Just got back from a 2 day drink-athon in Vegas and prior to binge, I was able to run some 4G test in different parts.
From the moment we came over the hill, I switched on 4G and monitored the phone; Tropicana Blvd is where I finally received a 4G signal. Immediately I ran a speed test and was getting horrible speeds. I realized that my phone's Server was still set to Los Angeles, after updating to a Vegas server, I was getting better (not literally) speeds.
I averaged about 2.3 Mbps down and 1 Mbps upload. Over 3G I was getting 1.5 ish, and 900k up.
So what gives ? Signal also fluctuates drastically... Is this what we should expect when 4G Rolls out in LA ?
The biggest issue with sprints 4g is the frequency it operates at. Meaning obstructions blocking los can have a huge impact on strength. This in turn hurts quality.
I really don't see it taking off simply for that reason. Penetration sucks unless you are very close to a tower. Lte is going to drop kick 4g in the face I'm not sure why they decided to go this way its obvious they learned nothing from the cdma penetration issues.
A bunch of execs sat around a table looking at cost and towers, picked this because the foot print is larger with less infrastructure but neglected to think about people not being able to use it effectively in cities or in buildings.
Aridon said:
The biggest issue with sprints 4g is the frequency it operates at. Meaning obstructions blocking los can have a huge impact on strength. This in turn hurts quality.
I really don't see it taking off simply for that reason. Penetration sucks unless you are very close to a tower. Lte is going to drop kick 4g in the face I'm not sure why they decided to go this way its obvious they learned nothing from the cdma penetration issues.
A bunch of execs sat around a table looking at cost and towers, picked this because the foot print is larger with less infrastructure but neglected to think about people not being able to use it effectively in cities or in buildings.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was well aware of the frequency issue but never though it would be that bad, although Vegas has pretty tall structures which I'm sure plays a role.
jaypeezee said:
I was well aware of the frequency issue but never though it would be that bad, although Vegas has pretty tall structures which I'm sure plays a role.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I'm sure that did play a role for you, there are a lot more factors involved. The St. Louis outlying areas where I pick up 4G now (Specifically Fenton and Arnold) have very few buildings over 4-5 stories. Even in a wide open parking lot with nothing but flat for about a thousand feet in every direction I don't get very good speeds if I'm inside even a car.
If I stand in that lot (the movie theater at Gravois Bluff if anyone from around here wants specifics) outside a car with nothing around, I hit ~3-3.5mbs down & ~1 up. If I'm in a car, I'm lucky to hit 2.5 down & 1 up. If I go inside the theater, ~2 down tops if I even get signal.
When I go in Red Robin's there by the Verizon store, I have full bars outside with ~3mb down & when I step inside I usually lose 4G service, but if I don't, I get ~1.5-2 down tops.
If you're moving, it gets even worse. Don't expect much over 2mb if you're in a moving car.
Sprint is pretty upfront on the coverage map about 4G having very limited availability inside buildings. In my experience, when driving around in a car through spotty coverage I usually get better speeds by turning off 4g completely. Searching, connecting, disconnecting destroys my ability to do anything with data.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
I live in Vegas and I have fairly good 4G Speeds. It does fluctuate often though. Sprint should be working on getting Vegas solid coverage since we're such a major city and so many customers here bought an Evo. I think that the same should go for all major cities, especially LA. They need to use our 10 extra bucks to buy some better coverage, but let's give Sprint some time
WiMAX coverage in Las Vegas is down right atrocious. You won't be able to drive down any freeway and maintain a solid connection.. that's just one example of how spotty the coverage is, the map is a blatant lie. The strip should have big coverage holes shown on the map for nearly all of the shops/hotels/casinos/clubs that don't have towers next to them. Try driving down Dean Martin/Industrial and see if you can maintain a 4G connection with no drops.
It's really bad when you spend some time in Las Vegas and go all around. Las Vegas didn't just launch last week either, they've been online for about a year now. It's one reason why I wasn't falling over the HTC Evo when it launched.. WiMAX coverage is bad. Sprint's coverage overall is better, but not the best.
Basically, if your city is like Las Vegas with lots of Suburbs, Urban areas, and even hilly areas! (7 Hills/Anthem) - expect coverage to be the same or worse. CLEAR can't even cover 7 Hills properly and didn't bother with Anthem.
I live in Vegas, I was probably the first person with WiMax though clearwire. I get decent speed with there usb but it's consistent. The 4g on my Evo however, is pretty much useless.... unless I'm plugged in. Most times though my 3g is plenty fast, and doesn't ever drop.
typed on my Evo...
I too live in Vegas and while in some areas 4G does suck for the most part I get a great signal both on my EVO and with Clearwire. I spend most time on the south end of the strip as I live and work in that area and I always get a great signal.
Sent via EVO
my dad lives in anthem henderson and man ATT and Sprint 3g and normal reception signal sucks Balls there! 4g is non existent!
I was in Vegas the day after Evo launch day and actually got pretty good 4g speeds too. I was not right down on the strip though. The only thing I found odd was that Sprints coverage is pretty spotty in general. In Reno we have great coverage, just no 4g.
asdf
Wow, a little discomforting from hearing all these replies OR thats just my stomach still trying to digest all the alcohol I consumed - meh.
Anyway, I didn't purchase this phone with high hopes for 4G and I knew going in to it I was probably only going switch it on while I was tethering/stationary somewhere... Although with all these similar replies, seems like this also maybe a problem.
Guess we'll wait and see - I know, new technology
When it works its great but 4G is very spotty in Vegas. Truthfully 4G was not my main reason for getting the Evo and in fact I don't use it unless I am streaming a video or a large download.
Related
So I just noticed @TMobile tweeted a comparison done by Wirefly of G2 vs Vibrant vs Epic 4G in terms of connection speed. I took a look at the video and I am baffled at the idiotic nature of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36p8bMAFDVQ
http://www.wirefly.com/learn/android/t-mobile-g2-screams-in-internet-speed-tests/
...Capable of operating on T-Mobile’s HPSA+ network, the G2 tested at speeds up to 5.5 Mbps. In a Wirefly video recording on YouTube, the G2 showed a download speed of 3.07 Mbps. By comparison, the Samsung Vibrant (which runs on T-Mobile’s slightly slower HSPA network) topped out at a modest 437 kbps. The Vibrant is certainly capable of higher speeds and there are many variables that can account for the results in an Internet speed test. The Vibrant received a relatively weak signal for this particular test, which accounts for its lackluster performance...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Bob the cellphone professor" tested the G2 in two different locations - at his office and at home. At his office G2 got ~800 Kbps while at home it got ~3 Mbps. That is fine, I understand that different locations will give you different speeds depending on many different variables such as current network usage, etc. However what I have a problem is what he did with the Vibrant.
He tested the Vibrant at his office; the Vibrant got ~400 Kbps at the office (the same location the G2 got ~800 Kbps, i.e. the location that has a weaker or more busy T-Mobile network). Then, he goes on to compare the ~400 Kbps the Vibrant got at his office to the speed the G2 got at his home.
I realize the G2 is on HSPA+ while the Vibrant is still on HSPDA/HSPA, so logically the G2 will get faster speeds where the HSPA+ network is available. I am not trying to say the Vibrant will have faster connection speeds than the G2. However, the comparison done by "Bob the cellphone professor" is poor, to say the least. A more fair comparison would be one of G2 at home vs Vibrant at home. Someone fire this guy -- or at least keep him away from the camera. Disinformation is a disservice to us all.
Is HSPA+ even available yet
demo23019 said:
Is HSPA+ even available yet
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have not fully rolled it out, yes, but it is already available in many cities.
Plus it doesn't even matter if HSPA+ is available or not. My point about the comparison being poor is valid regardless of if HSPA+ is available in Bob's area or not.
like i thought he is only on HSPA with G2
yea he is pretty dumb especially posting on youtube
vibrant 3g score not mine
i only get around 2mb on good day
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhjF3CdzNwU&feature=related
ignore the title its obviously not HSPA+
not mine
I get on average 2.80 mbps on my vibrant and about 3 on the g2 I have. Do the g2 will only make a big speed difference once hspa+ is fully launched. I think our vibrants support upto 7.2 mbps so go figure.
