halcyoncmdr

Can I just say this is an insane recommendation coming from a representative of the company? She couldn't put a note on the account or something?

This is actually a violation of the terms and conditions of service now...

Prohibited Network Uses. To ensure the activities of some users do not impair the ability of our customers to have access to reliable services provided at reasonable costs, you may not use our services in a manner that is unlawful, infringes on intellectual property rights, or harms or unduly interferes with the use of Sprint's network or systems. Sprint reserves the right, without notice or limitation, to limit data throughput speeds or quantities or to deny, terminate, end, modify, disconnect, or suspend service if an individual engages in any of the prohibited voice or data uses detailed below or if Sprint, in its sole discretion, determines action is necessary to protect its wireless networks from harm or degradation. Examples of prohibited voice uses: Sprint voice services are provided solely for live dialogue between, and initiated by, individuals for personal use and as otherwise described in this policy. Sprint services may not be used for any other purposes, including, but not limited to: monitoring services, transmission of broadcasts, transmission of recorded material, telemarketing, autodialed calls, other commercial uses, or other connections that do not consist of uninterrupted live dialogue between individuals. Examples of prohibited data uses: Sprint data services are provided solely for purposes of web surfing, sending and receiving email, photographs and other similar messaging activities, and the non-continuous streaming of videos, downloading of files or on line gaming. Our data services may not be used: (i) to generate excessive amounts of Internet traffic through the continuous, unattended streaming, downloading or uploading of videos or other files or to operate hosting services including, but not limited to, web or gaming hosting; (ii) to maintain continuous active network connections to the Internet such as through a web camera or machine-to-machine connections that do not involve active participation by a person; (iii) to disrupt email use by others using automated or manual routines, including, but not limited to "auto-responders" or cancel bots or other similar routines; (iv) to transmit or facilitate any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, telemarketing, promotional materials, "junk mail", unsolicited commercial or bulk email, or fax; (v) for activities adversely affecting the ability of other people or systems to use either Sprint's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including, but not limited to, "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) for an activity that connects any device to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for the purpose of transmitting wireless data over the network (unless customer is using a plan designated for such usage); or (vi) for any other reason that, in our sole discretion violates our policy of providing service for individual use. Unlimited Use Plans. If you subscribe to rate plans, services or features that are described as unlimited, you should be aware that such "unlimited" plans are subject to these Sprint Prohibited Network Uses.

http://shop2.sprint.com/en/legal/legal_terms_privacy_popup.shtml 

I have no qualms with AlcaLu being the vendor for my market. What I find very interesting is that for one reason or another, Sprint deemed AlcaLu worthy of being brought back for the Spark deployment unlike Ericsson... 

Perhaps Ericsson has so much on their plate currently that they didn't bid... or NSN had a better offer... or Sprint isn't happy with how Ericsson handled the network maintenance agreement in addition to NV deployment and has chosen to avoid them this round... At this point we just don't know.

I took a look at both the satellite and street views of this salon.  It is clearly located in a lower socioeconomic neighborhood.  My supposition is that the owner expects a payout from the government, GE, or AT&T.

 

AJ

Perhaps the FCC just needs to tell him it needs to be fixed immediately or they will fine him the maximum $112,500 for non-compliance, and arrest him if he still refuses...

Of course, agreeing to drop charges and the fine as long as he gets it taken care of, since likely it would take the arrest to make him realize they aren't playing around.

Does the layperson understand or agree with the government threatening exorbitant fines if commercial lighting that was approved for usage is not replaced?  My irritation is with ATT here. Is filing a complaint with the FCC and thus the manufacturer getting involved easier than approaching the owner and working with them to correct the issue?  Maybe ATT did and we don't know about it.

 

Anyway, I'll delete my prior "layperson" comment and trust that the FCC knows best.   

The article states "According to the FCC agent, Bethany said that since the lighting was not causing him any problems, he saw no reason to repair or replace the fixture unless he is paid to do so."

It's fairly obvious he probably doesn't have any intention of actually complying unless forced to do so.

I'm truly hoping this happens:

"However, it appears the light fixture has led to a serious legal predicament for Bethany, who was cited by the FCC for causing radio interference via an "incidental radiator." If the situation remains unresolved, the FCC may fine Bethany up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, and up to $112,500 for any single act or failure to act. The commission could also seize the offending light fixture, and Bethany could ultimately face jail time."

It's risky AND Sprint will wash their hands of any responsibility for sure.

 

Sent from my d3rpONE using Tapatalk 4

What responsibility? If the original owner didn't call in to report it lost/stolen, there is no way for Sprint to know that it was lost or stolen at the time of activation.

If the person calls in a few days later, it will be flagged. If it was the previous owner of the phone, they are believed instead of the "newer" activation, there is just too much fraud in the industry to have it any other way.

Huh, Sprint doing a well-thought out design? Something that looks competent from a marketing perspective?  Wow! 

Hehe... that's a nearly identical layout o the new internal employee iConnect homepage... they recently redesigned the entire intranet interface and combined several microsites together into new iConnect homepages aimed at each area of the business (retail/business/etc).

Can someone advise why the download speed drops from 1750kbps to 170kbps as soon as daybreak occurs.

People turning their phones on, automatic on/off, Do not Disturb modes being deactivated, beginning to download software and app updates, etc.

Essentially the network going from a minimal use case, to a fully utilized and overloaded tower.

Last week Wireless Evolution, Tucson Mall, advised that there are a couple of towers near the UofA providing LTE.

There are a couple towers near the UofA providing 4G... but it is WiMax service, not LTE. They are protection sites installed by ClearWire to maintain their licenses in the Tucson area by covering the minimum number of POPs required by the FCC.

False alarm... he was just messing with me. Short vacation I didn't know about to a place with it launched already on the east coast. :-( evil person

Fun fact... a coworker sent me a screenshot of a speedtest showing LTE live in Tucson. 70 ping, 15.33Mbps/6.31Mbps. He was somewhere in central Tucson, I'll see if he can give me more info when I get to work. He just has access to the built in tools/info.

CTL doesn't get paid any recurring fees until it's up and running. Why would they drag their feet?

Because they always do... even when getting paid millions of dollars on contract from a nationwide wireless carrier apparently. I would point out... the same carrier that used to wholly own the company at one point (before mergers and such of course, Embarq was split from Sprint wireline in 2006, then merged with CenturyTel in 2009 to create CenturyLink). Tucson is legacy USWest/Qwest which had a rocky history to begin with.

They're using multiple providers. At least two Tucson sites are Cox. And I will strongly disagree with Centurylink being the lesser evil in any situation. Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Having had friends working in Customer Care for all three providers (yes I realize call centers are outsourced, but the goals are dictated by the carrier)... as far as the company viewpoint of customers in regards to Customer Care goes, Century Link is the least evil of the three. That doesn't mean they're good, by no means is that even remotely true, but my personal experience and with friends that have worked for their call centers, they are.

Long delays on outgoing calls are likely the network being overloaded, or having an issue. My semi-educated guess is possibly your phone is in the process of being transitioned from one tower/sector to another when you attempt to make the phone call, so it is waiting for that to complete first, possibly getting stuck and waiting for a timeout before it checks again. When you cancel the call and try again, your phone checks again immediately to see if it is in a transition and lets it go through since it isn't.

It also could be something somewhere on the network not making a connection properly when navigating through the labyrinth of the digital world to the endpoint you want. Anything inter-carrier will have a more likely chance of this happening since it transitions to a separate system, obviously.

In addition, ringing on modern digital telephones is entirely fabricated, there is nothing real about it. There is absolutely nothing on the network or technology side that requires a phone to ring. It is merely added in to let you know something is happening, as a holdover from previous inferior technology that literally used the telephone wires to "ring" the phone by pulsing the power through the line.

To top it off Centurylink is still building their core fiber network in Tucson. They were a really poor choice here.

 

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

I think it all depended on limiting the expenditures in the long run. If Sprint had chosen to go with Cox/Comcast there would have been separate backhaul providers for the Tucson area, and thus overlapping sections. I realize Cox and Comcast don't really compete for market share here due to an allowed legal monopoly on cable service. However, there are some small areas where they both provide service. I think the combination of having a single provider for the area, and thus a single expenditure for backhaul is a strong motivator. In addition, I can tell you from a consumer perspective (I realize corproate is different) CenturyLink is the lesser of three evils in this case, and that's saying a lot.

It seems nobody know why Tucson is cursed!

Incorrect, we know why Tucson is LTE cursed. CenturyLink isn't installing the backhaul efficiently. More than half of the towers have the equipment up, it just can't be tested or turned on until that backhaul is available.

He sold you a phone with no back cover? Sounds a little fishy to me. I guess the tether was too difficult to remove at the store..

That is sketchy as hell. No back cover likely means they took it off (or broke it off) since the security sensor attaches to that.

