How good/bad is NV, really?

[koiulpoi]

Ya wifi isn't an issue.

 

I live in Parker, Douglas Country (80134). I work all around Denver, primarily Englewood, Aurora, and occasionally around Colorado Blvd.

 

Usual night outs and dinner are around Parker or the Park Meadows area. Rarely anything downtown Denver or north.

 

Sent from me phone

Here, check this:

 

http://www.clear.com/coverage

 

That's Clear's coverage map, for 4G WiMAX. I'm estimating here, but I'd say add 10-20% of all the dark green areas when considering LTE instead of WiMAX. Clear is, it looks like, using the same towers as before for their new 4G LTE on 2600. You can actually see where they placed their towers if you zoom in enough. Anyway, looks like the Parker area is outside (just barely) from where you'd expect to pick that up.

 

Looks like Aurora, Englewood, and Colorado Blvd (pretty much the entire Denver area) are completely covered already by 2600. The Park Meadows/Fort Collins area looks like it might be covered, as sites are much more sparse there.

 

Again, this is just for the superfast 2600 MHz frequency. As it looks like (just judging from the coverage map) that Sprint proper has some very decent spacing across Denver, once the 1900 MHz rollout kicks into gear, you should have great coverage that way as well.

 

Basically, Denver already has great coverage (for upcoming devices), and it's only going to get better from here. It honestly looks like a great network to be in for Sprint, for the near future.

[WiWavelength]

Aw, c'mon. Some people just like to round up on time. A guy I used to work with would look at the clock and see 4:15, and go "It's 5 o'clock! Almost time to go!"

 

"sed to work with" might be the key phrase.  Where is he now?  I bet that guy never met a day of work that he liked.  I bet he celebrated both 4:20 and beer thirty.

 

 

AJ

[nobius]

Im personally not impressed with NV here in Houston. We should be one of the markets farthest along but I am not impressed with the speeds here. Within the last week or so I have picked up some CDMA on 800Mhz which is encouraging but overall I think the backhaul is a huge problem for Sprint. Even the towers that I connect to which have LTE are 3-5Mbps usually when I have ran speedtests, not anything to write home about.

What part of Houston? I track the acceptance reports there and have gotten 10-15MB down depending on area.

[money69]

What part of Houston? I track the acceptance reports there and have gotten 10-15MB down depending on area.

Ran a speed test about 2 weeks at a sitting across from the tower at fondren and bissonnet, got like 2mbps, last December to give you an example when I joined sprint I from the tower near my house (off braeswood and 610) I would pull 7mbps or so, now I get like 3. The speeds are just horrible for LTE and I am NOT one to get hung up on speed tests.

 

Today for example, I ate at a restaurant that I was at a week ago or so. In that time they lit up 800smr and I had a useable LTE signal, which obviously is great however I ran a speed test and got 200kbps as a result. I'm basically waiting until after the new year for my etf to drop some and then I'm going to leave unless there are drastic changes in the next couple months.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[bucdenny]

Ran a speed test about 2 weeks at a sitting across from the tower at fondren and bissonnet, got like 2mbps, last December to give you an example when I joined sprint I from the tower near my house (off braeswood and 610) I would pull 7mbps or so, now I get like 3. The speeds are just horrible for LTE and I am NOT one to get hung up on speed tests.

 

Today for example, I ate at a restaurant that I was at a week ago or so. In that time they lit up 800smr and I had a useable LTE signal, which obviously is great however I ran a speed test and got 200kbps as a result. I'm basically waiting until after the new year for my etf to drop some and then I'm going to leave unless there are drastic changes in the next couple months.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

Post a screen shot of SignalCheck, sounds like your getting a pretty weak LTE signal?  I have seen under 1Mbps with borderline LTE signals.

[jamesinclair]

 You've never been paying for "4G", that's just what dumb CS reps say.  It's a premium data charge.  Every carrier charges it now.  It just happened to come about around the same time that 4G Wimax was coming out, so people thought it was for 4G.

 

False, it was called a 4G data charge and ONLY charged to wimax phones.

 

Sprint really dropped the ball with that move, terrible PR.

[SF SOMA]

"But if you want data that will stream video/music consistently NV is making that happen in the markets I have traveled to ( San Diego, la, San Francisco) now hopeful Phoenix can get going."

 

I live in San Francisco (South of Market) and work a few blocks away in the financial district.  During work hours data speeds are pretty abysmal.  Better in SOMA than the financial district.  I can stream music 80% of the time and cannot stream video at all.  I ran speed tests and many times I get a "null?" error message or something like that.  On good days during the day I'll get 300k.  At night in SOMA when I don't need it, I get easily 20mb down.  I could care less about top speed (although I have an ATT ipad and am sometimes blown away by the network).  I just want to be able to stream my MLB tv when I'm working late hours, even if it were to be choppy and fuzzy.  

 

I have been with Sprint since March and am rooting for them.  I think they will be strong in the long run.  However, if I find their data speeds to still be unusable, I will likely try TM when the new iPhone comes out and eat the ETF (ouch).  Right now my phone is just paper weight at work.  Of note, I heard TM data can be abysmal as well so we'll see.  

 

PS - I just set up an account but have been watching this site for a few weeks.  Although I don't understand all the nomenclature that's tossed around I do find this site to be useful.  Thanks.

[lazydog]

False, it was called a 4G data charge and ONLY charged to wimax phones.

 

Sprint really dropped the ball with that move, terrible PR.

 

 

Sprint has always been careful to never call it a 4G data charge. 

 

Article from 2010 when ithe fee was first announced along with the evo 4g: http://blog.laptopmag.com/sprint-clarifies-required-10-premium-data-charge-on-evo-4g

[Thomas L.]

Sprint has always been careful to never call it a 4G data charge.

 

Article from 2010 when ithe fee was first announced along with the evo 4g: http://blog.laptopmag.com/sprint-clarifies-required-10-premium-data-charge-on-evo-4g

 

Sprint DID refer to it as a 4G data charge, pissing off legions of customers who were paying a 4G data charge even though they had no 4G coverage. I think it caused huge headaches for Sprint's CS having to explain why the 4G data charge was there when 4G coverage wasn't. If I remember to look tomorrow I'll try to find one of my old bills that used that terminology. They were eventually forced to change the name of the fee to a premium data surcharge and then a smartphone surcharge when they couldn't deliver 4G and needed to stop pissing off customers. That allowed them to say the fee was because smartphones use more data so they could save some face. I remember all this very clearly.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[Thomas L.]

If this isn't in the proper forum, mods please feel free to move it.

 

I'm not trolling or attempting to cause issue, I'm wanting the honest hard truth in regards to NV.

 

I live in the Suburbs of Denver. Without say, I don't have 4g. Nor have I had it for the 2 years I've paid the premium. My contract is soon up and I want some real world answers, and not from a CS rep to tell me what I want to hear.

 

I've learned from this site that there is indeed some service getting lite up around Denver. What I'm wanting to know from those with experience, how much longer can I anticipate that a great deal of Denver is NV strong? Two months, six, another year? I'm just looking for some answers.

 

My wife and I have been with Sprint for 13 years. I don't want to change, but I want good data speeds as well.

 

Also, for those living in completed NV areas, how is the service? Assuming we wait out completion, is it what it's being touted as?

 

Sent from me phone

There are only a couple areas that are fully rolled out: the test markets (FITs) where Sprint did their deployment testing, and Chicago, which is pretty damn close. According to our reigning administrator Robert, in the FITs NV is everything they said it would be. Maybe some of the Chicago-ens on the site will want to chime in, but it's my understanding that Chicago offers a pretty great user experience too. Your area will be covered, and as others have said, Denver is pretty well covered already with 2600 LTE, which will be supported by new Sprint smartphones starting with the LG G2 coming out next month. Your experience should be getting better, and fairly quickly. If you get a triband phone I believe you would see some massive improvements in your market immediately.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[Thomas L.]

