Arysyn

I'm interested in disabling 1900 also. If anyone can tell me how to do this on a non-Nexus 6 device, please inform me.

I think AT&T will purchase most of the 600mhz spectrum, with Verizon at 2nd, unless it is a switch around from the AWS-3 auction, which I doubt. AT&T may seem to be neglecting their wireless in the U.S. with all of their mergers and acquisitions, along with their interests in connected cars and such, but I think AT&T is like a sleeping giant with their wireless, while quietly dreaming of their plans while it collects all the cash it needs for a big massive network improvement using all of its newly acquired spectrum. Sprint was like that for a while, but now is in that development stage where it'll be huge too, though it could still use another major resource to help make it all the more grand, such as either 600mhz dspectrum, or a merger with T-Mobile. Speaking of T-Mobile, they seem to be at the weakest position in all of this, which without a major increase of spectrum in many areas, particularly in the Midwest, they will need to merge with someone. If Sprint comes away with a lot of the 600mhz spectrum, which would be a wise decision to do if not for their own network gain, at least to do this competitively, similarly to why Dan Hesse wanted to acquire MetroPCS. Then T-Mobile will be extra desperate, but have more the reason and hopefully enough of it to convince thee FCC to allow them to merge with either Sprint or Dish. That leaves Verizon doing well with whatever they decide to do or not do.

That sounds like it could work! Whatever it takes to get T-Mobile to purchase more spectrum here in Chicago, the better it is for their customers.

ugh! As much as I dislike T-Mobile, I do hope they get the 700mhz spectrum here in Chicago, because here is where they really, and I mean desperately need it. If AT&T sold the 700mhz spectrum here to someone else other than T-Mobile, coming from a soon to be Sprint non T-Mobile customer, I'd be so sad that I'd literally cry for T-Mobile's loss, and I mean that, seriously. Although not for too long, especially seeing how much better my Sprint service works, particularly in Schaumburg where I get around 20mbps or more on Sprint, in contrast to the pitiful 1mbps I get on T-Mobile around there. So yes, T-Mobile really needs that 700mhz spectrum here from AT&T. Edit note : Or from the Leap investors.

The histogram looks very good, though I disagree on what amount of data usage constitutes as abuse. Yet, if it took breaking the T.O.S. to get to higher levels of data use, then that certainly is abuse. My opinion remains that moderate use is anywhere up to 45gb Monthly, although certainly not in terms of averages, as shown here. However, I think usage of over 25gb ought to be paying more than $60 Monthly, according to my main rate plan idea of $55 for 25gb Monthly, $75 for 35gb Monthly, $95 for 45gb Monthly, which works out to $5 Monthly for the single-line and $2 per 1gb of data.

That is going to really hurt T-Mobile a lot more than it'll hurt Sprint. Although a limit to the 600mhz availability may end up helping Sprint, as Masa Son, alongside T-Mobile, in convincing the FCC as to why the two companies need to merge, especially if AT&T and Verizon end up getting the majority of this spectrum. The only other thing that could help T-Mobile after such a loss in this auction, is for them to merge with Dish.

4k video can't be limited enough not to make some sort of effect on the network. Netflix 1080p won't work under 3mbps and the smallest 1080p HD video size on Comcast Xfinity Streampix/ToGo for an average length hour and a half movie, is 3gb Data. I've read news reports where the minimum streaming rate for 4k video on Netflix will be around 15mbps, five times that of HD, so it will impact the network. As I expect both sides of the "unlimited is an excuse for network abuse!" vs the "we pay for unlimited so we're gonna stream and download all we damn want!" debate, will turn into ugly arguing once 4k usage becomes more common among unlimited users. While I wouldn't want the network to become strained because of 4k, I don't think it should cost over $30 for people just to watch one 4k movie using their wireless service.

I also like this post and agree about Cricket's pricing along the lines of what they were doing with their Advanced plan. However, I think $55 Monthly for 10gb is a bit much for the vast majority of moderate to heavy unlimited data users, though I'm basing moderate to heavy on my own viewpoint of it, which is 15gb to 45gb Monthly being moderate, while 45gb to 95gb Monthly is heavy, over 95gb would make me suspicious of T.O.S. issues, though I'm not going to judge any user since ultimately it is up to the carriers to decide how much usage is too much for their networks. Although, they all could be much more transparent about it. I love the topic of rate plans, and have many different ideas for alternatives, though my favorite being the one I write about often here, being the sliding scale option that involves simple affordable overages for people who do not want to go up to the next rate plan level, similar to Sprint's Fair&Flexible, but with an overage option. I believe in order for wireless carriers to keep unlimited users using their networks on per GB data plans, carriers are going to need to bring down the per GB data rate down to $2 to $3 per Gb. My idea, similar to Cricket's Advanced plan, is start at $55 for 25gb Monthly, then $75 for 35gb Monthly, and finally up to $95 for 45gb Monthly, with additional data being a flat rate of $1 per GB. This works out to $5 Monthly plus $2 per gb, then $1 per Gb after the 45th gb. A speed cap of 15mbps (typical), up to 30mbps (maximum) could be implemented, with extra speed costing more, say a $60 Monthly premium. Anyways, I have some other ideas, though this one is for a single-line only arrangement, not multi shared lines. As much as I dislike shared lines, I have some ideas for their use I will post here sometime as well. Though the simplest one being $30 Monthly for the first line, $15 Monthly for every additional line, $3 per GB. No data packages needed.

This is a great post! I couldn't have described the T-Troll mindset any better. I'll have another post to make, once I finish reading this thread.

Is there a way to do it with devices other than with a Nexus 6, as I'm not planning to get a Nexus 6, unless for some reason I don't end up back with Sprint on Friday, which the only way I can see that not happening, is if for whatever reason they deny something in the process or refuse to offer me the Kyocera Hydro vibe I plan on using temporarily until the Samsung Note 5 is available. In that case, if my mother still is against getting Verizon, then we'll likely end up getting expensive Google Fi service with a Nexus 6.

T-Mobile needs more AWS spectrum. Sprint needs more towers. AT&T wants more Acquisitions, while Verizon just wants more money. Edit note : I had more to add to this, but in my tiredness I forgot where I was going with this and posted it by mistake unfinished. For some reason, my energy and mental awareness are both very weak the past several hours. I'll say this though, as unpopular as it is, I supported and still support the idea of a T-Mobile merger with AT&T, though keeping T-Mobile as a subsidiary, similar to what Cricket is now. Now while I don't like Comcast much, I can see them in the future purchasing Sprint, or Softbank purchasing Comcast, then if Dish were to get in somewhere, however such a deal were to come about and if it were approved, AT&T could make a strong case for wanting an acquisition of T-Mobile, as there would be a Comcast/Dish/Sprint vs AT&T/DirecTv/T-Mobile. Actually thinking about it, they could spin all the wireless services under the T-Mobile name, the way Comcast uses the Xfinity name. Then Dish vs DirecTv and also Comcast vs AT&T. Verizon seems content just being Verizon, though they may purchase other cable companies to add strength against a scenario such as this, which is why I doubt Dish would work much with Verizon, unless Verizon and Comcast were to merge, instead of with Sprint.

While I'd hope T-Mobile could get the 700mhz spectrum here , I doubt they will, which makes a huge impact on my opinion of them doing this at all with the 700mhz in the U.S. I understand and support their need to replace their 2G area with 4G LTE, but their need for in-building coverage wasn't that much of a priority to where they needed to spend their money on the 700mhz. Better for them to have used that money for funding network buildout in 2g areas where needed that could have been done more quickly if not for the 700mhz they are focusing on right now. Besides, it is more money they'd have to spend on the 600mhz spectrum where they have a better chance at getting a wider range of markets on, including Chicago.

That sounds fair. I was thinking more about spectrum earlier and overlooked the tower situation in those areas. Even though I've stated ideas as to what the Sprint board was thinking at the time, I'm even more curious about it now. Did they give any other reasons for going against the idea than feasibility? I'm trying to imagine why a board would go against their CEO about something that considering the pros of this altogether, just doesn't make sense. I know I try to make sense of things that often are senseless much of the time, because of how I try to see things reasonably. They certainly did lose momentum to T-Mobile though because of it.

