maxsilver

I don't think what your seeing implies that B41 isn't still top priority. B41 is the highest band spectrum ever used for cellular data in the US. The propagation of it is a lot more sensitive to the environment than any other service. It's pretty normal for me to go from a "strong" B41 signal, to no B41, in a split second by doing things like walking from a parking lot to the inside of a car, or walking past a building. What you've described sounds normal so far. If the phone can grab usable B41, it is. If B41 drops, it's safely landing on B25.

I haven't gotten it yet. I'm sure the rest of us will get it pushed, in due time.

The $65/month plan includes a legacy device subsidy + 2yr contract. If you Easy Pay or BYOD then the rate is discounted, and the cost drops to $45/month. (plus your EasyPay/EIP payment, if applicable, plus taxes+fees+etc) http://www.drwireless.com/pdfs/Sprint%20Business%20Fusion%20Plans.pdf You're probably already aware of this, but for folks who aren't -- Note that you can't just be a business, you have to have a corporate liable account for that plan. That requires jumping some arbitrary hoops, (and a silly amount of phone calls). Not impossible or anything, but more work than it ought to be.

Yep and Sprint already undercuts this today, for corporate-liable accounts. Even with just a single line. So it's not that much of a stretch for them to offer that pricing on the consumer side. If they copied the corporate plan to consumer side as it exists today, that would make Unlimited Data + 3GB Tethering $45/month on Sprint (in comparison to Unlimited Data + 5GB Tethering at $50/month/line with two lines on TMO) I suspect though, that it's more likely they'll just open up the existing $50/month Unlimited Data iPhone plan to non-iPhones. (and maybe finally add some tethering to it). No need give away that $5/month margin just yet.

T-Mobile LTE is depicted on the map when you click a location. (Similar to the regular T-Mobile coverage map -- it says something like '4G LTE coverage is...')

I think that B41 service might be coming from the site over on the other side of the mall. (At least, when I was there last weekend, the west tower had B41 but the east one did not) But if that one does have B41, then that means all of the outdoor area at/near Rivertown Mall should have B41 service now. (If your not seeing it in SignalCheck, your phone might be misleading you. Some engineering screens show 'Band 41' when they are scanning for it, but not actually connected to it.)

I think it's a market-by-market thing, in that some ATT markets run "half-rate" and some (most?) markets run "full-rate", although my memory of this is dated and I don't know if they still do that anymore. I've always had slightly better voice quality on AT&T over Verizon here, but neither of them sound particularly great in comparison to Wideband / HD Voice.

Again, you really don't want that to happen, because Sprint is still in last-place on data in nearly every one of the urban cores that these writers would live/work in. Marcelo's team has the right idea here -- wait to push network messaging until the network is truly 100% ready (where, in my opinion anyway, "ready" means "at least not last place in RootMetrics speed index and/or data performance"). If Sprint actually did this, then Ars would use it for 2-5 days, and their next headline would read "Even with the latest phone, Sprint's Spark network still doesn't measure up to (Verizon/AT&T/TMO) in (Chicago/NYC/Detroit/Minneapolis/Seattle/San Francisco/Austin)" It doesn't matter how close they get -- if they're behind by any noticeable/measurable amount, the story will simply read "Sprint is behind". Don't give them the bait. Wait to push network messaging until the network is consistently good in all major markets.

This is my concern as well. The backend systems can barely handle the plans they have going on now. Things are really going to get messed up if everyone is getting a custom quoted price plan. Plus, this brings a really weird "haggling" to the lineup too. If it becomes clear that the reps can just select a rate plan arbritarily, people are going to start pushing for the lowest one. Folks are going to feel cheated (because at some level, they are getting cheated.) In fact, I bet the reps will do the haggling for them for the commissions -- similar to how most corporate Sprint stores just gave anyone who walked in off the street a $25/month rate plan on a random strangers Framily plan). - - - - - I'm 100% on board with the basic idea. Give subscribers a great deal, to get them on board. It's a good move. Marcelo has the right idea. But this particular implementation of that idea feels --- really sketchy and not well planned. They probably should have just come out with a simple rate plan, like the plans they trialed in the midwest. ($40/3GB. $50/Unlimited).

