mittenmitten

I transferred my primary line from Boost Mobile to the 'Leonardo 5' plan; 1600 texts and minutes + 1500mb of data. Bought a brand new Moto E from Best Buy intended for Sprint Prepaid, paid $40 for it, activated really easily. Number port took about 15 minutes. I'm loving it; same service as I had on Boost with just 500mb of data less and it's saving me $30 / month. I'm not sure how they can afford it but I have listened to at least a dozen ads so far while placing calls in the past 4 days. RingPlus is a pretty innovative company as far as their software is concerned. When I get a voicemail it's transcribed into text and sent to my email as audio. Their website is really useful for usage analysis too.

10 years ago.  Now, people do not call as much anymore.  It is all about the data.

I call on my phone daily. Maybe 20 somethings don't use calling, but I use at least 500+ minutes / month, mostly for work. 

We'll just wait till Binge on for YouTube is added and all the toddlers and kids will start watching youtube because parents wouldn't have to worry about hitting their high-speed cap.

 

More congestion, YAY!

 

Congestion? No, no, this is their new service: GreenOn - slower data saves energy. it'll play really well with millennials, like John.

band 12 is crawling in my city almost unusable. 3mbps down at best during the day. Band 4 is still in the 20's.

B26 crawls along at about 3mbps on average for me, while B41 is in the 20s. Interesting. No, wait, that other thing...tedious.

2 weeks ago. And by he I'm thinking someone at FW. 30 days of its posts were removed, so someone at FW got pissed or fed up. That looks like a ban. (Look at the comments on articles from ~October to verify). 

 

 

It's obviously not moderated much if any. Even worse, it's like a dodgeball match when it gets heated and they do nothing (unless I'm wrong but I rarely ever visit HF). 

 

Anyone know some brief history on that site? 

Oh wow I can finally add FW back to my favorites.

Now watch Sprint rally 50 cents in a day for no apparent reason

This happens every time

rofl wtf is the point of this if it counts against your data?!

Sprint rallies almost like clockwork in the days before their quarterly results, then plummets after. Sprint will post good news but it's never good enough to sustain their gains.

2.3M net adds. 843k post paid adds. Pretty good quarter for T-Mobile.

 

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/t-mobile-delivers-industry-leading-customer-and-financial-growth-in-q3-2015.htm

Does Sprint get to count their 3g and more roaming as native coverage? 

AT&T fell to last place in Grand Rapids (where I'm from) in terms of media download speed. Which is amazing, considering just a couple years ago I couldn't even muster 1mbps downtown on Sprint. AT&T used to be the 2nd best carrier in MI because they had coverage everywhere. Now that even T-Mobile has coverage up north, they're dropping all over the place. I get faster speeds at my house with Sprint than with AT&T, which is also amazing, because I live on a hill, and barely get a signal from any carrier.

T-Mobile has a faster upload speed. Also with their upcoming Extra Wide Super Speed Strong Extended Band LTE⁺, they'll easily beat that download speed. 

 

Therefore, you're a Sprint troll.

 

It's funny, because Legere was making fun of Verizon of 'XLTE', then immediately came up with 'Extended Range LTE'. I just don't believe T-Mobile is getting away with what they are; their coverage map is a complete farce, their 'UnCarrier' stuff is totally 'carrier' stuff. It's...it's...preposterous!

I'd love to see T-Mobile end up buying all of the 600 mhz spectrum I mentioned... 15x15 in mid and metro markets, 10x10 in low markets. I was disappointed in what T-Mobile claimed they were only going to purchase 600mhz where they didn't already have 700mhz, which sounds as if they might be going with a 5x5 nationwide lowband strategy.

 

However, I am hoping that will change with DT's influence, now that they finally seem willing to be helpful towards T-Mobile here. They ought to seperate the 700mhz from the 600mhz, get all the 5x5 700mhz they can around the country for LTE now, then use it for 3g backup later on when the 600mhz is active.

 

At least have 15x15 in metro markets, 10x10 in mid markets, and 5x5 in low markets, even though I'd like to see them have no less than 10x10 of it for LTE.

 

The more they get of 600mhz, the better it is for Sprint, if Sprint is able to merge with T-Mobile. I definitely believe that is Sprint'S strategy right now.

I just don't see a nationwide license; I see them buying 600 where they can't buy 700. It would be nice to have nationwide but if they're going into this bidding on reserve (the fact that they even NEED a reserve means something), I just don't see them sweeping the auction like people wish. I see nationwide 600 AND 700mhz no problem though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know that initially I was against Sprint's decision, which I later got to agreeing with it, based on all of the complexities and costs, where it could better be spent on NGN.

 

However, now looking at it again, I think this is a bad decision made by Sprint and on which could drag them behind the other three carriers.

 

Besides, my outlook on T-Mobile has fluctuated over the past year, with me being enthused by the Dish merger possibility, then backed away when that didn't happen.

 

Although now knowing DT is finally after all this time backing T-Mobile gives hope they will be serious in getting as much of the reserved spectrum they can, which will improve T-Mobile alot and as a viable third carrier, without a merger.

 

That leaves Sprint, which may be using the strategy of being in dire need of a merger, though by then it might be too late to get T-Mobile. I'm wondering then if it'll be one of the other carriers which acquire Sprint, or at least its assets.

I agree wholeheartedly on the first paragraph. I think T-Mobile's investment in the 600mhz auction is going to be a lot LESS than their fans wish it will be because it would be extremely short sighted to blow their lead on something that wont even be usable for 4-5 years. They've already mentioned they only plan on buying 600mhz where they can't get 700mhz. 4-5 years is more than enough time for Sprint to catch up AND take the lead. If T-Mobile falls back to 4th place, how will they even build out their 600mhz spectrum? If Sprint actually needs the spectrum, they can just buy it from T-Mobile after they dig themselves into a hole.

It's a surprisingly smart strategy.

Yey capitalism

That sounds good.  If the 23+ GB subs are part of the reason those markets are congested, then the 23+ GB subs need to own their usage.  That means taking responsibility by reducing their usage, getting prioritized, paying for greater tiered data, or pursuing other options.

 

AJ

There aren't any 'greater tiers' though, that's the whole reason a lot of people are on unlimited, because it's unlimited, and we don't have to deal with tiers. If Sprint introduced another 'unlimited' tier that pushes deprioritization back to 40gb, then would you be saying the same thing? Because at that point it would be for monetizing more than decongestion. The 23gb is completely arbitrary. They should have done 24gb, or at least something to make their data cap more attractive than T-Mobile. 

In all honesty, the cap doesn't bother me as much as the idea that they're selling unlimited, with limits. Don't call it unlimited if it's not unlimited; this is not unlimited because 23gb is a limit. I'll end my hissyfit on that note.  #moveforward

WiWavelength, on 16 Oct 2015 - 3:09 PM, said:

 

And if you want the TL;DR version of the thread and its stats, among S4GRU readers who responded to the poll, about 90 percent fall below the 23 GB threshold. That means about 10 percent are above the threshold.

 

But here is the more interesting stat -- that 10 percent minority above 23 GB consumes in aggregate about 43 percent of all data usage. And that is even being conservative with the statistical estimates. It could be closer to 50 percent of all data usage.

 

Basically, some of you have brought this upon yourself. You are using too much mobile data potentially to the detriment of many others.

 

AJ

That's based on Sprint's current network though. For a lot of people, that's all they can use. I would think people would use more if Sprint had a faster and denser network, which is what they're shooting for.

It's like some customers drive muscle cars and some drive Pintos. The ones with Pintos aren't going to have the same experience the other people will have; they don't get to 'race around'. They might enjoy driving more with a faster car. If I owned a POS Pinto, I wouldn't drive around much, but it doesn't mean I don't want to.

You're pointing at people with slow cars and saying "see? they don't like driving fast!".

nexgencpu, on 16 Oct 2015 - 2:56 PM, said:

 

I find it hard to understand why anyone would be against this. Think about it, if the tower is congested, no matter who is connected to the tower it will be slow. So why not allow a more consistent experience for 97% of its users, instead of a mediocre one to 100% of them.

If they don't implement it like T-Mobile has, where you get slowed to .1mbps on every 'congested' tower, for an entire month, I would be ok with this. If I was slowed down to a still usable speed. Fine. I just don't see this playing out like that.

Quote

This QoS practice is intended to protect against a small minority of unlimited customers who use high volumes of data and unreasonably take-up network resources during times when the network is constrained. It’s important to note that this QoS technique operates in real-time and only applies if a cell site is constrained. Prioritization is applied or removed every 20 milliseconds. And performance for the affected customer returns to normal as soon as traffic on the cell site also returns to normal, or the customer moves to a non-constrained site.

This looks good, but again, it matters how MUCH they slow you down to. If other people on the tower are getting 100mbps, and I get .1mbps, it's absurd. That would destroy reliability. If I still get like 5mbps, I'm completely fine with this. I just have my doubts.

Is your job to watch Netflix?!  :-)

I work in security, so kind of.

Your price stays the same if you are a current customer and unless you upgrade through lease, 2 year or installment, you won't be subject to the cap. 

That's everyone except BYOD, oh wait, those people will get it too!

 

Yeah, but the only two times I have ever been close to reaching 20 GB was when I first got a smartphone and when 4G was turned on.

I use 20+gb a month through Netflix at my work. Easily. And the App Store. I don't abuse anything, they TOLD me I had no limits, I don't have wifi at work, so I casually watch movies and listen to music when I want, all through legal means, and it just happens to exceed the arbitrary 23gb cap.

This doesn't bother you? That we're supposed to be looking forward to 5g, the 'Next Generation Network', higher definition video, VR gaming, etc. and the 2 unlimited carriers supposedly ushering in this revolution are shutting down people who choose them specifically for unlimited data? At a time when Sprint is begging for customers, they say 'everyone but you'. Beggars apparently can be choosers.

I think you missed the point, if that pipe is wide enough to serve all its users, you wont see deprioritization affect you. So when Sprint finally has that third and fourth carriers online ubiquitously, it wont be as much a concern whether a tower is over capacity or not.

 

But of course, there will always be exceptions where that capacity just isn't available.

Then why are they doing this now? And not when it's necessary? This is going to stifle growth; poor timing for this. Their slow speeds are due to density, not congestion. T-Mobile had a valid reason for deprioritization; their network is congested. Sprint is adding capacity left and right. 

This is a missed opportunity to capitalize on blowback from T-Mobile's cap. I can see that they want to stop potential abuse, but why the hell would they match T-Mobile instead of 1-uping them.

I don't see an issue with the 23gb soft cap. I would think a lot of users won't even touch 20gb in a month. People have really been conditioned to hop on wifi when they can. I've seen my friends who have T-Mobile and Sprint just jump on it when they are at my house or even when their at home. One friend I asked how much data he used last month and he said 7gb.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The thing is, they're raising the price of their plan, and offering less data, as they claim their network is getting better. This is not good business. If your restaurant was seeing less patronage, would you raise prices to compensate for losses? Likewise, if your restaurant was seeing an uptick in patronage, would you raise prices and offer less food? No, you should be streamlining, cutting operating costs, and innovating.

If I'm paying more for less, I'm more inclined to seek an alternative. Verizon and AT&T prices are coming down, while T-Mobile and Sprint prices are going up. Then they impose data caps. What exactly differentiates the carriers now? 

I'm blown away by how tame the reception of deprioritization is. Unlimited is the reason I've stayed with Sprint for as long as I have; that and they were the least expensive. Now that they've upped the price of unlimited and imposed the same data cap T-Mobile has, there's doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to stay with Sprint vs. T-Mobile now, or even AT&T and Verizon, as their caps approach Sprint and T-Mobile.

Why the hell would I pay for unlimited if I don't get unlimited? If it's capped at 23gb, just SAY 23gb. And don't give me that B.S. about 'it's still unlimited', it's the exact same crap MetroPCS has been pulling for years; 'unlimited data' for $30 a month!

This is outrageous. I thought the network was getting better? What about all that capacity? Why am I getting less water when the pipe is getting bigger?

what's the deal with 2nd carriers? is it only possible where 10x10 is available? or is this just a 2nd radio, both using the same 5x5 spectrum? can / is this going to be done everywhere? particularly Grand Rapids?

It's ALMOST like certain nameless interests are paying these 'news sources' and the 'analysts' they interview to shine a negative light on Sprint. ALMOST.

But yea, I stopped reading 'Sprint news' awhile ago too and instead rely solely on S4GRU and /r/sprint. Even FierceWireless has turned negative on Sprint. I guess certain interests feel threatened? 

Keep your ear to the ground about updates in your area, and keep in touch / participate here. That's my plan. Oh and enjoy my unlimited service and awesome phone

Well this is good news.

 

Mobile life and the New York City urban mobile experience | RootMetrics - www.rootmetrics.com

http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/blog/special-reports/2015-1h-new-york-urban-experience

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that dropped call rate, wow.

how important is VoLTE? does Sprint really need it right away? or is it more of a 'we have the latest technology' bragging right?