utiz4321

It will, it's called wifi. It is virtually the same thing as having a lte airave.

I agree on the fee, even if it was reliable. Your just asking for a bad reputation by doing that. But thankfully Sprint 's retention department usually waives it for people or at least they did for me.

Yup never had problems with it. My brother used one for a year and had zero issues. He finally dropped it about three months ago because 800 lite up in his area.

I seriously doubt they removed it on a whim. I am 100 percent positive a cost benefit analysist was done and it came out as o costly for the return.

Why not just use the airave? I am pretty sure forcing roaming is a violation of your t&cs. I could be wrong but in any case to much roaming and sprint will eventually ask you to leave their network.

Cooperation do listen to customer, if they didn't they will not stay in business. However there is a difference between what customer want and what customers are willing to pay for. For example, if you sprint bill went up 40 a month but sprint match vzw with native rual coverage would you be ok with that? I don't think many sprint customers would.

Expanding service through roaming partners they treat as native service (if that is what they ultimately do) is the samething as adding new towers to expand coverage area in the same way as buying a rual carrier (which is why ATT and vzw have the coverage they do).

Let's say it is treated as native coverage, any idea how many more covered lte pops that would give sprint or any one access to maps that might give us an idea of the expanded geographical regions covered? Thanks

Most of this article was pretty lame and a bit confusing. I could tell if the aurthor was claiming that sprint's lte would only cover 200 million or only currently covers 200 million. I do agree sprint needs to stop showing off what it can do in a lab and start showing what it can do in the real world, but out side of this the article is less than insightful.

The majority of people don't know the difference really. That said I believe I am right in saying was the first to have lte 800 and that was when there wasn't a single b26 lte tower live in the "wild". This idea that apple is behind the tech curve is not reasonable. They have opted out of a lot of things for their own reasons (like NFC), but there is no good reason why they would exclude 2.6. I would be flat out shocked if they didn't include 2.6 in the iPhone 6, so much so that I put the chances at 100 they will.

It would probably cost more to put NV on hold than to just finish the project. Not to mention putting them in an awkward spot of have thee new network and legacy sites (which is the cause of many issues for them now) running side by side in many areas.

Spark or no the iPhone deal was no mistake. No carrier can afford to be with out the iPhone period. As far as weather or not the next iPhone is going to have spark or not only select people at apple know but I can imagine them leaving it out. It would be a bad experience for iPhone users on the sprint network and apple doesn't want apple users to have a bad experience on any network.

I use 10 to 12 and don't have that issue, so why sprint would throttle you at 6 would be a mystery.

I don't understand people who expect to use a service more and Payless. People are using cell service as their primary telephone replacing landline service, they are using it to connect to the web more and more. We are using and relying on mobile telecommunicationmore now than we did 7 years ago, the networks are better with more capabilities and people complain about spending more on a service they are using more and getting more utility out of. I simply don't understand, the cost of wireless is going up because demand for wireless service is going up, deal with.

I get he is trying to sell a tmobile/sprint merger but I really don't like the fact he keeps implying that he needs tmobile to be a real competitor. It kind feels like he is putting all his eggs in one basket. But I have to say that after hearing him talk and his rational I am less opposed to a merger than I was.

I don't really get the scale argument. Scale would be advantageous when negotiating with handset manufactures for sure but with the move to having the consumer pay for the phones I don't see what this gets sprint. Further it is not as if sprint is having trouble get land set makers to build phones for their uniquic spectrum, they always have the latest handsets. I guess it would give them access to greater amounts of capital at a lower cost but that was the argument behind the SoftBank merger, so did that happen or not? Spectrum is the one place where scale would have a large impact but sprint's problem isn't spectrum it's getting deployed on their network. On the network side 8 billion per year provides a great deal of scale and matches any high year of capex the big two ever spent, so not sure what a merger would bring. But all this is back of a napkin reasoning, just wish sprint or SoftBank would be a little more specific on what scale brings them in such a merger.

So now we are making epenis a national cause?

I think the problem at sprint is that 2.6 gives them capabilities none of the other carriers can match until VoLTE and all their spectrum is dedicated to lte, even then 2.6 gives them an edge in some ways (like 8t8r) and sprint knows it. So I think management believes they have all the time in the world because at the end of the day they will have a network with capablities the others can't match. It kind of reminds me of their attitude when WiMAX was being rolled out. They though they would have a first mover advantage, spent a lot on demos (like the 1 gig demos they keep doing ) and took years on a particial roll out. Now the reason WiMAX was only partially rolled out was a lack of fund and that is not the problem now, it is still striking how similar their strategy for WiMAX and 2.6 lte are (3 years to cover 100 markets is what I am think of). In the end this didn't add anything to sprints bottom line because in my opinion the competition didn't simple stand still (and sprints competitors were better capitalized) and match then surpassed sprints efforts in a short period of time with vzw's lte and HSDPA+ for ATT and tmobile. I think sprint needs to not be so worried about showing off what they can do in the lab and worry about what the can show off in the real world. They need to make that move in mind set in order to be successful. I know it is not really popular to quote tmobile's CEO on this site but he might have had a point when he said sprint is a pile of spectrum waiting for a network.

You should just shoot that in an email to Dan and the new head of network. If they followed it, the bulk of sprint's problems would be solved.

If you look at what sprint said when they announced the two push back on NV 1.0 they blame vendor execution and lack if equipment as their number one and two reasons. They did mention backhaul but with a list of five other things. Vendor execution and supply chain problems were singled out by sprint. I don't think the back haul problem is as big a factor nation wide as it is sometimes made out to be on the forums here. I sure in some areas it's the 1 one problem but I don't think back haul issue can be the scape goat for why a project this complicated has had delays. So I but tmobile being able to pull this off. Robert is exactly right sprint needs to adjust to a changing market place if they are going to stay relevant. On a side note I know of two towers that have backhaul run to them, one has had NV equipment and back haul for over a month and no lte the other has no NV equipment but has had fiber for two weeks. Now that is two data points out of 40000 so it is worth what it's worth but at least in some place back haul is ahead out the curve.

That really doesn't mean anything. Could just be a marketing ploy.

Sorry dude can't feel sorry for you, those plans are ridiculously low.

Cell site density is another explanation at least in Phoenix. Att has about 20-30 percent more cell towers in the valley than does sprint. In Phoenix ATT voice and HSDPA network runs off 1900. Sprint starved the network of capital for years and that included add new sites. 800 will bring them up to par in terms of voice but data coverage will require 2.6 and densifying the network.

Density for the 2.6 network. They have also indicated that expanded service into new areas is not a priority for them. I am sure they will do some but I don't get the impression that a massive push in rural coverage is any where on the horizon.

From everything I have heard/ read out of sprint directly it looks like they are going to stay with about 55,000 macro cell sites for the foreseeable future. So I don't think expanding their coverage is in the cards. I would be happy with evdo roaming off vzw and a soft cap of about 1 gig. I don't know how feasible it would be, but it seems like if sprint leverage current FCC rules they could make the financials work on such a deal.