Sprint deploys first multimodal tower

Sprint deploys first multimodal tower - HTC EVO 3D

http://newsroom.sprint.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2125
Wish this was here in Salt Lake.

Man, I can't wait for this in Houston. I should finally get signal in my office when they make this happen near me.

Thats nice and all but what are the speeds like...thats what I wanna know.

SolsticeZero said:
Man, I can't wait for this in Houston. I should finally get signal in my office when they make this happen near me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I second this. My signal sucks here by the galleria. I barely get 1-2 bars. SMH!

animal7296 said:
http://newsroom.sprint.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2125
Wish this was here in Salt Lake.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the contribution, good info. My anger is not directed to the OP, but entirely to sprint. This is such a bunch of BS. Sprint has this network vision crap, which don't get me wrong I am thankful for. It is pathetic it has taken this long to merely star the very much needed [complete] overhaul of their network
They spent millions to renew their sponsorship to Nascar. Which not only doesn't help existing customers, but brings in new customers which makes the network more congested. They should sink more money into the proliferation of better equipment for network enhancement instead. If your network is great it sells itself (I give you the Verizon network) instead of wasting money by sponsoring Nascar.
I see from this article that sprint CONTINUES to make bad decisions! I will give you a perfect real world example to illustrate my point:
Branchburg, NJ:
Population • Total 14,459 • Density 712.3/sq mi (275.4/km 2 )
Mesa, AZ:
Population • Total 439,041 • Density 3,536.6/sq mi (1,365.6/km 2 )
Phoenix, AZ:
Population • City 1,445,632 (6th largest) • Density 3,071.8/sq mi (1,188.4/km 2 )
Salt Lake City, UT:
Population (2010) • City 186,440 (127th in U.S.) • Density 1,666.1/sq mi (643.3/km 2 )
They are doing these network vision upgrades in the most illogical, senseless locations first?! The place they did this upgrade in a city with a population that is almost as low as the city I live in, IN ONE SQUARE MILE! My city doesn't have 4g yet! Your city, my city, and a very large city next to me have 10-100(literal) times the population, and 2-5 times the number of people per square mile than where this upgrade was done. What a terrible business decision, no wonder sprint has almost gone bankrupt. You should always do improvements to service how or where it affects the MOST amount of people in a positive manner. Branchburg, NJ should have been way far down the list. Sprint better start maximizing the number of people that have better servIce, and doing it the way they have been doing certainly won't achieve that! Am I right?

Sad Panda said:
Thanks for the contribution, good info. My anger is not directed to the OP, but entirely to sprint. This is such a bunch of BS. Sprint has this network vision crap, which don't get me wrong I am thankful for. It is pathetic it has taken this long to merely star the very much needed [complete] overhaul of their network
They spent millions to renew their sponsorship to Nascar. Which not only doesn't help existing customers, but brings in new customers which makes the network more congested. They should sink more money into the proliferation of better equipment for network enhancement instead. If your network is great it sells itself (I give you the Verizon network) instead of wasting money by sponsoring Nascar.
I see from this article that sprint CONTINUES to make bad decisions! I will give you a perfect real world example to illustrate my point:
Branchburg, NJ:
Population • Total 14,459 • Density 712.3/sq mi (275.4/km 2 )
Mesa, AZ:
Population • Total 439,041 • Density 3,536.6/sq mi (1,365.6/km 2 )
Phoenix, AZ:
Population • City 1,445,632 (6th largest) • Density 3,071.8/sq mi (1,188.4/km 2 )
Salt Lake City, UT:
Population (2010) • City 186,440 (127th in U.S.) • Density 1,666.1/sq mi (643.3/km 2 )
They are doing these network vision upgrades in the most illogical, senseless locations first?! The place they did this upgrade in a city with a population that is almost as low as the city I live in, IN ONE SQUARE MILE! My city doesn't have 4g yet! Your city, my city, and a very large city next to me have 10-100(literal) times the population, and 2-5 times the number of people per square mile than where this upgrade was done. What a terrible business decision, no wonder sprint has almost gone bankrupt. You should always do improvements to service how or where it affects the MOST amount of people in a positive manner. Branchburg, NJ should have been way far down the list. Sprint better start maximizing the number of people that have better servIce, and doing it the way they have been doing certainly won't achieve that! Am I right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're more than likely doing it in an area that has already completely phased out the 800mhz push-to-talk network. Larger and more dense cities will take longer to get people to switch over, so it will take them longer to go multi-node.

SolsticeZero said:
They're more than likely doing it in an area that has already completely phased out the 800mhz push-to-talk network. Larger and more dense cities will take longer to get people to switch over, so it will take them longer to go multi-node.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I definitely see your point that larger cities take more money to upgrade, more equipment, and more time. However, that's just three more points to prove my point. Not only do you want more people enhanced the fastest, but you want to do the larger upgrades when the investment money is fresh, the cost and energy savings of the new equipment, the customer satisfaction, and ability for higher capacity means more profit to use to improve the network even faster.

Sad Panda said:
I definitely see your point that larger cities take more money to upgrade, more equipment, and more time. However, that's just three more points to prove my point. Not only do you want more people enhanced the fastest, but you want to do the larger upgrades when the investment money is fresh, the cost and energy savings of the new equipment, the customer satisfaction, and ability for higher capacity means more profit to use to improve the network even faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not really saying anything about the cost. Larger markets with a lot of businesses tend to have a lot more push to talk customers. They're not going to go multimode until they have at least 90% of their PTT customers converted. Otherwise, those customers would be **** out of luck and their PTT wouldn't work. Smaller markets had these customers convert quicker, meaning they can go multimode sooner.

SolsticeZero said:
I'm not really saying anything about the cost. Larger markets with a lot of businesses tend to have a lot more push to talk customers. They're not going to go multimode until they have at least 90% of their PTT customers converted. Otherwise, those customers would be **** out of luck and their PTT wouldn't work. Smaller markets had these customers convert quicker, meaning they can go multimode sooner.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok fair enough. So you think the purpose for this was mainly for getting dual spectrum running for Ptt, not really adding in the dual spectrum for future data needs/devices?

Sad Panda said:
Ok fair enough. So you think the purpose for this was mainly for getting dual spectrum running for Ptt, not really adding in the dual spectrum for future data needs/devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get what he's saying... smaller cities have fewer business using the OLD 800mhz PTT and can convert those iDEN towers to CDMA. If they did that in a larger city where thousands more people would still be using iDEN, That would be thousands more people whose service gets shut off and forced to upgrade. It's about pleasing current customers, not about money.

clear lake, woodlands all the suburbs of houston have ****ty signal....
its kind of ridiculous actually....

Ya I wish that Wichita KS would get 4g since sprints hq is in overland park ks. I been waiting since the evo4g
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App

Damnit sprint needs to put these all over NYC.

thesparky007 said:
clear lake, woodlands all the suburbs of houston have ****ty signal....
its kind of ridiculous actually....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kingwood is spotty at best too, I live up on Northpark by 59 and I get ok 3G but zero 4G which makes me sad as my old apartment in Atascocita got near flawless 3G and 4G.

SolsticeZero said:
I'm not really saying anything about the cost. Larger markets with a lot of businesses tend to have a lot more push to talk customers. They're not going to go multimode until they have at least 90% of their PTT customers converted. Otherwise, those customers would be **** out of luck and their PTT wouldn't work. Smaller markets had these customers convert quicker, meaning they can go multimode sooner.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dunno how true this is. PTT will work everywhere till they shut off iden....which is stated to be supported for awhile nationally while they get their new ptt stuff out, so I doubt ptt is shut off in specific areas.
Think its more long the lines of them picking a place that meets all their test needs and partners too. Wouldn't expect them to be starting in NYC with this kinda overhaul. If somin happens more ppl r SOL. Better to get it up in real world elsewhere first.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App

SolsticeZero said:
I'm not really saying anything about the cost. Larger markets with a lot of businesses tend to have a lot more push to talk customers. They're not going to go multimode until they have at least 90% of their PTT customers converted. Otherwise, those customers would be **** out of luck and their PTT wouldn't work. Smaller markets had these customers convert quicker, meaning they can go multimode sooner.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Timing and location also comes down to regulation. Building or even modifying a signal tower can require long approval from various layers of government and residents/businesses, especially in more populated areas.

