Related
Is there any rom or program can make the internet speed on HTC DIMOND 7.2mb instead of 3.6mb?
Thanks very much.
you need a service provider that will provide 7.2mbps in your area (not many provide that atm in UK, but i know orange are expanding it up to 7.2 over the next year) either vodaphone uk or t-mobile uk do it, google it as it depends on your areas coverage.
JanDaMan said:
you need a service provider that will provide 7.2mbps in your area (not many provide that atm in UK, but i know orange are expanding it up to 7.2 over the next year) either vodaphone uk or t-mobile uk do it, google it as it depends on your areas coverage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
vodafone is already 7.2mbps and three are gonna do it before christmas if they cant they are definattely gonna do it on the first quarter of 2009
Unfortunately, saying that the diamond(or any device using the 3G network) is capable of 7.2mbps is not really correct. Sure, the device itself is very much capable of receiving data at these speeds but the latency in the network itself will never provide that speed, unless perhaps you're sitting three feet from a transmitter...
Basically, even though you're paying for "7.2mbps" you'll never see those speeds in real life...
Oh, and I don't really think that this question belongs in the "Diamond ROM development" section.
7.2 long long way away dude. i have tried vodafone 7.2 from many different locations and using a 7.2 mbps modem the best i have achived is maybe 3mbps but not a solid speed, avrage speed is about 1-2mbps, so 7.2bmps true speed will be achived when, the networks advertise 48Mbps lol.
anyway you dont need that speed on the phone, 1mb is enough mos of the times,
unless you want to stream HD media..
Guys...7.2 is obviously a "dream" for me...considering I'm still with the "E" = Edge under my local ISP DIGI MALAYSIA! Argh!!
and sometimes i can't get 90% of the EDGE speed too
Can i just add to this... MOST servers do not upload more than 1mb/sec.. so how do you expect to download @7.2mb... Not possible, until servers start to upload at those speed you are not going to be able to download @7.2......do you believe mobiles would be fast than a fixed line... Yrs from that happening I'm afraid...!
fyew-jit-tiv said:
Can i just add to this... MOST servers do not upload more than 1mb/sec.. so how do you expect to download @7.2mb... Not possible, until servers start to upload at those speed you are not going to be able to download @7.2......do you believe mobiles would be fast than a fixed line... Yrs from that happening I'm afraid...!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mine is comparable with my broadband actually. obviously the rendering on my firefox is faster but the phone is not that far behind on less demanding web pages
I here provide the Tips & free software site http://www.vclcomponents.com/s/0__/need_for_speed_undercover_htc_diamond for increase the Internet speed of the HTC..Then check the speed of the Internet using the site http://www.ip-details.com/internet-speed-test/ in the Mobile Browser.
The only way you'll ever get 7.2mps is by sitting on the mast, at 3am with no one trying to use a mobile in the surrounding 25 mile radius.
Oh, and 3 are not going to have 7.2 before christmas. We've had them in at work today and they're having to talk nicely with T-Mobile so they can improve their network coverage. They have 3.6mps, quote 2.8mps as an average but they want to get away from "HSDPA" as they know it'll never work properly on their network.
... They did however quote by 2010, they should have 14.4mbps
... Now thats a pipe dream...
Alasio said:
The only way you'll ever get 7.2mps is by sitting on the mast, at 3am with no one trying to use a mobile in the surrounding 25 mile radius.
Oh, and 3 are not going to have 7.2 before christmas. We've had them in at work today and they're having to talk nicely with T-Mobile so they can improve their network coverage. They have 3.6mps, quote 2.8mps as an average but they want to get away from "HSDPA" as they know it'll never work properly on their network.
... They did however quote by 2010, they should have 14.4mbps
... Now thats a pipe dream...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hi,
In Denmark, they already started with the 16 Mbit on 3 network, but as we all know, it is not practical. it is just teoritical.
lomo2002 said:
hi,
In Denmark, they already started with the 16 Mbit on 3 network, but as we all know, it is not practical. it is just teoritical.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You guys on the continent get the best... Higher speed home bband connections, the UK average being <8mps, there's more money pumped into the development of the mobile networks including city-wide WiFi and we just get screwed.
3 claimed today in their presentation to have 14.4mps under testing inside certain cells in the UK, but didn't seemingly know where. That coupled with the Virgin Media testing of their 200mps connection, well... Will wait to see...
The only "decent" connection in the UK (personal experience) is T-Mobile as their parent company have pumped the most money into cell development but still its completely lacking. Look at the current Orange & T-Mobile merger that's on / off... 3 in the UK have so little 3G coverage they have had to make a deal with T-Mobile so they can use their backbone and masts for transmitting their signal, else they're never going to get anywhere with signal coverage.
But either way, the lack of cells in the UK coupled with a poor backbone simply means that speeds are too unstable in the UK to ever get the full 7.2mps stable.
Actually the all the tier one UK networks (Vodafone, O2, Orange, T-Mobile) support 7.2 in various locations around the country - the issue we will always have is contention.
The certainly won't admit it but only the first 6 or 7 connections to a mast have any chance of reaching 7.2 - after that it drops off dramatically. When you get up to 30 then your down to GPRS speeds. As someone pointed out, the only way to reach anywhere close to the potential 7.2 is to sit under a mast a 3AM and hope that no one else in the vicinity is online too.
T-Mobile, Orange and 3 will always win out when it comes to contention as they run on an 1800 MHZ network as they came late to the game in the UK. 1800 has a shorter range and therefore T-Mobile put up many more masts to compensate - 3 for every one mast that Vodafone put up on the older 900MHZ network. The Vodafone network will punch out much further from the mast which works better in more isolated areas but in urban or densely populated areas, T-Mobile's 3 masts to Vodafone or O2's 1 mast will always give a better experience.
At the end of the day its swings and roundabouts and experiences are so localised that its not worth swapping networks to improve speed unless you intend to stay always in the same location and never go out the front door.
I've been using mobile data on all four networks all over the UK over the last few years and the only thing I can guarantee is that Orange (which has stupidly been my sole personal network provider for over 15 years) will always be the worst of the lot!!!
Their data network is honestly shocking and with all the outages I've experienced this year I would say that the network is really struggling - actually I think most of them are going that way - and it will be a relief if they do actually join forces with T-Mobile.
Anyway this rant has been building up for some time - anyone else experienced the networks performance getting worse this year particularly?
I blame all the new iPhone users myself!!! LOL
Alasio said:
... 3 in the UK have so little 3G coverage they have had to make a deal with T-Mobile so they can use their backbone and masts for transmitting their signal, else they're never going to get anywhere with signal coverage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually it was announced recently that 3 have the most comprehensive data coverage in the UK at the moment!
Yeah sorry, you'll probably never see 7.2Mb, just like you never get full internet speed it's always 'up to xxMb'
If you live near a mast then yeah signal should be good but probably 5-6Mb at most you would get. (If)
You can follow the tips in the site tips to speed up 7.2mb interent for increasing the speed of the Internet then you can check the Speed in the site http://www.ip-details.com/internet-speed-test/Internet Speed Testyou will know the Difference.
Your tips are useful...
It's been nice with AT&T (not really!!) So I'm going to try out TMOUS and HTC HD2 phone. Has anyone been unhappy with TMOUS?
I just recently came from them to AT&T and the 3G coverage isnt as good, nor is it as fast of what im experiencing with AT&T, but other than that, no real big issues.
I have a HD2 on TMOUSA and I like it. Crap 3G speeds though. And I get Edge in my basement. I go up a flight of stairs, bam, 5 bars of 3G. If you have a friend with T-mobile 3G, I'd definitely recommend seeing the reception around various areas you frequent. I get NO reception in some of my classroom buildings. See what I'm saying? It largely depends on the coverage.
You should investigate what kind of coverage they have in your area. TMOUS coverage is not great in some markets, although it might be just fine in your market. As around here (tell us where you are), or at work, friends, etc.
Well I've asked a few friends and some ramdom people off the street around here and they are happy with TMOUS. Few have said they thing TMOUS 3G is faster then AT&T and have better coverage. So I'm going for it,, Thanks for your replys!! Oh, I live in Orlando, Florida by the way.
Hi - I'm looking for some good answers - I think I know the basics...
After much shopping, I bought 2 of these...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170623785892&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
(HTC Touch Pro 2 s - the wife likes for our phones to match so I can teach, set up, etc...)
I think they are called T7373 SEA's South East Asia Versions, and I flashed to 2.07.707/4.49.25.91 radio just fine to get current at WM6.5. (I like factory ROM's - the books work, etc - despite my appreciation for the effort to cook.)
