Arysyn

I agree that in the current state of wireless and even in the future state of wireless without some sort of revolutionary way of technologically reducing congestion greatly, such as Artemis, unlimited data likely will go away. This is why I've been trying to think of rate plan ideas to help give a better value to per GB data plans, as the current ones are not a sufficient replacement for unlimited plans.

From what I've been reading online about Lollipop, the issues and severity or lack thereof, vary by different factors. Some people haven't had any problems whereas others have. My Nexus 6 worked most of the time, though the times it did not were pretty frustrating. I had the signal go completely off on me a few times which I initially thought was a Sprint issue, I even posted about it here. Then after a few resets of the device, it came back on. Then there were the abnormal 4g drops to 3g on a stretch of road others on S4GRU said shouldn't happen, as the road is covered with 4g LTE. The issue happened late at night with very little congestion. The next day in the early evening in heavier congestion, 4G LTE worked fine on the same road. Also, I had a mysterious problem with Tidal skipping tracks that doesn't happen on my ZTE Zmax. So, I had a conversation with someone here about it, who told me the issue happened to them while using Tidal on other carriers with Android Lollipop, so it definitely isn't a carrier issue, and I doubt something wrong with Tidal, as it works on my ZTE Zmax, as mentioned. I could post some links to articles relating to the Lollipop issues, if requested.

I still think this is too costly to do. There have to be financially reasonable alternatives available.

I've read into the Artemis ideas, and I think it sounds great, and am hoping it works out really well, especially as it sounds like an excellent relief solution to network congestion. After all, it is what I had in mind to work well with my rate plan ideas, as I'm hoping the technology will help either to drive down the per GB data rate, or possibly to give carriers a reason to keep unlimited data around. Perhaps even with the added benefit of having unlimited tethering.

Lou, while I know T-Mobile isn't doing any 700mhz work here in Chicago seeing as they don't have it here, is T-Mobile going to at least densify their network here to supplement their launch of 15x15? Also, I'm going back to Sprint later on a really great plan, and am not going to have Android Lollipop for a while, thankfully! I figured out that it likely was causing the few network connection issues I had with Sprint on the Nexus 6. I decided I'm going to get the Kyocera Hydro with its KitKat, seeing as KitKat works fine on my ZTE Zmax. Then I'll switch to the Samsung Note 5 when it becomes available for purchase, hopefully with a stable, working Lollipop.

I'd imagine so. I'm a fan of Verizon Wireless, as they are always focusing on their network coverage and quality. Yet, my mother is reluctant on us ever getting Verizon because of price. However, Sprint's coverage and quality is getting much better and could close in as they further advance their 2.5ghz. Now if Masa decided to spend big on the 600mhz auction, and win nationwide 10x10 or more of it, then Sprint would absolutely dominate wireless in the U.S.

I was reading an article on Fierce Wireless about Verizon, where one of the commenters mentioned that in Florida, Verizon has only six towers covering three counties, which sounds absurd to me, but is this even remotely true?

While I stand by my wording regarding the individual vs the whole account issue, AJ does have a good point regarding I should have clarified a distinction between how much data is used as a whole with Sprint in contrast as a whole altogether Monthly, regardless of carrier, which I hadn't taken into consideration, that I can definitely understand the confusion on. I apologize for that. I'm interested in monthly usage altogether, considering my recent posts regarding my interests in a financially reasonable per GB rate plan as a feasible alternative to unlimited plans. Although it also is interesting to know about Sprint usage as this is a Sprint information site. I think it is a good idea to have separate polls for both, and perhaps one for monthly plan purchases as well.

Obviously Softbank, if they have the money to purchase TWC, then they have enough money to invest in the 600mhz spectrum auction for Sprint. Although I doubt it will purchase TWC, same as I doubt DT will. Yet, it would make for a simple name change for T-Mobile, if DT wanted to show the TW affiliation in it. TW-Mobile, led by a cartoon character come to life, in John Legere.

My title couldn't possibly imply to the account holder, in the state of multiple people in their account, as again, not everyone has multiple lines, nor does everyone on S4GRU have other members here on the site on their accounts. As far as I know, everyone here has their own accounts separate from each other. Anyone who isn't a member here, does not qualify for the poll. Only S4GRU members do. So rationally speaking, one line of usage from each member, key word here still is usage, not total amount of data purchased or used by others on the account.

None of my posts have been irrelevant. A concise post is fine when one figures they can put enough detail in a short amount of space. Although considering my history with people asking me question after question when I've tried to be concise, I've preferred to be more detailed in the beginning, so less questions or worse, false assumptions made about what I said because I didn't give enough detail to something I've said when I tried to be concise to them.

