Arysyn

lou99, all of my MetroPCS mentions here on the site, are relating to my experience with them on the T-Mobile network, not their old CDMA network. My opinion of the AWS auction, regarding T-Mobile, is they did poorly, very poorly at that. I know there are people who disagree with me about this, which is fine, as well as disagree with me about the 700mhz spectrum, which is fine too. There are some good points being mentioned online as to why T-Mobile bought the spectrum, and that is understandable. However, my outlook to things, which shape my opinions from basically everything wireless, is set on doing things as much as possible for the whole, not just for various areas. I'm very much like that regarding other non-wireless issues as well. I don't believe T-Mobile spent as conservatively as they did in the AWS auction because of strategy. I believe they did it because of finances. Whereas I don't blame Sprint for not attending the auction, since they don't have any AWS spectrum. Hence, it would be unwise for Sprint to have gone into that auction to purchase AWS spectrum, say for example, five or seven states, having to upgrade their equipment to work with that spectrum, leaving the remainder of their network without it completely. Instead, Sprint is saving that money to invest in the network they have, with the spectrum they have. Similarly, I've read they might not even be bothered by the 600mhz spectrum, though if they were to go into that, I imagine they, along with T-Mobile, will try to get the spectrum throughout its network, which is the sensible thing to do. Spending money on a spectrum band you can't get for much of your network, which even at that is a hassle to get up and running because of channel interference, when that money could have been better spent on more AWS spectrum, a spectrum band they already have for most of its network, or saving that money for the 600mhz spectrum auction, would have been a better usage of that money than purchasing 700mhz spectrum was. Also, they could have used that money on a better conversion of their 2g to 4g conversion, which some have mentioned is going to be done cheaply, though also due to meeting their massive date deadlines they've set in their marketing approach. After all, what is "Data Strong" when much of your network is still running on 2g.

I read several different websites whenever I look through Google news, under the usual search terms I enter, which are "Verizon", "ATT" and "Sprint", though I don't search for T-Mobile news, as I usually just go to TMoNews for news about T-Mobile. The main websites I look out for are FierceWireless, ArsTechnica, BGR, and one of the many Android-named sites, as those usually have comments. I actually prefer reading news articles where I'm bound to find comments on, as many of them either are more informative than the article, or are more humorous for various reasons, seeing people go into detail defending their positions and such lengths in these comments sections. Now that I know I'm going to be discussing the speedcap issue more, I'll pay more attention to these comments and post links to them here in this thread. I see these comments quite frequently whenever there is an article about a pricing promotion, and sometimes about a network upgrade. The issue of credibility is something I'm unsure of, though some people do seem more knowledgeable in their defenses than others. However, I do value the postings here on S4GRU more than on comment sections, as people here are a part of a knowledge based community where there is a specific network based outlook, alongside the main topic of Sprint network enhancements. Therefore, I believe people's opinions on network related issues more than those commenting on news articles, with the exception of those names I see rather frequently, whom I consider similarly to those here, in terms of network knowledge. Again, I'll link here where I see such comments in the future and such. I look for wireless information practically daily, so I'd imagine it won't be long until I see someone mention the speed cap idea. In the meantime, I'll keep to focusing on the rate plan benefit, as that is my main wireless-based interest, at the moment.

While i was researching plans, I went into a local Sprint store to ask about adding a line to a Framily plan I got a code for online, but they told me I couldn't add a line to a Framily plan, unless I was the main account holder of the original line adding a line to the Framily plan. So essentially it no longer is Framily anymore, but a standard family plan masquerading as "Framily". This is one of very few areas I disagree with Sprint on, as they would better be served transferring Framily plan customers to a custom plan with the same services/same price point, but separate from "Framily", so that the plan can be dissolved completely. Similar to what T-Mobile did on legacy plans prior to "Uncarrier". Offer a great deal, often times better than their current plans, so the company can eliminate those old plans altogether, also making accounting much more streamlined. This Cut Your Rate in Half offer by Sprint must be an accounting nightmare, or one that might become so, as people call in Sprint with a bunch of different offers their on, etc. Having multiple rate plans makes very little sense to me, better to streamline everything to make it easier on more fair to everyone. Even T-Mobile's "Simple Choice" has become more complex, with more data choices, data stash (which I can imagine as a hassle for some groups to keep track of all that data among multiple users, what they are suing, how much is left, how much gets transferred to the next month, etc.), and even making sure your favorite music service is under "Music Freedom", because if its not, then better watch the data, unless you're on unlimited, then watch to make sure you aren't deprioritized, etc. The whole wireless pricing scheme is a mess with these different rate plans, and various offers, as its meant to confuse customers into spending more money than they would under a streamlined plan, which I realize. Just that it bothers me when I hear how people are claiming one carrier as being pro-consumer, where the rest apparently are not, according to them.

