data speeds on sprint galaxy nexus

[irev210]

I was talking about user experience not necessarily the speed itself being fast everywhere. You hardly ever get dropped service, and dead zones in Manhattan on Verizon's LTE due to the serious cell density I was referring to.
Again, my screenshot represents peak download speeds on Verizon's year old commercial LTE network, maxing out 10Mhz channel in New York City, using my own stock Galaxy Nexus.

The good coverage is a result of the prime 700MHz spectrum.

Verizon actually has less 700MHz LTE sites than PCS sites (way less). As capacity starts to roll in they will backfill with more basestations.

 

[milan03]

The good coverage is a result of the prime 700MHz spectrum.

Verizon actually has less 700MHz LTE sites than PCS sites (way less). As capacity starts to roll in they will backfill with more basestations.

I dont think 700Mhz matters as much in the urban areas like Manhattan where they have thousands of small cells hidden on every street block, in ceilings, poles, etc. The regular macro cells are not as important.
700Mhz matters a lot more in less urban areas when the signal propagation is crucial, where signal actually travells longer and Verizon doesn't have to deploy cell sites on every corner.

 

[KoukiFC3S]

10Mbps download would be plenty fast for me.

I just hope Sprint will have good LTE coverage. I am on LTE 95% of the time with Verizon.

 

[Droid800]

I dont think 700Mhz matters as much in the urban areas like Manhattan where they have thousands of small cells hidden on every street block, in ceilings, poles, etc. The regular macro cells are not as important.
700Mhz matters a lot more in less urban areas when the signal propagation is crucial, where signal actually travells longer and Verizon doesn't have to deploy cell sites on every corner.

That's correct. The biggest reason they want the AWS spectrum is for big markets like New York and Chicago where higher frequencies are better.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[irev210]

I dont think 700Mhz matters as much in the urban areas like Manhattan where they have thousands of small cells hidden on every street block, in ceilings, poles, etc. The regular macro cells are not as important.
700Mhz matters a lot more in less urban areas when the signal propagation is crucial, where signal actually travells longer and Verizon doesn't have to deploy cell sites on every corner.

700MHz is still 700MHz and will provide the best indoor coverage. Yes, in urban environment there are a lot more cells to close the coverage gap but you can't beat the propagation characteristics of 700MHz vs 1900MHz.

According to Verizon they have only started to talk about deploying small cells:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021897886

Related story about it here:
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-deploy-lte-femtocells-small-cells/2012-03-05

Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) will begin deploying LTE small cells and femtocells sometime in the future to meet growing capacity demands, according to a recent filing the carrier made with the FCC. However, Verizon did not indicate when it would do so.

In the filing, Bill Stone, Verizon's executive director of network strategy, stated that "as the technology becomes available and matures, Verizon Wireless will be deploying small cells aggressively to increase system capacity." Parts of Stone's statement were redacted.


According to a provider of DAS hardware and technology, Verizon doesn't even have a cohesive DAS strategy
Carrier Positioning ? The Inside Story

In the future, if you want to have a discussion, please post relevant posts on where you obtain this mythical information from. It's annoying when someone proposes that a carrier has "thousands of small cells hidden [everywhere]" when Verizon DOES NOT and has EXPLICITLY stated to the FCC that small cells are something they are going to install (but have not).

 

[irev210]

That's correct. The biggest reason they want the AWS spectrum is for big markets like New York and Chicago where higher frequencies are better.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

The frequencies aren't "better" they are "different".

When you deploy 700MHz for good coverage and then backfill with AWS, you not only add additional spectrum but you can "recycle" the AWS more often because it doesn't propagate as well.

Ideally, you want both - the 700MHz for coverage and then higher, more available, spectrum to add capacity.

For example, we see Sprint deploying 5x5 of FD-LTE on ESMR (800MHz), then 5x5 (to start) of FD-LTE on PCS (1900MHz) and then TD-LTE using Clearwire's ERS/BRS (2.5GHz) spectrum to add even more capacity.

Clearwire's LTE configuration will be deployed in what Clearwire calls "fat pipes". They will aggregate 20MHz blocks of spectrum to move just massive amounts of data. The LTE-Advanced (rel 10) allows up to five 20MHz channels to be aggregated. Not sure exactly what clearwire will do, but figure at least 20MHz + 20MHz.

Verizon is doing the same thing. They are starting with 700MHz for coverage, then will expand to AWS for capacity.

 

[milan03]

700MHz is still 700MHz and will provide the best indoor coverage. Yes, in urban environment there are a lot more cells to close the coverage gap but you can't beat the propagation characteristics of 700MHz vs 1900MHz.

According to Verizon they have only started to talk about deploying small cells:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021897886

Related story about it here:
Verizon to deploy LTE femtocells, small cells - FierceWireless

Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) will begin deploying LTE small cells and femtocells sometime in the future to meet growing capacity demands, according to a recent filing the carrier made with the FCC. However, Verizon did not indicate when it would do so.

That future is now lol. I'm inviting you to NYC and challenging you to find me some visible Verizon's cell sites, especially Verizon's eNodeB's in midtown Manhattan. It's all small cells fed by whichever fiber is available at the location. Another challenge is to find those small cells as theyre hidden extremely well. And you know they're literarily next to you as you're staring at your UE with signal -30dBm inside of starbucks, hotels, shopping malls, etc.

 

[irev210]

That future is now lol. I'm inviting you to NYC and challenging you to find me some visible Verizon's cell sites, especially Verizon's eNodeB's in midtown Manhattan. It's all small cells fed by whichever fiber is available at the location. Another challenge is to find those small cells as theyre hidden extremely well. And you know they're literarily next to you as you're staring at your UE with signal -30dBm inside of starbucks, hotels, shopping malls, etc.

