maxsilver
-
Posts
480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Forums
Everything posted by maxsilver
-
I actually got mine. Took *forever* to arrive, much longer than they said it would. But it's here and I didn't have to do anything special / call support for it.
-
My memory is vague, and my knowledge of this is very minimal, but I think Cellular One operates a dual CDMA + GSM network somewhere in/near Arizona.
-
I don't know about Livonia specifically, but most of Metro Detroit has B41 deployments in progress in various parts of the city. Flint, Saginaw, and Bay City are all "officially" launched. From a purely opinionated standpoint, the Metro East areas seem to be getting the bulk of the effort over the rest of the state (which seems reasonably fair, since they had to be skipped on 800mhz LTE for IBEZ reasons.) Robert has a map you can buy via site donation, to get ballpark timelines on specific sites in Eastern Michigan, if you want more specific details. (Or at least, I think he'd still let you buy it -- http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/2262-network-visionlte-east-michigan-market-detroitflintann-arbortri-cities/?p=374741 might be a time limited thing, I'm not certain) -
They own the guard band, and they own both sides of what it's "guarding". Seems reasonable enough.
-
Band 41 went live yesterday around 50th and US131, south of Grand Rapids. Unless I'm forgetting someone elses post, this might be the first time Band 41 has been spotted inside the Grand Rapids metro area. http://imgur.com/eCO8lsY
- 1,028 replies
-
- 7
-
-
- Grand Rapids
- Lansing
- (and 16 more)
-
Yeah, the coverage T-Mobile didn't have before (Muskegon, Grand Haven, etc) are Metro upgrades. The urban / overlapping stuff on that map is almost all T-Mobile original sites. They upgraded their own towers to LTE, and are in the process of shutting down most-to-all of the Metro sites in those areas.
-
Yeah, rural Midwest towns/villages appear to be mostly untouched around here too so far. But freeways between cities, or 2G in/near metro suburbs/exurbs -- I've seen a lot of work done to fix that. http://i.imgur.com/kElb20z.png is the changes in Grand Rapids metro. It's not where I wish they would be, but they are much closer.
-
Looks more like T-Mobile or Verizon, with Band 4 (AWS) and Band 12 / Band 13 (700ac) looking "excellent" while most of the others are all "good" (I don't think the bands are ranked "in place" -- I think they're just sorted numerically)
-
For others who may miss the nuance, "should not" doesn't mean "is not". In 1999, the ITU formally approved 5 radio interfaces as "3G", and both 1x and EDGE were on the list. That comes straight from the International Telecom Union and the European Telecom Standards Institute. 1x and EDGE are both technically 3G technologies, as defined by the spec. And I'm not arguing with that in any way, no one can -- it's a factual event that happened, with a pretty clear definition attached : http://www.etsi.org/index.php/technologies-clusters/technologies/mobile/edge http://www.4gamericas.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page§ionid=361 http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/3G/casestudies/GSM-FINAL.doc (search for the words "EDGE is recognized under the IMT 2000 umbrella") http://www.tra.gov.eg/english/Articles_ArticlesDetails.asp?PID=316&ID=34 Either your following the ITU's definition (in which 1x and EDGE are both factually certified as 3G, because they both passed the same performance metrics). Or your following a "performance/service" definition (in which 1x can't ever, even theoretically, hit the 600k-1.4mb speeds Sprint claims is average on the 3G network provides, so by Sprint's own service-level definition, 3G does not include 1x). This is what I'm (and what I'm assuming mhammett) are referring to. I don't particularly care which definition a person picks. But I don't see how anyone can honestly claim "1x counts 3G because the ITU said so" and then say "EDGE shouldn't count as 3G, because it's built on GSM, and that's 2G". They both passed an identical performance benchmark.
-
Sprint also referred to 1x as 2G, until the last two years or so. Older parts of the site still refer to it as "not 3G", such as http://shop2.sprint.com/en/stores/popups/compare_data_speeds_popup.shtml For business customers, they claim 1x as 2G as well : http://m2m.sprint.com/m2m-solutions/2g-network and http://newsroom.sprint.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2570
-
Yup. And if folks are letting 1x pretend to be 3G on the standards definition alone, than all EDGE coverage has to count too, since EDGE is also technically 3G (in that it also formally complies 'IMT2000/3G' standard). Folks can't have it both ways. It's not honest to claim that 1x is "3G", but then also claim that EDGE is "2G". Either your following actual performance (in which neither 1x nor EDGE count as '3G' service), or your following the letter of the spec (in which both 1x and EDGE are technically "3G technologies" by spec).