"But if you want data that will stream video/music consistently NV is making that happen in the markets I have traveled to ( San Diego, la, San Francisco) now hopeful Phoenix can get going."

 

I live in San Francisco (South of Market) and work a few blocks away in the financial district. During work hours data speeds are pretty abysmal. Better in SOMA than the financial district. I can stream music 80% of the time and cannot stream video at all. I ran speed tests and many times I get a "null?" error message or something like that. On good days during the day I'll get 300k. At night in SOMA when I don't need it, I get easily 20mb down. I could care less about top speed (although I have an ATT ipad and am sometimes blown away by the network). I just want to be able to stream my MLB tv when I'm working late hours, even if it were to be choppy and fuzzy.

 

I have been with Sprint since March and am rooting for them. I think they will be strong in the long run. However, if I find their data speeds to still be unusable, I will likely try TM when the new iPhone comes out and eat the ETF (ouch). Right now my phone is just paper weight at work. Of note, I heard TM data can be abysmal as well so we'll see.

 

PS - I just set up an account but have been watching this site for a few weeks. Although I don't understand all the nomenclature that's tossed around I do find this site to be useful. Thanks.

I would love to hear Robert and AJ respond to this - I would like to know what Sprint can do in situations like this where LTE is deployed in a particular area but speeds are already abysmal because of capacity issues. The financial district in SF is one of the harshest for all the carriers just because usage is so high there, but I should think Sprint could do something, add another carrier maybe, to prevent their shiny new network from already becoming overloaded and unusable.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[lazydog]

Sprint DID refer to it as a 4G data charge, pissing off legions of customers who were paying a 4G data charge even though they had no 4G coverage. I think it caused huge headaches for Sprint's CS having to explain why the 4G data charge was there when 4G coverage wasn't. If I remember to look tomorrow I'll try to find one of my old bills that used that terminology. They were eventually forced to change the name of the fee to a premium data surcharge and then a smartphone surcharge when they couldn't deliver 4G and needed to stop pissing off customers. That allowed them to say the fee was because smartphones use more data so they could save some face. I remember all this very clearly.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Yeah, I'd like to see where Sprint ever called it a 4G fee.

 

There's plenty of news stories about the fee from May of 2010. The Evo wasn't released until June that year.

Sprint was calling it a "premium data" charge a month before they sold the first phone that required it.

[centermedic]

Sprint DID refer to it as a 4G data charge, pissing off legions of customers who were paying a 4G data charge even though they had no 4G coverage. I think it caused huge headaches for Sprint's CS having to explain why the 4G data charge was there when 4G coverage wasn't. If I remember to look tomorrow I'll try to find one of my old bills that used that terminology. They were eventually forced to change the name of the fee to a premium data surcharge and then a smartphone surcharge when they couldn't deliver 4G and needed to stop pissing off customers. That allowed them to say the fee was because smartphones use more data so they could save some face. I remember all this very clearly.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

IIRC it was called a premium data charge. People only assumed it was a 4G charge.

[The Dave]

When I first got my Evo, Sprint charged me a "4G data charge". We didn't have wimax yet and I did argue why I was forced to pay for a service they said wouldn't be available in a year. A few months later they did change the name to "premium data charge". The problem is, Sprint won't admit they did refer to it as a 4G charge, so people to this day get confused on this point.

 

Now, I cannot speak for LTE since I have a wimax phone, but 3G has been everything I thought it should be back when it first came out. I get pings in the 60-90 ms range and speeds up to 2.5 mbps at times. It is truly faster than my wimax 4G speeds and more consistent. I am not sure about the 20% increase in range, but I do get much better signal in some places. I live in a stucco house wrapped in metal wire with double glazed low e windows and get a full 6 bars. Pretty impressive if you ask me.

[WiWavelength]

False, it was called a 4G data charge and ONLY charged to wimax phones.