What the heck? Thanks for the info but that is a bad move. It already pretty dumb that we have to pay ANYTHING for service/repair that is covered under manufacturer's warranty! And before you say that is a fee to facilitate the manufacturer's warranty, none of the other carriers charge you to facilitate a manufacturer's warranty. I think it is a bad policy and is just a ploy to get you to buy their scam of an insurance plan.

 

End rant....sorry guys.

That's your prerogative. You could also argue that Verizon and AT&T have historically charged customers more money for services (Even when Sprint had a superior data network), and they have a higher operating margin. Especially a higher margin compared to a complete network overhaul and attempting to bring the network up to speed and surpassing the competition as Network Vision intends to do.

Sprint is not under any sort of obligation to cover the MANUFACTURER warranty on devices. No other carrier is either, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Verizon and AT&T move away from this in the near future as well, as a way to cut costs further and increase profits even more.

Also just so you know, the devices that Sprint exchanges through the retail S&R processes often do not go back to the manufacturer for refurbishment. These devices are instead sent to an outside vendor to refurbish. There are some exceptions in certain circumstances and with certain manufacturers, but the large majority are all handled by a single refurb vendor that deals with it all for Sprint. The average refurbishment cost with modern smartphones is ~$150. Honestly, I think the charge should be $75 for feature phones and $150 for smartphones. There are alternatives like going directly through the manufacturer's own warranty processes if you don't want to use Sprint's options, or alternative insurance programs (retailer offerings like RadioShack/Best Buy) and extended warranties like SquareTrade. There is no shortage of options for extended warranty and insurance on phones, and often the carrier option is NOT the cheapest. It isn't meant to be the cheapest or even the best, it is meant to be the most convenient.

On November 8, 2013 the per incident repair fee charged for devices not covered under Total Equipment Protection or Equipment Service and Repair Programs is increasing from $50 to $75.

This is a voluntary service, therefore the change is not a valid reason for early termination or waiving an ETF.

20989 was not being replaced no matter what I did. I've had the phone 3 weeks and was doing ##update# every day. It wasn't until the iOS upgrade that it changed.

##CLEAR# on iOS7 does the same thing as a ##SCRTN# on other Sprint devices. It wipes all of the device programming and forces the phone to go through the HFA process again. Quite often this fixes issues with data/updating/call issues/etc. when something get's messed up.

The device contacts the network again because it has no activation info, so the network sends it the default listing of what settings need to be (codec use, data settings for that specific device, etc.) and then prompts the device to do a PRL update after it is activated.

I assume you can't add information about the LG G2 yet to that UICC Compatibility Matrix?

Not yet. I'm not at work currently (vacation) so I can't access the internal tools. Sprint's UICC cards don't have any obvious signs on the cards themselves to determine exactly which card it is (at least not that I've been able to discern).

Just updated to iOS 7.0.3. Sprint carrier went from 15.1 to 15.5 and prl went from 20989 to 51098

20989 is not a valid Sprint PRL. It could potentially be a default Apple PRL for HFA (Hands-Free Activation). I have not had a chance to see what the default Apple PRL is in iOS7.

People keep saying the 5s has a CSIM, but has anyone tried pulling on out and putting it in another 5s or 5c to see if it works?

The iPhone 5s/5c do use CSIM cards. The UICC Compatibility Matrix I posted does not show the new CSIM cards being compatible with older devices. It does however show the older UICC cards from the iPhone 5 being compatible with the 5s/5c.

The information contained in that matrix comes directly from Sprint documentation for field technicians to determine which replacement cards are compatible with which models. I have recreated a similar matrix using Google Docs and posted it here, as it is information easily obtained from community research, trial, and error. I just took the requirement of us all having to go through the testing and got rid of that step entirely. Nothing contained in that matrix is internal-only and unobtainable by the general public with time and effort.

Wow no embedded simcard what a shock lol

The Note II was the last LTE device to have an embedded SIM card (I'n 90% sure). It was always intended to have removable SIM cards in the devices. The primary reason it didn't start out that way was due to customers likely getting the SIM cards confused with iDEN, etc. instead of realizing they can't simply be swapped out or aren't compatible.

Let's be honest, most users here aren't the average American consumer, they are much more educated on the technology and passionate about it. The average person would just try to make things fit where they don't belong and get angry with Sprint when it didn't work (I see it daily in my S&R store).

Are they working on it? Do you know?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

No idea. I just work retail. They don't tell us anything, just like the care reps. Those decisions are way above my pay grade (although I'm totally willing to make those decisions and pay if they want, hehe).

You don't have to have a Jony Ive approved sheet.

Oh, but I really do!