That's what I did. Bought a Nexus 4 and got T-Mobile's $30 prepaid plan for 100 minutes, unlimited text and up to 5 GB of HSPA+. Lovin' it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Carrier Sprint is pathetic
- Thread starter Squilly
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's what I did. Bought a Nexus 4 and got T-Mobile's $30 prepaid plan for 100 minutes, unlimited text and up to 5 GB of HSPA+. Lovin' it.
I left Sprint the day after xmas. The wife and I took a trip to DC/NOVA to visit her family. We got almost no signal in their house and it was touch and go all over from there. We came home to Cleveland where we get very low signal in our neighborhood and decided it was time to change. We jumped **** to Verizon and get amazing signal almost everywhere. We also pay about $20 more a month and it's worth it.
LOL
Everyone who leaves Sprint and goes to AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, or two cans and a string are Lovin' it.
I left Sprint for Verizon and I'm Lovin' it.
I can't believe people are still with Sprint waiting for the promised faster speed. They promised faster speeds in San Diego - first in the form of WiMax and now LTE - and still nothing but a bunch of lies and excuses.
It's sad just how much Sprint has fallen. I was with them from 2005 - 2010 and their data service was always excellent.
I had a Treo 650 from 2005 - 2009, then a Palm Pre from 2009-2010.
Although the Palm Pre had its faults, data speed on Sprint was never one of them. I would consistently get 1-2 megabits no matter where I was. Hell, I didn't even have the campus Wi-Fi configured on it at work, because Sprint EVDO data was more reliable.
In 2010 I decided I was tired of the Pre's software shortcomings, and switched to AT&T to get the iPhone. It was in the next couple of years that I heard about Sprint's downfall and how their data network went to ****. I'm kind of glad I missed out on that fun, but my best friend didn't and he's suffering on Sprint right now with his Galaxy S3.
Amazing phone, he says, but crappy service. He's thinking of following me to AT&T.
I wonder what happened to Sprint.
I had a Treo 650 from 2005 - 2009, then a Palm Pre from 2009-2010.
Although the Palm Pre had its faults, data speed on Sprint was never one of them. I would consistently get 1-2 megabits no matter where I was. Hell, I didn't even have the campus Wi-Fi configured on it at work, because Sprint EVDO data was more reliable.
In 2010 I decided I was tired of the Pre's software shortcomings, and switched to AT&T to get the iPhone. It was in the next couple of years that I heard about Sprint's downfall and how their data network went to ****. I'm kind of glad I missed out on that fun, but my best friend didn't and he's suffering on Sprint right now with his Galaxy S3.
Amazing phone, he says, but crappy service. He's thinking of following me to AT&T.
I wonder what happened to Sprint.
Jeez and I get 15 mb/s down on T-Mobile on 3G.. Sprint's speeds are so lame and really go against their giant push for making themselves known for having unlimited data plans.
I would like to know: Does clogged data make siri not work? Ever since I got the 4s on sprint siri has only worked about 50% of the time in chicago, particularly less during rush hours and the evening.
i don't mind my phone being too slow when it keeps me from being on it all the time, but when there are certain times of day that i can't use pandora, maps, etc, that is kind of a problem.
i don't mind my phone being too slow when it keeps me from being on it all the time, but when there are certain times of day that i can't use pandora, maps, etc, that is kind of a problem.
I never had success with Siri when I was with Sprint...even Shazam was hit or miss.
I would leave sprint but even with slow 3G, its working best for me right now. I am almost always home, so I'm basically always on wifi, and when I do venture out, it's into the city where coverage is good. So basically I have no issues unless my wifi at home is out. I'm also hoping for Sprint to eventually improve my area so when I do rely on the 3G it's better. If not I may eventually have to see what carrier serves my area best and switch. I mean I do love my plan with Sprint, but eventually I may switch, I don't know.
I would leave if my contracts were up. I would be paying a large ETF plus the cost of a new smartphone on Verizon. Might wait for the SIV and sell my iPhone 5 and use the money to pay to cancel.
I have 4G LTE here, but it switches between 3G and 4G a lot. I think LTE is still rolling out in the area so maybe that's why. The speeds aren't very spectucular but I'm happy with at least 2mbps. 3G is usually 0.1-0.7 mbps 4G is usually under 10mbps but does fine playing YouTube videos in HD. I'd rather stick to the unlimited plan than have to worry about data caps.
4G is usually under 10mbps but does fine playing YouTube videos in HD. I'd rather stick to the unlimited plan than have to worry about data caps.
