jakeuten

Someone here can probably explain this, but what exactly is preventing Sprint from doing full on VoLTE? Lack of macro density? Lack of coverage? Something in the core of their network? I remember years ago their excuse was lack of fallback to CDMA, but what's causing it today? Why can't they do a full scale VoLTE launch like Verizon did? Or at least a market-by-market launch like AT&T, where they know they have the LTE reliability and capacity?

3 hours ago, S4GRU said:

I certainly don't believe network wide that Sprint is better than T-Mobile.  However, in the Puget Sound region (Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia), I find that Sprint B41 coverage areas are usually significantly better in performance than T-Mobile.  In B25 areas, Sprint is usually the same or slightly worse (now that we are at least 10x10 everywhere).  This is likely due to T-Mobile having a very large market share here bogging down their network.  This is their home market.  This is now a very good market for Sprint, and even getting better due to B26 deployment finally occurring.  And there are many markets like West Washington occurring around the country.

Sprint is getting better and better.  I'm excited.  But in a wide sweeping generalization, it is not better than T-Mobile.  But it is a good choice for millions of people and a viable carrier for most customers.

Thank you. I agree completely.

2 hours ago, Brynn0823 said:

 

 

 

Well root metrics still shows Sprint ahead of T-Mobile in network reliability and JD power has them 2nd place in 5 of 6 regions across the US behind Verizon. That’s why I said it depends which 3rd party you choose to believe. That being said, what type of network investment do you see from sprint next year ? Do you think it’s a combination of densification plus expansion to new areas ? I heard the CEO say “new cell sites for new coverage” in his most recent interview. Just gets me excited hoping they’ll actually hit some kind of expansion and not just rely on extended LTE


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

You mean to tell me that Sprint, who has a nationwide roaming agreement with Verizon for voice/text, does better than T-Mobile? Shocking.

4 minutes ago, Brynn0823 said:

 

 

 

I get it, you’re a Tmobile fan/Sprint hater. Congrats


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

First, those are 3rd party sources. If that makes me "hate them" then yes I'm a hater LOL.

Secondly, I don't hate T-Mobile or Sprint. In fact, I have a line with T-Mobile. AT&T just has 4x as many cells where I live... T-Mobile only has a few less than them... Sprint has like 9 sites cover 280K people.

10 hours ago, Brynn0823 said:

 

 

I’m just going by what multiple 3rd party studies show. ??‍♂️


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

LOL, ok...

www.rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/mobile-performance-in-the-us-part-1-performance-across-the-entire-united

Sprint ranks ahead of them in call and text... which they can roam on Verizon for.

https://opensignal.com/reports/2017/08/usa/state-of-the-mobile-network

www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/

https://www.pcmag.com/Fastest-Mobile-Networks

Don't be delusional.

*based on Sprint's interpretation of Nielsen data

9 hours ago, Brynn0823 said:

Technically Sprint has surpassed Tmobile in network quality just not actual coverage. 

 

 

 

LOL

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:49 AM, swintec said:

Specs wise it is about as good as the XL right?  Less excitement comes from the smaller size?  I am leaning towards the 2 versus the XL just because i like being right around the nexus 5x size.

All of the core specs are identical except for the size-dependent ones (battery, display size, resolution) I think a lot of the hype for the 2 XL vs the 2 is how much better the design of the Pixel 2 XL is as opposed to the regular Pixel 2... obviously talking about bezels and the curved display. You can't go wrong with the smaller Pixel, it has all the same features as the 2 XL and a better (Samsung) display.

13 hours ago, lilotimz said:

Fcc document afaik states support 4x4 on B2/25/4/66/38/41.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

Thanks for clearing up the confusion. I wonder why Google's spec page doesn't show the same thing. It seemed a little ridiculous to me that they could make 4x4 work on 2 but not 25...

So the Pixel 2/ Pixel 2 XL support 4x4 on B2 but not on B25? That seems like an odd omission... is that a typo?

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 1:29 PM, Handyman said:

Vs. Verizon Advanced Calling 2.0 I would say that VZW will drop an VoLTE call very quickly, but Sprint will tolerate more LTE signal gap before dropping.  At one point, I heard a CP call hang on through about 5 seconds of silence in a weak signal area, then it came back just fine.  VZW will drop in that situation.

This is an interesting experience given that Verizon's VoLTE is prioritized on QoS and the handsets will hold LTE for the phone call than it would for a normal data session... curious as to why this happens to you, and how Sprint has better signal than Verizon there.

14 hours ago, spike331 said:

Sprint's extended LTE in Northern WI and the UP looks closer to AT&T's LTE coverage than it does Cellcom's.

Same thoughts here. Looks very similar to AT&T's LTE reach (in my experience)

5 hours ago, JDP121 said:

Took about a minute and a half on my iPhone 7+ to download. Got the update at 105 pm est. Just FYI if you have the Hulu app you will loose the ability to cast it to Chrome Cast. Pretty sure it’s just the app. Since I can still cast from YouTube and Netflix. You can regain it for a min or so if you uninstall Hulu and reinstall it but will loose it again. 

If you open the app, leave the app for maybe 5-10 seconds and then reopen it (without force closing) the Cast option should show up. I've been running this build for about a week.

Old, but here's some 3xCA from my iPhone 7 on Boost's unlimited plan in Duluth, MN.

No QoS like the other 3? That won't be good. Their network is already saturated enough as is in some areas.

Yes so compared to T-Mobile they have much more spectrum...

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01HD using Tapatalk

T-Mobile runs 40 MHz of AWS, 30 MHz of PCS, and 10 MHz of 700. That's 80 MHz, which isn't that much less than Verizon given that T-Mobile has less subscribers. That's probably also why they hold the speed and network crown in NYC.

AT&T runs 30 MHz of PCS, 30 MHz of 700 (12+29), and 20 MHz of WCS... so the same amount that T-Mobile has on air. AT&T also has B14, B66, and B5 to tap into. So another 65 MHz of spectrum untapped for LTE. It'll be interesting to see what they do with it. I would think that AT&T is trying to swap licenses to make their 30 MHz contiguous (15x15 B2 LTE) as opposed to a 10x10 and 5x5 slice of B2. But I guess we will see.

I'll bet the bigger issue there is latency, which already isn't great when you compare to, e.g., T-Mobile's FD implementation (I've seen sub-20ms). If you're only handling uploads every once in awhile (comparatively) that'll manifest itself as higher RTTs I'd think, so you'd only want to do that if you're really capacity constrained.

 

Flip side of course is that you go from 20% of your slots being used by guards to 10%, so if raw bandwidth is what you're looking for that's an optimal configuration.

 

Doing some math here, assuming one upstream frame translates to 4.5 Mbps of real-world capacity and one downstream frame translates to 18 Mbps (hopefully I'll get corrected on these numbers if they're way off) you're going from 72/18 on config 1 to 108/9 on config 2 (hey look, 12:1!). Bumping all the way to config 5 (and incurring the latency penalty) would get you 144/4.5 on the same slice of spectrum.

 

One thing I'm not sure of here is whether you could use run different configs on the same cell site, e.g. running 3xCA with two at config 5 and one at config 2. That'd mitigate the latency penalty if devices could push their upload bits on the correct carrier and aggregate all the downstreams (plausible, since that'd basically be asymmetric CA like we're seeing now). But you'd have to run the same TD config on that same block of spectrum across the entire market (well, across an entire "island" of 2500) in order to avoid interference, which is I'm sure why Sprint couldn't do this while WiMAX was up, and why it took this long to flip the switch.

That's how I imagined that this 12:1 configuration would work. PCC would be the normal 72/18 config, Maybe even one more oriented towards upload... and then SCC1 and SCC2 (SCC3 even?) could be the 108/9 configuration. I don't see why this couldn't work. Maybe WiWavelength could clear this question up.

That is true about T-Mobile. Voice quality still isn't great on T-Mobile, one thing I do miss about Sprint for sure is VQ.

That's interesting. T-Mobile runs AMR-WB 12.65 Kbps (HD Voice) on UMTS/LTE, and AMR 12.2 Kbps on EDGE. When on a VoLTE call with Verizon and AT&T subscribers, or any call on 3G or higher with other T-Mobile uses an HD Voice codec. Every other carier in the US uses the same codec.

