Sprint 4G a joke?

[Jazzy-Jay]

Because i can not post direct link, i found this article @ venturebeat.com/2011/04/01/sprint-4g-wimax/ If you copy and paste in your browser, you can see the comparison chart. I thought i was pretty interesting and wanted to see what other sprint customers thought that have 4g smartphones as i am looking to upgrade from my BB Tour 9630.


1,000 tests prove Sprint?s 4G network is a joke compared to Verizon?s (updated)

April 1, 2011 | Devindra Hardawar14 Comments
Sprint may have been the first US carrier to deploy a 4G network, but it may be paying the price for being an early adopter of WiMax 4G technology.

According to a series of 1,000 speed tests conducted by BTIG Research in New York City over the past few weeks, Sprint?s 4G network gets download speeds of around 1 megabit per second on average ? far slower than even 3G networks on rival carriers. By comparison, Verizon?s 4G network ? which runs on competing LTE technology ? achieved download speeds nearly 10 times as fast on average.

The test reveals Sprint?s deep dark secret about its 4G network: it?s simply not that fast. That?s mainly due to the company putting its weight behind WiMax technology years before it could see the potential of LTE. Now with faster LTE networks being deployed by Verizon and AT&T, Sprint?s going to have a hard time convincing consumers that they should pay extra for its slower 4G speeds.

BTIG tested the networks by using the wireless hotspot functionality on Sprint?s flagship Evo 4G phone and Verizon?s recently launched HTC Thunderbolt. The research firm tracked the speeds of both an iPad 2 and a Toshiba laptop connected to the hotspots.

Indoors, Verizon?s network averaged download speeds of 8.3 Mbps and upload speeds of 4.47 Mbps. Sprint?s, on the other hand, clocked in at 1.19 Mbps down and .39 Mbps up. You can see the full speed results in the chart below. BTIG also pointed out that Verizon?s network was more reliable, and the Thunderbolt achieved better battery life than the Evo.

It should be noted that BTIG?s Sprint 4G speeds seem slower than other speed tests, where Sprint normally achieves download speeds of around 2 Mbps to 3 Mbps. But even that seems difficult to call 4G ? both AT&T and T-Mobile?s 3G networks can hit those speeds without issue. And when you compare Sprint?s 4G speeds to Verizon?s ridiculously fast LTE, it definitely seems like Sprint 4G customers are getting shortchanged.

Update: Sprint has responded to BTIG?s test:

We work closely with an independent third party research company which reports regularly to us on real-world, scientifically tested speeds and the results we see do not match what Piecyk found. We?ve recently seen speeds in NYC (inclusive of New Jersey) averaging 4-5Mbps download. We?re confident in the speed, latency and dependability of our current 4G network and in our 4G average download speed claim of 3-6Mbps with peak speeds of more than 10 Mbps download. And the Sprint 4G network will only continue to get better from here.

The Verizon 4G LTE network is very new so no one has any fully time-tested data on it yet. As their network gets loaded and more than just one smartphone comes forward on their network, we can better assess its capabilities. In the early days of 4G for Sprint, we saw some very high speed numbers when the Network was launched (much higher than our current speed claims) but what ultimately matters to customers is a consistent, long-standing experience based on a network loaded with customers.

 

[lornaevo]

Forget about what the critics say. Have you tried it yourself?

 

[crump84]

When I'm on 4G I average between 5 and 7 mbps down. That's plenty fast for me and it's very consistent.

 

[Jazzy-Jay]

i only have played with it in the sprint store which dosent really say much. I have asked a few people about the coverage with their Evo's and they had mixed decisions but majority of it was positive feedback.

 

[Linkchomp]

Sprint is a joke period. They have not rolled out 4G service like they promised and they're essentially false advertising. Verizon is currently beating the socks out of them with LTE.

 

[MM1983]

I just left sprint to go back to verizon. i will have to agree with this article, its a joke. at least in my area. i work in a 4g area, where sprints map says i should get in building service. well. i did, kinda, when it felt like it i guess. if 4g was on, it would go in and and out. every time id pick up my phone the 4g would be disconnected. the speed of the 4g was definitely faster than 3g, and to be honest it seemed faster than what any of my speed tests said the actual speed was...which were not good, i cant remember exact numbers. i left sprint because even their 3g network was slow. id rather pay a few bucks extra and have a phone than flies...shame b/c sprint def has the best rates...sprint also didnt have 4g coverage at my house.

 

[Fubie]

I have had a dabbling of Spring 4G all around the country (St. Louis, Chicago, Miami, Las Vegas, Irvine) but not at my home. While in Vegas just last week I had to use the 4G on my phone since the hotel wired and wifi never worked. I consistently had 2 bars and during my stay and randomly ran speed tests and I managed 4297 Kb/s down once but averaged 1500 Kb/s most of the time. Only one time, while in Miami did I ever see a several hour period with download speeds averaging around 5500 Kb/s. Most of the time I plod around 1500 Kb/s. Upload is where I have to laugh though. I never see speeds above 1000 Kb/s and most of the time riding right around 750 Kb/s.

Still better than 3G right?

 

[zak]

Sprint's Joke to me, being the 1st company to offer 4g in the US, but in the 5th largest city let Verizon and T-Mobile have 4g before Sprint did. Still waiting for it in Phoenix

 

[Linkchomp]

I hear the FCC is threatening to step in and force Sprint to change their faulty 4G advertisement or get rid of it completely if they do not have it out in the cities as promised.

Kind of ridiculous how you're the carrier that claims to be the first network with 4G yet you're still lagging behind while Verizon and even T-Mobile are outstripping you with getting 4G coverage.

 

[akhi216]

I hear the FCC is threatening to step in and force Sprint to change their faulty 4G advertisement or get rid of it completely if they do not have it out in the cities as promised.

I like that. I like Sprint but I don't like false advertisement. While they're at it the FCC can get on them advertising the 70 (80) Everything Data plan and AT&T's 4G phones having crippled non-4G upload speeds.

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk

 

[Linkchomp]

Exactly, they advertise the Everything Data Plans at $69.99 and up, but in reality they are $79.99 since they add $10 data fee to the plan effective for all smartphones.

It's in several ads plus ads on internet websites and all.

There's false advertisement everywhere in Sprint.

 

[jjeffcoat]

I've not been able to maintain a reliable 4g connection even when driving within a mile or 2 of Sprint's headquarters in Overland Park, KS.

 

[Droid800]

Exactly, they advertise the Everything Data Plans at $69.99 and up, but in reality they are $79.99 since they add $10 data fee to the plan effective for all smartphones.

It's in several ads plus ads on internet websites and all.

There's false advertisement everywhere in Sprint.

Every single one of those ads has a disclaimer in it that says that there is a $10 dollar premium data fee.

 

[Linkchomp]

Yeah, except every single person with a 4G phone doesn't have 4G access because Sprint apparently decided to go with Clearwire for the service. Honestly, by the time Sprint rolls out 4G to all areas, we'll be in 12G by then.

 

[anon62607]

Yeah, except every single person with a 4G phone doesn't have 4G access because Sprint apparently decided to go with Clearwire for the service. Honestly, by the time Sprint rolls out 4G to all areas, we'll be in 12G by then.

Verizon's 4G service is pretty limited in coverage at the moment too. I travel a lot for work and so far have only come across Verizon 4G in Las Vegas (except at airports). I'm in Memphis at the moment and have an AT&T iPhone 4, an iPad version 1 3G, a HTC Thunderbolt and a Rover Puck (which uses clearwire), along with a T-Mobile Galaxy Tab (which is "3G") -

The Rover Puck does get a wimax signal and it's pretty reliably 1 mbps though Clear doesn't even advertise the area for sale of service yet. No LTE service available and Verizon's 3G is usually around 1 - 1.5 mbps though can dip pretty substantially. The iPhone 4 gets something like 2 mbps down but usually something like 100 kbps up and the Galaxy Tab something like 1.5 mbps down. It's kind of a random example but I usually end up having better luck getting wimax service than LTE so far.

