iansltx

Plus one on Sprint voice quality. I have used TMo in the past and they are comparable. Verizon is close. ATT is not.

I am really just guessing but this are the most logical prices. AT&T and Verizon release all new high end LTE phones at $299.99. T-Mobile is just a complete guess. Sprint is committed to that $199.99 price tag on high end phones and has already said it has no plans to make prices higher then $199.99 w/ 2 year contract.

 

I expect a release on Sprint sometime between June and August. I am almost 100% the device is coming to Sprint.

Fair enough. I'm sure Sprint will get the phone (Samsung wouldn't hold back on a customer who's paying them plenty to roll out one-third of NV), and the price makes sense the way you talk about it. I just haven't purchased a phone from them since late 2010, t which point I paid $250 for my Epic.

Pricing in USA:

Verizon: $299.99 w/ 2 year contract

AT&T: $299.99 w/ 2 year contract

Sprint: $199.99 w/ 2 year contract

T-Mobile: $249.99 w/ 2 year contract

Sure about these numbers or just guessing? If you're sure, when's it getting released on Sprint? At $200 I'd be willing to wait until after my contract is up to get the phone, vs. getting something as soon as my upgrade credit goes live.

From what I read of the Xohm buildout in 2008, Sprint was doing just fine with their WiMAX network. Then Clearwire took over that (and started building their own network pieces) and failed miserably at making something universally useful in the areas that they served. I heard that Clearwire was ripping out Samsung, Motorola etc. equipment placed by Sprint in ex-Xohm markets (Baltimore and what else? Atlanta maybe? DFW? I forget) and replacing it with Huawei gear, which seems like it didn't perform as well.

Don't get me wrong; I wanted to believe in WiMAX...I bought the Evo 4G the day it game out (later returned it since it wasn't on my SERO plan at the time) and bought the Epic 4G 10/01/10 or so. I've used WiMAX in a number of cities, when I've been able to pick up the signal (Fort Worth, Denver, Raleigh-Durham, a little bit in Florida, Austin, San Antonio, Amarillo) and have generally been disappointed with the level of coverage available, and the level of service when I was able to lock on to a signal. The absolute standstill with regard to continued WiMAX deployment didn't help either.

If Sprint had gotten the minimum coverage requirement for WiMAX done on their own, and done well, and then held Clear to the same standard, the story may well have been different than it is today. But Clear's sucktastic job of deploying WiMAX put Sprint in the world of hurt that it was a year or two ago...and still is in, to be honest. Can't wait 'til LTE, a non-botched network deployment, fixes this.

Mod(s), move this if you'd like, but...

I just saw an AT&T banner ad saying that they have 2000 more cities and towns with 4G than Verizon does. Click the link and you see them playing up LTE at first, then going into their bit about having the country's only dual-tier 4G network, with "HSPA+ with enhanced backhaul" as the big lyer and LTE as the super-awesome, small layer.

Actually, AT&T isn't the only one with a "dual tier" 4G network (if you can call single-carrier HSPA+ 4G...I certainly wouldn't). Now that it looks like Sprint is letting people access its LTE sites in DFW, Atlanta and other places, Sprint has such a network as well. One sucky "4G" network that covers (comparatively) a lot of people (WiMAX for Sprint, 125MM pops or so; HSPA+ for AT&T, 200MM pops), and one network that's LTE...which currently doesn't cover as many people.

Also, from my experiences of AT&T HSPA+, I wouldn't call it 4G. My guess is that they are willing to call the network 4G even if speeds are routinely in the 2-4 Mbps range on downloads...correct me if I'm wrong but hitting anything beyond 6-8 Mbps on AT&T HSPA+ is nigh impossible. In comparison, my T-Mobile aircard (DC-HSPA+...I'm perfectly okay with calling that 4G) hits 5 Mbps routinely in areas with "zero bars". In areas with full signal and dual bonded HSPA+ carriers (something AT&T won't do), I've seen 20 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up, with low latency. More routine speeds hit 10-15 Mbps down, 2-3 Mbps up with LTE-like latency (I've seen 22ms to a local server before). Show me a reasonably large area where AT&T can do that on H+, particularly one that isn't already covered by LTE...oh wait, one doesn't exist.

To be fair, Sprint suffers in some of its WiMAX areas, and those areas are still marketed as 4G. But my guesss is that AT&T is going to take forever to deploy LTE "because we already have a pefectly good HSPA+ network", while Sprint catches up to and surpasses them with NV.

Sorry for the rant, but what do other folks think about how AT&T is spinning this?

My experience with Clear QiMAX has generally been poor. There have been a few bright spots...when I can get a signal in Denver the network is plenty fast (albeit not as fast as Verizon or TMobile) however the lack of coverage and inconsistent speeds get old really quickly.

That said, if Clear does LTE-TD "hot zones" in city centers across the US correctly, they could ensure that anyone roaming onto them (or using them for fixed/nomadic access) always had a solid 15x5 connection, where other carriers' lower frequency networks would choke due to not enough spectrum/cell density. Heck, they might even provide enough capacity to keep the network unlimited!

Hmm, wonder when the first LTE-SMR phones will arrive...

...

Wait, don't the new LTE phones on Sprint *have* to have SIMs for the LTE component? I know that every single Verizon device I've seen with LTE has a SIM.

I won't say straight-up that 5 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up is the point at which I'd stop caring about speed on a mobile network on a phone. Personally that number would be 10 mbps down, 5 Mbps up (for fast photo sharing and quick video uploads/downloads/streaming). But I'm a power user...I bought T-Mobile's first HSPA+ 42 device in addition to having my Epic...and a T-Mobile HSPA+ 21 device. Oh, and I have a 50/15 cable connection at my apartment (Golden, CO).

I've seen what VZW's 10x10 LTE network can do when lightly loaded; I have an iPad that hits 25-35 Mbps down, 10 mbps up at my apartment now that VZW has a local gateway for their LTE network. That said, speeds go down to half that downtown, at least from what I've measured. T-Mobile doesn't start out as high (10-20 Mbps down, 2.5 or so Mbps up) bu doesn't take nearly the hit that VZW does (VZ's 3G network isn't as zippy here as I've seen elsewhere, but that's probably because I'm not in a town of 10k sixty miles from anywhere other than a Verizon owned local exchange).

Coming back on topic, if Sprint builds their network densely enough (which they can do with 1900 spectrum...Verizon will find it harder with 700), average performance should be comparable, as long as Sprint has enough egress points on the network to allow surfing with decent latency (T-Mobile and now VZW are quite good at this). I'll be headed to Austin late this summer, so I'll be seeing Ericsson's NV rollout there firsthand...hopefully it's zippy enough to let me discontinue my T-Mobile aircard and only use VZW iPad data for regions where Sprint doesn't have LTE yet.