There are a lot of people calling for a speed cap solution to data plans over wireless, not just me. I happen to agree with them at least on the level of it offering a better rate for people on higher gb amounts, such as what Cricket has done. The network congestion issue I won't defend so much, as I'm certainly not an expert on it and would rather trust the judgement of people here on S4GRU regarding the issue. In theory, I'd tend to think it could help, hence why I mentioned it, if it somehow would provide more bandwidth, as people commenting on behalf of the speed caps have mentioned on the other sites I've seen those comments on, but again, I can't defend that issue properly, so I won't. I'm definitely more interested on the side of pricing, while looking into other more technical ways of resolving congestion, which I've mentioned here that I'm going to look into, then post here about those ideas for review.

Again, as I don't want to sign up on T4GRU, I'll respond to what I read on that link here instead. Although, thank you lou99 for posting it. I think T-Mobile is beginning to realize their limitations, especially as I've read on TMONews yesterday (a site I personally do not like, but read anyways, as it still is the best source for T-Mobile news currently, though I try to avoid the bias as much as I can, despite it being difficult and upsetting when unavoidable) the article about Cincinnati. Many people there, even die hard TMo fans, were complaining about the minimal speed improvements made there by T-Mobile recently. Some of the speed numbers were very unimpressive and resemblant to the Chicago market's speeds, at least those I've experienced around here. I've said before they were fast enough/good enough with MetroPCS, but certainly not the kind T-Mobile and their fans often tout about when speaking generally about their network, despite when it comes to specifics, they become more conservative, such as in the Cincinnati article. The big issue is the lack of 700mhz in certain markets, which makes me think T-Mobile secretly got desperate enough to but from Verizon. I read an article on some website dated from a few years ago that T-Mobile at that time had no interest in purchasing the 700mhz from Verizon. Yet, they went ahead and bought it, despite only covering certain portions of their network. Why? I think it would have been better to save that money and had more purchasing power in the AWS auction, so they could enhance their current network with it, rather than having to do more work getting a totally new spectrum band onto the small areas where they now have it, leaving behind other areas of their network totally void of that band, giving a huge difference in network quality between those markets with 700mhz and those without it. Chicago being one of them, and had T-Mobile the extra cash available, they could have bought more AWS spectrum throughout their network, rather than satisfying just a portion of it with a much enhanced network other markets are now without completely. Metropcs could not reach a signal through a simple plate of glass window, where I sit feet away from, hardly deep building penetration necessary. Yet Sprint got through deep concrete walls at Medieval Times. Shows Sprint as being the Data Stronger Network.

Try looking around online for Employee Plus Referral offers, as those have some of the old plans which include guaranteed unlimited data for life, if that is something you're interested in, alongside the unlimited data.

I think wireless carriers need to incorporate all of these ideas into their networks, and giving more choice to consumers through these data plan ideas. Also, I'm very interested in the pcell idea I read about here on S4GRU and would like to think about that as an alternative to traditional means of wireless networking. All need to come together in offering a better solution to giving consumers a data plan, rather than charging them $10+ per gb of data, while in the meantime resolving some of the congestion issues along the way.

