Develop Bugs

Sprint AIRAVE works with 4g?

hmm would be sweet
http://shop.sprint.com/en/services/airave/index.shtml?ECID=vanity:airave

uh would you not have WiFi access at home/office?

MaliciousOne said:
uh would you not have WiFi access at home/office?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
but its 4g!! omg! hehe course i have wifi but I want to test out 4g speeds n stuff, and also my cousin plays SS4 on his PS3 while I play BB2 and MW2 on PC, and sometimes my lil bro is here too, so it would be nice to have an extra source of internets like 4g

wasd321 said:
but its 4g!! omg! hehe course i have wifi but I want to test out 4g speeds n stuff, and also my cousin plays SS4 on his PS3 while I play BB2 and MW2 on PC, and sometimes my lil bro is here too, so it would be nice to have an extra source of internets like 4g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't that product use your internet...? It just encrypts its data and broadcasts it as 4g... therefore making it useless for your scenario. Honestly they should just make those with really powerful antennas, and not charge people a dime, and install it on people's houses. More converage for everyone.

Simple answer: No.

weidnerj said:
Simple answer: No.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Simple answer: yes it does use your intetnet, read the page in which you linked to.

The Airave doesn't even broadcast 3G. It is voice only.
-------------
Sent from my HTC EVO 4G using Tapatalk Pro.

TheBiles said:
The Airave doesn't even broadcast 3G. It is voice only.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep exactly as he says. I have one and its voice only.

Actually, it will do data, just not 3G. 1X only. On top of that, the antenna is pathetically weak (works OK in a house, but take it to an office building and you'll be lucky to get four rooms covered, or in my case, not even two rooms), and the GPS restricts it to working in the US. I don't think it even works in Puerto Rico.
I'm also appalled that carriers are CHARGING for femtocells. Why should we have to pay to fix their network, which we're already paying for?

drmacinyasha said:
Actually, it will do data, just not 3G. 1X only. On top of that, the antenna is pathetically weak (works OK in a house, but take it to an office building and you'll be lucky to get four rooms covered, or in my case, not even two rooms), and the GPS restricts it to working in the US. I don't think it even works in Puerto Rico.
I'm also appalled that carriers are CHARGING for femtocells. Why should we have to pay to fix their network, which we're already paying for?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You will get a free Airave if you've been a customer long enough and complain about poor signal.
-------------
Sent from my HTC EVO 4G using Tapatalk Pro.

TheBiles said:
You will get a free Airave if you've been a customer long enough and complain about poor signal.
-------------
Sent from my HTC EVO 4G using Tapatalk Pro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, but what about those who are new customers, and just want a decent signal at their workplace? For those who haven't noticed, Sprint's signal is terrible at penetrating walls. Really. I'll get five bars outside of my building, then in a perimeter office or room I'll get three bars, and as soon as I go inside from there, it'll drop to one or zero bars. And if you're wondering, the walls are mostly glass windows. It's not like I'm in a two-foot thick brick coffin with grounded steel reinforcements.

I got an airave for free because I have 5 towers in a 2 mile radius...

drmacinyasha said:
Sure, but what about those who are new customers, and just want a decent signal at their workplace? For those who haven't noticed, Sprint's signal is terrible at penetrating walls. Really. I'll get five bars outside of my building, then in a perimeter office or room I'll get three bars, and as soon as I go inside from there, it'll drop to one or zero bars. And if you're wondering, the walls are mostly glass windows. It's not like I'm in a two-foot thick brick coffin with grounded steel reinforcements.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I know. My apartment in the middle of downtown Atlanta has zero bars. You could always try complaining and threaten to go back to where you came from and see what they can do for you.

TheBiles said:
Yeah, I know. My apartment in the middle of downtown Atlanta has zero bars. You could always try complaining and threaten to go back to where you came from and see what they can do for you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Besides installing 20 femtocells in my office building, or buying new spectrum that penetrates well and giving me a phone to use them, all they're going to do is ask for an ETF and tell me to GTFO. There's plenty of coverage in the area, just not indoors.

and, they dont seem to work with the HTC EVO; been trying for 2 days to get the EVO to connect to it, but it wont...works fine with a cheapo Samsung slider though...

wase4711 said:
and, they dont seem to work with the HTC EVO; been trying for 2 days to get the EVO to connect to it, but it wont...works fine with a cheapo Samsung slider though...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're doing something wrong. It makes no different what model phone you use.

