Thoughts on bailing Sprint for Verizon San Diego?

[snowtrooper1966]

Greetings.

I'm looking at getting the new iPhone next week, and that brought up the need to rethink my carrier selection.

After a bit of research, I'm just not sold that Sprint's 4G LTE implementation of what I perceive to be inferior frequencies for proper LTE deployment will ever be competitive with what Verizon is offering.

I'm leaning towards VZN as they appear to have the most spectrum and are well situated for the future.

I realize I won't get data and talk at the same time with the iPhone 5, and that VZN's 3G data is not as fast as AT&T's.

I am leery of big blue's reputation of poor customer service and dropped calls....

Any input would be appreciated.

Best,

James

[Ascertion]

Verizon's better, but more expensive and not unlimited. If you're fine with that, then by all means, go for it.

 

Personally, I prefer Sprint, they're good enough for what I do (Pandora streaming in the car), and emails/text. They're also very good when it comes to reception. I just think once LTE hits the area, it's going to be awesome. Not to mention that LTE 800mhz frequency will be released soon after 1900 launches. It's just going to take time and 1900 is the same coverage in terms of distance and building penetration as the 3G. No matter what, 4G LTE 1900mhz is much better than WiMax.

 

I would stay away from AT&T. I've heard nothing good from them and they do, for a fact, have the worst CS of any carrier.

[nahum365]

Verizon's better, but more expensive and not unlimited. If you're fine with that, then by all means, go for it.

 

Personally, I prefer Sprint, they're good enough for what I do (Pandora streaming in the car), and emails/text. They're also very good when it comes to reception. I just think once LTE hits the area, it's going to be awesome. Not to mention that LTE 800mhz frequency will be released soon after 1900 launches. It's just going to take time and 1900 is the same coverage in terms of distance and building penetration as the 3G. No matter what, 4G LTE 1900mhz is much better than WiMax.

 

I would stay away from AT&T. I've heard nothing good from them and they do, for a fact, have the worst CS of any carrier.

Don't go to AT&T. I have them and will be canceling the second my contract ends (luckily for me, that's next week). The customer service has been fine. No wait times, (usually) nice reps, they could always solve the problem. But for reception, building penetration, holding a call, and sometimes even getting a data connection? No. I'm going to sprint on the 21st.

[QWIKSTRIKE]

Don't go to AT&T. I have them and will be canceling the second my contract ends (luckily for me, that's next week). The customer service has been fine. No wait times, (usually) nice reps, they could always solve the problem. But for reception, building penetration, holding a call, and sometimes even getting a data connection? No. I'm going to sprint on the 21st.

 

If you don't care about the cost to be with the boss go ahead to Verizon. They won't be ahead of Sprint for long, and in fact when your 2 year contract is over you may find Sprint as a industry leader, and want to come back. I just hope unlimited will be here for you when you do. VOIP is coming and when it does Verizon will be charging or data usage through your nose. Go read the last stock report to see what their plan is to make money of sheep in the future.

 

I have had coverage from Massachusetts to Florida driving down I95, I694, and I never dropped a call. Here in New York coverage is in most places that I have been including the Hampton's in Long Island. I have been getting faster 3g speeds in the Bronx, Queens, and Manhattan up to 1.9mbs, and while I was in D.C. a few weeks ago had decent speeds and coverage as well.

 

I left AT&T for Sprint and will never go back to the King of dropped calls. I was with AT&T when they were Mobile 1, then Cellular 1, and jumped ship after AT&T took over. and once Sprint opened their doors I never looked back. After evaluating the cost of Verizon and unlimited datacompared to Sprint I decided that they were not worth changing, and to stick out the growing pains with Sprint. I can still use my phone to make calls and LTE should be in the NYC area very soon.

Edited September 15, 2012 by QWIKSTRIKE

[keelerman8042]

I personally would stick with sprint, sure Verizon has lte but waiting would deff be worth the wait Verizon coverage is good but they're custmor service stinks and when you go to their reps they don't know anything or look at you like your dumb and I've had bad exerperices with them told them I wanted to cancel my plan and they kept charging me then I get a letter from a collection agency saying I owe 800 to them and note I had them for 7 years and I've had nothin but great service with sprint just thought I'd throw that out

[NYC126]

I have two accounts one is verizon With a RAZR maxx with 4gbs of data and an old evo wimax 4g with sprint(will upgrade once 70% of NYC is network vision is completed. Verizon LTe network is getting saturated already. My speeds in Nyc are in the single digits now.

Edited September 15, 2012 by SprintNYC

[S4GRU]

Verizon only has a frequency advantage for LTE, and that will be only for the next 12 months or so until they start their LTE 800 deployment. Sprint is already deploying voice on 800MHz now.

 

In a place where Sprint has full LTE deployment, Sprint's superior site density makes up for the frequency difference. However, this will only be in areas that have all sites fully deployed.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[S4GRU]

I have two accounts one is verizon With a RAZR maxx with 4gbs of data and an old evo wimax 4g with sprint(will upgrade once 70% of NYC is network vision is completed. Verizon LTe network is getting saturated already. My speeds in Nyc are in the single digits now.

 

In Los Alamos, our VZW LTE speeds are often in the single digits. Most of the lab workers use Verizon. They need to add more sites for capacity.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[JeffDTD]

The simultaneous voice/data on cdma networks is now an iphone problem, not a carrier problem. If you can live with limited data, go to the big red and pick up a gs3. Simultaneous voice/data problem solved. Would be wise to also talk to some verizon users in the areas you frequent. Current verizon lte deployment is only to a limited number of towers in any market due to the propagation advantages of 700mhz. Point is , you could end up sitting in your home or place of employment with a very strong 3g evdo (even slow) signal and weak or absent lte.

[S4GRU]

Point is , you could end up sitting in your home or place of employment with a very strong 3g evdo (even slow) signal and weak or absent lte.

 

Which is exactly the issue for VZW LTE at my house. I live right next to a VZW tower, however, there is no LTE live on it. The nearest VZW LTE site is 3 miles away. I only get it at the front of my house with a weak -95dBm RSSI (-120dBm RSRP). It's still good for 4-5Mbps with such a weak signal. However, I cannot get VZW LTE in the back or downstairs of my home. But if they were fully deployed, I would have a -65dBm RSSI all over my house.

 

Robert

[surma884]

Verizon has made a requirement for all phones on their network to be LTE. As people have mentioned above as the network gets saturated the speeds will come down. This lead they have is only temporary until AT&T and Sprint catch up. I would wait it out just because I don't like how AT&T and Verizon are doing business.

[irev210]

Greetings.

I'm looking at getting the new iPhone next week, and that brought up the need to rethink my carrier selection.

After a bit of research, I'm just not sold that Sprint's 4G LTE implementation of what I perceive to be inferior frequencies for proper LTE deployment will ever be competitive with what Verizon is offering.

I'm leaning towards VZN as they appear to have the most spectrum and are well situated for the future.

I realize I won't get data and talk at the same time with the iPhone 5, and that VZN's 3G data is not as fast as AT&T's.

I am leery of big blue's reputation of poor customer service and dropped calls....

Any input would be appreciated.

Best,

James

 

Perception and reality are two different things.

 

Confirmation bias and reality are also two different things.

 

 

The reality is, if your current Sprint 3G coverage is adequate, so will Sprint's 4G coverage. If not, Sprint's 4G LTE deployment will not change that and you are better off with another carrier.

[irev210]

In Los Alamos, our VZW LTE speeds are often in the single digits. Most of the lab workers use Verizon. They need to add more sites for capacity.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Someone at work this week did a speedtest on Verizon 4G LTE with a GS3... hit a blazing 650kbps. When I was testing Verizon with the HTC Thunderbolt over a year ago, I was cruising at over 15mbit in the office.

 

Oh how times have changed.

[dedub]

Any input would be appreciated.

 

If you need lte now, you could buy a non-contract vz iphone and sign up with vz only for as long as it takes for sprint lte to reach your area. Alternatively, you could buy a vz iphone for 200 and pay whatever the ETF (the eft will reduce every month) will be once you want to switch to sprint, which will likely be less overall than buying a full price phone.

 

Obviously you will be paying however much more for vz services and have to deal with the anxiety of data caps with vz, so you will have to decide for yourself if the extra cost is worth it while waiting for sprint to finish roll out.

Edited September 15, 2012 by dedub

[Ascertion]

To be honest, I'd check if T-Mobile is available in your area. If you have your own GSM phone, you can use T-Mobile's network without a contract so you can cancel at any time. T-Mobile, from what I hear, has more HSPA+ coverage than Verizon's LTE. (Maybe I'm wrong.) But T-Mobile being unlimited now and cheap is a great plus to help the wait.

[ChadBroChillz]

To get unlimited data on tmobile, you need a value or classic plan, which needs a 2 year agreement.

[aburgthing]

Much of this conversation has to do with how you use your phone, is LTE deployment scheduled for your area in the coming months and what you need now. You are in an enviable position to be at the end of your contract and have a choice. For me, a 12+ year subscriber to Sprint, the choice was easy because where I live, there has been no LTE announcement. Being at the end of my contract with an outdated phone and wanting to upgrade, re-upping my contract with a LTE phone and no promise of coverage for at least 18 months, the choice was easy; I skipped to Verizon. Again, for me the cost with employee discounts and the amount of data my wife and I use, the cost is comparable really. I switched in July and have yet to see those surprise bills everyone keeps harping on about. If you use Wi-Fi at home and are not a data hog you'll be surprised at how little data you use. My advise is to check your current average data usage for the year and if it's less than the Verizon caps, then go for it. Obviously if you use a lot of data, e.g. over 4 GB a month, disregard this because it will not be cost effective.

[bucdenny]

Greetings.

I'm looking at getting the new iPhone next week, and that brought up the need to rethink my carrier selection.

After a bit of research, I'm just not sold that Sprint's 4G LTE implementation of what I perceive to be inferior frequencies for proper LTE deployment will ever be competitive with what Verizon is offering.

I'm leaning towards VZN as they appear to have the most spectrum and are well situated for the future.

I realize I won't get data and talk at the same time with the iPhone 5, and that VZN's 3G data is not as fast as AT&T's.

I am leery of big blue's reputation of poor customer service and dropped calls....

Any input would be appreciated.

Best,

James

 

With NV underway in San Diego, Sprint service will soon be as good as Verizon. Many cell sites here in San Diego, I am getting average 700Kbps to 1Mbps on Sprint. It has gotten a lot better this year and when LTE launch by the end of the year it will be smoking!

[GW1973]

With NV underway in San Diego, Sprint service will soon be as good as Verizon. Many cell sites here in San Diego, I am getting average 700Kbps to 1Mbps on Sprint. It has gotten a lot better this year and when LTE launch by the end of the year it will be smoking!

 

I have to say that I have not noticed a change in the network. i know someone here in SD county on Vzn and he gets ok 4g service. Like anything you have to determine if the costs are worth the price. You shoud look at the amount of data you use and if the price it would cost u on Vzn is worth that to u.

[lynyrd65]

Verizon only has a frequency advantage for LTE, and that will be only for the next 12 months or so until they start their LTE 800 deployment. Sprint is already deploying voice on 800MHz now.

 

In a place where Sprint has full LTE deployment, Sprint's superior site density makes up for the frequency difference. However, this will only be in areas that have all sites fully deployed.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

I think that may become a disadvantage for vzw in the near future. They only have 20mhz total in the 700mhz band which makes a single lte carrier. As of now all VZW phones only have support for that one channel. That is ALL of the capacity they have (short of some cell splitting).

 

Once sites start getting overloaded (which may not be too far off) there will be nowhere to add new capacity and what was a blessing with 700mhz propogation becomes a curse as VZ can no longer add capacity by increasing cell site density without horrible interference issues.

 

Sprint has capacity to burn, with 1xRTT carriers converted to 1xAdvanced on the 1900 A-G more space will be freed up for LTE carriers in the future as well as virtually infinite capacity of clearwire BRS.

[RichardXy]

I hate to be the only one that says AT&T but my friends that have AT&T are very happy. Their iphones download at 5 mbps on 3G. This is what Sprint is promising for 4G. I also know that AT&T has a lot of spectrum in San Diego so I'm sure their LTE will be fast like Dallas and not so-so like their Chicago LTE coverage. I also hear great things about Verizon but no one I know has their LTE phones either.

[snowtrooper1966]

The reality is, if your current Sprint 3G coverage is adequate, so will Sprint's 4G coverage. If not, Sprint's 4G LTE deployment will not change that and you are better off with another carrier.

 

It is not even adequate. Averageing in the 200kbps range during peak usage time.

If your observation is correct, I'm really in trouble

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As it appears AT&T would be my best bet, but last choice....

[pyroscott]

 

It is not even adequate. Averageing in the 200kbps range during peak usage time.

If your observation is correct' date=' I'm really in trouble

 

As it appears AT&T would be my best bet, but last choice....[/quote']

 

COVERAGE, not data speeds. If Sprint's 3G signal is usable, Sprint's LTE will also be usable. You are indicting the LTE on the fact that the back haul or carriers are overloaded.

[snowtrooper1966]

I hate to be the only one that says AT&T but my friends that have AT&T are very happy. Their iphones download at 5 mbps on 3G. This is what Sprint is promising for 4G. I also know that AT&T has a lot of spectrum in San Diego so I'm sure their LTE will be fast like Dallas and not so-so like their Chicago LTE coverage. I also hear great things about Verizon but no one I know has their LTE phones either.

 

I don't know anyone with a Verizon phone to check the real world usage results in my neighborhhod either.

It does look like you are correct tho, based on the maps posed above, AT&T looks to have my town saturated in at least a 15 mile radius with the best LTE signal.

I'm just apprehensive based on the reputaion of dropped calls and bad customer service.....

[snowtrooper1966]

COVERAGE, not data speeds. If Sprint's 3G signal is usable, Sprint's LTE will also be usable. You are indicting the LTE on the fact that the back haul or carriers are overloaded.

 

And that is the usefull info I need.

You ae correct, I did erroniusly relate data speed and coverage. Just have so much new info I'm taking in, it's hard to sort it at times.

 

Funny thing is, that was my original thought when I first was trying to superficially wrap my head around all this many months ago. It was my initial impression that netowk vision would be worth waiting for, once the backhaul was releived and LTE was deployed.