| Incorrect No, you just didnt listen to details of the launch. Initial coverage will be street level like coverage. over the next months it will get denser. |
|
 mobOn the next level..Premium
join:2000-10-07
 ·SureWest Internet
| Coverage is OK if... You stick to main streets and avoid underpasses.
Test Date: Jul 18, 2012 7:56:26 am
Connection Type: Lte
Server: Overland Park, KS
Download: 15.00 Mbps
Upload: 8.47 Mbps
Ping: 68 ms
Latitude: 39.01469
Longitude: -94.71489
A detailed image for this result can be found here:
»www.speedtest.net/android/213990295.png
And a map of exactly where I took the test is here:
»goo.gl/rfkzv
--
Ich habe kein Mitleid - Me
You're a daisy if you do. - Doc Holliday
And as always, have nice day. |
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC | Lack of IPv6 Support Sprint's LTE network lacks IPv6 support. Silly Sprint, rolling out a "next generation" network without support for IPv6. Fail. (both VZW and T-Mo are running v6 now, not sure about AT&T). |
|
| Sprint needs to manage expectations better They should just turn sites on and let users use them before announcing a market. It would alter the expectations to what's coming rather than setting expectations too high with full coverage. They shouldn't officially announce a market until it's at least 50% covered like Verizon does.
Speed is great where I get it but they have a ways to go to cover downtown/midtown KC well. Ping is awesome, sometimes below 40ms. 3G performance also improved to about as fast as EVDO can go. |
|
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | Are any of the LTE networks compatible? I know that Verizon said that their network is not compatible with AT&T but are any of the other US LTE networks compatible? |
|
| reply to xenophon
Re: Sprint needs to manage expectations better Sprint is announcing markets at 40% completion. |
|
|
|
| reply to OwlSaver
Re: Are any of the LTE networks compatible? No because they all use different LTE bands (different swaths of spectrum.). LTE Phones can't yet support more than about 2 LTE bands without compromising on a lot of things like battery life and phone size. |
|
| reply to NiteSn0w
Re: Sprint needs to manage expectations better Hmm.. I question that. Maybe 10% of downtown/midtown KC have LTE. |
|
Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON | reply to OwlSaver
Re: Are any of the LTE networks compatible? hmm, i'm pretty sure that they're designing these LTE networks to be Incompatible with everyone elses. |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Sprint Network To be honest when my contract with Verizon expires I'm going to Sprint as long as they stay unlimited. Verizon and AT&T can go gouge someone else. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
 ·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| I'd like to switch to Sprint, if they deploy a good LTE network, that has good coverage (indoor and outdoor) in my area and they keep the rational data pricing (note I didn't say they had to stay unlimited). Which are two pretty big if's.
They have to prove themselves first. paying less for phone service that doesn't work or is ridiculousness slow, when I want or need to use my phone to isn't a deal to me. Sprint has a lot of work to do still. |
|
| reply to rit56
Yeah I said the same thing when I was on AT&T..
2 years of dial up speeds on Sprint and I'm now back on AT&T but through Straight Talk..
Offering unlimited on dialup probably isnt very hard. |
|
 TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | reply to whfsdude
Re: Lack of IPv6 Support I would hope that they built the network in a way that allows them to easily flip a switch and go to IPv6. I mean, it's a brand new network, and they have to know that the transition is inevitable, so they must have known it would have been idiotic to build it any other way. Of course, you know what they say... if you hope, the answer's nope.
--
to whoever anonymously gave me premium membership... thanks! |
|
| reply to alicant310
Re: Incorrect Sprint shouldn't show LTE coverage on the maps for the entire metro when only 20% or less is complete.
But it is interesting to see what they will target compared to WiMAX. When looking at the Sprint coverage map for KC, you can click LTE only and WiMAX only. The LTE coverage expected is quite a bit broader than WiMAX (for KC).
»coverage.sprint.com |
|
| reply to whfsdude
Re: Lack of IPv6 Support It's crazy they didn't turn on IPv6 on day one because IPv6 is so widely used right now...
root@battleop#service stop sarcasm
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. |
|
mobOn the next level..Premium
join:2000-10-07 | reply to xenophon
Re: Incorrect That is because Sprint is upgrading to LTE, not Clear. |
|
| Yes, and because LTE is on 1900Mhz vs 2500Mhz for WiMAX. |
|
| Latency is fantastic, often below 40ms If testing from Android, don't use the speedtest app, use a real ping app for Android like 'Network Tools' and then ping www.google.com.
Speedtest shows 60-100ms depending on test site for me while a real tool shows 40ms to google.
Browsing is much quicker than WiMAX because of the lower latency even though throughput is about the same (from my location). |
|
whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to battleop
Re: Lack of IPv6 Support said by battleop:It's crazy they didn't turn on IPv6 on day one because IPv6 is so widely used right now... Major websites running it:
Wikipedia
Google (including youtube)
Bing
Yahoo
Netflix
Imgur
engadget
Google also shows 1.34% of their users in the US [ »www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.h···adoption ] are now defaulting to IPv6. While it might not seem like a lot of users, that's not an insignificant amount of traffic.
Of course the real question is why is IPv6 not turned on by default? Their LTE network is going to last how many years? 5, 10?
IPv6 adoption is only going to increase. You've got a brand new network. Do it right, dual stack it! |
|
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | reply to Gami00
Re: Are any of the LTE networks compatible? So, they come up with a standard but implement it in such a way that it is incompatible. What is the point of the standard then? |
|
