Carrier Sprint is pathetic

[2298754]

T-mobile did not have the same extensive upgrade that Sprint had to endure. T-mobiles was a simple add on to existing sites , as opposed to sprint replacing everything from the switches , RRU's to back haul. This is why. Nonetheless it has been quite a hurdle for Sprint, but we are starting to see the payoff. This summer we should see the end of phase 1 and begin to see more cities light up with spark.

All I'm hearing is excuses and excuses. T-Mobile also had to do a complete equipment upgrade from the old antennas, to new Ericcson AIR flat-head ones with RRUs, etc. The only difference is backhaul. They already had it.

The whole idea about only Sprint redoing their entire footprint is completely false.

VZW had to do a complete overhaul to add LTE also. Let's not forget they also got fast backhaul to all of their sites in record time. Before, they only needed slow backhaul for EVDO. Now they use fiber/microwave, etc for all their LTE sites. Now VZW is going back and swapping equipment out for AWS-compatible antennas. And all of this is happening be before Sprint could get to the 200 million POP mark. AT&T is very similar also. There have been plenty of areas that have gone from EDGE to LTE. That requires new equipment AND backhaul.

 

[eyoungren]

All I'm hearing is excuses and excuses. T-Mobile also had to do a complete equipment upgrade from the old antennas, to new Ericcson AIR flat-head ones with RRUs, etc. The only difference is backhaul. They already had it.

The whole idea about only Sprint redoing their entire footprint is completely false.

VZW had to do a complete overhaul to add LTE also. Let's not forget they also got fast backhaul to all of their sites in record time. Before, they only needed slow backhaul for EVDO. Now they use fiber/microwave, etc for all their LTE sites. Now VZW is going back and swapping equipment out for AWS-compatible antennas. And all of this is happening be before Sprint could get to the 200 million POP mark. AT&T is very similar also. There have been plenty of areas that have gone from EDGE to LTE. That requires new equipment AND backhaul.

I have to disagree a little here. Of course in the general you're right. But it is true that Sprint also had to lay down fiber. Fiber that the other carriers already laid down because of planning.

Sprint's lack of planning is Gary Forsee's fault. Dan Hesse inherited his mess. Sprint didn't lay down any fiber because of Forsee and because of the mess Hesse got there was no money to do so. So, they leaned heavily on Clearwire's network to provide all that.

By the time Sprint got the cash together they were late and it was a matter of now having to do it all at once. You add in all that I have said about backhaul vendors and everything else I've said about management and Sprint marketing in this thread and you get what you've got today.

But the lack of having laid down fiber early is not the fault of the post-Forsee Sprint.

 

[bniu]

AT&T just intro'd a new plan. Seems like a pretty decent deal for two smartphones and 10gb of data.

Image

AT&T despite all the complaints about them does a real solid job. I've had AT&T for over 7 years now since switching away from Sprint after 6 years. What can I say?

AT&T, high prices, but damn fast HSPA+ and LTE speeds. Great coverage (except in Berkeley, CA which is more a function of that moronic city). AT&T has always been pretty reliable for me, and aside from their phone unlocking policy to use abroad, which has improved a lot, I find AT&T to be pretty easy and straightforward. The mobile share plans really give me lots of simplicity.

Sprint's coverage is still crappy to this day, the only thing it can compete on is price and it looks like AT&T may be eating Sprint's lunch soon. My experiences of Sprint were, anytime you made changes to your plan, it triggered a new 2 year contract. Completely helpless agents, ridiculous shenanigans, I was really happy to walk away from them.

In the end, I switched to AT&T from sprint for two reasons, simplicity and coverage. Sprint was dropping way too many calls for me and was pulling way too many shenanigans on me. I felt like talking to Sprint that I was talking to a slick salesman who gives me a deal loaded with tons of traps. At least with AT&T, I knew what I was paying and what I was getting. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for. What you save by going to an inferior service provider, you'll end up paying way more in headaches.