I wonder if you can argue that the service is not performing acceptably and use that to escape the contract. I've heard of people doing that before.
They may ask that you return the phone, though, depending on how long you've been with them.
Network Vision has hit my area (NYC), I've seen 3G speeds above 2Mbps within 2 miles of me, but that does nothing for me, considering this is what I get at home:
I don't even get 3G during the evening rush hours, not that it makes much of a difference.
1. Those percentages are outdated, NYC is currently at 40%, not 23%.
2. Sprint's Boston Market = the entire state of Massachusetts, not just the city of Boston, which has had LTE since last year and had an official launch in January.
3. VZW's 3G speeds are equally horrendous where I live, I tend to roam VZW from time to time and there isn't much of a difference, DL speeds rarely exceed 0.30 Mbps.
I think by placing LTE on every single tower, Sprint is setting itself up to be in a better position than AT&T/VZW, both of which have blanket LTE coverage. So if/when Sprint's LTE speeds decrease, I doubt it'll be as dramatic as the speed decreases being documented on VZW.
I don't even get 3G during the evening rush hours, not that it makes much of a difference.
1. Those percentages are outdated, NYC is currently at 40%, not 23%.
2. Sprint's Boston Market = the entire state of Massachusetts, not just the city of Boston, which has had LTE since last year and had an official launch in January.
3. VZW's 3G speeds are equally horrendous where I live, I tend to roam VZW from time to time and there isn't much of a difference, DL speeds rarely exceed 0.30 Mbps.
I think by placing LTE on every single tower, Sprint is setting itself up to be in a better position than AT&T/VZW, both of which have blanket LTE coverage. So if/when Sprint's LTE speeds decrease, I doubt it'll be as dramatic as the speed decreases being documented on VZW.
Last edited:
I posted that almost a month ago. Of course, it's changed...
Yes, it's had LTE since last year, but only on certain towers. Large portions of major areas of Boston STILL lack LTE, such as Fenway Park. AT&T/VZW have a DAS system in Fenway and that area is blanketed with LTE everywhere with them. One of my closest friends has a Sprint iPhone 5 and he drops LTE once he steps into any building. Me? works perfectly.
VZW 3G speeds are a moot point these days, especially since they basically have the US covered with LTE at this point and only have a few areas left to cover.
Why is that so? AT&T/VZW have a higher cell site density in major cities and have their networks set up for significantly more capacity than Sprint will ever have to deal with. AT&T/VZW still haven't finished building out major cities with LTE. They have blanketed NYC/Boston, etc with LTE, but they're STILL going in and filling new towers in and adding capacity as needed, not completely ignoring their network like Sprint. Over the last year or so, my LTE speeds have INCREASED with AT&T.
Just because they're adding LTE to every tower doesn't mean it will be better. They are forced to do that because the band they're deploying LTE on has poor signal penetration and range compared to the 700 band VZW/AT&T uses. They can space towers further apart and still have better indoor LTE coverage. Sprint HAS TO put LTE on every tower or they would have holes in their network.
Sprint's LTE speeds have a peak throughput of half the speeds of AT&T/VZW (37 vs 73 mbps down) because of spectrum issues. I will bet money that once demand on the LTE networks starts to increase even more, AT&T/VZW will still be able to maintain an overall faster network than Sprint.
Sprint/T-Mobile users are bandwidth hogs and abuse their unlimited data plans, unlike VZW/AT&T users, who are mostly on tiered plans. They are the reason why data speeds are so poor (of course, maintaining a poor quality network is also another reason)
By the time Sprint is done with their buildout in 2015+, AT&T/VZW will have LTE done and have LTE-A up, especially since AT&T committed to LTE-A by year end 2013.
http://www.eweek.com/networking/atandt-tops-verizon-in-4g-lte-speed-tests/
We all know coverage and speed is a local factor, but Sprint is clearly lagging both AT&T and Verizon in speed tests where LTE is available.
We all know coverage and speed is a local factor, but Sprint is clearly lagging both AT&T and Verizon in speed tests where LTE is available.
Sprint is also only beginning to roll out LTE, they do not even come close to the coverage or speeds as Verizon or AT&T because of it. Lets see a comparison a year from now and I think the results will be very different.
Understand your point about Sprint being behind and that certainly explains a big gap in coverage, but does not explain why Sprint's LTE is so slow compared to other carriers. When they launch a LTE market, it indicates they've already upgraded the radios on the tower to support LTE and upgraded the backhaul from the tower to their network. In those launched markets, the LTE speeds you get today are what you should expect a year from now. I highly doubt Sprint's plan is to put up inferior LTE equipment and backhaul today and then go back and upgrade it a year from now.