I am going to have to go with Bill Stone, Verizon's executive director of network strategy who said last month that they have not deployed small cells. Just because you can't see a cell doesn't mean that it's a small cell either.

I am not trying to dispute your claim that Verizon's 4G LTE coverage is VERY good in Manhattan (I agree, I've used it and was blown away). And I'll be the first to say that Clearwire's 4G WiMAX in NYC is absolute garbage.

The primary driver of good coverage for VZN in Manhattan is the prime 700MHz spectrum that they paid good money for. It was a wise investment and has paid off BIG for them.

 

[milan03]

Actually Verizon's evdo and 1x coverage is even better than their LTE, so as I said before, the 700mhz Isn't necesarily their primary driver. It helps, but their main driver in NYC is cell density and backhaul that's second to none. if Clearwire had similar density in NYC they would've been amazing with their 2.6ghz holdings. Remember, Swedish provider Telia Sonera has been running FDD LTE on that same band for over two years and their service is spot on.

 

[VW Maverick]

No access to Sprint's 4G LTE just yet:

Sprint intentionally blocking new LTE devices from accessing live LTE sites - Sprint 4G Rollout Updates

Mav.

 

[nickpro]

what are everyone's thoughts on 3G day-to-day? horribly slow, decent, so-so?

 

[Jaggrey]

I'd think if you're already on Sprint then 3G would work like you're used to.

 

[Grolley]

I'd think if you're already on Sprint then 3G would work like you're used to.

Would make sense to me as well..

 

[hmmm]

I know it is wishful thinking since Minnesota isn't supposed to be live until later this year but no one is supposed to be live yet so has anyone tried LTE in Minnepolis yet or are there reports of areas not in the first wave having some LTE yet?

I honestly don't care if at the end of everything Sprint's LTE ends up being 5Mbps down and 1Mbps up. It would be vastly better than Sprint's current 3G and the building penetration would make it useable vs wimax. You could do pretty much everything instantly other than if you want to download an HD movie quickly or something. Streaming anything and smallish files would be really fast even at 5Mbps down.

 

[trooper54]

my day to day 3g is probably the best i've had on any phone on sprint.

I'm getting on average 1.6mbps down and around .3 mbps up on 3g.

No Sprint LTE in San Diego for my to check. T_T

 

[Jaggrey]

What were your speeds before and what phone did you have previously?

 

[trooper54]

What were your speeds before and what phone did you have previously?

Hero, Evo 4g, Epic 4g, Evo 3D

On the EVO 3D, think i got up to like .8mbps max down, no matter where i was, what time of day it was, indoors, out doors, whatever lol.

 

[Jaggrey]

Wow there is an improvement then. Surprising but definitely welcome!

 

[irev210]

Actually Verizon's evdo and 1x coverage is even better than their LTE, so as I said before, the 700mhz Isn't necesarily their primary driver. It helps, but their main driver in NYC is cell density and backhaul that's second to none. if Clearwire had similar density in NYC they would've been amazing with their 2.6ghz holdings. Remember, Swedish provider Telia Sonera has been running FDD LTE on that same band for over two years and their service is spot on.

As I explained earlier, EVDO and 1x coverage is better because Verizon isn't overlaying every old PCS site with LTE.

It's frustrating that you just make stuff up as you go along. If Clearwire overlaid Verizon's 700MHz network they would not have been amazing. The propagation characteristics of the two spectrums are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

Telia Sonera's service is spot on? Do you use them, are you quoting a report, or are you just making that up too? I am not sure why you are even comparing a FD-LTE network to a TD-WiMAX network. They operate differently and are NOT comparable. Over at S4GRU.com, it was very clearly explained that WiMAX needs a FAR better signal to work vs. LTE.

"The tests show that TeliaSonera's network struggles when connecting users located indoors."

On the streets of Stockholm with LTE - Computerworld


Like I said before, it's great to have a discussion about LTE on Sprint vs. Verizon but when you just make facts up out of thin air (like "thousands" of small cells even though Verizon hasn't deployed a single one)... it just causes confusion and doesn't add anything to the forum.

For the record - I agree that Verizon has a VERY solid LTE network in NYC (I've used it).

 

[milan03]

As I explained earlier, EVDO and 1x coverage is better because Verizon isn't overlaying every old PCS site with LTE.

It's frustrating that you just make stuff up as you go along. If Clearwire overlaid Verizon's 700MHz network they would not have been amazing. The propagation characteristics of the two spectrums are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

Telia Sonera's service is spot on? Do you use them, are you quoting a report, or are you just making that up too? I am not sure why you are even comparing a FD-LTE network to a TD-WiMAX network. They operate differently and are NOT comparable. Over at S4GRU.com, it was very clearly explained that WiMAX needs a FAR better signal to work vs. LTE.

"The tests show that TeliaSonera's network struggles when connecting users located indoors."

On the streets of Stockholm with LTE - Computerworld


Like I said before, it's great to have a discussion about LTE on Sprint vs. Verizon but when you just make facts up out of thin air (like "thousands" of small cells even though Verizon hasn't deployed a single one)... it just causes confusion and doesn't add anything to the forum.

For the record - I agree that Verizon has a VERY solid LTE network in NYC (I've used it).

I go to Stockholm twice a year on average, the service is amazing. They actually have 20Mhz channels deployed and speeds are peaking at about 94mbps. It's funny how you pulled the article about Telia from two years ago when their network was only few months old, and most sites weren't even overlaid with LTE.
If you didn't catch, my point is that 2.6Ghz LTE network can be perfectly fine in the urban areas where the cell sites are more dense, eventhough 2.6Ghz isn't gonna propagate nearly as well as 700Mhz.