In one year Verizon has managed to cover 190 cities and 118 major airports with LTE. That's over 200 million Americans.
According to the U.S. Census there are 312,822,624 Americans in this country which means that Verizon covers 2/3's of the population.
So in actuality, the vast majority of the country does have LTE access available and Verizon clearly is on a role with the roll out at a breakneck pace compared to any other carrier.
So unless you're talking about actual land mass covered, which would be pointless with a lot of America being uninhabited land, then you couldn't be further from the truth.
The term "tiny little polkadots of Verizon 4G/LTE coverage" should have been the dead giveaway that I was talking about LAND AREA and not population.
Yes, Verizon now covers 200 million Americans with 4G/LTE, which is 2/3's of the population, but they only cover about 5% of the land area of the U.S with 4G/LTE. That means that 1/3 the rest of the population (100 million, a pretty sizable number) lives somewhere else in cities and towns other than the major metropolitan areas, which in essence is the vast red 3G coverage area of the rest of Verizon's system map, which they claim they will cover with 4G/LTE service by the end of 2013.
Therefore it is NOT pointless to talk about the rest of America as you say it is. What if you have to drive, say, between New York and Chicago for work or on vacation sometime? Would you like to have 4G/LTE coverage all along your route? Or would you rather drop down to 3G the instant you leave the metro area and then to 2G or No Service in another 5 miles and the rest of the way to the other metro area? That area is definitely not "uninhabited land" as you suggest. There are innumerable cities and towns along the way, and I am sure the people living in those areas would really like to have 4G/LTE service at some point.
There are vast areas of the west and in the mountains that actually are uninhabited and should rank low on the coverage scale, I agree with that. But that really mostly applies to the area from the Rocky Mountains to the west coast. From the Rocky Mountains east to the Mississippi River there is a town about on average every 10-15 miles, and from the Mississippi to the east coast the frequency is even higher, except in the Appalachians. So to issue a blanket "uninhabited land" score on the entire U.S. outside the major cities is just silly.
I fail to see the need to have a 42Mbps download speed on my phone.
you don't and most don't. Like u said ~3M is more than enough for any phone to do almost anything.
The reason for the 42Mbps LTE network is so that everyone on the tower can stream audio/video all at the same time.. This way you/we have no buffering in and out issues like we do now on existing 3G network IF the tower is congested…
More bandwidth for the tower means a better web experience for all users on that tower at the same time.
But yea a solid 1.5Mbps is more than enough to stream non HD YouTube and Netflix smoothly. I average ~1Mbps on AT$T and i can stream YouTube and Netflix with ease daily..
For once, northwest OK has more of something than the southeast! lol I don't know anyone who has a Sprint iPhone down there, Sprint is pretty weak in SE OK. They are big in NW OK because of their partnership with Pioneer, plus they have pretty extensive coverage of their own as well.
You're right, US Cellular has the best coverage down there, and like here, Verizon is non-existent, while AT&T has spotty coverage in towns but nowhere in between.
Thanks for the reply. Sprint shows a little finger of service over to Ada, but then I drive a lot, so that wouldn't help much. Guess I'll wait until US Cellular gets their 4G going and see if they might bite on the Apple then.
Thanks for the reply. Sprint shows a little finger of service over to Ada, but then I drive a lot, so that wouldn't help much. Guess I'll wait until US Cellular gets their 4G going and see if they might bite on the Apple then.
Here's the upcoming US Cellular 4G/Oklahoma launch area. Pretty much southern OK, it looks like it takes in Ada but nothing much east and north of that.
yeah we will see, i am still seeing sub-300kbps patches all over Phoenix, it's literally i can move from one side of my house to another (all full signal @ -55dBm might i add) and go from 1.2Mbps to 210kbps)
Sprint needs to get it together and be a little more consistent
Left: T-Mobile HSPA+ with Amaze 4G, On the right Cox Communications at Home:
Sprint needs to get it together and be a little more consistent
you make it seem as if Sprint is the only one with issues… All of them have their own issues and problems and all of them need to get it together..
NO network is perfect, NO network has all their i's dotted and T's crossed. They all have problems and guess what, they did not sell you perfection.
I agree I would never expect perfection. I think some of you just need to have more patience. Sprint is rapidly improving 3G and it is still a work in progress. They haven't stopped so there's no need to worry and think that your area missed out.
1) At my parents house, sprint data speeds on my iphone are FASTER than getting on the wifi network. It's Comcastic!
2) Voice on my iphone is ROCK SOLID. My wife has an iphone 4 on AT&T, and it regularly interrupts calls with static, and drops them outright. My 4S on sprint? Crystal effing clear. Even when I'm barreling down the highway. Not one dropped call yet .. my Android used to drop calls all the time (let alone when I tried to answer it and got a force close on the dialer app).
you make it seem as if Sprint is the only one with issues… All of them have their own issues and problems and all of them need to get it together..
NO network is perfect, NO network has all their i's dotted and T's crossed. They all have problems and guess what, they did not sell you perfection.
i dont expect perfection, but considering Sprint is the only carrier i've had that i cannot even listen to Pandora/slacker on Low Quality while working out at the Gym or running up a small hiking trail in the middle of phoenix or even campus, then we have an issue, hell even Cricket can even accomplish this, T-Mobile has no issues performing such a small task, AT&T can handle it just fine, and of course Verizon can handle it..
Considering i'm paying fairly close to VZW/AT&T Prices, i do expect at least a fairly stable data connection, is that so hard to ask
My data speeds have dropped from a consistent 2Mbps everywhere to ~0-200k during the day over the last year, and Sprint keeps denying there is any issues, but they dont seem to have a problem taking my $80/mo after taxes like there are no network issues!
if you think data speeds like this are okay then you sir are totally delusional
Those numbers to me appear to be a case of a cell site not functioning. Any chance there could be an outage?
well i would usually say that but those tests are in two totally different areas of town (first set was Downtown Phoenix off Central ave and McDowell Rd) and the ones i just did were in Tempe, AZ off University Dr and Priest Dr
I also see similar speeds at my gym off Camelback/I51, Southern Ave/Mill in Tempe, campus you might as well not even try to use it unless you're roaming since everything usually just times out if you're not on WiFi
it's definately not an outage unless the entire Phoenix market has had an outage for over six months that Sprint is mysteriously not aware of (i've been calling in since last march about awful speeds, bought different phones, etc and nothing has fixed it)
Sprint just keeps telling me that nothing is wrong even though both phones on the acct are doing it and when i leave Phoenix i can get 1+Mbps just fine without any issues
I really want to support Sprint since they're the "little guy" who doesnt sell out but i cant keep dealing with speeds like this all over the city i live in.
Have you tried using different servers for the speed tests? I noticed that sometimes I land on servers that are very inaccurate. I can do one test and get 400 kbps and then try a different server and get 1.3 Mbps while standing in the exact same place. Obviously the latter being the correct one.
Originally Posted by coorey
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks