Sprint Service - EVO 4G General

I know this is off topic but I would like to hear some info from the xda members. I currently have tmobile and live in Philadelphia. I am looking to switch to Sprint and just wondering how is Sprints data speeds, coverage, voice, etc...

It varies...I live in Florida and it's great here, but this post is only helpful if you were looking toward moving here...Lol

3g speeds are terrible in Detroit but the 4g speed is decent. Coverage is excellent, I have never been somewhere where I have no signal(the free roaming on vzw, incl free data roaming, helps). The areas where I KNOW there is signal but I can't reach it (in the dungeon-like basement of a building behind many many layers of concrete) are reduced now also. Where I had no signal a year ago I have enough to text and call now. For the record, in that dungeon the vzw customer next to me had 5 bars and 3g while I had nothing. Voice is good. I have 4 phones, 2 with the 4g fee, and it costs me $220 for 1500 mins and unlimited everything else. This is probably only helpful if you plan on moving to Detroit, unlikely based on the latest census results.
Ask some of your friends how Sprint is in your area.

Thank you. I am not really looking site specific really just overall quality of sprint itself. Just trying to see if its the right move

Overstew said:
It varies...I live in Florida and it's great here, but this post is only helpful if you were looking toward moving here...Lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I live in the FL panhandle and its terrible here. When I go visit the family in gainsville its awesome! A constant 3 to 4 times faster than here.
During the week I can have data speeds as low as 15k down 90k up. During off peak hours its usually about 100k down 125k up. Still terrible compared to verizon (constant 1meg down) or att (700 to 900k down)
I have compared to people at work. We check frequently, just to compare.

Related

Long-time Verizon user considering Vibrant over Fascinate

Though I think the Fascinate looks better and has a camera flash, the Vibrant seems to look better on paper: More on-board memory, HSDPA offers "potentially" fasters data speeds, Tmo can do voice and data at the same time while Verizon can't, no Bing or VZ apps on the Vibrant, and I can buy the phone out of contract at a reduced rate.
The only thing that makes me hesitate (besides the less-appealing design), is Tmo's coverage vs. Verizon. I'm primarily in L.A. / I.E. and do some occasional traveling, and have no experience with Tmo service. Should I be concerned or just make the jump?
i can't speak for 3G coverage on Tmo vs Verizon but can on voice call svc
Tmo seems to have partnered with every small carrier around the country - every year i make about 5-6 visits to clients or suppliers around the country with two other folks from partner companies - one is on AT&T and one on Verizon - and every time we're in a rural area, their svc drops out before my Tmo's does
Last Dec we were heading south out of derby, VT ((on the canadian border) and about 35 miles south you're heading into foothills - my bud with verizon lost his svc, and had to use my phone for about 20 minutes (my tmo was showing 1 bar signal) - he finished his call and about 5 minutes were were i the hills with no signal
when we started coming out of the foothills (they were really mountains but we were gaining elevation with numerous small rock outcroppings around us), anyway, when we started coming out, my Tmo was first to have svc again
they always notice my Tmo's svc is better than their's
and there's no roaming chgs with Tmo here in US or at least i've never had any
have had similiar experiences traveling thru rural S. Carolina, Georgia, Tenn, W VA, Kentucky and western TX and thru New Mexico
nice info above.. but yes.. T-Mobile is GSM/W-CDMA/UMTS/HSPA+ so u can talk-n-surf over 3G (21HSPA+).. also, our speeds dominates all US carriers (even Sprints 4G/WiMax).. T-Mobile will upgrade its HSPA+ data again in 2011 from 21mbps to 42mbps.. i live in Seattle and we have 21HSPA+, but real world results will be between 5-10mbps (also depending on your device limitation).. also, T-Mobile gives u more bang for your buck.. but yes, they do have a smaller foorprint (mainly in more rural areas).. no problem for me since i stay in cities, and not in the boonies.
