utiz4321

I don't think this is a good sign. It probably means they are having trouble financing it. It could just be no one is willing to finance android phones, but it is never a good sign when a company can't get credit. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

I thought network vision ran 7 billion for the entire. Project. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

AT&T network has problems, namely lack of spectrum in certain areas. In AZ for example there are several sites that are over burned in which you would be lucky to be able to use data to stream music. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

That would be odd. Apple has been pretty good at making sure their phones can take advantage of network improvements. In any case, that would be a deal breaker for me. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

First, you are completely misunderstanding my point. I am not talking about my experience specifically, so to say to me I am welcome to choose another carrier is nonsense. If I have used my experiences it is to illustrate my point, which has been about sprint's place in the market place and its future. I don't think the long term prospects for sprint are good if they stay at this level of spending on their network given the there competition isn't standing still. I don't know if they have a choice but it doesn't matter because customer aren't going to take the excuse "we don't have enough money to provide a competitive network". Please work on your reading comprehension skills. Thanks. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Dude, I don't know what you have a problem understanding, I seriously dont and I have a real hard time talking to people that seem to hold onto their ignorance with the passion you are displaying. Bottom line is that sprint money problems are not relevant to customers. All they care about is that sprint delivers the services they expect for a price they are willing to pay. Sprint can't do that with out executing on their network. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Please what? The point has been sprint problem in the market place. Several irrelevant excuse have been given and I explained why I believe them to be irrelevant, from a customers point of view. If you grow tired of the discussion don't participate or read it. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

My point has been consistent. I dont get what you don't understand. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

My point is these excuses are not relevant to a consumer. A customer doesn't care nor should they care about why your product is sub par, they care only that it is sub par. Now, maybe you can make it worth it to them by being cheap, but that isn't likely to generate the kinds of margins needed to pay down 30 billion in debt when your revenue is around 32 billion. That is the problem sprint has and I am not sure it is solvable. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Great for your area. Problem is most areas that isn't the case. Sprint has a very inconsistent network. Seriously, if you where recommending sprint to someone who traveled for work what would be there selling point ( in my case anyone living in phoenix? )? Outside of them being cheap I can't think of one. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

For the customer point of view all of that is irrelevant. In the in sprint needs to find it's place in a competitive market. That is either the cheapest provider out there or the fastest network. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

What part of the country? That is just insane that there are still places that a 12 months away from getting b41. Or non-boarder areas that a well months away from getting b26. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

My understanding is they cover less area. If the area is smaller they have less users. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Yes, but everything comes down with sprint's ability to execute on deployment. This has not been sprint's strength and the slashing of capex seems to point to them having a difficult time delivering. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

The problem with sprint is not with the spectrum sprint has, but with the companies ability to deploy it in a fashion that gains it a competitive advantage. Now, it seems they aren't even staying competitive and that is a problem. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

The idea behind small cells is to have fewer user on each cell. This is part of the reason they are so good at increasing capacity. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

The worlds biggest city? In the states? In any case yeah for new York but it isn't the world or the country. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

The bigger question is why would anyone choose sprint? They aren't the largest network, not the most reliable, but the promise has always been they would be the fastest. If they could pull that off, which requires investment in the network, then they would have a place in the market. With out this, they have to compete on price and price alone. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Yes. For only being this far. It is a rather sad showing compared to the competition. This really shows that sprint is under funding their network. They might have to, but their network will start falling further behind the competition if this keeps up. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Hey but sprint demoed 3xca in Chicago and a couple of other places. Lol. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

I think from an end user perspective the former is a better definition. And that is certainly the context in which the original question was asked. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Sprint seems to claim that it does. From the end user's perspective doesn't it? If network management is working properly isn't there circumstances where the increase cell edge performance would allow my phone to stay on b41 during a data session that I wouldn't in the absences of CA. Isn't that effectively "increased coverage"? Or am I might be misunderstanding things. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

According to the information provided by sprint beamforming increase cell edge performance by 20 percent and beamforming +carrier aggregation increases cell edge performance by 50 percent. So it does. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

It is my understanding that CA helps cell edge performance. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Pay for it, if you want. If not don't. Simple. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk