I feel dirty

[Richmc]

Was actually looking at Verizon plans and phones. I came to my senses before it was too late.

[shaunm82]

lol, I think most of use have been guilty of this. I was about 3 weeks ago or so, when I found out Sprint was changing the way they were billing. But after I got to looking at their plans, my jaw dropped. Just wasn't sensible for someone with 3 lines, all requiring data.

[legion125]

I've done the same thing. Although Sprint has been nickel & diming us to death the last year and a half, To get a comparable Verizon plan would cost me $70+ more per month. If I cut the hours to their basic plan with the add-on's I'm in $10-15 more range.

 

Then I take a shower and feel better.

[BenChase7]

lol, I think most of use have been guilty of this. I was about 3 weeks ago or so, when I found out Sprint was changing the way they were billing. But after I got to looking at their plans, my jaw dropped. Just wasn't sensible for someone with 3 lines, all requiring data.

 

I'm on the same boat, with 3 lines. At Sprint I pay $180 for 3 lines, all of which are Android SmartPhones. That includes all taxes, fees, and even insurance on one of the lines. (I do get an employer discount, but most do these days.) Nobody can beat Sprints price, not to mention, I'd pry incur occasional data overages with any other carrier, making them cost even more.. I think the 2GB cap the other carriers are using is very weak. Sprints a home run as far as I'm concerned, and if Network Vision plays out the way its looking, its gonna be a grand slam.

[tybo31316]

I actually ported my number to VZW because of coverage issues in a certain set of buildings where I work and my VZW service was unusable at the same location(voice, text, and data) where my sprint phone had issues. But with sprint I still receive calls and send texts but the data is unusable with sprint.

I ported back to sprint 2 days later.

Edited March 2, 2012 by tybo31316

[themuffinman]

Same experience here as well. Every time I get frustrated with sprint I start looking at at&t and verizon. After a few clicks on their respective websites, reality smacks the hell out of me and then I realize that its hard to beat sprints value. Data sucks but fortunately I have wifi available just about every where I go. I only have two lines(with 25% corporate discount) but with how those two lines are used my bill will increase by at least $85 a month if I switch to either carrier, that a lot of money.

[pyroscott]

My bill with sprint after they "streamlined" my billing with my discount was $201. My monthly bill with Verizon with 4gb data per line is $206. Same amount of minutes and 3 Android phones with insurance. Not to mention I can now use my phone at work and I have LTE. I miss sprint's awesome customer service, knowledgeable sales reps at the corporate store and unlimited data, but they left me no choice. My data was unusable other than rural areas and on Wi-Fi and I was roaming on Verizon's network at work. Hopefully I can go back to sprint in 2 years because I loathe everything Verizon except the network.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

OK...I've done it too. I was a little antsy when Verizon LTE first went live in my front yard back in October. But I've gotten over myself now.

[S4GRU]

My bill with sprint after they "streamlined" my billing with my discount was $201. My monthly bill with Verizon with 4gb data per line is $206. Same amount of minutes and 3 Android phones with insurance. Not to mention I can now use my phone at work and I have LTE. I miss sprint's awesome customer service, knowledgeable sales reps at the corporate store and unlimited data, but they left me no choice. My data was unusable other than rural areas and on Wi-Fi and I was roaming on Verizon's network at work. Hopefully I can go back to sprint in 2 years because I loathe everything Verizon except the network.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

I always price the 5GB plan on Verizon. And after 4 lines, that adds up. And makes Sprint an extreme value for me.

[pyroscott]

 

I always price the 5GB plan on Verizon. And after 4 lines, that adds up. And makes Sprint an extreme value for me.

 

Yeah. I almost went with the 5gb plan which doubled to 10. I didn't want to spend the $20 per month when I used between 1 and 3 gb per month on sprint with unlimited data.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[Duffman]

I have no problem with folks leaving Sprint when they have abysmal service. I wish Sprint would systematically comp people on areas like Fort Wayne, IN that have struggled with unacceptably high voice and data block rates and capacity issues for months and months.

 

Either Sprint makes its network work or it is out of business in two years... IMO.

[WiWavelength]

I wish Sprint would systematically comp people on areas like Fort Wayne, IN that have struggled with unacceptably high voice and data block rates and capacity issues for months and months.

 

Fort Wayne likely will not get any better without additional spectrum because Fort Wayne is a PCS D block 10 MHz single license market. Sprint has probably deployed two 1X carriers and one EV-DO carrier, and that is all that 10 MHz can accommodate. Sprint has done a good job of shoring up other 10 MHz single PCS license markets (e.g. Albuquerque, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, Peoria, etc.) with spectrum swaps and later auction winnings. But Fort Wayne is not included and remains highly spectrum constrained.

 

AJ

[ericdabbs]

Guilty as charge. I thought about leaving Sprint last year when I heard the Droid Bionic was coming out around May 2011. Since it got delayed until Sept 2011 and unlimited data ended in July 2011, I ended up sticking with Sprint. Since I was on the SERO plan, I had to research a lot on why I should stay with Sprint with their horrendous 3G speeds and as a result I learned a lot about Network Vision and about the trends in wireless technology.

 

If Network Vision pans out like Sprint is hyping it up to be, then I don't regret my decision at all since I wouldn't be here with this community and not to mention all the spectrum jargon that I have picked up from reading forums. From time to time, I'll look at Verizon plans still because I never want to say I wouldn't consider moving onto another provider so I want to see what it would cost me if I did.

[WiWavelength]

I probably can say this in this forum, but I view switching to VZW or AT&T as "sleeping with the enemy." Doing so just gives the duopoly the mandate that comes from greater and greater market share. They lure us all in. Once they do, they can get away with almost anything because most/all the other choices will be no longer. And we will have none to blame more than ourselves, for we gave them the market power to do whatever they want.

 

AJ

[Duffman]

Fort Wayne likely will not get any better without additional spectrum because Fort Wayne is a PCS D block 10 MHz single license market. Sprint has probably deployed two 1X carriers and one EV-DO carrier, and that is all that 10 MHz can accommodate. Sprint has done a good job of shoring up other 10 MHz single PCS license markets (e.g. Albuquerque, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, Peoria, etc.) with spectrum swaps and later auction winnings. But Fort Wayne is not included and remains highly spectrum constrained.

 

AJ

 

Oh, man. That's rough for them. I suppose all Sprint can do is get as many Airaves out there as possible to get some of the load off the towers. I have no idea, All I know is that I am fielding calls from there and all I can do is let them know about the backhaul improvements scheduled for the next 90 days.

[pyroscott]

I probably can say this in this forum, but I view switching to VZW or AT&T as "sleeping with the enemy." Doing so just gives the duopoly the mandate that comes from greater and greater market share. They lure us all in. Once they do, they can get away with almost anything because most/all the other choices will be no longer. And we will have none to blame more than ourselves, for we gave them the market power to do whatever they want.

 

AJ

I agree but when my smartphone becomes a dumbphone everywhere but on Wi-Fi, I'm finding a carrier that works. When it comes to business, you either sink or swim. If you stop treading water, you're going to sink. Sprint stopped treading water in my town. They can either drown, or get back above water and compete again. If it was even close, I would still be with sprint, but they are so far behind ALL the other carriers here, I can't justify paying them good money for a garbage connection.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

I agree but when my smartphone becomes a dumbphone everywhere but on Wi-Fi, I'm finding a carrier that works. When it comes to business, you either sink or swim. If you stop treading water, you're going to sink. Sprint stopped treading water in my town. They can either drown, or get back above water and compete again. If it was even close, I would still be with sprint, but they are so far behind ALL the other carriers here, I can't justify paying them good money for a garbage connection.

 

I understand your predicament, and I sympathize with it. But I also hope that you recognize your role in the dynamic.

 

When you give up on the competition and sign up with one of the dominant players, you -- at least implicitly -- endorse the status quo, as well as any further anti consumer policies that the oligopolists may then gain enough market power to impose, or you hope/expect that the electorate will step in and enact regulations to stem corporate practices that run counter to the public interest.

