I heard from Sprint that they are also going to incorporate Nextel's low-frequency signal into their LTE package of frequencies. Hopefully, there will be better coverage indoors. That was their findings in the Chicago LTE market.
I think you need to point out that AT&T uses a 10MHz channel in Atlanta while Sprint is going with 5MHz. So you will NEVER see the speeds that AT&T has at this point. The worse issue is using 1900MHz as the frequency. With the 700MHz band AT&T will penetrate buildings so much better than Sprint. I also doubt they have that many e-nodeb's installed anyway.
As you are well aware LTE allows multiple swaths of bandwidth to be stacked together for adding capacity/speed. In your future reports please specify the variables for all the players....
You act like we're comparing in a vacuum. Sprint is selling "LTE" and AT&T is selling "LTE" and AT&T's LTE is better regardless of whether Sprint has a technological handicap due to frequency breadth.
They still must be treated as equal competitors because that's what they are, no consumer is going to say, "Well Sprint only uses 5MHz channels and a 1900Mhz frequency so I don't mind that I keep losing LTE every time I round a corner or step in a building."
Unfortunately, a month and a half later it's pretty much non-existent. I love my EVOLTE, but having a great network to use it on would be nice. Sprint is still taking my money regardless.
Without a doubt you gave it a solid testing effort. Thank you for sharing these numbers. A Sprint rep offered a Photon for testing in NYC. The results of these tests make it clear to me their deployment is DOA.
However, based on the observed performance and characteristics of their deployment, you had to feel like running into brick wall only to get right back up to try again.
I live near seattle and commute there from about 20 miles north of it during the academic year, and on my T-Mobile "fake" 4G I consistently see better speeds than this. Somewhat pathetic really. Not sure if I should be shaking my head at Sprint or applauding T-Mobile for this.
My max is NOWHERE near Sprints, but at the same time, max isn't what matters. Average is.
All of this is really all talk till after June 30, 2013. The final plan with NV isn't really in effect till after the 800mhz band is available for CDMA/LTE. After some initial problems getting the rollout in high gear, they lowered the target percentage of tower conversions to 35% per market for an official announcement (from 60%) so there are bound to be coverage gaps as the poster from DFW area.
I'm holding out judgement until then. My area happens to be a good coverage area regardless of NV, so I'm in a better position than most anyway.
Since latency and bandwidth numbers are inversely related, it was not immediately obvious that the Min latency would be the best case, while the Min bandwidth would be the worst.
It may better to change Min/Max labels to Best/Worst in order to better represent the data. (and swap the latency values)
According to S4GRU.com (as of aug 7th) Atlanta/Athens* ...Sites Complete = 23%; Launched = July 15, 2012; Anticipated Completion = December 2012
Considering that the market is only around 25% done (maybe a third completed by now), I am not sure why Sprint would "formally" launch the market.
I would imagine once the build-out is complete, we will see a much different user experience.
Anand, keep in mind that Sprint will be deploying 5x5 FD-LTE on the ESMR band (currently occupied by iDEN). According to S4GRU, with Sprint using RRU's, coverage is within 3% of Verizon's 700MHz C block deployment.
After 2 years of hoping to have some sort of 4g wimax coverage and even trying their new 4g lte network i was done with sprint. They have been lying to their customers for too long. I switched to verizon, much better now.
4G coverage was nonexistent in DFW area even though their coverage map said so.
I know it'd be very hard to test every smart phone, but I'd really like to see reviews for Virgin Mobile's phones. Specifically the Triumph and the 4G one, which I believe you already did a review for except on Sprint. VM is owned by Sprint and uses the same network, so many things should be similar. It's just when you get down to it 35/month is WAY better than 70 on Sprint or over 100 on ATT/Verizon. Personally, if it weren't for VM I still wouldn't have a smart phone. It's absolutely insane to pay that much, imo.
VM phones are basically high-end CDMA phones from the previous year. The Triumph is essentially the Droid X, while the Evo V 4G is just an EVO 3D. I'm not sure anything about them would warrant further coverage.