Sprint on the other hand, uses a weird codec for voice calls, known as "EVRC-NW" and is only compatible with other Sprint users that are also using an "HD Voice" capable handset. When calling any other carrier, audio quality is horrible.

Has anyone ever gotten what Sprint's load balancing rules are?  Is it based on usage, signal strength, thruput, bandwidth availability, etc?

 

Seems really weird that B25 seems to be sitting here available and reliable, while B26 and B41 are wastelands.

I'm sure that they have an "algorithm" of sorts, but all the factors you mentioned are probably put into consideration when being placed on a band. In heavy traffic on AT&T, I will see myself on B2 a lot more even though my device supports 3xCA from 30+4+12. I would think the network would ideally work in the order of 3x41>2x41>41>25 second channel (if applicable)>25 first channel> 26> EVDO 1900> EVDO 800 (if applicable)> 1X 1900> 1X800, but nothing works perfectly.

Sprint has 4x4MIMO live on some B25 sites.

Pure curiosity, but does it actually work? Do any end devices support it currently? I know the S7 and S8 have the antenna, but is it active on either device? 

Nice. I hadn't read about that yet. I get in the 30s on upload on 10x10, so I'm sure it could do even better at times.

 

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

10x10 FDD uploads peak at 25.5 Mbps at 16QAM, so you're not seeing any higher than that. Sprint does not have any 64QAM upload enabled on their network... feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

It might be inconvenient, but I would recommend going to airplane mode for 15-20 seconds and then turning it back off. That should reconnect you to the network. Does EVDO perform better at that location? Can you just disable LTE? Not sure if there's a way to lock 26 out on a 6P. Maybe if you're rooted.

No, it is not -- 15 MHz FDD is not possible.  Are you operating on just your own assumptions here?

 

Band 30 is 10 MHz FDD in total.  The two other unpaired 5 MHz blocks in the WCS 2300 MHz band are not part of band 30.

 

AJ

WCS Spectrum goes from 2305-2320, and 2345-2360. Feel free to look it up yourself... or just read the image below.

or this one:

or even this one, from the FCC itself:

Currently, B30 only covers 10 MHz of spectrum for LTE access. I won't argue with you about that. But I am not operating off of my own assumptions. If cleared by the FCC, AT&T could maybe ask for a sort of WCS-2, or Band 71.

Band 30 is live in quite a few markets. My home site has it although it doesn't reach my house (I get -114 to -118 B17 on AT&T at home). In my observations around the city, B30 seems to die just before B41 when they are coming from the same site with the same sector alignment, even when B30 panels are mounted above B41 panels. I believe AT&T has deployed B30 as a single 10x10 carrier although I don't trust my iPhone's field test enough to say that with certainty.

B30 is live on many sites across the country and currently seems to be their main initiative. I see it all over where I live and even in rural areas. It is their only "greenfield" spectrum for LTE deployment besides 29 that is nationwide.

It is only 10x10 MHz, because of issues with Sirius XM Terrestrial filtering and licensing. All deployments I have seen seem to be 4x2 MIMO. 15x15 MHz is possible with their spectrum once they get something figured out with Sirius. Something interesting to note is that they start at a lower power level and increase it as they can without interfering with Sirius. If you see a new B30 deployment, it will start at a really low, almost unusable power level unless you're in an urban environment. 

Check the date on my post that you quoted.  Somebody felt the need to resuscitate a little used, long dead thread.

 

AJ

Yep.

What kind of speeds do they see out that way? Would a Sprint phone roam onto that network and get full speeds?

are they doing spectrum swaps across the country

Wherever it would benefit both of the carriers doing it I'm sure.

There will be no 4x4 on sub 1 GHz frequencies. Size restrictions.

This is plain wrong. T-Mobile already has it deployed.

One particular sighting left us in absolute awe. At the Times Square T-Mobile Flagship store in Times Square, we’ve observed 4 Transmit (and receive) antennas on three active LTE channels, including the low-band! We aren’t aware of any other operator in the world, or a single capable device that could utilize 4 spatial streams on a low band just yet, but it goes to show how technologically ahead of the curve T-Mobile LTE network is, and how bullish they are when it comes to network efficiency and execution.

 

 

Article from Milan Milanovic. http://cellularinsights.com/state-of-lte-advanced/