well, after 2 hours on the phone with a level 2 airrave tech, he admitted that alot of people with EVO's can NOT connect to this version of the airave, and, that a new version is due out any day, which should work on the EVO..
I guess some of us are lucky, and others are not..I was really hoping to get this to work, but I guess I will keep checking to see when the new model is released, and grab one of those..
here are the filings/manuals/pictures they submitted to the FCC on it, in April, so it should be out any day..
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas...lication_id=593827&fcc_id='QHYHUBBUBC1600-RT'

Is there anything else we can do with these just got mine today... works ok throughout the house but only full bars when in the same room. Any way to access the device (like a config screen) or add maybe another carrier to it or turn up the signal strength?

wase4711 said:
well, after 2 hours on the phone with a level 2 airrave tech, he admitted that alot of people with EVO's can NOT connect to this version of the airave, and, that a new version is due out any day, which should work on the EVO..
I guess some of us are lucky, and others are not..I was really hoping to get this to work, but I guess I will keep checking to see when the new model is released, and grab one of those..
here are the filings/manuals/pictures they submitted to the FCC on it, in April, so it should be out any day..
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas...lication_id=593827&fcc_id='QHYHUBBUBC1600-RT'
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My EVO has worked fine with both the v1 and v2 samsung Airaves.
Regarding range issues, if you call Airave tech support, they can boost the power a bit.

I wish mine would have...
At first I thought I had a bad Airave, but, my sons ****ty Samsung Slider hooked right up to it..my wife's evo wouldnt work either

FCC says no to Lightsquared

This does not look good for sprint's partnership
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/210745-fcc-moves-to-kill-lightsquared

Yup, read this this morning...
I'm definitely a little sad about it...Falcone has a couple of options, as do the investors who have bought their debt.
Sprint should be fine, though it would have been nice to have that $9 billion. Having already extended their options with clearwire looks like a shrewd move in light of this.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

This definitely sucks but my question is: is the network vision tied into this or is it separate from LS? By that I mean was network vision going to use this spectrum/network to operate or is it not effected by this decision? No LTE would be a huge bite in the ass to Sprint and us consumers.

KCRic said:
This definitely sucks but my question is: is the network vision tied into this or is it separate from LS? By that I mean was network vision going to use this spectrum/network to operate or is it not effected by this decision? No LTE would be a huge bite in the ass to Sprint and us consumers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
we are rolling out our own LTE network, light-squared was more of a way to expand our coverage, all my knowlagents say mid 2012

I need a little clarification I thought the LTE we were planning to roll out was lightsquared so how and who will be the maker/supplier of our LTE network, isnt LTE that is the source of the gps interference?

LightSquared was going to be hosted on Sprint's new Network Vision towers in exchange for cash and access to the new network for resale to Sprint subscribers. It would have effectively given Sprint 20 mhz (or so) of extra LTE capacity on the 1500 mhz band. However, Sprint has plans to roll out LTE on its own spectrum in the PCS (1900 mhz) and ESMR (800 mhz) bands. This decision by the FCC will not impact the coverage of Sprint's LTE, but it will reduce the total capacity of the network by about 50%. The effect will be most noticeable for users outside the range of PCS LTE, because now the more spectrum constrained 800 mhz band will have to take on all of these users.
There is hope however, because Sprint still has Clearwire. Clearwire holds a ton of spectrum in the 2500 mhz band. In many urban areas, they hold over 100 mhz of spectrum, or enough for ~1 gbps (!) to be shared between the users of each sector of each cell site when using LTE-Advanced. They're the current provider for WiMax, and they're planning on overlaying LTE on the most stressed parts of their existing network. Recently, when LightSquared was first running into trouble with the FCC, Sprint and Clearwire agreed to a system much like the current one with WiMax, where Sprint would be able to resell their 4G to its subscribers. However, since Clearwire is pretty short on cash, they won't be able to invest much into network expansion in their current state. Their future LTE coverage will be even further behind their disappointing WiMax coverage.
However, Sprint holds a majority stake in Clearwire, and if they decided to buy them out (see here), they could potentially use their spectrum on their Network Vision towers, and completely alleviate the possibility of slow data speeds due to spectrum scarcity. Now that LightSquared has failed to come through for Sprint, there is a good possibility for this (or an agreement that accomplishes something similar) to become Sprint's next course of action.

