Related
Official Sprint Answer:
Sprint is committed to delivering the highest quality network experience. Our Network Vision plan will improve your network experience, but it does not include any EVDO Rev B launch. Sprint has evaluated EVDO Rev B and chosen to go directly to 4G connections. Since we are not launching EVDO Rev B, none of our handsets supports EVDO Rev B.
It looks like maybe no Rev. B after all. Hopefully they'll push 4G LTE and keep going.
FINALLY! Thank goodness. Let's stick a fork in this horse.
BTW, where is your source? (I know others will ask)
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What good is speed if hardly anybody can get it? Give me more coverage!
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not surprising that a Sprint rep would say that..unfortunately, the truth seems to be just the opposite in the real world, based on everything I have read about Verizons LTE, and my friends who have it say the same thing..makes Sprints non sense look lame compared to it..
and just like i said in the other thread.....you people were freaking out over a baseless rumor
now how many of these idiots actually turned there phones back in
---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
getting your info from a sprint rep is like getting info from sarah palin about the economy....
Neither the LTE that's being rolled out by Verizon and ATT or sprints current Wimax meet the international standard that 4g is supposed to be.
But the LTE technologies being rolled out are a step in the right direction.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
spencer88 said:
What good is speed if hardly anybody can get it? Give me more coverage!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Word! I'll take any form of 4G in San Diego, even if I have to follow a donkey around with a WiMax tower, built by a few guys behind a 7-11 with straws and Big Gulp cups, strapped to its back.
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is simply idiotic. It makes no sense.
Sprint's WiMax implementation sucks. Putting LTE on those same frequencies would also suck. Maybe worse.
It's not the protocol it's the spectrum. Clearwire/Sprint's WiMax is on a handful of razor-thin bands on high frequencies. It's not surprising that it sucks so much and the word "WiMax" has nothing to do with it.
imtjnotu said:
and just like i said in the other thread.....you people were freaking out over a baseless rumor
now how many of these idiots actually turned there phones back in
Haha right. All that bull**** about rev b and the **** ain't even happening. U said it correctly. The people who returned their phones based on that are IDIOTS
sent from my DAMN phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Concise and all encompassing. I couldn't have said it better my self. Meaning I actually do not have it in my own capacity to say it better, or even as well, myself.
Your presence in our forum is an asset. You truly know what's up.
That said, I couldn't agree more...lol
I talked to a sprint from corp in lisa angeles he told me lte and wimax have almost the same speeds and lte can go further
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
Verizon's current LTE and Sprint's WIMAX are not true 4G. LTE Advanced and WIMAX 2 (802.16m) are the true 4G standards.
F that true 4g stuff. They are the 4th major data network type for their respectable providers
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
bitbang3r said:
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clears coverage could be the exact same as Verizon's LTE and it would still be garbage due to the frequency its on.
---------- Post added at 05:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 AM ----------
Tuffgong4 said:
Verizon's current LTE and Sprint's WIMAX are not true 4G. LTE Advanced and WIMAX 2 (802.16m) are the true 4G standards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you think consumers give a damn about this? Honestly...
bitbang3r said:
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very nicely put even though I am quite sad about no rev b which I think would be a good idea to help with speed and capacity they are applying 1x advanced which will help capacity issues and enable simultaneous voice and data which will be nice. But the combined tower spectrums once phones come out with chips that will take advantage of it it should increase data speeds and coverage greatly the problem now is the wait they need to hurry up and get every one off Nextel, and start the conversion.
Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk
I would be more than happy if they just fixed Rev A to work at a reasonable speed like 1.5-2M (which is what Verizon is providing in my area).
As to "true" 4G, I don't think anybody really cares, they just want something that works, not some experiment where you turn it on to run speed tests and brag to your friends, then turn it off because your battery will die or because you don't get signals indoors.
Gotta love how in all the discussion about frequency strength, frequency distance, speed, technology etc; people tend to forget the meaning of G in 2g, 3g and 4g is GENERATION.
To arbitrarily define how fast something should be to be considered a new "generation" should be insulting and stupid to pretty much everyone. It'd be like saying Generation X were just Baby Boomers 2g because they weren't good enough to be their own generation.
Put a sock in it. 4th generation of mobile networks = 4g. Nuff said.
AbsolutZeroGI said:
Gotta love how in all the discussion about frequency strength, frequency distance, speed, technology etc; people tend to forget the meaning of G in 2g, 3g and 4g is GENERATION.