Sad Panda said:
Thanks for the contribution, good info. My anger is not directed to the OP, but entirely to sprint. This is such a bunch of BS. Sprint has this network vision crap, which don't get me wrong I am thankful for. It is pathetic it has taken this long to merely star the very much needed [complete] overhaul of their network
They spent millions to renew their sponsorship to Nascar. Which not only doesn't help existing customers, but brings in new customers which makes the network more congested. They should sink more money into the proliferation of better equipment for network enhancement instead. If your network is great it sells itself (I give you the Verizon network) instead of wasting money by sponsoring Nascar.
I see from this article that sprint CONTINUES to make bad decisions! I will give you a perfect real world example to illustrate my point:
Branchburg, NJ:
Population • Total 14,459 • Density 712.3/sq mi (275.4/km 2 )
Mesa, AZ:
Population • Total 439,041 • Density 3,536.6/sq mi (1,365.6/km 2 )
Phoenix, AZ:
Population • City 1,445,632 (6th largest) • Density 3,071.8/sq mi (1,188.4/km 2 )
Salt Lake City, UT:
Population (2010) • City 186,440 (127th in U.S.) • Density 1,666.1/sq mi (643.3/km 2 )
They are doing these network vision upgrades in the most illogical, senseless locations first?! The place they did this upgrade in a city with a population that is almost as low as the city I live in, IN ONE SQUARE MILE! My city doesn't have 4g yet! Your city, my city, and a very large city next to me have 10-100(literal) times the population, and 2-5 times the number of people per square mile than where this upgrade was done. What a terrible business decision, no wonder sprint has almost gone bankrupt. You should always do improvements to service how or where it affects the MOST amount of people in a positive manner. Branchburg, NJ should have been way far down the list. Sprint better start maximizing the number of people that have better servIce, and doing it the way they have been doing certainly won't achieve that! Am I right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also, I think Sprint would rather test a less populated area, and iron out the kinks, than to do this to a large, densely populated area, where people would fill up message boards, make numerous calls to customer service should there be any issues. It's sort of like beta testing software. You release it to a small set of users, and work out the bugs before doing a rollout on a massive scale.

tokuzumi said:
Also, I think Sprint would rather test a less populated area, and iron out the kinks, than to do this to a large, densely populated area, where people would fill up message boards, make numerous calls to customer service should there be any issues. It's sort of like beta testing software. You release it to a small set of users, and work out the bugs before doing a rollout on a massive scale.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is actually a really logical reply, I shamefully hadn't thought of that before. There really is going to be that much testing required for hardware changes though? Seems a bit fruity to think their network engineers need a lot of testing when adding hardware. If this were more software I could easily see it, but the majority of the upgrade is physical changes. Seems silly to me

Sad Panda said:
This is actually a really logical reply, I shamefully hadn't thought of that before. There really is going to be that much testing required for hardware changes though? Seems a bit fruity to think their network engineers need a lot of testing when adding hardware. If this were more software I could easily see it, but the majority of the upgrade is physical changes. Seems silly to me
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be honest, I don't really know if this is sprint's reasoning, but it sounds logical to me. But I can't count the number of times I've messed with my home network/car/home repair, to do things that, on paper, should be just plug and play, but I end up working through some issue hours/days later.
Edit: I do see your frustration, however. In the last 6-8 months, Sprint has had crappy service. Extremely slow "3G" speeds (more like 1X), and dropped calls/not receiving calls/etc. They finally fixed the 3G issue, so my speeds are in the 1.0-2.4 mb/s range, depending on when I run speed tests. But my dropped calls/calls not going through/not receiving calls is still an occasional issue, for both me, and the wife.

Sad Panda said:
This is actually a really logical reply, I shamefully hadn't thought of that before. There really is going to be that much testing required for hardware changes though? Seems a bit fruity to think their network engineers need a lot of testing when adding hardware. If this were more software I could easily see it, but the majority of the upgrade is physical changes. Seems silly to me
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is hardware and software. both so yes they do need the testing to make sure stuff is running as intended on both fronts.
They both work together to allow the switching between the freq/spectrum's and make it easier for them to allocate how they see fit int eh future.

Related

Leaked FAA Report Slams Lightsquared!!

I wouldn't get your hopes up for Lightsquared's 4g ever coming to a neighborhood by you any time soon.
Leaked FAA Report Slams LightSquared
“The effects of LightSquared deployment would be far-reaching and potentially devastating to aviation,” the FAA wrote to the President’s Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) group in a report that was recently leaked to the media. In that document, the FAA estimates that the resulting interference to GPS from LightSquared’s proposed 4G broadband transmitters would lead to 794 deaths, a $70 billion loss in aviation capabilities and the addition of 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in the 10 years following LightSquared’s startup. These effects would stem from delays in NextGen development and implementation, reversion to ground-based navigation aids, the loss of GPS efficiency and safety benefits and the cost of acquiring and retrofitting modified GPS equipment across the entire aviation fleet. The FAA estimates that the total avionics and related modifications and retrofit programs would take 10 to 15 years to complete, although LightSquared experts claimed earlier that it could be accomplished in only three years. The FCC is expected to announce in mid-September whether or not LightSquared will be allowed to proceed with its plan.

cruise350 said:
I wouldn't get your hopes up for Lightsquared's 4g ever coming to a neighborhood by you any time soon.
Leaked FAA Report Slams LightSquared
“The effects of LightSquared deployment would be far-reaching and potentially devastating to aviation,” the FAA wrote to the President’s Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) group in a report that was recently leaked to the media. In that document, the FAA estimates that the resulting interference to GPS from LightSquared’s proposed 4G broadband transmitters would lead to 794 deaths, a $70 billion loss in aviation capabilities and the addition of 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in the 10 years following LightSquared’s startup. These effects would stem from delays in NextGen development and implementation, reversion to ground-based navigation aids, the loss of GPS efficiency and safety benefits and the cost of acquiring and retrofitting modified GPS equipment across the entire aviation fleet. The FAA estimates that the total avionics and related modifications and retrofit programs would take 10 to 15 years to complete, although LightSquared experts claimed earlier that it could be accomplished in only three years. The FCC is expected to announce in mid-September whether or not LightSquared will be allowed to proceed with its plan.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is getting a lil rediculous. Lightsquared owns the spectrum it operates and has run the trials in so far. The FCC gave all GPS and related manufacturers a long notice of the deployment of lightsquareds LTE over that spectrum, and it is clear some/most took little to zero steps to fix their devices/firmware to not let their units spread onto that spectrum.
The CEO was on CNBC last month and he was very clear about this. The media has gotten this completely wrong so far. It is those gps companies that are interfeering and wandering onto some of Lightsquareds spectrum and NOT lightsquareds signal wandering onto theirs and causing interfearence.
The FCC actually has a mandate out for Lightsquared to have national rollout of LTE by time X(which i think is 2013-5) which when the official Sprint PR of the deal was released they stated they would have rolled out a year ahead of the mandate.

Im willing to bet this lightsquared thing is going to be a bigger bust than clear was. It's not just the FAA fighting them, I saw a suit by nautical cruiselines and all.

sgt. slaughter said:
This is getting a lil rediculous. Lightsquared owns the spectrum it operates and has run the trials in so far. The FCC gave all GPS and related manufacturers a long notice of the deployment of lightsquareds LTE over that spectrum, and it is clear some/most took little to zero steps to fix their devices/firmware to not let their units spread onto that spectrum.
The CEO was on CNBC last month and he was very clear about this. The media has gotten this completely wrong so far. It is those gps companies that are interfeering and wandering onto some of Lightsquareds spectrum and NOT lightsquareds signal wandering onto theirs and causing interfearence.
The FCC actually has a mandate out for Lightsquared to have national rollout of LTE by time X(which i think is 2013-5) which when the official Sprint PR of the deal was released they stated they would have rolled out a year ahead of the mandate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bingo, light squared is within their spectrum but gps makers got cheap and didn't isolate their systems well enough. I was under the impression one of the FCC's jobs when certifying electronics was to make sure it could handle interference from other devices but I guess not.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App

xHausx said:
Bingo, light squared is within their spectrum but gps makers got cheap and didn't isolate their systems well enough. I was under the impression one of the FCC's jobs when certifying electronics was to make sure it could handle interference from other devices but I guess not.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is, BUT im guessing all the complaints are from older models as you dont go buy a new gps unit every year ya know. OR the FCC just passed them based on old standard and wouldn't require it until lightsquared actually gave the goahead on rollouts.
fact is gps ppl got cheap and lazy even when given a big notice ahead of time...