As a 12 year Sprint subscriber, I must say, as strange as it sounds, that I am happy about the FCC's ruling....
Unfortunately, finding my way home from 100 miles offshore in the gulf stream is a bit more important to me than Sprint's near term LTE network capacity.

postq said:
As a 12 year Sprint subscriber, I must say, as strange as it sounds, that I am happy about the FCC's ruling....
Unfortunately, finding my way home from 100 miles offshore in the gulf stream is a bit more important to me than Sprint's near term LTE network capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then go complain to garmin about why their 900.00 chart plotter had to be built using a frequency that their not allowed to use ... They cheaped out on it for more profit.... Instead of building it right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

Epix4G said:
Then go complain to garmin about why their 900.00 chart plotter had to be built using a frequency that their not allowed to use ... They cheaped out on it for more profit.... Instead of building it right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the side I heard before. So annoying.

Sprint is rolling out its own LTE network. They were going to be paid $9 billion to roll out Lightsquares for them.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

schwab002 said:
This is the side I heard before. So annoying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're fine using something that's that fallible? Remember that stealth drone that Iran captured? You know how they did it? They blocked it's GPS signal which put it into autopilot. Then they sent their own "GPS" signal - stronger than the one the military was using and told it to land inside their country at a known spot.
Hmm... seems GPS isn't all it's cracked up to be. How would you like to be on a flight and have that happen? Imagine a night flight where the pilot can only rely on instruments and GPS. Mainly GPS. Someone sends a signal telling the receiver that it's climbing when in truth it's not. Guess what the pilot will do? Or the signal could just tell the receiver that it's off course, then the pilot flies into the middle of the ocean, runs out of fuel, and crashes. I don't pretend to be a pilot or know what goes on in that cockpit but if they can't see anything they must rely on the GPS.
The government knows GPS is just a huge crisis waiting to happen but they are too worried about other 'more important' issues to deal with it. Remember when Americas infrastructure was the best in the world? Neither do I but my grandparents and parents do. So I say they should let LS build the LTE network. If GPS fails that badly then it was worthless to begin with and needs to be retooled.

In terms to that GPS on the drone. GPS is a lot more secure than you think...

Epix4G said:
Then go complain to garmin about why their 900.00 chart plotter had to be built using a frequency that their not allowed to use ... They cheaped out on it for more profit.... Instead of building it right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really true in any meaningful way. The amount and size of filtering required to filter out the spill over from the 100W towers that were planned would have blocked the GPS for your Garmin, Phone, and pretty much any receiver smaller than a cinderblock and even then would have been a questionable thing.
Lightsquared was trying to repurpose bandwidth explicitly designated for low powered satellite communications and didn't succeed in constraining their signal enough.

lifyre said:
Not really true in any meaningful way. The amount and size of filtering required to filter out the spill over from the 100W towers that were planned would have blocked the GPS for your Garmin, Phone, and pretty much any receiver smaller than a cinderblock and even then would have been a questionable thing.
Lightsquared was trying to repurpose bandwidth explicitly designated for low powered satellite communications and didn't succeed in constraining their signal enough.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That being said both sides are at fault....GPS should not be infringing on said frequency ...And too bad ls could not make it work for their purpose...
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

GPS is not infringing on said frequency it would have been infringed upon by lightsquared.

gharlane00 said:
GPS is not infringing on said frequency it would have been infringed upon by lightsquared.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No .... That is wrong .... GPS is listening on frequencies that are owned by LS .... But when first made they didn't care.. LS bought their spectrum and did nothing with it until now but GPS is infringing on their spectrum but the FCC told LS they could do their build out if they could make it work without interfering with GPS ...both are at fault ...you need to read up on it before making statements like that
FCC told ls they could repurpose the spectrum for terrestrial use if it didn't cause problems with GPS
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

The bottom line is Sprint will not be recieving the 9 billion in funds over time from LS. Sprint will continue it's network Vision upgrades regardless. But as already mentioned, sprint will likely look at ClearWire from a different angle now. I hope Sprint can get their network up to par in a timely fashion because Verizon's LTE is very fast (43+mbps down/12+mbps up) and I'd rather pay more for service that actually works and pay $10 a gig if i go over.
And this is why I'm thinking of going back to Verizon and their tiered data plans:

tx_dbs_tx said:
The bottom line is Sprint will not be recieving the 9 billion in funds over time from LS. Sprint will continue it's network Vision upgrades regardless. But as already mentioned, sprint will likely look at ClearWire from a different angle now. I hope Sprint can get their network up to par in a timely fashion because Verizon's LTE is very fast (43+mbps down/12+mbps up) and I'd rather pay more for service that actually works and pay $10 a gig if i go over.
And this is why I'm thinking of going back to Verizon and their tiered data plans:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do know that Lightsquared was not apart of Network Vision? Sprint is on budget and still will meet its goal. Lightsquared neither speed up the process nor slowed it down.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

Yes I'm pretty sure Sprint has been planning ahead and not relying on Lightsquared for quite some time. The gps issue has been known from the get go. I was just speaking on actual ''business'' side of things with the potential income that sprint needs. So technically yes this LS deal getting shut down does impact Sprint's potential cash flow but its not going to affect current network vision upgrades.

Epix4G said:
No .... That is wrong .... GPS is listening on frequencies that are owned by LS .... But when first made they didn't care.. LS bought their spectrum and did nothing with it until now but GPS is infringing on their spectrum but the FCC told LS they could do their build out if they could make it work without interfering with GPS ...both are at fault ...you need to read up on it before making statements like that
FCC told ls they could repurpose the spectrum for terrestrial use if it didn't cause problems with GPS
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, not true in any meaningful sense.
Almost every (read: any that aren't scientifically calibrated and tuned every 3 to 6 months) receiver is sensitive to signals outside the target range. This goes for the antennas in your phone, your WiFi unit, your car, and your TV. When two closely spaced signals are similar in strength this is easily remedied and the filtering is relatively simple, and can often be done in software. When one of the signals is in the range of millions of times stronger than it's neighbor (100W ground stations for L^2, 10^(-16)W average surface signal strength for GPS) this is neither easy, cheap, or small and often is virtually impossible. Especially since signals do not have a hard edge... They're more like a flashlight than a laser.
You can observe this yourself using an old television if you're curious. Except those signal strengths would only be hundreds of times different in strength at worst.
The key to lightsquared losing was that they tried to re-purpose spectrum that has ALWAYS been designated for sat to ground communications. When they bought it they were told satellite only, they tried to change that and failed.

Roaming and 20ft away full signal

Hello. I have a real curious question. At my house I have practically no signal. I actually roam at times. If I walk to the metro bus stop which is literally like less than a 30 second walk across the street, I get full signal. Fastest 3G/4G speeds ever. It doesn't make any sense.
I think I'm living in a dead spot. Could there be something at my house messing up my signal? It just doesn't make any sense for me to have no signal, then I walk across the street and flourish in signal.
I'm on Sprint. Its luckily no big deal since we have wifi, but I do kinda want a backup plan.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA

No_Nickname90 said:
Hello. I have a real curious question. At my house I have practically no signal. I actually roam at times. If I walk to the metro bus stop which is literally like less than a 30 second walk across the street, I get full signal. Fastest 3G/4G speeds ever. It doesn't make any sense.
I think I'm living in a dead spot. Could there be something at my house messing up my signal? It just doesn't make any sense for me to have no signal, then I walk across the street and flourish in signal.
I'm on Sprint. Its luckily no big deal since we have wifi, but I do kinda want a backup plan.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A lot of the materials used in construction of homes can lead to blocking or weakening of signals. There are also several other factors that can effect it but there are so many to go into it would be a book before we finished this post.
The best way to picture it is to imagine one of the old TV sets with the rabbit ear antenna on top. You had to have those ears just the right distance apart, at just the right angle, at just the right length to get a clear picture. The second dad walked in front of the TV, Mom bumped the antenna out of position or the sun started to set your show got all fuzzy again. Then you were stuck messing around until you got the picture just right again.
So I guess basically what I'm saying is just be aware that your phone may not work in some spots and plan accordingly if you need to make a phone call or use your phone for internet.
Another thing to look at is getting an AirWave through Sprint. I've heard that if you have roaming issues in your home they will actually send you one for free.

Thanks. Our house was made in the 1950's so I'm guessing it has something to do with the material. My answer was to link everything through Google Voice. Best alternative for my case. Since Google Voice uses data and I have WiFi, I can get the messages and calls I need. I didn't have this problem with Tmo, though. I'm guessing it's a frequency thing and material. Don't really care for details. Just a curious question. Thanks again for your insight.
Phandroid posted an article about and Umbrella that boosts Wireless signals and can charge your phone. Think I should get that? LoL!! An AirWave just seems to extreme for my case. If it's really that bad, I'll just walk across the street. =.P

I called Sprint's retention department about horrible roaming in my house and they're sending me an Airave for free. I had to question them and like say "why do I have to pay additional because your service is roaming in my house when it's in fair coverage"? So they waived the monthly AND the one time fee of $129.99 for the unit. Give them a try. I get mine this week.

The building materials play a big part in your reception. Things like stucco, bricks, wiring, etc... And if you have a lot of EMI that would be another factor, do you ever experience intermittent wireless connectivity at home? Slow speeds, random disconnections, inconsistent signal?
Do you happen to have your own tesla coil by chance?... That was a joke but it is something that would cause major signal loss.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

You would be amazed at what affects signal. A friend of mine used to get perfect signal in his house even in hugs basement until the day he installed new carpet in his living room. Now he can only get signal on the second floor of his house.
Sent from my ridiculously long named phone ---
Sprint Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch

My office in my house is a cluster of EMF between desktops, servers, countless little transformers, two wifi units, ip cams, several amateur radio ht's,etc. The air rave is like 35 feet away and I only get 1or 2 bars most of the time.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

I thought about using the airave but I have read bad reviews on it and have even had people at sprints stores tell me they werent worth the money. I only have 1-2 bars in my room and I walk out side and get 3-4. Odd thing is at work i bounce between full service and one bar under that and speeds are the same as if I am standing outside at home with less recption. I have used several different modems and tey all seem to follow the same sort of trend. crappy thing is i dont work or live in the boonies or anything. I wish Sprint would step the game up I have been with them for 5 years now and I am seriously thinking of going over to verizon because of the massive difference in speeds.

Sprint LTE connection issues...article...

I am going to put this here. Any comments from developers that can help us?
http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-312-sprint-lte-launch-market-connection-issues/
This has been confirmed by myself and others on that site. My nick is troyd96 on there.
Can a developer figure out how to manually adjust the signal thresholds so that the phone knows weak LTE signals are preferable to stronger 3G signals. An OTA might fix this, but I am not holding my breath of it coming.
There is no hidden menus where you can adjust this threshold.

I've been looking for setting to change threshold like I did for Wi-Max
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Just trying to read the LTE signal strength can be challenging because the Android standard doesn't cover it yet. So even discovering what OEM voodoo is being done to read that on this phone would be interesting. See my post at S4GRU here.

boomerbubba said:
Just trying to read the LTE signal strength can be challenging because the Android standard doesn't cover it yet. So even discovering what OEM voodoo is being done to read that on this phone would be interesting. See my post at S4GRU here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It may be voodoo, but it is obvious that places that should be getting LTE with live towers, on their weakest coverage area the phone does not like it and rejects it. Regardless of what the true signal levels are. There are enough people that have tested this, for me to believe. So regardless there is an issue here. It would be nice to try to play around with the threshold to see if it helps. IMHO it would.

slickdaddy96 said:
It may be voodoo, but it is obvious that places that should be getting LTE with live towers, on their weakest coverage area the phone does not like it and rejects it. Regardless of what the true signal levels are. There are enough people that have tested this, for me to believe. So regardless there is an issue here. It would be nice to try to play around with the threshold to see if it helps. IMHO it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not arguing with you or with the content of the S4GRU article. I just thought I might bootstrap the conversation with a little additional research on what to look for in the code. However this fallback threshold is being handled under the hood, it must include reading some metric for LTE signal strength.

I do not think this is a hardware issue.. I think it is more of a Sprint is lying about how many towers are actually live..
case in point.. I can go to the woodlands or to Copperfield and my phone locks into LGE4G and switches seamlessly as needed..
however.
anywhere else that Sprint is showing as active is pretty much dead with no 4G and patehtic 3G even though if you go to the LGE coverage map as of Sunday it is showing as covered..
I think a large portion of what they think is covered now.. really isn't.

CVSiN said:
I do not think this is a hardware issue.. I think it is more of a Sprint is lying about how many towers are actually live..
case in point.. I can go to the woodlands or to Copperfield and my phone locks into LGE4G and switches seamlessly as needed..
however.
anywhere else that Sprint is showing as active is pretty much dead with no 4G and patehtic 3G even though if you go to the LGE coverage map as of Sunday it is showing as covered..
I think a large portion of what they think is covered now.. really isn't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't believe you are correct here. The creator of that site gets official info from Sprint about what towers are live, and he also has official info on Towers that will be upgraded and not live yet. People can force their phone to use LTE in those weak areas where it wants to go 3G by ##data## HDR/1X settings checking LTE only. The only issue with that is that you lose voice/text. So it is indeed something software wise on the hardware telling the phone to accept the 3G signal and reject the weak LTE signal.
The amount of towers live is accurate on that site. I am unsure of what maps you can see on the site if you are not a sponsor, but I have seen the maps they are accurate, but it does take sometimes up to two weeks for the info the be released to where he can update the "live" maps.
The LTE in the Atlanta area where I am is probably 20-30% complete, but the problem I am talking about is people on the edge of what should be coverage on a known active site (meaning it has been verified by users and by the site as a live tower) are getting switched to 3G.
There is known range of what LTE towers can do at certain frequency when it comes to coverage. People are within these ranges and on the weaker ranges of the LTE signal area they are being forced to 3G, when they can force their phone to LTE and it works fine.
So it is definitely software/firmware/modem based.