To arbitrarily define how fast something should be to be considered a new "generation" should be insulting and stupid to pretty much everyone. It'd be like saying Generation X were just Baby Boomers 2g because they weren't good enough to be their own generation.
Put a sock in it. 4th generation of mobile networks = 4g. Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Quoted for the truth"
LOVE the "Baby Boomers 2G analogy"!
I guess all the BS marketing hype by the phone carriers has actually worked on the mindless lemmings that walk among us..
I'm seeing very erratic speeds in Manhattan with my new SGS II, but generally I'm in the 2-3 mbps down, 1 mbps up range anywhere I'm inside. Sometimes it is the same outside as well, but occasionally that will spike up to ~16mpbs down outside.
Any other NYC users having similar issues?
Get a new sim at tmobile
sent from my real Gs move in silence like lasagna
Since when is 2-3Mbps slow? Really?
Try Sprint 3G/4G or Verizon 3G or AT&T "4G". 100-900Kbps is the norm on Sprint, Verizon and AT&T except AT&T has higher bursts. Verizon LTE is quick but it's already slowed down below 10Mbps here and coverage is not everywhere
heygrl said:
Since when is 2-3Mbps slow? Really?
Try Sprint 3G/4G or Verizon 3G or AT&T "4G". 100-900Kbps is the norm on Sprint, Verizon and AT&T except AT&T has higher bursts. Verizon LTE is quick but it's already slowed down below 10Mbps here and coverage is not everywhere
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since it's advertised as HSPA+ 42mbps. Yes, really.
mbernusg said:
Get a new sim at tmobile
sent from my real Gs move in silence like lasagna
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How come? Is this sim defective somehow?
ap77 said:
Since it's advertised as HSPA+ 42mbps. Yes, really.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No - you're not going to get close to a theoretical max speed. Sorry to break the news to you, but this is Wireless - there are no guarantees.
heygrl said:
No - you're not going to get close to a theoretical max speed. Sorry to break the news to you, but this is Wireless - there are no guarantees.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Obviously I'm not expecting the 42mbps. But they made a big deal about this being the first DC-HSPA+ phone -- it is, in fact, why this phone doesn't have exynos. Sorry to break it to you, but 2-3 mbps is very slow even for HSPA+ 21mbps. This is slower than Sprint's ****ty wimax.
If you're content with 2-3 mpbs, great, I'm happy for you.
ap77 said:
Obviously I'm not expecting the 42mbps. But they made a big deal about this being the first DC-HSPA+ phone -- it is, in fact, why this phone doesn't have exynos. Sorry to break it to you, but 2-3 mbps is very slow even for HSPA+ 21mbps. This is slower than Sprint's ****ty wimax.
If you're content with 2-3 mpbs, great, I'm happy for you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not slower than WiMAX here, and if you are seeing a variance in speed it's obvious that you are bouncing between two different cell towers with two different loads or one without Dual Carrier HSPA deployed on it.
2-3Mbps for a network with 1 3G carrier which means all of the bandwidth on that sector is shared with other T-Mobile subscribers is NOT bad. 50-300Kbps/Sprint 3G speed is bad. Verizon 3G at 500-1000Kbps is mediocre but acceptable due to the low ping. 2Mbps is decent, not bad, and OK for a HSPA network.
heygrl said:
It's not slower than WiMAX here, and if you are seeing a variance in speed it's obvious that you are bouncing between two different cell towers with two different loads or one without Dual Carrier HSPA deployed on it.
2-3Mbps for a network with 1 3G carrier which means all of the bandwidth on that sector is shared with other T-Mobile subscribers is NOT bad. 50-300Kbps/Sprint 3G speed is bad. Verizon 3G at 500-1000Kbps is mediocre but acceptable due to the low ping. 2Mbps is decent, not bad, and OK for a HSPA network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I still have my Sprint Epic and this service is certainly slower than wimax.
Look, I'm not going to argue with you if you think 2mbps is just fine. I don't. What I'm interested in is whether other users in NYC are getting the same kind of speeds.
ap77 said:
I still have my Sprint Epic and this service is certainly slower than wimax.
