maximus1987/lou99

Have they announced LTE utilizing all of those bands however? As far as I remember, I've just seen LTE on only a single frequency for every carrier except Sprint.

Verizon to start refarming PCS spectrum for LTE in 2015

Operator says its LTE network is complete and covers more than 99% of 3G network footprint

Read more: Verizon to start refarming PCS spectrum for LTE in 2015 - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-start-refarming-pcs-spectrum-lte-2015/2013-06-27#ixzz2bzNv8ln2

Subscribe at FierceWireless

Verizon is also close to deploying AWS. It bought a bunch in 2006 and again recently.

That's really great that when NV is done the coverage will improve because the biggest thing that made me leave sprint minus them kicking me off for roaming constantly was almost zero coverage anywhere I went and turning my iphone into an expensive white paper weight/ruler/hammer. Just kidding about the hammer but you get my point useless as a phone.

How is sprint supposed to compete when sometimes it's prices aRe higher for exact same service?

2x iPhones, 2x 1GB data, 1x slider phone

Verizon after 22% discount: $133

Sprint after 22% discount: $151

And they won't even match Verizon's total price FOR THE EXACT SAME THING.

That is the strategy of just about every carrier in the US currently. Nothing about that information is specific to any carrier. The main difference with Sprint's plan however is which spectrum is being used for what.

 

LTE is going to be deployed on all three of Sprint's spectrum bands. As far as I know every other carrier is sticking to only a single spectrum band. This allows for more flexibility in the network and, combined with carrier aggregation, should provide more stable connections at higher speeds. The intention is for every tower to be upgraded to send out all three LTE signals. The closer you are to a tower, the higher spectrum frequency you will use. Using Clearwire's 2600MHz spectrum allows for high speeds at short range (upwards of 90Mbps), 1900MHz goes further out from the tower and will allow speeds up to 37Mbps, and 800MHz will go further still to allow the same 37Mbps speeds. Again, with LTE speed is very signal dependent, so the edge of coverage will always have lower speeds on all carriers (this is why they all advertise average speeds around 4-8Mbps, that is the sweet spot in the middle to outer ranges).

 

3G is staying on 1900MHz only like it has been (with LTE being deployed on three separate frequencies and being added to all towers, 3G failover rates will be extremely low). 1xRTT voice will be on both 1900MHz like currently, and will also be deployed on 800MHz to extend coverage and fill in gaps. As far as I know, Sprint is the only carrier taking a systematic and comprehensive approach to maximize their entire spectrum portfolio nationwide.

 

In addition, you have to not take into account Sprint's ownership by SoftBank. Most of Sprint's failures since the Nextel merger in 2005 have been due to a network CAPEX spending stop, operating two entirely separate and incompatible networks, and a complete lack of profitability primarily caused by massive debt from that merger. Network Vision fixes the network issues, standardizes the network nationwide as far as equipment and setup is concerned (as opposed to the hodge-podge created through mergers), and future-proofs it to allow for easy upgrades going forward. SoftBank already has experience with both FDD and TDD LTE in Japan, as well as a Tri-Band network infrastructure plan (900/1700/2600 in Japan). In addition, SoftBank has the capital to pump into Sprint's network to get it up to the standard they want. There is a reason SoftBank Mobile is the number three carrier and is continually providing larger profits and improvements in Japan while stealing customers from their competitors, and they plan to do the same here.

ATT - 700, aws, pcs, WCS

VZW - 700, AWS, pcs

TMO - AWS, pcs

From what everyone is saying the future of Sprint is shining as bright as the sun. However I just have a 'dumb' question: Will all of this change expand their current network coverage or will it just strengthen their current coverage? I only ask because the biggest advantage of having AT&T over Sprint is just signal in more places, not data or voice just signal. I know AT&T's network mostly runs on 850 vs Sprint's 1900, their network has more layers to it (GSM -> EDGE->3G->HSPA+ -> LTE) vs (1X->EVDO->WiMAX->LTE), and has a larger footprint. When I had Sprint and traveled places I somehow found myself either on the edge of Sprint's network or Verizon roaming with the phone fighting for Sprint's network draining the battery very quickly. Would this also be by all of the improvements.

However, it will help you as you're describing yourself as "on the edge of sprint's network"

I'm really surprised no one commented on how TMO will not expand LTE or 3G past 228 mil until they get 600 MHz. That means they're going two+ years without 3g/lte pops expansion.

They'd be leaving 15k rural towers with only 2g.

Does TMO expect to be able to survive slowly losing customers till 2016?

That would be awesome, them and Ntelos. But doesn't us cell have the same spectrum as vzw (700/850/1700/1900/2100) so idk how sprint will benefit from buying them. I guess more 1900 will be nice

850 is good.