 

With VZW and AT&T the helm, we are heading toward a wireless broadband duopoly as bad as, if not even more dysfunctional than the current wired broadband duopoly present in most markets. If you are okay with that in exchange for better wireless service, then you have made your rational choice. I may not necessarily agree with it, but I can understand it.

 

AJ

[themuffinman]

I understand your predicament, and I sympathize with it. But I also hope that you recognize your role in the dynamic.

 

When you give up on the competition and sign up with one of the dominant players, you -- at least implicitly -- endorse the status quo, as well as any further anti consumer policies that the oligopolists may then gain enough market power to impose, or you hope/expect that the electorate will step in and enact regulations to stem corporate practices that run counter to the public interest.

 

With VZW and AT&T the helm, we are heading toward a wireless broadband duopoly as bad as, if not even more dysfunctional than the current wired broadband duopoly present in most markets. If you are okay with that in exchange for better wireless service, then you have made your rational choice. I may not necessarily agree with it, but I can understand it.

 

AJ

 

Well, I will have to respectfully disagree with what you said. In this day and age people want reliability and consistent quality service. We live in a world where cell/smart phones are relied upon now more so than ever before and if sprint is having issues with being competitive then who's fault is that and why should the customer pay for it? I have been with sprint for over 10 years and lets face it, they have made some very bone headed decisions over the years and the reason why they are in the situation that they are in right now is solely based on their own mistakes. That is no fault of verizon or at&t, they are a business(for profit after all) just like sprint and they have made decisions that put them in a position to be #1 and #2 in the industry. As a consumer and a business man my decisions are based on how it affects me and my family and not how it affects sprint.

[Duffman]

May I just say that you both presented very rational points in a civil manner. Thank you.

[MacinJosh]

With VZW and AT&T the helm, we are heading toward a wireless broadband duopoly as bad as, if not even more dysfunctional than the current wired broadband duopoly present in most markets. If you are okay with that in exchange for better wireless service, then you have made your rational choice. I may not necessarily agree with it, but I can understand it.

 

AJ

 

Wired broadband duopoly? Who are the 2 players in that? I know that 3 baby bells still technically exist since CenturyLink owns one of them, and I thought that they are a relatively large player still in the telecommunications market.

[S4GRU]

May I just say that you both presented very rational points in a civil manner. Thank you.

 

Not only that, they both are correct. These are not really conflicting thoughts. We cannot give too much power to ATT and Verizon or we all will suffer in a few years. And on the other hand, people have to make choices in wireless based on their needs. And Sprint is losing some good amounts of these customers in the short term.

 

Network Vision better be all the things its supposed to be. That's all I'm saying. It will allow us who want to continue to give a big middle finger to the duopoly a place to be.

 

Posted via Forum Runner

[Duffman]

Honestly, I am polishing my resume in case NV does not become a reality.... Because I believe it will be the end of Sprint.

[pyroscott]

 

Not only that, they both are correct. These are not really conflicting thoughts. We cannot give too much power to ATT and Verizon or we all will suffer in a few years. And on the other hand, people have to make choices in wireless based on their needs. And Sprint is losing some good amounts of these customers in the short term.

 

Network Vision better be all the things its supposed to be. That's all I'm saying. It will allow us who want to continue to give a big middle finger to the duopoly a place to be.

 

Posted via Forum Runner

I'm all for giving big business a big middle finger.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Wired broadband duopoly? Who are the 2 players in that? I know that 3 baby bells still technically exist since CenturyLink owns one of them, and I thought that they are a relatively large player still in the telecommunications market.

 

The wired broadband duopoly/oligopoly is local to each market. It does not matter a whit that there may still be dozens or even hundreds of wired broadband providers (e.g. Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, VZ, AT&T, CenturyLink, etc.) around the country.

1. Wired broadband does not travel with you; it is tied to a specific location.
   
2. Many options are mutually exclusive -- for example, if you have the option of Comcast, then you do not have the option of Time Warner.
   

Thus, from a competition standpoint, what matters is the number of choices that you have at a specific location. And, for most, that tends to be two choices: one cable, one telco.