Look, I'm not going to argue with you if you think 2mbps is just fine. I don't. What I'm interested in is whether other users in NYC are getting the same kind of speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a speedtest i ran and got the same score 3 times in bloomingdales 59th
Get a new sim bro
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
kennyp987 said:
This is a speedtest i ran and got the same score 3 times in bloomingdales 59th
Get a new sim bro
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I got 12mbps DL / 0.8mbps UL in Brooklyn last night. Right now I'm downtown and I have 113kbps DL / 381kbps UL.
grabiarz said:
I got 12mbps DL / 0.8mbps UL in Brooklyn last night. Right now I'm downtown and I have 113kbps DL / 381kbps UL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ouch on the downtown.
ap77 said:
I still have my Sprint Epic and this service is certainly slower than wimax.
Look, I'm not going to argue with you if you think 2mbps is just fine. I don't. What I'm interested in is whether other users in NYC are getting the same kind of speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 2.5GHz network reaches few people. In a market where Clear actually has people using the network the speeds are much lower due to the traffic. NYC is still very much brand new with few WiMAX users, not a valid comparison. Here, it's 1Mbps all day long due to the maturity of the network and the usage
Unless they're on the same tower as you -- they're going to get different speeds, higher and even lower depending on load. Something you can't comprehend. It's not going to be 10+ everywhere. What are you desperately needing 10Mbps at home for anyway? Do you have an unlimited plan with no throttle cap you desperately want to use? I don't get it.
heygrl said:
The 2.5GHz network reaches few people. In a market where Clear actually has people using the network the speeds are much lower due to the traffic. NYC is still very much brand new with few WiMAX users, not a valid comparison. Here, it's 1Mbps all day long due to the maturity of the network and the usage
Unless they're on the same tower as you -- they're going to get different speeds, higher and even lower depending on load. Something you can't comprehend. It's not going to be 10+ everywhere. What are you desperately needing 10Mbps at home for anyway? Do you have an unlimited plan with no throttle cap you desperately want to use? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For god's sake, will you take your concern trolling elsewhere? "Why do you even need something that fast?" Unbelievable.
heygrl said:
The 2.5GHz network reaches few people. In a market where Clear actually has people using the network the speeds are much lower due to the traffic. NYC is still very much brand new with few WiMAX users, not a valid comparison. Here, it's 1Mbps all day long due to the maturity of the network and the usage
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Meant to add: I don't care at all about how wimax works where you are (Vegas?). Here in NYC, I have pretty uniformly seen lower speeds on TMO than I did on wimax, sometimes substantially so. I'm curious about the speeds that others in NYC with DC-HSPA+ are generally seeing on average. Your entire contribution to this thread has been a giant non-sequitur.
This is what im getting in Delaware .....very nice
Sent from my SGH-T989 using XDA App
ap77 said:
Meant to add: I don't care at all about how wimax works where you are (Vegas?). Here in NYC, I have pretty uniformly seen lower speeds on TMO than I did on wimax, sometimes substantially so. I'm curious about the speeds that others in NYC with DC-HSPA+ are generally seeing on average. Your entire contribution to this thread has been a giant non-sequitur.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your babbling about how you aren't getting 16Mbps everywhere. I'm surprised you can even get a WiMAX signal that doesn't cut out all over the place. It matters because you can't comprehend network load or variances.
heygrl said:
Your babbling about how you aren't getting 16Mbps everywhere. I'm surprised you can even get a WiMAX signal that doesn't cut out all over the place. It matters because you can't comprehend network load or variances.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or never at all. I just noticed your sig -- "LTE killer." Right -- killer 2mbps. Obviously dealing with a fanboy troll here. Move along.
ap77 said:
Or never at all. I just noticed your sig -- "LTE killer." Right -- killer 2mbps. Obviously dealing with a fanboy troll here. Move along.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get 10 Mbps+ on dual cell HSPA which usually outperforms Verizon LTE in Las Vegas on a regular basis, at a much lower price with better phones to boot. Again, you don't/can't comprehend variances per tower. Grasp that first and you will understand why you don't get 16Mbps *EVERYWHERE*
heygrl said:
I get 10 Mbps+ on dual cell HSPA which usually outperforms Verizon LTE in Las Vegas on a regular basis, at a much lower price with better phones to boot. Again, you don't/can't comprehend variances per tower. Grasp that first and you will understand why you don't get 16Mbps *EVERYWHERE*
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you seriously this slow? PLEASE, PLEASE stop trolling this thread.
Again, I don't give a **** about your experience in Vegas. This thread is about NYC. Believe me, 2mbps is beyond a joke compared to VZ's LTE in NYC. And, hey, you got 20mbps+ *everywhere* with VZ LTE here. My mighty 2-3mbps DC-HSPA+ is not match.
