Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod, iPad, Apple Watch > iPhone

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 27, 2015, 03:53 PM   #926
rockitdog
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoUnion39 View Post
That's a cop-out excuse.

Higher speeds show that the network is capable of keeping up with demand and has the needed capacity. Sprint has never been able to say either of those things.
It is and it isn't. Cricket only gives 8mbps on their network and it's plenty fast for most other folks.
__________________
Talk nerdy to me!
|13" late 2012 MBP | Black Ipad 2
Space Gray iPhone 6
rockitdog is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2015, 05:07 PM   #927
BasicGreatGuy
macrumors 68030
 
BasicGreatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Atlanta, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoUnion39 View Post
That's a cop-out excuse.

Higher speeds show that the network is capable of keeping up with demand and has the needed capacity. Sprint has never been able to say either of those things.
So, you want to be able to do speed tests all the time, so you can say to yourself, that the network can keep up with what you perceive to be a certain static demand above a certain LTE speed? That doesn't make sense to me.

If one is getting good call quality and is able to traverse the internet freely, without having to wait and wait for websites to load etc, what exactly is the need to get 20 MBPS LTE versus 10 MBPS, outside of being able to brag on the forum or to one's friends? What part of the puzzle am I missing?

----------

I think the company has made positive steps forward with the new CEO.

Sprint isn't going to work for everyone, as far as coverage and usability goes. But, for me, the coverage is good and the price is right, especially for unlimited data. I don't get 10 - 20 MBPs LTE speed everywhere I go. On occasion, I only have 3G coverage, where I may have to wait an extra 1 - 2 seconds for a website to load. I am also not hung up on doing speed tests all the time. In my opinion, getting rid of my unlimited data plan to go with Verizon or ATT&T, just so I can brag about the speeds at a capped plan and higher rate isn't worth it. If something major changes with Sprint or my locales, then I will reassess my options in relation to my needs.
__________________
13" Late 2011 MBP, 8 GB RAM, 512GB Crucial MX100 SSD, (Yosemite)
The Bill of Rights is not a Bill of Loopholes.
"Well, I ain't paying no 50 cents for no coke."
BasicGreatGuy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2015, 05:30 PM   #928
CEmajr
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by BasicGreatGuy View Post
So, you want to be able to do speed tests all the time, so you can say to yourself, that the network can keep up with what you perceive to be a certain static demand above a certain LTE speed? That doesn't make sense to me.

If one is getting good call quality and is able to traverse the internet freely, without having to wait and wait for websites to load etc, what exactly is the need to get 20 MBPS LTE versus 10 MBPS, outside of being able to brag on the forum or to one's friends? What part of the puzzle am I missing?

----------

I think the company has made positive steps forward with the new CEO.

Sprint isn't going to work for everyone, as far as coverage and usability goes. But, for me, the coverage is good and the price is right, especially for unlimited data. I don't get 10 - 20 MBPs LTE speed everywhere I go. On occasion, I only have 3G coverage, where I may have to wait an extra 1 - 2 seconds for a website to load. I am also not hung up on doing speed tests all the time. In my opinion, getting rid of my unlimited data plan to go with Verizon or ATT&T, just so I can brag about the speeds at a capped plan and higher rate isn't worth it. If something major changes with Sprint or my locales, then I will reassess my options in relation to my needs.
He does have a point in this case. Like say someone is getting 10mbps down during low usage hours or regular network traffic. What happens during a concert or some type of special event? Or what happens around peak afternoon hours when everyone is on the network?

A network that's only capable of 10Mbps down on LTE right now in a major city could easily be overloaded to frustrating speeds in 6-12 months just from the natural increase of more people using the network. Granted, Sprint has been more accustomed to less people using the network with all the customers fleeing, but at some point they'll start growing again and all of those already overloaded 5+5 markets that provide 10Mbps today will be near unusable except during off-peak hours. Keep in mind that people are also using increasingly more data with time. Data usage per customer will only increase from here on out.

