Develop Bugs

Lightsquared is Sprint's 4G LTE network, right?

I keep hearing that gps conflict is messing up the lte deployment for Sprint. Does this mean all of Sprint's lte plans are delayed or do they have Clearwire also backing them up? I don't fully understand Sprints situation.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

No. SPrint has their own LTE. They wanted Lightsquared spectrum so they could expand the network wider and faster.
Didn't mean to hit thanks on your post.

Sprint is building out its own network and was gonna lease from third parties like light squared. Sprint already gave them till like June to figure it out or they are gonna lease from another or build out its own network in the places it was gonna use it
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App

newalker91 said:
Here is the entire story in a nutshell:
Lightsquared has been working for a long time on a very promising Satellite based LTE technology that can blanket the entire US in LTE with the flip of a switch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You made a great summary. Just curious do you have a source for this information I'd like to read more on the ability to cover the whole US.

So sprints own LTE wont be just 'outdoor' (like wimax... ****.)... Hope they build something with reasonable wall penetration...

newalker91 said:
Here is the entire story in a nutshell:
Lightsquared has been working for a long time on a very promising Satellite based LTE technology that can blanket the entire US in LTE with the flip of a switch. Sprint liked the sound of this as it would be a great financial opportunity and offered a partnership with the company. At Lightsquared, they were allocated a very small range of spectrum by the FCC, and their technology has been finely tuned to operate within the limits of said spectrum. Unfortunately, their spectrum is directly neighboring the spectrum for common GPS frequencies. Back in the day, since no one was using what is now Lightsquared's spectrum, GPS providers were sacrificing precision for reliability and allowed their spectrum use to get sloppy in order to avoid service interruptions. This frequency fluctuation caused some older devices to commonly operate outside of the legally allocated GPS spectrum, and with Lightsquared now testing their network those older GPS units would begin to malfunction. As a few of the FCC board members have large financial interests in the GPS industry, they are taking sides with those manufacturers and demanding Lightsquared fix their technology to not interfere with the devices squatting outside of the legal limits.
As of current, Lightsquared is still contesting the rulings stating that their service is not safe for use. Should Lightsquared not succeed, Sprint will still continue to build out their LTE network by using the Network Vision goal of re-purposing iDEN towers. It will just end up being more costly and a slower roll-out than using a satellite based service to cover almost the entire US population with outdoor LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seeing as how most gps "devices" are simply receivers and the "transmitters" are Dept. of Defense satellites, please explain to me how "GPS providers were sacrificing precision for reliability and allowed their spectrum use to get sloppy in order to avoid service interruptions"....Please provide us some names of these gps providers that are at fault for Lightsquared's bad business decisions....
GPS manufacturers already have filters engineered for the quiet neighborhood of the satellite spectrum. They cannot be expected to use filters that would either greatly increase cost, size and reduce accuracy to filter out signals that would be, and currently are illegal. Nor could they be expected to see the future and design a filter for a network whose actual broadcast strength and frequencies would not even be known until 2011. And finally, as the testing from the first half of 2011, no filter would have worked against LightSquared's first network configuration.

newalker91 said:
Here is the entire story in a nutshell:
Lightsquared has been working for a long time on a very promising Satellite based LTE technology that can blanket the entire US in LTE with the flip of a switch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lightsquared is NOT putting up Satellite-based LTE available with the "flip of a switch"
Lightsquared bought and consolidated frequencies meant for satellite use and are repurposing for land-based use. They got the approvals for land-based use and were contracting Sprint to include support for their frequencies on Sprint *towers* as part of Sprint's NV plans. There may be some minor satellite-based component, but the bulk of the network was supposed to be tower-based, specifically on Sprint's towers.
They ran into the GPS issues which they are currently fighting. It has become a snafu with all sides politicizing it.
To Sprint it would have been just supporting extra frequencies on top of their own 800ESMR and 1900PCS and would have meant additional revenue from Lightsquared for the build out and also opportunites to have extra LTE capacity for Sprint users.