If you're into high-end phones on pre-paid, you're better off buying unlocked GSM devices and using them on SimpleMobile, StraightTalk, or T-Mobile's Monthly4G.
In the old days PCS wireless, consumers had only to contend with 2 types of handset–one for 800/1800MHz, the other 900/1900MHz–for roaming compatibility. Chipset makers then incorporated most radio frequencies used by telcos, mainly 800/900/1800/1900MHz. Now that LTE is here, it's a lot messier. Consumers only are blinded by marketing campaigns of carriers and past experience to decide which telco they will adopt, only to find out certain quirks they don't like. Who wants to be bothered with frequencies and spectrum? Again, technology gap between phone makers and chip maker is to blame. For example, the new iPhone 5 I bought last week from Verizon has unlocked GSM feature. I rushed to ATT store to buy a prepaid nano SIM to try out this feature. The ATT store clerk tells me that the data feature won't be available, only voice and text. I think ATT employees know or have been train to say this as if they corporate expects this scenario. The bottom line is ATT LTE is not compatible Verizon/Sprint LTE because of different frequencies/bands. This harkens back to the old PCS introduction mentioned earlier. I know phone makers depend entirely on chipset makers to make their handsets to work in the intended markets. For now, Qualcomm chipset can only handle a max of 7 LTE bands. This will probably change in subsequent versions, I am sure. Till then, consumers who frequently travel outside The US will be disappointed with their LTE devices' incompatibilities.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
15 Comments
Back to Article
okiwa002 - Sunday, August 26, 2012 - link
I heard from Sprint that they are also going to incorporate Nextel's low-frequency signal into their LTE package of frequencies. Hopefully, there will be better coverage indoors. That was their findings in the Chicago LTE market.celltech5333 - Sunday, August 26, 2012 - link
I think you need to point out that AT&T uses a 10MHz channel in Atlanta while Sprint is going with 5MHz. So you will NEVER see the speeds that AT&T has at this point. The worse issue is using 1900MHz as the frequency. With the 700MHz band AT&T will penetrate buildings so much better than Sprint. I also doubt they have that many e-nodeb's installed anyway.As you are well aware LTE allows multiple swaths of bandwidth to be stacked together for adding capacity/speed. In your future reports please specify the variables for all the players....
Tegeril - Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - link
You act like we're comparing in a vacuum. Sprint is selling "LTE" and AT&T is selling "LTE" and AT&T's LTE is better regardless of whether Sprint has a technological handicap due to frequency breadth.They still must be treated as equal competitors because that's what they are, no consumer is going to say, "Well Sprint only uses 5MHz channels and a 1900Mhz frequency so I don't mind that I keep losing LTE every time I round a corner or step in a building."
bigboxes - Sunday, August 26, 2012 - link
Unfortunately, a month and a half later it's pretty much non-existent. I love my EVOLTE, but having a great network to use it on would be nice. Sprint is still taking my money regardless.Lord 666 - Sunday, August 26, 2012 - link
Without a doubt you gave it a solid testing effort. Thank you for sharing these numbers. A Sprint rep offered a Photon for testing in NYC. The results of these tests make it clear to me their deployment is DOA.However, based on the observed performance and characteristics of their deployment, you had to feel like running into brick wall only to get right back up to try again.
KineticHummus - Monday, August 27, 2012 - link
I live near seattle and commute there from about 20 miles north of it during the academic year, and on my T-Mobile "fake" 4G I consistently see better speeds than this. Somewhat pathetic really. Not sure if I should be shaking my head at Sprint or applauding T-Mobile for this.My max is NOWHERE near Sprints, but at the same time, max isn't what matters. Average is.
abhaxus - Monday, August 27, 2012 - link
All of this is really all talk till after June 30, 2013. The final plan with NV isn't really in effect till after the 800mhz band is available for CDMA/LTE. After some initial problems getting the rollout in high gear, they lowered the target percentage of tower conversions to 35% per market for an official announcement (from 60%) so there are bound to be coverage gaps as the poster from DFW area.I'm holding out judgement until then. My area happens to be a good coverage area regardless of NV, so I'm in a better position than most anyway.
xilience - Monday, August 27, 2012 - link
Since latency and bandwidth numbers are inversely related, it was not immediately obvious that the Min latency would be the best case, while the Min bandwidth would be the worst.It may better to change Min/Max labels to Best/Worst in order to better represent the data. (and swap the latency values)
irev210 - Monday, August 27, 2012 - link
I feel bad for Anand making such a long trek only to see such poor results. Also, see the S4GRU update on how "optimistic" the sprint maps are.http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-315-s4gru...