Seriously, please just stop. You're killing value with every character in this thread.
With all the hubbub surrounding the Clearwire Wimax deal that was signed for the next few years, and the looming launch of LTE (mid-2012?), is it really foolish to sign a new contract and get a Wimax device?
All of the LTE devices I've seen on VZW/AT&T have atrocious battery life at the expense of crazy speeds (20Mbps+). A few coworkers got the Droid Bionic and barely make it to the end of the work day. Old college roommate works for AT&T and he says most of their LTE stuff needs extended batteries in order to be usable for a whole day.
Frankly I can live with Wimax's 3-5Mbps if it means I don't have to keep hovering around a charger all day. The Epic 4G Touch is so very tempting but I'm afraid I'm committing to "old" tech and that in 12 months I'll have regretted it.
(current VZW customer off-contract with an OG Droid)
dparm said:
With all the hubbub surrounding the Clearwire Wimax deal that was signed for the next few years, and the looming launch of LTE (mid-2012?), is it really foolish to sign a new contract and get a Wimax device?
All of the LTE devices I've seen on VZW/AT&T have atrocious battery life at the expense of crazy speeds (20Mbps+). A few coworkers got the Droid Bionic and barely make it to the end of the work day. Old college roommate works for AT&T and he says most of their LTE stuff needs extended batteries in order to be usable for a whole day.
Frankly I can live with Wimax's 3-5Mbps if it means I don't have to keep hovering around a charger all day. The Epic 4G Touch is so very tempting but I'm afraid I'm committing to "old" tech and that in 12 months I'll have regretted it.
(current VZW customer off-contract with an OG Droid)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First and foremost the spectrum allocated to Sprint's WiMax sucks. It's a razor thin chunk. That is why Sprint's 4G sucks...LTE isn't inherently better in this regard. If LTE was on the same crappy spectrum it would suck too.
When you can connect to WiMax it's fantastic. I used to get 12-15mbps all day long in my area. Now it's in the 3-8mbps range depending on time of day.
That razor thin strip of spectrum allocated to Sprint/Clearwire's "4G" WiMax makes your connection easily disrupted by such disturbances as a closed window or a stiff breeze...seriously. If you aren't in a very solid 4G area (don't ask Sprint or Clearwire, ask people who have the service in your area) I wouldn't bank on getting a 4G signal very often, if at all. When a rom comes out that doesn't support 4G I don't care at all...yeah, it can be that bad.
With that out of the way it should be noted that you likely won't have Sprint LTE coverage in your area for at least a year, likely 2, maybe 3 or 4. Sprint has some rosy estimates flying around right now, but, I remember how their 3G and 4G rollouts went, so, I wouldn't take their word with a grain of salt...I would outright disregard it.
So where does this leave you? Most likely in an area with sparse (if any) 4G and LTE anywhere from 1.5-3 years away and you want a phone now.
Luckily Sprint's 3G service is improving quickly around the country--quicker in some places than others of course. Also the level of improvement will vary wildly depending on many factors, so, don't even bet on the future...especially when it's in Sprint's hands.
My advice? If you want to be/stay on Sprint and are currently satisfied with your service and would also like the ET4G, well, just go get it. By time your contract is up the LTE devices will actually exist and the LTE will be rolled out and WiMax will still be up and running and hopefully the 3G network is up to snuff.
EDIT: As a current Vzw customer you will likely be either disappointed or even horrified by Sprint's current 3G speeds. Ask around, some markets/areas have amazing performance. Where I live is so-so. I'm now getting 600-1000kbps regularly, though last month it was 300-500kbps. However 5 miles away at my friends house I actually saw 2.8mbps and killer 15mbps 4G all the time. Many people here are nowhere near as lucky as either me or my friend, so, ask around....you can never tell.
I'm in downtown Chicago, so I'm sure that it'll be a high priority area for deployment.
My job is 100% travel though, so for a few months at a time I could be anywhere else in the US (Mon-Fri). Typically it's big cities though, like Houston, NYC, Miami, Denver, etc. I just want something fast but consistent. Voice quality/coverage is priority 1, then battery, then data speeds.
I visited two Sprint stores in different parts of the city this week and the web browsing on their 4G seemed plenty fast.
dparm said:
I'm in downtown Chicago, so I'm sure that it'll be a high priority area for deployment.