The only service that seems able to stream youtube in "HD" mode to the phones is T-Mobile, everything else stalls.

Fundamentally, Verizon is using 20 MHz of spectrum for LTE, Sprint is using 10 MHz for Wimax, HSPA+ on T-Mobile and AT&T are both using 10 MHz - some basic laws of physics say even given equal technology, Verizon will have more capacity. Which is probably why Clear is testing out LTE in 40 MHz of spectrum which would be very interesting.

Presuming 5 bits/Hz maximum, downlink on Verzion should be 50 Mbps, on Sprint should be 50 Mbps (as it's TDD, all 10 Mhz could possibly go to downlink), on AT&T and T-Mobile would be 25 Mbps.

 

[gabbott]

I've been very happy with sprint and the coverage in my area but this has me a little worried:

Sprint Community: Voice and 3G coverage being drastically...

 

[Linkchomp]

I've been very happy with sprint and the coverage in my area but this has me a little worried:

Sprint Community: Voice and 3G coverage being drastically...

That would explain my random bouts of losing signal strength in areas where I normally have a strong signal. I'm not going to be paying Sprint for half-assed coverage if I start losing signal strength tremendously.

Verizon's 4G service is pretty limited in coverage at the moment too. I travel a lot for work and so far have only come across Verizon 4G in Las Vegas (except at airports). I'm in Memphis at the moment and have an AT&T iPhone 4, an iPad version 1 3G, a HTC Thunderbolt and a Rover Puck (which uses clearwire), along with a T-Mobile Galaxy Tab (which is "3G") -

The Rover Puck does get a wimax signal and it's pretty reliably 1 mbps though Clear doesn't even advertise the area for sale of service yet. No LTE service available and Verizon's 3G is usually around 1 - 1.5 mbps though can dip pretty substantially. The iPhone 4 gets something like 2 mbps down but usually something like 100 kbps up and the Galaxy Tab something like 1.5 mbps down. It's kind of a random example but I usually end up having better luck getting wimax service than LTE so far.

The only service that seems able to stream youtube in "HD" mode to the phones is T-Mobile, everything else stalls.

Fundamentally, Verizon is using 20 MHz of spectrum for LTE, Sprint is using 10 MHz for Wimax, HSPA+ on T-Mobile and AT&T are both using 10 MHz - some basic laws of physics say even given equal technology, Verizon will have more capacity. Which is probably why Clear is testing out LTE in 40 MHz of spectrum which would be very interesting.

Presuming 5 bits/Hz maximum, downlink on Verzion should be 50 Mbps, on Sprint should be 50 Mbps (as it's TDD, all 10 Mhz could possibly go to downlink), on AT&T and T-Mobile would be 25 Mbps.

I have no idea what a lot of those numbers mean lol.

But seriously though, I've used Clear's website and checked areas for 4G where Sprint doesn't show, and I've still yet to get a 4G signal even though the coverage map says it should be covered.

My biggest gripe is Sprint not having 4G coverage in enough areas despite the heavy advertising. But imo, that's what's to expect from a carrier with a colorful history of bad service and bigotry lies about services and such.

 

[anon62607]

That would explain my random bouts of losing signal strength in areas where I normally have a strong signal. I'm not going to be paying Sprint for half-assed coverage if I start losing signal strength tremendously.



I have no idea what a lot of those numbers mean lol.

But seriously though, I've used Clear's website and checked areas for 4G where Sprint doesn't show, and I've still yet to get a 4G signal even though the coverage map says it should be covered.

My biggest gripe is Sprint not having 4G coverage in enough areas despite the heavy advertising. But imo, that's what's to expect from a carrier with a colorful history of bad service and bigotry lies about services and such.

