utiz4321

Nope! There are currently no down payments on T-Mobile phones. Can that change in the future? sure.

It will change, it already ended on iPhones and has always been billed by tmobile as a summer promo. Maybe they will keep it around but it is unlikely.

Argue, no. You said they don't have similar programs. I said they do, which is a fact. Advertising wasn't mentioned, but the existence of the programs has nothing to do with advertising practices.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

The point of the op I was going off of and the point I agreed with him on was sprint is falling behind the offers of other carriers. Them having a program that does kind of the same thing (but not really) and no one knows about doesn't invalidate the claim. Sprint is play catch up in a lot of ways (lte, plan price and hand set subsidies) some of which can't be helped but plan pricing and handset offers can.

This may come as a shock..but I think this is discussed here:

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/4191-softbank-new-sprint-discussion/page-21&do=findComment&comment=190659

 

I knew about this stuff before it was even advertised...because I called, talked with someone, and paid $50 back in July of 2012 to buy the Galaxy S3...since $50 was how much I needed to pay to buy out my remaining contract period. Then, paid for the Gs3. I turned around and paid $100 for my wife's line the following September and got her a GS3 as well.

Sprint wasn't heavily advertising the Upgrade Now program, and as the program stands, it still is a better deal and they don't need to do anything to "catch-up" with the others. If anything, the others have played "catch-up" to Sprint by implementing their new device options.

This is not the same kind of program. This is not something sprint is advertising, a customer either has to know about it or have a pretty aware sales rep. Who goes over it with them. Next, jump and edge are new pricing schemes that involve "financing" (edge and next aren't really financing) the phone and sprint doesn't offer this. Argue about the merits of these programs all you want they are popular and people are doing it. Sprint will need to catch up and for a company looking to grow playing catch up is not where you want to be.

Hmm, You are correct about the BoGo HTC One.It is about a $200 savings so new math is below. I will say that 2 for 1 pricing is not the usual price for a new smartphone but as a direct comparison it is a valid one. I'll also add the cost if you buy one off of ebay at a normal price and bring it to T-Mobile:

Look at the monthly pricing between Sprint and T-Mobile now for 2 HTC One smartphones with unlimited data + insurance.

Sprint: $172.00 monthly + 398 (phones @199) = $4327 over 24 months

T-Mobile: $182 monthly + $20 (sim card x 2) = $4388 over 24 months

T-Mobile with upgrades every 6 months! $186 monthly + $20 (sim card x 2) = $4484 over 24 months

T-Mobile BYOD ($425x2) + $8/mo Insurance + 120/mo= $3746

Unless you went with an iPhone in which case add 300 for the phones. Also the no money down is for a limited time. And the jump plan is 10 a month per line so I don't get your math on the second set. But yes sprint's new plans aren't as competitive as I thought they where going to be after the SoftBank's purchase nor have they responded to next, edge or jump all of which have been surprisingly popular. So I hear you on that point.

I'm really curious about my locale.

If anyone out there with an LTE phone could get 3G & LTE speedtests up North, where the 51 meets the 101 if you happen to be passing by, I'd appreciate it.

I'm out of contract right now, and I'll need to decide soon what my plans are.

My son on big red "V" keeps bragging about his 50 megs down,while I can't even get online with my 0.3 megs down.

I really want to stay with "S" and not give up my unlimited, but it's still unusable.

Thanks.

Well it would be rare for him to get 50mb down on vzw in the valley these days. Most people I know with lte phone with them are having speed issues with them (I am mainly in the east side though). In any case sprint will be 3-6 months before lte ubiquitus through the valley. So there os that.

Now the slow and painful improving process, like the mending of a broken leg

I personally care more for 800 mhz voice than I do LTE. Low signal kills battery life and I often find myself having to go nearer to windows on the current Sprint 1900 mhz signal I get.

Everyone has their priorities.

My apologies if this has been discussed already, but as this thread is nearing a thousand posts, I haven't been able to review each and every one of them. Anyway, I was doing a little reading on LTE Broadcast and from this layman's point of view, it seems pretty interesting.

 

http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/special-reports/lte-broadcast-gets-ready-its-close

http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/special-reports/lte-broadcast-multiple-use-cases

http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/special-reports/lte-broadcast-operators-hopping-board

http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/special-reports/lte-broadcast-mixed-takes-future

 

Two Network Vision vendors, Ericsson and Alcatel-Lucent, are working with Qualcomm to develop the technology. Verizon has shown the most interest of any US carrier. However, I think that this technology is now tailor made for Sprint's forthcoming TD-LTE network given their Clearwire purchase. With their tremendous spectrum depth and cell site density, now that they've announced that they're going to put 2.5GHz on all ~39K and beyond, Sprint has a great opportunity to offer differentiating services depending on how the technology develops. It'll be interesting to see if Sprint pursues this and who they might partner with.

I think sprint should partner with Dish on this.????

Not sure where to ask this but I am visiting a market where lte is being deployed but not fully launched and when I have access to lte it works very well except when streaming video. When I stream video it loads about 40 sec then stops and I have to skip ahead for it to load the next 40 sec. I have used several different apps and the web browser all do the samething. I don't know if it is the phone (I have an iPhone 5) I don't think so because with a fast enough 3G connection I don't have this problem. I also have tried it with full lte signal. Has anybody else had this problem? Is this something sprint is doing with prelaunch markets? Thanks.

The executives know but I firmly believe that the employees have no clue how bad sprints network has fallen. Although its getting better at a rapid pace its apparently not fast enough for most people. I'm getting a nexus 7 LTE when it comes out to put a end to my complaining of there network because then I will have access all big 4 LTE networks. So if sprint sucks then I use on the the other 3 for my data needs until sprint is finished with my market. Its gonna be awesome have all the LTE networks.

Churn for the last quarter was largely drive by the Nextel shut down and problems created by the NV vision upgrades. Both are necessary for sprint to fix their long term network issues and the NV related churn will continue until the end of the project, thankfully the Nextel related churn only has one more quarter to plague sprint.

I just renewed my contract in march, so I'm not going anywhere until 2015 (I'm on a family plan, so my share is only $45/month - otherwise I'd leave) I only use about 3-5 GB/month, so overages wouldn't be too bad.

 

Besides data usage and speeds, AT&T and Verizon has more coverage, fewer dropped calls (and higher call quality) and text messages, better located stores (vs most Sprint stores are in strip malls and out-of-way locations for me), better handset selection, and entire plan discounts, (not just data re: new Sprint plans), higher customer service ratings according to JD Power. There's also a social stigma around here if you're on Sprint.

 

Otherwise, it's not too bad for a cheap, low-rent carrier.

jD power studies are almost useless for as much prestige is given to them. They use large samples (very large in fact) but the difference between carrier score (even from bottom to top) are so low that they are rather meaningless. The wireless industry as a whole has improved in customer service, that AT&T took home the customer service award in this study is well good for their marketing department but not much else. And while vzw and AT&T (although not in every market) are deploying 10x10 in 700 leading to faster peak speeds ( I don't understand people's obsession with this, I think it is the same impulse that leads people to feel more masculine with a big truck) sprint's lte network will be better in many ways do to the fact that they are using multiple frequencies and voice on the same frequencies. Sprint also has half the customers so 5x5 won't be as be of a disadvantage as you make it out.

Sprint is only using a 5x5 mhz carrier for 800 lte (much smaller than their competitors). The coverage for 1900 and 2.5 isn't as good as sub 1 ghz. The speeds you're seeing is only the initial phase. It falls off fairly quickly after a few months.

Depends on cell site densities. If you are willing to spend the money you can have a 1900 network that has as good coverage (and more capacity) than 700. Further, AT&T and Verizon make their 700 lte network mimic the coverage of their voice network by requiring stronger signal strengths to connect to lte. This means in markets where they have 1900 voice their 700 lte looks to the end users as 1900 lte as far as coverage goes while having the capacity problems of 700. Since spring has voice on 800 and 1900 there is no need for them to do this, meaning in many markets sprint's lte will have better in building coverage than either AT&T or vzw.

I'm thinking a better/simple message to spread would be... 800 will allow Sprint to kill Tmobile in coverage and be more comparable to ATT/VZW after rollout completes and BTW, 2500 will give Sprint more capacity than everyone else too.

 

2500 is a bonus, not the key core asset. 2500 is great to augment 800/1900 but as Clear has shown, 2500 is not as valuable by itself. 800 is the key core asset and they finally can use it.

I wouldn't go that far. The whole spectrum portfolio is the key core asset when tied to NV. Both AT&T and vzw have low frequencies for both voice and lte. Sprint is also only working with one 5x5 lte carrier and 1xadvance carrier so comparing only the 800 asset with AT&T and vzw low spectrum assets doesn't have sprint pull even with them. 800 is great and important to sprint for in building penetration and coverage but has less capacity than 1900 or 2.5. The capacity of 2.5 will allow sprint to continue unlimited data as well as reach compatible speeds (in the future faster speeds). It really is how sprint is organizing all of their spectrum assets to work across their technologies that is impressive.

Is surprising 800 is rarely talked about by even Sprint. Sprint badly needs it to compete with ATT/VZW, this is their key item over the next year. 2500 will add capacity and maybe more performance if enough backhaul but that is really more of a marketing/bragging rights thing in short term as smartphone apps don't need more than a few Mbps today. Latency matter more to smartphone apps after a few Mbps. At least with the 2500 capacity is not an issue but it's 800 that will bring customers back.

I think sprint talks a lot about their whole portfolio of spectrum and realizes how important of a competitive advantage the spread of spectrum gives them. The whole idea behind NV is to harmonize their spectrum across network technologies in a way that the competition can not match without a similar effort. The media focus on 2.5 I think is because NV's advantages are hard to explain in the limited amount of words they have and if you want some advantage that can be communicated easily (and concisely) it is sprint's massive 2.5 holdings.

Did anyone get their statements? A $5 fee if you ever need a second statement mailed to you. However, if you go online to print, that's free. A material change in the agreement?

I don't think so. I don't believe I have ever seen anything in the t & c that says sprint (or any carrier) is required to provide you with a paper bill.

I would bet on history repeating itself and the iPhone being behind the curve as they have done this since the very first edge only iphone.

I would bet on the next iPhone being triband. SoftBank (now apple's second largestis a bigest customer) purchaser of iPhones and I think their lte network is exculsively 2.5 (not 100 percent on this, would love a correction if not accurate). This I think garentees 2.5 at the least and I have no idea why they would omit 800 lte. So my money is on yes, but as an iPhone user that could be a product of wishful thinking.

Good point on the AT&T customer base. With that in mind it seems even less likely that Apple will make major design changes for Sprint, who sells less iphones last quarter(1.7 million) than Verizon (6.2 million) and AT&T (8.1 million).

You need to add in softbank's sales as well now. Because apple would be making the changes for their sake.

I only really want two things out of the new iPhone, an ir blaster and triband. I can give in on the ir blaster but my next phone will be triband.

Sure this is anecdotal, but of the customers I see who complain of text message issues, I can't think of a single instance over the last year that does not fall in to

a) Device issues (not network-related)

or

b ) Being connected to an oversaturated site (such as at a major concert where Sprint did not deploy COWs, etc)

or

c) Someone being blocked/account issues (not network-related)

 

The major "non-data" issues I see are almost always due to coverage gaps, which are slowly being filled in as 1X-A on ESMR 800 MHz is getting rolled out. The rest are due to cell sites going down, which you're going to get no matter what carrier you're on.