Sent from my SAMOLED Vibrant using XDA app
DarkAgent said:
So I just noticed @TMobile tweeted a comparison done by Wirefly of G2 vs Vibrant vs Epic 4G in terms of connection speed. I took a look at the video and I am baffled at the idiotic nature of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36p8bMAFDVQ
http://www.wirefly.com/learn/android/t-mobile-g2-screams-in-internet-speed-tests/
"Bob the cellphone professor" tested the G2 in two different locations - at his office and at home. At his office G2 got ~800 Kbps while at home it got ~3 Mbps. That is fine, I understand that different locations will give you different speeds depending on many different variables such as current network usage, etc. However what I have a problem is what he did with the Vibrant.
He tested the Vibrant at his office; the Vibrant got ~400 Kbps at the office (the same location the G2 got ~800 Kbps, i.e. the location that has a weaker or more busy T-Mobile network). Then, he goes on to compare the ~400 Kbps the Vibrant got at his office to the speed the G2 got at his home.
I realize the G2 is on HSPA+ while the Vibrant is still on HSPDA/HSPA, so logically the G2 will get faster speeds where the HSPA+ network is available. I am not trying to say the Vibrant will have faster connection speeds than the G2. However, the comparison done by "Bob the cellphone professor" is poor, to say the least. A more fair comparison would be one of G2 at home vs Vibrant at home. Someone fire this guy -- or at least keep him away from the camera. Disinformation is a disservice to us all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. He said the H symbol means its on Hspa+. Did this guy do any research before he made this video? The G2 has has no 3g symbol it will say H even on 3g.
I would still choose my vibrant over the G2 any day. Now the MThd will be a different story, but for now IMO this is the best Android phone on the market even with all its quirks.
Reading the article, he mentions the Vibrant had a weak signal for the test. Which would definitely result in skewed numbers. Area also makes a huge difference. In my city, I've had 3G with all my bars and only averaged around 2.5-3Mbps, but in the neighboring larger city in a similar circumstance, I've topped out at 4.63Mpbs. Besides the fact that you're comparing the difference between 3G and HSPA+. Rather like comparing dial-up and broadband.
Ehh, it gave me something to do while my files finished downloading. Aside from that, another apples vs oranges article.
That test was soooo not unfair!
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
MStrawder said:
Reading the article, he mentions the Vibrant had a weak signal for the test. Which would definitely result in skewed numbers. Area also makes a huge difference. In my city, I've had 3G with all my bars and only averaged around 2.5-3Mbps, but in the neighboring larger city in a similar circumstance, I've topped out at 4.63Mpbs. Besides the fact that you're comparing the difference between 3G and HSPA+. Rather like comparing dial-up and broadband.
Ehh, it gave me something to do while my files finished downloading. Aside from that, another apples vs oranges article.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The irony is I am pretty sure 3G speeds are 3G speeds if you have 1 bar or 5 bars. I know for sure that even with 1 bar I have gotten ~3 Mbps speeds.
The only issue you would have with weak signal is if you are on the border of EDGE/3G -- then signal strength would play a part. I think, anyway.
badaphooko01 said:
Agreed. He said the H symbol means its on Hspa+. Did this guy do any research before he made this video? The G2 has has no 3g symbol it will say H even on 3g.
I would still choose my vibrant over the G2 any day. Now the MThd will be a different story, but for now IMO this is the best Android phone on the market even with all its quirks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep. I agree with everything you said -- from the part about the H icon (I thought the same thing while I was watching the video) to the MThd comment.
I have average to pretty good scores on 3g. Wifi is not necessary for me to use at most places I go to in chicago. I got just over 4k down here at home once.
Sent from beyond galaxy s
I get great speeds on my vibrant all the time I live in the hspa area see my sig.
I was wondering if someone familiar with what the clear wimax towers look like could tell me if this was one of them, or something else. The photo below was taken at a dept. of public works building, so I was not sure if it could be something used for radio communication instead. I didn't want to get all hyped up if it was something like that.
Thanks
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
It does look like a cell phone tower, but I don't know if we can tell if it's specifically a clear tower from those pics.
Cool, I drove by one location that I know is a sprint tower and it had something similar but it was too dark to snap a pic. I tried to compare it to some images on google but I'm no expert and have no idea what a regular cell tower without wimax looks like. Guess I could google that too, lol.
Other than possibly being a little different in length to account for the difference in the frequencies Sprint/Clear are using for WiMax, the antennas probably wouldn't look that different. If the frequencies were the same (and quite possibly even if they aren't), the antennas could very well be identical. The antennas are mostly concerned with what frequencies they are dealing with and how much power. WiMax is pretty much just a payload on that signal.
Looks like the antenna that sends wifi to my house (no cable net out here in the sticks) except there's a lot more of them on my tower.
You have been EVOfied.
I doubt that tower has WiMax antennas. You can usually tell because there'll be a microwave relay antenna on the tower (not always, if the tower's got plenty of fiber connecting it to the backbone) but the actual WiMax antennas are long, wide, and flat antennas typically.
You can see if the location is in fact a tower by checking the Clear coverage map on clear.com. It's fairly accurate about tower locations, but won't show testbed networks (where WiMax hasn't officially been turned on yet).
EDIT: Attached are two pictures of a WiMax tower behind one of the remote sites I work at. The top antennas are cellular, the middle ring is WiMax and the microwave antenna, and the bottom ring are NEXTEL/iDEN antennas. This is my best understanding of the system.
drmacinyasha said:
I doubt that tower has WiMax antennas. You can usually tell because there'll be a microwave relay antenna on the tower (not always, if the tower's got plenty of fiber connecting it to the backbone) but the actual WiMax antennas are long, wide, and flat antennas typically.
You can see if the location is in fact a tower by checking the Clear coverage map on clear.com. It's fairly accurate about tower locations, but won't show testbed networks (where WiMax hasn't officially been turned on yet).
EDIT: Attached are two pictures of a WiMax tower behind one of the remote sites I work at. The top antennas are cellular, the middle ring is WiMax and the microwave antenna, and the bottom ring are NEXTEL/iDEN antennas. This is my best understanding of the system.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bottom sector is Nextel? I didn't know Nextel used TMA's and Ret motors etc...
looks like a temp 4g tower to me we had those here in texas but now there huge and took those off
If u can get close to the station see if you can see a smaller power looking box on the ground. I say smaller bc the wimax network boxs are like 1/5th the size of the regular ones. Itd also look new too. No taller than a suv and no wider than a car in square form somewhat.
Google it theres a news special someone did on the stuff and they showed the units upclose.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
That is correct sgt. slaughter. If you get close to the tower, I would love to know the speedtest on that. Has to be crazy fast.
fgarcia25 said:
That is correct sgt. slaughter. If you get close to the tower, I would love to know the speedtest on that. Has to be crazy fast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Speedtest is not only dependent on how close you are the to TX...
For instance, if you have a good signal, try a speedtest with different local servers. I have seen differences as high as 5mbps just switching speedtest servers, as there must be different bandwidths available.
fgarcia25 said:
That is correct sgt. slaughter. If you get close to the tower, I would love to know the speedtest on that. Has to be crazy fast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been within 50 yards of one, and still could not get above 10Mbps.
swyped from my gingerbread'd Evo 4G
tomh1979 said:
I've been within 50 yards of one, and still could not get above 10Mbps.
swyped from my gingerbread'd Evo 4G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i thought to close was also bad too... ? or am i wrong here
elegantai said:
I was wondering if someone familiar with what the clear wimax towers look like could tell me if this was one of them, or something else. The photo below was taken at a dept. of public works building, so I was not sure if it could be something used for radio communication instead. I didn't want to get all hyped up if it was something like that.