What friggin good is "outdoor" lte. I want to be able to use LTE inside my home, work, etc. I'll be damned if I'm gonna step outside every time I wanna use LTE on my cell phone.

sfhub said:
Lightsquared is NOT putting up Satellite-based LTE available with the "flip of a switch"
Lightsquared bought and consolidated frequencies meant for satellite use and are repurposing for land-based use. They got the approvals for land-based use and were contracting Sprint to include support for their frequencies on Sprint *towers* as part of Sprint's NV plans. There may be some minor satellite-based component, but the bulk of the network was supposed to be tower-based, specifically on Sprint's towers.
They ran into the GPS issues which they are currently fighting. It has become a snafu with all sides politicizing it.
To Sprint it would have been just supporting extra frequencies on top of their own 800ESMR and 1900PCS and would have meant additional revenue from Lightsquared for the build out and also opportunites to have extra LTE capacity for Sprint users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're way off base on this. The plan is a hybrid of both satellite and terrestrial (tower) coverage, and sprint was contracted to build towers for light squared (not light squared piggy backing off of sprint towers).
The upside for sprint is 1. They get paid to do it, and 2. They get first dibs on some wholesale chunks of lightsquareds LTE (since lightsquared isn't planning on being an ISP, but a network wholeselling to ISPs)
postq said:
Seeing as how most gps "devices" are simply receivers and the "transmitters" are Dept. of Defense satellites, please explain to me how "GPS providers were sacrificing precision for reliability and allowed their spectrum use to get sloppy in order to avoid service interruptions"....Please provide us some names of these gps providers that are at fault for Lightsquared's bad business decisions....
GPS manufacturers already have filters engineered for the quiet neighborhood of the satellite spectrum. They cannot be expected to use filters that would either greatly increase cost, size and reduce accuracy to filter out signals that would be, and currently are illegal. Nor could they be expected to see the future and design a filter for a network whose actual broadcast strength and frequencies would not even be known until 2011. And finally, as the testing from the first half of 2011, no filter would have worked against LightSquared's first network configuration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're pretty off base as well. The GPS manufacturers actually did "know the future", as it were, considering they endorsed the FCC deal when lightsquared bought the spectrum a decade ago. Also, it's a known truth that affected devices are older, legacy devices that were designed to "look into" the spectrum that light squared now owns...however that degree of effect is lost in the media.
Some informative reading on just how much these receivers are "hindered" and other bureaucratic nonsense:
http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/9565/2/
http://m.androidcentral.com/lightsquared-claims-government-testing-rigged-gps-industry-insiders
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

squshy 7 said:
sprint was contracted to build towers for light squared (not light squared piggy backing off of sprint towers).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It takes a lot of work to get new towers approved through local government. Why would you think Sprint would be building new towers for Lightsquared vs using their existing ones?

sfhub said:
It takes a lot of work to get new towers approved through local government. Why would you think Sprint would be building new towers for Lightsquared vs using their existing ones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, because that's what my uppers told me we were doing? Lol, go back to the network vision announcement, it's spelled out pretty clearly. Sprint is more or less the contractor for building the physical towers...I don't know who deals with all the government nonsense involved, considering Lightsquared will own the towers.
The main selling point behind it, and why it makes sense, is that it greatly helps offset the cost of the iPhone, considering sprint is getting paid somewhere between 2-7 billion for it (i don't remember the figure off the top of my head) over the course of the construction.
Now, will sprint convert some existing infrastructure? Sure, if it's cost and network effective, that only makes sense.
The only issue is that lightsquared's frequency isn't part of sprint's multi-modal tower design, so lightsquared towers will likely be stand alone. So, in this case, i view converting and constructing as effectively the same. Though without the whole construction part. But yes, for sure, lightsquared will own the towers.
I do apologize though, as i slightly misinterpreted your comment
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

