Should Sprint ditch unlimited to ease network congestion?

[2298754]

And I'd bet that Sprint will have much more LTE-A up and running before Verizon/AT&T have all cities at 100% as well.

Alright, where's all that LTE-A then? NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA, OKC, etc. AT&T/VZW are near 100% done in all those areas and are just expanding out now.

AT&T and VZW already cover all major metro areas. Their deployment is near 100% complete. All they're doing now and adding small cells and deploying a deeper cell grid.

I'll give you an example. Boston. VZW and AT&T are about 100% done. Sprint has been deploying for a while now. Yet still don't have key areas of the city complete. (Brookline, Fenway, Back Bay, etc). VZW and AT&T have been done for months.

And for the record, VZW and AT&T don't announce a market before it's almost finished. Completely the opposite of Sprint, who seems to be ok with parading around LTE in a market who has like about a dozen sites online with LTE (ie Boston)

I just think it's hilarious that TMo and Sprint people love to boast about their LTE-A compatible equipment, but that doesn't mean anything without the proper spectrum to deploy said LTE-A. Both TMo and Sprint lack that. Hell, Sprint's "blazing fast" LTE is already running at half the speed of VZW/AT&T. How will having Rel. 10 equipment help that?

----------

[/COLOR]

And you sound angry. The network is overburdened due to a lack of appropriate upgrades, we all know that. But their network isn't falling apart,

If it isn't falling apart, why is EVDO unusable in most parts of the country

they could've went the AT&T/Verizon route, but for what?

I don't know, success? They actually seem to know how to run a reliable network. Sprint? lol

Why not have 1xRTT/EVDO/LTE in a single panel? It's much more efficient than juggling multiple networks.

Why the sudden need for efficiency? If they were so caught up in being efficient a couple years ago, they would have foreseen the downturn in their network and fixed it as it was falling apart.

All I'm hearing are more and more excuses.

 

[SONiC5]

Alright, where's all that LTE-A then? NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA, OKC, etc. AT&T/VZW are near 100% done in all those areas and are just expanding out now.

AT&T and VZW already cover all major metro areas. Their deployment is near 100% complete. All they're doing now and adding small cells and deploying a deeper cell grid.

I'll give you an example. Boston. VZW and AT&T are about 100% done. Sprint has been deploying for a while now. Yet still don't have key areas of the city complete. (Brookline, Fenway, Back Bay, etc). VZW and AT&T have been done for months.

And for the record, VZW and AT&T don't announce a market before it's almost finished. Completely the opposite of Sprint, who seems to be ok with parading around LTE in a market who has like about a dozen sites online with LTE (ie Boston)

Proof? I didn't know that sort of information was readily available for AT&T and Verizon.

I just think it's hilarious that TMo and Sprint people love to boast about their LTE-A compatible equipment, but that doesn't mean anything without the proper spectrum to deploy said LTE-A. Both TMo and Sprint lack that. Hell, Sprint's "blazing fast" LTE is already running at half the speed of VZW/AT&T. How will having Rel. 10 equipment help that?

I didn't boast about Sprint or T-Mobile's LTE-A ready equipment. Someone said that Verizon/AT&T will have LTE-A before Sprint/T-Mobile, which is possible, but not probable. How much spectrum is needed for LTE-A to be effective?

While Sprint's max LTE speeds are half that of AT&T/Verizon, they also have half the customers, so I'd imagine the speeds would even out between them in most cases.

If it isn't falling apart, why is EVDO unusable in most parts of the country

When did EVDO become unusable in most parts of the country? There are varying degrees of slowness nationwide, but it's certainly usable 99.99 times out of 100.

I don't know, success? They actually seem to know how to run a reliable network. Sprint? lol

Idk, Sprint may have them beat in the reliability department when Network Vision is complete.

Why the sudden need for efficiency? If they were so caught up in being efficient a couple years ago, they would have foreseen the downturn in their network and fixed it as it was falling apart.

No one said there's a sudden need for efficiency. If you're upgrading your entire network, why not make it as efficient as possible? It'd be dumb of them to build a network that's more expensive to run (by having all network technologies separate). And they should have done more for their 3G network, but they didn't, WiMax should have delivered, but it didn't, and now they're in their current position.