Even tho Verizon ADDED flash, it gimped its I.M. to 2GB (also no FFC--only Sprint has FFC).. T-Mobile even packed the Vibrant with a few goodies like the movie Avatar.
The Los Angeles and Inland Empire area have good 3G coverage from what I hear. HSPA+ is growing too. 3G coverage when traveling won't be like Verizon so I would check to see if 3G coverage overall is good enough for you.
sec1has said:
Though I think the Fascinate looks better and has a camera flash, the Vibrant seems to look better on paper: More on-board memory, HSDPA offers "potentially" fasters data speeds, Tmo can do voice and data at the same time while Verizon can't, no Bing or VZ apps on the Vibrant, and I can buy the phone out of contract at a reduced rate.
The only thing that makes me hesitate (besides the less-appealing design), is Tmo's coverage vs. Verizon. I'm primarily in L.A. / I.E. and do some occasional traveling, and have no experience with Tmo service. Should I be concerned or just make the jump?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I live down in the high desert, and travel all the time between here and L.A. and San Diego, and have excellent coverage all over the I.E./L.A./San Diego area. So I don't think you have much to fear with transferring over to tmo
Looks like I'll be switching carriers.
sec1has said:
Looks like I'll be switching carriers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool Enjoy Calling People and Going Online at the same time with a faster 3G
sec1has said:
Looks like I'll be switching carriers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Before you do, find out from people using T-Mobile in the areas that you frequent how their reception is. I love T-Mobile. Their CS rocks and prices are very good, but I couldn't get reception at my desk in my office in Manhattan and had to switch. It's great that it works 35 miles from the Canadian border, but if it doesn't work where you need it, it doesn't work.
Drachen said:
Before you do, find out from people using T-Mobile in the areas that you frequent how their reception is. I love T-Mobile. Their CS rocks and prices are very good, but I couldn't get reception at my desk in my office in Manhattan and had to switch. It's great that it works 35 miles from the Canadian border, but if it doesn't work where you need it, it doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When was that and with what phone? T-Mobile is extremely good in Los Angeles, I don't think you know how good they are out there. There will be weak zones for any carrier but T-Mobile is great in Los Angeles. It's their core market. Also there are some sites planned later this year to go online. Not to mention when I took at look at compass.t-mobile.com, not only was NYC lit up with over 40 new towers (includes microcells), so was the Los Angeles area.. 20 new sites in one zip code earlier this year. So, things are always subject to change.
Drachen said:
Before you do, find out from people using T-Mobile in the areas that you frequent how their reception is. I love T-Mobile. Their CS rocks and prices are very good, but I couldn't get reception at my desk in my office in Manhattan and had to switch. It's great that it works 35 miles from the Canadian border, but if it doesn't work where you need it, it doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
can't say anything about manhatten, but worked fine in queens when i visited the inlaws last thanksgiving
I live in the same areas you metioned L.A./I.E. and i have tmo the service is great in L.A. I had verizon and went to school in west la and the service was patchy but with tmo it was at minimum 2 bars all over same area with 3g. the only problem i find with tmo is going to events with a lot of people/cells phones, the phone has service/3g but i couldn't text, make a call, or use the internet. i have problems with this at dodger games and i had problems during the summer at coachella but i love tmo and will definitely be getting the vibrant!!
pinkgabe said:
I live in the same areas you metioned L.A./I.E. and i have tmo the service is great in L.A. I had verizon and went to school in west la and the service was patchy but with tmo it was at minimum 2 bars all over same area with 3g. the only problem i find with tmo is going to events with a lot of people/cells phones, the phone has service/3g but i couldn't text, make a call, or use the internet. i have problems with this at dodger games and i had problems during the summer at coachella but i love tmo and will definitely be getting the vibrant!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Pre-HSPA+ network was pretty limited in terms of how many calls and data it could handle but HSPA+ should alleviate that until the site runs out of spectrum (slots for calls/data).
heygrl said:
Not to mention when I took at look at compass.t-mobile.com, not only was NYC lit up with over 40 new towers (includes microcells), so was the Los Angeles area.. 20 new sites in one zip code earlier this year. So, things are always subject to change.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not about to get into an argument about it, just going by my own experience. I used several HTC phones, a MDA, Touch Duo and Diamond. I found the reception great where I live near the Empire State Building, but really crappy in my office in Flatiron and under Grand Central. Even A/B tested with borrowed iPhone SIMs to make sure it was a carrier issue and not a phone issue. I switched to AT&T in Nov of 2008 and haven't had a problem since using a Fuze, Omnia 2 and Nexus One. (Meanwhile T-Mobile went from having only crap phones to a great lineup and AT&T went to becoming a one-trick iPony)
My point wasn't that T-Mobile sucks. I rather like the company, but the service didn't work for me in the places I tend to be a lot. My point was that you should try to actually confirm the reception yourself in the places you frequent rather than just going by others' experiences.
pinkgabe said:
I live in the same areas you metioned L.A./I.E. and i have tmo the service is great in L.A. I had verizon and went to school in west la and the service was patchy but with tmo it was at minimum 2 bars all over same area with 3g. the only problem i find with tmo is going to events with a lot of people/cells phones, the phone has service/3g but i couldn't text, make a call, or use the internet. i have problems with this at dodger games and i had problems during the summer at coachella but i love tmo and will definitely be getting the vibrant!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Drachen said:
Not about to get into an argument about it, just going by my own experience. I used several HTC phones, a MDA, Touch Duo and Diamond. I found the reception great where I live near the Empire State Building, but really crappy in my office in Flatiron and under Grand Central. Even A/B tested with borrowed iPhone SIMs to make sure it was a carrier issue and not a phone issue. I switched to AT&T in Nov of 2008 and haven't had a problem since using a Fuze, Omnia 2 and Nexus One. (Meanwhile T-Mobile went from having only crap phones to a great lineup and AT&T went to becoming a one-trick iPony)
My point wasn't that T-Mobile sucks. I rather like the company, but the service didn't work for me in the places I tend to be a lot. My point was that you should try to actually confirm the reception yourself in the places you frequent rather than just going by others' experiences.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
November 2008 is far too long ago. HTC/Apple (especially Samsung) phones also really don't offer good reception regardless of sim swapping. A phone with crap reception will be even crappier on PCS and less crappy on CLR (850). I already stated that I've seen over 40 pink "T"'s on compass.t-mobile.com in NYC earlier this year which ultimately means coverage has improved since 2008. ATM there are over 7 new sites showing and that's within the last 90 days.
That doesn't mean the coverage isn't weak, but the phone matters greatly and the ones you listed are all average or below average. I can go out to a warehouse and have my Samsung phone lose coverage, but not my Motorola? If I only had Samsung phones I'd probably think there was no coverage in that warehouse when there actually is coverage, my Samsung just didn't pick up the signal.
I will say this about T-Mobiles service, about 6 months ago the best signal I could get in my house was edge, now mind you the only carriers getting signal at all in my house were Verizon and T-Mobile. AT&T and Sprint could not get a signal whatsoever even at a window.
Well I woke up one morning and saw a full 5 bars of 3G and thought I was dreaming. Well low and behold now I have that all the time just about anywhere I go. For the record I only live about 10-15 minutes from Boston, so it's not like I'm in the middle of nowhere lol.
Just waiting patiently for my HSPA+ now, which the Boston market is confirmed as getting it soon.
heygrl said:
November 2008 is far too long ago. HTC/Apple (especially Samsung) phones also really don't offer good reception regardless of sim swapping. A phone with crap reception will be even crappier on PCS and less crappy on CLR (850). I already stated that I've seen over 40 pink "T"'s on compass.t-mobile.com in NYC earlier this year which ultimately means coverage has improved since 2008. ATM there are over 7 new sites showing and that's within the last 90 days.
That doesn't mean the coverage isn't weak, but the phone matters greatly and the ones you listed are all average or below average. I can go out to a warehouse and have my Samsung phone lose coverage, but not my Motorola? If I only had Samsung phones I'd probably think there was no coverage in that warehouse when there actually is coverage, my Samsung just didn't pick up the signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're basically illustrating my point. All the reasons I switched are irrelevant to anyone that is not me in Nov of 2008. They were highly relevant to me in Nov of 2008, considering that I couldn't get service in a place I spend 1/3 of my life on weekdays. It didn't matter how good the reception would be once they finished the AWS rollout, how good it was in LA or 35 miles from the Canadian border or the fact that the phones I like have sub-par reception. The decision had to be made based on my own experience not someone else saying that it was good.
Drachen said:
I think you're basically illustrating my point. All the reasons I switched are irrelevant to anyone that is not me in Nov of 2008. They were highly relevant to me in Nov of 2008, considering that I couldn't get service in a place I spend 1/3 of my life on weekdays. It didn't matter how good the reception would be once they finished the AWS rollout, how good it was in LA or 35 miles from the Canadian border or the fact that the phones I like have sub-par reception. The decision had to be made based on my own experience not someone else saying that it was good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So why would you post here? Seriously though...
heygrl said:
So why would you post here? Seriously though...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because this is a phone forum and not a (no offense) network fanboy forum. The phone I want and the phone you want are basically the same and there's more activity here. A root update was posted in the Vibrant dev forum that answered a question on the Captivate forum. Our phone drops 3 days after yours and there's going to be a lot of experimentation going on and the results will benefit both of us.
That and I thought I had something to add to the conversation and couldn't keep my trap shut. Personal failing.
heygrl said:
So why would you post here? Seriously though...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Drachen said:
Because this is a phone forum and not a (no offense) network fanboy forum. The phone I want and the phone you want are basically the same and there's more activity here. A root update was posted in the Vibrant dev forum that answered a question on the Captivate forum. Our phone drops 3 days after yours and there's going to be a lot of experimentation going on and the results will benefit both of us.
That and I thought I had something to add to the conversation and couldn't keep my trap shut. Personal failing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I doesn't really matter whose on what carrier. Each person is going to have different needs and different carriers will support those different needs. I think we can all agree this will be a kick ass phone and blows the iphone out of the water.
I thought engadget did a piece on data rates of carriers & ATT came out on top. Was this incorrect?

Love the phone; T-Mobile not so much

I am in love with this Nexus-S, my fav Android phone by far, and in the past I have owned; MyTouch 3G...Nexus-One...EVO 4G...
I really like the compact size and lightweight feel to it, but still feels like a solid device to me, and it is super thin for a powerful smart phone, plus of course the S AMOLED screen is drool worthy. And battery life is way better than the EVO. And to top it off, being a Google developer phone, comes with no carrier bloatware, or manufacturer UI's, and is a "pure" Android phone with the latest OS.
But...T-Mobile is a deal breaker for me, compared to Sprint for connection. In Chicago it is pretty good, just sucks once inside houses or buildings. I own a Millwork supply business for custom home builders, and I am in and out of new homes a lot, and it seems to drop signal once I go inside a new construction building. Same with my own home, I have my Office in Basement, and it is like 90% loss of signal down there. I can never make or receive calls down there, but texting is good. Where as my EVO on Sprint, worked pretty good in the Basement, not perfect, but much better than the Nexus-S, and going to job sites, my EVO never dropped calls. And Navigation on the Nexus-S, I have had a few slight issues, just having hard time locating me, that has only happened three times so far, had to restart phone each time. But my EVO the 6 months I owned it, I can remember maybe once it not locating me. Again I blame this on T-Mobile not the Nexus.
But T-Mobile monthly is approx $30 cheaper per month which is nice. But then what good is saving thirty bucks, if I drop signal indoors, and somewhat spotty navigation service. Not sure what to do...I bought the Nexus-S on launch day Dec 17th, at Best Buy Mobile, paid cash full retail for the phone, not sure what my return options are ?
Is your nexus on 3g mode? Have you tried to put it in edge to see if it helps?
JasjarMan said:
Is your nexus on 3g mode? Have you tried to put it in edge to see if it helps?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tried that this morning, more for battery saving. But then went to make a call, and it screwed up. It was calling my client, but no ringing tone, and I clicked end call, and it just hung there, so I had to restart and tried again in 3G and it worked fine.
I was driving near O'Hare airport at the time, and that area is know to kill cell signals.
ya T-mo has horrible building penetration but other than that, i love em, great customer service, great speeds, and they are always improving
slowz3r said:
ya T-mo has horrible building penetration but other than that, i love em, great customer service, great speeds, and they are always improving
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is my only beef with this phone. "horrible building penetration", too bad that can't be upgraded by T-Mobile. Other than that I LOVE this phone.
Zorachus said:
That is my only beef with this phone. "horrible building penetration", too bad that can't be upgraded by T-Mobile. Other than that I LOVE this phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the building penetration has nothing to do with the phone its the frequency that T-mo uses the higher the frequency the worse the building penetration.
Kinda sucks but T-mo is coming out with one of those Cellphone base station signal thingies (forgot what they are really called) so that may help you out
I'm with the OP; best damned phone I've owned in terms of appearance, feel, performance right out of the box...but T-Mo just doesn't deliver in some areas I need it to. When it delivers, it's the best out there, but too many places that indoors it kills the service. When I've got full 3G service it's at least 25% faster than AT&T, and 3-5 times faster than Sprint.
One office building I work out of is T shaped. If you're on the left side of the T, great signal, but go anywhere on the right side of the T and you're in a total dead zone. AT&T's not much better in that building, but in most places of town (Los Angeles SF, SG, SC Valley areas), it's better than T-Mo. Verizon works well there.
To the OP, if you're willing to shell out the dough, about $300, you can buy a cellular signal booster, I did when I got a Nexus One, it allowed me to actually get a T-Mo signal inside my house; I'd recommend one for your basement office if you can run the antenna coax line to outdoors. Voice and EDGE only, though, there's only one brand that claims to do T-Mo AWS/3G right now, and their device is $450.
EDIT: I think this is the model I got for the extender: http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Exte...W5WI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294073803&sr=8-1
Zorachus said:
I am in love with this Nexus-S, my fav Android phone by far, and in the past I have owned; MyTouch 3G...Nexus-One...EVO 4G...
I really like the compact size and lightweight feel to it, but still feels like a solid device to me, and it is super thin for a powerful smart phone, plus of course the S AMOLED screen is drool worthy. And battery life is way better than the EVO. And to top it off, being a Google developer phone, comes with no carrier bloatware, or manufacturer UI's, and is a "pure" Android phone with the latest OS.
But...T-Mobile is a deal breaker for me, compared to Sprint for connection. In Chicago it is pretty good, just sucks once inside houses or buildings. I own a Millwork supply business for custom home builders, and I am in and out of new homes a lot, and it seems to drop signal once I go inside a new construction building. Same with my own home, I have my Office in Basement, and it is like 90% loss of signal down there. I can never make or receive calls down there, but texting is good. Where as my EVO on Sprint, worked pretty good in the Basement, not perfect, but much better than the Nexus-S, and going to job sites, my EVO never dropped calls. And Navigation on the Nexus-S, I have had a few slight issues, just having hard time locating me, that has only happened three times so far, had to restart phone each time. But my EVO the 6 months I owned it, I can remember maybe once it not locating me. Again I blame this on T-Mobile not the Nexus.
