Related
Now that I've had the GN for a couple weeks and am back on Verizon I have some observations about cell coverage. I've had cell phones since 1995 and for most of that time (1995-2008) I was on Verizon. I traveled a good bit so having a carrier with good nation wide coverage was important.
But that was before I had a smart phone and in 2008 I got my first smart phone, the iPhone 3G. Switching to the iPhone meant dropping Verizon and going with ATT -- something I wasn't happy about due to past issues I had with ATT. When I first got the iPhone 3G service was still kind of new and the talk was that you had to turn 3G off to get good battery life out of the iPhone. Within a few months the 3G coverage by ATT was pretty good and I didn't worry about battery life all that much
Move into 2010 and I switched the iPhone for an HTC Evo 4G and, of course, that meant dropping ATT in favor of Sprint. The 4G (WiMax) coverage that Sprint provided was almost nonexistent in Jun 2008 but Sprint was promising a rapid roll out of WiMax so I waited. Turns out that in the 15 months I had the Evo Sprint (Clear) did a sh*ty job of deploying Wimax and as my job puts me on the road 85% of the time I was able to judge there coverage in many parts of the country.
OK, so on 12/23/2011 I picked up the GN and am now on Verizon again. In that time I've been in Salt Lake City, Atlanta and Albany NY and I've had 4G LTE coverage everywhere I've been. SLC got WiMax at the end of Jun 2010 and the WiMax coverage was spotty more than 15 months later. I wasn't able to find a place in the greater SLC are that I couldn't get LTE...
As I said I travel a lot and am at present working at a FAB in Malta NY, about 25 miles north of Albany in a tiny little berg that could pass for Mayberry. My Evo had terrible coverage here with seldom more than a single bar and often times no coverage at all -- you know, the kind of coverage where you step outside to see if that helps. But, in this tiny little berg my GN is getting 5 bars of LTE with over 17Mbps -- consistent. I'm even getting 5 bars inside the FAB.
So, my take on this is that... Sprint has crumby service or no service whereas ATT and Verizon have good coverage. Verizon started rolling out 4G about 6 months after Sprint started rolling out 4G but in less time Verizon has long since passed Sprint by.
Now don't get me wrong, there are thing about the the way Verizon and ATT do business that pisses me off and on paper they cost more but they are light years better than Sprint.
In the time since I've had smart phones I've traveled to: California (all over), Virginia (all over), North Carolina, Texas (Dallas/Richardson mostly), Idaho (Boise), New York (all over), Utah (all over), Nevada, and many other places so I think I can say with some experience that my coverage analysis is based on more than one area. I could never get 4G on my Evo at ANY airport at any time -- I've been able to get LTE at EVERY airport so far!
Brian
I could have sworn I read something somewhere about Sprint or ATT starting to roll out LTE, I guess it's the future standard.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Sprint WiMax runs at 2.5GHz which is really really crappy spectrum. There's plenty of capacity per MHz but it attenuates really quickly and has terrible in-building penetration. Verizon's 700MHz LTE spectrum attenuates much more slowly and penetrates walls much better. To cover the same area, Sprint has to deploy 3x-5x as many cell sites as Verizon.
aindow said:
I could have sworn I read something somewhere about Sprint or ATT starting to roll out LTE, I guess it's the future standard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint has announced it will start rolling out LTE in 2012. AT&T is already rolling out LTE.
ianwood said:
Sprint WiMax runs at 2.5GHz which is really really crappy spectrum. There's plenty of capacity per MHz but it attenuates really quickly and has terrible in-building penetration. Verizon's 700MHz LTE spectrum attenuates much more slowly and penetrates walls much better. To cover the same area, Sprint has to deploy 3x-5x as many cell sites as Verizon.
Sprint has announced it will start rolling out LTE in 2012. AT&T is already rolling out LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, WiMax drops off more significantly inside due to the spectrum. Where I live in SLC the Sprint tower closest to me is just over a mile away and inside my apartment it's maybe one bar and often no bars of WiMax and even outside it seldom rises above one bar. That WiMax may need 2X or more the towers to provide the same coverage is only half the problem -- the other half is that Sprint seems to have less than half as many towers!
I think ATT will be relatively aggressive in rolling out LTE, but Sprint, well, I wouldn't hold my breath!
Brian
Verizon has done a great job of not only getting LTE in many markets, but also completely saturating that market and surrounding areas. I used to work in a suburb just outside of Minneapolis. WiMax was nonexistent at my work. I didn't even bother connecting to wimax most of the time because it would connect to one tower and drop before it picked up the next tower. With Verizon I have yet to leave 4g until I'm surrounded by corn fields. At my old employer the only one with 4g service was Verizon. We had wifi but only a T1 pipe to share with the entire office. Things got a little slow when everyone is streaming Pandora.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
teamgreen02 said:
Verizon has done a great job of not only getting LTE in many markets, but also completely saturating that market and surrounding areas. I used to work in a suburb just outside of Minneapolis. WiMax was nonexistent at my work. I didn't even bother connecting to wimax most of the time because it would connect to one tower and drop before it picked up the next tower. With Verizon I have yet to leave 4g until I'm surrounded by corn fields. At my old employer the only one with 4g service was Verizon. We had wifi but only a T1 pipe to share with the entire office. Things got a little slow when everyone is streaming Pandora.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I noticed this as well. When Verizon rolled out LTE in Chicago, they rolled it out as far as my school in Kenosha, Wisconsin which is at least 50 miles away from Chicago. A pleasant surprise.
No doubt Sprint has struggled and will continue to struggle. WiMax was the wrong bet. Sprint has racked up debt, recently cut back unlimited data plans for air cards/hotspots, and will do the same for mobile phones. On top of that, their current broadband network stinks and LTE roll-out will be very slow. I wouldn't sign up with Sprint any time soon.
I keep hearing that gps conflict is messing up the lte deployment for Sprint. Does this mean all of Sprint's lte plans are delayed or do they have Clearwire also backing them up? I don't fully understand Sprints situation.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
No. SPrint has their own LTE. They wanted Lightsquared spectrum so they could expand the network wider and faster.
Didn't mean to hit thanks on your post.
Sprint is building out its own network and was gonna lease from third parties like light squared. Sprint already gave them till like June to figure it out or they are gonna lease from another or build out its own network in the places it was gonna use it
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
newalker91 said:
Here is the entire story in a nutshell:
Lightsquared has been working for a long time on a very promising Satellite based LTE technology that can blanket the entire US in LTE with the flip of a switch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You made a great summary. Just curious do you have a source for this information I'd like to read more on the ability to cover the whole US.