 

[CrimsonKnight]

Sprint is pathetic

The one on the Verizon site is more accurate. Sprint isn't last in announced LTE markets, but they are last in POPs covered by LTE.

Right but the point is the map that veriZon uses for it's commercials shows a sprint map that is from January - June of 2013. The current sprint LTE footprint is much larger than what Verizon is advertising.

Bottom line, Verizon's commercial can't keep up with Sprint's 1900 LTE nationwide deployment. A rough average of 30 Sprint sites have been lit up with LTE everyday for the last two years *4G only, 3G/4G, and 3G/800/4G,* so a week of airing this useless commercial Sprint turned on 210 LTE sites, this just shows how rapid Sprint is in deploying their LTE coverage. I've seen this commercial many times, if you read the fine print it shows nationwide providers LTE coverage based from January - June, 2013 and clearly Verizon is using a map for Sprint from Jan. 2013. Verizon, you should use a Sprint LTE coverage map from January 2014, it would paint a much different jaw dropping picture.


What Verizon claims sprints LTE foot print is :

What it actually looks more like via sensorly.

Keep in mind LTE 800 is at it's very early stages as well, the coverage that sprint will blanket with 800 is outstanding.

 

[2298754]

AT&T despite all the complaints about them does a real solid job. I've had AT&T for over 7 years now since switching away from Sprint after 6 years. What can I say?

Yeah, I've been with them for over 14 years (current account has gone from AT&T Blue -> Cingular -> AT&T Mobility). Even before that, I had an original AT&T wireless line back in ~98-99. Zero issues. I agree that we pay more, but that's fine with me, especially because I have LTE everywhere. Even during the 3G meltdown a few years ago, it wasn't nearly as bad as Sprint's EVDO is now.

I just found out that from my IT manager that we're 100% switching back to Sprint MiFis this summer from our VZW/AT&T ones. ugh.

 

[2298754]

What it actually looks more like via sensorly.

I could easily nit-pick sensorly data also, there are tons of "blank" spots for AT&T LTE.

The fanboys on S4GRU are just trying to stroke their egos to make themselves feel good about supporting the worst carrier out there.

There were statements made over there (in the thread where you found those pics) about how Sprint might have more LTE than AT&T. Is that a joke? AT&T is near 280 million POPs for LTE and is in almost 160+ MORE markets than Sprint's LTE network. The Sprint map has more LTE up because the S4GRU boys have nothing better to do than drive around for hours and map coverage.

So about that missed 200 million POP deadline? Do you or your S4GRU buddies care to comment on that?

Fact of the matter is that Sprint has been missing deadline after deadline and every other carrier seems to have more LTE up than Sprint. You could waste your time trying to explain to us that sites are going up daily, but frankly, who cares anymore? All I hear is excuse upon excuse, and as usual, Sprint finds, yet another, way to screw up.

As of right now, Sprint is still the laughing stock of the mobile industry.

 

[MattMJB0188]

As of right now, Sprint is still the laughing stock of the mobile industry.

They most definitely are. I can't understand for life in me why anyone would defend them? Unless your stuck on them and can't afford a better carrier and are trying to make yourself feel better about it. Still doesn't change the fact they suck!

 

[CrimsonKnight]

I could easily nit-pick sensorly data also, there are tons of "blank" spots for AT&T LTE.

The fanboys on S4GRU are just trying to stroke their egos to make themselves feel good about supporting the worst carrier out there.

There were statements made over there (in the thread where you found those pics) about how Sprint might have more LTE than AT&T. Is that a joke? AT&T is near 280 million POPs for LTE and is in almost 160+ MORE markets than Sprint's LTE network. The Sprint map has more LTE up because the S4GRU boys have nothing better to do than drive around for hours and map coverage.

So about that missed 200 million POP deadline? Do you or your S4GRU buddies care to comment on that?

Fact of the matter is that Sprint has been missing deadline after deadline and every other carrier seems to have more LTE up than Sprint. You could waste your time trying to explain to us that sites are going up daily, but frankly, who cares anymore? All I hear is excuse upon excuse, and as usual, Sprint finds, yet another, way to screw up.

As of right now, Sprint is still the laughing stock of the mobile industry.

Speaking of fanboys, you seem pretty offended when anyone shines a dim light at ATT. You need to relax, I am not sure if a Sprint employee slashed your tires, or stole your girlfriend, but Sprint is just a company.

You seem very obsessed with S4GRU. Did you remember you were at macrumors? If you would like to have a conversation about how far off the members are at S4GRU, than please, have your discussion there with those guys, I am sure they can set you straight.

In Many areas, Sprint does have better coverage than ATT, especially in rural areas. So what? Does that bother you? Does it matter to you, if Minnesota has better coverage than Dallas Tx? You should really worry about your home coverage, places you use your service, I doubt you work in all 50 states. If ATT works for you, in every place you need it too, than why are you on a Sprint thread? Sounds like you are trolling. Probably why your thread was closed pretty quickly regarding permits, or the fact you have been put in " Time-Out" here at the MR forums.


The fact is, everyone will tell you Sprint delayed NV once, which is a fact, to Mid 2014. It was delayed by 1 quarter, just as I explained to you before, which you seem to have to selective memory. The fact you dislike the S4GRU forums is people call you out on your BS. See, you have to understand, a lot of the people, including the Mods and owner, are Sprint engineers, and people who have an in depth knowledge of the build out. The Maps that are shown, are very informative, and users like myself, are very interested in the progression of the build out. You can't find that here, except for " Sprint sucks" and Carrier XYZ is the best.


In my area, Sprint was always the best in terms of coverage and speed, up until around 2010. This is when Sprint brought on Android smart devices, which are very data power hungry. Keep in mind, the network had no upgrades, unlike ATT/VZW who were making upgrading to new equipment all the time for fast and reliable EVDO. Sprint was not, because they were basically broke. The nextel merger was a disaster, Gary Forsee drove the company into the ground.

I have had, ATT, VZW, and T-Mobile. Where my job is, Sprint is the only one who has amazing coverage. Everyone with VZW, ATT and T-Mobile stand at 1 bar.. and usually are running at 1X or Edge.

If Sprint sucks in your market, don't use it.

In fact, I recently was pretty close to switching to T-Mobile a few weeks back, I figured, well.. The speeds are amazing from what I heard, and coverage is better than what it was a few years ago, when I had them.

Wrong. With only 2 Sprint LTE towers in the same area, T-Mobile with a full build out, had the same LTE Speeds at 8Mpbs. Same as Sprint the area, keep in mind, with only 2 towers in the same place. Not to mention, Root metrics show, the speeds are all over the place.


Has Sprint missed the deadline for the LTE build out by a quarter, yes. Go to S4GRU, and they won't deny it. The point is .. where are you going with it? Trolling.. and that is why no one takes you seriously there.

----------

They most definitely are. I can't understand for life in me why anyone would defend them? Unless your stuck on them and can't afford a better carrier and are trying to make yourself feel better about it. Still doesn't change the fact they suck!

Because location matters. In many many places, Sprint dominates and has amazing coverage.

In many other places, they struggle, and if that is not acceptable, move to another provider, and stop whining.

 

[2298754]

Because location matters. In many many places, Sprint dominates and has amazing coverage.

Oh really? Please tell me more about where they have "amazing coverage?"

Every single RootMetrics comparo from 2013 has Sprint in 3rd or 4th place for reliability, coverage, and data speeds.

Boston is a round 1 market and parts of the city still barely get LTE. EVDO is still dial-up like.

 

[CrimsonKnight]

Oh really? Please tell me more about where they have "amazing coverage?"

Every single RootMetrics comparo from 2013 has Sprint in 3rd or 4th place for reliability, coverage, and data speeds.

Again, you missed the point, you are looking at DATA. Sprint is in last almost every time with Data. No argument there.


Root Metrics shows Sprint 4th place with call quality, which I will argue is not the case. Verizon is by far the worst, which interestingly enough shows 1st place. I have had every carrier, ATT and Sprint have the best call quality with my experiences.


There is no point in having ATT/VZW/ or T-Mobile if there network performance in the areas I work are sub par. I do not run into forums, trolling for months, to make sure everyone knows.. this carrier sucks. I do make a post in saying, Carrier XYZ has a lot of work to do in my area if they want my business, and in my personal experience lacked on Point A, Point B and Point C.

That's it. You seem to be stuck on this thread, which wouldn't make me scratch my head, for the fact you are not a Sprint customer, nor do you have any intention of becoming one.

 

[siroht]

Right but the point is the map that veriZon uses for it's commercials shows a sprint map that is from January - June of 2013. The current sprint LTE footprint is much larger than what Verizon is advertising.

Image


Bottom line, Verizon's commercial can't keep up with Sprint's 1900 LTE nationwide deployment. A rough average of 30 Sprint sites have been lit up with LTE everyday for the last two years *4G only, 3G/4G, and 3G/800/4G,* so a week of airing this useless commercial Sprint turned on 210 LTE sites, this just shows how rapid Sprint is in deploying their LTE coverage. I've seen this commercial many times, if you read the fine print it shows nationwide providers LTE coverage based from January - June, 2013 and clearly Verizon is using a map for Sprint from Jan. 2013. Verizon, you should use a Sprint LTE coverage map from January 2014, it would paint a much different jaw dropping picture.


What Verizon claims sprints LTE foot print is :

Image


What it actually looks more like via sensorly.


Image


Keep in mind LTE 800 is at it's very early stages as well, the coverage that sprint will blanket with 800 is outstanding.

Interesting indeed. Not to get off the Sprint topic, but it's odd that Verizon clearly advertises stronger coverage for ATT vs what Sensorly indicates. Hmmmm?

Back to the topic!!!

 

[CrimsonKnight]

Interesting indeed. Not to get off the Sprint topic, but it's odd that Verizon clearly advertises stronger coverage for ATT vs what Sensorly indicates. Hmmmm?

Back to the topic!!!

Those areas may have no been mapped out very well yet by the users of sensorly for ATT. The Map is what ATT claims to be coverage. Which it is.

The point was, Sprint's map is a year old, and has a much larger LTE footprint then was shown in VZ's advertisements.

 

[Dontazemebro]

I had an iPhone 5 on Sprint and it was the worst experience ever. Couldn't even sell the doggone thing so I gave it to my daughter. Suffice it to say I now have a 5s on Verizon

 

[CrimsonKnight]

I had an iPhone 5 on Sprint and it was the worst experience ever. Couldn't even sell the doggone thing so I gave it to my daughter. Suffice it to say I now have a 5s on Verizon

Fantastic! Stick with VZW! They have a butt load of coverage, and if it works in the places you need it, keep it!

 

[Dontazemebro]

Fantastic! Stick with VZW! They have a butt load of coverage, and if it works in the places you need it, keep it!

I plan to but what's even worse than their data speeds was their horrid customer service. Every rep I dealt with either didn't know what they were doing or was just straight up rude. They act like the customer is lying when you tell them you can't get reliable phone service.

 

[CrimsonKnight]

I plan to but what's even worse than their data speeds was their horrid customer service. Every rep I dealt with either didn't know what they were doing or was just straight up rude. They act like the customer is lying when you tell them you can't get reliable phone service.

Absolutely agree. They did change that in 2011-2012, had a good run with decent customer assistance. However, that seems to have changed again. With the merger in place, I do hope many things change, including the customer service quality.

If not, and the competitors show better and more reliable coverage in the places I am at in the next few years, after my contract ends.. I am gone.

 

[eyoungren]

Yay!

A year and one month in to it and we're (Phoenix) at 22% LTE accepted.

Woo hoo!

Launch in Winter 2014, some time after the end of my two year contract for which I purchased two years ago an LTE capable iPhone 5. Yes, I know, it doesn't mean I don't have LTE. But it does mean the schedule was blown…

 

[CrimsonKnight]

Yay!

A year and one month in to it and we're (Phoenix) at 22% LTE accepted.

Woo hoo!

Launch in Winter 2014, some time after the end of my two year contract. Yes, I know, it doesn't me I don't have LTE. But it does mean the schedule was blown…

Keep in mind that data is almost a year old. Please see the date that was posted.

 

[2298754]

Keep in mind that data is almost a year old. Please see the date that was posted.

That is incorrect. The forums software does not seem to specifically show when the post was edited by mods/admins

Going by your flawed logic that would mean that Boston has been 69% complete (LTE) for almost 2 years (March 2012)! This is wrong.

If this data was from March 2012, then why does the LTE launch date show Jan. 2013?

----------

Launch in Winter 2014, some time after the end of my two year contract for which I purchased two years ago an LTE capable iPhone 5. Yes, I know, it doesn't mean I don't have LTE. But it does mean the schedule was blown…

Wow! That is crazy.

The Boston data was first shown to the S4GRU users back in 2012. If they had started deploying LTE here back in March 2012, it means that it would have taken them almost 2 years to get to 69%. Ridiculous. So much for it being a round 1 market.

And there are still parts of the city where LTE isn't up and EVDO doesn't work.

 

[CrimsonKnight]

That is incorrect. The forums software does not seem to specifically show when the post was edited by mods/admins

Going by your flawed logic that would mean that Boston has been 69% complete (LTE) for almost 2 years (March 2012)! This is wrong.

Image

If this data was from March 2012, then why does the LTE launch date show Jan. 2013?

Again, way off again.

The Posted date does in fact show if the post was modified and when it was last. This post has not been touched since it was first posted from May of 2013, and yours of Boston, is way out of date, since it has not been updated since March of 2012.

Do a little homework before you post. Getting real tired of correcting you.

 

[2298754]

Do a little homework before you post. Getting real tired of correcting you.

Jesus. Are you really having this much trouble with simple logic?

Alright kid. Explain this to me.

If the Boston post has not been touched since March 2012, why are the LTE launched dates spot-on, especially the 1/28/2013 date? Sprint does not predict launch market dates ever. (Original completion was 2/13. Pushed to 3/14)

Also I went just thru my image hosting folder, look what I found:

Picture was from June 2013. Notice the June 2012 date over Washington DC

From right now. With your logic, the data should be exactly the same. If the post hasn't been touched since June 2012, why have the NV/LTE site accepted values increased between June 2013 and today?

We don't have patience for your non-sense here. Your BS only works over at S4GRU. Not here.

 

[eyoungren]

Again, way off again.

The Posted date does in fact show if the post was modified and when it was last. This post has not been touched since it was first posted from May of 2013, and yours of Boston, is way out of date, since it has not been updated since March of 2012.

Do a little homework before you post. Getting real tired of correcting you.

Just curious why Robert bothers to update this thread if the data doesn't get changed?

Also, why has PHX tracked changes over time? The last time Robert updated the thread was December 26, 2013 and PHX was at 16% LTE accepted then.

Doesn't make sense for the data to keep changing if this is old info.

Also, PHX didn't have any LTE in May of 2013. The first two sites went live in August 2013.

 

[CrimsonKnight]

Jesus. Are you really having this much trouble with simple logic?

Alright kid. Explain this to me.

If the Boston post has not been touched since March 2012, why are the LTE launched dates spot-on, especially the 1/28/2013 date? Sprint does not predict launch market dates ever. (Original completion was 2/13. Pushed to 3/14)

Also I went just thru my image hosting folder, look what I found:

Picture was from June 2013. Notice the June 2012 date over Washington DC
Image

From right now. With your logic, the data should be exactly the same. If the post hasn't been touched since June 2012, why have the NV/LTE site accepted values increased between June 2013 and today?
Image

We don't have patience for your non-sense here. Your BS only works over at S4GRU. Not here.

Kid? Ha.. that's cute. Love your maturity there pal!


Unlike you, I can admit when I am wrong, I stand corrected. At the bottom of the thread, it shows the last time it has been updated, 01/28/2014. So 69% for Boston. Meaning they are probably having some major backhaul issues.

Phoenix LTE sites are at 22%. Now, the thing with Phoenix, I believe this is a Samsung area, meaning they will come online in clusters once Circuit Switched Fallback (CSFB) has been installed on the sites, and the backhaul is complete.


Can't wait, I hear T-Mobile is all the rave these days.

Your BS doesn't work here either, in fact, it wouldn't work at S4GRU, because you know they would call you out on it, so being you are trolling on a Sprint thread, you do not even have service with.

 

[eyoungren]

Wow! That is crazy.

The Boston data was first shown to the S4GRU users back in 2012. If they had started deploying LTE here back in March 2012, it means that it would have taken them almost 2 years to get to 69%. Ridiculous. So much for it being a round 1 market.

And there are still parts of the city where LTE isn't up and EVDO doesn't work.

Yeah, they may be hurrying, but it seems to me like being in the wrong gear. Gears are spinning fast but they aren't driving the main wheel very quickly.

If you count the fact that contracts were signed in December 2011, NV has taken longer too. But most of the Sprinties seem to like counting the start as mid-2012 for some reason. That's a six month period where nothing was happening then? IDK.

----------

Phoenix LTE sites are at 22%. Now, the thing with Phoenix, I believe this is a Samsung area, meaning they will come online in clusters once Circuit Switched Fallback (CSFB) has been installed on the sites, and the backhaul is complete.

Actually, it's my understanding that this is an Alcatel-Lucent area. It's A-L that brings things up in clusters. 3G first, LTE second.

Note that A-L hasn't had a profit since 2006, had their CEO forced out and the new guy is cutting. I have no love for A-L.

 

[CrimsonKnight]

Just curious why Robert bothers to update this thread if the data doesn't get changed?

Also, why has PHX tracked changes over time? The last time Robert updated the thread was December 26, 2013 and PHX was at 16% LTE accepted then.

Doesn't make sense for the data to keep changing if this is old info.

Also, PHX didn't have any LTE in May of 2013. The first two sites went live in August 2013.

Yep, never paid attention to that running list, except when I first came across the site. The Posted date is not accurate is most cases. I have seen where Robert removes and re adds a post to update the information many times and assumed this was the case. So yes, Phoenix is at 22% LTE NV Accepted. Now, remember, I believe this is a samsung region, and they have been planning on launching in clusters once Circuit Switched Fallback (CSFB) on the network, and the backhaul is complete. In most markets, the RRU's and hardware is already there and installed, but waiting on the backhaul. You might check the Phoenix thread to keep up with Sprint users and tech's near you.

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6...cluding-flagstaff-prescott/page-30?hl=phoenix

----------

Yeah, they may be hurrying, but it seems to me like being in the wrong gear. Gears are spinning fast but they aren't driving the main wheel very quickly.

If you count the fact that contracts were signed in December 2011, NV has taken longer too. But most of the Sprinties seem to like counting the start as mid-2012 for some reason. That's a six month period where nothing was happening then? IDK.

----------


Actually, it's my understanding that this is an Alcatel-Lucent area. It's A-L that brings things up in clusters. 3G first, LTE second.

Note that A-L hasn't had a profit since 2006, had their CEO forced out and the new guy is cutting. I have no love for A-L.

Okay, than you can add Samsung to that as well for lighting up markets in clusters as well. Sorry you are in a A-L region, heard they are pretty terrible.

I am not sure if you are a sponsor there, but The maps do show a few towers near flagstaff accepted. Not much though. One is a 3G/4G and the other is just 3G. I can understand your frustration in that market. Yikes!