CVSiN said:
I do not think this is a hardware issue.. I think it is more of a Sprint is lying about how many towers are actually live.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nobody said it was a "hardware issue." The hypothesis in the article, proved in disabling the fallback, is that a firmware issue is a factor. There is a programmed threshold level of signal strength that forces the phone to fall back. The hypothesis is that this threshold would work better if it were set lower, because even a weak LTE connection can be better than a stronger EVDO signal.
And this is not mutually exclusive vis a vis your complaint about thin tower coverage. It is well known, at least to those who follow this closely at S4GRU, that these markets were launched with thinner coverage than originally planned but are continuing to be built out.
In fact, the fallback-threshold problem and the thin-coverage problem just magnify each other, because only those devices with very strong LTE signal will avoid falling back to 3G.

slickdaddy96 said:
I don't believe you are correct here. The creator of that site gets official info from Sprint about what towers are live, and he also has official info on Towers that will be upgraded and not live yet. People can force their phone to use LTE in those weak areas where it wants to go 3G by ##data## HDR/1X settings checking LTE only. The only issue with that is that you lose voice/text. So it is indeed something software wise on the hardware telling the phone to accept the 3G signal and reject the weak LTE signal.
The amount of towers live is accurate on that site. I am unsure of what maps you can see on the site if you are not a sponsor, but I have seen the maps they are accurate, but it does take sometimes up to two weeks for the info the be released to where he can update the "live" maps.
The LTE in the Atlanta area where I am is probably 20-30% complete, but the problem I am talking about is people on the edge of what should be coverage on a known active site (meaning it has been verified by users and by the site as a live tower) are getting switched to 3G.
There is known range of what LTE towers can do at certain frequency when it comes to coverage. People are within these ranges and on the weaker ranges of the LTE signal area they are being forced to 3G, when they can force their phone to LTE and it works fine.
So it is definitely software/firmware/modem based.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't care where he is getting his info from.. do you honestly think Sprint would come out and say they lied about coverage?
They are flat lying and covering their asses.
There is no 4G coverage in 2/3s of the areas down to street view where they say there is supposed to be live towers at least here in Houston.
and the fact that in the 2 places that have been confirmed in the other thread by other users just solidify my theory.
The hardware is working fine at least on the GS3.. it swiches in and out of 4G perfectly when it senses it..
you can sit in these 2 areas and it will pick it uip every time no reboot needed..
yet go to most of the other so called covered areas.. and reboot till your phone blows up or force to LTE and still not get crap..
they are lying..
I will post flat GPS pics of my exact location and then post the Sprint service map right over my coords.. and prove it to you.
I am right smack dab in the middle of a heavy LTE covered area on the sprint map..
but no matter what you do on the device there is no signal.

In the woodlands just as in Conroe, I have areas where no 4g, mid range, or full strength. I even went to Houston the other day. No 4g in sight around 1960 area or greater. I can say that it's not a 4g blanket as the coverage map wants you to believe. Seems that's actually a when completed map.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

hayabusa1300cc said:
In the woodlands just as in Conroe, I have areas where no 4g, mid range, or full strength. I even went to Houston the other day. No 4g in sight around 1960 area or greater. I can say that it's not a 4g blanket as the coverage map wants you to believe. Seems that's actually a when completed map.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly my same experience.

hayabusa1300cc said:
In the woodlands just as in Conroe, I have areas where no 4g, mid range, or full strength. I even went to Houston the other day. No 4g in sight around 1960 area or greater. I can say that it's not a 4g blanket as the coverage map wants you to believe. Seems that's actually a when completed map.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. Dallas is same way. SHows a large portion of Dallas as covered and everywhere I have been I have connected in only 2 places.
The coverage map is very deceiving as this is clearly not all the covered areas. Now, maybe in future build out it will be, but certainly not right now.