So sprints own LTE wont be just 'outdoor' (like wimax... ****.)... Hope they build something with reasonable wall penetration...
newalker91 said:
Here is the entire story in a nutshell:
Lightsquared has been working for a long time on a very promising Satellite based LTE technology that can blanket the entire US in LTE with the flip of a switch. Sprint liked the sound of this as it would be a great financial opportunity and offered a partnership with the company. At Lightsquared, they were allocated a very small range of spectrum by the FCC, and their technology has been finely tuned to operate within the limits of said spectrum. Unfortunately, their spectrum is directly neighboring the spectrum for common GPS frequencies. Back in the day, since no one was using what is now Lightsquared's spectrum, GPS providers were sacrificing precision for reliability and allowed their spectrum use to get sloppy in order to avoid service interruptions. This frequency fluctuation caused some older devices to commonly operate outside of the legally allocated GPS spectrum, and with Lightsquared now testing their network those older GPS units would begin to malfunction. As a few of the FCC board members have large financial interests in the GPS industry, they are taking sides with those manufacturers and demanding Lightsquared fix their technology to not interfere with the devices squatting outside of the legal limits.
As of current, Lightsquared is still contesting the rulings stating that their service is not safe for use. Should Lightsquared not succeed, Sprint will still continue to build out their LTE network by using the Network Vision goal of re-purposing iDEN towers. It will just end up being more costly and a slower roll-out than using a satellite based service to cover almost the entire US population with outdoor LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seeing as how most gps "devices" are simply receivers and the "transmitters" are Dept. of Defense satellites, please explain to me how "GPS providers were sacrificing precision for reliability and allowed their spectrum use to get sloppy in order to avoid service interruptions"....Please provide us some names of these gps providers that are at fault for Lightsquared's bad business decisions....
GPS manufacturers already have filters engineered for the quiet neighborhood of the satellite spectrum. They cannot be expected to use filters that would either greatly increase cost, size and reduce accuracy to filter out signals that would be, and currently are illegal. Nor could they be expected to see the future and design a filter for a network whose actual broadcast strength and frequencies would not even be known until 2011. And finally, as the testing from the first half of 2011, no filter would have worked against LightSquared's first network configuration.
newalker91 said:
Here is the entire story in a nutshell:
Lightsquared has been working for a long time on a very promising Satellite based LTE technology that can blanket the entire US in LTE with the flip of a switch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lightsquared is NOT putting up Satellite-based LTE available with the "flip of a switch"
Lightsquared bought and consolidated frequencies meant for satellite use and are repurposing for land-based use. They got the approvals for land-based use and were contracting Sprint to include support for their frequencies on Sprint *towers* as part of Sprint's NV plans. There may be some minor satellite-based component, but the bulk of the network was supposed to be tower-based, specifically on Sprint's towers.
They ran into the GPS issues which they are currently fighting. It has become a snafu with all sides politicizing it.
To Sprint it would have been just supporting extra frequencies on top of their own 800ESMR and 1900PCS and would have meant additional revenue from Lightsquared for the build out and also opportunites to have extra LTE capacity for Sprint users.
What friggin good is "outdoor" lte. I want to be able to use LTE inside my home, work, etc. I'll be damned if I'm gonna step outside every time I wanna use LTE on my cell phone.
sfhub said:
Lightsquared is NOT putting up Satellite-based LTE available with the "flip of a switch"
Lightsquared bought and consolidated frequencies meant for satellite use and are repurposing for land-based use. They got the approvals for land-based use and were contracting Sprint to include support for their frequencies on Sprint *towers* as part of Sprint's NV plans. There may be some minor satellite-based component, but the bulk of the network was supposed to be tower-based, specifically on Sprint's towers.
They ran into the GPS issues which they are currently fighting. It has become a snafu with all sides politicizing it.
To Sprint it would have been just supporting extra frequencies on top of their own 800ESMR and 1900PCS and would have meant additional revenue from Lightsquared for the build out and also opportunites to have extra LTE capacity for Sprint users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're way off base on this. The plan is a hybrid of both satellite and terrestrial (tower) coverage, and sprint was contracted to build towers for light squared (not light squared piggy backing off of sprint towers).
The upside for sprint is 1. They get paid to do it, and 2. They get first dibs on some wholesale chunks of lightsquareds LTE (since lightsquared isn't planning on being an ISP, but a network wholeselling to ISPs)
postq said:
Seeing as how most gps "devices" are simply receivers and the "transmitters" are Dept. of Defense satellites, please explain to me how "GPS providers were sacrificing precision for reliability and allowed their spectrum use to get sloppy in order to avoid service interruptions"....Please provide us some names of these gps providers that are at fault for Lightsquared's bad business decisions....
GPS manufacturers already have filters engineered for the quiet neighborhood of the satellite spectrum. They cannot be expected to use filters that would either greatly increase cost, size and reduce accuracy to filter out signals that would be, and currently are illegal. Nor could they be expected to see the future and design a filter for a network whose actual broadcast strength and frequencies would not even be known until 2011. And finally, as the testing from the first half of 2011, no filter would have worked against LightSquared's first network configuration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're pretty off base as well. The GPS manufacturers actually did "know the future", as it were, considering they endorsed the FCC deal when lightsquared bought the spectrum a decade ago. Also, it's a known truth that affected devices are older, legacy devices that were designed to "look into" the spectrum that light squared now owns...however that degree of effect is lost in the media.
Some informative reading on just how much these receivers are "hindered" and other bureaucratic nonsense:
http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/9565/2/
http://m.androidcentral.com/lightsquared-claims-government-testing-rigged-gps-industry-insiders
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
squshy 7 said:
sprint was contracted to build towers for light squared (not light squared piggy backing off of sprint towers).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It takes a lot of work to get new towers approved through local government. Why would you think Sprint would be building new towers for Lightsquared vs using their existing ones?
sfhub said:
It takes a lot of work to get new towers approved through local government. Why would you think Sprint would be building new towers for Lightsquared vs using their existing ones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, because that's what my uppers told me we were doing? Lol, go back to the network vision announcement, it's spelled out pretty clearly. Sprint is more or less the contractor for building the physical towers...I don't know who deals with all the government nonsense involved, considering Lightsquared will own the towers.
The main selling point behind it, and why it makes sense, is that it greatly helps offset the cost of the iPhone, considering sprint is getting paid somewhere between 2-7 billion for it (i don't remember the figure off the top of my head) over the course of the construction.
Now, will sprint convert some existing infrastructure? Sure, if it's cost and network effective, that only makes sense.
The only issue is that lightsquared's frequency isn't part of sprint's multi-modal tower design, so lightsquared towers will likely be stand alone. So, in this case, i view converting and constructing as effectively the same. Though without the whole construction part. But yes, for sure, lightsquared will own the towers.
I do apologize though, as i slightly misinterpreted your comment
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
newalker91 said:
It was an exaggeration, simply meant to mean that it would be a hell of a lot faster in its roll-out than what Sprint could do. According to their website, though, a lot of it actually would be satellite based. Not just satellite frequencies switched for ground purposes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lightsquared got their L-band spectrum from Immarsat and SkyTerra. It was originally for satellite, then FCC allowed SkyTerra "ancillary" terrestrial transmitters, now the terrestrial component is becoming the dominant component and the satellite component much smaller part of the picture.
This is a good history for Lightsquared
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...ones-lightsquared-faces-enemies-on-all-sides/
The FCC allowed “ancillary” ground-based transmitters in 2003 to help L-band carriers get better coverage, and in 2004 the GPS industry’s main lobbying group endorsed SkyTerra’s plan to build a combined satellite/terrestrial communications network.
...
The FCC also licensed him to increase the power of his ground stations to 15 kilowatts, the same as conventional cell towers.
...
Then in November LightSquared asked the FCC to allow its wholesale customers to sell “terrestrial only” cellular plans.
...
As you’d expect, Verizon and AT&T filed objections to LightSquared’s plans, saying it represented a “major” modification of the original satellite communications license. AT&T, which sells a competing dual-mode phone for $799, declined to comment on the filing. Verizon said it is concerned about the GPS systems in most of its phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The rest of the industry didn't really pay attention to what Falcone put together because they assumed it would cost Lightsquared more to provide the dual satellite/terrestrial network.
They started paying real close attention when Lightsquared applied to sell terrestrial-only cellular plans (effectively taking their L-band spectrum and competing directly with traditional cell companies) Sprint was contracted to build the terrestrial network using Lightsquared spectrum. Sprint was only too happy to do this since it fit in very nicely with their NV plans.
It would be minimum effort to add LTE support for Lightsquared spectrum during NV expansion. It would be more effort to go back and do it afterwards. This is why Sprint is putting time limits on Lightsquared to get their ducks lined up.
---------- Post added at 06:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 AM ----------
squshy 7 said:
Sprint is more or less the contractor for building the physical towers...I don't know who deals with all the government nonsense involved, considering Lightsquared will own the towers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well Sprint would be more like the General Contractor, because Sprint is contracting out to others to do the work, even for NV.
sfhub said:
]
Well Sprint would be more like the General Contractor, because Sprint is contracting out to others to do the work, even for NV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, exactly. That's what really gets me. But, it does make sense, Sprint already has a long relationship with Ericsson and others.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
squshy 7 said:
Haha, exactly. That's what really gets me. But, it does make sense, Sprint already has a long relationship with Ericsson and others.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You would know better than me, but I was under the impression Sprint "outsourced" all the tower maintenance to Ericsson, and Ericsson basically just hired the Sprint people that used to be in charge of that stuff to kick start everything.
According to this article the Sprint deal with Lightsquared was to have Sprint host Lightsquared's terrestrial LTE network:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389312,00.asp
On Thursday morning, Sprint announced a lucrative agreement to host LightSquared's proposed, and extremely controversial, independent LTE network for 15 years—provided LightSquared gets Federal Communications Commission approval to operate despite known GPS interferences..
You may be forgiven if, at this point, you've never heard of LightSquared. The Virginia-based company has been providing satellite services for over a decade, but was acquired last year by NYC-based hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners. This group proposed using LightSquared's spectrum to operate a much more lucrative terrestrial LTE cell phone network for local consumers.
But instead of selling directly to consumers, LightSquared's customers would be small retail carriers that can't afford to build LTE networks to compete against current behemoths Verizon and soon, AT&T. LightSquared's multi-billion dollar proposal received conditional FCC approval in January, but after reports surfaced that its proposed architecture might cripple nearby GPS bands, its future is in question.
With today's deal, LightSquared will pay Sprint $9 billion in cash—$290 million upfront—over the course of 11 years, and offer Sprint $4.5 billion in LTE and satellite purchase credits. Sprint will also have the option to buy up to 50 percent of LightSquared's expected 4G capacity.
The agreement is two-fold for LightSquared. As a result, the network provider will be able to borrow from Sprint's 3G spectrum and offer its customers both 4G and 3G data services. LightSquared will also join Clearwire in renting shelf space from Sprint's multi-mode base stations (what? see point #4 below), called the Network Vision initiative, for its potential 4G network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe the article got it wrong, but it sure seems like Sprint towers are what were being proposed to host Lightsquared's LTE network.
If Sprint (via their contractors) was really building brand new towers for Lightsquared, I can't see the uproar from Verizon and ATT as it would take forever for them to get coverage going through local governments for new tower approvals. Piggybacking on Sprint's network, they would be a nationwide competitor in the same timespan as Sprint's LTE network.
Anyone know where I can find the list of cities that are getting first dibs on Sprint's LTE?
Overstew said:
Anyone know where I can find the list of cities that are getting first dibs on Sprint's LTE?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://s4gru.spruz.com/pt/Sprints-N...eployment-details-emerge-for-Chicago/blog.htm
dtm_stretch said:
You made a great summary. Just curious do you have a source for this information I'd like to read more on the ability to cover the whole US.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Phonearena.com and phonescoop should have the news if you look for it
Sent from my E4GT with MiUi!
And the gps issue and the fcc is correct .. It's only been in the news for a while now. Surprised so many didn't know this already.. Sprint was relying on lightsquared.. Fcc is giving them issues.. Sprint doesn't even have 4g in phoenix, so lame. Who cares if people outside the limits of gps can't use it. lightsquared should be able to use a spectrum not previously used if you asked me :-(
Sent from my E4GT with MiUi!
squshy 7 said:
You're pretty off base as well. The GPS manufacturers actually did "know the future", as it were, considering they endorsed the FCC deal when lightsquared bought the spectrum a decade ago. Also, it's a known truth that affected devices are older, legacy devices that were designed to "look into" the spectrum that light squared now owns...however that degree of effect is lost in the media.
Some informative reading on just how much these receivers are "hindered" and other bureaucratic nonsense:
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With all due respect, are you suggesting that GPS manufacturers should have put in filters in 2003 to filter Lightsquared transmissions consistent with Lightsquared's operating proposal initially ? There is overwhelming consensus that this is not that easy nor inexpensive. Testing done in 1Q 2010, consistent with the initial Lightsquared proposal and in which they participated fully, indicated great difficulty with an filter based solution. The evidence was so clear, and the difficulty so great, that Lightsquared gave up there initial proposal almost immediately and revised their operating plan, abandoning any current plans to use the upper frequency band, and reducing transmitted power on the lower frequency band.
