For well over a year now Sprint customers have been dealing with sluggish 3G and 4G WiMAX data speeds. Network woes for America’s third largest wireless carrier have worsened over the past six months or so, as the carrier’s outdated WiMAX 4G offerings were halted in an effort to focus on building a new 4G LTE network. While this decision has good intentions, it has left the bulk of Sprint’s customers stranded on its old, overcrowded CDMA 3G network. However, all hope may not be lost for Sprint and its customers, as the troubled carrier has pledged to deploy its new LTE services by mid-2012, which is literally a couple of weeks away. Set to hit Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, and San Antonio, the question remains if Sprint’s new network setup can hold its own with already established 4G LTE from its competition.
In an effort to answer this burning question, PCMag recently spent some candid time with Sprint’s new LTE network and ran several tests comparing it to both Verizon’s and AT&T’s LTE services. The tests were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia in five different locations using a “specially provisioned” LG Viper 4G LTE phone and a PC Mag’s in-house Sensorly app, along with Ookla’s Speedtest.net app.
The results reveal that Sprint’s LTE is indeed fast, but not quite as fast as peak speeds seen on AT&T’s and Verizon’s networks. This is to be expected, due to Sprint decision to use 5MHz channels band instead of the 10MHz channels that its competition uses. However, the networks still appear to be very competitive. Using the Sensorly speed test app in four different test locations, PCMag found that Sprint’s network produced an average download speed between 9 and 13Mbps, which is on a par with AT&T’s 5MHz channel LTE. Sprint’s download speeds peaked at 26.5Mbps, which also remained competitive with AT&T’s peak 5MHz speeds of around 27.8Mbps.
Surprisingly Sprint’s network speeds were comparable to Verizon’s 10MHz setup, but keep in mind that Verizon’s network is already used by its customers, while Sprint’s was near empty and in a controlled testing environment. In regards to upload speeds, Sprint’s LTE averaged 2.19Mbps, which remained consistant with its own WiMAX 4G, AT&T’s LTE, T-Mobile HSPA+, but was still slower than Verizon.
Obviously focused on LTE, Sprint is aggressively pushing new LTE-capable phones such as the Galaxy Nexus, LG Viper, and HTC EVO 4G LTE, but as it stands these new devices are stuck in the mud on Sprint’s 3G network until its 4G LTE network goes live for customers. While Sprint has committed to a midyear LTE deployment, the carrier has remained coy about its complete network release schedule. This restrictive strategy places a great deal of Sprint’s customers in the dark about their network’s future, and the carrier runs the risk of losing customers to existing LTE networks offered by its competitors.
While Sprint continues to remain in network limbo, its biggest beacon of hope for its customers is its noted commitment to true unlimited data. This is something that its major competitors have abandoned and will likely be Sprint’s saving grace if the carrier’s data speeds are attractive to consumers. However, if Sprint doesn’t deliver on its promises sooner than later, the only speed the carrier will be experiencing is a rapid loss of existing customers.
Source:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405675,00.asp
Good article and nice find, but...
Did you paraphrase the article?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
squshy 7 said:
Good article and nice find, but...
Did you paraphrase the article?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The article is from techno Buffalo but they were not the actual testers so I put the original source if somebody wanted to read the full article
Sent from my GS2 the next big thing
Well its a win win when lte is live everywhere it will be easing congestion but otherwise if people leave in droves it will still free resources LOL
But unlimited data is the only thing keeping anyone here anyway
I rather have slow steady unlimited than capped super sonic speeds
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA
If those are the speeds they're getting with nobody on the network, then that's poor.
Imagine when it actually launches, even in only the 6 initial markets and millions actually start using it...
LordLugard said:
If those are the speeds they're getting with nobody on the network, then that's poor.
Imagine when it actually launches, even in only the 6 initial markets and millions actually start using it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it will hold up
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
revamper said:
I think it will hold up
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think so too. The network is still growing so I doubt it'll be that slow.
Plus, once your above a consistent 4-5Mbps that holds while actually moving itll only ever make a noticable difference whike downloading ROMs, and that will still be WiFi recommended.
Those speeds arent good at all though, my WiMAX is right there with it. The difference will be in the connectivity while mobile.
auau465121 said:
For well over a year now Sprint customers have been dealing with sluggish 3G and 4G WiMAX data speeds. Network woes for America’s third largest wireless carrier have worsened over the past six months or so, as the carrier’s outdated WiMAX 4G offerings were halted in an effort to focus on building a new 4G LTE network. While this decision has good intentions, it has left the bulk of Sprint’s customers stranded on its old, overcrowded CDMA 3G network. However, all hope may not be lost for Sprint and its customers, as the troubled carrier has pledged to deploy its new LTE services by mid-2012, which is literally a couple of weeks away. Set to hit Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, and San Antonio, the question remains if Sprint’s new network setup can hold its own with already established 4G LTE from its competition.
In an effort to answer this burning question, PCMag recently spent some candid time with Sprint’s new LTE network and ran several tests comparing it to both Verizon’s and AT&T’s LTE services. The tests were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia in five different locations using a “specially provisioned” LG Viper 4G LTE phone and a PC Mag’s in-house Sensorly app, along with Ookla’s Speedtest.net app.
The results reveal that Sprint’s LTE is indeed fast, but not quite as fast as peak speeds seen on AT&T’s and Verizon’s networks. This is to be expected, due to Sprint decision to use 5MHz channels band instead of the 10MHz channels that its competition uses. However, the networks still appear to be very competitive. Using the Sensorly speed test app in four different test locations, PCMag found that Sprint’s network produced an average download speed between 9 and 13Mbps, which is on a par with AT&T’s 5MHz channel LTE. Sprint’s download speeds peaked at 26.5Mbps, which also remained competitive with AT&T’s peak 5MHz speeds of around 27.8Mbps.
Surprisingly Sprint’s network speeds were comparable to Verizon’s 10MHz setup, but keep in mind that Verizon’s network is already used by its customers, while Sprint’s was near empty and in a controlled testing environment. In regards to upload speeds, Sprint’s LTE averaged 2.19Mbps, which remained consistant with its own WiMAX 4G, AT&T’s LTE, T-Mobile HSPA+, but was still slower than Verizon.
Obviously focused on LTE, Sprint is aggressively pushing new LTE-capable phones such as the Galaxy Nexus, LG Viper, and HTC EVO 4G LTE, but as it stands these new devices are stuck in the mud on Sprint’s 3G network until its 4G LTE network goes live for customers. While Sprint has committed to a midyear LTE deployment, the carrier has remained coy about its complete network release schedule. This restrictive strategy places a great deal of Sprint’s customers in the dark about their network’s future, and the carrier runs the risk of losing customers to existing LTE networks offered by its competitors.
While Sprint continues to remain in network limbo, its biggest beacon of hope for its customers is its noted commitment to true unlimited data. This is something that its major competitors have abandoned and will likely be Sprint’s saving grace if the carrier’s data speeds are attractive to consumers. However, if Sprint doesn’t deliver on its promises sooner than later, the only speed the carrier will be experiencing is a rapid loss of existing customers.
Source:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405675,00.asp
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll have to disagree on a couple points. The truly unlimited data was the first enticing thing to bring me to Sprint in the first place. Second, was the fact that they have the least demanding credit assessment. AT&T wanted me to pay a deposit of $146+, more or less, asking for my landline that I owe them on still. Verizon? Don't get me started there.. after my credit assessment through them, they wanted over $1G for the deposit.. I laughed and immediately went to AT&T's go phone at that time. Limited in data, yes, but the only way I could get on a cell with poor credit, as Sprint was wanting a $100 deposit, not bad, but being unsure of where my next funding was coming from, this did not bode well. It was a couple years before I tried Sprint again, and found out, not only did I have no deposit this time, I could trade in my old AT&T go phone, and got a nice credit towards a descent phone within my price range, the Nexus S 4G. On top of that, Sprint works with several companies to offer an employment discount, mine being 17%, something AT&T has abandoned for a LOT of employers.
Now, let's talk about customer service. IMHO, Sprint is unmatched in providing excellent customer service (in fact, I just found out recently, they've been ranked #1 in this department). Something you won't find with the other 2. They let me know of services they offer, that in order to get it out of AT&T or Verizon, you have to go through an area manager - not something a LOT of people want to deal with. Verizon? The sales rep that ran my credit couldn't understand half of what I was saying. With Sprint, I have only gotten a foreign rep* ONE time (out of the maybe, 15, times, I've had to call in), and they STILL were able to CLEARLY understand the problem I was having and easily helped me to resolve it.
So the bottom line here is, they have too many ups to have the down of their technology being a little behind, to lose too much of a customer base.
I know your article is put together from research and comment follow-ups to the testing articles, but it is still a good write-up, nonetheless.
BTW, if you've looked a little more recently, July 15th is the rollout date for the above mentioned cities, for LTE. Fortunately, I just happened to be in Metro ATL.
Well, that sums up my rebuttle. (however, that's spelled) Please don't take it personally. I'm just preaching from personal experience.
Peace,
~WickiD_D~
* edited to add: I mean no disrespect, no racism, and no stereo-typing in any way. I just think that there are a LOT of people who will agree that there is a natural language barrier that can occur when calling a customer service line, and it makes it very difficult to resolve customer service issues, at those times, for both the caller and the rep, because of it. I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone in any way, because I know we all come from different parts of the world in this forum, and would never intentionally want to hurt anyone here..
Related
Official Sprint Answer:
Sprint is committed to delivering the highest quality network experience. Our Network Vision plan will improve your network experience, but it does not include any EVDO Rev B launch. Sprint has evaluated EVDO Rev B and chosen to go directly to 4G connections. Since we are not launching EVDO Rev B, none of our handsets supports EVDO Rev B.
It looks like maybe no Rev. B after all. Hopefully they'll push 4G LTE and keep going.
FINALLY! Thank goodness. Let's stick a fork in this horse.
BTW, where is your source? (I know others will ask)
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What good is speed if hardly anybody can get it? Give me more coverage!
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not surprising that a Sprint rep would say that..unfortunately, the truth seems to be just the opposite in the real world, based on everything I have read about Verizons LTE, and my friends who have it say the same thing..makes Sprints non sense look lame compared to it..
and just like i said in the other thread.....you people were freaking out over a baseless rumor
now how many of these idiots actually turned there phones back in
---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
getting your info from a sprint rep is like getting info from sarah palin about the economy....
Neither the LTE that's being rolled out by Verizon and ATT or sprints current Wimax meet the international standard that 4g is supposed to be.
But the LTE technologies being rolled out are a step in the right direction.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
spencer88 said:
What good is speed if hardly anybody can get it? Give me more coverage!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Word! I'll take any form of 4G in San Diego, even if I have to follow a donkey around with a WiMax tower, built by a few guys behind a 7-11 with straws and Big Gulp cups, strapped to its back.
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is simply idiotic. It makes no sense.
Sprint's WiMax implementation sucks. Putting LTE on those same frequencies would also suck. Maybe worse.
It's not the protocol it's the spectrum. Clearwire/Sprint's WiMax is on a handful of razor-thin bands on high frequencies. It's not surprising that it sucks so much and the word "WiMax" has nothing to do with it.
imtjnotu said:
and just like i said in the other thread.....you people were freaking out over a baseless rumor
now how many of these idiots actually turned there phones back in
Haha right. All that bull**** about rev b and the **** ain't even happening. U said it correctly. The people who returned their phones based on that are IDIOTS
sent from my DAMN phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Concise and all encompassing. I couldn't have said it better my self. Meaning I actually do not have it in my own capacity to say it better, or even as well, myself.
Your presence in our forum is an asset. You truly know what's up.
That said, I couldn't agree more...lol
I talked to a sprint from corp in lisa angeles he told me lte and wimax have almost the same speeds and lte can go further
corybucher said:
Just throwing this out there bit talked to a sprint rep at my local corporate store and guy said that lte is not faster than wimax infact wimax is true 4g and he told me that lte is like turning your volume to 11 and is just a little better than 3g. Said lte will most likely cover more areas but wimax is still a lot faster.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
Verizon's current LTE and Sprint's WIMAX are not true 4G. LTE Advanced and WIMAX 2 (802.16m) are the true 4G standards.
F that true 4g stuff. They are the 4th major data network type for their respectable providers
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
bitbang3r said:
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clears coverage could be the exact same as Verizon's LTE and it would still be garbage due to the frequency its on.
---------- Post added at 05:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 AM ----------
Tuffgong4 said:
Verizon's current LTE and Sprint's WIMAX are not true 4G. LTE Advanced and WIMAX 2 (802.16m) are the true 4G standards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you think consumers give a damn about this? Honestly...
bitbang3r said:
Wimax doesn't HAVE to be any worse than LTE or suck -- Clear just did a crap job of deploying the most minimal subset of the standard possible. WiMax CAN do soft hand-offs... Clear just didn't bother buying the software license to enable it to work, and instead chose to deploy them the cheapest way possible, and configured them to act like wifi access points that just happen to have ~1km footprints).
There's nothing magic about Verizon's LTE -- they have more backhaul, and allocated more bandwidth to it than Clear did. Sprint LTE can suck every bit as badly as Sprint/Clear Wimax does, and it won't be any more compatible with AT&T or Verizon's LTE than Sprint phones are with their 3G service.
LTE's standard-ness is wildly over-hyped, and almost completely meaningless in the US. In Europe and Asia, it might matter and mean something. Unfortunately, America's wireless phone market is as messed up as Japan's, and unlikely to ever change. If Sprint bought and merged with T-Mobile, and deployed a nationwide unified network with CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT, legacy GSM & GPRS/EDGE, EVDO (rev.A, B, and Advanced), WiMax, AND LTE... AT&T and Verizon would still manage to find ways to be incompatible with it and each other, because they don't WANT their networks to be commodity-like wireless pipes to the internet where consumers can switch service providers at will and without repercussions.
IMHO, the best thing Sprint could possibly DO right now is repurpose the Wimax for backhaul, and use it to fully saturate their EVDO spectrum (and, once the furor over rev.B dies down, quietly enable and advertise it with some stupid name like "Ultim8 Vision" since their new tower hardware is almost certainly capable of it). Deploying two separate loosely stapled-together data networks was just about the worst idea in mobile phone history, especially when you consider that the move was 100% marketing and had nothing to do with real-world performance.
In most places, unless you're having a picnic lunch outdoors next to the tower, you'd get better sustained performance from Rev.A with enough backhaul bandwidth to fully saturate it, let alone Rev.B -- and unlike Sprint's disastrous experiment with 4G, your phone wouldn't spend half its time madly thrashing back and forth between 3G and 4G trying to make up its mind which one it wants to use (leaving you without network access for 10-30 seconds or more each time). For proof, just look at T-Mobile in places like Chicago. Same un-sexy UMTS as before, but in places where they've put it to full use and squeezed every bit of performance out of it they can, it blows Sprint's 4G away in real-world usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very nicely put even though I am quite sad about no rev b which I think would be a good idea to help with speed and capacity they are applying 1x advanced which will help capacity issues and enable simultaneous voice and data which will be nice. But the combined tower spectrums once phones come out with chips that will take advantage of it it should increase data speeds and coverage greatly the problem now is the wait they need to hurry up and get every one off Nextel, and start the conversion.
Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk
I would be more than happy if they just fixed Rev A to work at a reasonable speed like 1.5-2M (which is what Verizon is providing in my area).
As to "true" 4G, I don't think anybody really cares, they just want something that works, not some experiment where you turn it on to run speed tests and brag to your friends, then turn it off because your battery will die or because you don't get signals indoors.
Gotta love how in all the discussion about frequency strength, frequency distance, speed, technology etc; people tend to forget the meaning of G in 2g, 3g and 4g is GENERATION.
To arbitrarily define how fast something should be to be considered a new "generation" should be insulting and stupid to pretty much everyone. It'd be like saying Generation X were just Baby Boomers 2g because they weren't good enough to be their own generation.
Put a sock in it. 4th generation of mobile networks = 4g. Nuff said.
AbsolutZeroGI said:
Gotta love how in all the discussion about frequency strength, frequency distance, speed, technology etc; people tend to forget the meaning of G in 2g, 3g and 4g is GENERATION.
To arbitrarily define how fast something should be to be considered a new "generation" should be insulting and stupid to pretty much everyone. It'd be like saying Generation X were just Baby Boomers 2g because they weren't good enough to be their own generation.
Put a sock in it. 4th generation of mobile networks = 4g. Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Quoted for the truth"
LOVE the "Baby Boomers 2G analogy"!
I guess all the BS marketing hype by the phone carriers has actually worked on the mindless lemmings that walk among us..
So with Sprints current network and their future network vision, what are your opinions and thoughts as far as carrier reliability and/or will you be leaving for better signal?
Sprint is not getting much better ... For a major carrier they are the slowest.. Even metro is faster and thats sad to say.. I think they cap the data cause they offer unlimited and call it 3g ..but its really 2g/edge on unlimited so of course they can afford to give 2g unlimited...
Ill be leaving after a yr or so... Im gonna wait and see how there 4g pans out in 2012
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA Premium App
It sucks, I spend more time roaming on verizon than I do on Sprint's network.
The last thing I am is "the Forum police" but how is this related to the E4GT?
I pretty sure you should reqest to have this moved to the Forum>>General area.
dcraig723 said:
So with Sprints current network and their future network vision, what are your opinions and thoughts as far as carrier reliability and/or will you be leaving for better signal?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
looks like you already have your mind made up and decided to make a thread to create a further ***** session
sent from my Motorola StarTac 4g
Honestly it depends on the location when it comes to reliability...As for speed, any cdma carrier right now is about the same in terms of 3G speeds. I do not feel that Sprint caps their 3G data at all. In Seattle I get anywhere from 500k-1.2mb, which is about the same as any of my Verizon friends on 3G. Only reason T-mobile and AT&T are ahead is because they invested in HSDPA+ which is like 3.5G.
I have a super cheap plan so I will ride it out. As long as I can stream my prog rock audio podcasts I am happy. Los Angeles radio is truly crappy.
And to appease the police, my E4GT is awesome.
Coming from Tmobile, the sprint network sucks! I just signed my contract 2 or 3 weeks ago and while I have yet to have any call quality issues, my data is horrible here in Orlando,Fl the 4G is beyond spotty and the 3G is laughable. that being said with the price that I pay for my monthly I can't complain...
It's pretty much impossible to just make a generalization about a carriers data speeds. You should just look up coverage and speeds between the carriers in your area and areas that you might frequent since those are really the only numbers that matter.
I get 1.25mbps down on 3g and around 7.5 mbps down on 4g in chicago.
LordFan21 said:
It's pretty much impossible to just make a generalization about a carriers data speeds. You should just look up coverage and speeds between the carriers in your area and areas that you might frequent since those are really the only numbers that matter.
I get 1.25mbps down on 3g and around 7.5 mbps down on 4g in chicago.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly.
This is not an opinion topic.