While I seem to defend unlimited on certain areas of discussion, on other areas i don't. As you mentioned here in this quoted post. you are right and I agree with you on the points you made. However, as long as the carriers are still offering it, and people discuss the pros and cons of it, along with their opinions which are strong on both sides of the issue, I feel that ultimately the carriers are responsible for both the pros and cons of what they are offering and I won't judge the consumer based on that, again as long as they abide by the terms and conditions of their agreement. Yet, I also understand the points being made by people who think along the lines you do, AJ, those points being more suitable to environments where carriers do not offer unlimited data. The issue I would and do argue is the fairness of pricing of data per gb. I definitely do support getting rid of unlimited, but only if the per gb data rates decrease to a reasonable, affordable level, which for example, Verizon's $80 Monthly ($95 Monthly with first line on Edge) for 10GB is not reasonable nor affordable. Plus, it isn't even an attractive alternative for unlimited data users. I do advocate for a Cricket-style level, based on their 20gb for $55 with autopay Advanced promotion, hoping similar plan strategies would be put into permanent use when unlimited is gone. One thing I've noticed on many news articles' comments sections I've read, is several people, including many unlimited plan users, praising the Cricket promotion. So, something similar to that seems to be a feasible idea carriers could consider as a replacement to unlimited, and certainly a fair situation for all ranges of data use among consumers, granted the less data allotment rates also remain affordable and they aren't forced into paying for larger data buckets than they need by this.

Well, there is the new article with Marcelo saying that unlimited will go away, though I definitely don't think it will while the conditions you mentioned still are the way they are, or until T-Mobile gets rid of it first. As long as T-Mobile has it, Sprint would be making an unwise decision to get rid of it prior to T-Mobile.

I do hope T-Mobile is looking into the 700 here from the AT&T/Leap/Cricket deal, as I've been supportive of in that since I heard of it. The frustrating thing is, I'm not hearing anything about it in the news, regarding T-Mobile trying for it. They are busy with their other projects elsewhere in the country, but it isn't good for them to be so far behind here. Sprint being so active in their network development, is much more assuring. Though Sprint definitely needs to get their tower density up as they are discussing, so those holes get fixed. One that happens and their 2.5 is widely and densely deployed, it'll be amazing! Already seeing it at 20mbps-40mbps in congested areas, even Schaumburg where and when T-Mobile could barely do 1mbps, was really promising of Sprint, on their 2.5, which seems to only be getting better. On another thread here on S4GRU, a screenshot was shown on a link, where Sprint got nearly 100mbps. If/when I see it on my new Sprint service starting on Friday, I'll definitely post it. Even the slower tests too.

I'm very tired right now, so I may not be wording these things very well, though I hope I'm at least doing better on making my posts shorter than they use to be at times. I don't really have any strong opinions for or against heavy data usage on unlimited plans, though I admit that there are people who use it in ways which they could use reasonable alternatives as means of freeing up the network, mainly using their devices at home for data heavy uses such as video watching, when they have wifi right there. However, I understand the viewpoint they have about the wording of the plan their on stating unlimited, which these people use in their defense of their usage. It is when they say this, that I have difficulty being against what they are saying, as long as they aren't doing something the terms of service does not allow. The point I was trying to make, and what I wasn't very clear on, as I said I'm tired, is that not everyone who has unlimited uses it in the way people who aren't as supportive of unlimited would claim as misuse. Many unlimited users use it under what is considered normal and moderate by these same people. Then again, I'm not claiming such and such data use is misuse or wrong, only pointing out that there are people who do and their dislike for unlimited sometimes gives them an outlook of unlimited being an excuse for data abusers to abuse their service, when that isn't always the case, and not everyone who has unlimited would do such, granted there isn't any defined usage categories given by the carriers to define what such and such use is moderate or heavy, although they have given averages. I'm just not judgmental about it., is what I can say.

I hope so, and while I don't have any issue with what Marcelo said, making claims of the network being #1 or #2 in that time frame is going to get the T-tantrums ranting.