All I'm hearing are more and more excuses.

Regarding?

 

[Bawstun]

Do not go to Sprint. I switched a few years ago and their data speeds were 0.10-0.50 almost ALWAYS. And I'm in a major city with over 150,000+ people. An hour outside of Boston. Horrible slow speeds, they always said they were "working" on them. They're still slow.

I wonder when they will get sued for "unlimited" data. You literally can't use it, lol, it's like sucking bandwidth through a straw. I would only consume 2-3GB a month because I COULDN'T stream or do anything. So yeah, it's unlimited! You just won't be able to use any of it.

 

[Technarchy]

Do not go to Sprint. I switched a few years ago and their data speeds were 0.10-0.50 almost ALWAYS. And I'm in a major city with over 150,000+ people. An hour outside of Boston. Horrible slow speeds, they always said they were "working" on them. They're still slow.

I wonder when they will get sued for "unlimited" data. You literally can't use it, lol, it's like sucking bandwidth through a straw. I would only consume 2-3GB a month because I COULDN'T stream or do anything. So yeah, it's unlimited! You just won't be able to use any of it.

That's pretty much my experience. I traveled to dozens of American cities with the military and Sprint data speeds pretty much sucked everywhere. Like bad. So bad that Speed Test would just time out far too often.

Sprint just has a history of stupid actions which is why they and their network are a mess today.

Sprint didn't have SMS text till nearly 2004
Merger with Nextel
Complete network neglect in a data era
Wimax LOLOLOL

This is company that has always looked for shortcuts rather than focusing on providing a good product, and the end result is they are lagging in the absolutely critical area of data speed and stability. Without those two your smart phone is damn near useless.

 

[MsRandall]

Left Sprint one year ago on last Friday after 15 years - Sprint service over the last 10 months was a mobile nightmare - data slow, $10 premium data charge and lastly the lost of the ability to charge to my account was the last nail in the coffin.

I started to see the big difference in the speed of their network after the success of the HTC EVO.

I still hope they get it together as competition is good for the consumer however with network vision being up to 6 months behind they are continuing to lose customers per the forums I read.

I think if they do get LTE up and running they will be forced to stop unlimited if they are still in business at all.

 

[smithrh]

Sprint - ugh.

In a (recent) past life, I got to deal directly with Sprint as a vendor to them. Another customer of mine was Verizon.

Let's just say the differences in smarts, money and effort were simply vast.

A few years ago, Sprint called us and wanted a feature on data - they wanted every active data user to be guaranteed the maximum throughput of the air interface.

Right.

It was such a dumb thing to ask for, we were shocked anyone could even think about asking it. Confused looks were exchanged on our side before someone on our side spoke up and requested clarification.

Yep, they wanted what they said they wanted.

Well, we tried to be delicate and to make sure we hadn't mis-heard the request, so we asked again, and they were adamant.

So, we finally had to tell them that they were looking for the truly impossible. We had to slowly (but politely) tell them that the air interface is a shared resource, and the throughput of the air interface is the combination of all active users. (I won't even get into the backhaul impacts - they liked running very thin there as well.)

They protested. We countered with "as much as we'd like to break the laws of physics for you, we can't."

They then said "the other vendors are seriously considering our request!"

We then said, great, let us know if they actually start working on it and we'll do the same. Well, of course they never came back to us.

The kicker was that they didn't even have any money for this request, they were just hoping we'd do it for free.

With Verizon, we'd get requests like "we need the second byte in this record to be changed so that it matches this interface" or "please tweak this particular algorithm, as we believe it's causing a 0.1% decrease in capacity."

Like I said, vast differences.

 

[eyoungren]

Sprint - ugh.

In a (recent) past life, I got to deal directly with Sprint as a vendor to them. Another customer of mine was Verizon.

Let's just say the differences in smarts, money and effort were simply vast.

A few years ago, Sprint called us and wanted a feature on data - they wanted every active data user to be guaranteed the maximum throughput of the air interface.

Right.

It was such a dumb thing to ask for, we were shocked anyone could even think about asking it. Confused looks were exchanged on our side before someone on our side spoke up and requested clarification.

Yep, they wanted what they said they wanted.

Well, we tried to be delicate and to make sure we hadn't mis-heard the request, so we asked again, and they were adamant.