My job is 100% travel though, so for a few months at a time I could be anywhere else in the US (Mon-Fri). Typically it's big cities though, like Houston, NYC, Miami, Denver, etc. I just want something fast but consistent. Voice quality/coverage is priority 1, then battery, then data speeds.
I visited two Sprint stores in different parts of the city this week and the web browsing on their 4G seemed plenty fast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I travel for work sometimes. Chicago is covered in 4G as are most major metropolitan areas.
So far as voice/text ("2G") is concerned you will be well served everywhere. Sprint has pretty thorough 2G coverage and you will roam on Verizon if not. You get "Unlimited" Roaming. If you roam too much they'll give you the boot. I wouldn't worry about it.
So long as you understand all said about 4G and are fine with that 3G is the only real sticking point and is as I described earlier. You will roam on Verizon (at 1x, ick...but we have ways around that if you are forced to roam momentarily), but, it's usually not Sprint's coverage so much as the performance. I personally have never experienced horribly un-usable 3G anywhere...even tethered to my laptop. But I haven't gone on any business trips in the past 9 months when things have gone downhill rapidly--or so the posts here would have me believe.
I'd say buy a VZW phone outright and stay out of contract. Their speeds will be faster as well as the reliability. If this were my only phone I would've dove headfirst off a bunk bed.
I have a company Blackberry on AT&T and a regular feature phone on AT&T so I'm covered service wise. To give you an idea AT&T's HSDPA (3.5G) technology is faster than Sprint's faux 4G.
I love this phone but something needs to happen soon or people are going to leave in droves. The phone is awesome but the service is something to be desired.
I'm in Northern NJ by the way.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
Lately the Verizon 3G coverage in downtown Chicago and the burbs have been sucking. I have updated my PRL several times and even flashed a different ROM just to be certain.
I get 4g in plenty of places. (I live in the bay area). Sprint just gave clear some money so I'm still good with buying my next wimax phone. From what I see and hear, lte isn't better than wimax just yet. Fastest speed I've seen is on hspa+ 22mbps.
I think its a waste if you live in an area like I do that doesn't have Wimax and never will.
I am coming from Verizon and the Thunderbolt and until phones get better battery's lte is not worth it unless you want 8 to 12 hours of battery depending on your usage(on my wifi and 4g and 3g service with sprint after 16hours of usage moderate I have 33% life left) In a few years when sprint gets lte maybe batterys will be caught up. Or if sprint doesnt ill switch to at&t or Verizon again. But I am happy with sprint. And I love this phone
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
I have known since the beginning of the year when the Galaxy S II became available internationally that that was the phone I wanted to upgrade to. The decider for me to go for the Epic Touch 4G variant on Sprint was the truly unlimited data. I was off contract on AT&T, and even though I was fortunate enough to actually get very good service in my area on AT&T, I liked the idea of never having to worry about my data usage, no matter how I might choose to use my phone.
I don't generally get as good data coverage on Sprint as I did on AT&T, but when I do have service it is generally faster than what I got on AT&T, most especially on 4G. And when it does lose Sprint coverage, it roams on Verizon towers, so I really am never completely without service.
And the phone itself is great. No regrets there.
Thanks. Like I said, Verizon's coverage down here lately seems really lousy. The data speed is "acceptable". My OG Droid is still hanging on by a thread and I am still on an unlimited data plan, though I rarely go over 2-3GB per month.
I'm having trouble finding Chicago Sprint owners to comment on coverage and data speeds, though. Only one or two friends of mine have it and they're not really geeky enough to know what I'm interested in...they see a phone as a phone.
dparm said:
Thanks. Like I said, Verizon's coverage down here lately seems really lousy. The data speed is "acceptable". My OG Droid is still hanging on by a thread and I am still on an unlimited data plan, though I rarely go over 2-3GB per month.
I'm having trouble finding Chicago Sprint owners to comment on coverage and data speeds, though. Only one or two friends of mine have it and they're not really geeky enough to know what I'm interested in...they see a phone as a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You definitely needs to find someone. You do have a buyer's remorse period you could use.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
CODteabagger said:
You definitely needs to find someone. You do have a buyer's remorse period you could use.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, the 30 day return period is nice. Would give me a shot at really test driving the thing.
Any suggestions on how to get some real details on Chicago Wimax and voice?
wimax will be around thru 2015 at the least... buying a wimax device now wouldnt be the end of the world.
also.. the first sprint lte devices wont get super awesome. and we wont be seeing the good lte chips(the ones that work on multiple bands) until 2013(sprints 2nd lte gen).
