MacPCS

Why does a plan have to have a subsidy in order to be disruptive? Millions of people without subsidies or looking to get off them disagree with your logic.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

They don't. I care not if they split up the device from the service. It makes me no difference. I would have just liked to see a more aggressive price on the service is all. An actual price war that makes customers take a serious look at Sprint.

You do realize that EVERY CARRIER offers cheaper rate plans when you have to pay for your device without subsity. Hell, that's the ONLY way to get service with T-Mobile.

 

I don't understand why it's ok that Tmo, AT&T and Verizon can get away with that, but when Sprint follows suit, the world ends?

That's my point exactly. It's not disruptive and it's not a huge advantage for Sprint. It's status quo. That in itself is a problem and the only thing I wish they would have been more aggressive about pricing trying to steal customers because as the boss knows, the network won't steal any customers right now with the perception being putrid.

 

The plans aren't bad - if you like sprint. If you dislike sprint they won't make you really look twice unless you want unlimited. I think that's already been the case though.

I'm not sure this is anywhere near aggressive enough to convince people to switch to Sprint. I mean you still have to pay for the device, which isn't trivial. So we are at what, 80 bucks a month? That doesn't seem at all disruptive, just more status quo most people don't need unlimited. Or even 2GB. Power users like us here probably do, but to most of the population they just want their bill to be cheaper, their service to work and have the device they want.

 

Sprint needs to do better to convince people to join the "Pardon our dust" Network. Because that's the perception. A slight at best price advantage won't do it.

I'm actually excited they won't have to suffer the distraction of T-Mo integration. I'd rather they go after USCC if they just have to eat a large company.

The good news is low expectations can lead to out performing expectations more easily.

 

That being said, nobody will care who is on another carrier until they are convinced sprint has it's network fixed. It'll take 800 and spark deployments to be far and wide before that tide seriously turns. Good news though is that they're putting in the effort.

 

Sprints problem is perception. I have coworkers that absolutely hate sprint and won't recommend it due to past experiences despite my insistence that this isn't your grandpas network anymore and is only getting better.

I had lots of issues with blocked calls on Sunday both making and receiving but that was fixed by mid afternoon. It was bad all morning though and I have exceptional voice service here normally.

 

Not sure at all that it's related but I definitely noticed it.

:-(

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Don't be sad.  Sprint expects 800 voice deployment to be largely complete in the first half of this year, for the entire network.  They even expect very good progress on LTE on 800Mhz as well by the halfway point of calendar 2014.

 

All of this was stated yesterday AM on the quarterly earnings call.  

This doesn't sound good. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-sprint-softbank-idUSBRE98T18D20130930

thats nothing you shouldn't have already expected. 800 will have to be largely complete before people nationally start to even think sprint has good coverage. Spark will have to be a reality in a lot of places before people take them seriously in terms of speeds.

 

And then they need lots of devices that support all three bands and don't have fallback issues due to the network vision changeover.

 

Yes, that's going to take at the minimum a year. Closer to two for sure.

I can't wait until we have a regional gas station/convenience store thread.

QuikTrip > *

 

 

79 includes water damage as well. And any accidental damage that results from normal handling eg, dropping into liquid, breaking phone etc. If there is a part broken/faulty in an iphone and you have either AppleCare or are within the 1 year limited warranty, they absolutely will replace it most times for free. I've also had a few friends who got a completely new phone because there was a nick in the screen, home button failed, lock button not responding etc. for free. I have also gotten 2 free iPhones in the past due to screen issues (screen not responding correctly) and the other one I forgot what the issue wasScreen replacement is 49 dollars last time I checked.

screen replacement is 150 on a 5, and can't be done on anything else newer than a 3GS yet.

 

But that's if you don't have AppleCare and it is caused by physical damage.

 

I'd say if you have a iPhone, get AppleCare +. 79 for a new phone beats the shit out of 269 which is the out of warranty cost for a 5, 5c or 5s.

 

If you just have a defect in the first year though, it's a free replacement obviously.

 

 

 

They will eventually move away, it'll just be a looooong time. Think 2025 or so. They just don't have a need to. CDMA is just a good solid voice fallback even when they go VoLTE for all the old handsets. It will be a couple years before VoLTE is even a thing on Sprint and then they can begin to plan the shutdown. Which will not have a lot of urgency as 1xAdvanxef is so spectrally efficient it costs next to nothing in terms of spectrum to maintain.

 

EV-DO on the other hand...

Her s4 is a single band for LTE

 

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

. What's your point? In the context of his issue this doesn't make any sense to me.

 

 

Wouldn't Verizon had put LTE on every tower if this was the case? (just trying to understand lol) I read they only put LTE on a select few towers within a market

vzw had very different objectives with their LTE deployment than sprint does. They just wanted to blanket the country with coverage first and worry about capacity later. They used 700 MHz first and are going back with AWS I believe and strengthening their capacity. It was a pretty straightforward network overlay rather than what Sprint is doing...

 

Sprint OTOH is rebuilding their entire network. Piece by piece, site by site. Not specifically targeting coverage as much as just trying to get it done.

Sascha Segan uses T-Mobile for his personal service. Typical GSM and magenta love from the tech press?

 

AJ

doesn't mean his points are without merit. Some might be overblown but the idea of sprint and t mobile merging will have loads of questions that need to be answered to be able to say yeah it's a great idea. Or that it's a terrible idea for that matter.

I'd much rather them purchase US Cellular or C-Spire or nTelos.  

 

or just some of the PCS spectrum assets (and maybe take the customers) from T-Mo/MetroPCS similar to how they did the recent deal with US Cellular.  

 

I'd prefer to not have Sprint not be forced to swallow all of T-Mobile.  That's asking quite a lot financially, and would take a lot of resources away from Network Vision which really is the foundation of Sprint's future at this point and they should be laser focused on executing that as expeditiously as possible.  

I wouldn't have thought it was that much. But that seems to be what is happening.

it wouldn't take much if you're already down to a dreadful -114 dBm

When the PS3 came out, blu-Ray was heavily embattled with HD-DVD. there was no clear cut winner yet so that advantage was largely unproven until a year or two into the generation. Oddly enough that's when the PS3 hit its stride and the price started to come down and games started being worth the investment.

 

The xbox one is a hundred bucks cheaper than the PS3 was and comes with kinect. And plays blu rays too. It's a better value than PS3 was when it came out.

 

I understand your desire to compare them, I just think the markets are very different now. And the prices are still different than they were last time. And if anything, the xbox has a slightly better launch lineup and with titanfall looming large, I don't see that perception changing soon.

Not stateside. It took the PS3 almost seven years to catch up to the Xbox 360 sales in the US. Most people would argue that it only happened because of the price cut which brings me back to my original point. I think consumers in the United States are only willing to spend but so much for a console. 3-400 dollars may be the sweet spot.

of course they sell better when they're cheaper. More people can afford them. People can pick up the other console if they want. It is always helpful to be more affordable.

 

That doesn't mean you can't have success at $500. Don't forget the PS3 was $599. That's a way different feeling. Plus Microsoft isn't making a game console only. They're making a home entertainment box. Say what you want but the kinect voice and HDMI in one guide overlay are a huuuge value add for a lot of people that make the $100 delta between xbox and playstation disappear very quickly.

 

I think both will do just fine.

As stated earlier. This may be history repeating itself. The PS3 never really recovered from its slow stateside sales.

the PS3 sold fine. I think the market is completely fine with supporting two consoles at this point. The Wii U is the only one that's going to suffer because of sales numbers.

Did not know xbox box was green. Guess it's just the day 1 that was black.

 

Got lego marvel for 40 bucks and a second controller on the way. Woot.

Who cares? They all sold out basically every one they both made. It's far far too early to draw any conclusions from either consoles sales. Wait till a few months in and we will have a better idea.

Will receive my day one xbox on Tuesday from Amazon. There was a snafu with processing the order but it'll be here in a couple days. Already have Dead Rising 3 And tomorrow will have Forza 5 Limited Edition

 

Cannot wait.

 

Also as soon as I get my Gazelle credit I'll be getting Lego Marvel and a second controller for the wife. That should be a good good time.

Band preference 25 v 26

you cannot toggle this. It's baked into the PRL I believe. It prefers band 25 and will fall back to 26 if not available.

Has anyone figured out the LTE preference on the iPhone 5s or 5c? I can't seem to find it in the phone.

what preference? The one in Settings, Cellular? You can enable / disable LTE there. Not sure what else you're referring to.

Cancelled the PS4 the other day. Just no reason to get one software wise. I am getting the One though as long as finances remain available. Dead rising 3 and forza 5 are enough along with all the media centric features. Just tell it to turn to a cable channel is pretty greAt idea. Hide the remote from my children who like to chew on it lol.