T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[irev210]

They are betting the farm. Anyone can get subscribers at any cost. This might be too expensive in the long run.

 

It's actually a really smart strategy to acquire subs.  As I mentioned in my previous post, they still have the margins to do it.

 

It sounds like a lot of money up front but it's actually not relative to what T-Mobile views as the customer lifetime value.  For example, say you have 1.7% churn, that means the customer lifetime value is about 5 years.

 

T-Mobile is offering up to $650 per customer but that's only in the most ideal scenario.  ETFs are pro-rated, so figure the average customer has a 1 year old phone and is 1 year through their contract.  Say that's about 200 for the ETF and 150 for the phone.  The total payment to the customer is 350 over 5 years, or $11.66 a month.

 

Their postpaid plans are fairly pricey and profitable, they have no problem eating the $11.66/month cost per sub to offer this promotion.

 

Bottom line, while it sounds like a lot of money, it's actually not, and they don't need to bet the farm to offer this promotion.

[S4GRU]

It's actually a really smart strategy to acquire subs.  As I mentioned in my previous post, they still have the margins to do it.

 

It sounds like a lot of money up front but it's actually not relative to what T-Mobile views as the customer lifetime value.  For example, say you have 1.7% churn, that means the customer lifetime value is about 5 years.

 

T-Mobile is offering up to $650 per customer but that's only in the most ideal scenario.  ETFs are pro-rated, so figure the average customer has a 1 year old phone and is 1 year through their contract.  Say that's about 200 for the ETF and 150 for the phone.  The total payment to the customer is 350 over 5 years, or $11.66 a month.

 

Their postpaid plans are fairly pricey and profitable, they have no problem eating the $11.66/month cost per sub to offer this promotion.

 

Bottom line, while it sounds like a lot of money, it's actually not, and they don't need to bet the farm to offer this promotion.

 

Then, why doesn't everyone do this?  The big guys could put their competitors out of business in no time.  Including T-Mobile.  The reason why is because their shareholders will not allow it.  They give away their money to do it.  

 

With most other customers, It wouldn't be long until their shareholders would be screaming.  They would only see the pennies tripped over, not the new ones lining their pocket.  Leaving money on the table.

 

However, Tmo has a unique ownership structure with DT owning so much.  It's not a company made up of a whole bunch of shareholders in the most conventional sense.  So they may be able to pull it off for a much longer period of time.  But if they end up churning a lot of these customers over coverage problems, it could really backfire.  Time will tell.

 

The AT&T astroturfers are already gearing up to go after Tmo big time.  The BGR article is no surprise to me.  They will be hounding coverage, coverage, coverage.  It will soon be the new mantra of the AT&T hit squad.  Since I battle those clowns all the time (and more than any other), I almost feel bad for them.  I have to take a shower every time I deal with an AT&T astroturfer.

 

And as you have referenced in another post, for Tmo, coverage is the achilles heel of their network.  Patchy indoor coverage in urban areas and no coverage outside the city.  And they have no answer to that.  If they're honest, all they can say is, "Well, we are faster in the places we do have coverage.  And at least we are cheaper in the places we don't."  Legere always changes the subject when it comes up.

 

Robert

[shifted]

I've read it will be the end of this year and late 2015 or sometime in 2016 we will see 1gbps

With Sprint it is always what is coming eventually.  I have been hearing that since 2010 when I got my first wimax phone.  I am still hearing it with my triband Nexus 5 in Minneapolis.  It gets annoying to hear them always preaching about what is coming and how good it will be.  Their coverage and price are acceptable to me though so I stay and hope it comes true for me at some point.  

[irev210]

Then, why doesn't everyone do this?  The big guys could put their competitors out of business in no time.  Including T-Mobile.  The reason why is because their shareholders will not allow it.  They give away their money to do it.  

 

With most other customers, It wouldn't be long until their shareholders would be screaming.  They would only see the pennies tripped over, not the new ones lining their pocket.  Leaving money on the table.

 

However, Tmo has a unique ownership structure with DT owning so much.  It's not a company made up of a whole bunch of shareholders in the most conventional sense.  So they may be able to pull it off for a much longer period of time.  But if they end up churning a lot of these customers over coverage problems, it could really backfire.  Time will tell.

 

The AT&T astroturfers are already gearing up to go after Tmo big time.  The BGR article is no surprise to me.  They will be hounding coverage, coverage, coverage.  It will soon be the new mantra of the AT&T hit squad.  Since I battle those clowns all the time (and more than any other), I almost feel bad for them.  I have to take a shower every time I deal with an AT&T astroturfer.