Its all dependent on your area.
I know that companies like Verizon have convinced you via commercials that they're 373748484mbit/s everywhere but that's just not the case.
Find the network that best suits your area and your needs and go to them.
On long island it sucks beyond belief lately. Things seem to have gone down hill for me. I am always roaming when at some locations at work or if I'm visiting a location I usually have unusable 3g.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
I also just switched from t-mobile, I use to get 5mb on tmobile 3g, now i get around 1mb average on sprint. 4g on the other hand I'd a different story, the fastest i ever got was 11.40mb and an average of about 8mb in San Diego county. I hope they improve their 3g coverage or roll out more 4g to more locations.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
I have cell phone service with AT&T (iPhone 4S), Verizon (Soon to be Galaxy Nexus) and now Sprint, again (Epic 4G Touch)... All unlimited data plans. I'm data HUNGRY!
After my departure from Sprint in 2008, I wanted to give Sprint another go around. I am very surprised that the customer service is still horrible! The 4G network is very inconsistent, too many disconnects. 3G is very slow, pulling 800k max on a strong signal. Over all, looks like this 2 day Epic 4G Touch is going back and good by Sprint for the second time!
Sent from my iPhone 4S!..
With all the hubbub surrounding the Clearwire Wimax deal that was signed for the next few years, and the looming launch of LTE (mid-2012?), is it really foolish to sign a new contract and get a Wimax device?
All of the LTE devices I've seen on VZW/AT&T have atrocious battery life at the expense of crazy speeds (20Mbps+). A few coworkers got the Droid Bionic and barely make it to the end of the work day. Old college roommate works for AT&T and he says most of their LTE stuff needs extended batteries in order to be usable for a whole day.
Frankly I can live with Wimax's 3-5Mbps if it means I don't have to keep hovering around a charger all day. The Epic 4G Touch is so very tempting but I'm afraid I'm committing to "old" tech and that in 12 months I'll have regretted it.
(current VZW customer off-contract with an OG Droid)
dparm said:
With all the hubbub surrounding the Clearwire Wimax deal that was signed for the next few years, and the looming launch of LTE (mid-2012?), is it really foolish to sign a new contract and get a Wimax device?
All of the LTE devices I've seen on VZW/AT&T have atrocious battery life at the expense of crazy speeds (20Mbps+). A few coworkers got the Droid Bionic and barely make it to the end of the work day. Old college roommate works for AT&T and he says most of their LTE stuff needs extended batteries in order to be usable for a whole day.
Frankly I can live with Wimax's 3-5Mbps if it means I don't have to keep hovering around a charger all day. The Epic 4G Touch is so very tempting but I'm afraid I'm committing to "old" tech and that in 12 months I'll have regretted it.
(current VZW customer off-contract with an OG Droid)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First and foremost the spectrum allocated to Sprint's WiMax sucks. It's a razor thin chunk. That is why Sprint's 4G sucks...LTE isn't inherently better in this regard. If LTE was on the same crappy spectrum it would suck too.
When you can connect to WiMax it's fantastic. I used to get 12-15mbps all day long in my area. Now it's in the 3-8mbps range depending on time of day.
That razor thin strip of spectrum allocated to Sprint/Clearwire's "4G" WiMax makes your connection easily disrupted by such disturbances as a closed window or a stiff breeze...seriously. If you aren't in a very solid 4G area (don't ask Sprint or Clearwire, ask people who have the service in your area) I wouldn't bank on getting a 4G signal very often, if at all. When a rom comes out that doesn't support 4G I don't care at all...yeah, it can be that bad.
With that out of the way it should be noted that you likely won't have Sprint LTE coverage in your area for at least a year, likely 2, maybe 3 or 4. Sprint has some rosy estimates flying around right now, but, I remember how their 3G and 4G rollouts went, so, I wouldn't take their word with a grain of salt...I would outright disregard it.
So where does this leave you? Most likely in an area with sparse (if any) 4G and LTE anywhere from 1.5-3 years away and you want a phone now.
Luckily Sprint's 3G service is improving quickly around the country--quicker in some places than others of course. Also the level of improvement will vary wildly depending on many factors, so, don't even bet on the future...especially when it's in Sprint's hands.
My advice? If you want to be/stay on Sprint and are currently satisfied with your service and would also like the ET4G, well, just go get it. By time your contract is up the LTE devices will actually exist and the LTE will be rolled out and WiMax will still be up and running and hopefully the 3G network is up to snuff.
EDIT: As a current Vzw customer you will likely be either disappointed or even horrified by Sprint's current 3G speeds. Ask around, some markets/areas have amazing performance. Where I live is so-so. I'm now getting 600-1000kbps regularly, though last month it was 300-500kbps. However 5 miles away at my friends house I actually saw 2.8mbps and killer 15mbps 4G all the time. Many people here are nowhere near as lucky as either me or my friend, so, ask around....you can never tell.
I'm in downtown Chicago, so I'm sure that it'll be a high priority area for deployment.
My job is 100% travel though, so for a few months at a time I could be anywhere else in the US (Mon-Fri). Typically it's big cities though, like Houston, NYC, Miami, Denver, etc. I just want something fast but consistent. Voice quality/coverage is priority 1, then battery, then data speeds.
I visited two Sprint stores in different parts of the city this week and the web browsing on their 4G seemed plenty fast.
dparm said:
I'm in downtown Chicago, so I'm sure that it'll be a high priority area for deployment.
My job is 100% travel though, so for a few months at a time I could be anywhere else in the US (Mon-Fri). Typically it's big cities though, like Houston, NYC, Miami, Denver, etc. I just want something fast but consistent. Voice quality/coverage is priority 1, then battery, then data speeds.
I visited two Sprint stores in different parts of the city this week and the web browsing on their 4G seemed plenty fast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I travel for work sometimes. Chicago is covered in 4G as are most major metropolitan areas.
So far as voice/text ("2G") is concerned you will be well served everywhere. Sprint has pretty thorough 2G coverage and you will roam on Verizon if not. You get "Unlimited" Roaming. If you roam too much they'll give you the boot. I wouldn't worry about it.
So long as you understand all said about 4G and are fine with that 3G is the only real sticking point and is as I described earlier. You will roam on Verizon (at 1x, ick...but we have ways around that if you are forced to roam momentarily), but, it's usually not Sprint's coverage so much as the performance. I personally have never experienced horribly un-usable 3G anywhere...even tethered to my laptop. But I haven't gone on any business trips in the past 9 months when things have gone downhill rapidly--or so the posts here would have me believe.
