[Merged] HTC Evo 4G / Supersonic / Sprint Evo

[geko29]

Data is incorrect. WiMax tech is double the range. A normal cell tower can usually cover a 30 square mile radius. WiMax covers 60 miles.

SURE it does. That's why I have one Clearwire tower 4900 FEET from my house, another 1.48 miles away, one 2.31 miles away, another 2.64 miles away, another 3.30 miles away, etc etc. yet Clear won't sell me home service. They will sell me mobile service, but I'm roughly twice the maximum distance from the nearest tower in order to qualify for residential service. My area is nicely blanketed with outdoor coverage with a few dead spots here and there. So I can get a mobile plan, but they know it won't work inside my house, so they won't sell it to me.

60 miles is rubbish. In a moderately-populated suburb, indoor wimax coverage reaches about a half mile from a tower, and outdoor coverage goes about a mile and a half. In a heavily-populated metropolis, the area will be even smaller. If you don't believe me, check out clear's own coverage map (dark green for indoor service, light green for outdoor), and compare it to the antenna locator on antennasearch.com

Don't know about wall penetration. Sounds like nonsense.

It's only nonsense if you don't know anything about RF. From the horse's mouth themselves:

To generalize, the higher the spectrum frequency the greater the amount of bandwidth that can be transported---lower frequencies transport less bandwidth. Secondly, the lower the frequency the greater the carry range and penetration of a signal. For example: A 900 MHz license free radio will travel farther and penetrate some tree cover fairly easily at ranges up to one to two miles. But it can carry much less bandwidth than a 2.4 GHz signal which cannot penetrate any tree cover whatsoever, but can deliver a lot more data.

source: http://www.wimax.com/education/faq/faq47

 

[kdarling]

I think it's worth pointing out that when iPhone 3G came out ATT had 3G coverage in over 80% of their coverage area/markets they were in.

It wouldn't have mattered if it was 100%: ATT coverage area was weak to begin with.

Back in mid 2008, I believe that ATT only covered about 100 - 120 million Americans with 3G.

Currently, Sprint 4G covers 120 million Americans.

So from a starting point, they're equal.

 

[vizkiz]

It wouldn't have mattered if it was 100%: ATT coverage area was weak to begin with.

Back in mid 2008, I believe that ATT only covered about 100 - 120 million Americans with 3G.

Currently, Sprint 4G covers 120 million Americans.

So from a starting point, they're equal.

I highly doubt Sprint 4G is covering 39% of the US population. Especially without being in the NY Metro area or California.

 

[AbSoluTc]

Lol. It will never end.

 

[foolishfocus]

Perhaps, except he made a reference to doing a search for wine and getting info on everything related to wine.

After watching the video, he was definitely talking about Google Goggles. Per the link I posted, there is mention of wine bottles. You can snap a picture of the label and it will pull information regarding the wine you are drinking.

 

[corriewf]

I highly doubt Sprint 4G is covering 39% of the US population. Especially without being in the NY Metro area or California.

4G coverage map looks pathetic.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/clearwire-wimax-to-cover-120-million-prospective-htc-evo-4g-owne/

It's not like " oh we live in the country and don't get fancy big city 4G coverage. " It is more like " Holy ****, my whole state doesn't have 4G coverage, nor the state beside it! "

 

[vizkiz]

4G coverage map looks pathetic.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/clearwire-wimax-to-cover-120-million-prospective-htc-evo-4g-owne/

It's not like " oh we live in the country and don't get fancy big city 4G coverage. " It is more like " Holy ****, my whole state doesn't have 4G coverage, nor the state beside it! "

I know, that is exactly why I doubt the '4G covers 120 million Americans' comment.

Wow, looks like I was right. It's actually about 13% of Americans, not 39%.

Here is a press release from May 12th, 2010 directly from Sprint:
http://newsreleases.sprint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=127149&p=irol-newsArticle_newsroom&ID=1426178

Blazing trails with Sprint 4G

Sprint 4G offers a faster wireless experience than any other U.S. national wireless carrier, and Sprint is the only national carrier offering wireless 4G service today in 32 markets. Sprint 4G delivers download speeds up to 10 times faster than 3G2,giving HTC EVO 4G the fastest data speeds of any U.S. wireless device available today.

As the first national wireless carrier to test, launch and market 4G technology, Sprint made history by launching 4G in Baltimore in September 2008. Today, Sprint 4G covers 41 million people and expects to have up to 120 million people covered by the end of 2010.

pwnt for spreading false information.

 

[corriewf]

I know, that is exactly why I doubt the '4G covers 120 million Americans' comment.

The sad thing is that you can live in one of those dots and if your more than a mile away from the tower, no 4G signal...AHAHAH! 10 bucks please. *opens hand*

 

[Dammit Cubs]

I know people used bandwidth as a way to determine the speed of the network.

Sprint's 3G 800kbps vs ATT 1.5Mbps.

But by these numbers, it would mean that ATT should load websites 2x as fast. That's not the case. So I guess the real question is, how is sprint's network compared to ATT. Will i even notice a difference on the 3G network vs ATT?

 

[vizkiz]

I know people used bandwidth as a way to determine the speed of the network.

Sprint's 3G 800kbps vs ATT 1.5Mbps.

But by these numbers, it would mean that ATT should load websites 2x as fast. That's not the case. So I guess the real question is, how is sprint's network compared to ATT. Will i even notice a difference on the 3G network vs ATT?

I would say so. I can certainly tell a difference when my AT&T 3G speed is at 600Kbps vs when I'm getting 1500-2000Kbps.

 

[AbSoluTc]

I know, that is exactly why I doubt the '4G covers 120 million Americans' comment.

Wow, looks like I was right. It's actually about 13% of Americans, not 39%.

Here is a press release from May 12th, 2010 directly from Sprint:
http://newsreleases.sprint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=127149&p=irol-newsArticle_newsroom&ID=1426178


pwnt for spreading false information.

Lol. People don't research much. They just like to say stuff. Seems to be whatever's on their mind.

I know people used bandwidth as a way to determine the speed of the network.

Sprint's 3G 800kbps vs ATT 1.5Mbps.

But by these numbers, it would mean that ATT should load websites 2x as fast. That's not the case. So I guess the real question is, how is sprint's network compared to ATT. Will i even notice a difference on the 3G network vs ATT?

I would say so. I can certainly tell a difference when my AT&T 3G speed is at 600Kbps vs when I'm getting 1500-2000Kbps.

Same here. When I am in a great 3G area (more times than not), the speed is hella fast. When I am in a NOT SO GREAT 3G area, you can see/feel it. Even then it's not that bad. Normally I am in great 3G coverage 95% of the time.

 

[corriewf]

Lol. People don't research much. They just like to say stuff. Seems to be whatever's on their mind.





Same here. When I am in a great 3G area (more times than not), the speed is hella fast. When I am in a NOT SO GREAT 3G area, you can see/feel it. Even then it's not that bad. Normally I am in great 3G coverage 95% of the time.

On that note, I will say that I look forward to Verizon and ATT LTE. Right now Verizon is the lowest freq on CDMA and their signal goes through my entire house. ATT's signal only covers half my half.

 

[AbSoluTc]

Half your house is solid stone. Go figure.

Verizon and ATT have a ways to go before LTE is even worth talking about. Just like Sprint making a huge deal about 4G. Let me know when 50% or MORE of the population is covered. Then they can make a big deal about it. Until then, it's nothing more than words.

 

[vizkiz]

On that note, I will say that I look forward to Verizon and ATT LTE. Right now Verizon is the lowest freq on CDMA and their signal goes through my entire house. ATT's signal only covers half my half.

That's strange. VZW coverage in my house was spotty. I could be on the phone at my computer and walk 4 feet to my bed and drop the call. Try to call again, wouldn't call out. No such problem with AT&T in my house.

Also, my old job was at a car dealership. The building was concrete, cinder block, metal and glass. In my office 14' from the front giant glass window of the dealership, my VZW phones would always be searching for a signal. I'd be lucky to get a txt out without having to try twice. It wasn't just my phone, anyone with VZW has the same problem, be it on a Blackberry, LG, HTC, Motorola, etc.
AT&T works great in the building though.

 

[Geckotek]

Half your house is solid stone. Go figure.

Verizon and ATT have a ways to go before LTE is even worth talking about. Just like Sprint making a huge deal about 4G. Let me know when 50% or MORE of the population is covered. Then they can make a big deal about it. Until then, it's nothing more than words.

I don't care if 50% of the population is covered. Dallas will get covered early. As long as Dallas and major cities I travel to are covered, I'm happy.

The rural areas I visit are mostly covered by 3G so that's good enough.

 

[corriewf]

Half your house is solid stone. Go figure.

Verizon and ATT have a ways to go before LTE is even worth talking about. Just like Sprint making a huge deal about 4G. Let me know when 50% or MORE of the population is covered. Then they can make a big deal about it. Until then, it's nothing more than words.

Yes, it's a bomb shelter on one side of my house but Verizon signal seems to penetrate. Alas this does depend on having decent signal in the area period. I think 4G wimax is going to have some major problems with distance and penetration.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Here's the problem, I would be paying 10 bucks for NOTHING. The examples you listed allow me to get drunk and google silly stuff on my iPad all night...naked...It's just my style.

You live in a 4G area. You are getting something for the 10 bucks with the EVO. If I was you ( and I wish I was ) I would get this phone. It's a great phone. I wish I had 4G and could take advantage of it's features.

The $10 fee isn't just for 4G though. It's for using the EVO. That just needs to be figured into the cost of the EVO. You don't get nothing, you get to use the phone. You can pay the lower price per month if you go with a different phone. That's the deal.

It does suck that it's $10 more than any other device on Sprint, but I still think it's a good deal. It's cheaper than what I have now with the iPhone.

 

[corriewf]

The $10 fee isn't just for 4G though. It's for using the EVO. That just needs to be figured into the cost of the EVO. You don't get nothing, you get to use the phone. You can pay the lower price per month if you go with a different phone. That's the deal.

It does suck that it's $10 more than any other device on Sprint, but I still think it's a good deal. It's cheaper than what I have now with the iPhone.

That's not what Sprint said. They say the ten bucks is for premium data. Either way, I pay 199.99 for the phone, I have paid to have it. I don't pay Comcast to watch standard tv on my 52 inch lcd screen. If I bought the EVO full price, I still have to pay the stupid fee.

Anyway, im done arguing about this for now at least. Vivid, we have been going back and forth for a while now about this phone and Android. I have enjoyed our conversations and I am glad you got 4G service. Maybe one day I can join you in experiencing it myself. Congrats my friend.

 

[AbSoluTc]

See Sprint's logo...

Notice the yellow flying thing? It's ironic really. See how it's slowly falling down? Neat huh. Sprint predicted their own fate

 

[Diseal3]

See Sprint's logo...

<snip>

Notice the yellow flying thing? It's ironic really. See how it's slowly falling down? Neat huh. Sprint predicted their own fate

low blow man.. Lol

 

[Dammit Cubs]

Why is everyone going nuts over 10 dollars? Did you know you wasted probably the of equivalent of 10 dollars or more by wasting valuable time in your life arguing on this thread. Also, I bought lunch today that was 8.99 oh wait....drink was a buck.

Basically, skip lunch one day and you covered this "premium".

 

[corriewf]

Why is everyone going nuts over 10 dollars? Did you know you wasted probably the of equivalent of 10 dollars or more by wasting valuable time in your life arguing on this thread. Also, I bought lunch today that was 8.99 oh wait....drink was a buck.

Basically, skip lunch one day and you covered this "premium".

Wow you spend 300 bucks a month on lunch alone? I probably spend 15 bucks a week as I make my own lunches.

This thread has entertained me...The 10 bucks does nothing for me...not with Sprint.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Why is everyone going nuts over 10 dollars?

This. If you're buying a high-end smartphone and the accompanying contract length and terms it comes with (if you get it subsidized), you shouldn't be quibbling over an extra $10. Disagree with it? Sure. Go nuts and debate about it for hours? Probably not.

 

[Geckotek]

Wow you spend 300 bucks a month on lunch alone? I probably spend 15 bucks a week as I make my own lunches.

This thread has entertained me...The 10 bucks does nothing for me...not with Sprint.

Hahaha, if you're surprised by his lunch expenses, I'd better not calculate mine.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

Wow you spend 300 bucks a month on lunch alone? I probably spend 15 bucks a week as I make my own lunches.

This thread has entertained me...The 10 bucks does nothing for me...not with Sprint.

Lol...i guess i never noticed. Well not all lunches are 10 bucks, but I average around 6-7 bucks. LOL, i haven't even talked to you about dinner. LOL, i don't really cook that much.