JWMaloney

Rural, urban, suburban -- you name it. They're putting mini macros where they can and full builds everywhere else.

Sprint is using 800 MHz small cells for rural expansion as well.

Sounds like you might not be setting strongest_rsrp, strongest_latitutde, and strongest_longitude in your database?

They're also using B26 mini macros.

I saw your post about that, and I can't confirm it; mine has been working longer.

Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon will allow non-activated devices to authenticate to their LTE networks (although T-Mobile will not allow previously-activated SIMs to do so). You can get the 2015 Moto E (which supports the 4.2 Cell ID API and works well with CellMapper) cheaply for each one.

I'm not sure which parts they updated, but a number of GMOs in East Texas have been converted to full build since January, and none of them are showing. EDIT: NOLA area has a much less exaggerated LTE+ layer now. A few months ago they had made the whole thing solid. Example before/after of a given tile:

When does this take effect? Verizon just built two new monopoles here within the last month, and both are online with ALU equipment. Their six-sector rip/replace sites have also been ALU.

Have you guys not heard of CellMapper?

No, VoLTE. Yes, and you would be surprised how many . I'm a big fan of the light pole systems that some cities are implementing.

XB designates an ODAS headend for XD nodes.

I was mistaken; it's actually the B25 RRH 4X30 (FCC ID AS5BBTRX-22), not the B4 RRH. They're also upgrading to the B13 RRH 4x30-4R (FCC ID AS5BBTRX-23) but using it in 2T 60W configuration.

He already does that. In fact, he's been doing it since his first 90 days in the position. http://fortune.com/2015/08/07/sprint-pegasystems-customer-service/ http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2014/11/12/sprint-ceo-claure-former-customer-research.html

Remember these? I can't find the exact video, but there was one with mostly the same message in the 3G days.

People also tend to overlook how many Irish, Italian, Sicilian, Jewish, and other "white" immigrants spent generations in the ghettos of major cities.

It isn't on every tower in my area either, but they've been adding band 4 sites in a circle around the one he's talking about.

You're talking about the one MetroPCS conversion that they never lit up? It's definitely been over a year. But I still think they're waiting to finish doing whatever they're doing to the sites around it, especially given the proximity of that recent one.

They're in my area right now doing same-day launches. Nothing on the tower in the morning, and LTE online by the evening. EDIT: I'm talking about new B4/B12 macro sites, not B12 overlay.

The Cell Identity is the base 10 GCI. In base 16 it would be 0x0B617A02.

CellMapper CellMapper CellMapper

The relevance to voice comes from the high risk that users with poor/intermittent LTE connectivity will be unable to receive calls reliably via eCSFB. Call reliability is Sprint's number one priority, as they are only just beginning to break away from the reputation they earned during the interruptions caused by Network Vision. Data reliability is a secondary priority, but it is still considered. AT&T doesn't have to worry about this because HSPA is going to perform worse anyway, and T-Mobile doesn't have to worry about this because they don't have low-band HSPA anywhere other than one market. It's specified by the standard, but that doesn't mean it's fully supported by vendors or the network backend. Keep in mind that Verizon -- known for ubiquitous reliability -- skipped it entirely. My understanding is that Sprint is still working toward a working SRVCC solution for 3GPP2 as a prerequisite to VoLTE. Sprint updated their Wi-Fi calling FAQ for 2016+ devices. This seems to signal that they're beginning to make some of the necessary back-end changes to eventually support SRVCC.

That depends on how it's deployed. You can see it on Sprint's coverage map: there are some areas at the edge of coverage where they show LTE reaching farther than 3G (and in those areas you'll see it hold LTE down to a lower level), while others show the opposite. Yes, a 5x5 800 MHz LTE carrier may outperform a 1900 MHz EV-DO carrier in throughput at the cell edge, but keep in mind that the number one priority here is to ensure reliable voice service. It is entirely possible for a 1900 MHz CDMA voice carrier to have better reliability at the cell edge, and an 800 MHz CDMA voice carrier will definitely do so. It's easier to see if you have a Samsung device (their engineering screen has a "SIB 13 received" indicator). Sprint has the capability to send your device from one LTE band to the other, but as far as I know, it doesn't have a direct method to tell your device to do so from a CDMA connection. On the other hand, if you're on an AT&T or T-Mobile device, the network can freely direct you between 2G/3G/4G using SIB 13. That's one of the reasons AT&T and T-Mobile were able to implement SRVCC to keep voice calls active across 3G/4G handover, whereas Verizon cannot handover an active VoLTE call to CDMA. -- I should additionally clarify something else. Although the network does control the LTE-to-eHRPD handover threshold, the device will only do so if there isn't an active data session. In other words, if you start something like, say, a Hangouts call, your device will stay on LTE up to the point where it actually loses the connection. Also keep in mind that it isn't strictly based on RSRP. The important numbers here are RSRQ and SINR.

One other contributing factor is the difference in 3G network: AT&T is already thinning out their 2G GSM network in anticipation of full shutdown by January 2017. LTE outperforms UMTS/HSPA at the cell edge even at 5x5 MHz bandwidth, so it wouldn't be as beneficial to fall back compared to falling back to eHRPD on Sprint. Networks which are fully 3GPP will use SIB 13 to maintain continuity across 2G/3G/4G carriers. In other words, although optimized LTE-to-eHRPD handover is possible, the opposite is not. [Tim will correct me here if that problem has been solved now, but if that were the case, you would expect VoLTE to have been launched by now as it has the same problem].

That's Ericsson for you. The newer RRUS 31 B25 significantly outperforms the older RRUS 11 B25. AT&T is still using the old ones in my area, and even though they have twice the density of Sprint (and consistently higher signal strength), their band 2 SNR is much closer to what Sprint's used to be before the swap. Take a look -- same tower, same device, same location. Maybe one day they'll come up with some better band 26 equipment.

This is due to intended configuration and will differ across sites. My opinion is that Sprint adjusts this threshold to best satisfy several conditions: Minimize the risk of missed incoming calls. An intermittent or poor LTE signal can increase the risk that eCSFB call flow will not successfully reach your device. Minimize interruption to data connectivity. Some older versions of the Nexus 5 radio firmware do not respect the network-side configuration parameters and will spend a longer period of time trying to handover to another LTE site as opposed to falling back to 3G. This causes active data sessions to fail and extends the period of time where the user will be unable to access data services. Newer firmware across most devices opts to reconnect to something as quickly as possible. Provide the best overall data experience. In conjunction with point 2, there are situations in which a 3G signal at a given location will actually provide more throughput and/or less timeouts than an LTE connection. You can test this yourself by performing a speed test next time this happens, then forcing your device into LTE-only mode, then performing another speed test. Again, this will not always be the case, but keep in mind that these points are in order of priority. I have seen sites along highways and in rural areas which will consistently hold an LTE connection to a lower RSRP than urban sites. Now, specifically in relation to AT&T and Verizon, it is true that Sprint's configuration will generally give up at higher signal levels. This is because the majority of 700 MHz LTE coverage from those carriers is deployed as 10x10 MHz. What's the difference? The wider carriers are capable of greater throughput at comparable power levels. In other words, take a look at the performance of Sprint's 800 MHz 5x5 LTE in relation to the signal level. Find the signal level (say, -120 dBm or lower) where the throughput or stability would no longer be considered "usable" (time-outs, throughput in kilobits, etc.). Now, under most conditions, a 700 MHz 10x10 LTE carrier at that same power level would probably still be considered "usable" down to a slightly lower power level. You can see it yourself by testing AT&T in an area where it only has 5x5 of 700 MHz spectrum, as well as by testing T-Mobile in an area where it has deployed 700 MHz. Of course, since T-Mobile supports VoLTE and has no comparable 3G fallback in many areas, they don't need to satisfy point 1 above, so you'll still see their devices sustain that connection beyond -120 dBm in some cases.