I'd say buy a VZW phone outright and stay out of contract. Their speeds will be faster as well as the reliability. If this were my only phone I would've dove headfirst off a bunk bed.
I have a company Blackberry on AT&T and a regular feature phone on AT&T so I'm covered service wise. To give you an idea AT&T's HSDPA (3.5G) technology is faster than Sprint's faux 4G.
I love this phone but something needs to happen soon or people are going to leave in droves. The phone is awesome but the service is something to be desired.
I'm in Northern NJ by the way.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
Lately the Verizon 3G coverage in downtown Chicago and the burbs have been sucking. I have updated my PRL several times and even flashed a different ROM just to be certain.
I get 4g in plenty of places. (I live in the bay area). Sprint just gave clear some money so I'm still good with buying my next wimax phone. From what I see and hear, lte isn't better than wimax just yet. Fastest speed I've seen is on hspa+ 22mbps.
I think its a waste if you live in an area like I do that doesn't have Wimax and never will.
I am coming from Verizon and the Thunderbolt and until phones get better battery's lte is not worth it unless you want 8 to 12 hours of battery depending on your usage(on my wifi and 4g and 3g service with sprint after 16hours of usage moderate I have 33% life left) In a few years when sprint gets lte maybe batterys will be caught up. Or if sprint doesnt ill switch to at&t or Verizon again. But I am happy with sprint. And I love this phone
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
I have known since the beginning of the year when the Galaxy S II became available internationally that that was the phone I wanted to upgrade to. The decider for me to go for the Epic Touch 4G variant on Sprint was the truly unlimited data. I was off contract on AT&T, and even though I was fortunate enough to actually get very good service in my area on AT&T, I liked the idea of never having to worry about my data usage, no matter how I might choose to use my phone.
I don't generally get as good data coverage on Sprint as I did on AT&T, but when I do have service it is generally faster than what I got on AT&T, most especially on 4G. And when it does lose Sprint coverage, it roams on Verizon towers, so I really am never completely without service.
And the phone itself is great. No regrets there.
Thanks. Like I said, Verizon's coverage down here lately seems really lousy. The data speed is "acceptable". My OG Droid is still hanging on by a thread and I am still on an unlimited data plan, though I rarely go over 2-3GB per month.
I'm having trouble finding Chicago Sprint owners to comment on coverage and data speeds, though. Only one or two friends of mine have it and they're not really geeky enough to know what I'm interested in...they see a phone as a phone.
dparm said:
Thanks. Like I said, Verizon's coverage down here lately seems really lousy. The data speed is "acceptable". My OG Droid is still hanging on by a thread and I am still on an unlimited data plan, though I rarely go over 2-3GB per month.
I'm having trouble finding Chicago Sprint owners to comment on coverage and data speeds, though. Only one or two friends of mine have it and they're not really geeky enough to know what I'm interested in...they see a phone as a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You definitely needs to find someone. You do have a buyer's remorse period you could use.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
CODteabagger said:
You definitely needs to find someone. You do have a buyer's remorse period you could use.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, the 30 day return period is nice. Would give me a shot at really test driving the thing.
Any suggestions on how to get some real details on Chicago Wimax and voice?
wimax will be around thru 2015 at the least... buying a wimax device now wouldnt be the end of the world.
also.. the first sprint lte devices wont get super awesome. and we wont be seeing the good lte chips(the ones that work on multiple bands) until 2013(sprints 2nd lte gen).
Upgrading to a Wimax phone this year seems fine. And you can enjoy the unlimited data. It will set you up to upgrade in 2013, when new phones will be ready to utilize Sprint's LTE (800MHz/1.9GHz) and Clear's LTE-Advanced (2.5GHz).
dparm said:
Yes, the 30 day return period is nice. Would give me a shot at really test driving the thing.
Any suggestions on how to get some real details on Chicago Wimax and voice?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's 14 days now.
daneurysm said:
It's 14 days now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ooo that sucks. It'll probably get ****ty 3G speeds on the 15th day.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
CODteabagger said:
I'd say buy a VZW phone outright and stay out of contract. Their speeds will be faster as well as the reliability. If this were my only phone I would've dove headfirst off a bunk bed.
I have a company Blackberry on AT&T and a regular feature phone on AT&T so I'm covered service wise. To give you an idea AT&T's HSDPA (3.5G) technology is faster than Sprint's faux 4G.
I love this phone but something needs to happen soon or people are going to leave in droves. The phone is awesome but the service is something to be desired.
I'm in Northern NJ by the way.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea Im gonna have to disagree here, one of my customer just bought a skyrocket from att and my touch destroyed his phones speeds while he was on the socalled 4gLTE hspa+ network and I was only in a 3g area (all of san diego county) there is nothing faux bout WiMax, it is all a money issue when it comes down to it.
Yes I am anxious for LTE-A as well as more power efficient radios. I remember when the first "3G" stuff came out years ago (HSDPA or whatever)...the battery life sucked but within a year or two they got it worked out.
daneurysm said:
...Sprint's 4G sucks... When a rom comes out that doesn't support 4G I don't care at all...yeah, it can be that bad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it's not anything to write home about.
But I mostly use wifi at home and work so I'm not too put out by the slow speeds.
It is good enough to have a halfway decent skype session, youtube, etc...
I was hoping to get some gaming action though.
That ain't happening unless it's on wifi, at least in my area.
Now that I've had the GN for a couple weeks and am back on Verizon I have some observations about cell coverage. I've had cell phones since 1995 and for most of that time (1995-2008) I was on Verizon. I traveled a good bit so having a carrier with good nation wide coverage was important.
But that was before I had a smart phone and in 2008 I got my first smart phone, the iPhone 3G. Switching to the iPhone meant dropping Verizon and going with ATT -- something I wasn't happy about due to past issues I had with ATT. When I first got the iPhone 3G service was still kind of new and the talk was that you had to turn 3G off to get good battery life out of the iPhone. Within a few months the 3G coverage by ATT was pretty good and I didn't worry about battery life all that much
Move into 2010 and I switched the iPhone for an HTC Evo 4G and, of course, that meant dropping ATT in favor of Sprint. The 4G (WiMax) coverage that Sprint provided was almost nonexistent in Jun 2008 but Sprint was promising a rapid roll out of WiMax so I waited. Turns out that in the 15 months I had the Evo Sprint (Clear) did a sh*ty job of deploying Wimax and as my job puts me on the road 85% of the time I was able to judge there coverage in many parts of the country.