According to S4GRU.com (as of aug 7th)
Atlanta/Athens*
...Sites Complete = 23%; Launched = July 15, 2012; Anticipated Completion = December 2012
Considering that the market is only around 25% done (maybe a third completed by now), I am not sure why Sprint would "formally" launch the market.
I would imagine once the build-out is complete, we will see a much different user experience.
Anand, keep in mind that Sprint will be deploying 5x5 FD-LTE on the ESMR band (currently occupied by iDEN). According to S4GRU, with Sprint using RRU's, coverage is within 3% of Verizon's 700MHz C block deployment.
A5 - Monday, August 27, 2012 - link
Also, I would have been more than happy to do your BW tests for you, since I already live in Atlanta :Prusski - Monday, August 27, 2012 - link
After 2 years of hoping to have some sort of 4g wimax coverage and even trying their new 4g lte network i was done with sprint. They have been lying to their customers for too long. I switched to verizon, much better now.4G coverage was nonexistent in DFW area even though their coverage map said so.
Hrel - Monday, August 27, 2012 - link
I know it'd be very hard to test every smart phone, but I'd really like to see reviews for Virgin Mobile's phones. Specifically the Triumph and the 4G one, which I believe you already did a review for except on Sprint. VM is owned by Sprint and uses the same network, so many things should be similar. It's just when you get down to it 35/month is WAY better than 70 on Sprint or over 100 on ATT/Verizon. Personally, if it weren't for VM I still wouldn't have a smart phone. It's absolutely insane to pay that much, imo.A5 - Monday, August 27, 2012 - link
VM phones are basically high-end CDMA phones from the previous year. The Triumph is essentially the Droid X, while the Evo V 4G is just an EVO 3D. I'm not sure anything about them would warrant further coverage.If you're into high-end phones on pre-paid, you're better off buying unlocked GSM devices and using them on SimpleMobile, StraightTalk, or T-Mobile's Monthly4G.
chong67 - Monday, August 27, 2012 - link
I just want to tell you all something.Even if you have the LTE signal, your phone will not hang onto the signal. I am in front of a LTE tower and my 4G goes in and out.
I pick 4G over 3G any day!
It is very very frustrating. Sprint have to fix the threshole.
By the time Sprint works out the kinks, another new version of LTE phone is coming out!
Do not buy any LTE PHONE!
tdtran1025 - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
In the old days PCS wireless, consumers had only to contend with 2 types of handset–one for 800/1800MHz, the other 900/1900MHz–for roaming compatibility. Chipset makers then incorporated most radio frequencies used by telcos, mainly 800/900/1800/1900MHz.Now that LTE is here, it's a lot messier. Consumers only are blinded by marketing campaigns of carriers and past experience to decide which telco they will adopt, only to find out certain quirks they don't like. Who wants to be bothered with frequencies and spectrum? Again, technology gap between phone makers and chip maker is to blame. For example, the new iPhone 5 I bought last week from Verizon has unlocked GSM feature. I rushed to ATT store to buy a prepaid nano SIM to try out this feature. The ATT store clerk tells me that the data feature won't be available, only voice and text. I think ATT employees know or have been train to say this as if they corporate expects this scenario. The bottom line is ATT LTE is not compatible Verizon/Sprint LTE because of different frequencies/bands. This harkens back to the old PCS introduction mentioned earlier. I know phone makers depend entirely on chipset makers to make their handsets to work in the intended markets. For now, Qualcomm chipset can only handle a max of 7 LTE bands. This will probably change in subsequent versions, I am sure. Till then, consumers who frequently travel outside The US will be disappointed with their LTE devices' incompatibilities.