8 ms·

I dunno, the fact that Sprint still offers (real) Unlimited data plans in the US is the best marketing they have ever done in my book.

ToastyMallows 12y ago
I know it's the only reason why I'm still with them, that's for sure. This new move definitely solidifies my choice.
rcraft 12y ago
The problem is, in most cities, it's impossible to take advantage of Sprint's "unlimited data plans" because their data speeds are abysmal. I would love to go back to sprint eventually, but for now I'm happy with T-mobile in Denver/Chicago.
- rayiner 12y ago
  It's almost as if bandwidth isn't free.
  - duaneb 12y ago
    Bandwidth itself is impossible to value. The infrastructure providing the bandwidth is not free, no, but the idea of data caps to provide some sort of artificial value it fairly laughable, not to mention irrational. If they want to make this argument, charge me WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY VALUED (i.e. charge me for what I use based on a variable rate derived from maintenance costs), not some made up cap that likely has to do with what they'll estimate people might be willing to put up with.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 12y ago
      No it's not. The amount of bandwidth available on a wireless network is a function of the amount of spectrum ($$), the sophistication of the cell equipment ($$), and the density of the cell sites ($$$). Sprint's network is slow because it spends a fraction of what AT&T and Verizon do,[1] while trying to get the same nationwide footprint. It's a simple math problem. As for prices--every company charges what they estimate people might be willing to put up with. [1] Last year, $6 billion versus $17-20 billion. These are combined CapEx, but most of it goes into wireless.
      - zanny 12y ago
        You are describing the costs of total network capacity. The poster above is describing marginal costs of bandwidth. If there is infrastructure in place that is going underutilized and I want to download a megabyte of data, the marginal cost of that data transfer is incredibly negligible. But that infrastructure exists to meet the conditions of peak utilization, when at capacity, and that is what is expensive. If anything, Sprint should give flat rate mobile data and have fixed funding campaigns to increase capacity for each residential block around a tower. If the speeds are too slow end users would then pay to upgrade the infrastructure themselves, or more specifically heavy and business users would subsidize network upgrades.
    - rhino369 12y ago
      The actual bandwidth the tower has actually costs a lot of money. 65Mhz of highband bandwidth was worth 40 billion at the last auction.
      - Zigurd 12y ago
        Or it could be worth $0 if shared by smart radios. Fixed reservations of spectrum is technologically obsolete and economically very sub-optimal. Spectrum "ownership" will be the taxi medallion of the 21st century.
    - anon4 12y ago
      If they charged you on usage percent times maintenance cost plus future upgrade plans, they wouldn't make nearly enough for buying golden yachts. You'd be paying like 20$/month for 10Mbit unlimited data.
    - forrestthewoods 12y ago
      It's not artificial if the network is overloaded by users. It's not like fiber where an optical running from user end point to the ISP can be fully saturated all the time without affecting other users.
      - duaneb 12y ago
        Yes, but that's an entirely different problem. It's not like imposing fees after a certain point of use will help that problem at all, it would make more sense to a) absorb it and raise the monthly subscription when necessary, b) charge per byte, c) charge based on your % of network, or charge maintenance or service fees and don't charge for bandwidth at all. The current, tiered model only makes sense to use "overloading the network" as an excuse to abuse monopolies and overcharge customers.
        forrestthewoods 12y ago
        Monopoly? Who has a cell network monopoly? Prices are going down and features up due to ever increasing competition.
        venomsnake 12y ago
        I was able to get in austria in 2006 3g for 1 EUR/GB . How are prices falling down?
        forrestthewoods 12y ago
        Are you for real? It's easy. Look at prices and services from all major carriers in the US over the past 5 years. the prices are going down and you're getting more for less. It's a tough back and forth and every month or two they try to one up each other. So that's how prices are going down. What you got in a different market doesn't matter. It's inarguable that prices are going down and it's inarguable that there is no monopoly. There isn't even a duopoly. What is arguable is that you should perhaps get more for what you pay. But the velocity is still down, even if it's not yet as low as it should be.
- warfangle 12y ago
  Their coverage map shows solid 100% 4G coverage for me. I live in one of the most populous cities in the US. I'm lucky if I get two bars of 3G. Looking to move to T-Mo soon.
  - noselasd 12y ago
    Coverage != speed. You can have excellent signal strength, sharing the bandwidth with thousands of other mobile devices.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Phones have a clear indication of whether they are connected to 4G or not. What basis do you have to say that warfangle's signal strength is good in the buildings they spend the most time in?
      - Havoc 12y ago
        Nose's point is that signal strength does not necessarily imply good Internet connectivity. Kinda like you can have great WiFi signal because you're sitting next to the router but unless the router is connected to a good ISP its still going to suck. Ie you can have 4G connectivity and it can still crawl if the backhaul sucks.
        warfangle 12y ago
        My point was that I usually don't even have 4G connectivity :) Even outdoors.