OK, so on 12/23/2011 I picked up the GN and am now on Verizon again. In that time I've been in Salt Lake City, Atlanta and Albany NY and I've had 4G LTE coverage everywhere I've been. SLC got WiMax at the end of Jun 2010 and the WiMax coverage was spotty more than 15 months later. I wasn't able to find a place in the greater SLC are that I couldn't get LTE...
As I said I travel a lot and am at present working at a FAB in Malta NY, about 25 miles north of Albany in a tiny little berg that could pass for Mayberry. My Evo had terrible coverage here with seldom more than a single bar and often times no coverage at all -- you know, the kind of coverage where you step outside to see if that helps. But, in this tiny little berg my GN is getting 5 bars of LTE with over 17Mbps -- consistent. I'm even getting 5 bars inside the FAB.
So, my take on this is that... Sprint has crumby service or no service whereas ATT and Verizon have good coverage. Verizon started rolling out 4G about 6 months after Sprint started rolling out 4G but in less time Verizon has long since passed Sprint by.
Now don't get me wrong, there are thing about the the way Verizon and ATT do business that pisses me off and on paper they cost more but they are light years better than Sprint.
In the time since I've had smart phones I've traveled to: California (all over), Virginia (all over), North Carolina, Texas (Dallas/Richardson mostly), Idaho (Boise), New York (all over), Utah (all over), Nevada, and many other places so I think I can say with some experience that my coverage analysis is based on more than one area. I could never get 4G on my Evo at ANY airport at any time -- I've been able to get LTE at EVERY airport so far!
Brian
I could have sworn I read something somewhere about Sprint or ATT starting to roll out LTE, I guess it's the future standard.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Sprint WiMax runs at 2.5GHz which is really really crappy spectrum. There's plenty of capacity per MHz but it attenuates really quickly and has terrible in-building penetration. Verizon's 700MHz LTE spectrum attenuates much more slowly and penetrates walls much better. To cover the same area, Sprint has to deploy 3x-5x as many cell sites as Verizon.
aindow said:
I could have sworn I read something somewhere about Sprint or ATT starting to roll out LTE, I guess it's the future standard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint has announced it will start rolling out LTE in 2012. AT&T is already rolling out LTE.
ianwood said:
Sprint WiMax runs at 2.5GHz which is really really crappy spectrum. There's plenty of capacity per MHz but it attenuates really quickly and has terrible in-building penetration. Verizon's 700MHz LTE spectrum attenuates much more slowly and penetrates walls much better. To cover the same area, Sprint has to deploy 3x-5x as many cell sites as Verizon.
Sprint has announced it will start rolling out LTE in 2012. AT&T is already rolling out LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, WiMax drops off more significantly inside due to the spectrum. Where I live in SLC the Sprint tower closest to me is just over a mile away and inside my apartment it's maybe one bar and often no bars of WiMax and even outside it seldom rises above one bar. That WiMax may need 2X or more the towers to provide the same coverage is only half the problem -- the other half is that Sprint seems to have less than half as many towers!
I think ATT will be relatively aggressive in rolling out LTE, but Sprint, well, I wouldn't hold my breath!
Brian
Verizon has done a great job of not only getting LTE in many markets, but also completely saturating that market and surrounding areas. I used to work in a suburb just outside of Minneapolis. WiMax was nonexistent at my work. I didn't even bother connecting to wimax most of the time because it would connect to one tower and drop before it picked up the next tower. With Verizon I have yet to leave 4g until I'm surrounded by corn fields. At my old employer the only one with 4g service was Verizon. We had wifi but only a T1 pipe to share with the entire office. Things got a little slow when everyone is streaming Pandora.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
teamgreen02 said:
Verizon has done a great job of not only getting LTE in many markets, but also completely saturating that market and surrounding areas. I used to work in a suburb just outside of Minneapolis. WiMax was nonexistent at my work. I didn't even bother connecting to wimax most of the time because it would connect to one tower and drop before it picked up the next tower. With Verizon I have yet to leave 4g until I'm surrounded by corn fields. At my old employer the only one with 4g service was Verizon. We had wifi but only a T1 pipe to share with the entire office. Things got a little slow when everyone is streaming Pandora.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I noticed this as well. When Verizon rolled out LTE in Chicago, they rolled it out as far as my school in Kenosha, Wisconsin which is at least 50 miles away from Chicago. A pleasant surprise.
No doubt Sprint has struggled and will continue to struggle. WiMax was the wrong bet. Sprint has racked up debt, recently cut back unlimited data plans for air cards/hotspots, and will do the same for mobile phones. On top of that, their current broadband network stinks and LTE roll-out will be very slow. I wouldn't sign up with Sprint any time soon.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Starts-Whining-About-Sprint-SoftBank-Deal-121688
AT&T tried to do worse and buy out T-Mobile, which would have created a GSM monopoly. AT&T is only mad cause it would lower sprints prices, forcing them to lower theirs. This is awesome for the consumer, seeing as the prices have only been skyrocketing.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
I don't think AT&T were whining at all. They never once said the deal would be negative. They said it would change the competitive nature of the wireless marketplace. Basically, they're telling the regulators to start being more lenient for the entire industry, including them. They're saying that there's no more risk of any monopolies now that a third competitor is gaining ground.
This wasn't a jab at the Sprint deal. It was a jab at the regulators. They want to get the FCC off their backs next time they want to buy spectrum or another company. This letter was very carefully worded to send that exact message; no more, no less.
ATT needs to stfu and start putting money into their network. even their DSL infrastructure sucks and outdated. their wireless network may survive but their days as a local telco and ISP are numbered. i remember years ago having to pay around $45 for basic phone service and each additional feature was extra.. $6 for callerid, $4 for call waiting, and didn't even include any long distance calling. A couple years later comcast added digital phone via cable lines for $39/mo. includes unlimited nationwide long distance, and every single calling feature included.
after switching ATT, they started sending us letters begging us to come back. they finally realized they lost the monopoly they once had and started lowering their prices, but they still haven't put a dime into improving their network. heck, you can't even get ATT uverse here and their main CO is only a couple miles away!
this is why i give Sprint a lot of credit. sure they might have some issues, but at least they don't sit on their ass waiting for money to fall from the sky.
tft;33024684
this is why i give Sprint a lot of credit. sure they might have some issues said:
Yea, which is why only 10 people have LTE right now, with 10 more people to be added by next year.:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mrg02d said:
Yea, which is why only 10 people have LTE right now, with 10 more people to be added by next year.:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
before LTE sprint was already dumping money into 4G before any other carrier (WiMAX/Clearwire) IIRC they started building out Wimax in 2008 or earlier. the problem came when they decided to switch LTE technology, basically they started from scratch again. most think the reason for the switch was marketing and they didn't want to be the only WiMax "odd-ball". if it wasn't for this switch they would of had the most 4G coverage out of all the carriers.
anyway, once sprint fully rolls out LTE and LTE advanced using overlapping 800Mhz antennas,etc. and eliminating a lot of dead spots, they will have the most coverage compared to the rest.. Sprint probably has more towers than vzw and ATT combined.. the key is how quick they'll get all those Nextel antennas converted to CDMA/LTE.
tft said:
ATT needs to stfu and start putting money into their network. even their DSL infrastructure sucks and outdated. their wireless network may survive but their days as a local telco and ISP are numbered. i remember years ago having to pay around $45 for basic phone service and each additional feature was extra.. $6 for callerid, $4 for call waiting, and didn't even include any long distance calling. A couple years later comcast added digital phone via cable lines for $39/mo. includes unlimited nationwide long distance, and every single calling feature included.
after switching ATT, they started sending us letters begging us to come back. they finally realized they lost the monopoly they once had and started lowering their prices, but they still haven't put a dime into improving their network. heck, you can't even get ATT uverse here and their main CO is only a couple miles away!
this is why i give Sprint a lot of credit. sure they might have some issues, but at least they don't sit on their ass waiting for money to fall from the sky.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Their days as an ISP are far from being over. They provide backbone to most isp's out here. Comcast being one of them. AT&T won't be going any where any time soon.
Nevell said:
Their days as an ISP are far from being over. They provide backbone to most isp's out here. Comcast being one of them. AT&T won't be going any where any time soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
they only have that backbone because they took over BellSouth which had most of the infrastructure. while they do have a few data center and they're interconnected with many other ISPs, im almost positive they aren't a major comcast bandwidth provider.. Sprint's backbone could be bigger than AT&T's. their internet subscribers.
At least VZW competes with Comcast putting out Fiber.. and by the way, the only reason AT&T has a wireless network, is because they took over another company many years ago, not because they built it.. so yeah, ATT still sucks when it comes to network building, expanding and investing money into it. :laugh:
tft said:
they only have that backbone because they took over BellSouth which had most of the infrastructure. while they do have a few data center and they're interconnected with many other ISPs, im almost positive they aren't a major comcast bandwidth provider.. Sprint's backbone could be bigger than AT&T's. their internet subscribers.
At least VZW competes with Comcast putting out Fiber.. and by the way, the only reason AT&T has a wireless network, is because they took over another company many years ago, not because they built it.. so yeah, ATT still sucks when it comes to network building, expanding and investing money into it. :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To add to that both verizon and att said they are done rolling out uverse and fios which i think is dumb. Both of them are stifling advanced broadband going to rural areas which is crap but i understand that if those same places can be covered by lte then why use fiber but it is sooo much more reliable and consistent than lte
I remember cingular. What att bought and merged with there network. I do feel all in all that sprint will come out on top. Yes we all are waiting but i feel in the end we will be laughing at the others
Sent from my phone
I personally am glad to see both Sprint and t mobile looking like they are in a good position for solid growth over the next few years. Having four viable national carriers is good for the average consumer - at least I think it is a good thing.
But I can see this as both sour grapes and a ploy by AT&T. The sour grapes is obvious.
The ploy hear though is to play to what is left of the angry white guy xenophobia in this country. The Wireless spectrum in the US is looking like it is going to become the most valuable commodity ever with wireless traffic expected explode over the next five to seven years. See when Sprint takes back over clearwire they don't only hold the most wireless spectrum they hold the MOST wireless spectrum. As in if I'm not mistaken they hold as much or more than AT&T and Verizon combined.
So I'm thinking AT&T is hoping that the angry white xenophobes here will realize that the largest chunk (of what is about to become such a ridiculously valuable commodity) is about to be taken over by the Japanese. This to either put a halt to this takeover, or earn AT&T some kind of break as the government is organizing another chunk of spectrum for auction here in the next couple of years.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using XDA Premium HD app
dayv said:
I personally am glad to see both Sprint and t mobile looking like they are in a good position for solid growth over the next few years. Having four viable national carriers is good for the average consumer - at least I think it is a good thing.
But I can see this as both sour grapes and a ploy by AT&T. The sour grapes is obvious.
The ploy hear though is to play to what is left of the angry white guy xenophobia in this country. The Wireless spectrum in the US is looking like it is going to become the most valuable commodity ever with wireless traffic expected explode over the next five to seven years. See when Sprint takes back over clearwire they don't only hold the most wireless spectrum they hold the MOST wireless spectrum. As in if I'm not mistaken they hold as much or more than AT&T and Verizon combined.
So I'm thinking AT&T is hoping that the angry white xenophobes here will realize that the largest chunk (of what is about to become such a ridiculously valuable commodity) is about to be taken over by the Japanese. This to either put a halt to this takeover, or earn AT&T some kind of break as the government is organizing another chunk of spectrum for auction here in the next couple of years.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They don't want to stop this deal. They want it to go through because it gives them leverage next time they want spectrum or if they happen to want to buy up another company. As it stands, they are too large compared to Sprint and T-Mobile for the FCC to just give AT&T a free ride. But if Sprint can gain more ground on AT&T and Verizon, then the FCC can't play the antitrust card like they did with the T-Mobile deal.
I don't think AT&T cares what country SoftBank is from. Both of AT&T's other main competitors are controlled by foreign interests. If anyone else really cared if a company is 100% American, Verizon wouldn't have such a large share of the market.
EndlessDissent said:
I don't think AT&T cares what country SoftBank is from. Both of AT&T's other main competitors are controlled by foreign interests. If anyone else really cared if a company is 100% American, Verizon wouldn't have such a large share of the market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think AT&T cares what country either. But I do think AT&T aware that there are enough xenophobic national protectionist people in this country to try and play that angle to get something out of this.
And believe me the spectrum that Sprint has is going to be a huge asset come sometime around 2016 (not that it isn't a huge asset now, it is just the value of this asset is going to go way up). The spectrum carried by the other telcos is dwarfed in comparison. And this spectrum is the big reason Softbank is interested in Sprint.
Hopefully Sprint and Softbank will take this opportunity and grow Sprint 's network. The big downside for us the average consumer would be if the only thing of value they see is the spectrum and they don't do anything other than a token upgrade wait for the value of the spectrum to grow and then just sell the spectrum off in chunks.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using XDA Premium HD app
jbadboy2007 said:
To add to that both verizon and att said they are done rolling out uverse and fios which i think is dumb. Both of them are stifling advanced broadband going to rural areas which is crap but i understand that if those same places can be covered by lte then why use fiber but it is sooo much more reliable and consistent than lte
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They stopped because all the Cable companies Lost a huge percentage of their customers and this was the first time DirecTv has lost customers, which was a fraction of what cable lost.
US homes drop pay-TV as DirecTV, Comcast, Time Warner lose subscribers
Meanwhile, UK officials recommend eliminating broadcast TV entirely.
by Jon Brodkin - Aug 2 2012, 8:15pm EDT
Information Technology
Large numbers of US homes have dropped pay-TV services, with big losses for satellite provider DirecTV, and cable companies Time Warner and Comcast. Rounding up the latest quarterly earnings results issued by major TV providers, Reuters reported today that Comcast lost 176,000 subscribers, Time Warner lost 169,000 customers, and DirecTV lost 52,000.
While Reuters said these losses total about 400,000 American homes dropping pay-TV service since the beginning of the year, it's still a small minority. Time Warner Cable has more than 12 million customers, for example, and many customers simply switched services, as Verizon's FiOS TV and AT&T's U-verse added 275,000 subscribers in the second quarter. The second quarter is traditionally weak because of people moving before summer and college students leaving campus.
But this quarter's losses were stark for DirecTV, which lost customers for the first time ever, and for Time Warner, who lost customers for the tenth straight quarter and lost more than analysts expected. Comcast's loss of 169,000 customers was actually an improvement over previous quarters. The losses were chalked up more to the economy rather than "cord-cutters" dropping TV service entirely.
As an interesting tidbit to throw into the mix...
I was talking with my company's Sprint account rep yesterday morning, and he said a couple of interesting things about the purchase.
One of which was that there were some persistent rumors going around internally that with the cash infusion, Sprint is taking a long, hard look at US Cellular. The reason being that they have such a strong 3G footprint, all they'd have to do is update our PRL's and it would be an instant fix for Sprint's 3G network in the midwest and the northern coasts.
He also mentioned, to my dismay, that Wisconsin is (for now) practically last on the list for LTE and Network Vision and we really shouldn't expect anything until 3rd or 4th quarter next year.
Dalmus said:
As an interesting tidbit to throw into the mix...
I was talking with my company's Sprint account rep yesterday morning, and he said a couple of interesting things about the purchase.
One of which was that there were some persistent rumors going around internally that with the cash infusion, Sprint is taking a long, hard look at US Cellular. The reason being that they have such a strong 3G footprint, all they'd have to do is update our PRL's and it would be an instant fix for Sprint's 3G network in the midwest and the northern coasts.
He also mentioned, to my dismay, that Wisconsin is (for now) practically last on the list for LTE and Network Vision and we really shouldn't expect anything until 3rd or 4th quarter next year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As much as I hate to say this about my home state, it's understandable. US Cellular has a pretty big hold on CDMA outside Verizon. I think those two pretty much own Wisconsin in that area. I spend a lot of time there around Madison and Lake Wisconsin, so I wouldn't mind having Sprint buy them too. It would certainly help the 3G situation around here without question, and I'm saying that from the Suburbs of Chicago where NV is well underway. I read somewhere that Sprint officially announced Chicago as an upgraded market, which is great, because they've been putting LTE towers all over the place.
I'm just hoping they don't slow down the rollout around this area because while it's certainly better than it's been previously, it's not good enough yet.
JBakey said:
AT&T tried to do worse and buy out T-Mobile, which would have created a GSM monopoly. AT&T is only mad cause it would lower sprints prices, forcing them to lower theirs. This is awesome for the consumer, seeing as the prices have only been skyrocketing.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice pun.
hayzooos said:
As much as I hate to say this about my home state, it's understandable. US Cellular has a pretty big hold on CDMA outside Verizon. I think those two pretty much own Wisconsin in that area. I spend a lot of time there around Madison and Lake Wisconsin, so I wouldn't mind having Sprint buy them too. It would certainly help the 3G situation around here without question, and I'm saying that from the Suburbs of Chicago where NV is well underway. I read somewhere that Sprint officially announced Chicago as an upgraded market, which is great, because they've been putting LTE towers all over the place.
I'm just hoping they don't slow down the rollout around this area because while it's certainly better than it's been previously, it's not good enough yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting news article yesterday that US Cellular is exiting the Chicago/Illinois market and selling those users and spectrum to Sprint. They're getting 20MHz of 1900MHz spectrum, and a little over half a million of USC's subscribers.
The odd thing is that Sprint did NOT purchase USC towers in the deal... So even though Sprint claims that the extra spectrum will improve the end-user experience, won't an extra 500,000 users on Sprint's already stressed towers cause a degradation?
I always heard that Sprint's problems were tower capacity, not spectrum crowding.
Dalmus said:
Interesting news article yesterday that US Cellular is exiting the Chicago/Illinois market and selling those users and spectrum to Sprint. They're getting 20MHz of 1900MHz spectrum, and a little over half a million of USC's subscribers.
The odd thing is that Sprint did NOT purchase USC towers in the deal... So even though Sprint claims that the extra spectrum will improve the end-user experience, won't an extra 500,000 users on Sprint's already stressed towers cause a degradation?
I always heard that Sprint's problems were tower capacity, not spectrum crowding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought I read 30 MHz. Regardless, I think the spectrum crowding and capacity problems were actually somewhat related. I'm not an expert by any means, but I believe the amount of spectrum they have dictates how they allocate tower capacity.
EndlessDissent said:
I thought I read 30 MHz. Regardless, I think the spectrum crowding and capacity problems were actually somewhat related. I'm not an expert by any means, but I believe the amount of spectrum they have dictates how they allocate tower capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're both right. 20MHz in the Chicago market, and 10MHz in the St Louis market for a total of 30MHz.
I wonder if this was the deal that my Sprint Rep at work was referring to, or if there is something else in the works?