I'm agreeing with many of your posts here. Same about Softbank's willingness to lose some money just to get out of losing more. However, I think they will get out of Sprint with some money, perhaps from an investor such as Dish or Google, though at this point I'm thinking more likelihood of Google than Dish, since I think Dish will either purchase T-Mobile, or be bought out by Verizon, to compete with AT&T/DirecTv. Sprint is doing well for itself, though they don't seem to want to push as hard anymore for that wireless glory Masa once spoke of. The fact they aren't actively going after the 600mhz spectrum shows me that Masa is content with what Sprint has to do well enough for itself to the point he can sell Sprint off to another company and still make back what he spent buying Sprint, at the very least.

I think what you said could very well be true, if it turns out that way. There is a very strong argument to be made about there being fewer competitors in just about every sort of product and service, causing worse quality/higher prices. Although, the blame ought to be put on management operating under worse conditions for the consumer if they choose to do that with less competition, rather than blaming the nature of mergers and acquisitions. Companies could, ought to, and should continue to operate for the benefit of both themselves and the consumer in any environment, but particularly with less competition, as there is indeed fewer choices in that regard. As long as the company does right, and the government makes sure it does right, along with the company making sure the benefits of consolidation they had promised, still do happen after the consolidation is complete. When the government allows a company to merge, they are giving that company a tremendous advantage in business. That company then has a greater responsibility to do business in a fair and just manner for the public. When they do the opposite, the government ought to step in and do something about it. When they do not do so, the public has a duty to protest both the government and the company in question. Where there a gross injustices due to the overbearing power of a company and/or a government, then there becomes a societal issue. However, this shouldn't mean that all consolidations are bad, even if there is a history showing that many, or even say the majority in any particular field in question, such as telecommunications, have been negative. For instance, most people would agree that the current state of the U.S., is much better that when the country was divided by the confederacy. That being a very different kind of example, yes, but then most people would say their network coverage is much better with companies such as At&T and Verizon from the mergers, than they were when their were multiple regional carriers. Both examples, while each at extreme opposites from each other, have one major thing in common, being that people would agree that the consolidation has been beneficial of both varieties.

The reason I wasn't more specific about this in the initial post, is that I thought the title as pretty self explanatory, being the monthly usage, not monthly plan, members have. Nor did I indicate anything about group usage. However, it seems most people understood what I meant. If anyone has a criticism towards me not being specific enough, then stop complaining about my posts being too long or novel-like.

hmm... I knew Sprint has the 30gb/$110 for the router plan, though I didn't know that was available for the tablet plan too. Sounds good!

Both Sprint and T-Mobile need to improve their networks in order to compete with Verizon, which is what Masa has essentially stated when he wanted to see Softbank/.Sprint become the #1 wireless company. That can't happen without a network that can compete with Verizon. The quickest way of achieving this, would be to merge Sprint and T-Mobile. The next step would be to keep the customers they have and then to gain more customers away from Verizon and AT&T. They can't do this without keeping the prices low, as the moment they raise prices, people will leave for Verizon and AT&T, especially since AT&T and Verizon would feel the competitive nature of wireless being much stronger with Sprint and T-Mobile merged into one company, and they would need to lower their prices or else lose their customers to a strong Sprint/T-Mobile network. Comparing the U.S. wireless situation to other countries is a bit difficult to do fairly, as there are plenty of differences involved. One being population. Competition will be a lot stronger the more people there are to give service too, because the more money is at stake. A company may be satisfied at around 100,000 customers, but the enticement of having, say 50,000 more customers through a competitive edge is even stronger. With three carriers competing for those kind of numbers, its still a very strong game. Although any less than three might end up in such a situation you described. Three though is plenty for there to still be fierce competition between strong networks and lower prices. By the way, everyone does care about network quality in the area they use it the most. If the network quality isn't there, they will leave the service for another, regardless of price. That is why so many people are on Verizon, stay on Verizon, yet still complain about the price while keeping them. The moment a similar quality network comes along with a better price, the moment they leave Verizon for that. And yes, everyone should have a good network to be on. That isn't elitist at all, but fair for everyone. If it takes a merger to provide that, so be it. Although to be clear, I've stated many times that Softbank ought to keep funding and supporting Sprint even without T-Mobile. The problem is here, it seems as they just don't have the drive to do so, considering the merger didn't happen. Otherwise, Joe Euteneuer wouldn't be making statements saying that public wifi is enough not to need 600mhz spectrum.

