Yes very laughable. The best is when they actually compare them to Verizon, the nation's #1 carrier.
Much like t-mobile, these guys have the puniest network and their 3mb (max) EVDO is practically useless today. Unfortunately, these two carriers still assume that offering unlimited on these inadequate and overloaded networks is the way to go; even when subscriber number prove otherwise.
What are the 2 most important aspects of a cellular network? #1 coverage and #2 reliability. One guess of the areas that these two carriers fail the most. Heck, half of t-mobile's already puny network is still on 2G.
Smoke and mirrors is the core of both sprint and T-mobile. it's why T-Mobile (USA div) was the first carrier essentially on the planet to label a HSPA+ service as "4G". Their "nationwide 4G" claims are also absolutely laughable. Without this bizarre apologist fan base and blatant lies, what else do these carriers have? They certainly don't have nationwide cell networks.
These two carriers and their base deserve each other, as both refuse to listen to common sense and both have zero deductive reasoning skills. Both refuse to learn from independent studies or simply why their competitors have 3 times their subscribers.
If you read any of my posts you will see that i have NEVER claimed that Sprint 3G is any good. It's always been garbage. I also don't have much good to say about Sprint's 3G network or it's customer service.
Whenever I compare Sprint to any other carrier I've always acknowledged the superiority of the other carriers networks.
But what does that have to do with the decent speeds and coverage I am getting right now. Why is it difficult to accept that I am getting decent speed and coverage on Sprint LTE. Do you think I'm lying? Why?
I make no apologies for Sprint. I've been banned from their forums because of my opinion about them and their God-awful 3G network and the complete f*up of Network Vision rollout. They are all a bunch of incompetents over there. But, hey LTE works for me where I am. For others it doesn't and again I have acknowledge the bad 3G network time and again.
Just because Sprint is bad in a lot of places doesn't mean it's bad where I am and I make and have not made any claim that just because it's good where I am it's great everywhere - it ISN'T! Continually refusing to accept what I'm saying and labeling me an apologist in the face of evidence that shows otherwise just because someone hates Sprint shows a disconnect somewhere in the thinking.
So fine. Show me anywhere on these forums where I have EVER stated that Sprint 3G was great anywhere and where I have apologized for Sprint's shortcomings. If you can't find anything then maybe there isn't anything there.
----------
For around $250 more over 2 years, you go from acceptable to excellent.
You go from Sprint's 1.2/0.5 (up/dl) 3G speeds or 10/2 Sprint LTE to 65/25 with AT&T or Verizon. To having actual nationwide coverage, to being able to make calls within any building or even a basement. That is what this $250 over 2 years buys.
I'm loading Facebook, Cydia and web pages. I occaisonally text and use iMessage. How does 65/25 do that better than 10/2? Yes, your speeds are better. I don't deny that. I just wonder how much faster I can browse Facebook with 65/25 than I can with 10/2 is all.
Even with Sprint's poor 3G I've never had very many dropped calls or anywhere that there has been no service. Extremely bad and unusable data, yes, but I've always been able to make a call. From home, from work and from other places. And now I have LTE at home as well.
Blazing speed is great. Just explain to me why it's going to make my browser work faster and my apps load quicker than 10/2 please.
It's great to have, but believe it or not, not everyone NEEDS it. I just need useable and that's what I have right now.