Upgrading to a Wimax phone this year seems fine. And you can enjoy the unlimited data. It will set you up to upgrade in 2013, when new phones will be ready to utilize Sprint's LTE (800MHz/1.9GHz) and Clear's LTE-Advanced (2.5GHz).
dparm said:
Yes, the 30 day return period is nice. Would give me a shot at really test driving the thing.
Any suggestions on how to get some real details on Chicago Wimax and voice?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's 14 days now.
daneurysm said:
It's 14 days now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ooo that sucks. It'll probably get ****ty 3G speeds on the 15th day.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
CODteabagger said:
I'd say buy a VZW phone outright and stay out of contract. Their speeds will be faster as well as the reliability. If this were my only phone I would've dove headfirst off a bunk bed.
I have a company Blackberry on AT&T and a regular feature phone on AT&T so I'm covered service wise. To give you an idea AT&T's HSDPA (3.5G) technology is faster than Sprint's faux 4G.
I love this phone but something needs to happen soon or people are going to leave in droves. The phone is awesome but the service is something to be desired.
I'm in Northern NJ by the way.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea Im gonna have to disagree here, one of my customer just bought a skyrocket from att and my touch destroyed his phones speeds while he was on the socalled 4gLTE hspa+ network and I was only in a 3g area (all of san diego county) there is nothing faux bout WiMax, it is all a money issue when it comes down to it.
Yes I am anxious for LTE-A as well as more power efficient radios. I remember when the first "3G" stuff came out years ago (HSDPA or whatever)...the battery life sucked but within a year or two they got it worked out.
daneurysm said:
...Sprint's 4G sucks... When a rom comes out that doesn't support 4G I don't care at all...yeah, it can be that bad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it's not anything to write home about.
But I mostly use wifi at home and work so I'm not too put out by the slow speeds.
It is good enough to have a halfway decent skype session, youtube, etc...
I was hoping to get some gaming action though.
That ain't happening unless it's on wifi, at least in my area.
For the many of you that don't understand/don't "believe" in network vision...
Android police posted this article which is actually pretty informative.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...ce-but-the-800mhz-rollout-will-drop-your-jaw/
mattykinsx said:
Android police posted this article which is actually pretty informative.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...ce-but-the-800mhz-rollout-will-drop-your-jaw/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...I understand the underlying concepts and already knew that's what the 800mHz band was capable of....but...to see it laid out like that--even as overly optimistic as internal corporate presentation slides likely are--holy ****.
Thanks for the post...I gotta admit, my jaw dropped as well.
daneurysm said:
...I understand the underlying concepts and already knew that's what the 800mHz band was capable of....but...to see it laid out like that--even as overly optimistic as internal corporate presentation slides likely are--holy ****.
Thanks for the post...I gotta admit, my jaw dropped as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've talked to Sprint technicians that are working on the project and they truly believe this will bring them inline with, or better than, the big two.
And that seems very likely.
Lets just hope they keep unlimited data and don't turn into At&t and Verizon.
I've had Sprint for able 6 years, my family has had it for I wanna say 15+, they've had their ups and downs but I believe it's a stable cell phone provider. I can't ever picture myself without it loving my speeds, loving my service (I currently live in the country AND getting 4G) I'll always be a loyal sprint customer and this link you posted makes me happy haha
Anyone have the link to check and see if you have tower updates in your area in the past 6 months or scheduled?
Oh wow...I knew Network Vision was supposed to give them a boost but I didn't think it'd be this much of a boost.
cds0699 said:
Anyone have the link to check and see if you have tower updates in your area in the past 6 months or scheduled?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
network.sprint.com
It burns when I tapatalk...
Still impresses me every time I see it, thanks for the reminder of what's to come.
It burns when I tapatalk...
I've learned over the years to believe it when it is done rather than believe the powerpoint.
There are always caveats like, coverage is factoring in 800MHz, but some phones aren't FCC certified to work at 800MHz even though they might be otherwise capable (Photon comes to mind)
Are they running both the 1xAdvanced voice and EVDO carrier at 800 in every market on just the voice carrier or only augmented 800 in select markets? If some markets only get LTE on 800, then that won't help our phones out.
Conceptually Network Vision is the right thing to do, but there can be a significant difference between the design and implementation. The latter is where they usually see the unanticipated issues.
So yeah, it looks good on paper, let's see it in action.
Beejis said:
network.sprint.com
It burns when I tapatalk...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much.
Hopefully Sprint does not have too much trouble raising the additional $3 billion needed to complete Network Vision.
I just went on an ADD fueled wikipedia/internet spree because I realized as I was reading that article that I knew nothing about sprints actual network or network at all. I had to keep looking up each term, staring further down Sprint's rabbit hole. I found a lot of interesting information but what really stunned me was that WiMax 4G network runs at 2.5Ghz. By comparison, Verizon's LTE network, which technically by definition is not a true 4G network, runs at 700Mhz.
I cannot wait for this upgrade to come to my area soon enough.
My area:
Past 6 months: 3 data speed upgrades
Planned: 4 data capacity upgrades
Nice!
doesn't Verizon use a 700mhz wavelength for lte which would make better
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Well i just speed tested both a sprint EvDo revA and roamed on versizons EvDo rev0.... Guess what. I got 1.2mb/sec on sprint ( its 3am here so ones on the towers) on verizon i got 1.9mb/sec.... Wtf!?!? I though EvDo revA was way faster than Rev0!? Yet rev0 its litterally 80% faster! Please, some one explain this to me. Please, this is actually a serious queztion
Sent From My Epic Touch 3g
bluefire808 said:
Well i just speed tested both a sprint EvDo revA and roamed on versizons EvDo rev0.... Guess what. I got 1.2mb/sec on sprint ( its 3am here so ones on the towers) on verizon i got 1.9mb/sec.... Wtf!?!? I though EvDo revA was way faster than Rev0!? Yet rev0 its litterally 80% faster! Please, some one explain this to me. Please, this is actually a serious queztion
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rev0 vs RevA is just the air interface. If you connect a fast air connection to a slow backhaul then the lowest common denominator is the backhaul and that will limit your speeds. If there are too many people on the tower sharing the limited bandwidth, that will limit your speeds too.
If you connect a 802.11n wireless router to a 56k modem, what would you expect your Internet speeds to be? That is analogous to what is happening with Sprint, though the backhauls are more capable (and also shared amongst more people)
Assuming you are sure the Verizon connection was Rev 0, it is theoretically capable of 2.45Mbps while Rev A is theoretically capable of 3.1Mbps. Drop around 18-20% for actual use and you get the real-world #s.
So a fast Rev0 could easily beat a rate limited RevA on the download side.
Now the upload side, RevA beats Rev0 by more than an order of magnitude. .15M vs 1.8M theoretical. I'd be surprised if a Rev0 uplink beat a RevA uplink, but if the towers are overloaded enough, anything can happen.
sfhub said:
Rev0 vs RevA is just the air interface. If you connect a fast air connection to a slow backhaul then the lowest common denominator is the backhaul and that will limit your speeds. If there are too many people on the tower sharing the limited bandwidth, that will limit your speeds too.
If you connect a 802.11n wireless router to a 56k modem, what would you expect your Internet speeds to be? That is analogous to what is happening with Sprint, though the backhauls are more capable (and also shared amongst more people)
Assuming you are sure the Verizon connection was Rev 0, it is theoretically capable of 2.45Mbps while Rev A is theoretically capable of 3.1Mbps. Drop around 18-20% for actual use and you get the real-world #s.
So a fast Rev0 could easily beat a rate limited RevA on the download side.
Now the upload side, RevA beats Rev0 by more than an order of magnitude. .15M vs 1.8M theoretical. I'd be surprised if a Rev0 uplink beat a RevA uplink, but if the towers are overloaded enough, anything can happen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was just the info i needes. I had also wiki'd it and saw that too. But i like your real world explanation. Yup 2Mb/sec on verizon rev0 and 1.2Mbsec on sprinta revA. Eh o well. Thanks again for getting back to me. Big props to you brother!
Sent From My Epic Touch 3g
iSkylla said:
I found a lot of interesting information but what really stunned me was that WiMax 4G network runs at 2.5Ghz. By comparison, Verizon's LTE network, which technically by definition is not a true 4G network, runs at 700Mhz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have a wider bit of spectrum down there at 700mhz at a much lower wavelength. WiMax and LTE are pretty much just protocols. Verizon's LTE would suck on that thin slice of 2.5gHz and Sprint's WiMax would kick ass at 700mHz....roughly....and that's not taking into considering signal propagation and obstruction penetration.
My 3G speeds suck... but who cares, 4G has gone through the roof down here.