Suggesting that it would have been simple and inexpensive for GPS manufacturers to put filters into their equipment in 2003 to filter out both of Lightsquared's bands at the initial higher radiated power when in 2011 it was considered too difficult a problem to solve in a timely manner would seem to be ridiculous, don't you think?
So, if you're not suggesting THAT, then are you suggesting that GPS receiver manufacturers should have known in 2003 that Lightsquared would adjust their operating plan by forfeiting use of the upper band and reducing power in the lower band in 2011. Lightsquared didn't even know about this plan of theirs until last summer! How in the world could GPS manufacturers designed filters around the current Lightsquared proposal when it was not even known until less than a year ago? Should they have a had a crystal ball?
postq said:
With all due respect, are you suggesting that GPS manufacturers should have put in filters in 2003 to filter Lightsquared transmissions consistent with Lightsquared's operating proposal initially ? There is overwhelming consensus that this is not that easy nor inexpensive. Testing done in 1Q 2010, consistent with the initial Lightsquared proposal and in which they participated fully, indicated great difficulty with an filter based solution. The evidence was so clear, and the difficulty so great, that Lightsquared gave up there initial proposal almost immediately and revised their operating plan, abandoning any current plans to use the upper frequency band, and reducing transmitted power on the lower frequency band.
Suggesting that it would have been simple and inexpensive for GPS manufacturers to put filters into their equipment in 2003 to filter out both of Lightsquared's bands at the initial higher radiated power when in 2011 it was considered too difficult a problem to solve in a timely manner would seem to be ridiculous, don't you think?
So, if you're not suggesting THAT, then are you suggesting that GPS receiver manufacturers should have known in 2003 that Lightsquared would adjust their operating plan by forfeiting use of the upper band and reducing power in the lower band in 2011. Lightsquared didn't even know about this plan of theirs until last summer! How in the world could GPS manufacturers designed filters around the current Lightsquared proposal when it was not even known until less than a year ago? Should they have a had a crystal ball?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you are saying that I can buy a radio station at say 98.7 and broadcast all the way up to 100.6 and down to 96.9 ..... well of course not the GPS manufacturer should have used what frequency they could and not infringe on others who bought their frequency too
The ones in the wrong were the GPS manufacturer and the regulatory FCC for not making sure it was right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
http://www.dailytech.com/Game+Over+LightSquared+Goes+Bankrupt/article24683.htm
Ouch! Sprint was planning to use LightSquared for it's LTE roll out.... So now what?
Last i checked they pulled out awhile back after giving them a couple extensions. So doesn't matter lol.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46759151/Sprint_Drops_Planned_Partnership_with_LightSquared
They will build it out themselves rather than paying another company like they did with WiMax or planned to with LTE.
I read an article that stated sprint was ready to roll out all by themselves if need be. I guess we will see!
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Actually in Chi-town Clearwire (which I believe is our 4G backbone out here) is doing the LTE rollout. We're supposed to be in the first phase - complete around June next year. (Source Here)
WhiteZero said:
http://www.dailytech.com/Game+Over+LightSquared+Goes+Bankrupt/article24683.htm
Ouch! Sprint was planning to use LightSquared for it's LTE roll out.... So now what?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No BS from FCC about GPS interference and perhaps a better LTE deployment in the long run. Sprint was lucky to get out before it was to late
Sent from my Xoom using XDA Premium HD app
Yeah I think sprint is fine, I remember reading a few months ago that sprint kicked lightsquared to the curb.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA
brooksyx said:
Yeah I think sprint is fine, I remember reading a few months ago that sprint kicked lightsquared to the curb.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The FCC kicked LightSquared to the curb, and Sprint had a contractual out, if the FCC was to do so.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
They should also do that to clearwire i know they have 4g wimax but they been ripping people off since day one sorry if i put this on here
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
I can't believe there are still misconceptions about the Sprint and Lightsquared's partnership....it was always meant to be just a source of revenue for Sprint, as they were going to be paid to manage the roll out of Lightsquared's network, and get first dibs on wholesale chunks of that network.
The plan all along for Sprint's LTE was for Sprint to roll out their own. The deal with Lightsquared was just sort of a perfect storm, as Sprint just so happened to have the opportunity to make that deal in the middle of Network Vision.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Sprint is handling their LTE rollout, not Lightsquared, and not Clear(like with Wimax) The only thing Sprint would have gotten out of the Lightsquared deal is money and another band to use. Lightsquared was going to pay Sprint to bounce off their towers. It doesn't change the deployment of their LTE on the 1900 band.
tommydaniel said:
Sprint is handling their LTE rollout, not Lightsquared, and not Clear(like with Wimax) The only thing Sprint would have gotten out of the Lightsquared deal is money and another band to use. Lightsquared was going to pay Sprint to bounce off their towers. It doesn't change the deployment of their LTE on the 1900 band.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that is true, then why this?
http://www.bgr.com/2011/12/01/sprint-and-clearwire-ink-new-4g-wimax-and-lte-agreement/
Or this?
http://www.eedailynews.com/2012/05/clearwire-lines-up-sequans-and-qualcomm.html
Considering Sprint is the majority owner of Clearwire stock, it would be foolish to spend that much $$$ and not reinvest it in its own interests first. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there on this topic but short of a Sprint exec or a PR saying otherwise it's hard to believe they won't be involved.
And Sprint is not the only one doing the build out..Samsung lucent and ericsson are helping to get it done faster
Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus CDMA using Tapatalk 2
Epix4G said:
And Sprint is not the only one doing the build out..Samsung lucent and ericsson are helping to get it done faster
Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus CDMA using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are the vendors that Sprint has sourced the network to, depending on geographic locations.
Sprint is deploying LTE on their own spectrum, hosted on their own sites, with upgraded backhaul.
DevalB said:
Those are the vendors that Sprint has sourced the network to, depending on geographic locations.
Sprint is deploying LTE on their own spectrum, hosted on their own sites, with upgraded backhaul.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what I mean it's not just Sprint they are getting help to deploy it faster
Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus CDMA using Tapatalk 2
Epix4G said:
That's what I mean it's not just Sprint they are getting help to deploy it faster
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is all outsourced to those 3. "Not just Sprint" makes it seem like Sprint has their own employees doing the deployment in some areas and these 3 are just helping out.
But lightsquared was doing the rollout here in California and they were already falling behind schedule. It doesn't look good at all.
But hey, they never did finish the WiMAX network here too.
Look at the places they are launching LTE service, Sprint is the laughingstock of the mobile cell business.