Thanks
Ive never installed Wimax, but Ive worked and installed ants. on many Sprint towers. This doesn't even look like the technology they use, even though that varies in different markets. First clue is no Microwave ant., but I may be wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I understand this is what the "towers" look like. They are just little boxes.
Sent from your favorite carrier, black and yellow!
DirtyShroomz said:
From what I understand this is what the "towers" look like. They are just little boxes.
Sent from your favorite carrier, black and yellow!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that looks more like it... small radio cabs mounted close to the ants. Very similar to Tmo's 3g layout.
the ones looks like light bars is a antenna of access point to send wi-fi 2 miles around thats I know there is some pleases they have free wi-fi
That looks like it's for public service radio. (IE. Police, Fire Medical)
Especially hearing it's near a civil building, I wouldn't doubt it.
Tree antenna
huh, i saw one of these. They installed one in 6 days, after the finished they put fake tree stuff on the attenna's. They made the pole out of a wood-like material.
next time i go by it ill take a pic with my evervolv evo
kasey348 said:
the ones looks like light bars is a antenna of access point to send wi-fi 2 miles around thats I know there is some pleases they have free wi-fi
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude, seriously, wtf are you talking about...?
Interesting article on MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41485079/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/
Confirms what we already knew. The article doesn't mention the fact that even in areas that have "4G", the coverage is spotty at best. Here in Charlotte, I rarely even attempt to use 4G since I can usually only pick up a signal near the uptown area, and I'd rather save my battery.
I would guess in theory the writer meant side-by-side as meaning the phones were side by side, and that this was NOT an apples-to-apples comparison. Interesting read regardless.
For what it's worth, his numbers are a pretty close match to what I'm getting using SpeedTest. In fact, his 4G speeds were slightly faster than mine.
Try this 4G tweak.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=925898
It's highly dependent on where you are. Mine will vary from 1 Megabit to 8 plus megabits. I'm very unhappy with Sprint at this point, but all of the other carriers look even worse.......
Jayavarman said:
Try this 4G tweak.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=925898
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually used that tweak, and it greatly improved my ability to get a 4G signal. I didn't see any significant speed improvement though.
Totally irrelevant tests. It all depends on where you are. I get rough 8-10mbps on Sprint 4G in St. Louis. You can't talk about LTE because there are so few people actually using it. Once you get people on LTE, the number will be similar I'm imagining.
In defense of Sprint, their voice signal strength is MUCH better than Verizon. I was a Verizon customer for years, and I moved into an area where I only got 1 or 2 bars. Then over the summer, for some unknown reason, the signal strength dropped to practically nothing. They offered to sell me a network extender for $150 or else I could "stand outside to make a call". When I balked on those options, they allowed me to terminate my contract with no fee (got to keep the phones too!). Sprint's signal is much better, the contract is cheaper and they even sent me a free AirRave network extender (waived the $5 monthly fee) because I had some "dead-spots" in my house.
ED2O9 said:
Interesting article on MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41485079/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/
Confirms what we already knew. The article doesn't mention the fact that even in areas that have "4G", the coverage is spotty at best. Here in Charlotte, I rarely even attempt to use 4G since I can usually only pick up a signal near the uptown area, and I'd rather save my battery.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought that I heard that Sprint was throttling their 4G speeds to prevent network saturation. Does that ring a bell for anyone?
it really depends in the location. my modded epic got 6mbps 4 times in Manhattan. but in my house i get over 4mbps on a average.
I average around 3Mbps at my home. That is good enough for me, considering the unlimited data plan.
I dislike when people their results like be all end all on something totally varying on time, and location.
I get 8.5 usual, general 5 to 9 anytime random test, and 10 to 13.5 when I'm peaking. In the same area tmo 4g struggles to get past 3. All within my home.
/And that's my 0.2 florin... Another message exported from Epic4g via Tapatalk Pro
I don't even have 4G lol.
