irev210

I've noticed that Sprint is turning on channel 476. First time my EVO 4G LTE has had great coverage at home

Can you run some traceroutes? 25 vs 41 and see how they are routed? Maybe use the sprint.net looking glass and a few different traces to a few major websites

I am pretty sure we do not say the AT&T "U" word here. It's a very very bad word. How AT&T got the FCC to sign off on it is beyond me.

Yes, this is definitely the case - though holding onto Embarq would have ended up being a serious distraction. DSL is a dead end technology anyway. DOCSIS 3.0 and fiber-to-the-home are the future. In places where those solutions don't make sense, it will be LTE to home. At the end of the day, it probably just makes sense for them to lease local fiber. I hope Sprint continues to build out backhaul in places like Africa, where there is still money to be made.

Cable cos isn't really impacting Sprint's transit business. It's asia + LVLT/Global crossing Did you check out the charts?

I am always amazed by how big sprint's wireline business is. I am also amazed how far it has fallen. http://www.renesys.com/category/bakers-dozen/

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's impossible to recapture every iDEN subscriber but it still is cheaper keeping these very loyal (lazy?) customers. I would suspect that once they've moved to AT&T or Verizon, they'll never move back. Obviously, it's all said and done at this point but any customer who stuck with nextel till the last day will probably stick with whatever carrier they moved to for the foreseeable future, making them very attractive subs.

That's just silly. Sprint minds losing EVERY customer. Keeping old customers is a lot cheaper than finding new ones. You don't think those low ARPU legacy nextel users became higher ARPU sprint customers? Sadly, instead of sticking with Sprint, they became higher ARPU AT&T or Verizon customers. It's not like these customers had anywhere cheaper to go - I am surprised you feel that Sprint wouldn't mind losing customers that could be higher ARPU Sprint users.

True that on the antiquing, pretty funny. The Auburn In-N-Out is the first In-N-Out comin' down the mountain. My favorite part about Auburn is watching people getting nailed by the CHP. San Francisco yuppies getting tickets all day every day. I have family that lives around Auburn - great place to live. Inexpensive, close to everything, a LOT cooler than Roseville, etc etc.

Besides, Roseville doesn't even have the Auburn Thai Garden. http://www.auburnthai.com/ Roseville is where people in Auburn go to shop.

Probably related to network vision. A few months ago, I tried calling 911 because of a fire alarm - tried calling multiple times with Sprint phone and 911 call would not go through. Thankfully, my T-Mobile phone worked fine - and thankfully, there is a fire alarm pull outside on the sidewalk.

The lack of fiber has to be driving sprint bonkers. There has been a site on the roof of the building next to my work that had NV equipment installed over a year ago and it still doesn't have LTE broadcasting. I mean, the building has fiber access (obviously), as it is in the middle of downtown. It must be a major pain getting it to the roof.

I think people should just look at this as a plan "modernization". I've thought about it for a few days and when you look at how VZN/AT&T market their plans, this basically copies that. I suspect that the big guys have trained customers on how a plan should look and this is Sprint responding. Give it a few months to soak in and we can see how this feels - expect me to add to this thread in 2-3 months with how I feel about the new plan vs. competitors

I suggest you go for the Golf Manager for the City of Los Angeles. 160k a year, a nice pension, great benefits. Big money is beign a tugboat captain at about 400k a year, with pension/benefits. http://controller.lacity.org/stellent/groups/electedofficials/@ctr_contributor/documents/contributor_web_content/lacityp_019690.pdf Some municipal workers get hosed, others seem to land on a golden goose, others in the middle. I could never seem to figure it out.

Complete and total coverage in Boston (except for the subway system, which is still HSPA+, which Sprint does not service). Zero holes. Before T-Mobile launched LTE in Boston, there wasn't a place I could go without getting coverage. When I could first connect to LTE, it was full of holes - within weeks though, they finished the overlay and completed coverage. Granted, yes, as I mentioned before, their backhaul remains unchanged... so the biggest improvement is latency. There seems to be an issue with the upload (gets stuck on speedtest) but otherwise, the service is awesome. It's night and day compared to Sprint. Sprint launched Boston six months ago and there are major major gaps (wimax has better coverage in Boston, to put it in perspective). While Sprint's deployment is much more involved, it was still a mistake to launch a city with such low coverage for such a long period of time. Obviously, you get out rural and the story changes a bit. It's odd going from LTE to edge - but I rarely go rural, so it works for me.

John Legere ‏@john_legere 5h @WiWavelength yes they are.... The next 2.5 years ... See you in 2016 Pretty hilarious. Probably really is John.

T-Mobile's LTE build-out is substantially done in Boston. Here is what I've noticed: Ping times are always VERY good. Speeds seem to be limited to backhaul - I question when/if the carriers get more loaded if T-Mobile will add more capacity. On speedtests, my uploads seem to get stuck - not sure why. I think there is some sort of uplink issue, sometimes I have issues loading sites, etc.

I really hope to see some new innovative and disruptive services/plans, expanded service with ESMR, and increased capacity in urban areas.

The Sprint marketing team has serious issues defining LTE coverage, that's for sure.

It will be a standard qualcomm quad core S4 Pro - what the clockspeed is (likely 1.7GHz, like the HTC One) doesn't really matter. The display quality is more important to me vs. resolution. Granted the HTC One has the quality and resolution that really sets the bar... so 720p is pretty outdated at this point. I think how the phone performs overall will really be the deciding factor here. Not just specs.

Very well articulated post - It's interesting to compare/contrast the two networks. I would say since T-Mobile allowed customers to connect to LTE the build-out pace has been fast and furious. A few coverage gaps that I had have seemed to disappear and only a few remain. As far as sprint, it seems like they've been having issues getting backhaul to sites in Boston - not sure exactly. The LTE sites that they do have up are at capacity, as LTE density downtown has essentially gone unchanged for almost a year now (which is troubling). I am still frustrated that Sprint's marketing team "launched" Boston - which essentially green-lights review sites to compare various networks. If it wasn't for S4GRU, I would have no idea that Sprint is really just spending a lot more time outside the city vs. inside. PC Mag just makes it seem like Sprint's LTE stinks - which isn't the case - it's their marketing team that does. T-Mobile seems to have a denser network in Boston than Sprint, which makes sense as an urban carrier. I am noticing a lot of the same things, such as being limited by backhaul (DC-HSPA+ and LTE get similar download speeds) at some locations that are not high capacity sites. Other locations, like downtown, the DC-HSPA+ carriers are at capacity but additional backhaul is providing good LTE performance (10mbit+). Once Sprint fires up LTE on ESMR, it seems like T-Mobile will have a VERY tough time competing. I really can't wait to see how coverage will change from a user's perspective. I hope T-Mobile wins 600MHz auction and we'll have four national competitors all with solid sub 1-GHz spectrum to compete with. I think this will help rural customers have some choice for wireless home broadband (and competition).

I would guess Verizon will pick whatever offers them the lowest total lifecycle costs - capital costs be darned.

I gotta say, the T-mobile LTE in Boston is pretty amazing. Latency under 40MS, speeds over 20mbit. Not launched in Boston yet but the coverage is far superior to the "launched" sprint 4g LTE coverage.

I think a lot of it has to do with how sprint is deploying LTE vs. T-Mobile. In the Boston market for example, there are all sorts of odd places that have LTE but Sprint only has a few LTE sites online in downtown boston proper. So combined with more people on a site and poor signal, you end up with overburdened cells and/or poor performance related to poor signal. At the end of the day, I blame sprint marketing for being over-zealous "launching" markets that are not ready yet. Since launching means nothing, they should be waiting. Instead, they launch, and you see speeds like that in a "launched" market. My big question is if sprint is going to be able to add capacity at a rate faster than data consumption is growing? Or will they go back to their old ways of over capacity/under served? To me, that's the million dollar question.

I love how it is so easy to say other people are "greedy" but if, for example, someone offered you 30% more than what you were asking for your home, you would go with the higher offer (assuming both actually had the cash to close, which in CLWR's case, that is true). I don't really get this whole "greed" thing. It's the board of clearwire to accept the highest actionable offer - if they didn't, they would get sued. It's just baffling that people say greed is driven by those looking for best execution. I suppose it's only greed if they aren't doing what is in your best interest. Bottom line, DISH feels like owning 12-25% of clearwire is a very good idea and they're willing to pay 4.40/share to own it. What does that have to do with Crest? Crest is an owner of clearwire - they have votes (not that many, but votes regardless). Just because they value clearwire higher than what sprint does, doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean greedy, it just means they have a different opinion. Given the democratic nature of voting on an offer, I don't see where the greed comes in. They are given a chocie, people are going to vote what they feel is in their best financial interest to do so - that's why they are a public company. Again, Greed has nothing to do with anything here. Clearwire never needed to become a public company - you could say that Clearwire was "greedy" for going public...