So, we finally had to tell them that they were looking for the truly impossible. We had to slowly (but politely) tell them that the air interface is a shared resource, and the throughput of the air interface is the combination of all active users. (I won't even get into the backhaul impacts - they liked running very thin there as well.)

They protested. We countered with "as much as we'd like to break the laws of physics for you, we can't."

They then said "the other vendors are seriously considering our request!"

We then said, great, let us know if they actually start working on it and we'll do the same. Well, of course they never came back to us.

The kicker was that they didn't even have any money for this request, they were just hoping we'd do it for free.

With Verizon, we'd get requests like "we need the second byte in this record to be changed so that it matches this interface" or "please tweak this particular algorithm, as we believe it's causing a 0.1% decrease in capacity."

Like I said, vast differences.

Supposedly Sprint has a division completely dedicated to and focused on the rollout of Network Vision run by Bob Azzizi.

Your comments just verify what I already think about that division. The current results of the rollout are the evidence itself.

 

[smithrh]

Supposedly Sprint has a division completely dedicated to and focused on the rollout of Network Vision run by Bob Azzizi.

Your comments just verify what I already think about that division. The current results of the rollout are the evidence itself.

A few follow-up comments...

Network Vision I believe was developed by one of the large consulting companies. Honestly, it wasn't bad. It took the situation Sprint was in and made the very best moves possible with the available spectrum and technologies.

Having said that, having a good plan doesn't mean the execution will be any good. Let's remember that Sprint outsourced nearly all of it's engineering operations to Ericsson - which means that thousands of Sprint employees walked out the door one day with an Sprint badge, only to walk in the next with an Ericsson badge (and probably an attitude).

Also, for NV to really work would require that all subs using voice to be migrated to the latest and greatest Qualcomm vocoder technology. Lots of assumptions in NV.

Again, NV is the only way Sprint can move forward. There's really no option for them - NV isn't bad, but can Sprint execute to NV? I'm guessing not, based on past history.

 

[eyoungren]

A few follow-up comments...

Network Vision I believe was developed by one of the large consulting companies. Honestly, it wasn't bad. It took the situation Sprint was in and made the very best moves possible with the available spectrum and technologies.

Having said that, having a good plan doesn't mean the execution will be any good. Let's remember that Sprint outsourced nearly all of it's engineering operations to Ericsson - which means that thousands of Sprint employees walked out the door one day with an Sprint badge, only to walk in the next with an Ericsson badge (and probably an attitude).

Also, for NV to really work would require that all subs using voice to be migrated to the latest and greatest Qualcomm vocoder technology. Lots of assumptions in NV.

Again, NV is the only way Sprint can move forward. There's really no option for them - NV isn't bad, but can Sprint execute to NV? I'm guessing not, based on past history.

I believe the plan was a good one. It makes sense to upgrade everything at once if you are going to be there anyway, leaving room for expansion and updates. My understanding is that a completed site will have the capability to be upgraded simply based on a phone call or something along those lines. Sprint has likened that to calling your cable company to upgrade to a faster internet tier.

What I have a problem with is that the network was in this state that it required the severity of what's happening now. And my second problem is with the execution of that plan.

Sprint has never met a good plan it couldn't screw up complely.

 

[Bawstun]

This is company that has always looked for shortcuts rather than focusing on providing a good product, and the end result is they are lagging in the absolutely critical area of data speed and stability. Without those two your smart phone is damn near useless.

I had to LOL @ your speed test comments. Unfortunately all too true. I had a just-released iPhone 4S and it was essentially an overpriced primitive cellphone, and texting device. You literally could not browse with it. Could not use Siri. Could not stream anything from any app - almost ever. It was a joke. I'm seriously shocked they haven't been sued.

 

[Technarchy]

I had to LOL @ your speed test comments. Unfortunately all too true. I had a just-released iPhone 4S and it was essentially an overpriced primitive cellphone, and texting device. You literally could not browse with it. Could not use Siri. Could not stream anything from any app - almost ever. It was a joke. I'm seriously shocked they haven't been sued.

The release of the 4S was what ultimately pushed me to AT&T. My WiMAX 4G speed was pretty good on my GS2 but the connectivity was horrid. The iPhone 4S did not support WiMAX but there was no way in hell I was going to be stuck on Sprint 3G only.