 

And as you have referenced in another post, for Tmo, coverage is the achilles heel of their network.  Patchy indoor coverage in urban areas and no coverage outside the city.  And they have no answer to that.  If they're honest, all they can say is, "Well, we are faster in the places we do have coverage.  And at least we are cheaper in the places we don't."  Legere always changes the subject when it comes up.

 

Robert

 

BGR article was great.

 

For all intensive purposes, you could argue with Verizon owning more than 50% of postpaid subs, they already have put everyone out of business.  Sprint at 10.3% and T-Mobile at 7.5% are just so far back.

 

When you have metrics like VZN, why would they lower their prices?  They have no problem enticing customers to join their network at current pricing and customers don't leave.  It has nothing to do with shareholders - when you have a premium product that people are willing to pay more for and refuse to leave for cheaper alternatives, you price it accordingly.  VZN is just doing what they do.

 

We can poke fun at T-Mobile (as T-Mobile does at Sprint "Sparky") but churn is churn, gross margin is gross margin, etc.

 

I think you can get to a point where people are willing to compromise on some things (less coverage for cheaper price, slower data for better coverage, or best coverage for higher price, etc).  I think T-Mobile should just cater to urban customers who want value, selection, and speed and don't care about coverage. 

 

At the end of the day, T-Mobile is doing two things correctly right now

1) customers are happy with the service as churn is very low for postpaid t-mobile customers (particularly since there is no contract tied to the service) and

2) Their disruptive marketing is getting a ton of gross adds (low churn, high gross adds = good net adds).  With no contract and the ability to port many devices back to AT&T, it's amazing their port ratio is 2-1 from AT&T.  To me, that's absolutely mind blowing.

 

The coverage issue is a really interesting topic.  Right now, as it stands, their churn is really good, which indicates that customers that are using T-Mobile are happy.  The big question will be - how will churn change with all these new customers porting from AT&T?  They've made huge strides in reducing churn, so it makes me wonder.

[twospirits]

It's actually a really smart strategy to acquire subs.  As I mentioned in my previous post, they still have the margins to do it.

 

....

 

Bottom line, while it sounds like a lot of money, it's actually not, and they don't need to bet the farm to offer this promotion.

 

 

Then, why doesn't everyone do this?  The big guys could put their competitors out of business in no time.  Including T-Mobile.  The reason why is because their shareholders will not allow it.  They give away their money to do it.  

 

 

...

 

And as you have referenced in another post, for Tmo, coverage is the achilles heel of their network.  Patchy indoor coverage in urban areas and no coverage outside the city.  And they have no answer to that.  If they're honest, all they can say is, "Well, we are faster in the places we do have coverage.  And at least we are cheaper in the places we don't."  Legere always changes the subject when it comes up.

 

Robert

Question,

 

If the strategy doesn't work out long-term for T-Mobile financially (having to pay out these etfs) and acquiring so many new customers stressing the system.

 

or If this does work for them financially but still stresses the system.

 

What impact would this new marketing strategy by T-Mobile have on the rumored merger/buyout by Sprint?

 

TS

[S4GRU]

I think T-Mobile should just cater to urban customers who want value, selection, and speed and don't care about coverage. 

 

This is definitely what they were doing.  However, I feel they are getting the attention and attracting much more than urban customers.  And these customers are going to have a rude wake up call.  It may take a few months or quarters for them to churn. 

 

I think T-Mobile should just cater to urban customers who want value, selection, and speed and don't care about coverage. 

 

At the end of the day, T-Mobile is doing two things correctly right now

1) customers are happy with the service as churn is very low for postpaid t-mobile customers (particularly since there is no contract tied to the service) and

2) Their disruptive marketing is getting a ton of gross adds (low churn, high gross adds = good net adds).  With no contract and the ability to port many devices back to AT&T, it's amazing their port ratio is 2-1 from AT&T.  To me, that's absolutely mind blowing.

 

The coverage issue is a really interesting topic.  Right now, as it stands, their churn is really good, which indicates that customers that are using T-Mobile are happy.  The big question will be - how will churn change with all these new customers porting from AT&T?  They've made huge strides in reducing churn, so it makes me wonder.

Speaking of churn.  T-Mobile gave up their churn protection.  Contracts.  These new customers will remember that AT&T was good for them in the city and the country.  And since these new customers will not be on a contract, it will be very easy for them to walk.  AT&T is going to make it very easy for them to come back, probably offering to pay off their subsidy.

 

AT&T may have been looking forward to this fight for a long time.  This could backfire in a very large way.  We already know Sprint customers that have come back because of  Tmo coverage problems.  And they aren't even coming back to a network with coverage like AT&T.  Former AT&T customers are likely to be even less tolerant of network problems.

 

Robert

[S4GRU]

With Sprint it is always what is coming eventually.  I have been hearing that since 2010 when I got my first wimax phone.  I am still hearing it with my triband Nexus 5 in Minneapolis.  It gets annoying to hear them always preaching about what is coming and how good it will be.  Their coverage and price are acceptable to me though so I stay and hope it comes true for me at some point.

 

You don't have to hear it.  You can go to Tmo where they say F-you and it's never coming beyond the city limits.  And then people thank them for being told to F-off and give them money just for the sake of the cult of personality.

 

You will have 137Mbps on the Tmo network.  He said so.  The pied piper is calling you.  You should go to him.  Really.  Don't hesitate.  Don't load another page.  Run to the Tmo store right now with cash in your fist!

 

Robert

 

 

Reminds me of Tmo.

[irev210]

Speaking of churn.  T-Mobile gave up their churn protection.  Contracts.  These new customers will remember that AT&T was good for them in the city and the country.  And since these new customers will not be on a contract, it will be very easy for them to walk.  AT&T is going to make it very easy for them to come back, probably offering to pay off their subsidy.

 

AT&T may have been looking forward to this fight for a long time.  This could backfire in a very large way.  We already know Sprint customers that have come back because of  Tmo coverage problems.  And they aren't even coming back to a network with coverage like AT&T.  Former AT&T customers are likely to be even less tolerant of network problems.

 

Robert

 

Yeah, that's why I've been so amazed at churn falling and am very curious to watch churn as they port out 2-to-1 against AT&T.  We are talking many compatible handsets, port offers from both carriers, etc.  It will be a VERY interesting year for 2014.  There are very few barriers for a customer to switch - this will definitely help identify how consumers feel about ATT and T-Mobile.

 

 

 

Sprint T-Mobile VZN ATT

12Q3 2.1 2.3 0.9 1.1

12Q4 2.2 2.5 1.0 1.2

13Q1 2.1 1.9 1.0 1.0

13Q2 2.6 1.6 0.9 1.0

13Q3 2.1 1.7 1.0 1.1

[irev210]

 

You don't have to hear it.  You can go to Tmo where they say F-you and it's never coming beyond the city limits.  And then people thank them for being told to F-off and give them money just for the sake of the cult of personality.

 

You will have 137Mbps on the Tmo network.  He said so.  The pied piper is calling you.  You should go to him.  Really.  Don't hesitate.  Don't load another page.  Run to the Tmo store right now with cash in your fist!

 

Robert

 

 

Come on now - they just bought some A block.

 

We can say that about T-Mobile now

 

In some parts of the country, where there is no channel 51 issues, and you have the right handset, we will have great coverage at some point, hopefully!

[IamMrFamous07]

With Sprint it is always what is coming eventually. I have been hearing that since 2010 when I got my first wimax phone. I am still hearing it with my triband Nexus 5 in Minneapolis. It gets annoying to hear them always preaching about what is coming and how good it will be. Their coverage and price are acceptable to me though so I stay and hope it comes true for me at some point.

I agree but we didn't have SoftBank in 2010 and even then sprint wasn't in control of their WiMAX rollout clearwire was. Sprint was just piggy backing on their towers for 4g coverage.

 

So I somewhat give sprint a pass on the whole WiMAX fiasco

[S4GRU]

Come on now - they just bought some A block.

 

We can say that about T-Mobile now

 

In some parts of the country, where there is no channel 51 issues, and you have the right handset, we will have great coverage at some point, hopefully!

 

They always could have deployed WCDMA or LTE on their existing sites outside the city limits.  A block is not a play for their EDGE and GPRS customers, so don't kid yourself.  It is an urban play.  That's all he has talked about since the announcement.  A block LTE outside the city is not even a rumor that Tmo entertains.  It is just the mere hope of the 75% of Tmo customers who live or drive through EDGE/GPRS coverage more than once per year.

 

Robert

[irev210]

They always could have deployed WCDMA or LTE on their existing sites outside the city limits.  A block is not a play for their EDGE and GPRS customers, so don't kid yourself.  It is an urban play.  That's all he has talked about since the announcement.  A block LTE outside the city is not even a rumor that Tmo entertains.  It is just the mere hope of the 75% of Tmo customers who live or drive through EDGE/GPRS coverage more than once per year.

 

Robert

 

Yeah, it was my poor attempt at sarcasm.

 

I think it's going to be a few years before anything comes about of A block.  I like what AJ suggested - have them team up with rural A block license holders and get some roaming agreements going.

[S4GRU]

Yeah, it was my poor attempt at sarcasm.

 

I think it's going to be a few years before anything comes about of A block.  I like what AJ suggested - have them team up with rural A block license holders and get some roaming agreements going.

 

You know what's scary to think about?  What if Legere would get off his asshat and committed to taking LTE across all of his EDGE/GPRS sites across the country?  How uncarrier would that be??

 

Like you mention earlier, Tmo can piss off billions in cash to get customers, but why doesn't it do that too?  It would cost another 2 Billion or so.  So what?  You said they can afford that.  It would take AT&T's coverage argument away, and it would likely crush Sprint.  And they can even do that without 700.  But with 700 assets, they could really shine in many rural areas.  I'm not even talking about new coverage.  Just convert all their existing 2G sites.

 

If Tmo converted their entire network AND densified their urban network, then they would be unstoppable.  Why does he talk all the talk, but stop here?  Put your magenta t-shirt where your mouth is Legere!  He could shut us all up with a 30 minute board meeting.  Even Dan Hesse had the courage to take the upgrade to the whole network.

 

Robert

[milan03]

You know what's scary to think about?  What if Legere would get off his asshat and committed to taking LTE across all of his EDGE/GPRS sites across the country?  How uncarrier would that be??

 

Like you mention earlier, Tmo can piss off billions in cash to get customers, but why doesn't it do that too?  It would cost another 2 Billion or so.  So what?  You said they can afford that.  It would take AT&T's coverage argument away, and it would likely crush Sprint.  And they can even do that without 700.  But with 700 assets, they could really shine in many rural areas.  I'm not even talking about new coverage.  Just convert all their existing 2G sites.

 

If Tmo converted their entire network AND densified their urban network, then they would be unstoppable.  Why does he talk all the talk, but stop here?  Put your magenta t-shirt where your mouth is Legere!  He could shut us all up with a 30 minute board meeting.  Even Dan Hesse had the courage to take the upgrade to the whole network.

 

Robert

Definitely some great points here and as I consumer I agree. The issue with T-Mobile is they simply can't see deploying ANY "G" into rural areas being cost effective without low band spectrum. Now 700A which will have 3x the reach of their AWS LTE, meaning 3x less cell sites needed for the same coverage, is something that allows them to start thinking and talking about rural footprint. This is crucial. 

 

Just look at Sprint. They've committed to deploying PCS G to all of their sites. It's taking extremely long to put it nicely, and they still aren't at 200 million pops or north of 90 out of top 100 markets covered. It's been 2+ years since the announcement of NV.

That strategy is hurting Sprint, and T-Mobile isn't willing to to that path. They're making a surgical push into the highly populated areas with the best they've got, and in return they're getting insane amount of net adds.

 

Legere is absolutely a perfect CEO for T-Mobile's brand that was completely deteriorating over the past few years. He gets people excited again, and gets everyone to talk about the brand. Neville Ray and his team in less than 9 months delivered from zero to 209 Million PoPs of LTE, most Top 50 markets being 10Mhz FDD LTE, and Dallas being 20Mhz FDD LTE!!! All by end of 2013.

 

No matter how obnoxious he could be, I'd take his bluntness and people skills over Dan who doesn't really project any energy.

 

This'll be a very, very exciting 2014! Happy New Year all!!!

[bucdenny]

Definitely some great points here and as I consumer I agree. The issue with T-Mobile is they simply can't see deploying ANY "G" into rural areas being cost effective without low band spectrum. Now 700A which will have 3x the reach of their AWS LTE, meaning 3x less cell sites needed for the same coverage, is something that allows them to start thinking and talking about rural footprint. This is crucial. 

 

Just look at Sprint. They've committed to deploying PCS G to all of their sites. It's taking extremely long to put it nicely, and they still aren't at 200 million pops or north of 90 out of top 100 markets covered. It's been 2+ years since the announcement of NV.