Nothing excuses lying in advertising but at the same time I don't think people realize just how hard of a problem it is that the various phone companies are trying to solve, how expensive it is, and how much worse the problem is going to get in the next few years.

The average cellphone sector might have something like 300 subscribers signed onto that sector at one time, so when you think about it, that's maybe 33 kHz per user if all users were active at the same time. Using that same 5 bits/Hz highly theoretical average, that's only 165 Kbps download speed per user - less if you consider tcp and other protocol overheads.

There is a certain need for the users to be rational, if every single one of our users in at hypothetical sector were torrenting endless Linux isos no one would ever see faster than that 165 Kbps (presuming very good radio conditions) and using more realistic radio conditions it'd be more like 50 Kbps.

In the old days of 2008, only a couple of users per sector were very heavy users, but now as the world smartphoneizes many of them are and performance is getting dragged down to sluggish levels due to a lot of people using a lot of data a lot of the time. Ten users each being delivers 3 Mbps is more than half the radio performance of the sector (for a 10 MHz 5 bit/Hz sector).

The technology isn't a joke, wimax is in just about every way an equal to LTE from a technical standpoint, but there are a lot fewer LTE users than wimax users right now but eventually LTE is going to face the same problem. A few things can be done in the next few years:

Increase spectral efficiency - next generation (rel 10) LTE and wimax 2
Use more spectrum - clear already stacks sectors, devoting 3 (usually) frequency sectors per geographic sector
Reduce the number of users per sector - that means putting up more towers with smaller geographic areas per tower (this kind of thinking did go into LTE too) or doing very narrow angle sectors via beam forming
Reduce the bandwidth demand per user - capping bandwidth or increasing price

All of the technical solutions have several years left to play out but eventually the scarce resource - time x spectrum - will make basic economics rear it's ugly head and prices will have to go up, when someone like sprint or clear offer an unlimited amount of a limited resource for a fixed price something is wrong.

I like wimax, I think clear has a good network based on good technology, but the load is very high and clear is limited a bit in their options on how to get out of it.

Play a little thought experiment game, pretend you have one city of 100 square miles downtown dense area and 2000 square miles suburban density around it. You have purchased 10 MHz of spectrum that will provide an average of 5 bits/ Hz up to 2 miles away from a tower in urban areas or 5 miles away in suburban areas. For simplicity assume 1 omnidirectional sector per tower. Assume the urban area has a population density of 35000 people per square mile and the suburbs 1800 people per square mile (3.5 million in the city and 3.6 million in the suburbs). You start with 20 cell towers- well you can go on and come up with reasonable numbers for the other aspects but deciding how to place the towers and how much bandwidth to offer at what price becomes non trivial particularly in the face of competition. But you can imagine if you got 10% of the population with whatever offer and placed the towers for maximum area covered you end up with 43750 users per tower downtown and if they all take you up on that unlimited bandwidth thats 1.14 kbps (not mbps) per user. Capping users at 100 MB per month would raise the average end user observed speed to 3.72 Kbps. Still awful but obviously the caps are enormously helpful to any user that doesn't habitually max out their connection every month.

It's kind of a fun exercise to go through but basically the long and short of it is eventually cell companies are going to have to tier if not outright meter bandwidth (straight up x cents per megabit), I think.

 

[Linkchomp]

Well it's not really the tech I am blasting, more like the company. Clearwire isn't exactly the best company when it comes to 4G or wireless tech period.

Honestly, I think Sprint has mishandled the whole 4G thing and could've done a lot better with it imo.

I'm not trying to disagree with you or anything, but I think you're being more technical about it than what's necessary since the average user isn't going to understand what any of that means.

It's not about being scarce. It's about coverage not being substantial.

 

[Timanator]

We have a Sprint Mifi that the status show as on 4g, but the DL times are no better than a 1.5 mps dsl line. Not impressed for the price so far.