-
That's fair -- and normally I would have agreed with this. I have a brand new triband device, and have experienced the same thing on all bands for months and months. It's literally only since yesterday, that LTE appeared to be working for me at Woodland (I pulled down 30mbps at the "Woodland Tower", over by 29th and Breton. I pulled 4mbps down outside Woodland Mall proper). And for what it's worth, I got those speeds on B25. So even with your Note 2, you should be able to see some of that speed improvement, if you head over there now. Inside the mall is probably still a deadzone, but the parking lot should at least be usable now.
- 1,028 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Grand Rapids
- Lansing
- (and 16 more)
-
Normally, I would have said, "that's crazy!", but I experienced it firsthand today. I know this probably isn't true, but it sure feels like Sprint lit LTE on these sites before backhaul was installed (market-ish wide), and that now that backhaul is finally installed on a few of these sites, we're slowly getting the LTE speeds that other markets have. That's the only explanation I can think of. Because Band 26 has been live for months, and Band 25 at the mall did not get any less-used between last week and this week, but speeds are easily 5 times faster now than they were before.
- 1,028 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Grand Rapids
- Lansing
- (and 16 more)
-
Your free to do that, and it may solve some of your problems. (site density is somewhat better, site placement is *much* better). But AT&T is slowing down a bit here too. We're a B17-only market, and AT&T has halted a lot of upgrade work, so while AT&T has more capacity than Sprint here, it's not tons more by any means. I *really* hate to say this, but Verizon is easily the best option here at the moment. You get triple the speeds of everyone else, along with the more+better coverage. Verizon's really doing some crazy good engineering work in Grand Rapids. For example, they built a brand new tower in Grandville, just a half a mile away from the old site (next to Steak and Shake, that Sprint / AT&T / Metro CDMA all run on), just so that AWS would propagate properly up to the new suburbs south of the hill behind Rivertown Mall. That's crazy attention to detail, that I was certain no carrier had noticed or would ever notice. But Verizon finally did, and did something about it. I don't particularly like the company in any way, but I'm impressed by that attention to detail.
-
Speeds will get better, but likely only within a close radius of the existing towers. Grand Rapids is almost entirely mapped on Sensorly, the areas on the map that show Sprint LTE as "4 bars" or "3 bars" of purple -- those are roughly the areas I suspect will get usable Band 41 "Spark" speed. I suspect the rest of the city will be using the network as it exists today -- Band 25 + Band 26. Some folks will say "moving traffic to Band 41 speeds up Band 25/26". This is *technically* true, but in Grand Rapids specifically, that's not really helpful at this moment, for a whole bunch of reasons (limited coverage of Band 41 + poorly-chosen site locations + and poor density). I could post a detailed write up of it using some specific examples (such as Downtown GR / the Transit Center / Woodland + Eastbrook Mall, Rivertown Mall) but I'm a little scared to do so here, it might not be appreciated in this venue. - - - But for what it's worth, some work is being done in this market, and for those areas, it is helping. For instance, the site by 29th and Breton now has real backhaul. Today, I pulled down 30mbps off of B25. It's the only Sprint site in West Michigan I've *ever* seen faster than 12mbps, on any band. And that site is not unloaded -- it's Sunday afternoon, and that site is intended to cover all of Woodland Mall. That's double the speed of AT&T's 10x10 B17 in that same location
-
It's sound logic, but it's not necessarily necessary.. The Nexus 6 can have HD Voice, and still be a single sku, used on all networks. (Just as the Nexus 5 today is a single US sku, and still has Sprint-specific software on it, such as the hands free activation piece. Every T-Mobile Nexus 5 has Sprint-specific software on it, just waiting to go live on the off chance you throw a Sprint sim card in there) I'm not saying that the Nexus 6 *will* have HD voice, but there's zero reason it couldn't, even if every Nexus 6 is identical in hardware+software.
