greencat

I'm just supposed to take your word? LOL, That's not shady at all.

You can 80% of $10 or 80% of $10 million. They're both 80%. However, they're not even close to equal. Which would you take?

Grow up.

You'll need to provide me with their data if I'm going to reference them. I have the data on Sprint's.

Are we talking about those companies or Sprint?

So you're telling me LTE 1900, the base LTE service of the entire network will never be complete to the level that they said it would be 4 years ago? If I said the sky was blue would you tell me it was actually some shade of azure and it never will actually be blue because of how it filters through earth's atmosphere?

C'mon don't be silly. All sites need to have new equipment (they're within 5% so that's close) and back haul on them . Getting LTE 1900 running on all sites that are going to get it would be a completion. Finishing B26 would be a completion. These are the basics. You complete phases. And it is a fact they haven't completed what they said they're going to do. Verizon's network might not be "complete," but how much 700 mhz do they have left to deploy? How much 1900?

We're already paying too much. Are they bringing on enough customers at the current price point? It doesn't appear so. So how are they going to bring on more at a higher price point? This might be shrewd sales-talk to prod the fence sitters. If it is then very well played by Claure. I suppose there is always the chance prices could increase, but also consider the overall trend across the entire wireless environment is for costs to go down.

You can't compare it to the rest of the world. That's like saying housing in the US is going to measure very well compared to Africa. No crap. If you compare the Sprint service to the UK or Europe or Korea or Japan you're probably going to be pretty disappointed.

THANK YOU!!!

I think WiWavelength said there are "over 32,000 sites with LTE on them" (paraphrased) just the other week. Sprint had approx 38,000 sites, so roughly, not counting for new sites 15-20% don't have it, still. Believe me, I want them to have it done. It'd make me happy for it to be 5%. But when they're below 90% in major markets like LA and NY and then also behind in others mathematically it gets pretty difficult to only have 5% of sites not done.

Side note: "Substantially complete" is one of the stupidest things ever said. It was stupid last year and it makes you guys look silly to parrot it over and over again after 1000's more sites have been completed since it was 1st said by Sprint. Unless those were perhaps unsubstantial sites? LOL.

So I'm right. You just want to add a footnote because why? To not make it seem as bad as it is/was? We know there has been an improvement. There would have to be, it couldn't get much worse. As far as areas where Sprint has not deemed it a priority, I highly doubt they decided 15-20% of their network is not a priority. Maybe they'll fix those sites when they add in the 9,000 towers? You gonna hold your breath to wait and see?

I don't think you have a firm grasp of what "grossly inaccurate" means. Yes Sprint's call quality improved, but here we are 3-4 years later and it still isn't finished. Did it take too long and was it over budget? Yep. Let us please hope that fiasco isn't repeated in the future, but I don't think any of us will be holding our breath.

You'd be a good Wireless Industry corporate drone. Just because it isn't a deal breaker doesn't mean it couldn't be a nice differentiator, possibly something that could drive business to Sprint. Btw, Claure can't give away Sprint profits if they don't have any... And right now Sprint would be a lot better off getting more $60+/month customers than trying to squeeze an extra $20 from their existing base. There are 2 things that are going to make Sprint look good to customers: More customers and a better network.