To me, it isn't about how many carriers there are, but rather how good the network is. If it were up to me, I'd have one nationwide network, which all carriers competed on price only, not who has the better network. Everyone in the nation deserves excellent network coverage and quality speeds. However, knowing that isn't how things are, I understand the concerns with too few carriers. Unlike popular opinion about too much consolidation with there only being three carriers, I don't think it is a concern until it goes down to two. If the concerns are correct, with prices rising and all, then the FCC can take a look into the situation and remedy whatever problems there are. If they don't, then well the public can protest it, which probably will fail as so many protest do. In the meantime, three carriers mean a better network for the third, and for some time, at least, competition will be fierce. It is a good thing for consumers, and for those who have Sprint and T-Mobile.

I actually hope you are right about it happening under a different administration, but it depends if that administration is much different than the one currently in place. The bigger issue than that right now though, is Masa/Softbank's desire to seek an alternative way for Sprint to grow, in case that doesn't happen. The 600mhz spectrum is just that, which they don't seem very interested in even trying to obtain. That tells me they just are not that driven to help Sprint with the drive they need to truly succeed. Instead, they seem aimed to grow Sprint just enough with what they have so they can sell Sprint off to another company. If Softbank had any more desire than that, they'd back the 600mhz auction as a resource Sprint needs to meet the plans Masa once had for Sprint, which is a true alternative in case the T-Mobile merger doesn't happen.

I completely agree with you. I forgot to mention the wifi issue in my last post, though I was trying so much not to write a long post. I have so much to say about these issues that its difficult to get it all said in a small amount of space. I think this whole wifi thing is a cheap excuse for carriers not to upgrade their networks. Wireless companies need to provide better experience to their customers, people who are paying them to provide service, not to some isp providing wifi. Besides, wifi is not continuous. As you drive, you move away from public wifi spots that aren't that plentiful as it is. Of course, that isn't the real issue anyways, its about getting wireless networks more advanced so that wifi isn't needed. Besides, it was companies such as Verizon who fought against public wifi in the past. So now they are realizing that it costs more to build proper wireless networks than what they make in revenue from it, that now its okay to use public wifi instead. How nice.

This brings up an excellent point I've had in mind for awhile, but have neglected to mention in my posts regarding Masa/Softbank's continued interest in Sprint. I want to make a disclaimer here though, before I go on talking about this. I'm not at all speaking against Sprint by saying this, only about what I'm thinking Masa/Softbank might be considering for their part in Sprint's future. Nor am I speaking in favor of T-Mobile by bringing them up here. Masa clearly wanted T-Mobile to become a part of Sprint, which we all now know isn't going to happen. I also agree with many here that this doesn't mean Sprint can't still grow on its own, something I hope strongly for. However, what I'm seeing here with these reports coming both from Sprint and various media about Sprint pertaining to Masa/Softbank's interest in Sprint, which when I say "interest", I'm not referring to financial, but in terms of motivation, it doesn't seem to me that Masa/Softbank are truly in this for the long run. I'm getting the impression they want Sprint to grow just enough so they can sell it for a gain on their initial investment, but not for the same vision Masa once had for it. If Softbank doesn't invest in the 600mhz auction, this ought to prove my theory correct. However, if they do invest in the auction, it might mean that I'm wrong, or it could mean that they are doing so to save Sprint from what could very well lead to a competitive disaster for the company, especially if T-Mobile is very successful in their bids, which T-Mobile's success could be several times stronger without competition from Sprint in that auction. If T-Mobile can overlay their network with plenty of 600mhz, Sprint's network will have difficulty competing against it. Again though, I'm not speaking in support of T-Mobile by saying this, just mentioning the reality of the situation. Sprint needs the 600mhz spectrum, even if their spectrum portfolio is strong in other areas, this low band spectrum will still help in a major way, both to its network and from a competitive nature, as I mentioned before. Although, it just doesn't seem Sprint is very interested in it, which I'm not getting the impression is because of a lack of desire for it, but rather because of the realities of ownership, what their owners want. If Sprint doesn't participate in this auction, then Softbank has lost all the desires for building Sprint into a major competitive network, and far from the original visions of it Masa had.

While I think some sort of network/service testing program is a better idea than the current 14-day grace period is at reaching potential customers who haven't tried Sprint in the past, I seriously doubt it would be enough to reach customers who have a negative view of Sprint from their past experiences with the company. Sprint needs to continue receiving excellent reports from network testing reporters in the media, along with great reviews from people who join Sprint and stay with them. Lower churn will continue to help things too. Although I think one of the best ideas for Sprint to consider, is having a stronger connection to the public by being open about its past, and what its doing for the future. Sprint's latest "getting better every day" advertisement is a good start, but could benefit from more open public communication, in a more "professional" form of what T-Mobile is doing, without the rebellious immature tone to it, of course.

AJ is correct. I meant this to be per individual, as I'm assuming not everyone has a family plan. I'm very anti- multiple line "shared" data plans, as it can cause conflict in groups where some people go over their pre-arranged data consumption agreements. I'm in favor of a streamlined individual plan where people get more data for less money, rather than relying on buckets of shared data for value. Ever since Verizon took the initiative to eliminate individual plans with unlimited data, the pricing of individual lines has skyrocketed, all with the exception of Sprint, which is something I wholeheartedly respect Sprint for leading the way on forward standing strongly behind truly wonderful individual plan pricing. Even their shared data packages are worthwhile for individuals, if they need the tethering, but don't want to be forced into data sharing.

I think it would have been better if Google were to have charged $30 for the base price, then $5 per gb. It would have worked out to be 10gb for $80 Monthly, 15gb for $105 Monthly, 20gb for $130 Monthly, 25gb for $155 Monthly, 30gb for $180 Monthly, etc. At those rates, Google Fi would have been a bit more expensive than T-Mobile and Sprint, so to keep it from being directly competitive with them too much, while still being less expensive than Verizon. Sprint on the other side, has really bad tablet/hotspot plans, and really ought to consider updating them to match up with the higher gb offerings for less money that even Verizon is offering. Sprint could use a Google Fi idea for giving refunds on unused data, and would do well on a simplified plan for tablet pricing, such as a base $5 Monthly fee, with each gb being priced at $5 per gb. A 5gb plan would be $30 Monthly, with others, such as 10gb/$55 Monthly, 15gb/$80 Monthly, 20gb/$105 Monthly, 25gb/$130 Monthly, 30gb/$155 Monthly, etc. More tablet choices would be great too!

Hmm... Strange I didn't notice this thread when I posted my MetroPCS to T-Mobile conversion issue elsewhere on the site. I'll try making this short... I had an issue early last week where I tried unlocking my MetroPCS ZTE ZMAX to take it to TMobile. Several MetroPCS customer dare representatives told me and the T-Mobile store representative that it wasn't possible, as I only had MetroPCS service for 72-78 days, and they have a policy that a customer must have service with MetroPCS for 90 days, regardless of what carrier they are wanting the device unlocked on, even if it is the parent company of MetroPCS, T-Mobile. However, the T-Mobile service representative already went through setting the service up for me, including porting my telephone number over to T-Mobile from Sprint, while saying all along that it wouldn't be a problem activating T-Mobile service on the MetroPCS issued ZTE ZMAx. Well sure enough, there was a problem they couldn't get resolved at the time, and cost us extra money for them to research an alternative way of unlocking the device, as we found out today they were able to do so, but there are several issues involved now, including my inability to delete the MetroPCS APN, as I can't be sure that I'm not being limited by MetroPCS being on a lesser priority, or if somehow they got me back on MetroPCS service, rather than a truly unlocked T-Mobile service. It took several days to get this done, as there was a miscommunication issue late last week between my mother and the store representative, because of which we were out of service longer than need be, though the issue now is what exactly is the service on the device now set on exactly. My mother is now waiting to hear back for compensation they are looking into, while we want to switch out back to Sprint. I just can't trust T-Mobile, which from my experience, even an issue with Sprint in the past regarding Framily, along with reading complaints on each companies' Facebook pages, I can understand why people would claim the representatives have lied to them one way or the other. Especially on issues such as unlocking and phone plans are concerned.

The problem I see, is that Sprint doesn't need this sort of "humor" right now. Perhaps, and this is a big "perhaps", this kind of skit might have been okay to put on when Sprint has its network woes corrected and a big importance in my opinion, their reputation at a complete reversal from what it is now, with the majority of people in the wireless industry, etc. praising Sprint for being a leader in network quality and customer service. The skit ought to have been done then, when it could have been a satire of Sprint's difficult times, but done at a time when things are better for the company and has little chance of doing any damage. Right now though, Sprint is still struggling. I'm not personally complaining about Sprint by saying this, but unfortunately it is the truth at the moment. I'm not counting the bias opinions of T-Mobile trolls and writers, but rather the more mainstream opinions by Sprint Facebook commenters who actually have/had Sprint, despite my questioning why many of them have had Sprint for as long as they claim when they are complaining so loudly about it. It is known Sprint still needs to do a lot, and I hope the best for them in the process. Yet, this kind of skit being done now, just isn't the right time for it, which hopefully it won't do much (if any) damage to Sprint. Although it very well could.