 

At my house, I do have exactly two choices: Knology (cable) and AT&T (telco). As I like to say, I get a tough choice "between a rock and a hard place." I begrudgingly choose Knology because it offers 10M/512k DOCSIS 2.0 service but with a 50 GB/mo quota, and I pay $47/mo for that privilege. I would pay only $36/mo, but Knology tacks on an unscrupulous "cable transport fee" (which is really just a protectionist, non bundling penalty) of $10/mo because I do not subscribe to its cable TV or digital phone services.

 

My other option is AT&T, but it is a non option for multiple reasons.

1. U-verse is not available at my address; my only choice is standard DSL.
   
2. The price is low at $20/mo but so is the DSL rate at 3M/512k; higher speeds are not available on my wireline.
   
3. Even if AT&T offered U-verse at my address and a low price, I refuse to do business with such an unethical, anti consumer company.
   

So, there is the wired broadband duopoly for you. It is patently ridiculous, almost criminal that we have allowed such a dysfunctional "free market" to dominate our wired broadband service. We traded away competition and consumer choice so that cable companies and telcos would have incentive to roll out wired broadband services quickly and widely. Yet, now, even though they face minimal competition, cable and telco want to reduce competition further through collusion (see the VZW-SpectrumCo cross marketing arrangements between VZ and Comcast and the end of FiOS).

 

Other countries are laughing at us that we sold ourselves to capitalism and got inferior broadband infrastructure in return. Big Cable, the Baby Bells, and their shareholders, too, are also laughing at us -- laughing all the way to the bank. What a joke.

 

AJ

[MacinJosh]

 

The wired broadband duopoly/oligopoly is local to each market. It does not matter a whit that there may still be dozens or even hundreds of wired broadband providers (e.g. Comcast' date=' Time Warner, Cox, VZ, AT&T, CenturyLink, etc.) around the country.

[*']Wired broadband does not travel with you; it is tied to a specific location.

[*]Many options are mutually exclusive -- for example, if you have the option of Comcast, then you do not have the option of Time Warner.

 

Thus, from a competition standpoint, what matters is the number of choices that you have at a specific location. And, for most, that tends to be two choices: one cable, one telco.

 

At my house, I do have exactly two choices: Knology (cable) and AT&T (telco). As I like to say, I get a tough choice "between a rock and a hard place." I begrudgingly choose Knology because it offers 10M/512k DOCSIS 2.0 service but with a 50 GB/mo quota, and I pay 47/mo for that privilege. I would pay only 36/mo, but Knology tacks on an unscrupulous "cable transport fee" (which is really just a protectionist, non bundling penalty) of 10/mo because I do not subscribe to its cable TV or digital phone services.

 

My other option is AT&T, but it is a non option for multiple reasons.

[*]U-verse is not available at my address; my only choice is standard DSL.

[*]The price is low at 20/mo but so is the DSL rate at 3M/512k; higher speeds are not available on my wireline.

[*]Even if AT&T offered U-verse at my address and a low price, I refuse to do business with such an unethical, anti consumer company.

 

So, there is the wired broadband duopoly for you. It is patently ridiculous, almost criminal that we have allowed such a dysfunctional "free market" to dominate our wired broadband service. We traded away competition and consumer choice so that cable companies and telcos would have incentive to roll out wired broadband services quickly and widely. Yet, now, even though they face minimal competition, cable and telco want to reduce competition further through collusion (see the VZW-SpectrumCo cross marketing arrangements between VZ and Comcast and the end of FiOS).

 

Other countries are laughing at us that we sold ourselves to capitalism and got inferior broadband infrastructure in return. Big Cable, the Baby Bells, and their shareholders, too, are also laughing at us -- laughing all the way to the bank. What a joke.

 

AJ

 

well then in Pahrump it is a duopoly that really would be considered a monopoly because our local cable provider won't expand what they feel like and at&t refuses to upgrade my neighborhood's copper to modern standards so we can have dsl at least while 1 mile from where i live is a fiber line.

 

Sent from Joshs Evo Shift 4G using Forum Runner