Same sh1t, different day.
ricocollege said:
But lightsquared was doing the rollout here in California and they were already falling behind schedule. It doesn't look good at all.
But hey, they never did finish the WiMAX network here too.
Look at the places they are launching LTE service, Sprint is the laughingstock of the mobile cell business.
Same sh1t, different day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint contracted Alcatel, Samsung, and Ericsson for the rollout. Lightsquared is not involved one single bit.
---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------
garwynn said:
If that is true, then why this?
http://www.bgr.com/2011/12/01/sprint-and-clearwire-ink-new-4g-wimax-and-lte-agreement/
Or this?
http://www.eedailynews.com/2012/05/clearwire-lines-up-sequans-and-qualcomm.html
Considering Sprint is the majority owner of Clearwire stock, it would be foolish to spend that much $$$ and not reinvest it in its own interests first. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there on this topic but short of a Sprint exec or a PR saying otherwise it's hard to believe they won't be involved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And again, the Clear deal is for their current Wimax and LTE on the 2500 band. Has zero effect on the current rollout on the 1900 band, it's all Sprint.
There was going to be LTE on 3 or 4 different bands if everything went through
-1900 and 800, is Sprints. 1900 is what is currently being deployed and Sprint is in control. They contracted out Samsung, Alcatel, and Ericsson for the rollout. 800 will come once iDen is de-commissioned.
-The Lightsquared deal would have been another band, but would have been Lightsquareds to deal with
-And Clears 2500 band would be the last
The only one currently being deployed is on the 1900, which owned/operated by Sprint. They are in control of the rollout. It is their network. Not someone elses, like with Clear.
tommydaniel said:
Sprint contracted Alcatel, Samsung, and Ericsson for the rollout. Lightsquared is not involved one single bit.
---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------
And again, the Clear deal is for their current Wimax and LTE on the 2500 band. Has zero effect on the current rollout on the 1900 band, it's all Sprint.
There was going to be LTE on 3 or 4 different bands if everything went through
-1900 and 800, is Sprints. 1900 is what is currently being deployed and Sprint is in control. They contracted out Samsung, Alcatel, and Ericsson for the rollout. 800 will come once iDen is de-commissioned.
-The Lightsquared deal would have been another band, but would have been Lightsquareds to deal with
-And Clears 2500 band would be the last
The only one currently being deployed is on the 1900, which owned/operated by Sprint. They are in control of the rollout. It is their network. Not someone elses, like with Clear.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct.
azyouthinkeyeiz said:
The FCC kicked LightSquared to the curb, and Sprint had a contractual out, if the FCC was to do so.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well i think the other guy had it right as I read that Sprint gave Lightsquared a few extensions to get FCC approval, when Lightsquared couldn't get it, Sprint told them to take a hike.
For well over a year now Sprint customers have been dealing with sluggish 3G and 4G WiMAX data speeds. Network woes for America’s third largest wireless carrier have worsened over the past six months or so, as the carrier’s outdated WiMAX 4G offerings were halted in an effort to focus on building a new 4G LTE network. While this decision has good intentions, it has left the bulk of Sprint’s customers stranded on its old, overcrowded CDMA 3G network. However, all hope may not be lost for Sprint and its customers, as the troubled carrier has pledged to deploy its new LTE services by mid-2012, which is literally a couple of weeks away. Set to hit Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, and San Antonio, the question remains if Sprint’s new network setup can hold its own with already established 4G LTE from its competition.
In an effort to answer this burning question, PCMag recently spent some candid time with Sprint’s new LTE network and ran several tests comparing it to both Verizon’s and AT&T’s LTE services. The tests were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia in five different locations using a “specially provisioned” LG Viper 4G LTE phone and a PC Mag’s in-house Sensorly app, along with Ookla’s Speedtest.net app.
The results reveal that Sprint’s LTE is indeed fast, but not quite as fast as peak speeds seen on AT&T’s and Verizon’s networks. This is to be expected, due to Sprint decision to use 5MHz channels band instead of the 10MHz channels that its competition uses. However, the networks still appear to be very competitive. Using the Sensorly speed test app in four different test locations, PCMag found that Sprint’s network produced an average download speed between 9 and 13Mbps, which is on a par with AT&T’s 5MHz channel LTE. Sprint’s download speeds peaked at 26.5Mbps, which also remained competitive with AT&T’s peak 5MHz speeds of around 27.8Mbps.
Surprisingly Sprint’s network speeds were comparable to Verizon’s 10MHz setup, but keep in mind that Verizon’s network is already used by its customers, while Sprint’s was near empty and in a controlled testing environment. In regards to upload speeds, Sprint’s LTE averaged 2.19Mbps, which remained consistant with its own WiMAX 4G, AT&T’s LTE, T-Mobile HSPA+, but was still slower than Verizon.
Obviously focused on LTE, Sprint is aggressively pushing new LTE-capable phones such as the Galaxy Nexus, LG Viper, and HTC EVO 4G LTE, but as it stands these new devices are stuck in the mud on Sprint’s 3G network until its 4G LTE network goes live for customers. While Sprint has committed to a midyear LTE deployment, the carrier has remained coy about its complete network release schedule. This restrictive strategy places a great deal of Sprint’s customers in the dark about their network’s future, and the carrier runs the risk of losing customers to existing LTE networks offered by its competitors.
While Sprint continues to remain in network limbo, its biggest beacon of hope for its customers is its noted commitment to true unlimited data. This is something that its major competitors have abandoned and will likely be Sprint’s saving grace if the carrier’s data speeds are attractive to consumers. However, if Sprint doesn’t deliver on its promises sooner than later, the only speed the carrier will be experiencing is a rapid loss of existing customers.
Source:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405675,00.asp
Good article and nice find, but...
Did you paraphrase the article?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
squshy 7 said:
Good article and nice find, but...
Did you paraphrase the article?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The article is from techno Buffalo but they were not the actual testers so I put the original source if somebody wanted to read the full article
Sent from my GS2 the next big thing
Well its a win win when lte is live everywhere it will be easing congestion but otherwise if people leave in droves it will still free resources LOL
But unlimited data is the only thing keeping anyone here anyway
I rather have slow steady unlimited than capped super sonic speeds
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA
If those are the speeds they're getting with nobody on the network, then that's poor.
Imagine when it actually launches, even in only the 6 initial markets and millions actually start using it...
LordLugard said:
If those are the speeds they're getting with nobody on the network, then that's poor.
Imagine when it actually launches, even in only the 6 initial markets and millions actually start using it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it will hold up
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
revamper said:
I think it will hold up
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think so too. The network is still growing so I doubt it'll be that slow.
Plus, once your above a consistent 4-5Mbps that holds while actually moving itll only ever make a noticable difference whike downloading ROMs, and that will still be WiFi recommended.