cruise350 said:
LightSquared’s proposed 4G broadband transmitters would lead to 794 deaths, a $70 billion loss in aviation capabilities and the addition of 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in the 10 years following LightSquared’s startup. These effects would stem from delays in NextGen development and implementation, reversion to ground-based navigation aids, the loss of GPS efficiency and safety benefits and the cost of acquiring and retrofitting modified GPS equipment across the entire aviation fleet. The FAA estimates that the total avionics and related modifications and retrofit programs would take 10 to 15 years to complete,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Taking into consideration that these technologies are either spreading onto LightSquared's spectrum or have poorly tuned instrumentation that is susceptible to harmonics of activity on Lightsquared's spectrum...well...I'm okay with this.
Get your **** onto your own frequencies. There are plenty of other services on frequencies with natural harmonic interference from other frequencies--it's unavoidable without proper filtering and/or compensation. 400mhz is a perfect octave below 800mhz and thus resonant, as is anything that is a common denominator fractionally....plug in any frequency you want and do the same simple math...that's just how this **** works.
While critical aviation systems should absolutely be given priority they should also be given scrutiny. Fix your **** or move it. Just because this industry put it's system and practices into place in the 1950's-1970's, long before "4G" wireless broadband technology could have ever been envisioned, doesn't mean it should stand in the way of progress. Sure, it might cost billions to transition....but...holy ****, that's progress AND we just created tens of thousands of jobs. Progress costs money.
This problem is not technical, it is political and systemic.

Seriously here, the companies that cut corners should be the ones on the hook to correct the situation.
They knew the specifications they were supposed to follow and chose to ignore it. They should be the ones to correct it.

daneurysm said:
Taking into consideration that these technologies are either spreading onto LightSquared's spectrum or have poorly tuned instrumentation that is susceptible to harmonics of activity on Lightsquared's spectrum...well...I'm okay with this.
Get your **** onto your own frequencies. There are plenty of other services on frequencies with natural harmonic interference from other frequencies--it's unavoidable without proper filtering and/or compensation. 400mhz is a perfect octave below 800mhz and thus resonant, as is anything that is a common denominator fractionally....plug in any frequency you want and do the same simple math...that's just how this **** works.
While critical aviation systems should absolutely be given priority they should also be given scrutiny. Fix your **** or move it. Just because this industry put it's system and practices into place in the 1950's-1970's, long before "4G" wireless broadband technology could have ever been envisioned, doesn't mean it should stand in the way of progress. Sure, it might cost billions to transition....but...holy ****, that's progress AND we just created tens of thousands of jobs. Progress costs money.
This problem is not technical, it is political and systemic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice look at daneursym going hard. Well stated +1
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

sgt. slaughter said:
This is getting a lil rediculous. Lightsquared owns the spectrum it operates and has run the trials in so far. The FCC gave all GPS and related manufacturers a long notice of the deployment of lightsquareds LTE over that spectrum, and it is clear some/most took little to zero steps to fix their devices/firmware to not let their units spread onto that spectrum.
The CEO was on CNBC last month and he was very clear about this. The media has gotten this completely wrong so far. It is those gps companies that are interfeering and wandering onto some of Lightsquareds spectrum and NOT lightsquareds signal wandering onto theirs and causing interfearence.
The FCC actually has a mandate out for Lightsquared to have national rollout of LTE by time X(which i think is 2013-5) which when the official Sprint PR of the deal was released they stated they would have rolled out a year ahead of the mandate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First post nailed it. Bravo, good sir

AyyRayy said:
Nice look at daneursym going hard. Well stated +1
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, I just got back from the bar when I posted that. Don't know why it sounds so angry... I was in a great mood.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App

I tend to believe that many are complaining only to be included incase LTE is forced to give money for "damages". In a time when Mcdonalds can be sued for someone spilling coffee on themselves, anything is possible.
Jason

Alright, off topic, but it always bothers me when someone references the McDonald's case as being the epitome of litigious people. If you actually knew about the case, you'd know that it was completely reasonable. Also, the person who got hurt only asked for damages covering Medical Bills. McDonald's declined and the judge awarded her the "high" amount people call ridiculous. The coffee in question was at a higher temperature than anyone other companies coffee/home-made coffee. Those are just a few of the reasons why she won.

I thought this report was actuallly based older specs, lightsquared since then has eliminated the frequency that caused 90% of the inteference. I thought this report was done before lightsquared improved the situation on their end.

nkd said:
I thought this report was actuallly based older specs, lightsquared since then has eliminated the frequency that caused 90% of the inteference. I thought this report was done before lightsquared improved the situation on their end.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't know op did link us n nothing in news that I saw
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

qitupx said:
Alright, off topic, but it always bothers me when someone references the McDonald's case as being the epitome of litigious people. If you actually knew about the case, you'd know that it was completely reasonable. Also, the person who got hurt only asked for damages covering Medical Bills. McDonald's declined and the judge awarded her the "high" amount people call ridiculous. The coffee in question was at a higher temperature than anyone other companies coffee/home-made coffee. Those are just a few of the reasons why she won.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I agree whole heartedly...and then there is the fact that this event occured over 10 years ago...hell, I think it might have been over 15 years ago. Since then we have seen so many absurd abuses of the justice system that even IF this case were particularly frivolous--which it was not--there are likely hundreds of examples that prove the point far better. Some of them not only from this decade but also from this century.
Sorry to spin this slightly OT reply and fling it even farther OT.

Here is the link for the story, I'm a pilot and I get these news excerpts all the time. The main problem with lightsquared is the frequency band they are using was meant for low power satellite transmissions only, this would not interfere with gps. They then did an end around of the system and convinced the FCC that they could use the same frequency at high power in ground stations. No initial tests were done and the FCC hoping to be the hero by allowing 4g everywhere quickly approved it. Then when lightsquared started switching on the noticed the interference. When lightsquared switched to the alternate freq band it helped but did not solve the problem. It would cost way to much money to fix gps across all the platforms, so I don't think we will see lightsquared unless they find a new freq band.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/leaked-faa-report-slams-lightsquared-30832/

Sounds like FAA is A: lazy B: broke **** and C: I hope it does go through just cause I don't care for them anyways.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

qitupx said:
Alright, off topic, but it always bothers me when someone references the McDonald's case as being the epitome of litigious people. If you actually knew about the case, you'd know that it was completely reasonable. Also, the person who got hurt only asked for damages covering Medical Bills. McDonald's declined and the judge awarded her the "high" amount people call ridiculous. The coffee in question was at a higher temperature than anyone other companies coffee/home-made coffee. Those are just a few of the reasons why she won.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...says the lawyer. You're probably right though, we DO need the government to dictate how hot "hot coffee" should be.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that this case in particular was legitimate or that litigation is a good thing, but either way I think you're about as far off from the target as one can get. Just look at how lawyers affect the world in which we live. Heck, the two worst kinds are personal injury lawyers and IP lawyers. Bastards.

daneurysm said:
Taking into consideration that these technologies are either spreading onto LightSquared's spectrum or have poorly tuned instrumentation that is susceptible to harmonics of activity on Lightsquared's spectrum...well...I'm okay with this.
Get your **** onto your own frequencies. There are plenty of other services on frequencies with natural harmonic interference from other frequencies--it's unavoidable without proper filtering and/or compensation. 400mhz is a perfect octave below 800mhz and thus resonant, as is anything that is a common denominator fractionally....plug in any frequency you want and do the same simple math...that's just how this **** works.
While critical aviation systems should absolutely be given priority they should also be given scrutiny. Fix your **** or move it. Just because this industry put it's system and practices into place in the 1950's-1970's, long before "4G" wireless broadband technology could have ever been envisioned, doesn't mean it should stand in the way of progress. Sure, it might cost billions to transition....but...holy ****, that's progress AND we just created tens of thousands of jobs. Progress costs money.
This problem is not technical, it is political and systemic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I couldn't agree more! The higher your priority the higher the level of scrutiny you should undergo. Poorly designed GPS units should be replaced. Progress should not be delayed simply because these companies don't want to invest the $ and resources to better their own technology and standards.

As a pilot, the way I see it;
1. The FAA is an under funded entity that congress is willing to hold hostage for their agendas.
2. Light Squared tried to maximize their frequency right (I think that is their right).
3. Cutting out land navigation facilities will save billions yearly for the government.
4. Airlines will save billions on shortest routes.
Bottom line, the plan for modernization of the ATC system will take precedence, because a huge part of the economy is tied to it. Light Squared LTE was unfortunate to win that particular spectrum.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App

Lightsquared got screwed..

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/14/lightsquareds-lte-hopes-dashed-by-federal-agency-report/ well aint that a bummer. what does this mean to sprint? will lte be delayed now or will the consumer end be unchanged?

Saw this coming months ago...

who needs GPS anyway.. grab a map.. LOL!

hmm
well i guess i wont be getting one of those fancy quad core lte phones. i also wonder what is going to happen to verizons network since they don't have wimax at all. At least we have something for the time being even if its not all over the place yet. all in all i think this is funny

GPS was first, and was originally for military use. Lightsquared never stood a chance for multiple reasons.

sprkat85 said:
well i guess i wont be getting one of those fancy quad core lte phones. i also wonder what is going to happen to verizons network since they don't have wimax at all. At least we have something for the time being even if its not all over the place yet. all in all i think this is funny
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not going to have an effect on Verizon since they were smart enough to build their own LTE network from the start.

brownhornet said:
It's not going to have an effect on Verizon since they were smart enough to build their own LTE network from the start.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol ya Verizon has 4g everywhere tho there data cap and plans and phone prices are insane.

My bad this didn't come up when I made my thread. Below is my post on it BTW.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/14/lightsquareds-lte-hopes-dashed-by-federal-agency-report/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223412/LightSquared_seeks_probe_of_GPS_advisory_board_member
Well now the looks for sprint to have an LTE partner other than itself and Clear are looking dim according to this story. Lightsquared was going to be a big help to Sprints LTE efforts and give them more spectrum to work with and enable users to connect to.
The issue has always been GPS interference with Lightsquared's LTE implementation. What MANY people FAIL to realize its NOT Lightsquared's fault for the interference. The GPS handsets/systems are encroaching on Lightsquared's Spectrum/frequency and that is whats causing the interference. The FCC even made notice to give manufacturers many many years heads up notice that Lightsquared was coming and using Freq X but the manufacturers did squat and so in turn they still encroach on the signal causing issues to themselves. Now b/c they have been there for so long everyone looks at it as if Lightsquared is causing the problem but its actually the other way around.
Whats sad is even though lightsquared made deals with other companies to implement fixes on these GPS handsets for FREE, it still didn't fly with ppl.
"...Trimble sells products and services for precision GPS and has been one of the most prominent opponents of LightSquared's network plan. LightSquared said deployment of its network could force Trimble to adapt its equipment to stop using frequencies licensed to LightSquared, a concern that LightSquared said Trimble has acknowledged. Parkinson sits on the board of Trimble, so he should have recused himself from the government's decision-making process on the LTE proposal, LightSquared said...."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's truly a shame the GPS manufacturers are so set in there way and control so much of the FCC, as in they have much much more $$ to toss around capitol hill and get things their way.
Now we will be the ones hurt in the end by this more than anyone else.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------
brownhornet said:
It's not going to have an effect on Verizon since they were smart enough to build their own LTE network from the start.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
has nothing do do with verizons lte network nor the fact that they built their own form the start. Sprint is building their own too, they were just going to use Lightsquared's in conjunction along with Clears like they do Clears for WiMax now. Cept Lightsquard's was on a much better Freq than Clears was for easy coverage.

It will be the same as the current 3g sig.. but better after the network vision upgrades. 1.9ghz for Sprint will get better as they are going to mount the radios at the antenna instead of at the base of the tower.
That will get rid of signal loss from the hardline.. which is pretty high at that frequency. Once Nextel is phased out Sprint will start using its 800mhz freqs for coverage as well.
Sent from my PG86100 using xda premium

Means I'm switching to a different carrier before my contract is up. If I were to guess, Sprints network will remain stagnant, in its current, horrible state.
Friend was driving the other night and asked me to get info about hours of a store...slow, slow data means I didn't get the information, got pissed("why do I pay them?! it doesnt work! Im switching to verizon, at least their 3g speeds are consistently around 800kbps."), gave up and we just went.
They were open.

sgt. slaughter said:
My bad this didn't come up when I made my thread. Below is my post on it BTW.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/14/lightsquareds-lte-hopes-dashed-by-federal-agency-report/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223412/LightSquared_seeks_probe_of_GPS_advisory_board_member
Well now the looks for sprint to have an LTE partner other than itself and Clear are looking dim according to this story. Lightsquared was going to be a big help to Sprints LTE efforts and give them more spectrum to work with and enable users to connect to.
The issue has always been GPS interference with Lightsquared's LTE implementation. What MANY people FAIL to realize its NOT Lightsquared's fault for the interference. The GPS handsets/systems are encroaching on Lightsquared's Spectrum/frequency and that is whats causing the interference. The FCC even made notice to give manufacturers many many years heads up notice that Lightsquared was coming and using Freq X but the manufacturers did squat and so in turn they still encroach on the signal causing issues to themselves. Now b/c they have been there for so long everyone looks at it as if Lightsquared is causing the problem but its actually the other way around.
Whats sad is even though lightsquared made deals with other companies to implement fixes on these GPS handsets for FREE, it still didn't fly with ppl.
It's truly a shame the GPS manufacturers are so set in there way and control so much of the FCC, as in they have much much more $$ to toss around capitol hill and get things their way.
Now we will be the ones hurt in the end by this more than anyone else.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------
has nothing do do with verizons lte network nor the fact that they built their own form the start. Sprint is building their own too, they were just going to use Lightsquared's in conjunction along with Clears like they do Clears for WiMax now. Cept Lightsquard's was on a much better Freq than Clears was for easy coverage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't really know **** about this do you. Lightsquared is using it's frequency band illegally and thought a few bribes to the FCC and some congressmen would get it done but they got caught when they messed with GPS. As a commercial pilot I know the importance of GPS and broadband the wrong way is not the solution. Lightsquared gambled that they could sneak this through without anyone noticing but got caught when the screwed with the DOT, farmers, aviation, and the general public. Here are some excerpts from some aviation publications:
After LightSquared made statements that it has a “legal right” to build a network of terrestrial 4G broadband transmitters in the U.S., the Coalition to Save Our GPS last Thursday stepped up its attack of the company’s plans. Tests of LightSquared’s transmitters earlier this year showed that they interfere with GPS signals. According to the coalition, “LightSquared did not pay for and does not have a ‘legal right’ to build a nationwide terrestrial network in the MSS band.” MSS stands for mobile satellite spectrum, a quiet corner of the radio band reserved for very low power satellite-to-earth signals, such as GPS. Spectrum is in high demand, and commercial broadcast frequencies accordingly sell for tens of billions of dollars. But because of their restrictions, MSS frequencies are much cheaper. In fact, LightSquared bought a complete satellite system and two MSS frequencies for $2 billion. However, the GPS coalition said LightSquared is trying to circumvent FCC restrictions to convert these frequencies into a terrestrial spectrum that, according to a report published by LightSquared-hired consultants, would be worth $12 billion. LightSquared “is using legal double speakto hide a $10 billion spectrum windfall–money that should be going to U.S. taxpayers,” the coalition charged.
Congressional opponents of LightSquared’s 4G broadband plan allege that “short circuiting” procedures are involved at the FCC, the White House and the company’s owner to expedite LightSquared’s submissions. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House armed services subcommittee on strategic forces, and five other subcommittee members asked the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (OGR) late last week to conduct an investigation into the roles of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the White House and the Harbinger Capital Partners hedge fund over the matter. In a separate letter sent to Genachowski on Friday, Tom Petri (R-Wis.), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed similar concerns. “We have never seen the entire federal government and so many private companies directed to expend such considerable financial resources and man hours to accommodate a single company’s desires,” they wrote. “Never have we seen a company’s business model threaten critical transportation safety infrastructure and yet be assisted by its federal regulator. It is odd that the FCC has pegged the hopes of expanding broadband access on such a controversial proposal by a single applicant.”
“The effects of LightSquared deployment would be far-reaching and potentially devastating to aviation,” the FAA wrote to the President’s Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) group in a report that was recently leaked to the media. In that document, the FAA estimated that the resulting interference to GPS from LightSquared’s proposed 4G broadband transmitters would lead to 794 deaths, a $70 billion loss in aviation capabilities and the addition of 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in the 10 years following LightSquared’s startup. These effects would stem from delays in NextGen development and implementation, reversion to ground-based navigation aids, the loss of GPS efficiency and safety benefits and the cost of acquiring and retrofitting modified GPS equipment across the entire aviation fleet. The FAA estimated that the total avionics and related modifications and retrofit programs would take 10 to 15 years to complete, although LightSquared experts claimed earlier that it could be accomplished in only three years. The FCC is expected to announce in mid-September whether or not LightSquared will be allowed to proceed with its plan.
The current GPS/LightSquared frequency battle could be described as Washington’s most recent electro-political struggle.
At least two years before President Obama’s January State of the Union announcement of the National Broadband Plan, entrepreneurs and investors were already dissecting its several FCC drafts, looking for business opportunities. One of these investors was billionaire subprime mortgage speculator Philip Falcone, who saw real promise in its market potential. In 2009, Falcone’s company, Harbinger Partners, began the acquisition of ailing broadband satellite operator Sky Terra, which already held an FCC license to provide nationwide Internet service via a large satellite that it had ordered from Boeing.
But for Falcone, Sky Terra, to be renamed LightSquared, also had two aces in the hole. First was its possession of radio spectrum in excess of its needs and, second, it held an FCC dispensation to operate a number of terrestrial Internet re-transmitters in areas of poor satellite reception, and both came with the acquisition. Unused radio spectrum is a rare commodity today, commanding prices in the hundreds of millions from broadcasters. (Occasionally, the FCC holds public spectrum auctions, but future auctions will be conducted more carefully. Last year the FCC accidentally sold the total block of frequencies reserved for the USAF’s B-2 Stealth bomber.)
Yet the Sky Terra acquisition still needed to be finalized before submission for FCC approval, and political connections had to be cemented. The National Legal and Policy Center reports that on Sept. 22, 2009, Falcone and LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja visited the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House. On the following day, Harbinger and Sky Terra signed the merger agreement. One week later, Falcone, previously a very modest Republican supporter, and his wife, Lisa, each made the maximum personal contribution of $30,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In September 2010, Republican supporter Sanjiv Ahuja contributed $30,400 to the same committee.
It was also necessary to maintain continuous contact with the FCC, so Falcone arranged for lobbyist Steve Glaze to perform that task. Coincidentally, Glaze is married to Terri Glaze, the FCC’s director of legislative affairs. However, Falcone and LightSquared were already well connected with the agency. Falcone himself was a Harvard classmate of Barack Obama, and is clearly a strong supporter of the President’s broadband plan, as is Obama appointee Julius Genachowski, the FCC chairman, who oversaw its development.