I was in San Antonio over the weekend and for the most part I was unable to connect to LTE. That is until I was on the runway of San Antonio International Airport. Then afte I landed in Dallas I didnt recieve LTE at all. I walked all over the airport since I had a long as hell layover. Still no LTE. However the DFW airport seems to be sponsored by Samsung. They have a Samsung lounge as well as NFC chips everywhere to download stuff for free.

Uh, this thread is not about how overly optimistic Sprint's published coverage maps are. (I actually agree that they are way overstated, on the basis of credible reports on forums.)
That does not mean that the fallback-threshold setting does not also contribute to the problem! And that is what this thread is about -- actually seeking technical solutions. If people just want to rant about Sprint, there are lots of other threads for that.

CVSiN said:
I don't care where he is getting his info from.. do you honestly think Sprint would come out and say they lied about coverage?
They are flat lying and covering their asses.
There is no 4G coverage in 2/3s of the areas down to street view where they say there is supposed to be live towers at least here in Houston.
and the fact that in the 2 places that have been confirmed in the other thread by other users just solidify my theory.
The hardware is working fine at least on the GS3.. it swiches in and out of 4G perfectly when it senses it..
you can sit in these 2 areas and it will pick it uip every time no reboot needed..
yet go to most of the other so called covered areas.. and reboot till your phone blows up or force to LTE and still not get crap..
they are lying..
I will post flat GPS pics of my exact location and then post the Sprint service map right over my coords.. and prove it to you.
I am right smack dab in the middle of a heavy LTE covered area on the sprint map..
but no matter what you do on the device there is no signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are not getting my point. We are not talking about the official sprint.com coverage maps. We all know those are inaccurate to what really is going on. He has specific placemarked towers on Google maps, he has several actually (known live maps which only sponsors can see, and planned towers which lump the live and not-live together on a non-interactive map). The completed ones (which have been verified by him and this is through internal sprint info) They have also been proven by people with phones going right where the known "live" sites are on his map and getting full bar 4G service. You obviously have not looked at his maps at all and are just assuming things, and you are assuming wrong. I have a tower that is "live" about 0.5 miles from my house I get almost full bars in my house. I go to other places pull up his maps and where he says they are live they are indeed live.
So now that we have gotten that out of the way. It is widely known how far LTE coverage will go per tower based on frequency and power broadcast. There is no disputing that. The problem lies within places that are in the outer range of that specific (or any specific tower) they are connected to. Forcing the phone to LTE only does make the phone connect to the LTE tower with verified speed and data flowing, so no the users aren't lying either. Once they turn their phone back to LTE/CDMA/EVDO, the phone again sees the stronger 3G signal and refuses to connect to LTE in the EXACT SAME LOCATION THEY WERE WHEN THEY TOGGLED LTE ONLY.
Stick your head in the sand and be negative about Sprint all you want, meanwhile the rest of us will continue to try to find a way to fix the threshold problem that indeed exists.

boomerbubba said:
Uh, this thread is not about how overly optimistic Sprint's published coverage maps are. (I actually agree that they are way overstated, on the basis of credible reports on forums.)
That does not mean that the fallback-threshold setting does not also contribute to the problem! And that is what this thread is about -- actually seeking technical solutions. If people just want to rant about Sprint, there are lots of other threads for that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that is the issue.. if there was coverage where they say it is.. your phone would not need tweaked..
They are one and the same issue.

CVSiN said:
But that is the issue.. if there was coverage where they say it is.. your phone would not need tweaked..
They are one and the same issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It can be both causes. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive. (Sorry to interrupt your emoting with logic.)

slickdaddy96 said:
You are not getting my point. We are not talking about the official sprint.com coverage maps. We all know those are inaccurate to what really is going on. He has specific placemarked towers on Google maps, he has several actually (known live maps which only sponsors can see, and planned towers which lump the live and not-live together on a non-interactive map). The completed ones (which have been verified by him and this is through internal sprint info) They have also been proven by people with phones going right where the known "live" sites are on his map and getting full bar 4G service. You obviously have not looked at his maps at all and are just assuming things, and you are assuming wrong. I have a tower that is "live" about 0.5 miles from my house I get almost full bars in my house. I go to other places pull up his maps and where he says they are live they are indeed live.
So now that we have gotten that out of the way. It is widely known how far LTE coverage will go per tower based on frequency and power broadcast. There is no disputing that. The problem lies within places that are in the outer range of that specific (or any specific tower) they are connected to. Forcing the phone to LTE only does make the phone connect to the LTE tower with verified speed and data flowing, so no the users aren't lying either. Once they turn their phone back to LTE/CDMA/EVDO, the phone again sees the stronger 3G signal and refuses to connect to LTE in the EXACT SAME LOCATION THEY WERE WHEN THEY TOGGLED LTE ONLY.
Stick your head in the sand and be negative about Sprint all you want, meanwhile the rest of us will continue to try to find a way to fix the threshold problem that indeed exists.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have that map as well.. they are flat wrong.. at least for Houston and other members that have the same maps are reporting the exact same thing. So whose head is in the sand?
I literally work 5 blocks from 1 on his list and live right next to another.. and no 4G on those towers at all in LTE forced mode or not.
Ive been with Sprint for 8 years.. so I have earned the right to be a little angry over this broken promise and lied about coverage maps.
I would never have bought the phone this early had it not been for his maps which show coverage in my area. but in reality there is none.

CVSiN said:
I have that map as well.. they are flat wrong.. at least for Houston and other members that have the same maps are reporting the exact same thing. So whose head is in the sand?
I literally work 5 blocks from 1 on his list and live right next to another.. and no 4G on those towers at all in LTE forced mode or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you looking at a sites complete map, or a map of the whole NV project for the area? Since only 14 percent of the total sites in the Houston market are reported complete, most of them have no LTE yet.

There's an LTE test app (maybe 2) in /system/app that may hold the answers. Just go ahead and create a shortcut to its activity with your launcher and see what's there. I've frozen it so I can't really comment on if it works for changing thresholds or not

[Q] 4G LTE Speeds

What should we be getting on Verizon? Rooted S-Off.
In Minneapolis area and feel like I should be doing better than 4-7 Mbps.
Tried 1.33 and 2.6 FW with similar results.
Bad phone or typical Verizon?

You don't have xlte out there?
Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

meat-rack said:
You don't have xlte out there?
Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We do according to Verizon's XLTE cities list
Quoting Verizon - "While XLTE network enhancements are invisible to the customer, the mobile experience is not. XLTE Ready devices automatically access both 700 MHz spectrum and the AWS spectrum in XLTE cities."
http://s7.vzw.com/is/content/VerizonWireless/eCatalogs/Verizon-XLTE-markets.pdf
http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2014/05/verizon-wireless-xlte.html

Part of you city may have it...but not the entire...I'm in Newark, NJ....LTE speeds in my 5 block area from 9am-5pm are only .4 mbps!!! I walk 3 blocks towards the Prudential Center arena..... 40-60 mbps.....we're actually in talks with Verizon to get a cell tower on top of our building as I am in a heavy business area that is at a crawl.

bakemcbride21 said:
Part of you city may have it...but not the entire...I'm in Newark, NJ....LTE speeds in my 5 block area from 9am-5pm are only .4 mbps!!! I walk 3 blocks towards the Prudential Center arena..... 40-60 mbps.....we're actually in talks with Verizon to get a cell tower on top of our building as I am in a heavy business area that is at a crawl.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I expect minor fluctuations but did not realize the magnitude. Originally tested at home and office - about 20 miles apart - and found downloads in the 5 mbps at both.
Random checks while out and about during lunch hour showed some significant variations.
Initial concern was that I ginked up a radio with all my crack flashing but I'll put it down to spotty Verizon service.
Thanks for your input.

I am in the Southeast Twin Cities and have hit 95 down and 35 up.

ndstate said:
I am in the Southeast Twin Cities and have hit 95 down and 35 up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have number envy!! ---
Live in Burnsville and work in Chaska but have not seen anything like those numbers on LTE.
Replacement phone expected today due to VoLTE issues and will be curious to see if the numbers improve.
Possibly related?
*****Update
VoLTE working properly on replacement device but 4G/LTE speeds still crap so I'd say unrelated.

That stinks it did not fix it. I would run more speed tests around the metro, but I ran a few tests and chewed through 600 megs. Have you tried other areas in the metro?

ndstate said:
That stinks it did not fix it. I would run more speed tests around the metro, but I ran a few tests and chewed through 600 megs. Have you tried other areas in the metro?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I checked several areas in the southern suburbs and can get readings in the 40s up 30s down, and then single digits just blocks away. I can understand if shielded inside buildings but seems odd to have such variation outside.
Nothing like your numbers though but also not much of a problem based on how I use my phone.

Ya I ran a few more tests and got some super slow numbers a few blocks away (less than 5 up and down). Not sure what the deal is with that.