Check out new 4G LTE phone from MetroPCS. Similar but lesser model to Epic 4G. However, they have competitive offers, such as no contract unlimited plan for $60/mo.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
http://blog.laptopmag.com/hands-on-metro-pcs-brings-first-lte-android-smart-phone-to-the-world
I get roughly 4-5 on average here in Denver but peak has been around 8Mbps
#1. I really believe that the area is very important (when I move around my speeds change)
#2. I feel that 4g is pretty cool and fast, I don't have wifi at home at the moment (router went out) and when I need to download I hit 4g first and it goes blazing fast.
So I'd be on the other side, it's new technology so you can't expect the world. If you guys really want to complain, try EDGE on ATT and T-Mobile compared to regular Sprint speeds
Not a Sprint fanboy, but I do think that CDMA kills GSM in my experience.
My 4G in philly suburbs is around 3-6.5mbps. I'm usually in the 6 range though. Never get into the 7s. From my understanding, Verizon's LTE is the fastest (lowest latency, faster download/upload speed), Sprint 4G is second and Apple's fugazi 4G is the worst of the three. I'm not sure about TMo or the other so-called 4G providers.
I get decent 4G in Long Beach, Ca of about 6mbs, but I'm moving to Cocoa Beach, Fl where there is no 4G. Not changing carriers as Verizon has worse cell service. At least I can sit on patio facing the atlantic ad still talk. However, the cable wifi there is outrageous.
Sent from Bonsai v 5.0.3
I went to san antonio and speed test on my stock epic was 2 down 1 up. I had a lay over in georgia I think and it was a little less than 2 down and 1 up again. not the numbers you people are seeing. is this because I am bone stock or are those the speeds in those areas. the speed test results were pretty much the same no matter where I ran the test. couldnt get 4g in fort worth airport.
bighuta said:
I get roughly 4-5 on average here in Denver but peak has been around 8Mbps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same here. I've read that Sprint's markets are getting widely varying speeds on their 4G. Wonder where these MSNBC tests were done?
I finally tried the "new" 4g I get four out four 4g bars pretty much everywhere in that area. So far so good.
But when I test the speed with the speedtest.net app or testmy.net site, I am always getting only 0.4mbps download speed (but normal 0.9 mbps upload speed). 3g download speed is 1.2mbps
I also tried another EVO with the same result (both hardware version 3). I don't think it is a hardware issue, because last year I tried my EVO in a different area and got 8mpbs (with four bars).
I tried the two latest wimax versions (and updated the profile):
EVO_WiMAX_27167_R01
EVO_WiMAX_26023_R01
Does anybody have an idea why the download speed is so slow (with excellent signal strength)?
PS
I am not looking for confirmation that download speed in the bay area is fast. I believe that, I am rather interested in possible explanations, what could be wrong on my phone.
Probably something wrong going on there. I've been getting 4g in the bay area for at least 3 months. I've maxed out at 9.5 mbps...
Yes, something is probably wrong. What Wimax version did you flash?
+1 to it being fast in the Bay Area. Have gotten as high as 1.1 MByte/sec (with a -64dBm signal).
Stock EVO, and a Sierra 250U for use at the hotel.
What wimax version do you guys have on your phones?
What else could make a difference?
For example ad-blocking (via /etc/hosts or ad-free) does interfere with 4g web browsing, but I don't have any ad-blocking software or hosts file.
Again, this is the first time I am having issues with 4g. Last time I used 4g was 2months ago (before the official roll-out), but had no problems.
I got 8mb to the speed test app last night at the in n out on 101 and rhengstorf
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
4G Speeds fine for me
I have a Evo 4G hardware version 0004 and my speeds are almost 10Mbps in the bay. Same in Sacramento.
I think mystery solved.
I went to a Sprint store to compare with other devices and they had the same problem.
FYI, tested from Stanford campus with almost no 4g signal and got 2.4 Mbps down and 0.5 up. Not great compared to others though, but I was indoors.
EVO 4G, CM7-GX4, Savaged-Zen
seems to be sporatic coverage to me. When i test in certain areas the speeds are awesome but when i'm at home, whether inside or outside, the speeds are indeed worse than 3g. Give it some time i guess maybe they'll bolster the coverage a bit more as they expand.
