Sprint Launches LTE in 34 New Markets
Slow speeds
I'm trying to be patient, but the LTE "speeds" are really subpar in my area. On average I'm seeing 3-5 mbps down and 1-3 mbps up. 3g speeds are still horrible. I'm in Baltimore fwiw.
...
mine are great! 6-8MBPS slowest average 8-16MBPS and peaked at 26MBPS in east TN SW VA. 3G at my house is 600K-1MBPS
...
vercetti said:
mine are great! 6-8MBPS slowest average 8-16MBPS and peaked at 26MBPS in east TN SW VA. 3G at my house is 600K-1MBPS
Not like you'd actually notice the difference, but my AT&T has no issue nailing 35Mbps - if not getting 58Mbps~
Oh, and make sure you're tying Mb(its)ps and not MB(ytes)ps - otherwise you're saying that you could download a GB in a matter of seconds....
Sprint still has MUCH further to go.
...
>> otherwise you're saying that you could download a GB in a matter of seconds....
Don't you mean a Giga "bit" yourself? But even with the obvious correction, converting the op's stated 16MB/s to bits would give us 16 X 8 = 128 Mb/s. While it would be a gross overstatement of the op's data speed, that's hardly in the neighborhood of 1 Gb/s, and certainly no where close to your stated GB/s. I'm just saying. If you're gonna correct someone, make sure you don't make the same mistake yourself.
Don't you mean a Giga "bit" yourself? But even with the obvious correction, converting the op's stated 16MB/s to bits would give us 16 X 8 = 128 Mb/s. While it would be a gross overstatement of the op's data speed, that's hardly in the neighborhood of 1 Gb/s, and certainly no where close to your stated GB/s. I'm just saying. If you're gonna correct someone, make sure you don't make the same mistake yourself.
...
No, he meant GigaBYTE because the original poster's use of an uppercase "B" meant that they were actually measuring things in BYTES and therefore it would have meant that you could download a full gigaBYTE in seconds.
Of course the whole "bits" measurement system is pure marketing nonsense designed to confuse consumers into thinking something is more advanced than it really is. Something measured in gigabits should really be measured in megabytes and something measured in megabits should be measured in kilobytes, but the bigger you can make the number sound the more impressive it becomes.
Nintendo used to measure things in bits all the time to make things sound far more impressive than they were: .I remember one time they reported ho...
(continues)
Of course the whole "bits" measurement system is pure marketing nonsense designed to confuse consumers into thinking something is more advanced than it really is. Something measured in gigabits should really be measured in megabytes and something measured in megabits should be measured in kilobytes, but the bigger you can make the number sound the more impressive it becomes.
Nintendo used to measure things in bits all the time to make things sound far more impressive than they were: .I remember one time they reported ho...
(continues)
...
>>No, he meant GigaBYTE because the original poster's use of an uppercase "B" meant that they were actually measuring things in BYTES
Man, I both did the math for you, and explained it. Not much was left to the imagination there. In case you missed it the first time, the original op's obvious misnomer would only have his internet running at 128Mb/s. At that speed it would take him 8 times as long (8 bits in a byte) to download 128 mega bytes. That's 8 seconds. But to be precise, 1GB = 1MB * 2^10. In decimal, 2^10 = 1024. Since we already have
128MB in 8 seconds, we must divide 1024 by 128, and we get 8. Multiply 128MB/8s * 8/8 and we get 1024MB/64s. So, it takes us 64 seconds to download 1GB at that speed.
That's hardly a "matter o...
(continues)
Man, I both did the math for you, and explained it. Not much was left to the imagination there. In case you missed it the first time, the original op's obvious misnomer would only have his internet running at 128Mb/s. At that speed it would take him 8 times as long (8 bits in a byte) to download 128 mega bytes. That's 8 seconds. But to be precise, 1GB = 1MB * 2^10. In decimal, 2^10 = 1024. Since we already have
128MB in 8 seconds, we must divide 1024 by 128, and we get 8. Multiply 128MB/8s * 8/8 and we get 1024MB/64s. So, it takes us 64 seconds to download 1GB at that speed.
That's hardly a "matter o...
(continues)
...
Zpike said:...
>>No, he meant GigaBYTE because the original poster's use of an uppercase "B" meant that they were actually measuring things in BYTES
Man, I both did the math for you, and explained it. Not much was left to the imagination there. In case you missed it the first time, the original op's obvious misnomer would only have his internet running at 128Mb/s. At that speed it would take him 8 times as long (8 bits in a byte) to download 128 mega bytes. That's 8 seconds. But to be precise, 1GB = 1MB * 2^10. In decimal, 2^10 = 1024. Since we already have
128MB in 8 seconds, we must divide 1024 by 128, and we get 8. Multiply 128MB/8s * 8/8 and we get 1024MB/64s. So, it takes us 64 seconds to download 1GB at that spee
(continues)
...
>>mocking how silly he sounded by saying he could downloaded a GB in a "matter of seconds".
Yea, but a "matter of seconds" is 3 or 4 in my book, heck, maybe even 6. But even when you took the unsustainable peak speed you could only get it down to 39 seconds. And if its ok to stretch the meaning of "matter of seconds" to 39 seconds, then why not stretch it on out to 315? In that case, the op really is able to download 1GB in a matter of seconds. But if you're not willing to make that stretch, then I say a "matter of seconds" is 3 or 4 seconds, in which case YOU should have been speaking of 1Gb, not 1GB.
>>What is seriously wrong with your brain, you've decided to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and side track an entire argument ...
(continues)
Yea, but a "matter of seconds" is 3 or 4 in my book, heck, maybe even 6. But even when you took the unsustainable peak speed you could only get it down to 39 seconds. And if its ok to stretch the meaning of "matter of seconds" to 39 seconds, then why not stretch it on out to 315? In that case, the op really is able to download 1GB in a matter of seconds. But if you're not willing to make that stretch, then I say a "matter of seconds" is 3 or 4 seconds, in which case YOU should have been speaking of 1Gb, not 1GB.
>>What is seriously wrong with your brain, you've decided to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and side track an entire argument ...
(continues)
...
Zpike said:
>> otherwise you're saying that you could download a GB in a matter of seconds....
Don't you mean a Giga "bit" yourself? But even with the obvious correction, converting the op's stated 16MB/s to bits would give us 16 X 8 = 128 Mb/s. While it would be a gross overstatement of the op's data speed, that's hardly in the neighborhood of 1 Gb/s, and certainly no where close to your stated GB/s. I'm just saying. If you're gonna correct someone, make sure you don't make the same mistake yourself.
Has anyone ever attempted bodily harm after listening to you talk?
He said he was peaking at 26 MBPS - meaning if he sustained that for 39 seconds, he would have downloaded a GB.
And I actually AM ...
(continues)
...
>>Has anyone ever attempted bodily harm after listening to you talk?
Is that a threat?
>>He said he was peaking at 26 MBPS - meaning if he sustained that for 39 seconds, he would have downloaded a GB.
Get real, no one ever sustains peak speeds. He just gave it as a statistic. He told you what the actual speeds were, but you didn't want to use those because you were trying to be as melodramatic as possible. Besides, at 26Mb/s, you can actually download 1GB in 315 seconds. So, by your own contorted logic its still a matter of seconds.
Look, I realize the guy used a capital 'B' for bytes when he should have used a lowercase 'b' for bits. But everyone knows that, because data speeds are always stated in terms of bits/second. Also o...
(continues)
Is that a threat?
>>He said he was peaking at 26 MBPS - meaning if he sustained that for 39 seconds, he would have downloaded a GB.
Get real, no one ever sustains peak speeds. He just gave it as a statistic. He told you what the actual speeds were, but you didn't want to use those because you were trying to be as melodramatic as possible. Besides, at 26Mb/s, you can actually download 1GB in 315 seconds. So, by your own contorted logic its still a matter of seconds.
Look, I realize the guy used a capital 'B' for bytes when he should have used a lowercase 'b' for bits. But everyone knows that, because data speeds are always stated in terms of bits/second. Also o...
(continues)
...
Threat? More like has anyone ever harmed THEMSELVES after listening to your stupid *$& rant about imaginary scenarios.
I honestly don't care about the rest of what you said, and didn't bother reading it. You're a miserable person to talk to.
I honestly don't care about the rest of what you said, and didn't bother reading it. You're a miserable person to talk to.