 

Sprint really dropped the ball with that move, terrible PR.

 

Of course, Sprint "really dropped the ball" because you never have anything positive to say.  You are here just to rail against Sprint.  Give it a rest or take it elsewhere.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

Whether it was ever deemed a "4G data" fee instead of a "premium data" fee is irrelevant.  The fee was still justifiable.  These are mobile devices -- anyone who did not live in a WiMAX market could still travel to a WiMAX market.  The key was potential usage, not actual usage.

 

For a parallel, if on my account I have a premium service, such as mobile hotspot, but I never use it, I still pay for it.  The same is/was true of WiMAX and the whatever you want to call it fee.

 

AJ

[snowmobiler487]

When I first got my Evo, Sprint charged me a "4G data charge". We didn't have wimax yet and I did argue why I was forced to pay for a service they said wouldn't be available in a year. A few months later they did change the name to "premium data charge". The problem is, Sprint won't admit they did refer to it as a 4G charge, so people to this day get confused on this point.

 

 

I remember the "4G charge" as well.  I purposly avoided the 4G smartphones at the time because I didn't want to commit to paying an extra $240 for 2 years for the 4G that they told me the charge was for (which never officially came to Green Bay where I lived at the time)

[WiWavelength]

I would love to hear Robert and AJ respond to this - I would like to know what Sprint can do in situations like this where LTE is deployed in a particular area but speeds are already abysmal because of capacity issues. The financial district in SF is one of the harshest for all the carriers just because usage is so high there, but I should think Sprint could do something, add another carrier maybe, to prevent their shiny new network from already becoming overloaded and unusable.

 

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose proper is only a 20 MHz PCS A block market for Sprint, as it partitioned and disaggregated 10 MHz away a decade ago.  So, no, a second LTE 1900 carrier is not an option anytime soon.  That would take out of service four CDMA2000 carrier channel assignments, leaving only three possible carrier channels.

 

The only relief will come from the 5 MHz FDD LTE 800 carrier and the 20 MHz TDD TD-LTE 2600 carrier.  Of course, only tri band devices will be able to utilize those additional carriers.  To be perfectly honest, some areas -- such as stadiums and arenas, possibly financial districts, too -- may be lost causes.  Too many people, and people use too much mobile data.

 

AJ

[rp3]

Whether it was ever deemed a "4G data" fee instead of a "premium data" fee is irrelevant. The fee was still justifiable. These are mobile devices -- anyone who did not live in a WiMAX market could still travel to a WiMAX market. The key was potential usage, not actual usage.

 

For a parallel, if on my account I have a premium service, such as mobile hotspot, but I never use it, I still pay for it. The same is/was true of WiMAX and the whatever you want to call it fee.

 

AJ

There is a problem with that parallel. If you turned on your hotspot and it did not work, who would you be calling?

So if in the beginning it was a 4g charge, you turned it on and it did not work, you would be calling to complain.

If you have a premium service that you are paying for it should be working. If not your wasting your money. Not that I really care though. Sprint was still cheaper with the charge than others.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Craig]

Ya wifi isn't an issue.

 

I live in Parker, Douglas Country (80134). I work all around Denver, primarily Englewood, Aurora, and occasionally around Colorado Blvd.

 

Usual night outs and dinner are around Parker or the Park Meadows area. Rarely anything downtown Denver or north.

 

Sent from me phone

 

From my travels around the country, LTE is going to be more than sufficient in the Denver area, especially once the tri-band handsets come out this fall. The only place I have issues with LTE are in very, very large markets, or in very marginal signal areas (either strength or quality of signal). What I've seen from the LTE in the Denver area is very impressive. When they first turned on the tower near 88th and Pena, I got 38 up/22 down - while mobile about a mile from the tower. You'll be sorry if you leave Sprint. Like most consumers these days, I really don't have much brand loyalty. I've been with Sprint for 14 years, mostly because they were cheaper than the other national players and I never had the service issues others had over the years. Now, though, I am starting to become a huge champion of Sprint. They have the spectrum assets and financial backing to make themselves extremely competitive with VZ, AT&T and T-Mo in the coming years. And they will continue to offer unlimited data at a nice discount to the big two. 