I'm sorry I don't trust the faa they are the biggest group of liars o don't have cells or WiFi on n now planes have WiFi for internet. Makes ZERO sense to me what they decided to magically figure a way so it doesn't "mess" with their stuff and the report on fuel and deaths is total made up numbers and bull****. People got around forever without gps and still could reason faa doesn't support this the airlines are greedy sobs and none of the airlines can manage their money that's why they always are raising prices and needing help.
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium

cruise350 said:
You don't really know **** about this do you. Lightsquared is using it's frequency band illegally and thought a few bribes to the FCC and some congressmen would get it done but they got caught when they messed with GPS. As a commercial pilot I know the importance of GPS and broadband the wrong way is not the solution. Lightsquared gambled that they could sneak this through without anyone noticing but got caught when the screwed with the DOT, farmers, aviation, and the general public. Here are some excerpts from some aviation publications:
After LightSquared made statements that it has a “legal right” to build a network of terrestrial 4G broadband transmitters in the U.S., the Coalition to Save Our GPS last Thursday stepped up its attack of the company’s plans. Tests of LightSquared’s transmitters earlier this year showed that they interfere with GPS signals. According to the coalition, “LightSquared did not pay for and does not have a ‘legal right’ to build a nationwide terrestrial network in the MSS band.” MSS stands for mobile satellite spectrum, a quiet corner of the radio band reserved for very low power satellite-to-earth signals, such as GPS. Spectrum is in high demand, and commercial broadcast frequencies accordingly sell for tens of billions of dollars. But because of their restrictions, MSS frequencies are much cheaper. In fact, LightSquared bought a complete satellite system and two MSS frequencies for $2 billion. However, the GPS coalition said LightSquared is trying to circumvent FCC restrictions to convert these frequencies into a terrestrial spectrum that, according to a report published by LightSquared-hired consultants, would be worth $12 billion. LightSquared “is using legal double speakto hide a $10 billion spectrum windfall–money that should be going to U.S. taxpayers,” the coalition charged.
Congressional opponents of LightSquared’s 4G broadband plan allege that “short circuiting” procedures are involved at the FCC, the White House and the company’s owner to expedite LightSquared’s submissions. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House armed services subcommittee on strategic forces, and five other subcommittee members asked the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (OGR) late last week to conduct an investigation into the roles of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the White House and the Harbinger Capital Partners hedge fund over the matter. In a separate letter sent to Genachowski on Friday, Tom Petri (R-Wis.), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed similar concerns. “We have never seen the entire federal government and so many private companies directed to expend such considerable financial resources and man hours to accommodate a single company’s desires,” they wrote. “Never have we seen a company’s business model threaten critical transportation safety infrastructure and yet be assisted by its federal regulator. It is odd that the FCC has pegged the hopes of expanding broadband access on such a controversial proposal by a single applicant.”
“The effects of LightSquared deployment would be far-reaching and potentially devastating to aviation,” the FAA wrote to the President’s Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) group in a report that was recently leaked to the media. In that document, the FAA estimated that the resulting interference to GPS from LightSquared’s proposed 4G broadband transmitters would lead to 794 deaths, a $70 billion loss in aviation capabilities and the addition of 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in the 10 years following LightSquared’s startup. These effects would stem from delays in NextGen development and implementation, reversion to ground-based navigation aids, the loss of GPS efficiency and safety benefits and the cost of acquiring and retrofitting modified GPS equipment across the entire aviation fleet. The FAA estimated that the total avionics and related modifications and retrofit programs would take 10 to 15 years to complete, although LightSquared experts claimed earlier that it could be accomplished in only three years. The FCC is expected to announce in mid-September whether or not LightSquared will be allowed to proceed with its plan.
The current GPS/LightSquared frequency battle could be described as Washington’s most recent electro-political struggle.
At least two years before President Obama’s January State of the Union announcement of the National Broadband Plan, entrepreneurs and investors were already dissecting its several FCC drafts, looking for business opportunities. One of these investors was billionaire subprime mortgage speculator Philip Falcone, who saw real promise in its market potential. In 2009, Falcone’s company, Harbinger Partners, began the acquisition of ailing broadband satellite operator Sky Terra, which already held an FCC license to provide nationwide Internet service via a large satellite that it had ordered from Boeing.
But for Falcone, Sky Terra, to be renamed LightSquared, also had two aces in the hole. First was its possession of radio spectrum in excess of its needs and, second, it held an FCC dispensation to operate a number of terrestrial Internet re-transmitters in areas of poor satellite reception, and both came with the acquisition. Unused radio spectrum is a rare commodity today, commanding prices in the hundreds of millions from broadcasters. (Occasionally, the FCC holds public spectrum auctions, but future auctions will be conducted more carefully. Last year the FCC accidentally sold the total block of frequencies reserved for the USAF’s B-2 Stealth bomber.)
Yet the Sky Terra acquisition still needed to be finalized before submission for FCC approval, and political connections had to be cemented. The National Legal and Policy Center reports that on Sept. 22, 2009, Falcone and LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja visited the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House. On the following day, Harbinger and Sky Terra signed the merger agreement. One week later, Falcone, previously a very modest Republican supporter, and his wife, Lisa, each made the maximum personal contribution of $30,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In September 2010, Republican supporter Sanjiv Ahuja contributed $30,400 to the same committee.
It was also necessary to maintain continuous contact with the FCC, so Falcone arranged for lobbyist Steve Glaze to perform that task. Coincidentally, Glaze is married to Terri Glaze, the FCC’s director of legislative affairs. However, Falcone and LightSquared were already well connected with the agency. Falcone himself was a Harvard classmate of Barack Obama, and is clearly a strong supporter of the President’s broadband plan, as is Obama appointee Julius Genachowski, the FCC chairman, who oversaw its development.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry bud I'm not reading your bs there when you say I don't know **** when i likely know more than u do on it. FACT lightsquared was given their spectrum and the current GPS devices signals spread onto THEIR spectrum which causes the interference.
Lightsquared was provisioned to use X spctrum which GPS currently spreads into and GPS ppl.didn't fix their shot in time
Read up on this please.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App

