Sprint Launches Four More LTE Markets Numerous Major Markets (NY, LA) Still on Deck Sprint today announced that the company has launched their new LTE network in five additional locations. According to this Sprint press statement, the company's new LTE network is now available in Lawrence, Kansas; Topeka, Kansas; Wichita, Kansas; Waukegan-Lake County, Illinois; and Barnstable-Hyannis/Mid-Cape, Massachusetts. "In addition to the 19 cities we have already launched, we recently announced that Sprint 4G LTE will be available in more than 100 cities in the coming months,” said Bob Azzi, senior vice president-Network, Sprint. "To counter some of the iPhone 5 coverage focusing on their small LTE footprint, Sprint recent stated they'd be launching 100 or so markets in the next few months, including New York, Miami Los Angeles and Chicago.
|
 | | Sprint needs to make their large cities a priority NYC/LA/SF/CHI/BOS/MIAMI/DC/DALLAS/HOUSTON - this would cover most of their customers. | |
|  | | | Re: Sprint needs to make their large cities a priority Why would you do that when you can cover and talk up a rural town of 13 first. /sarcasm
The irony is that sprint's Achilles heel is Rural America anyway. | |
| | | | Actually, in Sprint's situation, starting in smaller towns may make sense. Look, the big metros are already covered by VZW and maybe even AT&T, so, launching in those areas means Sprint has to fight for the scraps. In these smaller cities, there may be no LTE yet, which means that Sprint can try to grab those customers first. Plus, since covering these smaller cities takes fewer sites, they can get them turned up much faster and still have decent coverage. They can't do that with a large city. Imagine what people would say if, for instance, they started lighting up LA in sections instead of waiting to turn on all the sites at once. They'd get criticized for spotty coverage, a stigma that might stick even after the city is fully covered.
I'm not saying this strategy will work, but I can see the logic in it. | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·MegaPath
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Sprint needs to make their large cities a priority but those markets are where they'll have the most customers, where they're probably already hemorrhaging customers to other providers with LTE. lose 1 million to gain 1000 rural? not a very good ratio  | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | While there is a bit of logic in that....
There are at least 2 things to consider
1. People are going to Sprint for 'Unlimited' and typically a better price
2. A city of 13,000 won't compare to a city of 2 million.
They need those subs to fund LTE in other markets.
Similarly... those in large cities typcically have the cash to spend on items around mobility and the 'need' for it. The folks out in cities of ~13,000 still use it - don't get me wrong, but not at the level you'd see in a dense metro like SF/NYC. | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: Sprint needs to make their large cities a priority Have you lived in a small town?
Folks in towns of 10k may use landlines of cable VoIP more vs. cell-only, but they're also much less likely to have WiFi outside their homes. So they need a cell phone with a reliable data connection...and uptake in rural markets of smartphones is nearly as high, percentage-wise, as uptake in urban ones from what I've seen. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Sprint needs to make their large cities a priority Yes I have. I'm not trying to state that uptake isn't high, especially percentage wise, but covering ~13,000 vs a couple million is a huge difference.
If they covered lets say downtown Los Angeles (lets say 10 square miles), they'd impact hundreds of thousands per day, which might STAY with Sprint vs. jumping to a competitor due to slow(er) networks.
If they covered the same 10 square miles in lets say... Hutchinson Kansas (Sprint is deploying there - AT&T doesn't even have 3G there!), what would they gain ? A few thousand customers from Verizon? AT&T probably has few/none there due to lack of 3G/LTE.
Benefit - 5 or 6 sites to cover a city like Hutchinson, KS. Potentially a few thousand customers - over years (most won't eat ETF).
Downside, how many 'new' customers or existing customers are going to upgrade ?
Cover an area like downtown LA:
Benefit - Many customers that are in that area daily will have a reason to stay with Sprint besides unlimited data, potential new customers fleeing AT&T/Verizon due to cost. 3G networks aren't overloaded - keeping existing customers happy.
Downside - Dense area like 10 square miles will still probably require 30 or more sites, and expansion will have to occur to keep people happy. | |
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: Sprint needs to make their large cities a priority So, if Sprint has the manpower to bring six sites to NV standards in a given region on a given day (note: they're more like 30 sites per day now), where should they do that?
Also, LA getting ~10 sites per week online at this point. Nothing like Chicago (71 NV-related upgrades in the last week) however there are things happening. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Sprint needs to make their large cities a priority The places that they can get the most customers retained or gained.
If they're doing multiple, and small areas just happen to be completed first due to the size - then kudos for them.
It'll take a while for markets like LA to _complete_ as they're quite large (note: Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile do NOT have LTE in Santa Clarita or Simi Valley - just 5 miles out side of LA city limits.) | |
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: Sprint needs to make their large cities a priority S4GRU gets updates of accepted-by-Sprint (complete for LTE, better 3G or both) Network Vision sites every week. Yesterday's update included 207 upgrades of some sort (3G towers getting 4G, new 4G upgraded sites, etc.). A little over one-third of those were in Chicago. The rest were spread across a number of markets (Puerto Rico, Atlanta, Baltimore, DC, NYC, Boston, Kansas, DFW, Houston, San Antonio, LA, SF) where Ericsson, Alcatel-Lucent and Samsung are working. | |
|
|  DestBoloPremium
join:2000-03-21
Naperville, IL | Chicago and Boston is semi live, not officially launch, but if you are near an upgraded LTE tower you can get LTE service
Chicago is a bit funky as it seem the Cook county is having some hang up (I'm guessing government red tape), but Area outside of Cook county, Will, Dupage, Lake counties all seem to have LTE scatter around | |
| |  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by en103:NYC/LA/SF/CHI/BOS/MIAMI/DC/DALLAS/HOUSTON - this would cover most of their customers.
Kansas, Kansas, Kansas, wha?, where?
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Sprint needs to make their large cities a priority Already well underway. | |
|
| | |  tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA
·OlyPen, Inc.
·CenturyLink
| said by en103:NYC/LA/SF/CHI/BOS/MIAMI/DC/DALLAS/HOUSTON - this would cover most of their customers.
When they can cover a small city with 5 towers, or a large city with 1000 towers, the small city is less work and more importantly less risk. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by en103:NYC/LA/SF/CHI/BOS/MIAMI/DC/DALLAS/HOUSTON - this would cover most of their customers.
And Phoenix. They started rolling out Wi-Max here with about 2 towers and stopped. You would think LTE would be a bit higher priority.
--
This Space for Rent... | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
3 edits | Sprint - the Coming Soon network I just do not get Sprint or their rationale. You would think that they would have learned something from their botched WIMAX rollout - E.G. Baltimore first.
Who in their right mind actually believes that it's 'good business' to roll out in small cities first? All while failing to cover the large cities, where the majority of their customers are located.
Then again, what should I expect from a wireless network operated from the middle of nowhere. Much like Kodak's demise, no quality engineer or management team is going to move or be sourced from the sticks.
Companies need to start factoring this in whenever they decide to setup shop somewhere. It's no coincidence that every successful large organization is located within a large metro area. | |
| | | | Re: Sprint - the Coming Soon network Since they're strapped for cash, I'd think they're starting in small markets and take up the larger cities when more customers start to bite. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Callcentric
1 edit | Re: Sprint - the Coming Soon network said by Network Guy:Since they're strapped for cash, I'd think they're starting in small markets and take up the larger cities when more customers start to bite.
Many have been down this path before with them. Folks in large Metro areas who bought wimax handsets and waited and waited, with still no wimax. Who is going to wait yet again and take Sprint's word for it?
It seems like a never-ending wait with these guys. Decisions like these are why people are more than happy to pay more (for less) with other carriers.
It's taken them 8 years to finally merge nextel to Sprint. Their rural coverage still sucks and they still do not have adequate (or quality) bandwidth to offer anything close to the LTE service of their competitors. | |
| | | | | | Re: Sprint - the Coming Soon network 800+1900 would give them more then the competitors, and then you have the obscene amount that clearwire has.
They currently use 1900 for lte.
Of course, this goes back to the coming soon network.. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by Telco:
It seems like a never-ending wait with these guys. Decisions like these are why people are more than happy to pay more (for less) with other carriers.
You always have that choice, vote accordingly.
I used to like Sprint. Only reason I'm defecting when my contract is up is because of their increasing nickel and diming. If I wanted nickel and diming, I could have chosen Verizon or AT&T.
What people want from their service isn't always up to par with the company's realities and their balance sheets. | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Have you used their LTE? I have.
Sprint may not be able to match the absolute maximum peak speeds of VZW or AT&T's 10x10 LTE deployments (AT&T doesn't have these everywhere). However you won't find peak speeds on Verizon in many places anymore, and in cases where Verizon hass a fair amount of load on its LTE network, their speeds (as advertised, 5-12 Mbps down and 2-5 Mbps up) are well within reach of Sprint LTE.
For example, on an admittedly unloaded network, I hit 27 Mbps down, 9 Mbps up and 50ms latency on Sprint. Even one-third of that is a reasonable speed IMO, and I don't think speeds will ever get down that low because Sprint can just add another 5x5 carrier anywhere in Austin (they have 5x5 of unused spectrum across the area), and with some effort can add a third 5x5 if needed. But by that point they'll already have yet another 5x5 carrier in SMR (800MHz), plus Clear TD-LTE in 2500MHz to take the network strain off. | |
| | | | |  Jon GebWal-Mart Sucks
join:2001-01-09
Howell, MI | Re: Sprint - the Coming Soon network I routinely hit 25-40mbps over most of lower Michigan. It's actually rare to fall below 10mbps anywhere here. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Callcentric
| What do you think is going to happen to sprint with 5x5, once their cells get congested - they are in big trouble. Verizon, AT&T, and tmobile have massive amounts of spectrum they can refarm too, which will only place sprint at a huge disadvantage.
Think of it rationally. The smallest and weakest of any current or future LTE or 3G network is offering unlimited. It's simply not sustainable in the long run, without having a huge impact on service; which is something Sprint 3G customer see now. | |
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: Sprint - the Coming Soon network What can Sprint do when their 5x5 carrier gets filled on a given site? Easy: add another 5x5 carrier. Now they have a 1900MHz cell (smallish) with the same amount of capacity as VZW has on a (large) 700MHz cell...and all their LTE phones can use that capacity.
What if that carrier fills? Sprint can add a third one, and still remain compatible with all of its out-now LTE phones. Now this only leaves enough froom for three CDMA carriers, but at the point that Sprint needs around 100 Mbps of capacity per cell sector on LTE, they probably don't have very many CDMA-only customers anyway.
Of course, well before Sprint needs that third 5x5 carrier, SMR LTE will be online (next year). That adds another 5x5 carrier to the mix, with more coverage and in-building penetration.
You're also completely missing Clearwire's TD-LTE network's ability to relieve congestion in "hot" areas. You think AT&T and Verizon have a fair amount of spectrum, and you'd be right (T-Mobile and Sprint have comparable spectrum holdings, Clearwire excluded...except T-Mobile has to maintain GSM, HSPA and LTE networks and Sprint only needs to maintain CDMA and LTE). Clearwire + Sprint has more, such that when you kick in TD-LTE on a site with proper backhaul, you pretty much erase capacity issues for anywhere that can get the TD-LTE signal (say, one mile from the site). That offloads capacity from the PCS/SMR LTE networks, which makes everything go faster.
Now if you're talking about Sprint's current 3G network that hasn't gotten backhaul upgrades yet, yeah it tends to suck. They're fixing that, as anyone who can get a decent LTE signal from Sprint now will attest. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Callcentric
| Re: Sprint - the Coming Soon network Total bandwidth leased by carrier in my area:
Verizon: 119Mhz + 20Mhz SpectrumCo
AT&T: 115Mhz + 10MHZ WCS
Sprint: 40Mhz + SMR
Tmobile: 40Mhz
Verizon and AT&T could add a whopping 12 slower 5x5 or 5 10x10 versus a mere 4 by sprint. Heck, they could both add 3 20x20 and just destroy Sprint. | |
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: Sprint - the Coming Soon network First off, that assumes that you're counting everything correctly. Are you 100% sure about the VZW and AT&T spectrum numbers? My bet is that there are a couple disaggregated PCS licenses in there that decrease those numbers by a bit.
Take Verizon. Assuming they've got a 25MHz Cellular license (20MHz of which is usable for LTE due to the weird bandwidth of CLR, a holdover from analog days), 22MHz of 700 upper-C (only 20MHz us usable) and 20MHz of AWS other than SpectrumCo, that leaves 40MHz of their spectrum that has to be in PCS...a little high depending on the area but not completely unreasonable...and another 12MHz in 700 lower A, B or C.
Verizon has already said that they're getting rid of 700 non-upper-C so that knocks out that band. Even if you assume that you can refarm to 100% LTE and use as wide a channel as you want, that leaves you with 10x10 on 700, 10x10 on Cellular, 20x20 on PCS (assuming they have an adjacent 15x15 and 5x5 license) and 20x20 on AWS. Two 20x20, not three. And this requires a complete shutdown of their CDMA network, which we won't see in the next five years, and new phones (even the iPhone 5 doesn't support the right bands for this...it's lacking LTE in AWS). For now, Verizon phones are constrained to one 10x10 channel in 700MHz, Cellular in CDMA and PCS is chock full of 1x and EvDO carriers (and will be for awhile to keep Verizon's 100+ million customers happy) and AWS is undeployed.
On the AT&T side, it's harder to guess their holdings by the number you gave. 25MHz Cellular, 20MHz AWS and what else? They certainly don't have 60MHz of PCS...that wouldn't leave enough room for Sprint's 30MHz in A-F, let alone T-Mobile. So your calculations are off somewhere.
As for Sprint, they have 54MHz of spectrum usable for CDMA or LTE including SMR but not including Clearwire BRS/EBS. Sprint could, if they converted to LTE-only, build a 1.4x1.4 channel in SMR, another 5x5 in SMR and, in some pleaces, a 20x20 in PCS (which the iPhone already supports, though most of their phones don't). In addition, they can have Clearwire stack 20MHz TD-LTE carriers wherever there's demand...three 20MHz carriers in one location isn't a big deal.
Also, Sprint has half the customer count of AT&T or Verizon...VZW and AT&T need twice the spectrum to provide the same customer experience, and that's discounting the fact that AT&T has to keep a few MHz of spectrum dedicated to GSM and a few dedicated to HSPA 3G for, respectively the next four and the next six or seven years. That leaves the company with 20MHz less spectrum to deploy LTE, since you aren't going to see less than 5x5 carriers on AT&T and the combination of GSM and HSPA will take up more than 6x6 MHz for even the most barebones deployment. | |
|
| | | | | AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | unlimited has nothing to do with the equation here, unless a massive amount of subscribers jump ship to sprint to take advantage. In which case sprint will have the cash to build out.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Callcentric
| Re: Sprint - the Coming Soon network said by AVD:unlimited has nothing to do with the equation here, unless a massive amount of subscribers jump ship to sprint to take advantage. In which case sprint will have the cash to build out.
Speed tests clearly suggest otherwise. Due to congestion, Sprint's 3G is significantly slower and often almost unusable versus everyone else. | |
| | | | | | | | AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: Sprint - the Coming Soon network said by Telco:said by AVD:unlimited has nothing to do with the equation here, unless a massive amount of subscribers jump ship to sprint to take advantage. In which case sprint will have the cash to build out.
Speed tests clearly suggest otherwise. Due to congestion, Sprint's 3G is significantly slower and often almost unusable versus everyone else. we're talking about LTE
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| The KC metro is far from "in the sticks"...it just happens to be a medium-sized city rather than NYC. KC's metro area has a very similar population (~1.71 million) to somewhere like Austin, TX, which isn't a small town. it also in't Chicago.
Also, think about things for a minute...in a town of 10k where Sprint has five or six towers covering the whole area (and that's enough for good city and rural service)...and the city isn't throwing Sprint a ball of red tape at every turn...it's pretty easy to get the market up and running. Plus, if Sprint is going somewhere where Verizon, AT&T or T-Mobile aren't pushing to upgrade their own networks, its a lot easier for Sprint to find the manpower for both installations and bringing backhaul to their cell sites.
Contrast this with a large market like Chicago. I don't know the numbers offhand but my bet is that there are 750+ cell sites in that area. In order to launch the market, Sprint wants to get a good proportion of those set up with 4G, including backhaul (which is out of their control). They don't want to, if at all possible, launch a market with 15% of its sites complete like it did in some of the initial markets, only to see customer backlash due to spotty coverage.
But why don't Verizon and AT&T seem to have this problem? First, VZW and AT&T probably are spending money at a quicker rate to get their urban systems upgraded. Second, due to the frequencies used (PCS vs. 700) Sprint has to use many more sites to cover a given area than Verizon or AT&T. The positive of this is that Sprint will be able to keep its LTE network humming along at high speed longer than VZW or AT&T, since they're sharing each cell site with a lot less people. The negative? Verizon can pop up twenty cell sites in a medium-sized city and call it a day, whereas Sprint will have to roll out a multiple of that.
But getting back to the earlier point: KC isn't a small city by any stretch. Then again, neither is Baltimore. You're just biased by living in superurban sprawl your entire life, apparently. Yuck. | |
|
| | tower maintenance? seems like some early morning maintenace.. some towers in NYC seem to have been down for a bit.., is there a public website tool or is that only for customer service reps? | |
| | | Losing Faith? I think I finally figured out why I've been losing faith in Sprint.
Back when Sprint first came to town they were disruptive. You bought your phone and you signed up for non-contract service. You got everything with that service: LD, CID, detailed billing, 3-way calling, voicemail, etc. No gimmicks, tricks, stunts or gotchas.
They were different, disruptively different, from their competitors. They even had cooler phones than their competition.
And they were building-out with new tech faster than everybody.
Now? Now their main difference from their competition seems to be being behind the curve in every respect. Even T-Mobile is beating them on data.
It seems Sprint lost its way about the time it acquired Nextel, and just never found it again.
What a shame. Sprint used to be very cool. | |
| | Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Losing Faith? Sprint bungled Nextel and lost upto 50% of the direct-connect customers to Verizon. Since that and a spate of bad mvno deals, they've never recovered.
Push to talk can be emulated on a data plan with reasonable latency. The main draw was the military grade phones for contruction crews which when dropped from considerable distance still worked.
Sprint might be the biggest of the smaller carriers, but they also have the 1st or 2nd highest price of that group for equipment and service. | |
|
Reviews:
·MegaPath
·Verizon FiOS
| Making the jump to VZW for this very reason I'm moving all my phone to VZW actually next week from Sprint. It's for this very reason because I work and live in the DC metro area. Not only is there still no LTE (and none in the near future with this announcement), but they've actually become the new AT&T with dropped calls. My phone will cut out a call even when I still have signal bars, but they'll be grayed out and I can't actually make calls or get 3G data on it for several minutes. The most data I've used on my phone is 750MB in a month, and it's painful ever time on 3G during peak hours. Good job Sprint! Another customer down, several million to go! | |
|  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | That's a Wrap Did they pour a cement slab for the base transceiver station and claim LTE has been launched? I've been reading in the Sprint user forums about people having very spotty performance in these new LTE areas. | |
| | DestBoloPremium
join:2000-03-21
Naperville, IL | Re: That's a Wrap From what i read, They are launching a market when it is approximately 40% complete, but work is on going after launch to finish, eventually like 99.7% of their current native 3G foot print will have Network vision upgrades | |
|
| | Oh noes, the sky is falling! It's well documented on other sites on the internet (as an Anon I won't link as that might be construed as spam) that Sprint is working at getting larger cities like NYC, LA, Chicago, D.C., SF launched. Cities of that size take time to do properly. Now if they were to rush the job and then have all sorts of problems because they rushed, the same people would be whining and asking why they didn't take their time and get it done right. It's simply easier to get some of these smaller areas upgraded because, well, they're smaller...but that doesn't preclude them from simultaneously working on the larger cities. Verizon Wireless releases a separate press release for every podunk town that they deploy LTE in, why is it a problem when Sprint does it too? | |
|  a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cingular Wireless
| Possible reasoning for the deployments... I am pretty sure that the reasons for not deploying in major metros has a LOT more to do with engineering as opposed to being a business decision... major cities like NYC are an RF engineer's worst nightmare... plenty of large metal structures to cause all kinds of reflection/multipath interference. Even at 800 MHz, covering the insides of skyscrapers and the like is quite difficult, and there's plenty of potential for interference between adjacent cells. A smaller town on the other hand has far more predictable terrain, and thus the propagation of the signal is more easily modeled (hence the current deployment path Sprint is following). Also, Sprint isn't an ILEC, and getting reasonably-priced backhaul (and cell site colocation) is probably difficult in some markets, hence the delay.
--
Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you?
If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves. | |
| Prespd
join:2004-03-10
Wyoming, MI | Spotty, but beginning to see LTE in SF area Yes, I know we've heard that the SF/SJ (San Francisco/San Jose) is coming live with an non-launched sites. Of course because of where my employer is, LTE is pretty strong here in Cupertino, CA as a start. Got these speeds this morning from my iphone 5 on Sprint. Welcome to LTE!!!!! | |
| | | Too little too late, just jumped ship, got a galaxy s3 on verizon with a 4gig plan, couldn't be more satisfied, well I could if it was unlimited, but life is to short, to wait on the sidelines, for sprint to get up off their asses, to get up to speed. If it gets better in the next 2 years, I'll consider going back. Until then, serenity now... Insanity later  | |
| | Prespd
join:2004-03-10
Wyoming, MI | Re: Too little Still though, pretty sure I'll hit 4gig every month with Hulu, Netflix, Pandora, and YouTube. I've hit as much as 14 gigs in bad months. Sprints getting up to speed with coverage. I'll stick around, lets see who's happier in two years. I'll keep my IPhone 5, and you the S3. Deal? | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: Too little Deal... I watch, very occasional videos, like 1 or 2 you tube clips a month, and have always used pandora sparingly. Makes no sense to me at least to watch full length netflix films on a smartphone. Working in I.T there's always an internet connection somewhere to be had. For about 5 years, I've averaged, most months at 2.3gigs or less, so I'm far from worried about going over my usage cap. For me, It's also about reliability. | |
|
 shimonmorPremium
join:2000-12-30
Sedro Woolley, WA | Still waiting for 3G 4G?? What's that?? All I want are real 3G speeds. The small cities where I work and live (4 towns: Anacortes, Mt. Vernon, Burlington, and Sedro Woolley, WA) all have horrendous DL speeds. UL is OK. Drive 30 minutes north to Bellingham or south to Everett and speeds are around 900kbps. I've been bugging Sprint about this since Feb 2011. Once my contract is up, I'm moving to Verizon because their 3G works solid around here. And I need 3G data. | |
| | | | Re: Still waiting for 3G Check out network.sprint.com. It shows a lot of data capacity upgrades to be done in the near future. Maybe that will help. I know I have seen improvement with the speeds with some of those upgrades in my area. I'm happy that the voice network has been fixed in the areas I use the service, used to be network busy errors constantly. | |
|
| |
|
|
