mozamcrew

I know, I'm running Mavericks on my laptop. I'm talking when they inevitably merge the two OSes. Does iOS have code names like OS X?

Maybe that will be the new naming convention for OSX/iOS, instead of big cats....

Not a fan of the Honeycrisp?

First thing that helps is that the antenna is outside, so it's going to be getting a better signal than in the house. Secondly, external antenna arrays are going to usually be better than the ones they have to cram into small devices.

Or swap it for PCS that in markets where they are PCS poor. They won't even need additional equipment to make use of it.

Exactly, In most places Sprint has enough spectrum to add additional band 25 and 41 LTE carriers, but there will only be one carrier in band 26. It needs to be reserved for those that simply can't get a decent band 25 or 41 signal.

What needs to happen is you need to be given the option, once you hit 100Mbyte limit, is either to disable roaming data, or agree to pay (at cost with no markup) whatever Sprint is being charged by the other carrier for the roaming data.

Well when you are comparing them to Windstream or (itTakesA)CenturyLink ....

On mine I can disable or enable bands, which I find useful if I am trying to map which sites are broadcasting band 26 or 41 ( I just temporarily disable the other two). If that's what you are trying to accomplish, then that's what you will need to do. As far as setting the "band priority", this setting only effects the order in which the device scans for those LTE bands. Once connected to the network, the network controls which band your device is on (assuming your device supports those bands and has them enabled and has a useable signal).

I really hate this behavior because it really assumes that the internet begins and ends with the web. What happens when an app or other program that isn't looking for a webpage sends out a DNS request and gets this Spammy site's IP instead of being told the requested domain doesn't exist.

I was thinking the plans would be somthing like this. $30 for unlimited talk and text - then you pick either $30 for unlimited without tethering, or $30 for 5GB (but you ARE allowed to tether, since you aren't unlimited). Then you have add on data buckets that you can add in 2Gb=$10 increments. If you are on unlimited, these are for tethering, but you could also use them to add to your 5GB limited bucket as well.

Sprint can't drop their per line costs that low. It would be a money losing proposition for them. The only thing they can afford to do is give you a larger data allotment than their competitors. They aren't going to come out with a plan that costs less than an ATT or VZW plan. What they will do is match that price but give you twice the data for that cost.

What would be nice on the individual plans is for them to give you the OPTION of either: 1. Unlimited talk/text/data, but you have to pay extra for tethering. (which is the current deal) 2. Unlimited talk/text and 5GB of data that you can use for however you'd like (wifi hotspot/tethering). and they would both be $60.

It's like an interest free loan. But I can see where the extra warranty some credit cards offer on electronics purchases may make just buying it upfront with your credit card (and then paying off the card immediately) worthwhile.

Wait, is the single band EVO better or worse than the new Triband Spark enabled devices? Are you complaring them to even older wimax devices?

I think USCC's customer base in Chicago is much different than it is in much of the rest of its territory.

You probably know this, but if you are in fact using the Evo 4G LTE, you won't be getting any of the band 41 Spark goodness.

I know everyone is all upset about new customers getting promotions that current customers don't get. I'm fine with them getting device discounts or waving the access fees for a year, as long as they aren't getting a better deal LONG-TERM. When you move to a new carrier and buy all new devices, you have to make a big upfront investment (especially now that we are getting away from phone subsidies). I'm fine with Sprint giving them a break for the first year or so, as long as they don't maintain that status in perpetuity.

I look forward to your well informed response oh wireless oracle... While I don't mind watching Legere squirm, lots of other CCA members also have block A spectrum that is impaired. So my shadenfreude is somewhat lessened by this realization.

Hence why TMUS is in such a hurry to buy up 700A. At least Sprint has that ESMR spectrum. Frankly, the FCC should just decide to clear everything ABOVE channel 38 and pay relocation costs to the broadcasters that have to move. Broadcasters who were given the spectrum for free shouldn't be able to turn around and "sell" it back to the FCC. The FCC should pay for relocation costs only. We'd get a uniform nationwide block of spectrum instead of being stuck with almost nothing in some markets and way more than we need in others, and we wouldn't have any issues with trying to develop a band plan around channel 37. That should give us AT LEAST 30x30 of useable spectrum. Frankly VZW and ATT don't need it in markets where they hold both a celluar license and 700Mhz spectrum. Sprint really need about 10Mhz everywhere (5x5) and other 10Mhz in places where they don't have a full 7x7 or more or 800 that they can actually use (SOLINK areas and the IBEZ mostly).

My only complaint is you have 5-6 different access fees depending upon the type of device, how big your data bucket is, and if you are a new or existing customer. That makes it a real mess to explain when you are trying to sell service.

Exactly. They can't afford anything crazy on the existing subs. Maybe some kind of loyalty credit on their next new device for people that have been around for more than a year or two? You can't afford a big hit with teaser pricing that isn't sustainable, but just a nice nod to existing customers would be nice.

OK, that makes sense. But waving the fee is only for a limited time, right. (Since they are going to be stuck with getting a pile of new phones and what-not). This might be the straw that gets me to bring my family over.

The way I read it, it's $100+$15+$15+$15+$15=$160 for Sprint, but you would get 20GB of data instead of 10GB. (Actually $28, when you include the limited time 2Gb/per line bonus. But I'm looking at the long term value proposition.) So they match ATT on price, but give you more data.

My education was in economics, so I see exactly what Sprint is TRYING to do here. Sprint knows they aren't going to beat the duopoly on the coverage map any time real soon, though the CAA/RRPP deal will at least make them more competitive. They also know they will lose a race to the bottom on price, since wireless has high fixed costs, and the big two have far more customers/higher margins and will win any war based on driving the cost per user into the ground. The advantage that NV gives them is that their marginal capacity costs are much lower. NV equipment is more efficient to operate and make adding additional carriers less costly and time consuming, plus the trove of 2.6 Ghz spectrum means they have the spectrum to throw at capacity trouble spots. Sprint's value proposition is obvious: For the people we DO cover, you will get more data for your money. Your bill won't be a lot lower for those of you that don't use a lot of data, but using more data won't cost you an arm and a leg. I think they have the idea right, I just think they've made the pricing structure overly complex and thus harder to explain and sell.