Whereas a person who can pull 25+Mbps down today will likely be fine several years from now as the number of people using the network as well as data usage per customer increases. A 50+Mbps connection will likely hold up well during major events and peak hours too.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockitdog View Post
It is and it isn't. Cricket only gives 8mbps on their network and it's plenty fast for most other folks.
Cricket is different in that it's being artificially capped at 8Mbps rather than that being all that the network is capable of. If AT&T is actually capable of 40+ speeds in a market, then Cricket users are fine. Now if AT&T proper were only capable of 8 Mbps in a market then the experience would be much more frustrating for Cricket customers in that same market.
CEmajr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2015, 05:44 PM   #929
eclipse01
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoUnion39 View Post
That's a cop-out excuse.

Higher speeds show that the network is capable of keeping up with demand and has the needed capacity. Sprint has never been able to say either of those things.
that was not my question.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by BasicGreatGuy View Post
So, you want to be able to do speed tests all the time, so you can say to yourself, that the network can keep up with what you perceive to be a certain static demand above a certain LTE speed? That doesn't make sense to me.

If one is getting good call quality and is able to traverse the internet freely, without having to wait and wait for websites to load etc, what exactly is the need to get 20 MBPS LTE versus 10 MBPS, outside of being able to brag on the forum or to one's friends? What part of the puzzle am I missing?

----------

I think the company has made positive steps forward with the new CEO.

Sprint isn't going to work for everyone, as far as coverage and usability goes. But, for me, the coverage is good and the price is right, especially for unlimited data. I don't get 10 - 20 MBPs LTE speed everywhere I go. On occasion, I only have 3G coverage, where I may have to wait an extra 1 - 2 seconds for a website to load. I am also not hung up on doing speed tests all the time. In my opinion, getting rid of my unlimited data plan to go with Verizon or ATT&T, just so I can brag about the speeds at a capped plan and higher rate isn't worth it. If something major changes with Sprint or my locales, then I will reassess my options in relation to my needs.
Perfect!

This is how I feel exactly
__________________
Iphone 6, 64 | Nexus 7 (just to show i'm not completely Apple bias)
eclipse01 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2015, 01:19 PM   #930
Apple Trees
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2013
The topic title is very correct. "Sprint is pathetic". Was just in Atlanta the past weekend were they supposedly have Spark enabled and watched my one poor friend who refuses to leave Sprint attempt to load a Youtube video. Watched it buffer as if it were on dialup. Sprint seems to drop down to '3G' quite a bit. This was in Midtown, Buckhead, and Sandy Springs. While my Verizon iPhone had nothing but flawless LTE even inside all the buildings.
__________________
iPhone 6 Plus Verizon, rMBP 15" i7 2012 MBA 11", iPad Mini 3 128GB Verizon
Apple Trees is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2015, 03:49 PM   #931
Michael Goff
macrumors 601
 
Michael Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
And yet I still get faster speeds from Sprint than I did on AT&T, with Unlimited at 50$ a month at that.
__________________
Current devices: Alienware Alpha, MacBook Pro 13" (2015), iPhone 6+, iPad Air 2
Still own (and use on occasion): Nexus 6, Surface Pro 3, Lumia 1520
Michael Goff is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2015, 05:14 PM   #932
AutoUnion39
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...ush/2015-04-30

Quote:
Sprint (NYSE: S) struck a multi-year Wi-Fi offloading agreement with Boingo Wireless to seamlessly offload its customers' data traffic to Boingo's Wi-Fi networks at 35 major U.S. airports. The Boingo deal is one element of Sprint's evolving strategy to make Wi-Fi an integral part of its network as part of an effort to improve the performance of its network.
Seems Sprint is just a follower. None of this does anything to push the bar and actually improve their network. Sprint is notoriously weak in airports across the US. Instead of improving their networks in airports, they're just throwing a band-aid over it.

