Epic4G25

And no one knows how much longer they will stick around. These plans would be fine if it wasn't for the lowered roaming data, the modified discount structure, and throttling. Even if the Everything plans stick around no one can tell how long before they will be killed off. After that time many may not even be able to stay grandfathered in with the changes to the T&C.

And is still unlimited with no throttling if you choose one of the current plans. Throttling is only for the new plans. Therefore the previous commercials are still 100% accurate.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I can't believe I forgot about that, I've seen it before so I don't know why it didn't cross my mind.

Here's what one of their websites at the bottom in the fine print:

 

http://sports.sprint.com/speed/?ECID=vanity:speed

Dan Hesse talked specifically about throttling in the "Truly Unlimited" commercials, I'm simply pointing out it's no longer so. I didn't say there were no longer any other plan options.

My patience is really starting to wear thin. This is a bullshit post. If they sell any plans that are not truly unlimited and offer them as additional choices to consumers, then they are no longer truly unlimited? Go push your platitudes somewhere else. I require you to stick to the facts here.

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Huh, then maybe the number they currently show on the site is without roaming.

That must have been quite some time ago. They advertised 274 million POPs for the Sprint network and 276 million POPs for the Nextel network for the longest time.

And as a result we can no longer be considered "Truly Unlimited."

No. They reserve the right to throttle down to 1Mbps on devices if they feel they need to for network performance only for the people who choose this plan. No one is affected except for those who chose to be.

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I'm talking about users coming from Cellular 850 networks though. 

That's no different from the current millions of sprint LTE users.

I think the rude awakening will more likely be from the degraded in-building and network performance.

How do you know triband phones are coming this fall?

And why is it a rude awakening? Is Sprint lying to them regarding the bands the phones work on?

Them apparently not, if that's the case I wonder what specific areas Sprint customers are barred from VZW roaming in. I wonder if it could be VZW affiliate markets.

Then it should be a lot higher than 283 million since I know Verizon covers at least 295 million.

I think you can roam on VZW anywhere you don't have Sprint coverage, and there isn't a higher prioritized roaming partner.

That's bad. So that means you could be places where Verizon has coverage but roaming is disabled?

I'd bet, they used to advertise 230 million covered on the Sprint network and 280 with roaming.

On the landing page for the new plans, they plaster "283 million".

http://shop.sprint.com/mysprint/shop_landing.jsp?pagename=whysprint&plan=unlimited&ECID=vanity:unlimited

 

I know the mods don't "like to focus on POPs" but obviously Sprint does so it's a valid point to discuss.

Is the 283 million with roaming included? I'm guessing yes.

Now this very well could have more to do with the shut down of Nextel but I thought this new addition to the Sprint T&C was interesting given the new plans, and the problems old SERO plans have raised in the past. 

"We may change any part of the Agreement at any time, including, but not limited to, rates, charges, how we calculate charges, discounts, coverage, technologies used to provide services, or your terms of Service. If you lose your eligibility for a particular rate plan or if a particular rate plan is no longer supported or available, we may change your rate plan to one for which you qualify. We will provide you notice of material changes—and we may provide you notice of non-material changes—in a manner consistent with this Agreement (see "Providing Notice To Each Other Under The Agreement" section). If a change we make to the Agreement is material and has a material adverse effect on Services under your Term Commitment, you may terminate each line of Service materially adversely affected without incurring an Early Termination Fee only if: (a) call us within 30 days after the effective date of the change; ( you specifically advise us that you wish to cancel Services because of a material change to the Agreement that we have made; and © we fail to negate the change after you notify us of your objection to it. If you do not notify us and cancel Service within 30 days of the change, an Early Termination Fee will apply if you terminate Services before the end of any applicable Term Commitment."

Doesn't this essentially give them the right to kick Everything Data customers off their plans at anytime they feel like it in the future by calling it unsupported?

This was the old T&C

"We may change any part of the Agreement at any time, including, but not limited to, rates, charges, how we calculate charges, discounts, coverage, technologies used to provide services, or your terms of Service. We will provide you notice of material changes—and we may provide you notice of non-material changes—in a manner consistent with this Agreement (see "Providing Notice To Each Other Under The Agreement" section). If a change we make to the Agreement is material and has a material adverse effect on Services under your Term Commitment, you may terminate each line of Service materially affected without incurring an Early Termination Fee only if you: (a) call us within 30 days after the effective date of the change; and ( specifically advise us that you wish to cancel Services because of a material change to the Agreement that we have made. If you do not cancel Service within 30 days of the change, an Early Termination Fee will apply if you terminate Services before the end of any applicable Term Commitment."

If they can start to expand in places they need it then that's great. Something just needs to be done the coverage area has been sitting unchanged for years, and on top of that the network was allowed to degrade to the point it's at now (in not NV completed/majority completed areas). Now the question is, if the network hadn't been allowed to degrade to the point it's at, and NV wasn't necessary, where would we be now? Also, I would willingly pay more if it meant expansion. I would have absolutely no issue with that. I've already been paying $10 while I carry a Curve that with BIS probably uses less data than most dumbphones.

Ask yourself why it never has been done?  It's because there is no return on the investment.  In rural areas, you need a 30-40 share to get it pay for itself.  If there is already two large carriers, it's not possible to get enough as the third carrier to make it profitable.  You are asking Sprint to lose money to expand coverage.  And then you would probably complain if Sprint raised their prices to pay for the unprofitable network expansion.

 

Sprint monitors roaming very closely.  They know very well the areas that roaming is occurring and the amount of usage the site would sustain.  They do add sites in high roaming areas all the time.  And I believe SoftBank will add even more.

 

However, asking them to add unprofitable coverage for bragging rights is not a good way to run a business.  I have a lot of confidence in SoftBank.  They will add lots of coverage where it makes sense.  The old Sprint often couldn't afford to add sites even when there was a pay off.  The New Sprint under SoftBank will never say no because they cannot afford it.  However, I do expect them to say no where it isn't going to pay off.

 

Robert

I'm not at all talking about dropped calls. I also said nothing about T-Mobile and their coverage. My point simply is people have been conditioned by VZW and their coverage maps. You're going to have people that live in Sprint service areas, and they will most likely never travel outside of them, but they'll look at Sprint and then at AT&T and VZW and will decide "Wow Sprints coverage is smaller than AT&T and VZW." After that it'll be down to AT&T and VZW. People will make decisions based on coverage maps.

If you're talking about dropped calls and no signal within a Sprint coverage area, that's one thing.

But otherwise, as AJ addressed, most people live in metro areas and Sprint, unlike TMO, has coverage outside the metro areas.

Where they don't have native coverage is in the truly rural areas and his point is: so what? How many Chicago-people are going to go in the truly rural parts of Illinois?

The problem to which you're alluding is the one that Tmobile has: plenty of rural coverage, in certain areas, but it's all 2G with no plans to upgrade it. In fact, CEO of DT called EDGE "a world class technology" (in this thread not too far up).
Sprint won't have that problem.

So, what just leave the market completely where it is? Out of most people I've met one of their biggest problems with Sprint and their perceived image was their coverage footprint. While I can agree that comes from a lot of conditioning from VZW over the years if Sprint/SoftBank is a serious as they sound about being #1 then the coverage footprint will have to be addressed.

He answered it in what you quoted: they can't lose money doing it otherwise it's pointless.
If you lose money rolling out coverage everywhere, what have you gained?

Sprint's not gonna do something just to be the first to do it.
They built out the fiber because they guessed I would make money, not to be the first to do it.

Something that's never been done? Is that really a reason to totally cast aside the idea of this? Sprint was the first to build out a complete fiber optic network in the US, why not have them be the first to build out and go head to head with the Baby Bells?

You are asking Sprint to do something that no one has ever done. Build a nationwide network organically. VZW and ATT haven't even done that. They bought those networks to expand their coverage. Sprint would lose a lot of money doing it.

Sprint's name is mud right now. Building new coverage in new areas will not mean new customers enough to justify the costs. They need to reduild their brand first. Then when they show up in new places, they might have a chance to compete and take customers away from the duopoly.

I can tell you the old Sprint had no interest in expanding new coverage into new areas, except when it made sense because roaming costs in the area was high. However, the New Sprint under SoftBank may have a desire to branch out further. But if they do, it will be because they see a path to making it profitable.

And that's the bottom line. The New Sprint will probably be open to all kinds of ideas, but there has to be a return on it. They are going to he very competitive with the duopoly, no doubt. And coverages are going to improve, both within the existing network and outside. But the scale is not known yet. And it probably will be less than what we'd prefer.

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Well we won't get into the lengthy description of why I won't buy Apple products, we'll just leave it at I won't support a company that makes products that are extremely hard for the user to repair/upgrade. As for Sprint, I've been here since the beginning of WiMax, through the network degradation, through the removal of Sprint Primer, and through the $10 data charge for now all smart phones. I stick with companies that not only provide me with the best value, but also companies that have some history of innovation. The second Sprint gets to a point where they are pushing people off unlimited data plans, and are going to pricing similar to AT&T and VZW I will have no problem leaving, especially if at that time their network coverage is not up to par with AT&T and VZW. If however they can continue on a path that provides me more value than the other 3 national wireless carriers I will stick with them, even if it means a reasonable price increase. I go with companies that will provide me with what I need at a price I deem reasonable, not out of a sense of loyalty towards that company. If that was the case I would still be with T-Mobile and we wouldn't be having this discussion. When I said I would like to continue to support them, I said it because I like what they are currently doing in the way of NV, and I'd like to see what the company that rolled out the first fiber optic network has in store for the future. I believe they can do great things and offer even better competition to AT&T and VZW than they are now. However like I said above the second they join the ranks of networks like AT&T and VZW will be the second I leave.

You make it sound like Sprint is your buddy, charging you as little as it can afford to in order to help you out.

People thought the same of Apple: "they'll never be as greedy as Microsoft"

Once Sprint is in a stronger position, they'll behave just like the "evil duopoly", as some here have called ATT+VZW.

Sprint is a company: it exists to make money for its owners by charging the maximum that its customers

will stomach. Once ATT+VZW start facing real danger from S+TMUS, they'll change their tune. Example: AIO wireless is a really good deal, better than T-Mobile if you value coverage vs LTE but ATT only offers it because of competition from T-Mobile.

Why do you think Sprint currently offers and previously instituted and heavily marketed unlimited data? Because it wants to help you out and has plenty of network capacity? 

They did it out of economic/marketing necessity.  T-Mobile got rid of unlimited data some time ago and then they brought back unlimited data; why did they get rid of it in the first place? Because they were running out of capacity? Maybe but probably not. They thought they could get away with it but their competitive position deteriorated perilously and they brought it back.

 

Maybe you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it but there plenty who do think that way; they're fools.

Good to know it's still around, thanks for the info.

Yup, that was the first time. Been happening steadily ever since.

Sprint works fine in my local area, but I like having a company that when I need to travel I will be covered. If it wasn't for the fact that Sprint is the only network that fits my needs plan wise I would have left long ago. While I'm here I have a random question, I'm not sure anyone will really have an answer, but I know through NV network backhaul is being upgraded to fiber. My question is what ever happened to the old Sprint coast to coast fiber optic from the LD days? Was it sold off along with the hardwire services to become part of Embarq?

Deval - I guess I should have clarified, I don't care if its technically "building out" or simply merging and acquiring new towers, licenses, spectrum, etc from the bought network. Did you actually read the thread? Or just quote the first thing you disagreed with? Yes, I do know Sprint built their network from the ground up "The first all digital, all PCS, nation wide network built from the ground up and reaching over 230 Million people." Trench Coat guy ads always were my favorite. I know their history, because it's been for the most part a history of innovation, it's however been lacking in recent years. Hopefully NV will change that.

They need to find someway to expand someday, roaming as a backup can't go on forever. If thats what a network is reduced to, its not of much use. Even more so in a day of ever growing data use and data speed demands, while Sprint roaming has a 300MB limit as per T&C.

No, not many misconceptions. I am very well aware AT&T and VZW have extended their networks through mergers and buyouts, however there aren't that many companies left that Sprint could acquire in the same manner. Also it isn't just "rural" that needs to be built out, it's the native Sprint network as a whole, the network foot print is inherently small compared even to the likes of a carrier such as T-Mobile. This becomes even more evident when looking at something like the Sprint 1900MHZ only coverage map they themselves provide. All that's ever been said about any kind of build out for Sprint is that it wouldn't be cost effective, yet that's left us in a position of dwindling coverage as shown by the link Fraydog provided. I simply want a carrier that could possibly one day come close to a native coverage footprint near that of AT&T and VZW.

Rawvega - I'm not "chastising" Sprint for using roaming agreements, as they've been a great help to me in more rural areas around me. My problem is that Sprint relies too heavily on them, whereas VZW's coverage can stand mostly on its own without roaming backup.

I really don't understand why people can't just admit to Sprint having an incredibly small native footprint that should be expanded to compete with AT&T and VZW while also lessening dependence on roaming contracts. I understand the costs would be high, but with a parent company like SoftBank coming into the picture, now after NV is completed would be the time. Call me unrealistic, but we simply don't have the native network coverage to adequately compete with AT&T and VZW at this time. More native coverage is never a bad thing. IMO

I'm not going to worry about it further, as nothing evident is even coming up and I'd like to continue to support Sprint. So I'll just wait and hope that the SoftBank deal will allow Sprint to build out their own network for once, instead of just renting towers and using roaming agreements.

Can't be much more specific than that, all I can say is there has been a drastic reduction in the areas covered natively out west. The coverage used to be more than just the "Typical PCS coverage." I was simply wondering if there were any major roaming deals that ended causing this. Since there doesn't seem to be that much info on it I guess not.

Quite a lot, I've always wanted to move to the west coast so I periodically check out there. Basically everything has gone from "Native" coverage to "Off Network Roaming" other than around the highways and larger towns.

Key is, VZW still has a pretty formidable network in the LTE game without any LTEiRA partners. I would have no issues with Sprint using a similar strategy. It would help them go back into a more aggressive mode regarding rural coverage.

Thanks for providing a logical standpoint.