newalker91 said:
It was an exaggeration, simply meant to mean that it would be a hell of a lot faster in its roll-out than what Sprint could do. According to their website, though, a lot of it actually would be satellite based. Not just satellite frequencies switched for ground purposes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lightsquared got their L-band spectrum from Immarsat and SkyTerra. It was originally for satellite, then FCC allowed SkyTerra "ancillary" terrestrial transmitters, now the terrestrial component is becoming the dominant component and the satellite component much smaller part of the picture.
This is a good history for Lightsquared
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...ones-lightsquared-faces-enemies-on-all-sides/
The FCC allowed “ancillary” ground-based transmitters in 2003 to help L-band carriers get better coverage, and in 2004 the GPS industry’s main lobbying group endorsed SkyTerra’s plan to build a combined satellite/terrestrial communications network.
...
The FCC also licensed him to increase the power of his ground stations to 15 kilowatts, the same as conventional cell towers.
...
Then in November LightSquared asked the FCC to allow its wholesale customers to sell “terrestrial only” cellular plans.
...
As you’d expect, Verizon and AT&T filed objections to LightSquared’s plans, saying it represented a “major” modification of the original satellite communications license. AT&T, which sells a competing dual-mode phone for $799, declined to comment on the filing. Verizon said it is concerned about the GPS systems in most of its phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The rest of the industry didn't really pay attention to what Falcone put together because they assumed it would cost Lightsquared more to provide the dual satellite/terrestrial network.
They started paying real close attention when Lightsquared applied to sell terrestrial-only cellular plans (effectively taking their L-band spectrum and competing directly with traditional cell companies) Sprint was contracted to build the terrestrial network using Lightsquared spectrum. Sprint was only too happy to do this since it fit in very nicely with their NV plans.
It would be minimum effort to add LTE support for Lightsquared spectrum during NV expansion. It would be more effort to go back and do it afterwards. This is why Sprint is putting time limits on Lightsquared to get their ducks lined up.
---------- Post added at 06:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 AM ----------
squshy 7 said:
Sprint is more or less the contractor for building the physical towers...I don't know who deals with all the government nonsense involved, considering Lightsquared will own the towers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well Sprint would be more like the General Contractor, because Sprint is contracting out to others to do the work, even for NV.

sfhub said:
]
Well Sprint would be more like the General Contractor, because Sprint is contracting out to others to do the work, even for NV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, exactly. That's what really gets me. But, it does make sense, Sprint already has a long relationship with Ericsson and others.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium

squshy 7 said:
Haha, exactly. That's what really gets me. But, it does make sense, Sprint already has a long relationship with Ericsson and others.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You would know better than me, but I was under the impression Sprint "outsourced" all the tower maintenance to Ericsson, and Ericsson basically just hired the Sprint people that used to be in charge of that stuff to kick start everything.
According to this article the Sprint deal with Lightsquared was to have Sprint host Lightsquared's terrestrial LTE network:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389312,00.asp
On Thursday morning, Sprint announced a lucrative agreement to host LightSquared's proposed, and extremely controversial, independent LTE network for 15 years—provided LightSquared gets Federal Communications Commission approval to operate despite known GPS interferences..
You may be forgiven if, at this point, you've never heard of LightSquared. The Virginia-based company has been providing satellite services for over a decade, but was acquired last year by NYC-based hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners. This group proposed using LightSquared's spectrum to operate a much more lucrative terrestrial LTE cell phone network for local consumers.
But instead of selling directly to consumers, LightSquared's customers would be small retail carriers that can't afford to build LTE networks to compete against current behemoths Verizon and soon, AT&T. LightSquared's multi-billion dollar proposal received conditional FCC approval in January, but after reports surfaced that its proposed architecture might cripple nearby GPS bands, its future is in question.
With today's deal, LightSquared will pay Sprint $9 billion in cash—$290 million upfront—over the course of 11 years, and offer Sprint $4.5 billion in LTE and satellite purchase credits. Sprint will also have the option to buy up to 50 percent of LightSquared's expected 4G capacity.
The agreement is two-fold for LightSquared. As a result, the network provider will be able to borrow from Sprint's 3G spectrum and offer its customers both 4G and 3G data services. LightSquared will also join Clearwire in renting shelf space from Sprint's multi-mode base stations (what? see point #4 below), called the Network Vision initiative, for its potential 4G network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe the article got it wrong, but it sure seems like Sprint towers are what were being proposed to host Lightsquared's LTE network.
If Sprint (via their contractors) was really building brand new towers for Lightsquared, I can't see the uproar from Verizon and ATT as it would take forever for them to get coverage going through local governments for new tower approvals. Piggybacking on Sprint's network, they would be a nationwide competitor in the same timespan as Sprint's LTE network.

Anyone know where I can find the list of cities that are getting first dibs on Sprint's LTE?

Overstew said:
Anyone know where I can find the list of cities that are getting first dibs on Sprint's LTE?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://s4gru.spruz.com/pt/Sprints-N...eployment-details-emerge-for-Chicago/blog.htm

dtm_stretch said:
You made a great summary. Just curious do you have a source for this information I'd like to read more on the ability to cover the whole US.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Phonearena.com and phonescoop should have the news if you look for it
Sent from my E4GT with MiUi!

And the gps issue and the fcc is correct .. It's only been in the news for a while now. Surprised so many didn't know this already.. Sprint was relying on lightsquared.. Fcc is giving them issues.. Sprint doesn't even have 4g in phoenix, so lame. Who cares if people outside the limits of gps can't use it. lightsquared should be able to use a spectrum not previously used if you asked me :-(
Sent from my E4GT with MiUi!

squshy 7 said:
You're pretty off base as well. The GPS manufacturers actually did "know the future", as it were, considering they endorsed the FCC deal when lightsquared bought the spectrum a decade ago. Also, it's a known truth that affected devices are older, legacy devices that were designed to "look into" the spectrum that light squared now owns...however that degree of effect is lost in the media.
Some informative reading on just how much these receivers are "hindered" and other bureaucratic nonsense:
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With all due respect, are you suggesting that GPS manufacturers should have put in filters in 2003 to filter Lightsquared transmissions consistent with Lightsquared's operating proposal initially ? There is overwhelming consensus that this is not that easy nor inexpensive. Testing done in 1Q 2010, consistent with the initial Lightsquared proposal and in which they participated fully, indicated great difficulty with an filter based solution. The evidence was so clear, and the difficulty so great, that Lightsquared gave up there initial proposal almost immediately and revised their operating plan, abandoning any current plans to use the upper frequency band, and reducing transmitted power on the lower frequency band.
Suggesting that it would have been simple and inexpensive for GPS manufacturers to put filters into their equipment in 2003 to filter out both of Lightsquared's bands at the initial higher radiated power when in 2011 it was considered too difficult a problem to solve in a timely manner would seem to be ridiculous, don't you think?
So, if you're not suggesting THAT, then are you suggesting that GPS receiver manufacturers should have known in 2003 that Lightsquared would adjust their operating plan by forfeiting use of the upper band and reducing power in the lower band in 2011. Lightsquared didn't even know about this plan of theirs until last summer! How in the world could GPS manufacturers designed filters around the current Lightsquared proposal when it was not even known until less than a year ago? Should they have a had a crystal ball?

postq said:
With all due respect, are you suggesting that GPS manufacturers should have put in filters in 2003 to filter Lightsquared transmissions consistent with Lightsquared's operating proposal initially ? There is overwhelming consensus that this is not that easy nor inexpensive. Testing done in 1Q 2010, consistent with the initial Lightsquared proposal and in which they participated fully, indicated great difficulty with an filter based solution. The evidence was so clear, and the difficulty so great, that Lightsquared gave up there initial proposal almost immediately and revised their operating plan, abandoning any current plans to use the upper frequency band, and reducing transmitted power on the lower frequency band.
Suggesting that it would have been simple and inexpensive for GPS manufacturers to put filters into their equipment in 2003 to filter out both of Lightsquared's bands at the initial higher radiated power when in 2011 it was considered too difficult a problem to solve in a timely manner would seem to be ridiculous, don't you think?
So, if you're not suggesting THAT, then are you suggesting that GPS receiver manufacturers should have known in 2003 that Lightsquared would adjust their operating plan by forfeiting use of the upper band and reducing power in the lower band in 2011. Lightsquared didn't even know about this plan of theirs until last summer! How in the world could GPS manufacturers designed filters around the current Lightsquared proposal when it was not even known until less than a year ago? Should they have a had a crystal ball?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you are saying that I can buy a radio station at say 98.7 and broadcast all the way up to 100.6 and down to 96.9 ..... well of course not the GPS manufacturer should have used what frequency they could and not infringe on others who bought their frequency too
The ones in the wrong were the GPS manufacturer and the regulatory FCC for not making sure it was right
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

Exclusive: Testing Sprint's New 4G LTE Network

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..

customer care about LTE

On March 24th will be going to be announced it about the Lte
Sent from my SGH-T889 using xda premium

jpeps3 said:
On March 24th will be going to be announced it about the Lte
Sent from my SGH-T889 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh? What did you say?

daveid said:
Huh? What did you say?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ditto

http://www.tmonews.com/2013/03/t-mo...un-as-lte-update-releases-for-galaxy-note-ii/
In the new of lte
Sent from my SGH-T889 using xda premium

Navigation
T-Mobile’s LTE Network Gets Official Trial Run As LTE Update Releases For Galaxy Note II
March 18, 2013 David Beren 8 Comments
T-Mobile’s LTE network is beginning to show some signs of life as a number of sites just posted some hands-on results conducted in New York City last week. That means some good news for Galaxy Note II owners as the long-awaited LTE software update finally rolls out beginning today.
The tests, conducted by The Verge, Engadget, LaptopMag and CNET, we’re getting a first look at what the network is truly capable of. There’s a caveat of course, that all of these tests are running on microcells with absolutely no traffic on it so real-world speeds will be theoretically be slower with thousands of customers on a tower at any given time.*As was case with the HSPA+ rollout, the use of new tower equipment along the necessary LTE hardware should result in better coverage for everyone says T-Mobile Product Management Director Randy Meyerson. That’s good news for customers who may choose to ignore T-Mobile’s first round of LTE handsets as improved coverage is always welcome.
As for those of you looking for the BlackBerry Z10, T-Mobile’s first LTE-ready*BlackBerry, that’s still on the calendar before the end of March. The carrier says LTE is ready in both Las Vegas and Kansas City*and*all that’s left is flipping the switch allowing customers officially on the network. With the promise of a network that covers 200 million people with LTE before the end of 2013, T-Mobile’s rollout is bound to ramp up quickly.
As for the speeds themselves, LaptopMag was able to hit download speeds as high as 58.8Mbps, with uploads running as high as 25.5Mbps. Engadget faired a little better pushing above the 60Mbps mark hitting a high of 62.13Mbps and a download high of 25.67Mbps. Overall, speeds appeared to average well into the high 50′s on the download and in the high trends on the upload side. Remember the earlier caveat though. a
One major advantage for T-Mobile’s LTE network and a selling point the company will certainly use when it rolls out its rumored “Dual 4G” marketing later this year is HSPA+ 42Mbps as a fallback. The ability to fall back on speeds that T-Mobile has long claimed rival competitor LTE networks is an advantage T-Mobile will attempt to use against the likes of Verizon.
For now, T-Mobile highlights that its LTE network will be focused on measured adoption, with an emphasis on higher-end handsets focusing on the technically savvy, media heavy-set of customers. As for*how long it will take before T-Mobile has their LTE network rolled out to more than two cities? That’s a great question that T-Mobile is playing coy with answering. With plans to have 100 million customers cover in LTE before summer, we’re certain we’ll find more cities lighting up in the near future.
The Verge, Engadget, LaptopMag, CNET
Tags: blackberry z10, galaxy note II, LTE, lte network, Network, note II, z10
About David Beren
David is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TmoNews.com. He considers himself a Jedi Knight, capable of leaping tall buildings in a single bound and a connoisseur of fine cell phones. He has been involved in the wireless industry since 2003 and has been known to swap out phones far too many times in any given year. Should you wish to contact him, you can do so: [email protected].
View all posts by David Beren →
Subscribe
Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.
← I’m Bringing TmoNews YouTube Back…Starting With Some Hands-On Of The Galaxy S 4
About PhoneDog
PhoneDog is one of the largest and most popular interactive mobile news and reviews resource that attracts a community of more than 2.5 million unique visitors each month. The site may have a "cute" name, but it offers up serious editorial content and video reviews that users rely on to make important decisions about their next mobile purchases.
PhoneDog Media Family
PhoneDog - Cell phone news DroidDog - Everything Google & Android TmoNews - The Unofficial T-Mobile Blog TodaysiPhone - iPhone News & Rumors
Company
About us
In the press
Advertising info
Jobs & careers
Data licensing
Popular
Reviews
Rumors
Upcoming Phones
Rate plans
Deals
Research & Shop
Buying guide
Phone finder
Compare plans
Phone specials
Long distance
© 2001-2013 PhoneDog, LLC.
Reproduction without explicit permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using xda premium

Please continue in new sticky thread
Thanks
FNM

LTE OTA update today?

http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/18/t-mobile-lte-network-expansion/
Starting today, an over-the-air update will begin rolling out to existing Galaxy Note II handsets that enables the previously dormant LTE radio. Which, if you've been keeping close tabs on Magenta's LTE plans, falls right on schedule with its previously announced 2013 deployment timeline.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OH Yes!

Yay! ! Waiting on teshx

Now the question for the many of us who are rooted...what to do? hard decision. I hate to give up root...

Would be nice. Since now there is a very small pocket of LTE in Queens, NY, I can actually try it out. I just hope that LTE buildout would be faster than Sprint's.

safeplayer22 said:
Now the question for the many of us who are rooted...what to do?? hmmm
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm in te same boat... HSPA+ is plenty fast enough for a few days until someone posts a new ROM with that update.

Meanee said:
Would be nice. Since now there is a very small pocket of LTE in Queens, NY, I can actually try it out. I just hope that LTE buildout would be faster than Sprint's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm In queens NY really!!!

eurohomie said:
I'm in te same boat... HSPA+ is plenty fast enough for a few days until someone posts a new ROM with that update.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I already know what to do. most likely the same as you, keep root and wait for a nice new ROM. BUT I really want to test out the LTE speeds so I can show off to my boss who has an iphone 5 on AT&T and the only thing he has over me is the data speed!

What does root have to do with it?? You mean having to wait a little for teshx? Or do you think you can't upgrade?

xxjrsmith3xx said:
I'm In queens NY really!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha I am in Brooklyn (Bensonhurst) but I may pass by Queens to test it out. I had Sprint LTE and it was 2x slower than current HSPA+ speeds I get with Note2. Hopefully T-Mobile won't disappoint in speed department.

wing_addict_usa said:
What does root have to do with it?? You mean having to wait a little for teshx? Or do you think you can't upgrade?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you are rooted, chances are you have a "modified" status on your phone which means you will not be able to get the update OTA. You will either have to wait for someone to extract and post a stock or custom rom in order to manually flash it to the phone or unroot the phone and reset the counters and then you will be able to update OTA.
I simply cannot unroot and give up:
1. Free tethering
2. Custom auto correct samsung keyboard
3. multi-windows (any app)
4. Debloat and custom kernels (better battery life)
5. etc.

safeplayer22 said:
Now the question for the many of us who are rooted...what to do? hard decision. I hate to give up root...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Sent from my SGH-T889 using xda app-developers app

10char

Why cant we just wait for teshxx magic wouldn't that just work.

That's what I'm saying. Why don't you people just wait for teshxx? You give up so easily
xxjrsmith3xx said:
Why cant we just wait for teshxx magic wouldn't that just work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Oh haha, word up to all my neighbors! Queens over here!

Navigation
T-Mobile’s LTE Network Gets Official Trial Run As LTE Update Releases For Galaxy Note II
March 18, 2013 David Beren 8 Comments
T-Mobile’s LTE network is beginning to show some signs of life as a number of sites just posted some hands-on results conducted in New York City last week. That means some good news for Galaxy Note II owners as the long-awaited LTE software update finally rolls out beginning today.
The tests, conducted by The Verge, Engadget, LaptopMag and CNET, we’re getting a first look at what the network is truly capable of. There’s a caveat of course, that all of these tests are running on microcells with absolutely no traffic on it so real-world speeds will be theoretically be slower with thousands of customers on a tower at any given time.*As was case with the HSPA+ rollout, the use of new tower equipment along the necessary LTE hardware should result in better coverage for everyone says T-Mobile Product Management Director Randy Meyerson. That’s good news for customers who may choose to ignore T-Mobile’s first round of LTE handsets as improved coverage is always welcome.
As for those of you looking for the BlackBerry Z10, T-Mobile’s first LTE-ready*BlackBerry, that’s still on the calendar before the end of March. The carrier says LTE is ready in both Las Vegas and Kansas City*and*all that’s left is flipping the switch allowing customers officially on the network. With the promise of a network that covers 200 million people with LTE before the end of 2013, T-Mobile’s rollout is bound to ramp up quickly.
As for the speeds themselves, LaptopMag was able to hit download speeds as high as 58.8Mbps, with uploads running as high as 25.5Mbps. Engadget faired a little better pushing above the 60Mbps mark hitting a high of 62.13Mbps and a download high of 25.67Mbps. Overall, speeds appeared to average well into the high 50′s on the download and in the high trends on the upload side. Remember the earlier caveat though. a
One major advantage for T-Mobile’s LTE network and a selling point the company will certainly use when it rolls out its rumored “Dual 4G” marketing later this year is HSPA+ 42Mbps as a fallback. The ability to fall back on speeds that T-Mobile has long claimed rival competitor LTE networks is an advantage T-Mobile will attempt to use against the likes of Verizon.
For now, T-Mobile highlights that its LTE network will be focused on measured adoption, with an emphasis on higher-end handsets focusing on the technically savvy, media heavy-set of customers. As for*how long it will take before T-Mobile has their LTE network rolled out to more than two cities? That’s a great question that T-Mobile is playing coy with answering. With plans to have 100 million customers cover in LTE before summer, we’re certain we’ll find more cities lighting up in the near future.
The Verge, Engadget, LaptopMag, CNET
Tags: blackberry z10, galaxy note II, LTE, lte network, Network, note II, z10
About David Beren
David is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TmoNews.com. He considers himself a Jedi Knight, capable of leaping tall buildings in a single bound and a connoisseur of fine cell phones. He has been involved in the wireless industry since 2003 and has been known to swap out phones far too many times in any given year. Should you wish to contact him, you can do so: [email protected].
View all posts by David Beren →
Subscribe
Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.
← I’m Bringing TmoNews YouTube Back…Starting With Some Hands-On Of The Galaxy S 4
About PhoneDog
PhoneDog is one of the largest and most popular interactive mobile news and reviews resource that attracts a community of more than 2.5 million unique visitors each month. The site may have a "cute" name, but it offers up serious editorial content and video reviews that users rely on to make important decisions about their next mobile purchases.
PhoneDog Media Family
PhoneDog - Cell phone news DroidDog - Everything Google & Android TmoNews - The Unofficial T-Mobile Blog TodaysiPhone - iPhone News & Rumors
Company
About us
In the press
Advertising info
Jobs & careers
Data licensing
Popular
Reviews
Rumors
Upcoming Phones
Rate plans
Deals
Research & Shop
Buying guide
Phone finder
Compare plans
Phone specials
Long distance
© 2001-2013 PhoneDog, LLC.
Reproduction without explicit permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using xda premium

is AT&T Note II compatible with T-Mobile LTE?
OK so I'm currently using an AT&T Galaxy Note II on T-Mobile. I've been able to load T-Mobile stock and custom Roms on the AT&T Note 2 as well as the stock and custom radio firmware from the T-Mobile note 2.
So does anyone know if the AT&T Note II will support the new T-Mobile LTE? Is it compatible with a simple radio firmware upgrade?
---------- Post added at 07:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 AM ----------
Would love to know when their going to flip the switch on the Los Angels and Southern California region.

Updating now from kies mb4

deeznutz1977 said:
10char
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see the same thing but it wont let me d/l the new firmware. And I am logged in, so its not that.

Send us the link for rhe the update
Sent from my SGH-T889 using xda premium

[..Open Signal Map Finds T-Mobile LTE in 8 Cities..}

T-Mobile isn't saying where it's launching LTE, so it's a good thing we have OpenSignalMap to do our legwork for us. With its crowdsourced Android app, OSM reports today that it has detected T-Mobile's new LTE network in eight cities: Denver, Las Vegas, Kansas City, New Orleans, New York, San Diego, San Jose, and Seattle.
"The fact that our app has detected a T-Mobile LTE network in these cities suggests that they will be included in the initial LTE rollout," OSM spokesman Samuel Johnston said
OpenSignalMap Finds T-Mobile LTE in 8 Cities
By Sascha Segan March 22, 2013 12:00pm EST 0 Comments
Google 0 Share 0 Tweet 2 Submit 0 Share 0 Pin It 0 EmailPrint
T-Mobile isn't saying where it's launching LTE, so it's a good thing we have OpenSignalMap to do our legwork for us. With its crowdsourced Android app, OSM reports today that it has detected T-Mobile's new LTE network in eight cities: Denver, Las Vegas, Kansas City, New Orleans, New York, San Diego, San Jose, and Seattle.
"The fact that our app has detected a T-Mobile LTE network in these cities suggests that they will be included in the initial LTE rollout," OSM spokesman Samuel Johnston said.
And while T-Mobile has only announced the BlackBerry Z10 and Samsung Galaxy Note II as LTE devices, OSM says it's also seen T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy S III and Galaxy S4 phones hitting the LTE network.
How fast is it? Johnston said OSM's tests saw 25Mbps downloads, 8Mbps uploads, and latency around 40ms. That's extremely fast for a 5x5 LTE network like T-Mobile is running.
"Obviously the network is under a very light load right now and these speeds will come down," Johnston said.
T-Mobile is the last national carrier to launch LTE. It has pledged to cover 100 million people with LTE by midyear. Earlier this week the company treated us to a test of how the network will function after the upcoming MetroPCS merger, when it can double its spectrum in many markets to 10x10.
The carrier is having a network-themed press event on Tuesday, March 26 where it's expected to announce a new range of service plans and more details about its LTE network.
Late last year, T-Mobile CEO John Legere said the company would be moving entirely to no-contract "value plans." Tmonews has details of those new service plans, adding that traditional subsidized contracts will still be available from third-party retailers.
The full OSM report on T-Mobile LTE coverage is available at OpenSignalMap's website. We'll also be visiting all of the cities listed above in our Fastest Mobile Networks testing this May.
Sources. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416911,00.asp
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda app-developers app

http://www.tmonews.com/2013/03/t-mobile-3

Sucks the tmo s3 doesnt support LTE
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda app-developers app

There is already a thread discussing LTE. This should be posted there
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1992631