gangrene

Its amazing to me that work on a place as dense with Sprint customers as Long Island is finally just starting.

I find it disturbing that T-mobile is beating Sprint to the punch on in its LTE deployment of Long Island despite the months-long lead time Sprint has had in NYC and adjacent areas.

If I traveled a lot, I'd be on Verizon. Its worth the expense if you do, no other carrier comes anywhere close as far as their rural (LTE) coverage.

OP lives in NYC, so my first-hand feedback would be particularly relevant to him. I thought I was completely clear about my experience being a regional (NYC & Long Island) one. Obviously, mileage varies depending on where you live but this thread is very NYC-centric.

I left Sprint in October. I've been averaging between 12-16mbit down and 1-2mbit up on T-mobile HSPA+ all over Long Island. I've noticed that the downstream is quite a bit faster in Manhattan, around 18-20mbit Unlike my previous experience with Sprint, it doesn't really seem to slow down during business hours. In my personal experience, coverage in NYC and Long Island is about the same as Sprint, maybe a little bit better, maybe a little bit worse in some spots, the difference hasn't been that noticeable. I've also found WIFI calling to be amazingly useful, the ability to hop on any wifi network and make calls/send texts from your primary number completely eliminates the need for an AirRave. Its like carrying an AirRave in your pocket, WiFi networks are literally everywhere in NYC, especially in indoor areas where your cell signal won't penetrate. As far as costs, my current t-mobile plan is identical to the cost of my old sprint plan. The only difference being that I decided to pay for insurance when I bought a Galaxy S3. Sprint didn't offer insurance on my old Iphone 4s. When I finish paying off my device, my plan becomes around $20 cheaper than the competing sprint plan. Personally, I really like the fact that the subsidy has been separated from the cost of the phone service. The only really difference, IMO between the Value plans and the traditional carrier model is transparency regarding cost. So long story short, I'll have had really good, really fast, truly unlimited data for almost a year on Long Island before Sprint finally gets LTE rolled out here. It doesn't make sense to continue to pay for a bad service, and torture yourself in the hopes that it'll get better in the future, when there already is a carrier with fast, truly unlimited data in the area.

Mergers aren't good for consumers, they're bad for your wallet and your number of choices diminish. I'll never understand this pro-consolidation mindset.

I'd argue that the bulk of subscriber losses they've faced in recent years were iPhone driven. Sprint faced the same problem until they started offering the iPhone. Now, they'll be viable and sustainable business. Its what helped cement a duopolistic market with Verizon and AT&T at the helm in the first place.

I guess I just don't see the value in T-mobile carrying fifty different MVNOs when they already offer self-branded pre-paid. It just seems exceedingly dangerous to me that T-mobile and Sprint would try to reach pricing parity Verizon or AT&T considering the lesser coverage of T-mobile, and how lackluster Sprint serve is going to be until Network Vision is completed. Don't thinks like Straight Talk and Simple Mobile running on their network just cannibalize their business?

The key difference here is that consumers actually want unlimited data and are generally very protective of it. Consumers primarily use their phones for the data capabilities and texting(including different data-based messaging services) now. People are using less minutes, talking less and less. Its an inherently dishonest move, because its designed to force consumers to pay more for the same minutes that they are currently using. People being forced into this higher tier aren't going to start talking more, the genuine chatterboxes that are few and far between were already on unlimited minutes.

The new practice of eliminating the cheaper 450/500 minute tiers that most consumers choose and forcing new & renewing customers into the sole remaining & much higher priced unlimited minute tiers. Most people don't want, use, or need unlimited minutes yet people on other carriers are now being forced to pay for them. Verizon did it first. T-mobile followed them and did it today. How long until Sprint & AT&T follow their lead?

Four years is a lifetime in the technology industry, its useless to even speculate. And personally, I doubt the expenditure ever makes sense.

It makes far more sense to fix their spotty coverage in areas like suburban Boston and on the outskirts of DC in a bid to win customers in areas where millions of people live, than to fund build outs in small towns scattered throughout Upstate, the Midwest, and in the South. Verizon, AT&T and US Cellular are so far ahead in covering these kinds of areas that you could argue that it would be a mistake for them to try. Covering those 13,000 GPRS towers wouldn't be enough, they'd also have to fund a massive (from scratch) expansion to be equivalent to the two larger players. Sprint+Softbank is in position to do a meaningful expansion and build out, T-mobile isn't. Their only shot is targeting the urban dweller that doesn't need the rural coverage with a lower price and really fast data service.