1700/2100 AWS is useful but sprint wouldn't own enough to make it worth it.

1900 pcs very useful.

The highest I can remember seeing on my iPhone had to be somewhere around -109 & -115 I think im not for sure.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

0 > -40 > -80 > -115

Sprint has A LOT of excess capacity.

Sprint should be able to grow revenue, given that they have 35% of industry capacity in a capacity constrained market with just 15% of industry revenues," wrote New Street's Chaplin. "Sprint will use its capacity and network speed advantage to take share. If they gain 5% of share in five years, they would create an additional $6.92/share in value."

Read more: M&A catches fire: 24M wireless subscribers moving from Tier 2 to Tier 1 carriers - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/ma-catches-fire-24m-wireless-subscribers-moving-tier-2-tier-1-carriers/2013-08-12#ixzz2btDZ48no

Subscribe at FierceWireless

Any guesses what uncarrier 3.0 is?

But during the carrier's earnings conference call, T-Mobile's Legere promised the carrier will unveil "Un-carrier 3.0" sometime "soon," and while he was vague on what that would entail, he said it "will solve another customer pain point." I'm betting this has something to do with family plans or shared data, products that have helped tie customers to AT&T and Verizon.

Read more: M&A catches fire: 24M wireless subscribers moving from Tier 2 to Tier 1 carriers - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/ma-catches-fire-24m-wireless-subscribers-moving-tier-2-tier-1-carriers/2013-08-12#ixzz2btDG2JuC

Subscribe at FierceWireless

Analysts say TMUS' recent quarter was a one-off, resulting mostly from cannibalization of prepaid.

Although Legere promised T-Mobile's impressive successes in the second quarter were not "a blip," some consider them just that: "TBR believes T-Mobile will not be able to sustain this level of production from its postpaid segment in 2H13 once the initial demand for the Simple Choice plans dies down," wrote TBR's Costa. Costa also pointed out that much of T-Mobile's success on the postpaid side was at the expense of prepaid. Indeed, in T-Mobile's own quarterly SEC filing the carrier noted "the [prepaid] decreases were primarily a result of qualified upgrades of branded prepaid customers to branded postpaid plans as the Un-carrier strategy provides no annual service contract options to credit worthy customers that have historically been utilizing prepaid products."

Read more: M&A catches fire: 24M wireless subscribers moving from Tier 2 to Tier 1 carriers - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/ma-catches-fire-24m-wireless-subscribers-moving-tier-2-tier-1-carriers/2013-08-12#ixzz2btChYq1e

Subscribe at FierceWireless

90% owned by Carlson family. Good luck.

U.S. Cellular (NYSE:USM) continued on its trajectory over the last several quarters of selling smartphones and losing customers, as the Tier 2 carrier struggles to break out of a pattern that is seeing its subscriber base dwindle.

Read more: U.S. Cellular sells more smartphones, still loses 127K subs in Q2 - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/us-cellular-sells-more-smartphones-still-loses-127k-subs-q2/2013-08-02#ixzz2bt8jApWY

Subscribe at FierceWireless

. I wish

 

Sent from my HTC ONE from Tapatalk 2

Doable.

SprintBank has been quiet as of late. Last thing I read about them was NV has been delayed and their deploying 2.5 nationwide.

 

Wonder what their doing behind the scenes

I live and go to school in Alameda so that's where I am most of the time. Coverage at school is CRUCIAL to me I don't care if it's only voice because we have wifi around campus. Personally I don't want to switch but paying 2 phone bills(AT&T 1 line and Sprint 2 lines) is a bit much for a family.

 

The only reason their considering switching me is just price because paying 2 phone bills isn't ideal.

 

Only 'motive' is price essentially.

 

To be fair about the speed test I was sitting about 200ft from the tower when I did that test but I was still shocked at the speed because I have never attempted to speed test mainly to stay under 3GB which isn't that hard. I only posted asked because Sprint has a deal that if you buy an S4 or S3 you get another one free and my parents want me to switch because of price but as you can see AT&T and my S3 have spoiled me from day 1. Also I had no idea AT&T LTE could reach those speeds in this area. Now I want to stay up until 3am and try to reach it!

Oh wait one question: Do/all Sprint LTE phones minus the iPhone 5 do voLTE? Because my S3 only does "4G" (HSPA+ or UMTS) and voice.

VoLTE != voice on 800.

There will be LTE on 800 but that's only for data. Sprint had that HD voice on 1xA some time ago but it ???seems to only work if both Sprint subscribers are making calls connected to same vendors equipment??? so they stopped advertising if.

Voice on 800 means 1xRTT on CDMA band 10.

TMobile thread in a Sprint forum non the less.

It's not as if TMO affects sprint or anything.

I can't see the reason why anyone has to post TMobile info on a Sprint forum. I think your ego is trying to cash a bounce check.