FACT LightSquared was granted a waiver to use their low-power SATELLITE frequency for a terrestrial mobile network buildout IF they could do it without interfering with GPS.
This goes very deep, and in the end it comes down to some guys at the FCC who told LightSquared they could do it, and are now playing cya when GPS became an issue.
Are GPS receivers "listening" outside the normal gps band? Yes. Are they allowed to do this? Technically yes, because they're just listening. Is it a good idea for them to do this? Technologically, yes because of red/blue shift it increases accuracy of gps location.
GPS isn't doing anything wrong, and LightSquared isn't really doing anything wrong either, but they were granted a provisional waiver, and could not satisfy those provisions.
End of story.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App

sgt. slaughter said:
The issue has always been GPS interference with Lightsquared's LTE implementation. What MANY people FAIL to realize its NOT Lightsquared's fault for the interference. The GPS handsets/systems are encroaching on Lightsquared's Spectrum/frequency and that is whats causing the interference. The FCC even made notice to give manufacturers many many years heads up notice that Lightsquared was coming and using Freq X but the manufacturers did squat and so in turn they still encroach on the signal causing issues to themselves. Now b/c they have been there for so long everyone looks at it as if Lightsquared is causing the problem but its actually the other way around
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That doesnt make much sense to me. There are some open frequencies to use for private stuff and below a certain power amount, and there are blocks of frequencies sold by the FCC to a company. How does GPS stuff use one frequency for a LONG time and then suddenly Lightsquared owns it now and other people are encroaching? GPS was around long before this new company and is used for far more important things than 4G data. So Lightsquared has no right to interfere with GPS and should have used a differency frequency band

Lightsquared has no defense here, the bought a spectrum that is designated for a different purpose then what they intended to use it for and got caught when they bribed Obama and his cronies at the FCC. It's that simple, they had no right to build a terrestrial network based on that spectrum and now they are done.
“LightSquared did not pay for and does not have a ‘legal right’ to build a nationwide terrestrial network in the MSS band.” MSS stands for mobile satellite spectrum, a quiet corner of the radio band reserved for very low power satellite-to-earth signals, such as GPS.
---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------
sgt. slaughter said:
Sorry bud I'm not reading your bs there when you say I don't know **** when i likely know more than u do on it. FACT lightsquared was given their spectrum and the current GPS devices signals spread onto THEIR spectrum which causes the interference.
Lightsquared was provisioned to use X spctrum which GPS currently spreads into and GPS ppl.didn't fix their shot in time
Read up on this please.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you need to read, the MSS spectrum they bought is for satellite to earth communication not a terrestrial network. If they used the spectrum as it was intended they would not be interfering with gps. They thought they could do an end around on all the other network providers by buying up a cheap defunct satellite communications company than bribe the fcc and Obama's campaign war chest and people would look the other way while they built a terrestrial network on the MSS band. They probably would have got away with it if it didn't interfere with gps. If lightsquared had played fair, and bought the proper spectrum for its purpose there wouldn't be a problem. They gambled and lost.
---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 AM ----------
ckoadiyn said:
I'm sorry I don't trust the faa they are the biggest group of liars o don't have cells or WiFi on n now planes have WiFi for internet. Makes ZERO sense to me what they decided to magically figure a way so it doesn't "mess" with their stuff and the report on fuel and deaths is total made up numbers and bull****. People got around forever without gps and still could reason faa doesn't support this the airlines are greedy sobs and none of the airlines can manage their money that's why they always are raising prices and needing help.
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, first off it is the FCC that prevents usage of cell phones on airplanes. As far as the other electronic devices, I agree that most of them don't interfere with functions on the airplane. but some due, how many of you have had a gsm phone and gotten close to a speaker and heard the interference it produces. Blackberry's throw all kinds of electronic noise off of them. One of our helicopters would get a fire warning light after take off everytime they flew this one client. After some investigation, Turned out he was leaving his Blackberry on in his case and the fire sensor circuitry was right under his bag when he turned off his blackberry the fire warning light went out. I'm not saying they all do this, but beneath the floor of an airplane is where all the wiring is. You can't say for sure that one of your electrical devices won't cause a problem. Takeoff and landing is where 90% of all crashed occur so wouldn't it make sense to limit the risk of interference at that time.
On another note, our company has just received approval to use Ipads in the cockpit to replace all our paper charts. But, before we can use them each Ipad must be sent out and tested for EMI and Pressurization failures. We've sent in over 200 Ipads to be tested so far and 2 of them came back with unacceptable EMI emissions so just because one is good doesn't mean they all are good.

Just so u know LightSquared controls 59 MHz of the United States spectrum (1525-1559 MHz) and received FCC authorization in 2004 to use this L-Band spectrum to build its nationwide 4G-LTE wireless broadband network integrated with satellite coverage.
It wasn't under Obama they got approved it was that crooked sob bush
Edit: also from what I read their sats spectrum was a agreement with inmarsat which is already for data/phone service with the military so I'm still not seeing the problem.
Ps thanks for some of the info about fcc n interference.
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium

Also if I may add inmarsat sucks after being a it for 4 yrs in the military on a destroyer it was the worst connection and our slowest out of all of them. Part of the connection issues was due to piss poor engineering of the ship but yeah just wanted to throw that out their.
Ps it was slower then dialup for the internet
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium

its ****ing amazing watching all of this unfold...
the power of corporations and the confidence of the people that run them is ridiculous....
how can a company like light squared have the ****ing guts to even think about pushing over such an important and well established essential system like gps?!!
i find it utterly appalling that such an idea even got this far...

Sprint starting IDEN shutdown a lil early...

Well it seems they are already starting to decommission some of the towers which have IDEN on them it seems.
They are using NO as a test base to then take the results of what happens there to apply nationally starting in April evidently.
This is good news as it shows that they might be willing to move faster than initially stated with the iDEN overhaul as before its always been stated to not start till 2013...This will save them money in the near future and hopefully just hopefully allow them to complete the iDEN transfer sooner than expected and re-purpose the 800MHz spectrum to CDMA(1xAdvance)/LTE...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/06/sprint-nextel-iden-shutdown/
http://s4gru.spruz.com/pt/Sprint-un...site-with-Decommissioning-Tower-Maps/blog.htm
that 2nd link is the original source to the engadget article btw. first time ive seen that site, though it has some interesting information in it.

Nice find man lol been reading up on Google about it

reaper24 said:
Nice find man lol been reading up on Google about it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah its not big news as in it doesnt effect us one bit but the biggest thing MIGHT be that they might be getting the whole spectrum re-purpose done earlier than originally planned.

Looks like Orlando, FL and surrounding areas starts June this year. BALLIN!

sgt. slaughter said:
yeah its not big news as in it doesnt effect us one bit but the biggest thing MIGHT be that they might be getting the whole spectrum re-purpose done earlier than originally planned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint is always slow lmao I still don't have 4G in my area for 3 years none. Tho I think it has been longer than that lol.

thing that got me the most was looking at the map of NO and seeing how many freaking towers they have there. Hell im here in Raleigh and dont even show a 1/10th that many in such a small area. given they have 4x the population we have here thats a ton of towers there imho.

Thanks for the link back to our site. We were the original tech page breaking the story, and almost no one has referenced us except Engadget.
Robert Herron
Sprint 4G Rollout Updates

NMherron said:
Thanks for the link back to our site. We were the original tech page breaking the story, and almost no one has referenced us except Engadget.
Robert Herron
Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey anytime. like i said first time I've seen your site personally and ive been with sprint and around for a long time. Deff looks like you have some solid info.

Yey! !!!!
I hope are phone bill goes down as they start pulling out the awfully stupid decision to invest in a DOA technology like iDen....
Sprint should of gotten the hint: not even its creator [Motorola] wanted it!
/sarcasm /rant
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

megabiteg said:
Yey! !!!!
I hope are phone bill goes down as they start pulling out the awfully stupid decision to invest in a DOA technology like iDen....
Sprint should of gotten the hint: not even its creator [Motorola] wanted it!
/sarcasm /rant
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ha whatever it was great if you used it. Had it way back in the day when I was in high school and managing an amusement park. everyone having nextel was great, no need for separate radios and all that. Tons of people use it in all sorts of industries esp construction. just more ppl use reg cells overall so the need for that spectrum is getting bigger.
Just think if Sprint didn't invest in Nextel, they wouldn't even have that 800MHz spectrum and they still likely would of been outbid for the spectrum VZ got in the auction long ago...

sgt. slaughter said:
ha whatever it was great if you used it. Had it way back in the day when I was in high school and managing an amusement park. everyone having nextel was great, no need for separate radios and all that. Tons of people use it in all sorts of industries esp construction. just more ppl use reg cells overall so the need for that spectrum is getting bigger.
Just think if Sprint didn't invest in Nextel, they wouldn't even have that 800MHz spectrum and they still likely would of been outbid for the spectrum VZ got in the auction long ago...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol,
I don't deny it was great, but I sure don't think it was a smart move to purchase the damn thing. I've used it both for work in the military as for personal and those days were fun, I got to admit.
But everyone saw that IDEN was dead weight for sprint because of hosting 2 almost incompatible technologies, they were going to have a single provider (inflation) for network devices and radio equipment and IDEN wasn't being accepted as a world standard and operating in very closed markets; they should of invested in a GSM infrastructure & spectrum and they would of had their money worth something right now.

megabiteg said:
Lol,
I don't deny it was great, but I sure don't think it was a smart move to purchase the damn thing. I've used it both for work in the military as for personal and those days were fun, I got to admit.
But everyone saw that IDEN was dead weight for sprint because of hosting 2 almost incompatible technologies, they were going to have a single provider (inflation) for network devices and radio equipment and IDEN wasn't being accepted as a world standard and operating in very closed markets; they should of invested in a GSM infrastructure & spectrum and they would of had their money worth something right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So they would drop their current cdma spectrum for gsm?....that there is a much bigger turnover. I look at the Nextel buy as getting subs and spectrum. Without that sprint likely bought up by VZ long ago imho...
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App

sgt. slaughter said:
So they would drop their current cdma spectrum for gsm?....that there is a much bigger turnover. I look at the Nextel buy as getting subs and spectrum. Without that sprint likely bought up by VZ long ago imho...
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do agree with you, but I do see one big mistake on both Verizon and Sprint. Investing in CDMA technology shouldn't of been their priority. GSM is the global technology which has become the standard world wide. Many countries are starting to migrate completely, e.g.: Latin & South America, EU and more...
It's no secret that the USA is no longer leader in Mobile technology, we have an overall inferior network vs many parts of the world. The US should join the wold in the GSM standard and not resit it.
I've worked in the backbone of CDMA and GSM networks, the cost associated to maintain a CDMA network is higher then the GSM counterpart due to how modular it is and how expensive the interconnection and expansion equipment are.
Just my honest opinion.

megabiteg said:
I do agree with you, but I do see one big mistake on both Verizon and Sprint. Investing in CDMA technology shouldn't of been their priority. GSM is the global technology which has become the standard world wide. Many countries are starting to migrate completely, e.g.: Latin & South America, EU and more...
It's no secret that the USA is no longer leader in Mobile technology, we have an overall inferior network vs many parts of the world. The US should join the wold in the GSM standard and not resit it.
I've worked in the backbone of CDMA and GSM networks, the cost associated to maintain a CDMA network is higher then the GSM counterpart due to how modular it is and how expensive the interconnection and expansion equipment are.
Just my honest opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the cost also has to do with the fact that b/c of so many people using it, that alone brings down general costs for things. Partially reason Sprint switching to LTE over WiMax is that LTE has become much cheaper to roll out now that so many other providers are on board with it....
when you worked in the backbone of CDMA networks you shoulda given Sprints a nice kick in the arse btw as they need it there.

Sprint at risk of bankruptcy.......

So I just came across a story that I found interesting. Sanford C. Bernstein analyst says that bankruptcy for Sprint is "a very legitimate risk".
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120319-707703.html

That's what happens when u spend a billion dollars on iphones
Sent from my PG86100 using xda premium

Doesn't say much really...
Sent Using My HTC Evo 3D, On The Now Network From Sprint!

Perhaps eventually, but they are a long way from the total shutdown type of bankruptcy. At worst, they'll do a restructuring bankruptcy, but I don't even think it will come to that. They have made some bad decisions, but in the very important metrics of customer satisfaction and retention, they are doing quite well. A company can recover from bad technology investments (Lightsquared, ClearWire). When they start hemorrhaging customers, that's when you really have to worry.

animal7296 said:
So I just came across a story that I found interesting. Sanford C. Bernstein analyst says that bankruptcy for Sprint is "a very legitimate risk".
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120319-707703.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's LightSquared's fault... That, and putting all their eggs into the iPhone basket. But to be honest, it hasn't had a chance to bounce back from it yet.

A lot of people have been thinking about this, but no one has wanted to say it.

Sprint will get bailed out if they were ever forced to close up shop. At&t and verizon are too big to be the only consumer choices.

fpineda101 said:
Sprint will get bailed out if they were ever forced to close up shop. At&t and verizon are too big to be the only consumer choices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is true. Just as the government's been helping banks.

eXplicit815 said:
It's LightSquared's fault... That, and putting all their eggs into the iPhone basket. But to be honest, it hasn't had a chance to bounce back from it yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it has 0 to do with the iPhone...They already stated they were on track for meeting the iPhone goals much much sooner than the deadline. I think over a year sooner than scheduled...
the thing is the analyst is missing some key things when he went on to spout about spectrum as that is NOT a problem for sprint with clearwire and also their own 800MHz LTE with 1900LTE they will be on par with Verizon at the least bit...
The one thing that is a little concerning is the maturities of the debt due in 2015...Doesn't give NetworkVision much time to show its wings and get more customers...Though with any other piece of debt they likely will not have much trouble rolling that amount to a later date paying a lil more premium...

I've been hearing this same tune every few years about Sprint. I've been with Sprint 11 years now, and to be honest I'm considering switching carriers for the first time.
Over the past 2 years my personal experience with their customer service has extremely poor. I've considered VZW but I have to take into account data limits.

xjman said:
I've been hearing this same tune every few years about Sprint. I've been with Sprint 11 years now, and to be honest I'm considering switching carriers for the first time.
Over the past 2 years my personal experience with their customer service has extremely poor. I've considered VZW but I have to take into account data limits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you've stuck around that long like I have then you might as well wait another year and see the effects of NetworkVision rollouts as they have already started and should greatly help most if not all issues like slow speeds and such...
Sent from my PG86100 using xda premium

sgt. slaughter said:
If you've stuck around that long like I have then you might as well wait another year and see the effects of NetworkVision rollouts as they have already started and should greatly help most if not all issues like slow speeds and such...
Sent from my PG86100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I can say that personally from my experience with the "NetworkVision" rollouts that they have done nothing in my area. They completed 1 data speed upgrade and 3 data capacity upgrades (I live 1 mile from a sprint tower) and they have done NOTHING to help voice/data services. My phone actually defaults to roaming now, so I will just wait for sprint to cancel me.
If sprint wanted to avoid this they should've began their "NetworkVision" rollout before they launched the iphone...Hell they should've done it before they launched the OG Evo 4g. They had NO business having smartphones on their dumb network. Now they are scrambling because people are saying screw it and they are paying an extra $20-$30 a month to go to verizon or at&t.
I really, really hope sprint can make it. But from what i've seen from these tower upgrades they haven't made anything better in my area.

ronartest2005 said:
Well I can say that personally from my experience with the "NetworkVision" rollouts that they have done nothing in my area. They completed 1 data speed upgrade and 3 data capacity upgrades (I live 1 mile from a sprint tower) and they have done NOTHING to help voice/data services. My phone actually defaults to roaming now, so I will just wait for sprint to cancel me.
If sprint wanted to avoid this they should've began their "NetworkVision" rollout before they launched the iphone...Hell they should've done it before they launched the OG Evo 4g. They had NO business having smartphones on their dumb network. Now they are scrambling because people are saying screw it and they are paying an extra $20-$30 a month to go to verizon or at&t.
I really, really hope sprint can make it. But from what i've seen from these tower upgrades they haven't made anything better in my area.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are NOT NetworkVision rollouts that your seeing on that website showing "data capacity upgrade" and such...those are mere lil band aid patches and should not be used in reference to what networkvision rollouts are...the NV rollouts involve a complete revamp of the cabinets and backhaul that will make dramatic differences in most of the troubled areas...
To put in perspective the backhaul changes are all being re-done to fiber or microwave based and the current backhaul is using the ancient bundled T1 based...
S4GRU.com has been putting up the rough rough schedule of the cities being done so far btw...
Sent from my PG86100 using xda premium

xjman said:
I've been hearing this same tune every few years about Sprint. I've been with Sprint 11 years now, and to be honest I'm considering switching carriers for the first time.
Over the past 2 years my personal experience with their customer service has extremely poor. I've considered VZW but I have to take into account data limits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not trying to be rude. just making an observation. the majority of the time i hear of people with bad things to say about sprint's customer service it's from customers that have been with sprint for roughly ten years. i've personally had no problems with sprint at all, but i've only been with them for 2 years. is sprint just not that friendly to it's long time customers?

efan3719 said:
not trying to be rude. just making an observation. the majority of the time i hear of people with bad things to say about sprint's customer service it's from customers that have been with sprint for roughly ten years. i've personally had no problems with sprint at all, but i've only been with them for 2 years. is sprint just not that friendly to it's long time customers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no, people just expect more then the average person which is dumb in my opinion, it's like buying a car and expecting it to fill itself up for you, but if the gas pump is crowed then you should be ahead of everyone else just because you want gas -_-, i've been with sprint for 5-6 years now and my parents have been with them for 13+ i've never seen an issue and if there was, either i took care of it or i gave sprint a call for a simple refresh, people that complain about sprint service probably complain about their drinks being too cold at a diner -_-

sgt. slaughter said:
Those are NOT NetworkVision rollouts that your seeing on that website showing "data capacity upgrade" and such...those are mere lil band aid patches and should not be used in reference to what networkvision rollouts are...the NV rollouts involve a complete revamp of the cabinets and backhaul that will make dramatic differences in most of the troubled areas...
To put in perspective the backhaul changes are all being re-done to fiber or microwave based and the current backhaul is using the ancient bundled T1 based...
S4GRU.com has been putting up the rough rough schedule of the cities being done so far btw...
Sent from my PG86100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, I got ya. I just wonder how long (or if) for that matter sprint will do that where I live. Verizon currently has LTE here and it is fast, 20mbs down. But I am not in a large enough city that I think sprint will upgrade their towers within the next couple of years here. I really hope they do. Because I really don't want to leave for verizon. But it get tougher as each day goes by.

ronartest2005 said:
Ah, I got ya. I just wonder how long (or if) for that matter sprint will do that where I live. Verizon currently has LTE here and it is fast, 20mbs down. But I am not in a large enough city that I think sprint will upgrade their towers within the next couple of years here. I really hope they do. Because I really don't want to leave for verizon. But it get tougher as each day goes by.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my area VZW has LTE, USC is revamping all towers for LTE rollout, and Sprint still has about 100k download speeds. At the best I see 300k, it's getting old, it's been this slow for almost 2 straight years now. Unlimited....? Sure you can have all the data you can use, it's as slow as a dial up connection, but have at it,lol.
As far as the comment about Sprint meeting the iCrap expectations, yes they are meeting the expectations on selling them, but (and it was posted here somewhere) they are still losing money on the whole iCrap thing and will be for at least 2 years. Just because they're meeting the sales expectations doesn't mean it's making them money.

I was a fan of sprints until i.started consistently getting 70k down the past 15 months, hoping it would get better, hoping....hoping.....never happened. I'm willing to pay the extra dollars for the bandwidth on VZW. What good is unlimited data at a trickle? I'm out when this contracts up. I like sprint, really...but no data speed on a smartphone ain't gonna cut it.
Sent from my PG86100 using xda premium

ronartest2005 said:
Ah, I got ya. I just wonder how long (or if) for that matter sprint will do that where I live. Verizon currently has LTE here and it is fast, 20mbs down. But I am not in a large enough city that I think sprint will upgrade their towers within the next couple of years here. I really hope they do. Because I really don't want to leave for verizon. But it get tougher as each day goes by.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where are ya located?
NetworkVision is going to be complete in a couple years, at least the tower upgrade and backhaul parts with most if not all being complete during next year...
They have already started up in NJ, Chicago, and a bunch others...I wouldn't pay much attention to the network.sprint.com site as the stuff there is nothing releated to the NetworkVision upgrades...
Just for an idea, those areas where you have horrid speed with great signal and its because the tower is over capacity...the backhaul change will make a huge difference.
Each T1 line is capable of about 1.5Mbps and bundles T1 lines is what's used now...microwave based backhaul is capable of over 1Gbps....each is going to microwave or fiber so that's a giant leap in capacity...
Sent from my PG86100 using xda premium

Im sure Verison is happy...

Sprint's Solution "Update the brand"?

Found this while trolling on DSL Reports, the writer brings up some good points. But, I think Sprint would need more then just to "Update the brand".
I believe it needs a bigger foot print and more money
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/wireless/75200.html?

theboz1419 said:
Found this while trolling on DSL Reports, the writer brings up some good points. But, I think Sprint would need more then just to "Update the brand".
I believe it needs a bigger foot print and more money
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/wireless/75200.html?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was a very interesting article thank you. I know several who had sprint back in the day and left due to coverage problems and still think sprint is aweful from that and poor customer service.. even tho I have good coverage depending on the phone and sprints customer service has been awesome to me personally. But if by brands they mean new commercials and style maybe it would help but right now they need to focus on network.
Then once it is up to par then drop money on chanong the brand. Most young people don't care about price they want things now and well other providers can give them their fb updates YouTube vids etc in a cpl seconds compared to sprint in most areas. If all goes well for NV by the end of the year I think next year will be very promising for them if they try to put themselves out there stronger.

theboz1419 said:
Found this while trolling on DSL Reports, the writer brings up some good points. But, I think Sprint would need more then just to "Update the brand".
I believe it needs a bigger foot print and more money
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/wireless/75200.html?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the link
p.s. Out of interest, did you mean 'lurking'? Saying you troll is not a good thing.

Scougar said:
Thanks for the link
p.s. Out of interest, did you mean 'lurking'? Saying you troll is not a good thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, lurking would be the word, lol

This is pretty simple imo.
Sprint has fixed many of it's CS issues... but this impacts retention more than growth. Both are important... but Sprint really needs new account growth
AT&T has (had?) a historical brand advantage and had the luxury of the iPhone "head start" program.
That alone, kept AT&T among the top two for years... even though it was having serious network service/capacity issues in many areas.
Verizon has the best network coverage/service (by far imo), has had the strongest phone line up (especially since getting the iPhone) AND has the best marketing/"brand" (by far).
T-Mobile has always been considered a "lower tier" carrier in the eyes of the general public.
Sprint's needs to follow Verizon's lead imo. But they can't do that until they get there network in order (imo).
They should get their network in order, maintain a strong phone lineup and then make a large marketing push (once the network is much more established).

gmanvbva said:
This is pretty simple imo.
Sprint has fixed many of it's CS issues... but this impacts retention more than growth. Both are important... but Sprint really needs new account growth
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're getting it (finally) but in the same token the extra addition of users are taxing the exisitng network.
Hopefully the NV rollout is moving at a good pace.

Scougar said:
Thanks for the link
p.s. Out of interest, did you mean 'lurking'? Saying you troll is not a good thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love trolling on yahoo answers...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag.86CALY6UYo.m8lEQDAB8azKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20120405150821AAl4vy9
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhHviXKGRAN3bEYzWcnJ684azKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20120405153147AALDf9b
^^^I love the first answer to this one. The guy thinks I'm serious...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvzbLioVdUoAqALmewb8GJwazKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20120405142454AAdsBGH

Noiro said:
They're getting it (finally) but in the same token the extra addition of users are taxing the exisitng network.
Hopefully the NV rollout is moving at a good pace.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's why I really think they need to save the big push for when they get things straightened out.
I know in my area they are in the process of doing upgrades and it has actually decreased their coverage. 3G is MUCH faster but the coverage is MUCH more spotty. I can be driving down the street and have 4-5 bars and then suddenly drop to nothing and be roaming within a block. Never had issues like that before.
If other areas are experiencing the same types of issues (which it seems they are) during these network upgrades... New users are likely to leave and not give Sprint another shot for quite some time.
I'm actually very close to leaving. It's been crappy now for over a month and the Airrave just isn't reliable enough (phones stop picking it up and requires a reboot every couple days). Prior to that Sunday morning (when the upgrade occurred) we rarely had issues.

Damn branding...go put up some towers.

Better Mobile App

welcome