cortney
-
Posts
325 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Forums
Everything posted by cortney
-
Or 5 years. But who's counting?
-
Very funny. Thanks for digging that up.
-
Sprint is indeed still #3 because they have the #3 network, but no, the media has to use the bs subscriber count metric that temporarily gives T-Mobile a #3 spot in their head. Coming Soon™: COVERAGE in the other 2/3 of the country. Nah, at least as much as Sprint Coming Soon™: Actually finishing that 2G → 3G conversion. Never mind. Just fragile LTE?
-
And then on queue: DAMAGE CONTROL You can't have damage control without trol....l..
-
And the state/national results are in (my general interpretation): T-Mobile did not win a single reward in any category for statewide results, nor nationwide results. Unlike all other carriers, T-Mobile's nationwide performance declined, and save moderate improvements in their speed and data performance. They took horrible turns notably in Network Reliability, substantially in Call Performance. RootMetrics tested less miles, but included more indoor tests and overall tests, so this could explain the drop in call performance for all carriers compared to last quarter.
-
No, it is not immature of you. Humor should be encouraged in moderation to offer appropriate comic relief from the ugly side that pink mobile has to offer and all the apologizing and credit given to them. How can one not mock them? They tout second-rate virtually all mid-band urban-based service as competitive, quality service compared to Verizon, AT&T even Sprint, then cry about being oppressed by the big two to explain their rural conundrum. If they do great in certain markets, awesome. If low-band makes them a viable competitor in certain markets, fantastic. The damage control brigade always says NV has taken too long? No, hilariously wrong. The original range was 3-5 years. It's actually on course. http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-announces-network-vision-network-evolution-plan.htm (start in 2011 + 5 = finish by 2016) However, I'd say T-Mobile is actually the offender for taking an excruciatingly long amount of time to do projects (2G to 3G, helloooo?). Offering deflections about insignificant treats for e-penis speedaholics and diverting the attention to what they've already done.
-
Lol. It's even funnier if you know Verizon is either inferior or not superior in your market like you said. Then, basically all you hear is barking about some cornfield coverage out west 98% of us never need. Second, they're geese. They're annoying and shit all over the place. Verizon picks geese. Lily. A good looking woman. At least AT&T has taste.
-
Rather, is it a metric or imperial fuck ton? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Metric+Fuckton&defid=942512
-
And of course my wink wasn't indicating my statement was sarcastic. They have a million holes in their LTE like all carriers. It doesn't matter if they have more overall LTE or even if they happen to have higher urban or suburban density in a certain area of a market. Verizon will need CDMA for years to come, no question, even if they get 98% or 99.9999% VoLTE lit up. The fallback won't go away until massive densification occurs.
-
I lol'd at the comment that mentioned blah blah blah after Verizon removes CDMA radios from their phones. Whatever brain-dead fool could think Verizon is even remotely close to having the density nationwide to support ubiquitous VoLTE or LTE and just retire CDMA is certainly not one worth listening to.
-
chicken (noodle) soup
-
My post was simply a rant reiterating sort of the non-coincidental way many come to even join the magenta religion to begin with.
-
It's more obnoxious than anything. Practically all of the demographic praising T-Mobile lies within the urban areas T-Mobile actually cares about covering. If Wi-Fi works well enough for them to fill in the indoors coverage, then it's the greatest thing since canned peaches. Then of course to fuel the fire you have testimonials from a handful of people with anecdotal experiences in areas Sprint hadn't gotten to yet, but T-Mobile did. Help us all!
-
Yeah, it's stomach-turning. First, ancient perceptions. Many people, primarily in non-urban areas, still use Verizon out of fear and compliance (everyone else does, why not me?). If you ask these people about cell service, they'll probably tell you they don't know about AT&T, or they sucked 5-10 years ago when they or someone they know tried them, Sprint sucked 5-10 years ago when they or someone they know tried them, and most still don't know T-Mobile exists (but rightfully so-- especially those who bought their marketing, tried them, and found out). Second, marketing. Verizon has had many people with clever marketing and tower placement. Verizon, outside of urban areas, never really did have such excellent coverage in their heyday a few years ago. As long as 2-3 years ago did they finally catch up in many areas. In fact, if you traveled to the wrong area, it got very ugly. Nada mixed with 1 bar of 1X -- not fun. They do better with overall LTE and coverage primarily out west, but wow when they're not good. On the flip side, I remember some encounters a few years and nearly a decade ago, where a new Sprint user gladly enjoyed better native service than Verizon through post or prepaid and switched to them fully as a result (even in semirural areas)! Third, wtf. 2-3 years ago, no one outside of cities knew or cared about T-Mobile's existence or service and I doubt they were so adored in most urban areas, either. They were like USCC to a New Yorker. It goes to show you.
-
Me too. I'm personally sick of Sprint's coverage maps. Inaccurate or not, I check them all from time to time and besides Verizon's ugly map, Sprint's also sucks. Not to start a whole rant, but my biggest problem is they still haven't just redone their map. First, I really think they need to change their algorithms and get a little looser with their coverage maps. They claim roaming in areas with 2-4 "bars" of native 3G. They claim a tiny blotch or two of Spark in the middle of the woods or random areas, miles away from the nearest tower. I know coverage maps are exaggerated and inaccurate, but Sprint at the very least should even out their estimated coverage and preferably offer a much bigger map than the stupid square they have now. T-Mobile's previous map was by far the best, and it even had shades so you could know you'd only get LTE within the first two shades (if there even was LTE on a given tower). But bottom line: it was big, clean, and easy to use and interpret.
-
Irish coffee
-
Prosthetic leg
-
CDMA in general? Not particularly. AT&T's W-CDMA is often the favorite of many after their better LTE areas or sometimes spotty/lacking rural LTE. This often applies to T-Mobile as well.
-
Imagine if AT&T, for example, released RCS. People would laugh. They'd state all the points others have here about how other OTT apps are far more popular and how this isn't a need for anyone. They'd laugh at the intra-carrier limitations that would exist and the extremely limited number of phones it'd be released on. They'd scorn AT&T's network, whine about VoLTE, then that'd lead into DirecTV, lusacell, etc.
-
Bus Driver
-
No. Because of the fact this is usable on just one phone with plans for only two more right now, and we don't know of any other carriers officially releasing it, it currently serves no purpose but to feed fanboys/trolls. Even if they extend it to 10 or mostly all of their phones: it's still only intra-carrier, meaning useless for many. I do hope that changes soon, but no signs of that yet. That doesn't mean I'm unhappy T-Mobile is pushing new technology. I hope T-Mobile and Sprint push more and denser LTE, for example. And not just competitively, but in areas where Verizon and AT&T are lagging behind with either no, weak or congested LTE to force them into the game.
-
That's the issue with this standard. Say it's awesome and we do all want it. Great, now until Verizon and AT&T at the very least implement it fully, most people can't use it. First on their end. That's still neglecting the software updates needed to get it to work on people's phones. I find it hard to believe they would even consider implementing this technology until next year at the least (unless I'm missing something?). So presently, more troll food: "T-Mobile did it first!!"
-
Whatever T-Mobile does is taken way too seriously. I guess if they released pink road apples, everyone would go nuts.
-
Yep. Also, all 4 carriers (as per T-Mobile's anecdotal evidence) provided good enough speeds, even with the lower 3.1 Mbps attached to VZW in the fine print, to do virtually everything one could ask. The extra tenth of a megabit advantage listed in the fine print of that video is humorous, yet completely irrelevant. Of course, 3-4 megabits could be pushing it for certain heavier tasks such as 1080p+ streaming or large file downloading, but I'd presume that any non-magentan would understand periodic dips of 3 and 4 megabits (to be expected with large crowds, anyways) are perfectly fine, so long as the performance is overall consistently adequate, and the service works as needed.
-
Pay no attention to the COW behind the curtain. Oh, and they call that marketing crap "proof"? Yuck. Indeed, the fine print from their anecdotal results depict all carriers, as per speed, doing perfectly fine. Speed is such a pathetic measure alone. What's more important is latency and jitter -- an overall consistent experience that works. Not requiring continual e-penis validation by the gigabyte, maybe eventually terabyte. More yuck.