Hi Travis, Personally, I have no need to stream uhd content on a wireless device regularly, just for a once in a while deal, which I won't do until a 4k device is available, something which might be available in just a year or two, which at that time, there will be many people wanting to do this, so the networks need to be ready to handle this. Since there will be a demand for it greater than my occasional use, one of the companies at least will prepare for this, as I imagine more than that will, such as Verizon and AT&T, who both stand to gain a lot of money made from data for this, which at that point I expect they will lower the per gb data rate enough so people see more value in the data and end up spending more because of it with 4k driving that demand for more data, and making Verizon and AT&T more money. I'm not the only person suggesting speed caps, and far from it. I've read several comments from the various wireless tech sites I visit, calling for it as a way to reduce congestion and give reason to wireless companies to lower the per gb data rate. I've just finalized a rate plan I think will become common in a few years, which would accommodate 4k streaming, be affordable to consumers, yet still profitable for wireless companies who would be able to really sell this to people on current unlimited plans. I've even managed to figure out how these companies could keep unlimited data, but at a much higher monthly rate. I'll be posting that here later tonight, early Saturday morning, and be interested in what people here think of it. However, it will carry a speed cap, as it would be impossible for wireless companies to have the rates I'll be suggesting, while managing their networks properly. I'm thinking along the lines of an enhanced Cricket service, with a futuristic boost to their promotional 20gb advanced plan they had for awhile this year for $60 monthly/$55 monthly with autopay. Edit Note : I neglected one of Travis' points I'm adding here, about the losing out on efficiency if the network capacity isn't being used. I suggest in those cases, a way to have available data speed given equally among users during those times, in a similar but reverse way from how network prioritization works, but done equally among users, unless you or others think it might be better to offer a higher priced option for those to access that privilege, as companies might prefer to be done. I'm only making suggestions to options available for enhanced services available to people, as I see there being a threat to current unlimited plans in media reports I've read. I like unlimited plans nonetheless, and don't want to see them go away, but I'm pretty sure they will from what I've read, which is concerning as there are a lot of people dependant on them, including myself. Current per gb data pricing just isn't a viable solution to many of us unlimited data users.

Currently, I'm reading an article about 4k video streaming bitrates, and how Netflix's 4k video streams around 15mbps, which is higher than the 9mbps I had been assuming it would be, based on my assumption that the 4k streaming rate would be only a few times more than the streaming rate for 1080p video streaming. However, I'm now figuring that a great per gb data rate plan to replace unlimited plans, would need to have a speed cap on data streaming, in order to provide a reasonable rate conversion for consumers over to per gb data rate plans from unlimited plans, as the big issue for many unlimited data users is the high expense of data and the limited amount given for the cost. Surely enough, the companies need a good reason to do this in keeping these customers, which involves the companies having a way to prevent congestion issues, since they claim data caps provide (even though I don't believe that, other than in scaring consumers from using much data due to high cost. Speed caps on data streaming are a great way in helping to reduce congestion issues, as I've mentioned before. However, my ideas for what those speed caps might be, have altered since my earlier posts here in this thread, among other posts I've made here on S4GRU mentioning the 9mbps theory. Before I begin to be called "Mr. 9mbps" here on S4GRU, for mentioning the data speed so often, I'm going to change that data speed to match what I've said would be a good typical speed, that being 15mbps. I'll also mention that while it has been told to me that typical data speeds during congestion are often much slower than 15mbps, or even 9mbps, I'm considering minimum speeds needed for what eventually in the very near future (not the distant future) will be typical usage activities, such as 4k video streaming. Not that I'm advocating for heavy, data intensive usage of it, but the occasional 4k video stream ought to be handled by 4k data networks well enough, even during congestion. After all, youtube already has 4k streaming on their site, which I've heard their new vp9, will reduce bandwidth requirements. Hopefully the speeds needed for seamless 4k streaming will go down to at least 9mbps, or less, though I can't imagine a tolerable speed of any less than 3mbps for it. Although, seeing as 3mbps is the speed needed for 1080p to run smoothly, I'll say that in any such plan I might imagine with a speed cap, 3mbps should be the minimal speed, while 15mbps be not only the typical speed, but the maximum speed as well, giving congestion relief and a good tradeoff for less expensive data per gb, that I believe most unlimited data users would be satisfied with. Anyways, I'll have my rate plan in detail ready to post here by this Friday.

I didn't have the problem when I had Tidal on my ZTE ZMAX with MetroPCS, though it was happening on my Nexus 6. What I did, was I found some information online about stopping running services using Bluetooth Share, by going into the options screen, apps, then under the running tab. Then I also stopped running Signal Check Pro during this time, as I already got enough use of it earlier for the information I wanted to post about here on S4GRU. By stopping these services, it allowed the song I was playing on Tidal to play throughout without skipping, as the exact same song did a dozen times prior, since I was testing this issue out.

Verizon store employees are very smug around here too, and they tend to lie, such as the representative who quoted my mother a higher insurance price while we were still undecided a few weeks ago. Plus, he never called us with info he said he was going to do. I think they have a bad attitude towards customers who aren't definitely going to sign up for service that same day, whereas Sprint employees are happy to discuss services and plans regardless, realizing that there is a lot to consider when shopping for wireless service, which customers deserve time to think it through. Verizon must be so self absorbed they think "how dare these people come into the store asking questions taking up our time and then possibly need time to consider when we are the best network, blah blah". AT&T isn't much better, whereas T-Mobile employees act like you should just sign up online and not even bother going into the store, as they are too busy taking money from prepaid customers coming in to pay for more minutes.

Tidal HIFI music service streamed well while on 3g for me tonight in the few areas when it got to 3g from LTE. This after I had resolved the mysterious song track skipping during playback that was bothering me for awhile. The network was still good most of the way out to Schaumburg and back.

I hadn't realized there was such a thing as a "True LTE Experience" being tied to a particular network band. I often get around 15mbps indoors with Sprint on B26, which is a higher speed than Verizon advertises for its typical LTE "experience".

I'd like to see a full page coverage map, or something close to it, where it isn't as difficult to do zooming, and everything to be a bit clearer on it, as well.

Thanks for informing me. Both interfaces look very good, as I've even considered using Squarespace for a personal blog site. Anyways, I'm glad to see Sprint updating their site. The new design looks vastly better than the old one.

I like the new design of Sprint's website a lot. Although, I'm wondering if they are using Squarespace/Squarefront for their website now : http://squarefront.com/ The interface looks similar.

I worry though Sprint would raise the unlimited data price, in order to accommodate this, the same as T-Mobile did by raising the rate from $70 monthly to $80 monthly.

I really hope Sprint doesn't sell their spectrum, but rather use it. I've been hearing all the talk about the financial losses today, but if Sprint keeps the spectrum, use it to work on improving the network and such, they'll improve financially without needing to sell the spectrum and then can use the spectrum to further enhance the network, which in turn, will help not only their network quality, but ratings/public perception, and finances as well.

While I realize the issues of this site being affiliated with Sprint in an way, it is a nice thought if Sprint were to be accepting of S4GRU in its entirety, because this site has the most Sprint supporters I've seen online, who also are the most dedicated/devoted to Sprint service. I think if anyone other than Sprint itself could convince the Sprint haters and former Sprint customers to give Sprint another try, it is the people on S4GRU. While I've never had Sprint before now, had it not been for this site, I would not have bothered trying Sprint, maybe not even if Sprint did do what I'm suggesting it do, as Sprint's reputation on other sites would likely have kept me away from Sprint. It shows just how influential S4GRU has been in my decision, which I'm very glad/grateful for, and I believe S4GRU can indeed be a great benefit to Sprint in such a public marketing strategy, if Sprint were willing enough to work with this wonderful site.

I agree with this, dedub. My thinking along this line, is this... If a hotel frequently gets full, sometimes even gets overbooked, hotels won't tell their frequent guests who take advantage of their services so often they also end up often using points for discounts, especially when hotels raise their rates on evenings where their hotel is more full, yet even still, the hotel will never tell these guests they have to share a room with other guests, as they've been deprioritized for too many stays/too many points. Rather, a hotel will just try sending those overbooked guests to other hotels, which a similar act won't happen in the wireless industry, at least until there is more synchronization, possibly less competition.

I have an opinion about this fiscal report I haven't seen anyone else here mention yet, so I'm going to go ahead and say it. First though, I want to report that I'm beyond satisfied with Sprint. I got my Nexus 6 situation resolved, as I now have an actual brand new device unit of it, along with some credit for the original shipment. The representative at the store was very helpful, and we were out of the store with the device in an hour. Also, despite the initial 3g scare outdoors I had while traveling in the car in an area with 4g service, since changing the settings on the device, I'm now getting a very strong 4g signal, even indoors, where its at a near constant band 26 800 mhz signal, with a minimum 9 mbps indoor data speed. This in the same area where my previous MetroPCS service got either very slow HSPA or 2g service, with the voice service not available at times. Speaking of voice service, I called my mother 30 minutes ago, and the voice quality difference between Sprint and MetroPCS/T-Mobile is huge! Sprint sounds so much better, clearer/much less static, despite that she still is using her ancient T-Mobile 1900 mhz-only Samsung bar-style telephone. I'm interested in hearing the difference while talking with her through Skype to Nexus 6, or Samsung Gear S smartwatch to Nexus 6, if she decides to get the smartwatch. Anyways, now to my opinion of the fiscal report... As much as I love my new Nexus 6 device and Sprint service, I didn't like hearing the fiscal report, which I'm still listening to. I'm glad Sprint has added subscribers, disappointed they have lost money, but mostly this, I think Sprint isn't displaying/portraying themselves well enough. What I mean by that is this... No offense to Marcelo Claure, as the most important thing he can do as CEO, is to increase business, both customer numbers and finances, along with customer satisfaction and network quality, of course. However, right now Sprint is in closest competition with T-Mobile, yet they both appear as very different companies. Sprint has an awful reputation despite that it is proving that reputation to not be valid anymore, in most cases. Whereas T-Mobile, whose network quality is dwindling in many places, along with a desperate need for more spectrum where the network is suffering, seems to be able to maintain a reputation where it is a winning company. Sprint's reputation, unfortunately, seems to be the opposite. Many people are giving opinions on how Sprint could improve that reputation, the main ideas being to continue improving the network, other ideas being a name change. I think both have validity, though the name change has some drawbacks, while improving the network not being a bad thing at all might not be enough on its own, at least for some time. Yet, while I listen to the fiscal report, I keep thinking how the information is being presented, in how different it is from T-Mobile's recent fiscal report, in both style and presentation. Now, while there is a lot I don't like about T-Mobile's display of itself publicly, particularly John Legere's immaturity, the fact is, they are successful at it. Although, it doesn't have to mean companies should copy it exactly, but just the mere aspect of being more public with itself, as a consumer-focused company. I believe Sprint could benefit from doing this, but doing so professionally. Rather than an audio clip of scripted reading of reports, why not have a video broadcast of it, with the company leaders all together not only giving out the reports, but promoting its causes, its mission, and its strategies as a unified force. Maybe do something like Dominos did by admitting openly that their network sucked, but that now its getting better, bolder, and stronger. Say exactly what is making the new network so much different, but do so openly in public forums, rather than just news reports. Possibly have a public relations campaign of town hall meetings and such, where former Sprint users are invited to converse with Sprint leaders about why their former experience was so bad, and have Sprint show them what has changed and why they should give Sprint another try. Basically Sprint should do everything fiscally responsible to prove publicly, directly to former users and potential new users alike, why their reputation is wrong, given the new Sprint initiatives. Also, take back the power these biased blogs have against Sprint and turn it around on them by speaking directly to the people.

AJ is spot on with this comment. One just has to read comments on these companies' Facebook pages to see this. Sometimes it is humorous to read how bad the companies' responses are to these customer complaints, realizing immediately after that it also is very sad.

