Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53

Thread: LTE coverage maps exaggerated!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by awj223 View Post
    How is that irrational? When I buy phones, I typically keep them for 3+ years, so I want to make sure that what I'm buying is something I can put up with 3 years into the future (the Nexus One is really testing my tolerance by being perpetually low on memory). Since I can't see myself being happy with a phone that can't do VoLTE when everyone else's phone 2 years from now can, I'm not going to buy a phone without VoLTE.
    Buying for 1% of usage is stupid. You get an upgrade every 20 months, and it sounds like you haven't used one in like 5 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by AutoUnion View Post
    ...I think Boston gets more love because its easier to deploy than NYC. Boston doesn't have as many tall buildings (skyscrapers) and they don't rely on DAS nearly as much as NYC has to. It's interesting because the part of Boston I live in, you can actually look up and see exactly where all the LTE panels are.
    Probably true. It's the right mix of dense but not too dense to support LTE, even though the 3G networks are doing fine there, and not so much in NYC...

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    5,133
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Buying for 1% of usage is stupid. You get an upgrade every 20 months, and it sounds like you haven't used one in like 5 years.
    I don't buy phones through carriers. I only buy Nexus devices that don't have crapware on them.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by awj223 View Post
    I don't buy phones through carriers. I only buy Nexus devices that don't have crapware on them.
    Good luck with the LTE then. It might be a long wait. The Nexi are neat, but even the Nexus 4 is looking pretty sad on AT&T compared to the GSIII with it's 73mbps of LTE bandwidth.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    147
    Device(s)
    Blackberry BOld
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0

    LTE coverage maps exaggerated!

    I think you would even find that is the case with voice network. A map is a "best case" scenario. It doesn't take into all the variables such as weather, building construction, and foliage. All coverage maps are built on over promising and under delivering. That has been true since the beginning of wireless.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,653
    Device(s)
    6+
    Feedback Score
    0
    Honestly, I don't care about rural areas, nor do I venture out there often. I think AT&T (and VZW) are completely fine in terms of their networks. Sure, AT&T has to be more aggressive in their LTE deployment, but it's not like they're T-Mobile or Sprint.

    T-Mobile still doesn't have solid 3G in most major cities (Boston for example) and refarming won't happen in every market for a couple years, so unless your phone supports AWS/1900mhz, T-Mo 4G is worthless. If anything, Sprint is the one we should be worrying about. 3G barely works in most cities and their LTE coverage is like swiss cheese in most places where they have it. Drops in and out, and they don't seem to care about major cities. Boston, for example. Sprint has it in Peabody, but not Boston. AT&T and VZW have huge portions of the state blanketed in LTE and Peabody (among tons of cities around it) got LTE as part of the Boston rollout.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,347
    Device(s)
    N/A
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless;
    Feedback Score
    0

    Re: LTE coverage maps exaggerated!

    But, sprint announced lte even after at&t, since they were using wimax before for 4G. It doesn't concern me a bit that sprint's LTE doesn't have much coverage since they've only been at it a matter of months.

    Sent from my SCH-I405 using HowardForums

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,653
    Device(s)
    6+
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hwertz View Post
    But, sprint announced lte even after at&t, since they were using wimax before for 4G. It doesn't concern me a bit that sprint's LTE doesn't have much coverage since they've only been at it a matter of months.

    Sent from my SCH-I405 using HowardForums
    If Sprint's 3G is so poor (even after they got the iPhone so late), how can we expect them to have a solid LTE network?

    We all know how their WiMAX rollout plan went.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    147
    Device(s)
    Blackberry BOld
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0

    Re: LTE coverage maps exaggerated!

    Quote Originally Posted by AutoUnion View Post
    If Sprint's 3G is so poor (even after they got the iPhone so late), how can we expect them to have a solid LTE network?

    We all know how their WiMAX rollout plan went.
    It all depends on how they manage it. If they are all about customer growth, with their unlimited plans, then they may be looking for someone to buy them. On the other hand, if they use the increased revenue to expand their footprint, they may actually grow as a carrier. I personally think they are looking to sell or merge with someone. They seem to be a sinking ship thus far.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using HowardForums

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,185
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone X
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoUnion View Post
    If Sprint's 3G is so poor (even after they got the iPhone so late), how can we expect them to have a solid LTE network?

    We all know how their WiMAX rollout plan went.
    Sprint has a ridiculous amount of unused spectrum. Notably at 800... they're throwing some CDMA coverage for 1x-advanced on that in the short-term.... but I wouldn't expect them to have any issues rolling out LTE nationwide on 800 as well, as they've said is in their plans. Now, especially, after the cash infusion from SoftBank....

    It's their embedded SIM cards that would keep me away from them...

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hwertz View Post
    But, sprint announced lte even after at&t, since they were using wimax before for 4G. It doesn't concern me a bit that sprint's LTE doesn't have much coverage since they've only been at it a matter of months.

    Sent from my SCH-I405 using HowardForums
    Even worse, they have different WiMax and LTE coverage areas, with some being one, some being the other, and some having both, and they have no tri-mode phones to use it, not even something ginormous like the Note that could easily handle LTE, WiMAX, and CDMA. Sprint is a hot mess right now.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Baja California / Sinaloa
    Posts
    22,391
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max / Apple iPhone 7
    Carrier(s)
    Pacific Bell Wireless / Verizon Wireless / AT&T MX / Movistar MX / Telcel MX
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoUnion View Post
    If Sprint's 3G is so poor (even after they got the iPhone so late), how can we expect them to have a solid LTE network?

    We all know how their WiMAX rollout plan went.
    Once they start using both the SMR/BRS-EBS bands for LTE and when they acquire the PCS H block.
    You can't really have a solid LTE network if you have only deployed it on a 5x5 slice of the PCS G block.
    Using the former will get them a formidable LTE network.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,501
    Device(s)
    iPhone 4S
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    For those pining for VOLTE, which codec are you pining for? Hopefully not G.711 since that is 64Kbps vs 8K for EVRC. That's a lot more data per second for voice. Also given that VOLTE is not really great at cell's edge cutting off at -95dbm vs CDMA's -105dbm, you are shrinking your voice coverage area quite a bit. There might be a reason for carriers not rushing in to VOLTE.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    BTA027
    Posts
    16,793
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    American Telephone & Telegraph Company
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsnake49 View Post
    For those pining for VOLTE, which codec are you pining for? Hopefully not G.711 since that is 64Kbps vs 8K for EVRC.
    Even so, that's 8 KB/s or 480 KB/min. An average postpaid user consumes about 700 min per month, so that's 328 MB. Hardly worth talking about when most postpaid smartphone users have a 3 GB monthly allowance. Besides, I'm sure they'll use adaptive codecs that don't run at a constant 64 kbps.

    PRL Interpretations
    XFF's AlphaTag software
    Cellular and PCS License Maps
    Quote Originally Posted by gpatrick900
    I am a little confused. My Verizon phone was able to roam on GSM because they used TDMA. Tell it was shutdown. The phone recognizes it as Analog. If PCS has TDMA, It could be technically be used on GSM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tabla View Post
    Y'know, I'm used to hysterical 14-year-old ******** on the internet, but this is exceptional. Never before in human history have so many nerds hyperventilated so publicly over so little.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The United States of America
    Posts
    472
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0

    Re: LTE coverage maps exaggerated!

    Quote Originally Posted by CA View Post
    100% exact opposite around DC, Balt, and NOVA,
    I live in Annapolis and Verizon shows me as having LTE. With none of the four phones I've had have it been able to get LTE.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Detroit (Frequent UK/UAE Visitor)
    Posts
    554
    Carrier(s)
    ATT
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by XFF View Post
    HD voice would be nice. And although VoLTE is capable of delivering it, that's not a guarantee that the carriers will support it. For now FaceTime (or other IP-based 3rd party apps) will do just fine for high quality voice.
    The coverage maps are not "exaggerated." I'm sure that ATT would take great offense to that statement and would explain that they are "enhanced for viewing ease." They would probably explain that: "customers found the previous version of the maps too complicated and that this simplified coverage map is being offered as a benefit to the consumer."

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. VZW LTE Coverage Map
    By macher50267 in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-29-2012, 12:33 AM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-29-2011, 11:41 PM
  3. Rogers LTE Coverage Map Updated and Expanded
    By TotalDistinction in forum Rogers/Fido/Chat-r
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-04-2011, 01:27 PM
  4. Where's AT&T's 4G LTE coverage maps
    By buckspaul in forum AT&T
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-02-2011, 10:32 PM
  5. 4G LTE Coverage Map Now Available!
    By SterlingJ85 in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 12-12-2010, 02:38 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks