cortney
-
Posts
325 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Forums
Everything posted by cortney
-
I'm surprised T-Mobile simply hasn't copied Verizon's map and thickened the edges. EOY 2016: 99.99% pops covered, 99.98% land covered in LTE.
-
Here's a pretty picture : (Source)
-
Listen, it's obvious what the person in question is. He is a troll and he is everything he calls everyone else. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with what you said or did, Ascertion. The way he responded, and what he said proves what a lame troll and how pompous he is. But by replying, you are feeding him. He wants that. He spends hours a day waiting for it. Don't give him what he wants. To everyone out there, S4GRU or not: avoid feeding them. He and the others will make stuff up and say untrue, ridiculous and inflammatory things just to get your attention, even to get you to say they are untrue. He will deflect, divert, play victim, play moderator, and do whatever he can to get attention. That's how he rolls. That's why you don't ever respond to him or the others. And if one ever does or must, you ignore his games, slam his bs and move on.
-
For the argument how it's better to skip from 2G to LTE (which can make sense for dense areas or cities), no other carrier choose to do that as a whole or skip so much, and for a reason. I understand it might not be possible for them to do that right now, but the damage is done and I am not excusing it. (from a year ago: http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/small-cells/t-mobile-small-cells-were-dense-already/a/d-id/710439) It seems it's low-band or nothing. We have to see if they are going to deploy any more low-band than they did 3G and they can only deploy it in certain areas. I also clarified that to me this really applies to suburban and semirural areas. For a GSM network that isn't dense, W-CDMA makes a huge world of difference. I don't know of any plans outside of just select areas that they are densifying nationwide. I don't want GPRS/EDGE for data, calling, texting or anything. I want LTE or 3G, period. LTE is more robust, and it is not even necessarily for low-traffic areas. Too much LTE obsession. Otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree. Edit: AJ beat me to it
-
AT&T now throttling unlimited data plans at 22GB instead of 5GB
cortney replied to Yuhfhrh's topic in General Topics
-
Correct and good post. And to clarify, I might be too broad. I am not advocating for T-Mobile to covert their absolute entire 2G footprint. My problem is with non-cities where they don't have the density, and I could agree with them skipping most if not all W-CDMA in cities. They cannot skip W-CMDA if they are serious about covering these suburban and semirural areas riddled with 2G and LTE islands. Then if you can't get LTE you get the insult of GPRS/EDGE in 2015 or no signal altogether. And the other problem is there's a vast amount of areas that simply aren't getting B12 yet or soon enough, and many still won't have a B12 phone, to add to that problem. In short, city carrier is city carrier. With a little highway LTE coverage every now and again.
-
How can one even comment on that? They think they'll have similar/same LTE than AT&T/Verizon? And if it's anything like their map a few years ago: Perpetually Coming Soon ™ Anyone can ask them (don't; rhetorical) the honest question, and it is not trolling, why T-Mobile refuses to complete it's 2G to 3G overlay, particularly in suburban and semirural areas where it is absolutely necessary. When is that never-ending project going to be declared "substantially complete"? Let alone this new skip 2G to LTE thing. Likewise, I've seen shill trolls say T-Mobile's LTE would be COMPLETE, not substantially, but totally complete by mid-2015. That did not happen, and now they've gone to retorting the "but it is substantially complete" bs. So basically: no.
-
I believe they'll slip in many cities for a couple-few more quarters until they get both high-band (WCS) rolling and phone to use on it. That will look ugly, but it won't mean their service is useless, IMO. It's basically up to the user to wait or leave. I do agree it's arguably inexcusable, but every carrier has bad markets and areas and you have vote with your wallet. They are furiously overlaying mid-band and I doubt me and digiblur (not to bring him into this but I happened to see his comment on FW) are the only people on earth who've noticed this. And the pace has increased very much in the last few months, I've also noticed that. If one cannot wait, that's absolutely understandable, just leave. I don't think AT&T is so unaware of their issues, and by the increased pace, it shows DTV / Mexican operations have nothing to do with it. Sadly, people in rural areas or on that "one bad tower" in the "wrong place at the wrong time" are not going to absolutely see the improvements tomorrow. So in that regard, oh well for you. I'm not saying they'll fix it all, or improve in notoriously problematic areas, and I'm not saying everyone is going to see the improvements.
-
That's basically the trend. They easily land #2 or #3 in reliability, calling, and usually texting, but their data is either still a bit painful, or just getting there. Otherwise they outright win #1 or #2 as Sprint's long-goal is. For real world use, so long as you can pull 3-5 megabits down pretty much always, that's actually quite good. Even most red check users are unaware they can barely pull even 1 most of the time on their LTE or 3G connections, so you guys need to keep that in mind. As such, Sprint's probably perfectly fine for everyday use in the majority of these markets, but the data just isn't all there for the e-you-know-what.
-
I see.
-
Huh? Nothing trashy about cheap nationwide prepaid. Does Cricket have a bad name already ? Maybe it sucks out west in roaming areas or something.
-
Or coincidence.
-
They still did far better in call performance, reliability, and texting. The data speeds are sadly a bit on the rough side, but with the physical coverage being superior to T-Mobile, it just takes the overlaying.
-
AT&T now throttling unlimited data plans at 22GB instead of 5GB
cortney replied to Yuhfhrh's topic in General Topics
I guess so. But really, even if you're on an "unlimited" plan, you shouldn't be entitled to all you can eat high-speed data 24/7. That's why the "unlimited" titling has to go, because this is indeed a misnomer. That's the only problem with this. It is not any different than T-Mobile's "unlimited" 2G plans with an amount of high speed data. But if it's in the fine print however, I don't think AT&T is any more guilty than T-Mobile. Verizon users, like T-Mobile and some Sprint users on unlimited plans seem to feel this entitlement and I've seen screenshots of like 80-120+ GB a month use, continuous speed tests, streaming and tethering, and one wonders why VZW's LTE is useless in many areas. If the AT&T Unlimited users don't like it, they can leave. If 22GB of unthrottled data isn't good enough for you, leave and go to T-Mobile and Verizon like many people threaten. Do it! Same goes to VZW users if Verizon finally boots their plans or adds a throttle, and the other two when they get rid of it as well. -
For sure. He's not the evil person everyone thinks he is. Network Vision and the attempted MetroPCS buyout were both extremely good moves. Ripping and replacing Sprint's entire network and an attempt to give it even more leverage and customers.
-
The title for the thread should mention the coverage map, too. And yes, they might not have replaced the ugly thing yet, but it looks like they're listening and changing something. I notice a difference in estimated coverage for Spark/LTE in areas with the same coverage. And they added the Spark coverage for new markets.
-
That's one of the biggest problems I have with T-Mobile. I do not consider 2G a valid option for data or calling on GSM networks for me. No thanks, there are 3 other carriers who decided 3G comes before 2G, and 2 of which did not let their 3G simply rot on an outdated standard. Their common sense appeals to me. Not that I don't love LTE, but it's only available 90-98% of the time outside of non-urban areas, so 3G still matters.
-
I agreed with your points, but in terms of the overages for the average user who keeps his/her phone for 2-5 years at a time: no carrier is preventing anyone from manning the hell up and buying their devices outright and picking either a Verizon/AT&T Prepaid or MVNO option (no overages at least for AT&T/MVNO), otherwise an Unlimited or suitable plan on Sprint, even prepaid on Sprint if the local service is good (and doesn't require roaming). Ignorance is bliss. Now that may be "too complicated" for most people, but even I know people not tech or cell savvy that went that way long ago and reaped the benefits. Just don't walk into a corporate store and ask their recommendation, lol... Postpaid can be useful for some, including those who use higher data amounts and truly need the upgrade plans, but it is incredibly hyped up and overused. Sprint is the only carrier I'd ever use postpaid if needed.
-
I was going to bring up my rant, but it'd be for at least the third time so I passed. Simply put, Sprint's coverage maps are ugly, embarrassing, constantly outdated, unrepresentative of their coverage and too meek. Also, if T-Mobile is going to put up their low-band map, that should maybe be another hint for Sprint to not only redo their coverage maps, but also do the same. Sprint has coverage in areas they claim as roaming. That has to stop. They need to figure out a better algorithm to meet the middle grounds between what the others are doing to viciously overclaim coverage, yet what must be down to not make consumers thinks Sprint has 20% of the coverage T-Mobile has in areas Sprint actually covers more or nearly double.
-
Boston Baseball
-
Not with AWS. Their descriptions are barely accurate for low-band LTE, as to when someone would drop to H+ in building (low-band W-CDMA) with their notorious non-urban sparsity. And while PCS and AWS can penetrate many homes, the wrong geography or an old brick or concrete building can help destroy that experience. Just step inside!
-
It can still work for them to a certain degree in the better parts of certain cities. Otherwise, for most suburban and semirural users stuck in between islands of LTE and EDGE with some occasional H+, another validation of their marketing induced pro-Verizon bigotry for another 5-10 years. And I don't care if it was serious or for the purpose of example, it will largely be a Verizon to T-Mobile and T-Mobile to Verizon thing. And Verizon is, yet again, delivering for all that swallow their BS with more enticing plans, to lure more people who like throwing cash out of their wallets like bread at birds. I've seen this for over a decade, but people still buy it up, with 2-3 carriers broadcasting probably LTE in their backyard. The red check comforts many. Now a magenta smoke and mirrors show fulfills the broken souls of many others. What else is new? I pick normality. Yeah, please don't tell me anyone believes that bullshit. Please...
-
No carrier is EVER done with their any rollout. I hope they do still think they're done with their LTE rollout, then there's more hope for the other 3 carriers than we thought...
-
Deal Breaker
-
Well, when the anecdotal evidence that T-Mobile's W-CDMA can't pull a megabit or EDGE speeds, and their LTE continually pulls 3 or worse has become more and more prevalent in the last year, it hasn't fazed any of them. Dozens and dozens and dozens of people offer very similar stories, sometimes including quite extensive details. The best the T-Mobile advocates can come up with is that perfectly suburban areas are just "rural" and "not important", and then they sling insults and other irrelevant crap. Mindless, idiotic bullshit like "WiFi always uses less battery and is so much better than cellular anyways" as nonsensical deflections after they whine how great their carrier's cell network is. Wi-Fi is great for sedentary situations when properly deployed. Otherwise, no. Verizon, AT&T and Sprint have gotten rid of virtually all 2G in the majority of all areas. Yes, some will sadly point out remaining exceptions, but as a whole, it's basically gone. For the little one, it's still not gone and still no full 3G network. Defending a carrier that is historically unknown to damn near all suburban and rural users and still fails to deliver is not going to end well. And next year will clearly be the turning point.