Now - I'm currently ATT, and when they go to Data Plan me, I'm going to T-Mobile prepaid.
So - I get to looking at 3g frequencies - of course!
The book for the device says 900/2100 HSPA/WCDMA.
The sellers' ad says
3G Network HSDPA 900 / 2100
HSDPA 850 / 1900 / 2100 or HSDPA 1700 / 2100
(It's not really clear what the 'or' means)
Now, I'm not *****ing at the seller, I want to really understand, and they knew I was US and they asked ATT or Tmobile.
Would they like have reached into one of three bins, to sell me one of three truly different hardware phones - OR - picked a phone up and flashed it (Radio or full ROM) to my provider, or did they just configure the existing system so it picked Tmobile and its freqs for instance? (When the phone boots, it asks T-Mobile or 2 other Asian-sounding systems) How else could the phones do as advertised? (9/21, 8.5/19, or 17/21)
If the frequencies are not a settings, but a ROM/Radio issue, can I load the 'other US guys' flash and have it work?
If not, does anyone know what really is changed in the hardwares (I imagine the antennas' length might vary by X%, but then here that's % of mms.)
Thanks - great answers and experience really appreciated!!
The device in the picture of the ad is a European unbranded model (RHOD100). It's 3G frequencies are on the 2100MHz band. If they sent you the one pictures, you will not get 3G with any US provider. AT&T uses 850MHz and 1900MHz for their 3G service, while T-Mobile uses 1700/2100MHz. 3G radios are hardware dependent, not software dependent. This means that you must purchase the device that contains the radio for the 3G service you wish to use. They will work on 2G networks anywhere in the world. 3G is really the only difference between carriers.
The AT&T device is the RHOD300 model, also known as the Tilt 2. The T-Mobile version is the RHOD210.
The short answer is that if they send you the exact device in the picture from the ad, you will only be able to get 3G in some parts of Asia and Europe.
The description on the eBay listing is just cut and paste from somewhere (like HTC's website), so that is why it says "or" for the 3G bands. One is for the Euro model, the other is for the Asia model. Either way, neither have the correct bands to give you 3G on AT&T or T-Mobile. And as cajun mentioned, bands are hardware dependent, and there is no way to change it.
If you want 3G on AT&T, you need to buy the AT&T branded Tilt2. But since they will be able to read the IMEI number of the phone (since its ATT branded), they will probably add a smartphone data plan very quickly. So its probably not even worth getting a Tilt2, if you don't want a smartphone data plan. If you want 3G on T-Mobile, you need to buy a T-Mobile branded TP2.
Bottom line, if the phones you bought are unbranded, then they don't have the correct hardware to get 3G on either AT&T or T-Mob.
THX
Hey guys(?) thanks, I think I understand.
So - basically the ad HAS to be a lie, at least for 3G.
So I'm still wondering... What does HTC actually change in the phones - a crystal (I doubt this in modern times), a chip, a pack, an antenna length? There is a small area in the phone that looks 'potted' we used to call it.
They are way too pretty, and way too functional 'as is' to mess with (so I'm not gonna go module or whatever shopping), and we are pretty much 'emergency only' web people (for maps, pizza places, etc) and 2G will be fast enough. The value of a keyboard for texting, the Windows interoperability, and no damn contract is good enough.
We are deciding which ROM level we want before we try ATT to see if they know the numbers... T-Mobile prepaid is the backup plan.
THX
tshephard said:
Hey guys(?) thanks, I think I understand.
So - basically the ad HAS to be a lie, at least for 3G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A lie in that it looks like a lazy cut and paste, with either no proof-reading to catch the error, or a seller that does not fully understand what he is selling. They are a high volume seller, and also just used stock photos (not photos of the actual item), so its just a rushed auction posting. I don't think it was an intentional lie meant to mislead you. But if you want to dispute the sale, I think you have very good grounds, since the information in the auction is incorrect, and its actually impossible to tell what exact model (Euro or Asian) they are selling from the description.
AT&T most likely won't be able to correlate the IMEI with the right phone brand/model. But I've seen cases where they think its a smartphone, but the wrong one, and try to add a smartphone plan. I read a post where a guy was using a Nexus One, and their system was reading it as a Blackberry. I think he just told them it was an unlocked dumbphone, and they removed the smartphone plan.