What do you think about a plan, say if unlimited was no longer available, but a rate of $95 Monthly for 45gb was offered. I think it is a fair price, along with $75 Monthly for 35gb, and $55 for 25gb, the latter being similar to what Cricket offered for its Advanced plan some months ago.

This I completely agree with. There is so much hypocrisy in the issue between T-Mobile and Sprint, as Sprint cannot seem to do any good in the opinions of these T-Mobile fans. All despite the fact Sprint is improving greatly. I wouldn't say arguing, but there are people very much against the idea of unlimited data, thinking its a plan that is being misused by the nature of what it seems to attract, even if it isn't the purpose of it. The two sides appear to be those who think unlimited is a tool used by people to misuse data, or to abuse it, while others say that if its offered, then there's no fault to using it as much as possible, and that any notion of misuse and abuse of unlimited, is faulty because of what it claims to offer, that being unlimited. I'm not defending nor criticizing either side of the issue, as both have valid points, and both have problems with their claims. Although I think most unlimited data users are at least responsible people in what they use it for, even in heavy uses, just as light uses. And to claim everyone who has it is one way or the other, isn't the right thing to do, to judge.

I think he means reputation instead of equity in the sense the word typically is used. Although for people who really want unlimited, if T-Mobile gets rid of it while Sprint keeps it, many people, if not most, will switch to Sprint regardless of reputation, as long as Sprint works reliably well enough where they are located. The only difference with this, is if T-Mobile gets rid of unlimited, but charges reasonable per gb data rates.

I completely disagree with any notion that all people who have unlimited data somehow are data hogs. If all carriers decide to switch away from unlimited data and go to expensive per gb data plans at the price points of AT&T, Verizon, and Google Fi, there will be a massive surge of unlimited data users, both those who use it moderately and heavily, to tablets, where everything will be downloaded at home onto tablets without any mobile connections to them besides wifi, then cheap prepay voice services the carriers will lose tons on. There are millions of people who will not pay the expensive prices on Verizon and AT&T, along with Google Fi. It is quite unlikely Sprint will get rid of unlimited prior to T-Mobile. I'd bet on Sprint keeping it around until then, if I had the money to bet. Besides, just because Marcelo says unlimited eventually will go away, doesn't mean that current unlimited customers will lose it, just that it no longer will be offered. Although if I'm wrong about that, what I said in the last paragraph likely will happen, with carriers losing a lot of customers. AT&T and Verizon may not be impacted, but surely Sprint and T-Mobile would. So my thought it that if Sprint and T-Mobile get rid of unlimited, whether or not that includes current unlimited customers' use of it, both companies likely will provide reasonable rates for every gb. After which, no one but really extremely heavy users will pay through the nose, if they don't have the sense of leaving for wifi tablet use instead.

When I had Sprint, much of my time outdoors was on 2.5 and getting around 40mbps, then around 15mbps - 20mbps in Schaumburg, compared with T-Mobile's pathetic 1 Mbps range there. Personally, I'd like to be able to block 1900, to use only 800 and 2500 when I get back on Sprint two days from now, thankfully getting rid of this hideous T-Mobile service.

Low & Slow is great for BBQ. Not so great for data speeds.

I went back to check gusherb's post, and am not sure if gusherb is referring to Sprint's network or T-Mobile's network. I'd agree about T-Mobile's network being plenty dense here in Chicago, as their main problem is severe lack of spectrum around here. Although Sprint needs more towers around here, as evidenced by the complaints of there being plenty of holes in their network around here. The good news though, is that Sprint actively is upgrading their network here with more towers and fully developed LTE Advanced. Whereas T-Mobile is not doing anything to seek more spectrum here, other than removing 5x5 HSPA from AWS, replacing it with LTE, which as I've been told by some people here on S4GRU, won't do much good for areas where currently are hit hard in speeds with enough congestion to make LTE operate around 1mbps. By the way, these are not throttled speeds. This is happening throughout a major portion of Schaumburg during the evenings through 5pm to around 11pm. So, while Chicago will be limited to 15x15 LTE, plenty of other markets much smaller than Chicago have 20x20 LTE on AWS and around 5x5 LTE on 700. Some areas have even more AWS LTE, 25x25 or more.