Why? the rural and frequent traveler demographics are owned by Verizon(and to a much lesser, regional extent USC). Even Sprint has a foothold in the rural market through extensive roaming agreements. It would be a huge expenditure for very little gain in the way of paying customers. The best thing they can do is fill in coverage gaps, improve indoor coverage in areas that their customers already frequent. It makes more sense to try and win converts in areas where their coverage is already solid.

Its unlikely that a Sprint takeover of T-mobile would ever be approved. T-mobile is going to eliminate coverage gaps inside and around major markets and improve coverage in secondary markets, better suburban and exurban coverage (part of the reason they're doing 1900mhz HSPA+). Expanding into rural areas in order to try and win over the few customers that have had a lifelong relationship with Verizon doesn't make a lot of sense. Offering a good product to people who fit their coverage profile, being a low cost alternative to Verizon and AT&T is the only thing that makes any sort of sense for them.

That sounds nice, but it's a pipe dream. Everything points to the fact that their plan going forward is to win back subscribers in major metro areas by undercutting the competition and eliminating contracts. Modernizing their 13,000 rural sites, and improving their rural coverage is a low priority.

They'll never get their hands on a significant chunk of 700mhz spectrum, which is why they (long shot) petitioned the FCC to auction off chunks of 600mhz spectrum.

If rural coverage is a priority for you, don't sign up with T-mobile. It's a great option for people who live within and spend the vast majority of their time inside of their priority urban-suburban coverage areas and awful for people who live on the periphery, and for "road warriors" whose job requires them to spend a lot of time traveling around the US. That might be an over-simplification, but everyone should know exactly what they are signing up for, and its unlikely to change anytime soon.

Strangely enough, I've only noticed a marginal drop in T-mobile's HSPA+ network over the past six months in NYC and on Long Island. It went from averaging around 16/2 during peak hours to 14/1.5. Although allegedly, someone on a capped w/ tethering data plan will see download speeds of around 20mbit because unlimited data plans have a slightly lower traffic priority.

This has been available on the international model since november, really frustrating.

No, it's just exceedingly obvious considering the way you obsess over and argue about minutia while missing the larger picture. Which in this case would be how Verizon's coverage is, how the network performs and appears to consumers. It simply doesn't matter whether every site was upgraded, or every third site was upgraded. Just like how you don't pick up on the fact that most consumers won't notice the AWS rollout on Verizon, because the Network's already fast. It works. The service as a whole is comprehensive, from the standpoint of the customer.

I wouldn't exactly call you wise. You're arguing that Verizon's LTE rollout wasn't comprehensive when we've already established that they plan to cover their entire footprint by the end of the year. They did it in a way that was optimal for their spectrum holdings, they decided to cover as many people as fast as possible, and to increase the capacity of the network later by rolling out LTE on AWS. And as far as looking good by comparison, Verizon can take its time with its AWS rollout because consumers who are already being served by 700mhz LTE are likely very satisfied. Its very likely that most consumers on Verizon won't immediately notice LTE on AWS when it is rolled out in their area, even if they have a handset that supports it.

The intent of that post is clear to anyone and everyone, you must suffer from some form of autism.

The WiMax network has a place in this discussion because there have been indications that Sprint intends to shutter around half of the existing Clearwire sites and host TD-LTE own their sites wherever there is overlap.

I stand by my position, however there is simply no point in arguing with someone who I strongly suspect is on an entirely different kind of "spectrum."

So Sprint isn't optimizing its network in a similar fashion? Decommissioning sites that they deem to be extraneous, moving others to improve reception and fill coverage gaps, combining locations where they can? Remember the large amount of Nextel sites that are being decommissioned without conversion or replacement? or the speculation regarding how TD-LTE is going to be deployed and how it won't just be a 1:1 replacement of existing WiMax sites. They're BOTH approximating original coverage and optimizing their networks to remove redundancies.