AT&T was the best solution because HSPA+ destroys CDMA EVDO.

 

[keitarou]

I do not understand why some people come in these discussions just to bash one provider and compare it to another. Not all providers work the best for all people in every place. I am in NYC and Verizon sucks where I work. I get no 3G or LTE. AT&T works fine in most area's but I will not be limited with how much I can use my data. My gf is scared to view a youtube video because she's afraid she will go over.

Let's get back to topic. I don't think ditching Unlimited is the way to go. I think having choices and competition is better than following what AT&T or Verizon does. Unlimited isn't the only thing that is causing the network congestion. It's a combination of mismanagement and neglecting equipment. Hence the reason for the NV rollout. Yes that also is not managed well but there are things where the company doesn't have full control as well. We all know how "efficient" our government is. Sprint needs unlimited to differentiate and bring choices to people.

Again I'm rooting for Sprint and T-Mobile to do well and compete. That would only benefit us consumers.

----------

The release of the 4S was what ultimately pushed me to AT&T. My WiMAX 4G speed was pretty good on my GS2 but the connectivity was horrid. The iPhone 4S did not support WiMAX but there was no way in hell I was going to be stuck on Sprint 3G only.

AT&T was the best solution because HSPA+ destroys CDMA EVDO.

If I were to get a data only equipment like a tablet, I would agree with you. AT&T/T-Mobile would be best. Once a phone is factored into it, I would disagree. CDMA is still better with voice than GSM in my experience. But eventually, VoLTE will be the new method so I guess that part is mute as well.

 

[Bawstun]

I came in to bash Sprint because they forwarded my debt to collection and my credit rating took a hit because of it. To this day I refuse to pay it.

Long story short: Sprint would not release me from my contract despite me stopping by the store everyday for a week (at all different times) to run SpeedTest app on my phone to SHOW them how bad it is. It would be 0.02, 0.10, 0.05, or sometimes just stall completely and say I didn't even have a network connection!

I called their corporate office - multiple times. Even mailed letters.

They simply refused to let me out of my 2 year contract because of the horrible data speeds. And if I were wealthier, I would have sued them because of it.

Do not go to Sprint.

 

[keitarou]

I came in to bash Sprint because they forwarded my debt to collection and my credit rating took a hit because of it. To this day I refuse to pay it.

Long story short: Sprint would not release me from my contract despite me stopping by the store everyday for a week (at all different times) to run SpeedTest app on my phone to SHOW them how bad it is. It would be 0.02, 0.10, 0.05, or sometimes just stall completely and say I didn't even have a network connection!

I called their corporate office - multiple times. Even mailed letters.

They simply refused to let me out of my 2 year contract because of the horrible data speeds. And if I were wealthier, I would have sued them because of it.

Do not go to Sprint.

You can go to the topic that says "Sprint is pathetic". All the Sprint bashing happens there. But I hear you. I hate ETF's especially with poor service.

 

[Bawstun]

I don't think ditching unlimited data would ease their network congestion either. I'm completely biased, but I really don't think that would help. I don't think that's the real problem of their network as a whole.

 

[moneymike0284]

After reading through this thread it's making me second guess switching to sprint to save some money. I'm currently with Verizon and it's just getting too expensive. I want to either upgrade with Verizon to an iPhone 5 or switch carriers. I had tmobile many years ago and it was unbelievably bad. I live in southwest Ohio and Verizon has always been the best in my area as far as coverage goes. I just want something cheaper with descent data coverage and speeds.

 

[eyoungren]

After reading through this thread it's making me second guess switching to sprint to save some money. I'm currently with Verizon and it's just getting too expensive. I want to either upgrade with Verizon to an iPhone 5 or switch carriers. I had tmobile many years ago and it was unbelievably bad. I live in southwest Ohio and Verizon has always been the best in my area as far as coverage goes. I just want something cheaper with descent data coverage and speeds.

Do your homework, go only to a corporate store, test the device in-store on Sprint's 3G (or LTE if available, which should tell you something if you are testing an LTE device and there is no Sprint LTE in the store) in the presence of the sales associate, do not do any business with Sprint on the phone or online, use Wi-Fi, if you are not happy make sure to return the phone well within the 14 day trial period (don't wait until day 12, 13 or 14).

This is the only advice I can offer if you are seriously considering Sprint. Unfortunately, Sprint customers have to learn to protect themselves from Sprint. Sprint routinely screws it's customers over because the customer is uninformed and assumes things.

 

[smithrh]

Do your homework, go only to a corporate store,

Definitely important to know the difference between a corporate store and a dealer.

I've found dealers to be more dishonest than corporate employees overall.

Yeah, that's a sweeping generalization, but some of the very worst I've seen in a store has been at dealerships.

Dealerships can look very very similar to corporate stores, so be aware of that.

 

[eyoungren]

Definitely important to know the difference between a corporate store and a dealer.

I've found dealers to be more dishonest than corporate employees overall.

Yeah, that's a sweeping generalization, but some of the very worst I've seen in a store has been at dealerships.

Dealerships can look very very similar to corporate stores, so be aware of that.

Yep.

Third party stores are allowed to brand as Sprint. However, any receipts you get from them will show a DBA (Doing Business As) and list the name of the actual company. Sprint corp stores don't have that.

Additionally, third party stores have less products and tend to sell only the most popular model of phone. They are also not allowed to sell new models until at least a month or so after Sprint itself has started selling.The store manager has to pay Sprint for all the product up front and does not have direct access to the Sprint internal network. Third party stores have to eat returns directly because Sprint does not credit them back.

It used to be that you could tell a third party store by the existence of the cash payment machine or not. If a Sprint store had one of those then it was corporate because Sprint did not allow the third party stores to have payment machines. Consequently any payments were made through a third party channel and cost an additional $5. Don't know if it's still this way or not.

There are some honest third party stores. I know of one manager who slept in the back of his store because that's they only place he could afford to live. He refused to cheat his customers and offered great service. However, those fellows are rare. Most of the third party stores will tell you anything to make a sale and as Sprint never backs them up it's the sale that keeps them afloat, not their honesty.

I am extremely fortunate that the closest store to me is less than 10 minutes from my home and is not only a corporate store, but a corporate repair store as well.

 

[2298754]

And I'd bet that Sprint will have much more LTE-A up and running before Verizon/AT&T have all cities at 100% as well.

So where's all that LTE-A you were talking about?

AT&T and VZW are already near 100% LTE in all metro markets. LTE has been up here in Boston for over 2 years by them. VZW is already deploying 2x20 AWS here. AT&T is refarming LTE onto PCS (on top of Band 17.)

As of right now, Sprint's LTE here in Boston is only 69% complete. No round 1 markets are 100% done.

 

[869639]

You know, I have been thinking what is the point of having an iPhone or any device on Sprint with unlimited data when its dial up speeds?

I was thinking, if Sprint stopped offering unlimited data, maybe this would help with data congestion? I know this is one of sprints selling points, but... I'd rather have fast 3G/4G Speeds than unlimited 3G running at 100 K down.


Wanted to see what you guys thought?

I think at the end of the day Sprint doesn't have the capacity to provide anything better than 100K down on their 3G network regardless of the # of users.....CDMA technology sucked ever since the rise of smartphones and its why many carriers have ditched it for HSPA+ or LTE networks as they are the future.

not to mention sprint dug their own grave with their high frequency LTE network which = Less building penetration + lower coverage area per tower....they have 1900MHz and 2600MHz for LTE.....we can see that T-Mobile's 1700AWS has been rough indoors and coverage is poor vs AT&T's 850MHz HSPA+ network.....I think you guys can paint your own pictures of what Sprint's LTE coverage even at 100% is going to look like when compared to others......

Even T-Mobile is doing way better than sprint can ever think:
1700MHz AWS HSPA+ 3G/4G
1900MHz HSPA+ 3G/4G
1700MHz AWS LTE
700MHz LTE [Coming soon and may be combined with 1700MHz AWS to launch LTE-A].