Yep. Do we really need to tread through the GSM/UMTS vs CDMA debate again? We all know where the industry is heading, and we all know why... All rehashing will do is bring up old wounds for the CDMA fans. I swear, even Qualcomm doesn't get this upset about it.

I'm guessing it has nothing to do with their customer portfolio, and everything to do with T-Mobile's pricing. T-Mobile has a $45/month 2GB single line plan. Not a special deal, not discounted, fully postpaid. For Sprint to match that with their promo here, they'd have to be willing to sign up $23/month 2GB individual lines (plus EIP). Plus, you know, eating the $650-ish ETF+EIP fees. Which would take 2.5 to 3 years just to break even on. I'm guessing stuff like that isn't sounding attractive.

Right, I also think data reliability is important. Sprint does consistently rank highly for call and text reliability, and data *availability*. But in the RootMetrics "Data Performance" score, Sprint is typically last (or second-to-last) place as well. It's not as bad as the Speed Index, but it's not exactly something I'd be proud to promote either. And I'm not ignoring the call/text portions of the test -- there's been lots of improvement there (mainly around the 1x800 service). That's awesome! But nearly every carrier is doing well in calls and text these days in most markets, so it's not much of a "differentiator" either. (Even MetroPCS pre-TMO-merger was winning awards on voice service, using exclusively high band AWS. It takes only a minimal amount of effort to do well - http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/grand-rapids-mi/2012/2H ) Ironically, that report also highlights the improvements I talked about earlier. Sprint is still last place in every data metric in most markets, but from 2012 to 2014 it went from a score of "7" to a score of "88". That's your "network vision" in effect, and it's a *big* improvement.

It's system software that acts like a on-device network proxy between the apps you install, and the phones network access, that tries to reduce your data usage through a combination of artificial caching and/or additional compression This is Mobolize describing one of their products - http://www.mobolize.com/press-release-mobolize-announces-cachefront-mobile/ and http://www.rcrwireless.com/20141007/wireless/mobolize-optimizing-network-using-devices-tag6 and them issuing a press release when Sprint signed on with them http://www.fiercewireless.com/press-releases/sprint-adopts-mobolize-caching-technology-enhance-variety-services

> "Adds Mobolize" (from ZV6 release notes) Lovely. Even more terrible caching/proxying garbage to try to disable.

I think they just haven't gotten around to caring about your area yet. I feel your pain though -- we have a similar situation over here. T-Mobile just won 1st place on data speed in our largest city (Detroit), and the network over there is fantastic. But in the 2nd largest city (Grand Rapids) I still can't get T-Mobile service in one of the malls, or the county courthouse, or the suburban WalMart, or the south end of Downtown, etc. We're not out in the boonies -- and it's only a handful of areas that are broken. But it is our #2 city with 1.1+million people that's got these struggling areas (and it's doubly-frustrating, since legacy MetroPCS has CDMA+LTE running sites leased in each of these areas, that T-Mobile is throwing away presumably since they don't *have* to have them once they get Band 12 up and running...) I suspect they'll get to your backhaul. Eventually.

