newyork4me

I think from what he described it's pretty obvious T-Mobile hasn't launched LTE in the area yet (he described as seeing it on Sensorly only). That doesn't necessarily mean the GMO LTE is to blame. I was driving through some new GPRS -> LTE areas (GMO LTE) on T-Mobile and with one iPad streaming HBO, an iPhone 6 streaming Netflix, my third device was able to speedtest 20Mbps down. I was thoroughly impressed. This was also not an area officially launched yet (as was evident when we hit the one tower that had not been upgraded and all the devices had meltdowns upon hitting GPRS) but I was very pleased with T-Mobile's phenomenal progress. Hek, T-Mobile even had native service in a town that Verizon was "extended 1x" roaming in.

Fixed it for you. But, at least it looks like's VZW's way of thinking has changed. American Tower says they are the most active in network additions this year, so it looks like densification has finally made it into their school of thought.

!!!! I think this is the first confirmed sighting in the now-defunct exclusion zone. And chance you can share the address of the tower and/or take pics?!

Google? Haha. But, seriously, this is old news. Here's one: http://ipcarrier.blogspot.com/2013/11/at-to-deploy-40000-small-cells-as-part.html AT&T said on their recent conference call they are ahead of schedule. And it's 40,000 small cells and 10,000 new macros for Project VIP (the 2014-2015 network investment) The point is that Sprint's investment is very welcome--and will help a great deal---but it's not going to alter the landscape materially when their competitors are doing even more.

Possibly, but unlikely. All carriers are adding small cells with pretty good fury. AT&T will have added close to 40,000 small cells during 2014-2015. Verizon just started adding them at a rapid clip, and T-Mobile has said they are going gung-ho on small cells this year too. If 5,000 of the 9,000 are small cells, that's only 4,000 incremental macros...which isn't going to allow Sprint to surpass T-Mobile's 50k+ macros (and counting) anytime soon.

Verizon VoLTE is not a problem. My call drops are substantially less than on Sprint 1x1900 or 1x800. And look at Verizon's CapEx spending---$10.5 BILLION last year and a higher amount this upcoming year...the LTE footprint will soon exceed 2G/3G--especially since I've seen VZW putting up LTE-only cell sites here in California. And, T-Mobile is beginning to have low-band spectrum overlayed on their high-band network grid. They have the densest cell grid already, so low-band spectrum is going to make that unbelievable. More importantly, T-Mobile has VoLTE to WiFi Calling handoffs on devices like the iPhone. In-building penetration isn't a problem when the phone can handoff to a WiFi network. Don't forget that unlike Sprint (and Verizon), T-Mobile can pass the call off to HSPA or GSM too. That Google did not just choose Sprint (which has the trove of 2.5GHz spectrum) and made sure to also sign with T-Mobile is indicative of the fact that they want the advanced network technologies that T-Mobile has (like VoLTE). I don't blame them for also wanting current capabilities over hopes of improvements in the future. I'm all for liking Sprint, but the fact that they are the only major carrier without VoLTE is inexcusable. Worse, they apparently have no urgency in their timeline for catching up to everyone else.

Verizon's VoLTE is nationwide. It doesn't matter if I'm in L.A., Bismarck, Miami, or New York...when I press the call button, it's VoLTE. T-Mobile's network is also nationwide...and it is enabled by default on the devices. T-Mobile's best selling phones (the iPhone 6 and 6+) are enabled by default. Out of the box, the second you start calling, it is done through VoLTE. And, I believe their other flagships are enabled out of the box now too. Because it is enabled by default, T-Mobile has a huge volume of VoLTE calls. It's not the obscure technology you make it out to be. And, VoLTE is a huge, huge deal. For one, it provides simul. voice & data (a huge deal to people who need it). Most importantly, the call quality is amazing. It's quite literally a night and day difference over even the best-sounding 1x call.

T-Mobile has ~20-30% of subs on unlimited plans. Sprint has the overwhelming majority on unlimited plans. I'm not sure how that is less addicted?

I like the optimism.

Is the San Bernardino county problem resolved for them now too?

Exactly. The M2M contract I'm familiar with costs about $1/mo per connected device. And, to the original questioner, ADT charges it because they can! They have people willing to pay it, so why not profit from it?

The conference call said the "near entirety" were connected devices (M2M). I.E. Alarm systems, telematics, connected appliances, etc.

Only counting wholesale. They lost 500,000 postpaid phones and masked 250,000 of that with tablets (which, when given free with a $5/mo tablet plan, make no money for Sprint). That's absolutely horrible. Make no mistake, Sprint makes its bread and butter off postpaid phone customers, which Sprint let fly through the barn door last quarter. Without the postpaid phone customers, there is no money for the network. You can be sure the $1/mo revenue per wholesale subscriber is not going to be funding the 2.5GHz Spark expansion.