AT&T subscribers have had free access to their huge WiFi network for years now. And the in-home WiFi router? Direct copy from TMobile.
AutoUnion39 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2015, 09:10 PM   #933
tmiw
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
I don't know about you all but they just turned on B41 at work and I have no complaints.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0311.PNG
Views:	7
Size:	428.0 KB
ID:	548098  
__________________
13" late 2013 Retina MacBook Pro (16GB RAM/512GB SSD/2.6GHz Core i5) + 64GB Space Gray iPhone 6 + Space Gray Watch Sport
tmiw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2015, 12:13 PM   #934
Michael Goff
macrumors 601
 
Michael Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoUnion39 View Post
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...ush/2015-04-30



Seems Sprint is just a follower. None of this does anything to push the bar and actually improve their network. Sprint is notoriously weak in airports across the US. Instead of improving their networks in airports, they're just throwing a band-aid over it.

AT&T subscribers have had free access to their huge WiFi network for years now. And the in-home WiFi router? Direct copy from TMobile.
Have you thought that maybe they're using this while they improve their network? Or would you rather have crap airport performance now and forever on Sprint?
__________________
Current devices: Alienware Alpha, MacBook Pro 13" (2015), iPhone 6+, iPad Air 2
Still own (and use on occasion): Nexus 6, Surface Pro 3, Lumia 1520
Michael Goff is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2015, 12:21 PM   #935
AutoUnion39
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Goff View Post
Have you thought that maybe they're using this while they improve their network?
Airports should have been 1st priority on the list of sites to be upgraded nationwide, especially with the amount of travelers at these major American airports.

When VZW and AT&T launched LTE in the US years ago, sites in (and around) airports were some of the first to get upgraded to LTE. Here in Boston, the first LTE sightings on AT&T were at Boston Logan Airport.

Fast forward to 3-4 years later, Sprint still has sketchy service at Logan and part of Boston STILL don't have LTE up and running. The excuses are running out. The network should have been done years ago.

All I'm getting from this is poor network planning and management. Why aren't airports and high-traffic areas of major cities the first places for network upgrades? Every other carrier seems to understand this.
AutoUnion39 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2015, 12:54 PM   #936
Michael Goff
macrumors 601
 
Michael Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoUnion39 View Post
Airports should have been 1st priority on the list of sites to be upgraded nationwide, especially with the amount of travelers at these major American airports.

When VZW and AT&T launched LTE in the US years ago, sites in (and around) airports were some of the first to get upgraded to LTE. Here in Boston, the first LTE sightings on AT&T were at Boston Logan Airport.

Fast forward to 3-4 years later, Sprint still has sketchy service at Logan and part of Boston STILL don't have LTE up and running. The excuses are running out. The network should have been done years ago.

All I'm getting from this is poor network planning and management. Why aren't airports and high-traffic areas of major cities the first places for network upgrades? Every other carrier seems to understand this.
No, airports aren't a place where people are a majority of the time. Getting their service up and about around the country where people are a majority of the time should be their first priority. Getting Sprint Spark working should be second priority. Airports are minor.
__________________
Current devices: Alienware Alpha, MacBook Pro 13" (2015), iPhone 6+, iPad Air 2
Still own (and use on occasion): Nexus 6, Surface Pro 3, Lumia 1520
Michael Goff is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod, iPad, Apple Watch > iPhone

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carrier: Any non-Sprint customers buy iPad Air with Sprint sim? blackjackmark iPad 0 Nov 5, 2013 08:23 PM
One Pathetic Ride... Dr. Stealth Wasteland 9 Sep 16, 2013 01:06 AM
phones: Is this pathetic? cuzo Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 14 May 23, 2013 10:18 AM
Fandroids are pathetic chrismarle Wasteland 3 Nov 13, 2012 01:10 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2015, MacRumors.com, LLC