I don't think this "starting to slip" is actually happening in any significant amount, and I don't expect to see much of it in 2015. T-Mobile LTE as it exists last month (fully loaded with a nation full of subscribers) won fastest average network speeds in Denver, NYC, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Detroit (and tied with Verizon AWS LTE in Memphis). Those are just the RootMetrics reports released this past month, from some of the largest and/or most heavily loaded markets in the nation. Barring a small handful of areas they are truly spectrum crunched in (like Cincinatti), any area they *want* to do well in, they can, and so far have done so. This includes other areas in your state --- T-Mobile took first place in Honolulu for data speed, data reliability, data performance, and overall performance just 4 months ago - http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/honolulu-hi It *really does* sound like they just haven't gotten around to upgrading the backhaul in your particular area yet, and that may look like they are "slipping" for you because of that. Luckily, that's typically the easiest upgrade to make happen. Providers in Michigan can literally double bandwidth on my lines in about 48 hours, with a single phone call and a faxed signature (if I had the cash to do so). I don't know much about the situation in Hawaii, but I really can't imagine it would be that hard for T-Mobile to get you better backhaul on those sites, if they decided to do so.

It looks like the Nexus 6 actually does technically support carrier aggregation for Verizon and AT&T bands. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192101-nexus-6-the-best-android-smartphone-for-wireless-and-lte-connectivity This doesn't necessarily mean you'll actually get carrier aggregation on Verizon (in part, for the reasons already mentioned) but technically, the Nexus 6 supports carrier aggregation on Verizon and AT&T.

That's correct. To add 700mhz sectors, they'd almost certainly need a permit. I mentioned the other options because, if your area is congested, they're more likely to start with those, as they don't require a permit, new hardware, or the cost to send people out to do anything. (Read: much faster, much cheaper) I have no inside information -- this is just my observations paired with assumptions. But I've noticed this past 12 months or so that T-Mobile runs a bunch of disparate upgrades simultaneously, and they don't always line up nicely. For instance, in Grand Rapids, they already have 700mhz sectors on a number of sites (and those 700mhz sectors aren't used or online yet) and they've converted about 40% of their old EDGE network to LTE, while simultaneously only running 50mbps backhaul to some urban sites, and they still don't cover a bunch of newer suburban neighborhoods near the edge of the city. We've got these shiny new sectors just waiting to lit up. But at the same time, while they've added a lot of LTE in suburbs/exurbs here, the dead spots on the edge of town are still there, untouched and unchanged for the last six years. So my assumption is either: - your on some teams ToDo list - your upgrades are already happening, or - they forgot about your area in the market. If your area is anything like it is here, all three of those could be true simultaneously.

That might be needed, but it sounds like that could just be backhaul too. A number of sites haven't had a backhaul upgrade since the HSPA+ days. So, somewhat similar to the "slow B41" sites, a number of TMO sites only have 50mbps or so to share between multiple channels of HSPA+ and LTE (source - fiercemobileit). On these sites, 10x10 LTE is typically still more than enough bandwidth, but the backhaul severly limits usable data speeds/capacity. That's still congestion, obviously. But it's easily solvable. Neville Ray could call Bright House / Zayo / etc tonight and double the backhaul to some of these sites in just a few days. The line has more capacity, just that no one's paid for yet. The permit issue is a little bit of a red herring in some cases -- they could add extra backhaul and 15x15 LTE (assuming they have the spectrum) and never actually physically touch the site.

They could just lease the DAS setups already there that are already installed and in use. They're pretty cheap (comparatively) and require no negotiations -- http://www.americantower.com/corporateus/solutions/das/in-building-das/index.htm

He either doesn't know, or didn't mention the biggest part of the Framily problems Literally every Sprint store in the city here was running underground Framily rings near the end of it. I know this because I went to almost all of them (3 corporate stores, 8 third party) when trying to get the promo $40/$50 individual line plan when they first launched. And every single store was telling me not to do it, because they could get me on "$45 Unlimited". Every single store had lists and pages of Framily codes sitting on their desks (even the corporate stores). Without telling you (unless you specifically asked), they would just dump any new lines who came into the store onto Framiliy plans at random, and juggle people between Framilies, to make sure all new lines hit the $45/month price. I suspect that was the real reason Framily was larger than they expected -- they had unintentionally incentivized store reps to undersell service.