That's a very strong signal. And you are pretty close to me. You live south of the boulevard?

I feel like you say this tongue-in-cheek, but you aren't too far off. It's hard to complain about Sprint's phone lineup when they have the most popular phone model. And Apple Pay actually works well at Whole Foods. It is very convenient...don't even have to take out your wallet for those late-night kale runs.

The OC is subjected to the IBEZ blackout, so San Bernardino county isn't affecting them too much.

My only question is: where are the net adds going to come from? T-Mobile is reporting record sales (700k net postpaids in August alone) VZW is saying they are 40% higher than last year's quarter (when they did almost 1 million net adds) AT&T is claiming a strong quarter and boasting that they're "not the victim" in the quarter. With a saturated wireless market, it sure seems somebody has to be a donor carrier to fuel that kind of growth on the other three. If the losses aren't coming from Sprint, who are they coming from?

Framily is a group plan and an individual plan. A great many people have one individual line on their account under Framily pricing and pay just $45 for unlimited. There is no possible way to spin the loss of the $45 unlimited everything price-point on Sprint as being a good thing. EDIT: Here's a great way to tell these new price plans are terrible: not a single person will answer in the affirmative on the following. Who has one line on a $25 1GB, $35 3GB, or $45 unlimited Framily plan and intends to switch to the new $60 individual plan? Nobody? Nobody? Crickets?

It might be lowest uncomplicated unlimited plan ever, but it is not the lowest postpaid unlimited plan ever. Not even from Sprint themselves. On my account with the one Sprint line by itself, it is $45 for postpaid unlimited with Framily. That's $15 less than Sprint's new "disruptive" pricing. And, of course, right now for at least a year, T-Mobile is offering unlimited LTE speeds for a year for $50 when you port in. That's cheaper too. And, it has all the ancillary perks like SimpleGlobal.

Kansas City star is reporting that it is $100 for 20GB of data, and then additional $$ for each line added. They said it is the same cost for four lines ($160) as VZW and AT&T but with double the data. If true, that'll be a tough sell.

a ) This thread's discussion is all over the place on speculation for new price points. The post right after your first was talking about 3GB/mo. b ) You said you can't compare $60 for 2GB to $50 for unlimited. That's true only when you get equivalent service for each...and Verizon's network is not in the same league as Sprint's. That's like saying a Ford can't cost $20k because I paid $130k for my Tesla. It's nonsensical. c ) A $50 unlimited plan that's unsubsidized is not disruptive given that you can get it for $45 now with Framily, like I have. And don't forget that T-Mobile markets unlimited data for $50 too...even if some of it is slowed. But, the SimplyGlobal and unleashed music likely more than make up that difference.

a ) Where did I say unlimited data at that $50? b ) You can't compare Verizon's network to Sprint's. c ) "Truly disruptive" pricing is going to actually require Sprint to be aggressive.

Verizon is doing unlimited talk/text, 2GB of data, and a subsidy for $60. (http://www.verizonwireless.com/wcms/consumer/shop/shop-data-plans/single-line-data-plans.html) And, Sprint obviously has to be cheaper than Verizon...so $50 subsidized isn't the least bit farfetched.

Ditto. I'm in L.A., and 1x on iPhone 5S and Nexus 5 won't establish a data connection. It so consistently won't connect to data, that I'm starting to think that Sprint is blocking data over 1x (not necessarily unwise, to ensure enough bandwidth for voice).

Oh, come on. Pigs could theoretically fly too. If Sprint doesn't have the ability to do it right now with what they have, it is too speculative to be seriously talked about. And Chicago was the market that made the made sense, since they were getting fresh spectrum that would have prevented the need to refarm. But, let's be serious, Sprint should be at 10x10 in as many markets as they can. If that means starting to turn down 1x or EVDO as they shift traffic to LTE and 1x800, then so be it. T-Mobile is very aggressively refarming for LTE with minimal consequences. Wider channels are more efficient too. Period. They allow faster peak speeds which allow users to start and complete a data task faster, thus removing them as an active data user that much faster. But, more importantly, it prevents the otherwise recurrent problem of idle capacity on the non-loaded channel. Yes, the network tries to load balance, but there is not one person who is foolish enough to claim the load balancing is 100% efficient. The network simply cannot move users around with enough frequency and accuracy to perfectly balance loads. It does a good job of preventing one channel from being 100% loaded and the other from being 0%, sure, but it cannot reproduce the same efficiency benefits of having one channel. Even if the network is able to balance load to 60% and 40%, it's still less optimal than the wider channel.