That strategy is hurting Sprint, and T-Mobile isn't willing to to that path. They're making a surgical push into the highly populated areas with the best they've got, and in return they're getting insane amount of net adds.

 

Legere is absolutely a perfect CEO for T-Mobile's brand that was completely deteriorating over the past few years. He gets people excited again, and gets everyone to talk about the brand. Neville Ray and his team in less than 9 months delivered from zero to 209 Million PoPs of LTE, most Top 50 markets being 10Mhz FDD LTE, and Dallas being 20Mhz FDD LTE!!! All by end of 2013.

 

No matter how obnoxious he could be, I'd take his bluntness and people skills over Dan who doesn't really project any energy.

 

This'll be a very, very 2014! Happy New Year all!!!

 

Here we go again with the talks of T-Mobile deploying LTE super fast...but yes only where there is HSPA+.   They already had peaked deploying LTE, it is a matter of time before Sprint wipes T-Mobile up and down with LTE coverage.  

 

We are talking about 800Mhz CDMA/LTE being deployed nationwide which will be easy since Network Vision is near 85% completed (800Mhz CDMA/LTE hardware installed)  It is not like T-Mobile can deploy 700Mhz A anytime soon...... by then Sprint can start marketing the shit of a brand new network with much more LTE POP coverage than T-Mobile 

 

Finally, we can all drive outside the city and will almost always get LTE    I really doubt you can say the same about T-Mobile by 2015 or even 2016.

[iansltx]

You know what's scary to think about?  What if Legere would get off his asshat and committed to taking LTE across all of his EDGE/GPRS sites across the country?  How uncarrier would that be??

 

Like you mention earlier, Tmo can piss off billions in cash to get customers, but why doesn't it do that too?  It would cost another 2 Billion or so.  So what?  You said they can afford that.  It would take AT&T's coverage argument away, and it would likely crush Sprint.  And they can even do that without 700.  But with 700 assets, they could really shine in many rural areas.  I'm not even talking about new coverage.  Just convert all their existing 2G sites.

 

If Tmo converted their entire network AND densified their urban network, then they would be unstoppable.  Why does he talk all the talk, but stop here?  Put your magenta t-shirt where your mouth is Legere!  He could shut us all up with a 30 minute board meeting.  Even Dan Hesse had the courage to take the upgrade to the whole network.

 

Robert

 

Yep.

 

In this area, I'm not sure how much of T-Mobile's 700A license has Channel 51 issues. But west of here, Verizon doesn't own 700A, so neither will T-Mobile.

 

There are a few extra consequences, by the way, of T-Mobile's ETF plan:

1. They launched it on Wednesday (vs. earlier) because, with AT&T and Sprint's (and sort of VZW's) moves, ETFs are going away anyway. "Pay for the rest of your phone" isn't what T-Mobile is promising. They want to end service contracts, not end the newly explicit phone payment scheme. At least not directly in this case. Point being, as time goes on the pool of folks who have an honest-to-goodness ETF on their wireless plan will decrease to zero. Which is why T-Mobile can afford to say "this isn't a promotion" for ETF payoff. It's nice when you can make the rest of the wireless industry play by your rules, then look good anyway and use the letter of your new rules to your advantage. Crazy like a fox.
2. T-Mobile is intentionally flooding others' carriers second-hand phone markets with this program, and its previous trade-in programs. Phones that they buy back get sold to their insurance partner, which then refurbishes them and provides them as either warranty (or insurance) replacements or sells them more openly on the market. This means that refurbished phones at the very least end up making up a much larger percentage of insurance or warranty replacements, and if there are enough trade-ins new phone demand gets appreciably softened by cheap refurbs on the market. Which means...
3. ...that people will on average spend less for their phones, and/or buy more phones, and/or be more willing to sell their existing phones on the open market. The buyers of these open-market phones are paying "full price" but have no contract extension or even a handset payment plan. And folks who buy through the carrier will pay less for their phones as well, particularly with the downward price pressure exerted by un-hiding phone costs through the new payment plans. What does this do? Lower switching costs for *everyone*. And since more people switch from other carriers to T-Mobile than switch in the opposite direction, this shift in the industry, which T-Mobile is pushing as hard as it can, is directly benefiting it even if the company has to spend $100 million on ETFs to do it.