This is all in various parts of san bruno
palmdude said:
It looks like that the 4g tower in the following area has a big problem with download speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bandwith hog, I'll bet.
Have you reported it to Sprint, just in case it's really a bad tower after all?
lacrossev said:
seems to be sporatic coverage to me. When i test in certain areas the speeds are awesome but when i'm at home, whether inside or outside, the speeds are indeed worse than 3g. Give it some time i guess maybe they'll bolster the coverage a bit more as they expand.
This is all in various parts of san bruno
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what I've noticed in SF. I have gotten nice d/l speeds at various places I've been but overall it's sporadic at best and 3G seems to be my best bet overall for the places I frequent.
I am not sure that this is a coverage issue. My antenna signal strength is very high and the tower is 0.2 miles away (according to spring). I tested in areas with only one bar and still got at least 2mbps.
lacrossev said:
seems to be sporatic coverage to me. When i test in certain areas the speeds are awesome but when i'm at home, whether inside or outside, the speeds are indeed worse than 3g. Give it some time i guess maybe they'll bolster the coverage a bit more as they expand.
This is all in various parts of san bruno
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think it is a bandwidth hog. I tested many days around the clock always the same problem.
Yes, I called Sprint, I tried to explain that I tried other EVOs and got the same problem. And that the phone works very well everywhere else in Bay Area But they think it is a problem with my phone (after the "advanced support technician" remotely updated the phone and also did an "handsfree activation").
I guess the problem is that they haven't received (m)any calls from that area yet. The most surprising part is that the sprint store in that area apparently didn't complain about the problem either ...
kcrudup said:
Bandwith hog, I'll bet.
Have you reported it to Sprint, just in case it's really a bad tower after all?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you have any download speed problem, when the 4g signal strength was excellent ("full bars")?
spiicytuna said:
That's what I've noticed in SF. I have gotten nice d/l speeds at various places I've been but overall it's sporadic at best and 3G seems to be my best bet overall for the places I frequent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exciting news.
After 13 months Sprint/Clearwire fixed the tower and I have full 4g speed now.
Average speedtest roughly 9.5mbps down and 1.4mbps up.
Speedtest via hotspot: 4.5 mbps down.
You guys are lucky.
Where im living i would post this thread with the title:
Gainesville: 3G slower than 1x?
Its been like that for the last 6 months here.
Id rather roam 1x on verizon than use sprint's 3g. 100% honest. I get about 100kbps on a good day.. average around 30 kpbs right now
palmdude said:
I think mystery solved.
I went to a Sprint store to compare with other devices and they had the same problem.
It looks like that the 4g tower in the following area has a big problem with download speeds.
http://sprintstorelocator.com/map.a...alesServices=1,2&repairServices=&services=1,3
I tried other areas (for example 101 and rhengstorf like user treckin) and everything worked perfectly (8mpb). So it is not a phone issue.
Only a problem in the above area ...
Feel free to test in that area
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That site is defunct, but you can see the tower at the new site:
https://network.sprint.com/search/94040/
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Getting great 4G speeds in San Francisco, about 8.5 Mbps download with one to two bars of strength. Compared to my .3 Mbps download speeds with full bars of 3G, it's amazing. By the way, my mom's Samsung Epic 4G is getting 5x faster 3G speeds...any reason for that? Is the Evo just that bad?
@NxNW thanks for the link update. But the map doesn't show any 4g coverage.
You can see 4g coverage here: http://www.clear.com/coverage
3g speed has been around 0.7mbps average in the last couple of months (despite the data capacity upgrade). It used to be 1.5 mbps ...
BTW the highest speed I measured was 12.4 mbps.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
http://fixthe3gsprint.tumblr.com/
http://fixthe3gsprint.tumblr.com/submit/
Submit your 3G speed test results:
1.) Download the Speedtest.net app
2.) Turn your Wi-Fi off
3.) Launch the app and press Begin Test
4.) Take a screen capture of the Results page
5.) Attach it using the Choose File button
6.) Type your Area Code or City in the text box
7.) Click Submit
Sprint’s advertised 3G speeds are: 600kbps to 1400kbps (1.4mbps)
----------
"I thought I messed up my phone a few days ago, and have been trying EVERYTHING to fix it! (Countless nandroids back to Sense from CM7; to update PRL & Profile...)