So then let's delete this thread.

Do you really have to ask this? I think it is plainly obvious that I do not have any Tmo sources.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

Not really. We would need to see a nationwide map like we have with Sprint data to make it useful. I wouldn't want you to waste time on that. I do appreciate the offer though.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

Well, T-Mobile has deployed W-CDMA in some odd rural locations where Sprint has no native coverage. To give you two examples that are relevant to Robert and myself, take a look at northeastern Kansas and eastern New Mexico. So, add up those kinds of W-CDMA sites across the country, probably a few hundred. Then, subtract them from the total, as they do not really matter regarding site density.

 

Also, John Legere and Neville Ray can stick a sock in it with their lampooning of Sprint's scattered, sometimes smaller market Network Vision deployment sequence. Sprint is going to finish its entire network with LTE. Meanwhile, T-Mobile is just throwing darts at the map with W-CDMA. T-Mobile has W-CDMA deployed in the likes of tiny Roy, NM, but it still has only GSM in Fort Smith, AR; Saginaw, MI; Yuma, AZ; etc. Give me a freaking break.

 

AJ

I'm just trying to learn why TMO has worse effective site density but mathematically, they should be killing it. A couple hundred still doesn't explain it. Someone said TMO's antennas are never on the top of the tower; would this affect propagation noticeably?

But no one has definitively shown that T-Mobile generally has higher macrosite density than Sprint does. In fact, Robert and I have both observed in our markets that the reverse is the case. And what I did by presenting that list was offer a possible explanation for why T-Mobile and Sprint could have similar macrosite densities but Sprint could have significantly greater covered POPs: T-Mobile is missing millions of POPs in secondary markets.

 

AJ

Are we still assuming TMO has 52k sites? We have transcripts from Humm saying "upgrading 37k sites, our current 3G/4g footprint, to LTE."

Given that info, where is TMO hiding all their HSPA/LTE sites? They have a way high density SOMEWHERE.

This may mean Tmo has higher site density somewhere. But I have not witnessed anywhere that I have gone since becoming a Tmo customer that they have greater site density than Sprint. In Santa Fe, they have less than Sprint.

 

What I know is that the Sprint 39k is just macro sites. The Sprint number does not include DAS systems, picocells and corporate installs. And we don't know what Tmo's numbers include, except that it is HSPA+ sites. So it very well could include 1000's of non macro sites and repeaters that include HSPA+.

 

So without knowing what the number includes, people should not cite it as a Tmo superiority or Sprint deficiency. Tmo and John Legere love to have the data be misconstrued to their advantage. No one has ever presented Tmo site data where an apples to apples comparison can be done.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

http://assets.fiercemarkets.com/public/mdano/amis/tmopres.pdf

Slide 18, top left. The DAS asterisk is only applied to metro and newco so 52k means cell sites only.

I suggest that you look at this extensive HowardForums list. See the many MSAs in which T-Mobile has no native coverage or only GSM. But in most of those, Sprint has native coverage. So, those MSAs likely make for the difference in covered POPs.

 

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1792144-official-T-Mobile-USA-LTE-thread?p=15191562#post15191562

 

AJ

In my triband tests, speeds did go down when you went inside if you were more than 1/2 mile from the site. However, even with one bar, I still was getting 7-20Mbps on TD-LTE 2600. I even hit 18Mbps with a -120dBm RSRP signal in one test. Also note that my best speed test of all was taken inside my hotel room.In Thornton, Colorado I did testing of where TD-LTE 2600 overlapped Sprint LTE 1900 and the TD-LTE had better results in most instances. Only when the Band 25 exceeded a -80dBm signal and the Band 41 was worse than -115dBm did it get better to be on LTE 1900 Band 25.Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

I know there's no definitive answer to this question, but I live about 2.75 miles from the nearest tower. Can I expect to pick up LTE on 2.5 ghz? I get a decent 3G signal being this far away (usually between -80 and -85).

Nope. broadbandmap.gov is strictly native. Including roaming Sprint covers over 300 Million

Something's gotta give. How can TMO with 37k LTE/HSPA+ towers only cover 225 million yet sprint with 39k towers can cover 270 million with EVDO.

Yes, CDMA propagation ... better than anything ... but not with an extra 2k towers.

Nope. broadbandmap.gov is strictly native. Including roaming Sprint covers over 300 Million

Sprint 3G network (including roaming) reaches more than 285 million people. Sprint 4G LTE network available in limited markets, on select devices

http://network.sprint.com/

Other Terms: Coverage not available everywhere. Nationwide Sprint Network reaches over 278 million people. The Sprint 3G network (including roaming) reaches over 276 million people

http://shop2.sprint.com/en/shop/why_sprint/4g/evo_plan_details.html