...
>>Threat? More like has anyone ever harmed THEMSELVES
I don't know. You'd have to ask them... if they're still around.
>>rant about imaginary scenarios.
Which ones were imaginary? Perhaps you imagined that they were imaginary?
>>I honestly don't care about the rest of what you said,
The fact that you're this far into a thread that's so many days old suggests that you do. I think you finally saw the sense in what I was saying but couldn't find a graceful way to back out. So you resorted to insults instead. But that's typical of the kind of jerk who lives by double standards like yours.
>> and didn't bother reading it.
Don't worry it was over your head anyway.
>>You're a miserable person to talk to.
And you are a go...
(continues)
I don't know. You'd have to ask them... if they're still around.
>>rant about imaginary scenarios.
Which ones were imaginary? Perhaps you imagined that they were imaginary?
>>I honestly don't care about the rest of what you said,
The fact that you're this far into a thread that's so many days old suggests that you do. I think you finally saw the sense in what I was saying but couldn't find a graceful way to back out. So you resorted to insults instead. But that's typical of the kind of jerk who lives by double standards like yours.
>> and didn't bother reading it.
Don't worry it was over your head anyway.
>>You're a miserable person to talk to.
And you are a go...
(continues)
...
Are you really trying to psychoanalyze text, and then find some inner meaning behind it? Days go by, it's called priorities.
.......I'm sorry, I just can't, really I can't. I just don't give a **** to prove a point to someone like you - there's that group of people I write off and just say **** them, let them think whatever - because they truly are pain in the ass, miserable people.
Oh. and before you get on your entire bourgeois rant, I'll inform you now that I thoroughly enjoy profanity, making it no indication of myself being angry or insulting - I know you're a sensitive little girl and would take point on that next.
.......I'm sorry, I just can't, really I can't. I just don't give a **** to prove a point to someone like you - there's that group of people I write off and just say **** them, let them think whatever - because they truly are pain in the ass, miserable people.
Oh. and before you get on your entire bourgeois rant, I'll inform you now that I thoroughly enjoy profanity, making it no indication of myself being angry or insulting - I know you're a sensitive little girl and would take point on that next.
...
>>Are you really trying to psychoanalyze text, and then find some inner meaning behind it?
No, that's what you're doing a poor job of trying to do. I'm just toying with you because you're easy.
>>I'm sorry, I just can't, really I can't. I just don't give a **** to prove a point to someone like you
It's not really that you don't care, because you're still here. It's that you lack the logical proficiency. But don't let that get you down, unsound arguments like yours aren't provable by anyone.
>>someone like you
What, someone who uses reason and concrete logic? You're absolutely right, you will never be able to prove anything to someone like me.
>>there's that group of people I write off and just say **** them, let them think...
(continues)
No, that's what you're doing a poor job of trying to do. I'm just toying with you because you're easy.
>>I'm sorry, I just can't, really I can't. I just don't give a **** to prove a point to someone like you
It's not really that you don't care, because you're still here. It's that you lack the logical proficiency. But don't let that get you down, unsound arguments like yours aren't provable by anyone.
>>someone like you
What, someone who uses reason and concrete logic? You're absolutely right, you will never be able to prove anything to someone like me.
>>there's that group of people I write off and just say **** them, let them think...
(continues)
...
That sounds about right. However keep in mind that it also depends on your signal strength and number of users on network using 4G LTE.
I have Tmobile and im some locations I get well over 25mbps while in other locations I get roughly 5-6mbps using the same LTE network. Coverage and overall data speeds can be affected by many things such as building type, location, weather, phone radio capability. Get your phone checked by a tech to see if there is anything you should be concerned about.
I have Tmobile and im some locations I get well over 25mbps while in other locations I get roughly 5-6mbps using the same LTE network. Coverage and overall data speeds can be affected by many things such as building type, location, weather, phone radio capability. Get your phone checked by a tech to see if there is anything you should be concerned about.
...
I live in the Orlando area and we haven't officially launched in this market, but I have started getting 4G LTE and my speeds are pretty slow for now. However, in south florida (where it is officailly launched) I've speed tested at speeds of up to 36.68 Mbps. Be patient it will be worth it!
...
This forum is closed.