My take on it, anyway.

 

 

I live in San Francisco (South of Market) and work a few blocks away in the financial district.  During work hours data speeds are pretty abysmal.  Better in SOMA than the financial district.  I can stream music 80% of the time and cannot stream video at all.  I ran speed tests and many times I get a "null?" error message or something like that.  On good days during the day I'll get 300k.  At night in SOMA when I don't need it, I get easily 20mb down.  I could care less about top speed (although I have an ATT ipad and am sometimes blown away by the network).  I just want to be able to stream my MLB tv when I'm working late hours, even if it were to be choppy and fuzzy.  

 

 

I don't know if someone mentioned it, but what is your signal strength on LTE? Also, any of your friends have VZ phones that try to use data at the same times that you are getting very slow speeds? People seem to think that simply jumping carriers will fix a problem whose root cause is more than likely the very large number of users in a very small geographical area connecting to a limited number of towers with a limited amount of backhaul. In areas like that, it's going to the be the same experience on what ever carrier you go with. Despite what they may want you to believe, Verizon CAN'T alter the basic laws of physics. Tri-band phones paired with spectrum assets and back haul that be scaled up as demand grows are your best best. All of which Sprint has in its tool belt. 

[WiWavelength]

There is a problem with that parallel. If you turned on your hotspot and it did not work, who would you be calling?

So if in the beginning it was a 4g charge, you turned it on and it did not work, you would be calling to complain.

If you have a premium service that you are paying for it should be working. If not your wasting your money.

 

No, it is not a perfect parallel, but it is highly appropriate.

 

Say that I choose to add a premium service to my account.  It does not work at home, but it does when I travel 50 miles up the road to Capital City.  Should I not have to pay for it?

 

AJ

[koiulpoi]

I go to sleep, and this is what happens.

 

People are still upset over the "premium data addon"? It's been around for three years, guys, and on every single smartphone for almost all of it. It's really a "get over it" kind of deal, because it's over and done with. It's rolled in to the current plans and pricing already. A single unlimited data line on Everything, My Way is $80. Everyone who started with Sprint in the last 2.5 years has been paying it and many have actually been confused as to why it's not just part of the plan in general.

 

It may have at one time been called a "4G Charge" or something similar. But it wasn't for very long - not longer than 1-2 months, if that. And Sprint was upfront with informing people of the pricing difference. And soon after it became the "generic smartphone charge" (January 30th, 2011 according to news stories from the time). So, you've been paying it on every phone for more than an entire contract cycle for a family plan. This conversation should have been over and done with long ago, as everyone else is on to new things. If it was a problem, action should have been taken in those two years. 2013 is a little late to still care.

[The Dave]

I am not arguing that Sprint wasn't justified in charging for a smart phone's share of data. But, when I was upgrading from my 3G only Samsung Moment, the rep clearly stated if I got the Evo, I would pay the $10 4G premium but if I got a non 4G smart phone, I would keep my current bill. Because of that, Sprint specifically designed it to be exclusively a 4G add on. Later on, they made it more broad by calling it a premium data add on and charging it to everyone. Since Sprint reps now deny it is a 4G charge causes the confusion and bitter feelings since customers during that time frame were honestly told it was for 4G but now everyone insists they must be mistaken.

[Craig]

^^^ That. Plus, it's not on topic.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

Edit- ^^^ referring to koiulpoi's post.

 

[The Dave]

^^^ That. Plus, it's not on topic.Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Not trying to argue, but technically the original poster said he was hoping not to pay for a service he wasn't receiving. That 4G charge was the reason why it caused a rift for a period of time that some still cling to in non 4G markets saying they have been paying for 4G that wasn't delivered to their market.