Those speeds arent good at all though, my WiMAX is right there with it. The difference will be in the connectivity while mobile.
auau465121 said:
For well over a year now Sprint customers have been dealing with sluggish 3G and 4G WiMAX data speeds. Network woes for America’s third largest wireless carrier have worsened over the past six months or so, as the carrier’s outdated WiMAX 4G offerings were halted in an effort to focus on building a new 4G LTE network. While this decision has good intentions, it has left the bulk of Sprint’s customers stranded on its old, overcrowded CDMA 3G network. However, all hope may not be lost for Sprint and its customers, as the troubled carrier has pledged to deploy its new LTE services by mid-2012, which is literally a couple of weeks away. Set to hit Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, and San Antonio, the question remains if Sprint’s new network setup can hold its own with already established 4G LTE from its competition.
In an effort to answer this burning question, PCMag recently spent some candid time with Sprint’s new LTE network and ran several tests comparing it to both Verizon’s and AT&T’s LTE services. The tests were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia in five different locations using a “specially provisioned” LG Viper 4G LTE phone and a PC Mag’s in-house Sensorly app, along with Ookla’s Speedtest.net app.
The results reveal that Sprint’s LTE is indeed fast, but not quite as fast as peak speeds seen on AT&T’s and Verizon’s networks. This is to be expected, due to Sprint decision to use 5MHz channels band instead of the 10MHz channels that its competition uses. However, the networks still appear to be very competitive. Using the Sensorly speed test app in four different test locations, PCMag found that Sprint’s network produced an average download speed between 9 and 13Mbps, which is on a par with AT&T’s 5MHz channel LTE. Sprint’s download speeds peaked at 26.5Mbps, which also remained competitive with AT&T’s peak 5MHz speeds of around 27.8Mbps.
Surprisingly Sprint’s network speeds were comparable to Verizon’s 10MHz setup, but keep in mind that Verizon’s network is already used by its customers, while Sprint’s was near empty and in a controlled testing environment. In regards to upload speeds, Sprint’s LTE averaged 2.19Mbps, which remained consistant with its own WiMAX 4G, AT&T’s LTE, T-Mobile HSPA+, but was still slower than Verizon.
Obviously focused on LTE, Sprint is aggressively pushing new LTE-capable phones such as the Galaxy Nexus, LG Viper, and HTC EVO 4G LTE, but as it stands these new devices are stuck in the mud on Sprint’s 3G network until its 4G LTE network goes live for customers. While Sprint has committed to a midyear LTE deployment, the carrier has remained coy about its complete network release schedule. This restrictive strategy places a great deal of Sprint’s customers in the dark about their network’s future, and the carrier runs the risk of losing customers to existing LTE networks offered by its competitors.
While Sprint continues to remain in network limbo, its biggest beacon of hope for its customers is its noted commitment to true unlimited data. This is something that its major competitors have abandoned and will likely be Sprint’s saving grace if the carrier’s data speeds are attractive to consumers. However, if Sprint doesn’t deliver on its promises sooner than later, the only speed the carrier will be experiencing is a rapid loss of existing customers.
Source:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405675,00.asp
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll have to disagree on a couple points. The truly unlimited data was the first enticing thing to bring me to Sprint in the first place. Second, was the fact that they have the least demanding credit assessment. AT&T wanted me to pay a deposit of $146+, more or less, asking for my landline that I owe them on still. Verizon? Don't get me started there.. after my credit assessment through them, they wanted over $1G for the deposit.. I laughed and immediately went to AT&T's go phone at that time. Limited in data, yes, but the only way I could get on a cell with poor credit, as Sprint was wanting a $100 deposit, not bad, but being unsure of where my next funding was coming from, this did not bode well. It was a couple years before I tried Sprint again, and found out, not only did I have no deposit this time, I could trade in my old AT&T go phone, and got a nice credit towards a descent phone within my price range, the Nexus S 4G. On top of that, Sprint works with several companies to offer an employment discount, mine being 17%, something AT&T has abandoned for a LOT of employers.
Now, let's talk about customer service. IMHO, Sprint is unmatched in providing excellent customer service (in fact, I just found out recently, they've been ranked #1 in this department). Something you won't find with the other 2. They let me know of services they offer, that in order to get it out of AT&T or Verizon, you have to go through an area manager - not something a LOT of people want to deal with. Verizon? The sales rep that ran my credit couldn't understand half of what I was saying. With Sprint, I have only gotten a foreign rep* ONE time (out of the maybe, 15, times, I've had to call in), and they STILL were able to CLEARLY understand the problem I was having and easily helped me to resolve it.
So the bottom line here is, they have too many ups to have the down of their technology being a little behind, to lose too much of a customer base.
I know your article is put together from research and comment follow-ups to the testing articles, but it is still a good write-up, nonetheless.
BTW, if you've looked a little more recently, July 15th is the rollout date for the above mentioned cities, for LTE. Fortunately, I just happened to be in Metro ATL.
Well, that sums up my rebuttle. (however, that's spelled) Please don't take it personally. I'm just preaching from personal experience.
Peace,
~WickiD_D~
* edited to add: I mean no disrespect, no racism, and no stereo-typing in any way. I just think that there are a LOT of people who will agree that there is a natural language barrier that can occur when calling a customer service line, and it makes it very difficult to resolve customer service issues, at those times, for both the caller and the rep, because of it. I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone in any way, because I know we all come from different parts of the world in this forum, and would never intentionally want to hurt anyone here..
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Starts-Whining-About-Sprint-SoftBank-Deal-121688
AT&T tried to do worse and buy out T-Mobile, which would have created a GSM monopoly. AT&T is only mad cause it would lower sprints prices, forcing them to lower theirs. This is awesome for the consumer, seeing as the prices have only been skyrocketing.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
I don't think AT&T were whining at all. They never once said the deal would be negative. They said it would change the competitive nature of the wireless marketplace. Basically, they're telling the regulators to start being more lenient for the entire industry, including them. They're saying that there's no more risk of any monopolies now that a third competitor is gaining ground.
This wasn't a jab at the Sprint deal. It was a jab at the regulators. They want to get the FCC off their backs next time they want to buy spectrum or another company. This letter was very carefully worded to send that exact message; no more, no less.
ATT needs to stfu and start putting money into their network. even their DSL infrastructure sucks and outdated. their wireless network may survive but their days as a local telco and ISP are numbered. i remember years ago having to pay around $45 for basic phone service and each additional feature was extra.. $6 for callerid, $4 for call waiting, and didn't even include any long distance calling. A couple years later comcast added digital phone via cable lines for $39/mo. includes unlimited nationwide long distance, and every single calling feature included.
after switching ATT, they started sending us letters begging us to come back. they finally realized they lost the monopoly they once had and started lowering their prices, but they still haven't put a dime into improving their network. heck, you can't even get ATT uverse here and their main CO is only a couple miles away!
this is why i give Sprint a lot of credit. sure they might have some issues, but at least they don't sit on their ass waiting for money to fall from the sky.
tft;33024684
this is why i give Sprint a lot of credit. sure they might have some issues said:
Yea, which is why only 10 people have LTE right now, with 10 more people to be added by next year.:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mrg02d said:
Yea, which is why only 10 people have LTE right now, with 10 more people to be added by next year.:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
before LTE sprint was already dumping money into 4G before any other carrier (WiMAX/Clearwire) IIRC they started building out Wimax in 2008 or earlier. the problem came when they decided to switch LTE technology, basically they started from scratch again. most think the reason for the switch was marketing and they didn't want to be the only WiMax "odd-ball". if it wasn't for this switch they would of had the most 4G coverage out of all the carriers.
anyway, once sprint fully rolls out LTE and LTE advanced using overlapping 800Mhz antennas,etc. and eliminating a lot of dead spots, they will have the most coverage compared to the rest.. Sprint probably has more towers than vzw and ATT combined.. the key is how quick they'll get all those Nextel antennas converted to CDMA/LTE.
tft said:
ATT needs to stfu and start putting money into their network. even their DSL infrastructure sucks and outdated. their wireless network may survive but their days as a local telco and ISP are numbered. i remember years ago having to pay around $45 for basic phone service and each additional feature was extra.. $6 for callerid, $4 for call waiting, and didn't even include any long distance calling. A couple years later comcast added digital phone via cable lines for $39/mo. includes unlimited nationwide long distance, and every single calling feature included.
after switching ATT, they started sending us letters begging us to come back. they finally realized they lost the monopoly they once had and started lowering their prices, but they still haven't put a dime into improving their network. heck, you can't even get ATT uverse here and their main CO is only a couple miles away!
this is why i give Sprint a lot of credit. sure they might have some issues, but at least they don't sit on their ass waiting for money to fall from the sky.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Their days as an ISP are far from being over. They provide backbone to most isp's out here. Comcast being one of them. AT&T won't be going any where any time soon.
Nevell said:
Their days as an ISP are far from being over. They provide backbone to most isp's out here. Comcast being one of them. AT&T won't be going any where any time soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
they only have that backbone because they took over BellSouth which had most of the infrastructure. while they do have a few data center and they're interconnected with many other ISPs, im almost positive they aren't a major comcast bandwidth provider.. Sprint's backbone could be bigger than AT&T's. their internet subscribers.
At least VZW competes with Comcast putting out Fiber.. and by the way, the only reason AT&T has a wireless network, is because they took over another company many years ago, not because they built it.. so yeah, ATT still sucks when it comes to network building, expanding and investing money into it. :laugh:
tft said:
they only have that backbone because they took over BellSouth which had most of the infrastructure. while they do have a few data center and they're interconnected with many other ISPs, im almost positive they aren't a major comcast bandwidth provider.. Sprint's backbone could be bigger than AT&T's. their internet subscribers.
At least VZW competes with Comcast putting out Fiber.. and by the way, the only reason AT&T has a wireless network, is because they took over another company many years ago, not because they built it.. so yeah, ATT still sucks when it comes to network building, expanding and investing money into it. :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To add to that both verizon and att said they are done rolling out uverse and fios which i think is dumb. Both of them are stifling advanced broadband going to rural areas which is crap but i understand that if those same places can be covered by lte then why use fiber but it is sooo much more reliable and consistent than lte
I remember cingular. What att bought and merged with there network. I do feel all in all that sprint will come out on top. Yes we all are waiting but i feel in the end we will be laughing at the others
Sent from my phone
I personally am glad to see both Sprint and t mobile looking like they are in a good position for solid growth over the next few years. Having four viable national carriers is good for the average consumer - at least I think it is a good thing.
But I can see this as both sour grapes and a ploy by AT&T. The sour grapes is obvious.
The ploy hear though is to play to what is left of the angry white guy xenophobia in this country. The Wireless spectrum in the US is looking like it is going to become the most valuable commodity ever with wireless traffic expected explode over the next five to seven years. See when Sprint takes back over clearwire they don't only hold the most wireless spectrum they hold the MOST wireless spectrum. As in if I'm not mistaken they hold as much or more than AT&T and Verizon combined.
So I'm thinking AT&T is hoping that the angry white xenophobes here will realize that the largest chunk (of what is about to become such a ridiculously valuable commodity) is about to be taken over by the Japanese. This to either put a halt to this takeover, or earn AT&T some kind of break as the government is organizing another chunk of spectrum for auction here in the next couple of years.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using XDA Premium HD app
dayv said:
I personally am glad to see both Sprint and t mobile looking like they are in a good position for solid growth over the next few years. Having four viable national carriers is good for the average consumer - at least I think it is a good thing.
But I can see this as both sour grapes and a ploy by AT&T. The sour grapes is obvious.
The ploy hear though is to play to what is left of the angry white guy xenophobia in this country. The Wireless spectrum in the US is looking like it is going to become the most valuable commodity ever with wireless traffic expected explode over the next five to seven years. See when Sprint takes back over clearwire they don't only hold the most wireless spectrum they hold the MOST wireless spectrum. As in if I'm not mistaken they hold as much or more than AT&T and Verizon combined.
So I'm thinking AT&T is hoping that the angry white xenophobes here will realize that the largest chunk (of what is about to become such a ridiculously valuable commodity) is about to be taken over by the Japanese. This to either put a halt to this takeover, or earn AT&T some kind of break as the government is organizing another chunk of spectrum for auction here in the next couple of years.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They don't want to stop this deal. They want it to go through because it gives them leverage next time they want spectrum or if they happen to want to buy up another company. As it stands, they are too large compared to Sprint and T-Mobile for the FCC to just give AT&T a free ride. But if Sprint can gain more ground on AT&T and Verizon, then the FCC can't play the antitrust card like they did with the T-Mobile deal.
I don't think AT&T cares what country SoftBank is from. Both of AT&T's other main competitors are controlled by foreign interests. If anyone else really cared if a company is 100% American, Verizon wouldn't have such a large share of the market.
EndlessDissent said:
I don't think AT&T cares what country SoftBank is from. Both of AT&T's other main competitors are controlled by foreign interests. If anyone else really cared if a company is 100% American, Verizon wouldn't have such a large share of the market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think AT&T cares what country either. But I do think AT&T aware that there are enough xenophobic national protectionist people in this country to try and play that angle to get something out of this.
And believe me the spectrum that Sprint has is going to be a huge asset come sometime around 2016 (not that it isn't a huge asset now, it is just the value of this asset is going to go way up). The spectrum carried by the other telcos is dwarfed in comparison. And this spectrum is the big reason Softbank is interested in Sprint.
Hopefully Sprint and Softbank will take this opportunity and grow Sprint 's network. The big downside for us the average consumer would be if the only thing of value they see is the spectrum and they don't do anything other than a token upgrade wait for the value of the spectrum to grow and then just sell the spectrum off in chunks.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using XDA Premium HD app
jbadboy2007 said:
To add to that both verizon and att said they are done rolling out uverse and fios which i think is dumb. Both of them are stifling advanced broadband going to rural areas which is crap but i understand that if those same places can be covered by lte then why use fiber but it is sooo much more reliable and consistent than lte
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They stopped because all the Cable companies Lost a huge percentage of their customers and this was the first time DirecTv has lost customers, which was a fraction of what cable lost.
US homes drop pay-TV as DirecTV, Comcast, Time Warner lose subscribers
Meanwhile, UK officials recommend eliminating broadcast TV entirely.
by Jon Brodkin - Aug 2 2012, 8:15pm EDT
Information Technology
Large numbers of US homes have dropped pay-TV services, with big losses for satellite provider DirecTV, and cable companies Time Warner and Comcast. Rounding up the latest quarterly earnings results issued by major TV providers, Reuters reported today that Comcast lost 176,000 subscribers, Time Warner lost 169,000 customers, and DirecTV lost 52,000.
While Reuters said these losses total about 400,000 American homes dropping pay-TV service since the beginning of the year, it's still a small minority. Time Warner Cable has more than 12 million customers, for example, and many customers simply switched services, as Verizon's FiOS TV and AT&T's U-verse added 275,000 subscribers in the second quarter. The second quarter is traditionally weak because of people moving before summer and college students leaving campus.
But this quarter's losses were stark for DirecTV, which lost customers for the first time ever, and for Time Warner, who lost customers for the tenth straight quarter and lost more than analysts expected. Comcast's loss of 169,000 customers was actually an improvement over previous quarters. The losses were chalked up more to the economy rather than "cord-cutters" dropping TV service entirely.
As an interesting tidbit to throw into the mix...
I was talking with my company's Sprint account rep yesterday morning, and he said a couple of interesting things about the purchase.
One of which was that there were some persistent rumors going around internally that with the cash infusion, Sprint is taking a long, hard look at US Cellular. The reason being that they have such a strong 3G footprint, all they'd have to do is update our PRL's and it would be an instant fix for Sprint's 3G network in the midwest and the northern coasts.
He also mentioned, to my dismay, that Wisconsin is (for now) practically last on the list for LTE and Network Vision and we really shouldn't expect anything until 3rd or 4th quarter next year.
Dalmus said:
As an interesting tidbit to throw into the mix...
I was talking with my company's Sprint account rep yesterday morning, and he said a couple of interesting things about the purchase.
One of which was that there were some persistent rumors going around internally that with the cash infusion, Sprint is taking a long, hard look at US Cellular. The reason being that they have such a strong 3G footprint, all they'd have to do is update our PRL's and it would be an instant fix for Sprint's 3G network in the midwest and the northern coasts.
He also mentioned, to my dismay, that Wisconsin is (for now) practically last on the list for LTE and Network Vision and we really shouldn't expect anything until 3rd or 4th quarter next year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As much as I hate to say this about my home state, it's understandable. US Cellular has a pretty big hold on CDMA outside Verizon. I think those two pretty much own Wisconsin in that area. I spend a lot of time there around Madison and Lake Wisconsin, so I wouldn't mind having Sprint buy them too. It would certainly help the 3G situation around here without question, and I'm saying that from the Suburbs of Chicago where NV is well underway. I read somewhere that Sprint officially announced Chicago as an upgraded market, which is great, because they've been putting LTE towers all over the place.
I'm just hoping they don't slow down the rollout around this area because while it's certainly better than it's been previously, it's not good enough yet.
JBakey said:
AT&T tried to do worse and buy out T-Mobile, which would have created a GSM monopoly. AT&T is only mad cause it would lower sprints prices, forcing them to lower theirs. This is awesome for the consumer, seeing as the prices have only been skyrocketing.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice pun.
hayzooos said:
As much as I hate to say this about my home state, it's understandable. US Cellular has a pretty big hold on CDMA outside Verizon. I think those two pretty much own Wisconsin in that area. I spend a lot of time there around Madison and Lake Wisconsin, so I wouldn't mind having Sprint buy them too. It would certainly help the 3G situation around here without question, and I'm saying that from the Suburbs of Chicago where NV is well underway. I read somewhere that Sprint officially announced Chicago as an upgraded market, which is great, because they've been putting LTE towers all over the place.
I'm just hoping they don't slow down the rollout around this area because while it's certainly better than it's been previously, it's not good enough yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting news article yesterday that US Cellular is exiting the Chicago/Illinois market and selling those users and spectrum to Sprint. They're getting 20MHz of 1900MHz spectrum, and a little over half a million of USC's subscribers.
The odd thing is that Sprint did NOT purchase USC towers in the deal... So even though Sprint claims that the extra spectrum will improve the end-user experience, won't an extra 500,000 users on Sprint's already stressed towers cause a degradation?
I always heard that Sprint's problems were tower capacity, not spectrum crowding.
Dalmus said:
Interesting news article yesterday that US Cellular is exiting the Chicago/Illinois market and selling those users and spectrum to Sprint. They're getting 20MHz of 1900MHz spectrum, and a little over half a million of USC's subscribers.
The odd thing is that Sprint did NOT purchase USC towers in the deal... So even though Sprint claims that the extra spectrum will improve the end-user experience, won't an extra 500,000 users on Sprint's already stressed towers cause a degradation?
I always heard that Sprint's problems were tower capacity, not spectrum crowding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought I read 30 MHz. Regardless, I think the spectrum crowding and capacity problems were actually somewhat related. I'm not an expert by any means, but I believe the amount of spectrum they have dictates how they allocate tower capacity.
EndlessDissent said:
I thought I read 30 MHz. Regardless, I think the spectrum crowding and capacity problems were actually somewhat related. I'm not an expert by any means, but I believe the amount of spectrum they have dictates how they allocate tower capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're both right. 20MHz in the Chicago market, and 10MHz in the St Louis market for a total of 30MHz.
I wonder if this was the deal that my Sprint Rep at work was referring to, or if there is something else in the works?