NGeorge

For the most part, you should get LTE everywhere you get EV-DO, down to about 1 bar, when it will kick back to 3G--provided the 3G is coming from the same tower... if you watch your engineering screen, it's amazing just how many towers your phone flips through as it is moving around--a LOT more than you think! Since the LTE is only on selected towers, that explains why you can kick back to 3G and not get back onto 4G right away until you are really close to the 4G tower again -- chances are your phone is already scanning around other 3G only towers that do not have the 4G yet, and the 3G/4G are coming from different sites. That is weird about Silverdale/Bremerton though... looking at Sensorly, it looks like even though there is a good bit of mapping, noone has yet "found" the LTE tower -- there are no "full strength" areas yet, which pop up right close to the towers... something tells me they have LTE up on just a couple towers that are way up on the highest hills--which would explain why the overall 4G signals are weak in the area, and also why you probably don't kick back to 4G as fast as you should--since the stronger site is 3G only and your phone locks onto that once you lose LTE. I won't be able to get up that way for a while--but it would be interesting if someone in the area could do a drive and "find" and map which sites are actually putting the LTE into the area... from the maps it doesn't look like any of the sites downtown proper are doing it -- even the "tower farm" in Silverdale by the freeway doesn't appear to be in a "strongest" LTE area (I've always thought that was funny -- apparently the carriers didn't want to co-locate and the city actually allowed them to each build rather large monopoles when they could have all been crammed on 1 or 2... there's 4 or 5 lol)

Yeah we've got LTE on the downtown Olympia site, as well as the one near the freeway off exit 109... The site off of 101 and Mud Bay Rd. has new panels and RRU's (they've been up since at least January) but is sitting on 3G -- and am 100% sure this is Sprint since it is an ex-Qwest site, and they have it set up just like the one in Centralia -- and the water tower at the roundabout on Boulevard and Log Cabin Rd. got a new larger panel on each of the sectors next to the Sprint panels about a month ago--but I don't see any RRU's anywhere. I was initially thinking this was Sprint's, but I'm now thinking AT&T may have put their LTE panel down along the side of the water tower next to Sprint's legacy panels. I've noticed a number of sites in Olympia/Lacey/Tumwater (about 5 so far) being worked on in the last week or so -- they didn't look like Sprint, and this was confirmed yesterday when I saw one on the monopole by King Oscar and 111 -- this one has Nextel on top (the big panels and brackets), Sprint with the really small panels flush with the tower below, followed by Clear's protection site and AT&T on the bottom -- the first time I drove by I couldn't tell who they were working on, but later on it was clear they were working on AT&T -- so I'm thinking the little flurry of activity is AT&T working on bringing LTE south. Hopefully Sprint picks it back up -- I like having my LTE at work downtown -- would be nice to get it on that water tower off Boulevard, which is my "home" site, as well as the water tower at the top of the hill between downtown and Lacey -- as it sits the LTE does connect the two areas, but it gets pretty weak towards the middle and that water tower will fill it in) N

I have been a Sprint user since late 2001ish, so I've been around quite a bit as well -- and I average around 1 - 1.5 gigs a month -- I also agree that as the pipe increases, the bandwidth increases. Not so much because of the fact that I do anything different with my phone, but because streaming automatically bumps up to the highest quality available... when listening to music or watching video, this isn't exactly a transparent and I can see why people worry about it... and for the most part, I do enjoy it. I think the idea of "unlimited data" is a powerful thing. -- from a consumer standpoint, it's a good feeling to "not have to worry about it". That said, I think there are two main ways around this to allow Sprint to continue to offer "unlimited" without killing their network that I would agree with... 1. It's a fact that something like 5% of the users use 30% or more of the bandwidth. Put a reasonable cap on the unlimited (like 5-10 gigs) that allow any reasonable user to pretty much have "unlimited" data, and kick them down to 3G speeds after that. That takes care of the people who use their data as their home ISP and abuse the service. 2. Keep everything unlimited, but use a proxy/compressor/bandwidth management to reduce the bandwidth usage. The technology is there now to do this with minimal delay, and with little to no quality reduction. If this was done *well*, it would reduce data use to the network, while still allowing unlimited data use. Again, this has to be done *well* -- I believe Cricket and Metro already do this, but it is not done well (images look crappy, response is slowed down etc). The fact is, Verizon and AT&T have an incentive to offer complete uncompressed data as fast as possible-- it eats up bandwidth and they can charge overage. Sprint and T-Mobile have an incentive to manage their bandwidth--and by doing this, can reduce total bandwidth used. Overall, I find the arguments that bandwidth is so constrained to be a bit weak. The price for bandwidth has dropped every year for decades, and this is more of a case of the providers not keeping up with usage trends and managing their networks and upgrading as needed. Honestly the price to provide "unlimited data" should be about the same as it was 10 years ago with usage adjusted. 10 years ago a lot of people still had dialup and 1.5 meg broadband at home and bandwidth was more expensive at the headends on the wireline side... these days a 25 meg connection at home costs the same as a 1.5 meg connection did 10 years ago. The price of one big fiber connection to a site is similar to the price of a couple of T1s were back then, and I have to believe that the price of a cutting edge LTE site is similar in price to what a cutting edge 1x site was back then when Sprint was the absolute first carrier to offer "Vision" and the first color screen phones... It's as if the carriers (except Sprint who was unlimited from the start) all started with the idea of a fixed data bucket (I remember when AT&T Blue started with like 20 megs for 20 bucks--which was reasonable since people didn't use as much bandwidth back then on their phones... Hesse was in charge then IIRC), then moved to "unlimited" to attract customers -- and over the last few years decided they could go back to "data buckets" since everyone was hooked and they could get away with it. Same thing that happened with text messages (a VERY low-bandwidth and cheap product to provide)... Text plans used to be unlimited and FREE (usually included with a data plan), or 5 bucks for unlimited... then once every kid got hooked to it, they jacked the price up to the $15-20 that we see today once they realized no parent could give their kid a phone without it. The price of texts went down (they were low to begin with--the data use of texts is something like 100 texts for every minute of voice), but the carriers jacked up the price because of "popularity". It just seems to me that wireless goes the opposite of computers and bandwidth in general--which is "the price goes down, even while capabilities go up exponentially"...

I too have a PhotonQ LTE, and I think the latest firmware update (that everyone wondered what it did) fixed the LTE problem. Before when in LTE areas it would take forever to connect, and I'd have to pretty much reboot to get back on 4G if I left 4G coverage and came back into it-since the 4G portion seemed to "freeze". Now the phone jumps between 3G and 4G as it should--and it's actually pretty aggressive about holding on to a 4G signal once it has it even when in the presence of a non-4G site that is closer , which is great (a 1 bar LTE signal gives around 2 megs down with 90 ms. Latency which is still better than full signal EV-DO). N

...also does anyone have any updates on the 700 "upper D" block? I remember there was a "public safety" provision in it--so no one bid on it, and it didn't even meet the reserve. What kept Sprint from snapping it up nationwide for cheap? Seems to me it would have made sense to build it out with their Qchat network and offer access to public safety agencies wholesale. IIRC, the D block wasn't limited to just public safety... just whoever bought it had to offer some sort of option for public safety communication--but could also use it for commercial purposes. Would seem to me that it would have been right up Sprint's alley, given their dealings with rebanding an IDEN--put a good solid PTT/trunked network option on it for PS, while using the capacity to sell LTE as well...