Here in NYC im getting on average 22mb/s down and 10mb/s up where LTE is so far avaliable. Care to explain how thats slow?
The launched markets are not 100% completely upgraded, sprint seems to be launching at about the 40% level, so considering that there may be room for improvement when the markets reach 100% completion.
I was wrong, I didn't see the date on your post.
True.
If you google "Verizon LTE Speeds in Manhattan" a lot of complaints will pop up. So much for that higher cell density and superior building penetration.
Of course having LTE on every single site will lead to a better experience compared to blanket coverage, your description of Sprint's LTE in Boston sounds like blanket coverage, as they continue to build out their new network service will improve. You stated that your speeds have increased with AT&T adding LTE to more sites, why wouldn't the same be true for Sprint? Also, it isn't that Sprint is forced to put LTE on every site, they're not. Network Vision is a consolidation of multiple networks, not just LTE deployment, which is why every site will have LTE, improved 3G, etc.
I'm aware that Sprint's peak LTE speeds are lower than AT&T and Verizon's, but as far as mobile devices are concerned, what can you do with 60 Mbps that you can't do with 30 Mbps? I doubt the difference is even decipherable to the average person. And I wouldn't be so sure about AT&T & Verizon (look at Manhattan already) maintaining a better network than Sprint, especially when Clearwire and SoftBank come into play.
I'm not sure if that's factual, I mean, it'd be a pretty daunting task, attempting to abuse unlimited data when speeds are in the vein of dial up, there aren't much data-intensive activities you can do without patience or being flat out annoyed....unless you're somewhere with LTE or improved 3G, of course.
2015 is a stretch, I'd say by the end of 2013 Sprint should be nearing completion. Also, Sprint's new network is LTE-A ready, I wouldn't be shocked if they had it up and running before everyone else.
VZW (and AT&T) have almost twice as many phones as Sprint does. And at this point, a huge percentage of them are running LTE. In a market, like NYC, VZW has already committed to going back and adding small macro cell sites to reduce stress in high volume areas. They also own AWS spectrum in NYC and will be deploying LTE on AWS (1700/2100) by year-end, to increase speeds and balance the load in high traffic areas.
Of course, VZW (and AT&T) are still going back and upgrading the various DAS systems in buildings and such to LTE.
Service will improve in that Sprint users will actually get LTE everywhere in the city, instead of just certain areas, like it is now.
Yes, NV is a consolidation of 1x, EVDO, and LTE. But I don't think you've read up on spectrum technology. Sprint is forced to put LTE on every site to get sufficient LTE coverage. The band they use has poor indoor penetration, unlike 700 that VZW/AT&T use.
Peak speeds are important because even when the network is FULLY loaded, there is more "buffer room" for users to achieve higher speeds. AT&T/VZW have twice the bandwidth available to them and their users, therefore you will get a better experience.
Sprint barely has LTE in NYC, so we really can't comment. More money doesn't mean a better network. What proof do you have that VZW/AT&T will have a worse network in NYC than Sprint? Especially since Sprint can't even maintain a working EVDO network in most areas. Yes, I know that NV is happening, but it shouldn't be needed. They should have kept up with demand years ago.
BS, no way will they be near completion by the end of the year.
http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/212-network-visionlte-deployment-running-list/
Every site has been repeatedly delayed and the 2nd/3rd round markets have barely been deployed in. If it took VZW almost 2.5 years to deploy LTE, what makes you think Sprint can do it in 1 year? (they launched LTE Fall 2012).
The running excuse has been supplier problems, but that is complete BS because VZW/AT&T have had no delays in deploying LTE everywhere and quickly.
It's downright pathetic that none of the first round markets are close to 90% done (Except Chicago) Central NJ is at 14%!!
VZW/AT&T don't launch officially launch LTE markets unless around 75% of the sites have been complete. Only one first round market is over 75% done.
LTE-A ready doesn't mean anything. They barely have a sizable LTE network as it is. With all the content delays, LTE-A is at least 2 years off for Sprint.
From what I understand Sprint will never have a nationwide LTE network due to spectrum limitations. Only certain markets will receive it. Any thoughts on this?
They've said that every tower in the US will have LTE on it, but who knows? You are correct though. They don't currently possess enough spectrum to do so in every corner of the United States. They already own half as much as VZW/AT&T in major cities.
and this is what they are trying to do to suck people in with Unlimited Data? Ha Ha
So far many people I know went to Sprint for unlimited data and went right back to AT&T and VZ