Please Correct me if I'm wrong...
presently I'm using Sprint Touch Pro 2, and I have read on the internet that it is possible to work with AT&T or T-Mobile (which uses different technology other than Sprint's CDMA) after proper unlocking. Is it possible?
Regards.
chris8989 said:
presently I'm using Sprint Touch Pro 2, and I have read on the internet that it is possible to work with AT&T or T-Mobile (which uses different technology other than Sprint's CDMA) after proper unlocking. Is it possible?
Regards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but you will not be able to use any other network's 3G service. The best you will get is EDGE on another network.
To follow up...
ATT stuck me on $25 Smartphone within 24 hours. (We went to $15 later, and they dropped us to a $10 cheaper talk plan.) For this particular set of phones, apparently the first 8 or so digits of the IMEI is phone type (which they clearly knew from Tilt 2's) and the rest is item serial number. Couldn't argue there...
Speeds, freqs... I don't get a clear definition of G's anywhere, but I show a H before I long on, and another H with bars as I use data. I have used cellular data at up to 1.1mbs per speed sites - I don't know if that's over E, or G, or H but it seems pretty fast to me. All that's on ATT, when I went to the T-Mobile store and tried their card, the best I got was 200kbs on about 5 tries.
Love the phones, added HTC task manager pulldown, and 1.6 VC from here - THX
tshephard said:
To follow up...
ATT stuck me on $25 Smartphone within 24 hours. (We went to $15 later, and they dropped us to a $10 cheaper talk plan.) For this particular set of phones, apparently the first 8 or so digits of the IMEI is phone type (which they clearly knew from Tilt 2's) and the rest is item serial number. Couldn't argue there...
Speeds, freqs... I don't get a clear definition of G's anywhere, but I show a H before I long on, and another H with bars as I use data. I have used cellular data at up to 1.1mbs per speed sites - I don't know if that's over E, or G, or H but it seems pretty fast to me. All that's on ATT, when I went to the T-Mobile store and tried their card, the best I got was 200kbs on about 5 tries.
Love the phones, added HTC task manager pulldown, and 1.6 VC from here - THX
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
G stands for GPRS, and it is a 2G service. It stands for General Packet Radio Service. It is the slowest data service you can get with speeds normally under 50Kbps. It is occasionally known as 2.5G service.
E stands for EDGE. It stands for Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution. It was a revision to the 2G service implementation and features speeds from about 100Kbps to 250Kbps depending on location, service provider, and signal. It is occasionally referred to as a pre-3G technology. It fits in the ITU's definition of 3G, but few people refer to it as such. It is normally marketed as 2.9G.
UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) was a revision to the voice service, and did not address much data-wise. This was the first widespread usage of the term and use of 3G. It is normally the service that your device is using when it shows the 3G icon. 3G speeds are normally 350Kbps - 500Kbps.
H stands for HSPA. It stands for High Speed Packet Access. It is one step higher than what is commonly known as 3G.It is also known as 3.5G. It features speeds closer to 1.5Mbps. HSPA is normally grouped in with 3G service when it is being discussed.
As for your test with T-Mobile, that wasn't really a fair comparison since you can't get 3G speeds on a Tilt2 on T-Mobile's network. You can only ever get EDGE service. Therefore, you were comparing AT&T's 3G service to T-Mobile's EDGE service. This is like trying to race a Mustang with a Moped. If you get the Rhod210 model, you will get the faster connection with T-Mobile. There isn't much to compare between AT&T and T-Mobile. AT&T 3G speeds are slower than T-Mobile. The services are also much cheaper on T-Mobile.
THX for reply, I generally understood all the abbreviations, but like you said - the marketing hype really seems to very from the technology.
If I saw, regularly, over 1 mbs and the H bars to the right of the H block, do ya' think I was H/HSPA over 8.5/9/19/21 freqs?
tshephard said:
THX for reply, I generally understood all the abbreviations, but like you said - the marketing hype really seems to very from the technology.
If I saw, regularly, over 1 mbs and the H bars to the right of the H block, do ya' think I was H/HSPA over 8.5/9/19/21 freqs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On AT&T it would be HSPA on the 850MHz and/or 1900MHz frequencies. T-Mobile uses 1700MHz for HSDPA and 2100MHz for HSUPA. The frequencies for 2G services are all the same for everyone. This is why you will get up to EDGE service with any GSM carrier, but never 3G service unless you buy a device that explicitly supports that carrier's 3G service.
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..
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