I think a complete USCC buyout would make perfect sense-- they get 850 in rural areas where it really is needed, plus an already built-out network, and a large subscriber base in these areas that are itching for a decent national option that does run into 1x and low roaming caps when they travel, plus an already built up retail network that serves the rural areas profitably. USCC is already CDMA, and I believe the LTE devices they sell are already tri-band -- so from a phone perspective it's just a PRL update to enable the rest of the network as native, and to make the USCC areas native on the rest of the network. From a backhaul/network perspective, USCC already getting it in place for their own LTE -- the only issue would be if they can integrate USCC's NSN gear to work seamlessly with Sprint's providers, or if they would have to rip it out and replace it. I assume they would probably re-deploy LTE on SMR or their existing PCS (since they would have plenty of 850 spectrum in these areas which all phones support, it would make sense to put the 3G on 850 and put the LTE on their existing PCS in bands A-F--which all USCC and Sprint phones support--and not have to do any phone swapping for customers... maybe another channel in the G block as well giving additional speed/capacity on LTE as well for when USCC customers upgrade to a new Sprint device giving them 5x5 x 2 in these areas from the get-go) -- if Sprint had to divest anything from USCC, I think they could get rid of all of USCC's 700 mhz. A block spectrum and be perfectly fine in these areas. I think the reason USCC is having a tough time isn't necessarily because they have a bad network--it's some of the best coverage there is in those areas--it's because they have no fallback when travelling. I know a number of people who have dropped USCC for Verizon simply because USCC kicks them to 1x when travelling, and has expensive data overage and roaming caps, and drops calls when near and crossing license boundaries (or as those in the general public (not on the forums, or familiar with such things) say "every time I drive to Olympia, my damn calls drop around exit 88 every friggin time" and the like--or in areas like NH where USCC has checkerboard type licenses). With native Sprint access, these calls would hard handoff to existing PCS service at 1900 rather than drop. Looking back, if Nextel wouldn't have happened, Alltel would have been the BEST option (actually Alltel + USCC) -- but what is done is done, and with the situation right now, I think USCC is the absolute best choice... a good chunk of 850 that is in Sprint's weak spots--reducing their roaming dependence as well, plus a smattering of PCS that USCC also owns, a turnkey retail system in these areas, many sites that are already built up for LTE, a top notch network that covers these areas, plus the same technology, that if deployed right would require NO equipment swaps--plus a bunch of 700 A spectrum they really wouldn't need and could sell off.... sounds like a good fit to me.

I'd love to see a similar write-up on how GSM works... I've always understood the PRL concept--I know the GSM side of things is more "network/server-based", but not really figured out the specifics. Also with LTE being based on the GSM core, is Sprint and Verizon having to deal with 2 systems here, or are they able to merge them into one? I remember reading about C-SIMS for Verizon, but wasn't sure if Sprint was using the same thing--I assumed they weren't and that was why they initially weren't allowing swappable SIMs. The way I understood it, without the C-SIM app installed by the network (and on the SIM), the ANSI (CDMA) and MAP (GSM) cores couldn't both be updated when SIMs got swapped in devices, causing all sorts of screw up... IIRC the CSIM can even bring the ESN/MEID from the ANSI side over to it. I know the MAP system doesn't use PRLs, but isn't there some sort of acquisition table? Nat

Yep this is exciting... I've found 3 sites with the NV equipment installed so far in Centralia (this is the easiest to spot--it's the silver monopole next to the freeway by exit 82, top set of panels), Vader and West Olympia -- the new panels, RRH's and ground cabinets are in, but no LTE to the phone. Nat

Yeah that ain't gonna happen... I actually keep a T-Mo phone in my glove box as a backup/loaner for friends, and as much as I'd love to root for them (the HSDPA+ really is great) they only have it directly in the cities... Outside of that, it's EDGE and even GPRS... I feel as though even though Sprint 3G is slow, they at least put the effort in to make everything EV-DO. It's a case of having really fast servce sometimes, then slower than crap--or knowing I'll at least have mid-range 3G wherever I go. Furthermore they only offer AT&T roaming in some areas along the coast--and in Eastern Washington. Check out Western Washington state--their corporate HQ no less--and you'll see how they block all roaming in the greater Seattle area all the way down to Portland--coupled with a smaller native coverage area than Sprint, I just can't make it my only phone (I also hate how GSM phones taunt you with "SOS only" in areas where they don't have a roaming agreement--at least CDMA phones give you an option of making a call through the American Roaming Network.) But thanks for the thought--if it ain't Sprint, it'll have to be AT&T or Verizon--and Verizon seems to be the "more evil" at this time by eliminating all individual plans... Both carriers offer decent service--and have always flip-flopped as to who has the better network... If t-Mo opened up AT&T roaming, they might be a better contender around here.

Company store

Excellent point. I often thought they should have handled Nextel the way Telus in Canada handled Mike (their IDEN network) until they figured out how to get it in a position where they could migrate users to their main service (Mike just got there last year--Sprint still never really got there, but needs to free up SMR somehow)... Completely separate branding, stores, plan and web site. Then when by felt ready, they merged the web site into their own as a side section and closed the stores. Just last year they finally launched PTT over HSDPA, and now the press is on after keeping it in a holding pattern for 8ish years (maybe longer... Wasnt it 2003 when Telus bought ClearNet?). For the first 3 years at least the average Mike user had no real idea that thy were just a sideshow for Telus. It'd be interesting to see how bad Mike's churn was in relation to Nextel during that time--I know for sure that no one mistook th Mike network for Telus... For one thing they were in the position of having the weaker native network--Nextel had a stronger network in many places, and Sprint never really tried to match it on CDMA--that combined with merging the rands is what brought the confusion about.

I work in marketing, so here is my full take... I was just about to bring up Xfinity, but with the suggestion that this is the tact Sprint *should* take. Unlike Cingular or Verizon, Comcast is still Comcast--but "Xfinity" is the name they give their fiber optic network--which is now pretty much everywhere. Comcast still has an analog 24 channel system in a very small town that they have never upgraded--and it still goes by Comcast Cable there (although I don't know how much longer--they lost TV to the dish years ago, the phone company offers decent speed DSL, and even if they rolled out cable Internet and full digital TV tomorrow I don't see how they will ever get a foothold outside of the 50 or so over-80 crowd that probably keeps the service--I'm sure it will get pulled when the franchise agreement is up for renewal) This would be akin to Sprint branding all their LTE devices as a new brand, while Sprint is still plastered all over the 3G devices--as the LTE network grows, so does the new brand until the new brand is primarily what is marketed, and Sprint is just the "corporate parent" that appears on the bill somewhere. While I don't think a new brand erases all previous negativity, I think it goes a long way towards "wow--they must really have something new here... Maybe I'll give it a shot!"--which is what Sprint needs... SoftBank has done this in Japan in fact with their LTE service--it's called PacketNet, and the brand goes a lot further than just being the name of the data plan you buy. Comcast has a HORRIBLE reputation--but I've had a number of friends switch back to it "just to give this new Xfinity thing a try", usually in relation to their high speed internet. The caveat is that if Sprint does this, the new service with the new brand HAS to deliver. In this area, Comcast coupled their new brand with additional data capacity to neighborhoods, as well as their Speed Boost... Which means a lot less issues with the Internet being slow as hell during prime times, and seeing 25 meg downloads for most files under 100 Megs even when you have 15 meg service. So I think it HAS worked for them, although maybe not in the full scope they had hoped (the TV service still blows, and they use the same crappy Motorola DVRS... Had they launched the Moxie box or a new custom TiVo like Virgin Media in the UK did, it may have had a better impact.) As for Sprint, they need to finally address the coverage problems that they have, yet have never truly admitted. I think with voice and LTE fully launched on their 800 SMR, this MAJOR issue will finally be solved, and THAT would be the time to launch a new brand... When it is 90% launched or so, and they are ready for people to give it another look. The brand perception I have always noticed with Sprint for years was "they have the coolest phones, but if you want those cool phones you have to put up with crappy coverage". This got them through the early years--I remember around 2004 the posts on HoFo were all about how Verizon had such terrible phones and how they only wished they could get the same cool phones Sprint had... The problem is that by around 2007 Verizon had caught up and eclipsed Sprint in the cool phone department, and Sprint lost one of it's key differentiators (the other being their low prices) and it became "Sprint has crappy coverage--but at least it's half as much as Verizon and they won't demand a $1000 deposit". As Forsee jacked up the prices and took on Nextel's higher credit requirements without fixing coverage, that eroded as well until "Sprint just has crappy service... Ewww Sprint!!!" It is SLOWLY improving... If I didn't have the cheap plan I have, I was seriously considering moving to AT&T for the Sony Xperia TL and sticking there until NV was fully rolled out, when I would look at my options again. I *do* want my smartphone to "just work now"--but I also have been able to hang on to one of Sprint's previous brand differentiators (a low price) -- which convinced me to stick it out for one more contract--but i can EASILY see how someone on a full priced plan, with a nice new LTE phone that can get no LTE would be angry, and bad mouth Sprint to everyone they meet... And THAT is why a new brand could be good--but only when it is truly worthy of someone giving them another chance--it's the old "fool me once.." line... If they screw up NV they're done for--and even me, a pretty diehard Sprint fan, will be off to AT&T, even paying higher prices, in 20 months if I don't see NV of the majority of sites or if I end up having a bunch of glitches or handoff issues.

mark down

Was going to post about this but found this thread -- I specifically noticed this on my Q after we got EHRPD. Occasionally it just drops data indication and the bars go grey, although data appears to be flowing. Other times there will be no data... It seems to happen around cell handoffs. I've also noticed that it occasionally will go from blue to grey (loss of Google sync?), even though the 3G icon stays in place. Could it possibly be trying to hit LTE in certain areas that is there but not publically available? I noticed it did this a number of times in Boston when I went there before we got the EHRPD in Washington, but didn't think anything of it since I figured I was just handoff weirdness with only 10 pct of the sites done there... But about 2 weeks after I got home, the EHRPD showed up, and this happens at least a few times a day... Nat

Raging adrenaline

I second this... I'd love to be able to get info about data cards ala Phonescoop or Phonearena --but those sites only cover phones.

Sprint has licenses for every bit of the nation... In the areas they haven't deployed it themselves, they have leased it to their affiliates, and in the case of Alaska have a network sharing agreement with GCI. Nat

Im getting EHRPD around JBLM--was EvdoA last time I checked... looks like we might start seeing something soon Nat

Thanks for the update. Sort of dissapointing since many of the IDEN-only sites are situated in better locations. For some reason I was thinking at some point they had announced they were looking at their entire portfolio and picking the best sites/putting the NV sites at the top of the towers.

Hey All; I'm curious if someone on here can answer a question for me... Is Sprint picking "the best" sites for NV? Reason I ask is that in this area, Nextel put most of their IDEN sites on top of tall hills above the highways, while Sprint plunked a lot of their legacy CDMA sites on the side of the road (and when they absorbed Qwest back in '04 they aquired many of these sites which were situated the same way--they never made the Nextel sites synergy in areas that already had CDMA--although they did everywhere else that was IDEN-only in Western Washington which was nice) -- in fact, I know of a number of Sprint CDMA sites that are on a ~150' tower/pole next to the road--with a Nextel site (usually with a Verizon or AT&T site nearby or same tower) next door on a ~150' tower--on top of the 400+ foot tall hill that is right behind the Sprint site. There are *many* areas around here that have a better IDEN signal than CDMA--not just because of the 800, but because these higher IDEN sites have better line of sight due to their height. From what everyone has seen so far, has Sprint been pretty good about picking the tower with the better line of site, whether it be originally CDMA or IDEN, or are they doing it just based on cheaper leases/available space? If they are truly picking the best sites, I will particularly be exciting. Thanks! --Nat