3mb/s -> 9mb/s in my living room
5mb/s -> 18mb/s in my friend's house
I'm gonna go drive all over and run speed tests now.
Orrr... they are showing the map like that because there won't be any buildings in 2013 to penetrate.
Food for thought gentleman.
PS. Jk
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
According to Network Signal Widget, i'm connected to HSDPA 7.2Mbps and through Settings > About Phone > HSDPA: 9
Speedtest results are 4000-5000kbps down and 2000kbps up consistently.
the fastest ive seen in the nyc area was just under 11mbps.
Someone had an issue before that it was saying he was on HSDPA and it was because his baseband and RIL did not match. Might be worth looking into.
the baseband and RIL are already updated to the UGLC1. I never did a speed test before the update though, but the widget showed 7.2mbps still.
i'm perfectly happy with the speeds i'm getting now, a lot better than Sprint's haha. just curious if there's still potential untapped on my end.
tracerit said:
the baseband and RIL are already updated to the UGLC1. I never did a speed test before the update though, but the widget showed 7.2mbps still.
i'm perfectly happy with the speeds i'm getting now, a lot better than Sprint's haha. just curious if there's still potential untapped on my end.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just could be your particular area or congestion.
...
Your speed is comparable to results I got with ATT 3G. Some T-Mobile mobile phones support HSPA+ 42Mbps theoretically, the Nexus is HSPA+ 21Mbps, so it depends on the phone spec too. The fastest in speedtest I got with a T-Mobile SII was 24Mbps.
are you the user giving every thread 1-star? lots of 1-star ratings on the front page.
I've been on Tblowbile, Spurnt, and Veryzoned in the last year or so....I can compare more accurately than most.
Since I'm near the beach in southern California I have the luxury of pegging the signal strengths on every phone I've used.
Tmo here is hspa42....fastest I ever got was about 12Mbps down and the system seems locked at 1.5Mbps up (it never deviates higher or lower).
Spurned here is WiMax (and switching to LTE soon) ....Usually get about 12Mbps down and 3-4Mbps up.
Verizon here is LTE.....I've clocked 35Mbps + down and 14-15Mbps up.
In case you think I was lagging on phones I currently have a Gnex, before that a Motorola Photon, before that a Evo3D, before that a Evo4G, before that a GalaxyS Vibrant....and so on and so on.
n2ishun said:
I've been on Tblowbile, Spurnt, and Veryzoned in the last year or so....I can compare more accurately than most.
Since I'm near the beach in southern California I have the luxury of pegging the signal strengths on every phone I've used.
Tmo here is hspa42....fastest I ever got was about 12Mbps down and the system seems locked at 1.5Mbps up (it never deviates higher or lower).
Spurned here is WiMax (and switching to LTE soon) ....Usually get about 12Mbps down and 3-4Mbps up.
Verizon here is LTE.....I've clocked 35Mbps + down and 14-15Mbps up.
In case you think I was lagging on phones I currently have a Gnex, before that a Motorola Photon, before that a Evo3D, before that a Evo4G, before that a GalaxyS Vibrant....and so on and so on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't matter that T-Mobile has HSPA42 where you are because the phone can only handle HSPA21..
tracerit said:
are you the user giving every thread 1-star? lots of 1-star ratings on the front page.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A lot of poor material threads in General that end up being transferred here after being downrated all to hell. Note: I generally don't rate threads.
n2ishun said:
I've been on Tblowbile, Spurnt, and Veryzoned in the last year or so....I can compare more accurately than most.
Since I'm near the beach in southern California I have the luxury of pegging the signal strengths on every phone I've used.
Tmo here is hspa42....fastest I ever got was about 12Mbps down and the system seems locked at 1.5Mbps up (it never deviates higher or lower).
Spurned here is WiMax (and switching to LTE soon) ....Usually get about 12Mbps down and 3-4Mbps up.
Verizon here is LTE.....I've clocked 35Mbps + down and 14-15Mbps up.
In case you think I was lagging on phones I currently have a Gnex, before that a Motorola Photon, before that a Evo3D, before that a Evo4G, before that a GalaxyS Vibrant....and so on and so on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best I've done myself on Gnex:
I get HSDPA: 9 on average but when I start downloading, after a few seconds it kicks to HSPAP:15. I thought it was a battery saving feature?
As a sprint user in Chicago, I hate all of you I would kill just to get 1Mbps on my gnex.
Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus CDMA using Tapatalk 2