I didn't realize network congestion made speeds that low. I figured prioritization speeds getting that low were an oversteep preventative measure against certain customers, hence all of the recent complaints about it regarding T-Mobile. Many people have said they'd be fine with a speed cap of 9 mbps during those times, which is why I figured that, along with my estimates on minimum data speeds necessary for certain data usage. I might get some complaints for saying this, but I think if a network gets that bad during congestion where people are getting around 1 mbps or less, than that is a real problem that needs to be resolved by building a better network in those areas. With technology advancing as it is, I just don't believe that is acceptable. I agree with the comments regarding the unlimited issue, which is why I believe in having a happy resolve in converting over from unlimited plans to data plans, even though I personally like unlimited and don't want to see it go over to high expense gb data plans, but rather something more reasonable, along with a reasonable speed cap, to better manage networks. As I'm not a network technician, I can't really give more technical ideas to resolve congestion issues, though I'd like to learn more about it so I can give some sort of more technical solutions for it.

Alright finally got my Nexus 6 and service with Sprint all setup and doing very well! I'm getting a near constant full bars on LTE, and am waiting a few minutes to get Signal Check Pro, as recommended to me by people here on S4GRU. I'm also getting a minimum of 9 Mbps indoors, which is important... Just got Signal Check Pro. How do I get the image of it here on S$GRU... I'd like to show the screenshot of it here, just that I don't know how to do so yet. Anyways, I figure to make it easier, I'm going to post my congestion ideas and rate plan ideas together on this thread, as I've discovered it is nearly impossible to separate them after all. I'll disregard the other Unlimited Data thread I made, unless someone decides to post something relevant there that isn't as much so here. My idea begins with having a speed cap, in helping to relieve congestion. Actually, it isn't exactly my idea, as it has been mentioned before by others, but since I happen to agree with them, I'll integrate the concept with my own strategies. The speed cap I'm proposing, is 30 mbps/15 mbps Audio/Video maximum download speeds for everyone, decreasing down to 15 mbps/15 mbps Audio/Video typical download speeds, then decreasing down to 9 mbps/9 mbps Audio/Video minimum download speeds, when the network is congested. I realize that sounds like a high minimum Audio/Video download speed, in contrast to what is needed for an HD download, being 3 mbps. However, I'm considering minimum speeds necessary for 4k downloads as well, assuming those need anywhere between 6 mbps to 9 mbps minimum download speeds. I think everyone ought to have minimum working download speeds, even in congestion, as wireless networks ought to be able to handle this at the minimum, especially considering how landline networks already are becoming way ahead of what is minimally necessary. Upload speeds ought to be at least 3 mbps, even in congestion, though I'm not as aware of what is necessary for upload speeds, as I am with download speeds. However, 3 mbps is what I've heard is a decent minimal speed, so I'll leave it at that. I'm still going to look into the personal cell idea, as I stated earlier. I'm already well into the thought of personalization when it comes to service and the idea of unshared data, both the data itself and the speeds of it, as I'm against the idea of people having data prioritization over others, which if the data speeds need to be shared, then having everyone on an equal level of speed seems best, even if it has to lower the speeds for everyone. My rate plan idea will reflect this, as I'm eliminating the concept of shared data. I'll be posting that here soon...

Thanks for all of the replies to my issue with the first device. I'm very tired from a long day, hence why I haven't done all my tech/rate plan idea updates, status postings, etc. I'll definitely try to get to these later on Tuesday. A quick update for now though. I exchanged the Nexus 6 for another one, which the new one is in much better shape, so I've got my new device and the Ballistic case that goes with it arrived on Monday also. However, my mother is going to spend more time trying to clean the screen protector better on it late morning Tuesday, as it was late when we got the case delivered and spent awhile checking things that we didn't have time to put together everything completely. The screen protector needs to be cleaned with a certain dust cloth we didn't have earlier, but will later on Thursday, which I need my mother to clean it, as my hands are bad at cleaning particles off of thin materials. The screen protector needs to be attached on the casing pretty quickly over the device screen before dust get in between the layers. I had a brief Sprint service scare tonight though. I tried the device for about 15 minutes in the car, not as long as I would have liked to make a proper assessment of it yet. However, when I got to the main screen, the service was showing 3g for five minutes, until I updated something called the PRL, which seemed to do the trick getting LTE activated, and seemed fast while in the car, though again, I was in a hurry to get the device off before the battery ran out, as I hadn't charged it at that point. I'm wondering still if there is anything I need to do in tuning the device for a better signal, etc. Any suggestions?