They are. I must be missing something here, because I don't see the value of this. Is Sprint so worried that FreedomPop will start selling T-Mobile service / get aquired by them, that it's worth buying the company? Unless I'm missing something, the only thing FreedomPop has is 250k-ish subscribers on low-revenue, prepaid plans. Based on the expected purchase offer of 250-450 million, that would mean Sprint hypothetically values FreedomPop at $1,000 to $1,800 per subscriber. For a prepaid, low revenue subscriber. They'd have to keep that subscriber for 4 to 8+ years, just to recoup the purchase price.

As I said above, I *like* your plans. They're good plans. Simple, clean, fair. I just don't think Sprint will implement them. Specifically because they are too good, too clean, too simple, too fair. Right. And they dropped the $40 promo plan (and the $50 one became the iPhone one). Because they lowered ARPU. Framily isn't current, that promo is also over. (I know they haven't technically discontinued it, but effectively they have.) Framily pricing required...a big family. That lower pricing works because you can't leave without screwing up 6+ other people's bills. Sprint's revenue is roughly the same even if a member drops. Your plans don't do that -- they are too simple and too clean. There's no aggressive and unfair penalty built into them for churning on the lower price points. - - I would not assume that most Sprint subscribers are on a maxed-out Framily plan. I suspect that the majority of postpaid subscribers pay more than that per line for service. (It wasn't that long ago that an individual line cost $80-$110/month, regardless of phone subsidy) Right, but "not drop by much" isn't "raise", which is why this probably won't happen. The plan you just described is $20-$30 cheaper than Sprint's current plans before even touching the add-ons. I know those include "unlimited", and yours didn't. But that's part of the marketing ploy -- convince people to buy more than they need, to bump ARPU up. Your plans don't do that -- it's too honest, too simple. It's why the $40/3GB plan is gone. Sprint's "unlimited" plans are set up so that light users subsidize heavy users service. Letting the light users opt out (through cheaper 3GB or 5GB plans) hurts this -- they'd have to charge more for unlimited plans to compensate for the revenue loss. Where's our "Jump to Conclusions" mat? Regardless of how we here feel either way about T-Mobile's network, their postpaid port-ins are higher, and their churn is lower. Clearly a measurable chunk of ex-Sprint subscribers are finding T-Mobile's network to be satisfactory -- since they're leaving Sprint for it, and paying slightly more (on average) to do so. That's obviously not everyone's experience (and not mine -- my personal line is still on Sprint). But I wouldn't be so quick to discount it either. And we can't really accuse this group of being misled or using old/outdated experiences to judge the service and pricing, since they literally were using Sprint until the day they switched.

Your not thinking like a multinational corporation Show people a low price by advertising less than they want, and tricking them into buying more than they need. The promos are perfect for that. Advertise low prices, put time-limited offers on them (so they have to "buy now!"). Make the good price only on one phone, so people don't waste time trying to window shop, waste reps time asking about phones, or getting any buyers remorse. Slap extra fees on them (early upgrade, TEP, installment plans, activation fees, etc) to drive up the total cost. Tie your service into a dozen other peoples service, so you can't make changes without screwing up your family/friends/coworkers plans as well, to reduce churn. It's basically how all wireless / wireline ISPs work -- the industry is built on it. Not to mention, that you aren't splitting your markets by income and demographics to maximize revenue. (Your supposed to get the maximum dollars each individual person is willing to pay. You can't do that by treating people equally. You have to set up branding specifically for "urban", "youth", "low-income", so that only they get good pricing, and set up different branding for everyone else, so you can charge them more.) It's Economics 101. Your "Straight-Up" plans are too simple, and too cheap. They don't accomplish that goal. If Sprint switched to it, ARPU on individual lines would drop by $20-$30 each, and individuals could churn whenever they wanted. It's an instant no-go.

Well, it *might* be a Clear site. A number of Sprint-only sites also go live with Band 41, but without backhaul fully present. (We've got two here, and they roughly match the performance you describe. Definitely not clear sites, since Clear never had service on/near them) But either way, backhaul will increase that speed eventually.