    - drewinglis 12y ago
      They're saying that they doesn't even have the signal strength part.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    Here on the outskirts of Atlanta, Sprint and T-Mobile have more or less equal coverage, with one picking up where the other doesn't most of the time. The issue with T-Mobile is that it's more difficult to get a signal indoors, depending on the building material. For example, at my job we're in a large warehouse with metal walls and framing, lots of pipes, and suspended ceilings. That makes the building difficult but not impossible for radio waves to penetrate. All four major carriers saturate the area; stepping outside you get full service on all of them. But of the four, only T-Mobile has zero coverage once you step inside the building. The rest are usable to varying degrees, with AT&T and Verizon the two best, and Sprint is decent inside. And just so this isn't purely anecdotal, T-Mobile has acknowledged issues with using their service indoors: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/t-mobile-our-network-has-trouble-with-building-walls-and-long-distances/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/t-mobi...
- djb_hackernews 12y ago
  I have no fight in the game but I've been a Sprint customer for a long time and have never had any problems with service or speed. I've lived in 2 major cities and EBF fly over country and travel frequently. For the month of December I used over 10GB of data and 8GB of that was Youtube, Netflix and streaming music.
  - brandonmenc 12y ago
    Here's my anecdote: Sprint took too long rolling LTE to Phoenix - a major market - so I switched to Verizon.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    Lucky! When on 4G, I'm lucky to get 1mbps; even just browsing the web is an exercise in, 'what is this, a 512kbps satellite link?' When on 3G, I can pretty much forget about doing anything other than email.
JoshGlazebrook 12y ago
That is true, but that doesn't make up for the sheer glacial speed that Sprint is moving at to improve their network. They have the most spectrum of all of the carriers but do not use it properly. Quarterly announcements of the Spark network upgrades not meeting their own expectations seems to have become common. You may have LTE but it's not very useful if you can barely get 1Mb/s. T-Mobile on the other hand is having greater success with their CEO and all of the "uncarrier" tactics they are implementing. T-Mobile is now focusing on upgrading the last of their own cell sites to LTE to expand footprint in the rural parts of the country but they still have a ways to go. And that's not to say T-Mobile's existing LTE network isn't great, it's fantastic (if you can actually get it). AT&T is out of new deployable spectrum so their LTE network is slowing down in congested areas. They are deploying tens of thousands of small cell sites to make their network more dense to help with this problem. So say a tower has 100 people sharing 20mhz (10x10) of LTE bandwidth at the same time. If there are now three small cell sites placed away from that tower, each additional site has 20mhz of spectrum to use. So there would then be ~25 on that main tower, and ~25 on each additional small cell site. Verizon's original 700mhz LTE network is very congested in a lot of areas, but instead of deploying as many small sites as AT&T, they instead bought that very large chunk of AWS spectrum from cable companies and have it deployed to the majority of their cell sites. In major cities this is a full 40mhz chunk of spectrum (20x20) which theoretically can net you up to 150Mb/s if you have the right device that can use band 4. They also have started re-farming a small portion of their PCS spectrum (10mhz total) in some testing areas (san francisco especially). They will need to densify their network eventually but they sure have done a great job at buying an ample amount of time. I personally feel Sprint's current slump all comes down to the Clearwire/WiMax decision. Both Sprint and Verizon were in the same situation when it came to deploy their choices of 4G technologies. They both operated CDMA/EVDO 3G networks which with the revision they were using maxed out around 3.1Mb/s. AT&T was in the middle of deploying their HSPA/HSPA+, what they now call "4G" (not to be confused with LTE). Verizon and Sprint did not have the option of this transition period of significantly higher speeds that was not LTE or WiMax. Surprisingly Verizon got this right. They obtained a nationwide chunk of 700mhz block c (band 13) spectrum for their initial LTE network they started deploying in early 2011. This is the same spectrum that has the open access rules attached to it that made them back down on throttling on their LTE network. The sheer speed at which they deployed this LTE spectrum was just ridiculously fast. Right now they have 99% of their entire 3G footprint covered with that layer of LTE while AT&T's national map is still nowhere close to Verizon in terms of overall LTE deployment covering their entire legacy networks. Meanwhile Sprint went ahead with WiMax and we all know how that unfolded. I hope they can recover as 4 national carriers is always going to be better than 3 competition wise, but I just don't see it happening for potentially years from now. In terms of network, Verizon got it 100% right the entire time. AT&T struggled in ~2009 with the iPhone and recovered but is feeling the effects of congestion but they are countering with tons of small cell sites. Verizon has congestion on the band 13 LTE deployment, but band 4 is helping with that. T-Mobile's LTE deployments are great, but they are still focusing on expanding into more rural areas. Sprint is working on their Spark network, and where you can get it, it's good, but they just are moving so damn slow I don't know if it will be fast enough in the long run.

ToastyMallows 12y ago

I know it's the only reason why I'm still with them, that's for sure. This new move definitely solidifies my choice.

rcraft 12y ago

The problem is, in most cities, it's impossible to take advantage of Sprint's "unlimited data plans" because their data speeds are abysmal. I would love to go back to sprint eventually, but for now I'm happy with T-mobile in Denver/Chicago.

rayiner 12y ago
It's almost as if bandwidth isn't free.
- duaneb 12y ago
  Bandwidth itself is impossible to value. The infrastructure providing the bandwidth is not free, no, but the idea of data caps to provide some sort of artificial value it fairly laughable, not to mention irrational. If they want to make this argument, charge me WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY VALUED (i.e. charge me for what I use based on a variable rate derived from maintenance costs), not some made up cap that likely has to do with what they'll estimate people might be willing to put up with.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 12y ago
    No it's not. The amount of bandwidth available on a wireless network is a function of the amount of spectrum ($$), the sophistication of the cell equipment ($$), and the density of the cell sites ($$$). Sprint's network is slow because it spends a fraction of what AT&T and Verizon do,[1] while trying to get the same nationwide footprint. It's a simple math problem. As for prices--every company charges what they estimate people might be willing to put up with. [1] Last year, $6 billion versus $17-20 billion. These are combined CapEx, but most of it goes into wireless.
    - zanny 12y ago
      You are describing the costs of total network capacity. The poster above is describing marginal costs of bandwidth. If there is infrastructure in place that is going underutilized and I want to download a megabyte of data, the marginal cost of that data transfer is incredibly negligible. But that infrastructure exists to meet the conditions of peak utilization, when at capacity, and that is what is expensive. If anything, Sprint should give flat rate mobile data and have fixed funding campaigns to increase capacity for each residential block around a tower. If the speeds are too slow end users would then pay to upgrade the infrastructure themselves, or more specifically heavy and business users would subsidize network upgrades.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    The actual bandwidth the tower has actually costs a lot of money. 65Mhz of highband bandwidth was worth 40 billion at the last auction.
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      Or it could be worth $0 if shared by smart radios. Fixed reservations of spectrum is technologically obsolete and economically very sub-optimal. Spectrum "ownership" will be the taxi medallion of the 21st century.
  - anon4 12y ago
    If they charged you on usage percent times maintenance cost plus future upgrade plans, they wouldn't make nearly enough for buying golden yachts. You'd be paying like 20$/month for 10Mbit unlimited data.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    It's not artificial if the network is overloaded by users. It's not like fiber where an optical running from user end point to the ISP can be fully saturated all the time without affecting other users.
    - duaneb 12y ago
      Yes, but that's an entirely different problem. It's not like imposing fees after a certain point of use will help that problem at all, it would make more sense to a) absorb it and raise the monthly subscription when necessary, b) charge per byte, c) charge based on your % of network, or charge maintenance or service fees and don't charge for bandwidth at all. The current, tiered model only makes sense to use "overloading the network" as an excuse to abuse monopolies and overcharge customers.
      - forrestthewoods 12y ago
        Monopoly? Who has a cell network monopoly? Prices are going down and features up due to ever increasing competition.
        venomsnake 12y ago
        I was able to get in austria in 2006 3g for 1 EUR/GB . How are prices falling down?
        forrestthewoods 12y ago
        Are you for real? It's easy. Look at prices and services from all major carriers in the US over the past 5 years. the prices are going down and you're getting more for less. It's a tough back and forth and every month or two they try to one up each other. So that's how prices are going down. What you got in a different market doesn't matter. It's inarguable that prices are going down and it's inarguable that there is no monopoly. There isn't even a duopoly. What is arguable is that you should perhaps get more for what you pay. But the velocity is still down, even if it's not yet as low as it should be.
warfangle 12y ago
Their coverage map shows solid 100% 4G coverage for me. I live in one of the most populous cities in the US. I'm lucky if I get two bars of 3G. Looking to move to T-Mo soon.
- noselasd 12y ago
  Coverage != speed. You can have excellent signal strength, sharing the bandwidth with thousands of other mobile devices.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Phones have a clear indication of whether they are connected to 4G or not. What basis do you have to say that warfangle's signal strength is good in the buildings they spend the most time in?
    - Havoc 12y ago
      Nose's point is that signal strength does not necessarily imply good Internet connectivity. Kinda like you can have great WiFi signal because you're sitting next to the router but unless the router is connected to a good ISP its still going to suck. Ie you can have 4G connectivity and it can still crawl if the backhaul sucks.
      - warfangle 12y ago
        My point was that I usually don't even have 4G connectivity :) Even outdoors.
  - drewinglis 12y ago
    They're saying that they doesn't even have the signal strength part.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  Here on the outskirts of Atlanta, Sprint and T-Mobile have more or less equal coverage, with one picking up where the other doesn't most of the time. The issue with T-Mobile is that it's more difficult to get a signal indoors, depending on the building material. For example, at my job we're in a large warehouse with metal walls and framing, lots of pipes, and suspended ceilings. That makes the building difficult but not impossible for radio waves to penetrate. All four major carriers saturate the area; stepping outside you get full service on all of them. But of the four, only T-Mobile has zero coverage once you step inside the building. The rest are usable to varying degrees, with AT&T and Verizon the two best, and Sprint is decent inside. And just so this isn't purely anecdotal, T-Mobile has acknowledged issues with using their service indoors: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/t-mobile-our-network-has-trouble-with-building-walls-and-long-distances/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/t-mobi...
djb_hackernews 12y ago
I have no fight in the game but I've been a Sprint customer for a long time and have never had any problems with service or speed. I've lived in 2 major cities and EBF fly over country and travel frequently. For the month of December I used over 10GB of data and 8GB of that was Youtube, Netflix and streaming music.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  Here's my anecdote: Sprint took too long rolling LTE to Phoenix - a major market - so I switched to Verizon.
- warfangle 12y ago
  Lucky! When on 4G, I'm lucky to get 1mbps; even just browsing the web is an exercise in, 'what is this, a 512kbps satellite link?' When on 3G, I can pretty much forget about doing anything other than email.

JoshGlazebrook 12y ago

That is true, but that doesn't make up for the sheer glacial speed that Sprint is moving at to improve their network. They have the most spectrum of all of the carriers but do not use it properly. Quarterly announcements of the Spark network upgrades not meeting their own expectations seems to have become common. You may have LTE but it's not very useful if you can barely get 1Mb/s. T-Mobile on the other hand is having greater success with their CEO and all of the "uncarrier" tactics they are implementing. T-Mobile is now focusing on upgrading the last of their own cell sites to LTE to expand footprint in the rural parts of the country but they still have a ways to go. And that's not to say T-Mobile's existing LTE network isn't great, it's fantastic (if you can actually get it). AT&T is out of new deployable spectrum so their LTE network is slowing down in congested areas. They are deploying tens of thousands of small cell sites to make their network more dense to help with this problem. So say a tower has 100 people sharing 20mhz (10x10) of LTE bandwidth at the same time. If there are now three small cell sites placed away from that tower, each additional site has 20mhz of spectrum to use. So there would then be ~25 on that main tower, and ~25 on each additional small cell site. Verizon's original 700mhz LTE network is very congested in a lot of areas, but instead of deploying as many small sites as AT&T, they instead bought that very large chunk of AWS spectrum from cable companies and have it deployed to the majority of their cell sites. In major cities this is a full 40mhz chunk of spectrum (20x20) which theoretically can net you up to 150Mb/s if you have the right device that can use band 4. They also have started re-farming a small portion of their PCS spectrum (10mhz total) in some testing areas (san francisco especially). They will need to densify their network eventually but they sure have done a great job at buying an ample amount of time. I personally feel Sprint's current slump all comes down to the Clearwire/WiMax decision. Both Sprint and Verizon were in the same situation when it came to deploy their choices of 4G technologies. They both operated CDMA/EVDO 3G networks which with the revision they were using maxed out around 3.1Mb/s. AT&T was in the middle of deploying their HSPA/HSPA+, what they now call "4G" (not to be confused with LTE). Verizon and Sprint did not have the option of this transition period of significantly higher speeds that was not LTE or WiMax. Surprisingly Verizon got this right. They obtained a nationwide chunk of 700mhz block c (band 13) spectrum for their initial LTE network they started deploying in early 2011. This is the same spectrum that has the open access rules attached to it that made them back down on throttling on their LTE network. The sheer speed at which they deployed this LTE spectrum was just ridiculously fast. Right now they have 99% of their entire 3G footprint covered with that layer of LTE while AT&T's national map is still nowhere close to Verizon in terms of overall LTE deployment covering their entire legacy networks. Meanwhile Sprint went ahead with WiMax and we all know how that unfolded. I hope they can recover as 4 national carriers is always going to be better than 3 competition wise, but I just don't see it happening for potentially years from now. In terms of network, Verizon got it 100% right the entire time. AT&T struggled in ~2009 with the iPhone and recovered but is feeling the effects of congestion but they are countering with tons of small cell sites. Verizon has congestion on the band 13 LTE deployment, but band 4 is helping with that. T-Mobile's LTE deployments are great, but they are still focusing on expanding into more rural areas. Sprint is working on their Spark network, and where you can get it, it's good, but they just are moving so damn slow I don't know if it will be fast enough in the long run.