-
This is from my home in Grand Rapids: Comcast Residental Cable Internet : AT&T dry-loop DSL for Business, now-rebranded "Uverse" : - - - Wireless - - - My Sprint LG G3, on -90dbm of Band 26 LTE : 0.32mb down, 1.16mb up My T-Mobile Nexus 5, on AWS LTE : 20.04mb down, 11.89mb up I don't know if this counts or not, since it isn't my device. But a friend has been playing with his new iPhone 6 on Verizon here, and we got their "XLTE" AWS LTE service around the beginning of this year: 114.91mb down, 31.22mb up
-
So, tower leases are so "extremely confidential" that lawyers have a database of nearly every tower lease in the nation, including "steals" like Elna's that we're poorly negotiated. Sweetheart tower leases individually negotiated like that may have some psuedo-confidentiality. But in general, site leasing companies are fairly open about things. American Tower, for instance, has been really upfront with me about sites and costs. (And what I would need to do to get the lower pricing they offer the Big 4 carriers)
-
Your not giving a real world comparison. Your giving a "fake" world comparison. Sprint's network depends on Band 41 for speed, and Band 26 for coverage. It's extremely unlikely you'll ever get a good service or experience while missing those bands (just as you'll almost never get a good experience with a EDGE-only device on T-Mobile). That's not to say that the extra bands would fix service in your particular area (B26 certainly doesn't here). But you really should include them, if you want to be remotely fair in comparing the two providers in your area. If you have decent credit, you could buy a device for a week, and "test drive" it and return it. I think you'd only get charged with a restocking fee and a few days service usage. Alternatively, tri-band devices (some new, some used) can be purchased for about $200, which is pretty reasonable.
-
This has also been my experience too, for both B25 and B26. In my experience, the voice map is generally accurate for data in upgraded areas, with these assumptions : - "Best" Voice = B25 + B26 - "Good" Voice = B26 LTE only - "Fair" Voice = 1x800 Only.
-
Some Spark Android devices still show "no service" in Verizon roaming areas For example, claim your device is an "LG G3" and type "Wolverine, MI" into the map. The *map* claims Verizon 1x data roaming, but the icon says "No Coverage"
-
Nearly every tower is now running Band 25 + Band 26 LTE out there. But there aren't very many cell sites, and the service from them is really weak (or "un-optimized").
- 1,028 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Grand Rapids
- Lansing
- (and 16 more)
-
I played with it on a LG G Flex when it first rolled out in Seattle, and it worked well. I don't think the LG G3 officially has VoLTE yet. (It's fully supported on hardware/software, but I don't think T-Mobile has enabled it by default yet, for that specific device). You might find this useful: http://www.mylgphones.com/how-to-enable-disable-volte-on-t-mobile-lg-g3.html if your itching to try it out. (As always, a quick warning that I have no idea if these instructions are safe / will work / etc. Try at your own risk)
-
Same thing here. We're quick to overlook them, since so many areas are marked as upgraded on the maps here, but there are still a number of areas where data isn't working yet, even after B25 and B26 LTE are deployed. I understand that so-called "hate", I still feel that pain every day. This is average B26 LTE service here, for example. But even if you can't use Sprint right now, these plans help everyone. I can't imagine an ex-Sprint user complaining about Sprint lowering prices, since it also makes AT&T/Verizon also lower their prices (or up their data cap) slightly. I'm already on what once was good promo pricing, and even I'm considering switching to this new plan. The caps are just getting really high -- it would be silly *not* to lock that down.
-
This feels like a big assumption on your part. There's a lot of reasons Nokia could have approached Verizon that are much simpler than this. For instance, they might have simply wanted a product for sale that works on the largest carrier in the US. It feels like a huge leap to assume Nokia's anti-"the CDMA community", just because they have some phones on Verizon. As I said before, this is the part I already know about. Lots of fighting between both players over patents and licensing. Well known. No questions or arguments from me there. We agree on this, 100%. - - But you had a *ton* of other accusations. So I'll ask again, can you link to any info about any of your other allegations? Specifically: - You claimed Nokia's CDMA devices were somehow compromised technically ("five years behind Qualcomm coding") - You claimed Nokia's CDMA devices were somehow compromised security-wise ("more towards China where governments spy on people") - You claimed Nokia lied to the FCC about the radios in devices (presumably in an OET report?) - You claimed Microsoft intentionally discouraged OEM's from making CDMA devices - You claimed Microsoft had security flaws they tried to "sneak through" the FCC - You claimed Nokia's (presumably modern?) Verizon devices use a home grown CDMA stack that can't roam properly (even though I linked to Qualcomm's own website which claims it's own SoC's are in all modern Nokia+Verizon devices, identical to every Android Verizon phone) I don't need a history lesson on the patent disputes, I'm aware of that. But your link doesn't provide any information about any of the other stuff you mentioned. Can you provide any information about any of those, specifically? You haven't disrespected me. I'm not offended or upset in any way. To the best of my knowledge, you haven't done anything wrong here. Your just making a lot of really big accusations, and I simply can't find *anything* from *anyone* reputable online to support any of it. If this stuff happened, I want to learn lots more about it. Can you point me to anything not written by you that documents any of this? (Again, not the patent/licensing dispute, but any of your other claims).
