greenbastard

You should still be able to make calls and texts just fine as the network stands today, especially if your phone has wifi calling. No small cells are needed for calls in Sprint's current setup (of course, VoLTE may change that). One thing Sprint has done an extremely good job at is increasing their voice coverage for 1x through NV deployments. 1x1900 improved dramatically and 1x800 made the network more reliable than Verizon or At&t. I don't think I've roamed inside Sprint service area or dropped a call since 2012 (pre-NV). I can understand an internet/power outage from time to time, but let's be honest with ourselves; it's not an everyday occurrence. Last time my power was out for more than a day was during Hurricane Ike (2008), but at that point internet was the least of my worries.

Low band or not, Sprint still does a good job on the Strip. The area next to the T-Mobile arena (ironically) is probably one of the best for B41 on the Strip and outperformed my T-Mobile tablet while waiting for a ride back to the airport. Downtown Vegas casinos are another story.

Point proven! Now to unrelated personal attacks...are these new SIMs really free? Sprint may want to fix that since even non-customers are able to purchase them. I added one to cart and stopped short of submitting my CC before I realized I didn't even log-in to my account. MVNO users are going to loot these SIMs in a hurry if they don't fix this.

You didn't get notified about the last post you replied to since it wasn't even a reply to YOU. So.......

It sure was getting out of hand with so many SIMs. I wonder if these will be installed in all new phones going forward just to reduce confusion and costs.

This has nothing to do with small cells anymore. Your reading comprehension really fails you. This is about cellphone service in general, which although rare, does change from time to time due to carriers switching sites or merging with another carrier (see Sprint/Nextel, At&t/Cricket, Verizon/Alltel not using all of the towers from the network they purchased). I used to have great Nextel service just outside of Austin, but after Sprint decided to shutdown iDen, they decided not to convert my nearest tower. So any customers in my area went from having great reception to average reception after they switched to CDMA handsets. You are just salty about an argument you failed to make valid points for. And quite frankly, I'm done with. You just can't move on.

Let me ask you this. What happens when that good cell signal becomes overloaded? Assuming you have Sprint, it's not out of the realm of possibility considering Sprint has so many unlimited data users. What if Sprint renegotiates its tower leases and decides to move their equipment down the road where you are now in a fringe area? Or what if Sprint merges with T-Mobile and the new company decides to drop some of their leases in order to cut costs? Would you go through the process of selling, moving, and buying new property? Wouldn't it be easier to just switch providers or get on wifi at that point?

Both have its upsides and downsides. Where I live, powerlines run on poles. Theres an upside and downside to that. If power or Internet ever goes out, it is fixed quick. But because our utilities are exposed to the elements (especially late Spring rain), we have more frequent outages, especially during the months of April, May, and June. Suburban Houston on the other hand has to deal with less outages during torrential thunderstorms. But when they do have outages, it can take up to a few days to fix.

You really seem to have a reading problem. What does the car port have to do with the argument? I mentioned the car port to illustrate some of the top features that came with the house. It was supposed to be one of the top tier houses that probably ended up being sold on a mid tier sale price due to the utility pole standing in the backyard. People were just turned off by it since it was the only house with a utility pole. Are you dyslexic? How many times do I have to repeat myself? It's getting ridiculous. Never mind. You definitely have a reading problem. :Facepalm: Never said it wouldn't help anyone. I just said it wouldn't help ME. Actually, they do. Certain communities have certain rules about what residents can and cannot build. There's a reason why no businesses can have tall signs in Katy, TX's Cinco Ranch community. Exxon, McDonalds, Wells Fargo, and even the schools have to have their signs on ground level and not in poles. Rules are rules, and nobody is exempt. Cool beans. You do as you please. Heck, I think Sprint and some tower operators had a way for land owners to submit their property as potential candidates for future towers. Why not start there instead of waiting?

I'm not doubting there are people with different priorities when purchasing a home. But there is a reason why most newer subdivisions pass all utilities underground. Think about that for a minute.

Probably so. But in order to get to that day, every cellphone provider is going to have to do one hell of a job at hiding their equipment. Patriotic flag poles and fake palm trees for everyone?!????

I gave you a first hand experience (and one of the reasons I wouldn't want a 70 ft. tall wooden pole in front of my yard) yet you still dismiss it. Some people are just to dense. Tell you what, the day I complain of slow speeds after I stop Sprint/Mobilite from sticking a 70 ft. pole in front of my yard, then that's the day you can say the above. But as of right now, I don't believe anyone has fought a small cell and complained publicly about speeds afterwards. If you can find that person, them bring him/her forward and you can bash them all you want. Most smart homeowners will know the consequences of fighting small cells or requiring powerlines to be put underground (longer outages if something goes wrong). People have been dealing with their decisions. Unfortunately, you can't seem to accept that. I made it clear that I have absolutely no problem with Sprint using existing ~40 foot telephone poles in my area. I just don't want a 70 ft. wood mast sticking out like a sore thumb.

Find me 5 people that has complained about service after they fought a small cell from being deployed on a 70 ft. pole. Please do.

I used to work for a homebuilder during college. It was a good summer job just traveling home site to home site making sure safety fences were still upright and nothing was being stolen. One thing I remember was that we had one house in a specific subdivision that none of the salesman could sell. It was one of the nicer 2 story houses with a car port. Unfortunately, it had a utility pole in the backyard that brought in all the utilities to the neighborhood. That alone caused the house to sit for the longest. I left the company before it was sold, but I do remember the house getting so many price cuts to the point where it reached the same price point as some of the cheaper 2 story houses. Utility poles do have an effect in property value. Let me use your argument against you. fine. You like the pole. You're weird You think you make a valid argument based off of 'opinion', but you don't. Sweet Baby Jesus and miniature fat Buda! Do you even read my post? How many times do I have to spell it out for you! Property is MORE (as in being greater) important to me than Cellphone service. If you can't understand that, then I give up.

Slow down. That's a long run-on sentence. But the fact that you can't understand why some people may find them ugly just about befuddles me. Also, declining property value due to tall poles being erected in front of your property is not all relative. It's a real. How many times do I have to... Protecting property>>>>>signal boost. All the time. Besides, I'm sure the homeowners who are fighting some of these new builds are fully aware of what they are doing. So quit using that counterargument since it makes absolutely no sense.

And they've chosen the trade-offs...which oddly you can't grasp why . Property devaluation is not an opinion. Uh? Homeowners aren't paying for anything. They aren't the ones selling wireless service. They have other means of communication and I'm sure they understand that very well when they petition to block an unusually tall pole from being erected. At this point, you're the one whining about people looking out for their own best interest. If you could put your nonsensical obsession as a wireless fanboy aside, you would understand your failed logic of "that's just your opinion" and "whining". Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

You didn't read the link that was posted earlier I assume.

For the most part, yes. This is the height that Sprint is aiming for in most places. The issue is with some few areas in which Mobilite is proposing 70ft. poles. So about 2/3rds taller than existing utility poles.

So homeowners who bought a house in a neighborhood with specific rules about neighborhood aesthetics should just suck it up? Are you serious? It's obvious that is not all. And not being ugly is your opinion, which homeowners who have to put up with 70ft. poles installed within line of sight from their homes don't care about. So stop with this 'opinion' counterargument. d For full build towers, that's true since they sit in their own lot away from the street. But small cells will be placed in the right of way easement. Now Sprint should have no problem if they just stick to using existing poles. But in some areas, they seem to go with their own pole that is taller than existing telephone poles. That won't camouflage. You don't read very well do you? Like I said earlier, I'd rather protect my property value than to have full signal. How much more ckear does it need to be? Are you sure??? Because you seem to be fighting the argument with the same 'opinion' argument. How many times must I repeat myself????

Just to be clear, I have no problem with Sprint or any other carrier installing in existing light/telephone poles. That's the way it should be done. But Sprint/Mobilite seems to be installing their own poles that are taller than existing poles in some places. Installation in existing telephone poles or a street light? Sure. But 70 ft? That's over the top. 40 foot poles already exist in many suburban neighborhoods, so there's no need for Sprint to add more poles. Range be damned; they are small cells and not meant for range so they don't need height.

Unlimited data will do that.

So residents trying to protect their property value are 'dumb'? News flash; having cellphone service isn't the most important thing in the world. I personally wouldn't let any cellphone carrier come in and place an ugly 70 ft. pole in front view of my house. I would take every avenue possible to get rid of it. My property is way more important to me than some small cell I will never benefit from in any way. I'd rather switch carriers than let my provider screw with my property value just so I can have LTE. I already have wifi that is faster than any wireless provider out there. You may be fast to roll over for them, but there are some people that won't. Wireless carrier's need to respect the neighborhoods they are trying to install small cells in.

You like them, but it's obvious there is a segment of homeowners who don't. And it boggles my mind how you can't understand that. Personally, I would do everything possible to stop a 70 ft. pole from being erected if that was my property in the picture above. Especially since there are existing utility poles that can be used already in place. There are many people who like to keep certain neighborhoods looking a certain way. Providing coverage is the Wireless carrier's problem, not the users. If Sprint doesn't want to play by the rules a specific neighborhood sets, then I'm sure another provider will at some point in order to gain customers in that area.

If wireless providers want to install small cells, then they need to do a better job of camouflaging these equipment. They already do so in so many places (flag pole towers, fake palm trees cells, etc) so why not do the same for small cells? It doesn't matter how ugly or poor a community is; Mobilite (and all providers) needs to respect the concerns of the residents of the communities they want to install these small cells in. It would be a terrible PR move not to do so for Sprint. There's also a huge difference between a small cell above an existing street light and a new stand alone 70 ft. wood pole in plain view. One of the benefits of small cells was supposed to be discreetness. And at 70 ft., they aren't trying to hide these anymore.

People are not going to just roll over and allow a 70 foot pole to be erected on their street just because their residence is "offensive" to you. Hell, I find newer suburban communities to be ugly and lacking uniqueness. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have their concerns heard and even acted upon. To each their own...