bkrodgers

I was visiting last weekend, up mainly in Streeterville and other parts of near north. I sure hope NV wasn't live yet there, because I wasn't that pleased with speeds. I didn't run speed tests, but I was using my phone heavily throughout the weekend for various tasks (directions, finding reviews, researching answers for bar arguments ) . It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great. Sent from my Evo using Tapatalk 2

The reasons not to do it are certainly significant ones. But the lack of such devices does put some of us in a bind. Yes, WiMax never went nationwide, but for those that have it, and live in a city with severe 3G problems, giving it up before NV arrives is a really hard pill to swallow. Adding a WiMax chip would have made the transition for people like me seamless. Yes, it'd drain battery when I'm using it, but once LTE goes live, I'd turn the WiMax off and never use it again. Of course, I recognize it might make the phone more expensive and maybe thicker, and maybe there's even some battery drain that would still be there with the chip off. But it'd keep me from being in the dilemma of having to either give up on Sprint if I want to upgrade before the end of the year, or basically have a device that only works on WiFi in a lot of the areas I spend time. I realize it's academic...it won't happen at this point, as only the first round of Sprint LTE phones would have any need for it, and they're already designed and in some cases released. Sprint will lose some customers for not having such devices. Whether it's a significant number and whether it would have justified the downsides of such devices, I can't say, but there will be customers who leave Sprint when told they have to go back to only having Sprint's 3G network available.

I just hope Sprint does the right thing (at least in their own sales channels) and trains the sales folks to make sure this is clear to people when they buy an LTE device in a market that has WiMax and not LTE. Not only because disclosing it is the right thing to do, but also because they don't need that kind of negative blowback.

I realize there are places where WiMax 4G doesn't even exist, and also places where Sprint's 3G network is usable. But as spotty as Clear's 4G network is, it's sometimes the only data I have if I'm away from WiFi. The 3G network is so overloaded where I work that it's basically down most of the time. I wonder how much trouble Sprint's going to have with people who live in WiMax markets and have been using 4G, upgrade their Evos, and start complaining about how bad the data speeds are. I bet a lot of them won't even realize that until NV is live in their city, they've actually downgraded and given up access to a high speed network. Yes, I know when the Evo launched, lots of people bought it without having WiMax. But Sprint's 3G network was in a lot better shape then.

Not only that, but until we get there, we should have simultaneous voice and LTE, just like we do with WiMax, right? And maybe with a lower frequency that provides better indoor signals, hopefully a better LTE footprint with fewer gaps, better chipsets in the phones, and bigger batteries like in the Evo LTE, leaving LTE on all the time will be more viable. Simultaneous 3G and voice would be nice for fallback, but if it diverts resources from more long term efforts, it makes sense for them to skip it. If it could be done at minimal cost as a part of the upgrades, that'd be one thing, but it sounds like that's not the case.

Thanks Robert. I really appreciate your site. I wish the reps had half the information you do. That's probably my biggest problem. They deny that anything's wrong with the network at all, claiming this is the first time they've ever heard anyone complain about network speeds in all the years they've worked for Sprint. Twice I had a rep tell me they were entering a network ticket, but when I asked for a ticket number, they said their system didn't let them give it to me. When I called back a week later, the new rep said the ticket had never been created. Multiple reps saying that 600 kbps (which I rarely get) is all that a 3G network is capable of (despite their ads listing 600-1.4 as the average speeds). Or tell me that I need to be looking for WiFi hotspots when I'm out instead of expecting the Sprint network to be there. Or that if it can load the Google Mobile home page (probably one of the simplest pages on the Internet), that means there's nothing wrong at all. Or, once a ticket was finally created, telling me that their network technicians do not test or look at speed when they're investigating speed issues, so they're closing the ticket. Maybe worthless is a strong word for the network. There are pockets where, at times, I get solid 1Mbps or higher. It's the rare exception though, not the rule. I've been with Sprint almost continuously since 1999, and a smartphone user since 2001 (Samsung i300), so I have a LOT of experience as a mobile data user. I mean, I get it, they didn't invest in their network enough during years when smartphone usage was exploding. That can't be fixed overnight. I do have faith that NV will deliver a strong, competitive network. But simply denying to customers that anything is wrong and giving no indication when it will be fixed is quite frustrating. Even though I know there is a solution coming in NV from sites like yours, it'd be much less frustrating if Sprint themselves would be more forthcoming, apologetic, and ideally offer something to solve the problem or at least tell me when to expect something. Again, thanks so much for your site. I'm not 100% in love with the options on other carriers right now (I'd really like something with a high DPI screen like the Gnex and great battery life like the Razr Maxx), so I may stick it out a bit more. And yeah, price of SERO-P and unlimited data are a big factor as well. I'm also possibly moving to Chicago, which I know is in the first phase of NV underway now. In fact, I'll be up there tomorrow for the weekend. Shoud l I try the 60684X PRL while I'm up there? Or will I see whatever NV benefits are already live even without that?

I certainly can't say I've seen any major improvements. It's still pretty pathetic in most of the places I spend the day in St. Louis. Network tickets seem to be useless. They said they didn't see a problem and closed the ticket. When I asked what speed the technician saw, they said they don't test speeds when they check the towers. They ran the checks during off peak hours in an area that's almost 100% commercial, so of course they didn't see problems. They said whenever NV comes, it should improve, but said St. Louis isn't scheduled to get NV yet. SERO premium is tough to let go, but if they don't do something, I may have to ditch them. I'd rather pay $90 a month for a usable network than $50 a month for a worthless one.