I remember watching sprint ads with its CEO some 5-6years ago talking about how his network is soo great n all....well I guess he spent more time talking than walking

 

[CrimsonKnight]

I think at the end of the day Sprint doesn't have the capacity to provide anything better than 100K down on their 3G network regardless of the # of users.....CDMA technology sucked ever since the rise of smartphones and its why many carriers have ditched it for HSPA+ or LTE networks as they are the future.

not to mention sprint dug their own grave with their high frequency LTE network which = Less building penetration + lower coverage area per tower....they have 1900MHz and 2600MHz for LTE.....we can see that T-Mobile's 1700AWS has been rough indoors and coverage is poor vs AT&T's 850MHz HSPA+ network.....I think you guys can paint your own pictures of what Sprint's LTE coverage even at 100% is going to look like when compared to others......

Even T-Mobile is doing way better than sprint can ever think:
1700MHz AWS HSPA+ 3G/4G
1900MHz HSPA+ 3G/4G
1700MHz AWS LTE
700MHz LTE [Coming soon and may be combined with 1700MHz AWS to launch LTE-A].

I remember watching sprint ads with its CEO some 5-6years ago talking about how his network is soo great n all....well I guess he spent more time talking than walking

You forgot to add that sprint also is deploying 800mhz LTE as well in its 1900 footprint. T-mobile will only have 700 in select markets.

 

[eyoungren]

You forgot to add that sprint also is deploying 800mhz LTE as well in its 1900 footprint. T-mobile will only have 700 in select markets.

And 2600 from Clearwire.

Yeah, 3G is bad on Sprint, particularly in congested areas. But I disagree with the previous poster about CDMA. Sure, GSM will let you do voice and data at the same time, but CDMA has better call quality. Something Sprint is actually still good at.

Lastly, lets not forget that Verizon, the leader, is also a CDMA carrier. Apparently, Verizon thinks something's still good about CDMA.

 

[CrimsonKnight]

And 2600 from Clearwire.

Yeah, 3G is bad on Sprint, particularly in congested areas. But I disagree with the previous poster about CDMA. Sure, GSM will let you do voice and data at the same time, but CDMA has better call quality. Something Sprint is actually still good at.

Lastly, lets not forget that Verizon, the leader, is also a CDMA carrier. Apparently, Verizon thinks something's still good about CDMA.

Once again, you nailed it. I absolutely agree with you on that.

 

[2298754]

Even T-Mobile is doing way better than sprint can ever think:
1700MHz AWS HSPA+ 3G/4G
1900MHz HSPA+ 3G/4G
1700MHz AWS LTE
700MHz LTE [Coming soon and may be combined with 1700MHz AWS to launch LTE-A].

No, I don't agree with this. The B12 700A spectrum that they have obtained is only 6 Mhz. Not very large. Trying to aggregate that with AWS seems like a waste of time. As I understand, carrier aggression (one of the major technologies under LTE-A, not just the one) is better suited for "combining" higher spectrum together or lower spectrum together, not vice versa.

One prime example of this would be AT&T. They have a mix of AWS and PCS spectrum that will be used for LTE. They are close enough to be "combined." On top of that, they have WCS spectrum that won't go online until late-14, early-15. Aggregating PCS/AWS/WCS is a prime-example of an upcoming LTE-A implementation.

In theory, I do agree with some posters on here. Sprint's Tri-Band LTE should be smoking T-Mobile (and even the competition.) But in reality, it's not happening. Peak Spark speeds have been the same 2x10 speeds that AT&T/VZW users have been seeing for over 2 years now.

----------

Yeah, 3G is bad on Sprint, particularly in congested areas. But I disagree with the previous poster about CDMA. Sure, GSM will let you do voice and data at the same time, but CDMA has better call quality. Something Sprint is actually still good at.

Honestly, it's all over the map. T-Mobile has fantastic call quality because they use HD-Voice (AMR-WB) and it's better than Sprint. But I don't think we can make a blanket statement that GSM or CDMA has better call quality than the other. For example, VZW's call quality is pretty atrocious around here.

VoLTE will be the equalizer across the carriers for voice quality very soon because they will all be using the same tech/codecs, etc.

Lastly, lets not forget that Verizon, the leader, is also a CDMA carrier. Apparently, Verizon thinks something's still good about CDMA.

Yeah, I don't get the hate for CDMA. People might complain about horrible EVDO speeds on VZW, but what's the point anymore? VZW's LTE network is so large that slow EVDO speeds are a non-issue these days.