 

Legacy EV-DO sucks in many places. But hey, I can show you at least one place where post-NV Sprint's EV-DO speeds blow VZW's out of the water on the same colocated site - and was better for at least 6 months before NV.

Well I was talking about root metric market studies that show sprint dead last in almost all markets in text delivery times. Go though their reports. I doubt that this is not network related but maybe they have use bad device for their studies, repeatedly and in many different markets. I am a sprint fanboy but no way am I going to defend the current state of the network, nor will I allow myself to become so deluded that I ignore or rationalize away the numerous independent studies that show that sprint current network is not competitive. Network vision is the most innovative project any carrier is doing and has tremendous promise (though it won't fix all of sprint's problems) but it is not complete and many sprint customers like me have to suffer on sprint's legacy equipment or leave and that is not an easy choice (especially in Phoenix where lte seems as if it will never get here).

Yes, Sprint's network has fallen to 4th place based on speed in several publications or lack of LTE availability. Not disputing that. It isnt objective, however, to associate a speed test ranking with usability. If the network is timing out on you, calls are failing, or you are trapped at 1x speeds, thats a legitimate complaint. But if sprint sucks because users 20mb/s > 4mb/s , comparing a limited to unlimited, well, its best to just pony up the $$ to go with the duopoly and remember to stay vigilant about free public wifi.

 

Sent from my Note II. Its so big.

It is not just speed tests. Root measures block down loads failed calls (sprint generally does pretty good in this catagory but in my area i get alot of failed calls, i am chalking it uo to NV work.) Sprint is reagularly last in text devilery times, failed downloads and usaully has more test that come in on the extreme low end, on roots tests. Root's methodolgy might be flawed (i dont know enough about to contruct such test to make a claim on that) but it is deffinately unbias.

This discussion has fallen into a familiar "evidence" trap. "Sprint isnt done with network vision, so since every comment isnt positive, its not marketable". Defeating the logic some oxygen drawing beings have deduced about a carrier with more than 15+ years of name recognition is akin to telling them that bigfoot isnt real regardless of their first hand experiences, or that their chihuahua didnt magically take their little honey booboo's asthma.

Customers who have had bad experiences can and are still found on every carrier, every day. Tmobile enjoys an anthemic drum beating marketing campaign, regardless of its network flaws. Why? The network meets some peoples needs. There is no reason sprint shouldnt market like hell. Even after 16B of additional investment, someone somewhere is going to tell u "sprint sucks" after a hardware malfunction or the network not loading their facebook fast enough. These people should stay at su.com.

 

Sent from my Note II. Its so big.

The problem is that sprint's data network is the worst than any of the major carriers. That not just opinion, look at root metric, pc mag revue or the quality of sprint's legacy equipment vs the backhaul and equipment of other carriers (or trust you own eyes). Sprint is not in the position that AT&T and vzw are in, where a debate between which of these has the best network can really only be settled by saying it depends, sprint's network is objectively worst. That is one of the reasons network vision exist, if sprint that it's network was up to snuff they would do what VZW And AT&T did and deploy lte on top of their existing network (it would have been faster and cheaper) not rebuilding their network from the ground up. I haven't had any issues with the way sprint has handled NV (a little frustrated that it has been delayed but things happen) until sprint's new pricing plans and the way they have made it very difficult for new customers to get the old ones. To me this is a price hike and makes no sense given the state of their network. Until, they under go a major rebranding effort. (Hopefully started after NV is complete) I don't see how they can be anything else other than a discount carrier, there reputation is awful.

I think sprint is having trouble getting handset manufactures to build phones with this feature supported. When apple supported gsm's version of hd voice and not CDMA I began to have doubts that sprint could make this more than a gimmick. But they could just be waiting for the 800 CDMA footprint to become large enough to make it worth paying a bit more for phones (although the did launch the evo lte over a year ago or so.) . If the former is the case there is still hope with sprint/SoftBank having more clout with handset makers.

Looking at the points so far provided, whether or not any of it is correct, logic and stuff would show that koiulpoi has valid points, and has backed them up, whereas your arguments look much more like opinions. In fact, your last couple posts are borderline rants.

Rants? I am not ranting about anything. I am a happy sprint customer, if I was trying to move to sprint and had the experience I have had when i called ( for me it was only an experiment) I would be unhappy. As far as evidence, the only thing he has offered is a quote by Hesse and an interpretation of it. I offered an alternative interpretation and explained why I thought it was better. To which I got replies of how I was not presenting facts and naming calling (which again the only fact present by him was a quote and an interpretation, which oddly enough I accepted the quote and gave a different interpretation) that is where the break down in logic and stuff occurred and where I became bored. Feel free to disagree with my take on Hesse's statements regarding the new plans but all he offered was another take on Hesse's statements. It seems odd to count that as evidence.

I really, really dislike this attitude. You just said "I'm going to respond BUT I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY." It's immature, it's intellectual bankruptcy. It's a complete lack of respect for the person you're debating, and to your own ideas. You're claiming that your ideas are above reproach. It's the least graceful way of dropping out of a conversation. If you'd wanted to just stop the debate, all you had to do was say so. Instead, it makes you look like a fool whose ideas own are worth much to him, but cannot listen to others. Grow up.

That was me saying I wanted to end the debate and that I don't accept your points as valid, because well logic and stuff. In any case you resorted to name calling and then say I need to grow up? Interesting interpretation.

Changing your opinion, are you? First you said they're not available at all, now they're "for all intents and purposes" not available - which is false. They are available. Like I already said store employees have been told to push the new plans. The plans aren't going away. They are available if you ask, much like EPRP.

 

Of course Sprint is going to lead with the most expensive offer, to get as many consumers on it at once. Why wouldn't they?

 

 

 

You failed to read the original quote I posted.

 

Of course it had Softbank's approval. But the plans were

You calling Hesse a liar (and by extension, questioning the journalistic integrity of the WSJ) isn't doing anything for your position, as you have continually failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. All you keep doing is talking about corporate culture. If you have a quote, a fact, a statistic, a source, anything that provides evidence against what I've been saying, I'm willing to hear it.

 

When discussing things like this, we must deal with facts and not wild baseless speculation. My posts have the former. Yours thus far haven't gotten very far out of the latter.

This is my last post so feel free and respond if it makes you feel right. Hesse's statement is technically accurate but notice what it doesn't exclude. It doesn't exclude the possibility that SoftBank had input or could have vetoed the idea. This is where it is dissembling a bit. It leads people to believe SoftBank wasn't involve while not saying that SoftBank is not involved, in fact it say the opposite. For example, sprint comes up with the plan (created in hesses's comment), informs SoftBank. From there softbank could say no, or adjust the prices ex.. Then sprint deploys them( initiated). in this sceam hesse commints are true but softbank was very much invovled (really it is called critical thinking. when you know a source in biased you try to filter what they are saying. Hopefully you won't say Hesse is not biased) And since you agree that the plans had SoftBank's approval what are you disagreeing with me about? I have said since SoftBank must sign off on these plans this can be seen as their first move and it is not impressive.

 

If you take everything someone in coroprate leadership says on face value and don't look at exactly it was they actually said you are going to be mislead a great deal. They are masters of while not lying, leading people to think what they want when saying something quite different and as much as I like Dan Hesse he wouldn't have gotton to where he is without this skill.

Also glad to see you did disagree with my contention that average customer might as well not have the old plans avalible to them because they have a better chance of getting ice cream delivered in the middle of the Sahara. I was going off what my local sprint stores said and the website when I claimed that the plans where no longer avalible. If i was wrong I am sorry that sprint misinformed me, but that reflects worse on sprint than it does me so hopefully that is a good victory for, because as a customers of sprint (you know those right the ones that allow you company to continue) I a bit mifited at the companies antics right now.