[Nickel]

I feel like this can't be posted enough:

[jamesinclair]

You know what's scary to think about?  What if Legere would get off his asshat and committed to taking LTE across all of his EDGE/GPRS sites across the country?  How uncarrier would that be??

 

 

Id rather he sign some roaming agreements.

[milan03]

Here we go again with the talks of T-Mobile deploying LTE super fast...but yes only where there is HSPA+.   They already had peaked deploying LTE, it is a matter of time before Sprint wipes T-Mobile up and down with LTE coverage.  

 

We are talking about 800Mhz CDMA/LTE being deployed nationwide which will be easy since Network Vision is near 85% completed (800Mhz CDMA/LTE hardware installed)  It is not like T-Mobile can deploy 700Mhz A anytime soon...... by then Sprint can start marketing the shit of a brand new network with much more LTE POP coverage than T-Mobile 

 

Finally, we can all drive outside the city and will almost always get LTE    I really doubt you can say the same about T-Mobile by 2015 or even 2016.

Yeah… no, I was talking specifically about Sprint's G Block 5Mhz FDD LTE layer having very similar propagation characteristics to T-Mobile's AWS. That's what's taking really long with the NV strategy of deploying to every cell site. Also a decision to go Outide-In instead of Inside-Out really lowers the amount of pops that can actually experience LTE service. Considering the pace of Sprint's footprint expansion in G block, we could also understand why T-Mobile isn't interested to spend all their money on rural deployment without low band spectrum.

 

You're attempting to talk about SMR which is nowhere to be found where I am, but hopefully will and should be the very core of Sprint's LTE experience whenever that's fully deployed.

[TheForce627]

I think it's funny how you guys are always on T-Mobile talking about rural coverage and how much better sprint is when sprint barely has a rural footprint itself. Sprint needs to expand its footprint to be a real player in this country.

[anthony.spina97]

I think it's funny how you guys are always on T-Mobile talking about rural coverage and how much better sprint is when sprint barely has a rural footprint itself. Sprint needs to expand its footprint to be a real player in this country.

Wait... what? I just... what? I can't name a place, rural or not, that I haven't had a better Sprint 3G/LTE signal, or an Extended 3G signal, than my friends with T-Mobile. You go anywhere outside of the city limits and you're on EDGE or GPRS on a T-Mobile phone. I could almost drive from one side of the state to the other, through a ton of rural areas, and barely lose an LTE signal on Sprint, let alone a 3G signal. IF I lose signal, I at least get to roam with usable voice and data, rather than on T-Mobile where most of the time you are on Emergency Only.

 

I just... I can't even fathom how one would think that they could get mad at Sprint over T-Mobile about rural coverage.

 

-Anthony

[TheForce627]

Wait... what? I just... what? I can't name a place, rural or not, that I haven't had a better Sprint 3G/LTE signal, or an Extended 3G signal, than my friends with T-Mobile. You go anywhere outside of the city limits and you're on EDGE or GPRS on a T-Mobile phone. I could almost drive from one side of the state to the other, through a ton of rural areas, and barely lose an LTE signal on Sprint, let alone a 3G signal. IF I lose signal, I at least get to roam with usable voice and data, rather than on T-Mobile where most of the time you are on Emergency Only.

 

I just... I can't even fathom how one would think that they could get mad at Sprint over T-Mobile about rural coverage.

 

-Anthony

I'm just saying neither are good at rural coverage, just T-Mobile's is atrocious. Sprint isn't a godsend when it comes to rural coverage

[anthony.spina97]

I'm just saying neither are good at rural coverage, just T-Mobile's is atrocious. Sprint isn't a godsend when it comes to rural coverage

That sounds better haha. Sprint has great coverage on major highways in rural areas, but once you get too far from the highway, it'll most likely be off-network roaming, but I feel like that is better than EDGE/GPRS/Emergency Only.

 

-Anthony

[TheForce627]

That sounds better haha. Sprint has great coverage on major highways in rural areas, but once you get too far from the highway, it'll most likely be off-network roaming, but I feel like that is better than EDGE/GPRS/Emergency Only.

 

-Anthony

it may have sounded like I was being too critical of Sprint but I'm just tired of hearing about rural coverage on here when neither are great.

 

I would like to add I've been a sprint customer since 06 and I'm a shareholder, I'm not going anywhere.

[coorsleftfield]

Sprint used to roam to Verizon. Is that still true today.? I always had great rural coverage because my phone would roam on Verizon and I don't think anyone would argue that their rural coverage isn't the best of any carrier.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk