cortney

Did they accidentally add a 0 into the algorithm or what?  There's no way they could add that much coverage, even in 3 years. Haha  

Or 5 years. But who's counting? 

T-Mobile has their own Coming Soon[emoji769] history. Remember the outrageous 3G map Phil Humm posted at CES one year before the AT&T buyout?

 

Very funny. Thanks for digging that up. 

COMING Soon^TM: Data speeds

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? 

The comments section on that was not what I had expected.

And then on queue:

DAMAGE

CONTROL

You can't have damage control without trol....l.. 

Diving further into the results which are now posted, Sprint is only behind T-Mobile in data performance by 2.0 points. The area where they struggle the most is data speed and we all know that's about to change.

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.

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.

That Des d-bag sorta reminds me of a vampire from Blade II

 

 

That's a bit immature I know, but as that's the level that the boys in hot pink operate on I don't feel too bad about it.

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. 

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. 

That's funny, Spotify has ads for Verizon with the "tired of slow.....network.....connection?" message, but I laugh because I'm sure they pay for ads specifically based on IP and I have never buffered on the Sprint Network.

 

T-Mobile has several ads on TV, especially on Spanish language programming. Too bad for them Sprint is not far behind with ad power. At&t only has ads with that sexy, fine little thing named Lily and the new uverse, direct TV,and wireless bundle. Verizon has those stupid ducks.

 

Sorry Verizon, your big2 counterpart has better ads. Lily > ducks, all day. Everyday.

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.

And is that fuck ton a short ton or a long ton?

 

AJ

Rather, is it a metric or imperial fuck ton?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Metric+Fuckton&defid=942512

I live in a rural VZW area.

 

Still plenty of places where 3G fallback is required. More places where they are oversold.

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. 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/special-reports/how-verizon-att-t-mobile-and-sprint-stacked-q2-2015?confirmation=123

 

Fierce, registration may be required. Deals with a lot of the nonsense that Sprint is sticking with contract plans. They really aren't.

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

Verizon didn't copy tmobiles no contract approach because it was good for the consumer. They did it because they knew it was a lie and they moved in to further line there pockets. Nothing wrong with that because it is a business but consumers should be more aware and realize that they are getting ripped off. I feel consumers get confused alot in the mobile industry and this is a good think for wireless networks because they can bend them over away they want. Missionary, doggy, choke hold reverse. This doesn't matter which position.

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 is amazing the the biased attacks against Sprint. Seems all the tech media sites are in the pockets of Tmobile.

 

I guess they love that tmobile ceo is obnoxious as them.

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!  

I shouldn't have read the comments on the video. People are saying "You don't have to try Sprint, they suck."

 

This is is exactly what baffles me about consumers on social media. They're quick to tell you don't try something to see if it works for you. You should just trust them when they say it sucks. How would they know it sucks if they're just relaying what their sister's father's cousin's ex-girlfriend said when she had service 3 years ago.

 

Either way I want to hear what he has to say about his service in a few months.

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. 

My biggest fear with the inaccurate maps is that Sprint actually thinks I'm receiving what their maps are saying. I hope their network team uses a different set of maps than the maps the marketing team uses.

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

With how terrible Sprint is with SMS (VZW too....CDMA in general) 

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.

And this will not solve that problem.  You are trying too hard to sell this as a solution.  That plays into the cult of T-Mobile -- everything it does is smart, progressive, and consumer friendly.  But many of us are not buying that or this.

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

But you consider this 'food' for the 'trolls'. If anything, you should be happy that someone in this industry is pushing the latest technology. It benefits the consumer, which is us.

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. 

It's not a "simple software update." RCS requires implementation on the network side, and that's not simple.

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!!"

this seems like yet another thing for them to market. it's become T-Mobile's MO: 'we're the good guys, the other carriers are the bad guys. they want to oppress you, we want you to have freedom!'...now pay us for doing the exact same thing they do. they're becoming Apple of the wireless industry.

Whatever T-Mobile does is taken way too seriously. I guess if they released pink road apples, everyone would go nuts.

I think the point was that the difference between 3.9 and 4.2 is statistically not noticeable. 

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. 

Embedded in text at the bottom of the video

Hardly a massive victory by any means. All carriers have a DAS at GABP, and there were probably many COWs for each carrier. Also, since testing locations were set up by T-Mobile employees, you have to wonder if they set them in locations where T-Mobile would perform the best....

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.