And it turns out it's because of the massive amount of new iPhone users on Sprint's already slow/over-stuffed network!
If you are also affected, please post your Speedtest.net pic on there and let's hope Sprint hears us!"
http://fixthe3gsprint.tumblr.com/
http://fixthe3gsprint.tumblr.com/submit/
zmag
zmag said:
And it turns out it's because of the massive amount of new iPhone users on Sprint's already slow/over-stuffed network!
If you are also affected, please post your Speedtest.net pic on there and let's hope Sprint hears us!"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You must not like iPhones... Sprint's 3G speeds have been getting progressively worse over the past year and I'd say it probably due to free smartphone promos (e.g., free Evos through Radio Shack--I know three people that got them for free) than iPhones. Sprint knows about it and is doing something about it. I don't remember where I read the article (I just googled it and unfortunately couldn't find it) where it states that Sprint is improving their infrastructure. I flashed back to Froyo because I thought that might be the problem and my speeds did increase for a while and then dropped back. Just be patient.
Mays Landing NJ 08330
Philadelphia, PA
Here's my "normal" speeds... I was getting faster speeds on dial-up back in 1995. This has happened in my area since last November. Before that, I could easily pull 2mbps all day and all night.
Everyone else with this problem, do your speeds increase late night/early morning? Between about 2am and 6am, I can pull about 1.3mbps, but during the day or any other time, I can NEVER get above 100kbps. Obviously this shows that the towers are just overloaded, and not broken, as Sprint keeps claiming.
Just did this test, also using 3g turbocharger script
Here is a nice 4g screenshot
302 Newark, DE
Sent from my Evo 4G using Tapatalk
Everyone has a "Smartphone" now. It was nice when Sprint didn't have alot of customers. There network is slammed right now, same as what happened with ATT. Just wait until you wont be able to connect.. Have you ever been to a car race with over 100k people. Good luck on getting a connection.
Ping 141 DL-1342 UL-706
my 4g is pretty solid a good 6mbps on average but 3g has gone in the ****ter lately i used to pull 1.2-1.5mbps 3g like it was my day job now im getting between .4 and .6. ill upload pics tomorrow for i am far to lazy to do it now haha
Maricopa, az. Arizona is the ARM pit of cellular signals. Hot ****ty and mostly stunks
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
I've been getting decent downloads early am 2_4 but during the day...screeching hault I just did a test at 0.08 mb down
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Im using 3g Turbo charger and in Atl. Don't have screen right now but just ran test and got 1.8mb dl and 686 k upload
Well its either sprint or just more iPhone suckage cause my bro in law got sprint iPhone and speed tests side by side I'd get .24mbps and he'd get .02 averages. Kinda funny and kinda sad at same time. But guess its a wide spread thing per sprint community page.
Sent from my EVO
Sorry to hear you are having 3G issues. My 3G shot up about a month ago from about 0.3m to more than 1.0m. I have never had anything below 0.1m unless I was roaming on Verizon. Now I'm pretty much above 1.0m with occasional slow downs, but still over 0.3m when slow.
Xerexis said:
Maricopa, az. Arizona is the ARM pit of cellular signals. Hot ****ty and mostly stunks
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't your county the one with "America's toughest sheriff" or something? The name sounds familiar and recent on TV.
Sent from my SPH-D710
New York City - Manhattan, speeds are better. Zip 10017.
In Queens, much worse.
Sent from my SPH-D710
I live in California san Diego, I work all around san Diego speed are vary in certain places and not all the time they are bad.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
WI
Typical <1Mbs. Upload speeds are usually faster than download.
I have had crapy 3G speeds ever since I switched to the hero just after it came out. Before that with my touch pro I would get 1.5 Mbps easy all day and night.
The iPhone is not going to slow down the network anymore than any android phone.
Sprints data sucks!!!!!!