I cannot confirm that this is their plans, but with clearwire's massive spectrum assets, it is a real possibility for dense urban areas.

 

I do hope for the best from Network Vision, but I do accept that if sprint drops the proverbial ball, we could either see increased costs or have another name on our cell phone bills.

 

-Josh

First of all, the whole post was GREAT, I just truncated it to the part that I wanted to discuss a bit further.

I don’t know if Clear’s home internet service is capped or not, but I kind of see that as the first (or one of the first) attempts at home internet via cellular connections. It was a great idea; reduce costs by not having to run wires to a home/business and just sending the customer a modem-like device which was simple to set up.

Unfortunately, this system didn’t quite perform on the same level as a “traditional” wired home/business connection. Several friends of mine (who are somewhat technically-minded) tried it and were having connectivity and speed issues. Granted, this was in densely-populated areas of Chicago during Clear’s nascency, but it still showed a lack of preparation from my perspective. Are the majority of Clear’s customers satisfied with their service? I am absolutely positive that they are, but the same can be said for Sprint. We, the people of forums like this and XDA, are much more aware of things like lags in data speed and signal strength.

My fear is that the wireless industry will continue to provide experiences that ebb and flow. As customers’ usage increases, the network performance goes down, which then prompts a network upgrade. I’m sure that improvements would occur regardless of whether or not demand increases, but I don’t want another 2-3 year stretch where my service was terrible.

I’m hoping that by educating people to use Wi-Fi, we can help stave off another pre-NV dark age. Anyone here read Asimov’s Foundation?

I was just wondering where you have been recently. I enjoy your posts. Glad things are back to OK with your family.

 

 

 

Here is the S4GRU Mission Statement: "To provide a forum for discussion and education about wireless spectrum, networks, and Sprint Network Vision, in particular, in an online community that is mature, intelligent, and free from uncritical negativity.

 

Do you feel that S4GRU Staff and Moderators failed in maintaining/protecting our core mission with this thread? Even to use your definition of our mission, do you think we failed in that regard too?

 

Robert

No, you haven’t failed, I’m extremely critical in my negativity. :-P

Sounds like an assumption to me. There could possibly be multiple PC's, tablets, gaming consoles, etc. using that wasted resource. Using that same rational...should we also care about "burdening" the network that the WIFI is connected to? Lets not forget that the mobile network is also being paid for.

I can’t speak for public access points, but if you’re on your home Wi-Fi, I certainly hope you know what’s connected to it. For the sake of this argument, I’ve regularly had 5-6 devices connected to my Wi-Fi, all in active use, and there was no service impact that I could perceive. Granted, most of those devices were just doing relatively light browsing/streaming, but if people can host WoW parties over their Wi-Fi, I don’t see it being much of an issue.

And you are right again; you are paying for the mobile network. However, there will ALWAYS be an instance in which you have no choice but to use it. When that happens, you are going to want the best experience possible. For that to happen, there should be as few people using your tower as possible. Where else would they go if not their personal Wi-Fi, if they have it available?

This might be a small oversight...but unless you live next door to a Mc Donalds or Starbucks...WIFI isn't a "free resource".

You are correct, so if you are paying for an internet connection/Wi-Fi in your house, you are wasting resources that you’ve paid for in addition to burdening the cellular network unnecessarily.

I have (hopefully) one final thing to say on the matter;

 

Let's say, in an ideal world where we get 100% users offloading their data usage.

 

Then what is the point of paying for sprint service?

I think your problem is that your assumptions are all wrong. I am all about going to an extreme for the sake of an example, but this extreme you’ve gone to simply does not apply. Wi-Fi has a fraction of the coverage that a cell tower provides. In a vehicle or in a park, you will never have a Wi-Fi connection. In the vast majority of public places (bars, restaurants, etc…), you will never have a Wi-Fi connection that you are allowed to access. This being said, there will ALWAYS be cellular usage.

…

advocating offloading data = not using data on the sprint network (for any specific period of time).

 

2 examples;

 

1) a highly dense industrial area with a high amount of subscribers, lets say there is no wifi available for 'offloading'.

 

 

2) a highly dense residential area with a high amount of subscribers, lets say a majority of them are 'offloading' to their own home wifi networks.

 

area 1 is over-subscribed, and with no wifi available to offload, data degraded and unreliable.

 

 

 

area 2 is over-subscribed and even with a majority offloading data to non-sprint wifi networks, data is degraded and unreliable.

 

 

According to #90 and others, everyone in area 2 that is not already offloading is 'an abuser'.

 

Yet, area 1 which has the same over-subscription problem but no wifi, everyone is not an 'abuser'.

 

 

That seems to sum up the whole thread.

No. Area 1 does not exist. The majority of people in area 1 will, at some point, be in an area with Wi-Fi available to them.

The people in area 2 (which apparently doesn’t include you), will use their Wi-Fi to ensure people in area 1 have data. Why do you think that this area will have “degraded and unreliable” data if they are offloading?

I've been into networking of one type or another for 20+ years. Networks are designed to be used. Saying someone is an abuser simply because they have a choice *not* to use the network but continue to use it, is anti-thesis to the whole point of even having a network in the first place.

 

Let us take this whole offloading thing to it's logical conclusion.

 

Sprint sends an update to all phones, which force wifi always on, and if there is any type of wifi connection within range, it will disable cellular data. Since your phone doesn't understand whether you do or don't have access to those particular wifi, it doesn't care and will summarily disable your data until you move out of wifi range.

 

"Sprint, the now network with unlimited data, as long as you offload your data to the nearest wifi hotspot."

 

offloading (even in aggregate) is not going to magically fix over-subscription or lack of sufficient upgrades.

 

Not offloading, even if you are able to, does not make magically make you an abuser, simply a user just like everyone else..

 

I'm out of this topic (again, hopefully).

When I had 4G on my WiMAX phone, I used between 9-12GB/month. Watch how I broke it down: I used 1-2GB/month of cellular data and 8-10GB of Wi-Fi data.

Please tell me that I did not help other people who didn’t have access to Wi-Fi.

use <> abuse

 

Oh wait, even 'use' will cause the collapse of the world as we know it.

I'm not sure what you're saying here with the "use<>abuse" line.

VZ was faster way before the newly instituted caps and tiered pricing.

 

And from posts and pictures posted, it does not look like the caps and tiered pricing is doing all that effective a job of preventing the bandwidth-opocalype.

Before people began piling on Sprint's network (pre-2010), I was getting amazing speeds pretty much wherever I went. Then people began taking advantage of the cheap, Verizon-like service without a care in the world thinking that nothing bad would happen.

Raising prices will have little to do with the bandwidth used, and more to do with competition (or lack of) and how much the average consumer will pay before churning elsewhere.

 

You don't, I don't, but apparently there are alot of vz and att customers that disagree.

If more people begin using the network and maxing it out, that will result in increased network upgrade/maintenance costs. These costs eventually get transferred down to the consumers. But I will concede that a significant portion of prices might be based in competition.

it was sarcasm.

 

here is a legitimate point;

 

- we all pay for use of a shared service, we can use that service where ever it is provided for anything within the law and terms of service, and we don't have to use wifi, at our home or anywhere else. Period.

 

Would it be nice? Nice for who? I suppose that depends on the performance of the wifi/connection in question. Is it required? no.

Uhh... Nice for the people who don't have access to the Wi-Fi connection that you do?

Is everyone that doesn't have home wifi a bad person? if not why not?

No, this just puts them in the same category as people who don't have access to Wi-Fi.

Is everyone that has a home wifi and doesn't offload to it a bad person? apparently it seems from this thread.

Yes. Please explain how by not offloading when you can you are not negatively impacting someone else's quality of service?

Is it our fault Sprint is continuously advertising unlimited data to attract customers to an already overburdened network? If Sprint customers off-loaded their data to Wifi then they might as well just go with verizon and have a 2 or 4GB plan because most user won't use that much data when mostly connected to Wifi -- and others naturally don't use that much. We're not being irrational by not using Wifi. We're simply using what we pay for. If Sprint doesn't feel the same then they'll raise prices and customers will let their wallet do the talking.

So, instead of doing what you can to help ensure low service costs and unlimited data, you're going to almost actively do what you can to use as much network resources as possible?

No, we might as well not go to Verizon because they are significantly more expensive. However, they are faster, at least partially due to their policies. How exactly do the economics of an unlimited, faster, yet somehow cheaper carrier work? You seem to have some idea as you admit that Sprint might raise prices. But this is the weird thing, and it might really set me apart here: I don't want to pay more.

Good one, stay up all night writing that one?

naw, got to bed around 2/2:30. :-P

Yes I did. I hope I made a few more customers leave due to bad service. But I probably didn't because their network could handle it and they just wanted me to switch to a tiered plan. So I have no regret. I wanted to $% them over like they've $%ed millions of people. I don't think you know the magnitude of which that I hate ATT. In the end I did nothing significant, but I hope I made some sort of impression on somebody (other than you and everyone here who now probably thinks I'm crazy o.O)

Way to fight the machine.

I hate AT&T too. However, I never would use my Johnson on AT&T. I would be afraid of the disease I may get.

…

Even if you pull out of your contract?

Well, when you say it that way...

 

Robert

I call ‘em like I sees ‘em. :-P

Have you used anyone's LTE network yet? Or T-Mobile H+? None of the above are overloaded, provided you can get a bona fide LTE or H+ signal

I have, and they’re extremely impressive connections in my area. My friend pulled down 6Mbps on his T-Mo phone at a Cubs game. Of course, there weren’t many people at the game itself, the stadium is just in a densely-packed area. Haha…

However, one could make the argument that they’re so good because of the restrictions placed on them. But even these caps might only go so far because we still get situations like this:

I'm starting to feel that I am getting crowded on Verizon's LTE network sometimes in some places. Speeds are definitely dropping in many congested places at certain times a day.

 

Robert

To have an LTE connection drop a perceptible amount is something to note. I am curious to know just how much it gets down to, but if you say anything more than 6-7Mbps, I might hate you.

…

No one should deserve to be 'punched' (literally or figuratively) because they choose to use the service they pay for, just because they could offload, does not mean they have to, or even 'should'.

You’re right in that they don’t “have to” offload; there’s nothing saying that they MUST not use the service that they pay for if there’s an alternative. However, you absolutely SHOULD use other connections if you have them available to you because other people who are paying for the same service might not have the alternative that you do.

I've got no beef with Sprint. I'll use wifi so I can keep it unlimited. However, if I were FORCED to buy unlimited, I'd feel entitled to it. I've been on the side where people abused the data (even though I didn't) and saw what that got me. Yes I retaliated by using more data. By their logic, because I was capped, I couldn't use as much data.

So you took it upon yourself to strain an already overloaded network because they were trying to mitigate the damage and ensure the vast majority of subscribers could still maintain a quality connection?