But T-Mobile monthly is approx $30 cheaper per month which is nice. But then what good is saving thirty bucks, if I drop signal indoors, and somewhat spotty navigation service. Not sure what to do...I bought the Nexus-S on launch day Dec 17th, at Best Buy Mobile, paid cash full retail for the phone, not sure what my return options are ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do what I'm doing. Month to month in at&t no data... buy a clear 4g wimax ispot...hack it to work on any device. Only $25 a month works great. I couldn't stand edge but know how crappy tmobile is
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
distortedloop said:
EDIT: I think this is the model I got for the extender: http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Exte...W5WI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294073803&sr=8-1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the link, reading the user reviews, makes this sound like exactly what I need for my home Office. But still won't help when out at job sites, and losing signal inside.
So now I need to decide, keep the Nexus-S which I LOVE, but have iffy service inside, or just go back to the EVO with near perfect indoor service ?
I am with the OP on this one too.
Best Android phone on the market but T-mobile's coverage inside buildings is sub par.
I understand that the 1700/2100mhz spectrum has harder time penetrating buildings but it should not be THAT bad...
I come from Europe where most of the networks only use 2100Mhz and i don't recall seeing such a penetration issue.
It has to be T-Mobile's lack of towers which results in such poor indoor coverage.
at&t is also 90% 1900Mhz in the SF Bay Area and they have no problem with indoor reception, at least not as bad as T-Mobile.
That's my only main issue with the phone.
I ordered a signal booster from JDteck.com (which are the only ones who are providing a 1700/2100Mhz boosters). I'll report back how it works.
clubtech said:
AT&T is also 90% 1900Mhz in the SF Bay Area and they have no problem with indoor reception, at least not as bad as T-Mobile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As of 2009, AT&T moved most of their 3G spec to the 850mhz band, so indoor reception should be EVEN better, or at least battery life should have improved a bit. I remember this was a big issue back in the iPhone days. I'm pretty sure they're entirely on 850mhz.
slowz3r said:
Kinda sucks but T-mo is coming out with one of those Cellphone base station signal thingies (forgot what they are really called) so that may help you out
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whatever happened to that TMo [email protected] thing a few years ago? I remember they did a pilot program and then expanded. It was pretty popular. Too bad they stopped that.
Looks like this is now an error page: http://www.t-mobile.com/promotions/hotspotathomelearnmore.aspx
clubtech said:
It has to be T-Mobile's lack of towers which results in such poor indoor coverage.
at&t is also 90% 1900Mhz in the SF Bay Area and they have no problem with indoor reception, at least not as bad as T-Mobile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed on T-Mo needs more towers, if they weren't so far spread apart, we'd get better penetration in more areas.
Not sure about the AT&T in San Francisco part, though. I've listened to Leo LaPorte, Patrick Norton, Kevin Rose and all that ilk ***** and moan about AT&T poor signal/reception on the iPhone in San Francisco for a couple of years until AT&T started rolling out the 850mhz on the 3G side. New York City the same thing - poor AT&T penetration on the 1900mhz side in and amongst all the tall buildings.
clubtech said:
That's my only main issue with the phone.
I ordered a signal booster from JDteck.com (which are the only ones who are providing a 1700/2100Mhz boosters). I'll report back how it works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll be very interested in your report back on that. This is the one I referenced, but not by name, in my earlier post. It didn't seem worth the $200 extra premium to get the AWS service repeated, since in my home I have WiFi anyways, but when I bought the unit I do have, this JDteck one wasn't available.
allen099 said:
As of 2009, AT&T moved most of their 3G spec to the 850mhz band, so indoor reception should be EVEN better, or at least battery life should have improved a bit. I remember this was a big issue back in the iPhone days. I'm pretty sure they're entirely on 850mhz.
Whatever happened to that TMo [email protected] thing a few years ago? I remember they did a pilot program and then expanded. It was pretty popular. Too bad they stopped that.
Looks like this is now an error page: http://www.t-mobile.com/promotions/hotspotathomelearnmore.aspx
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure what happened to that I used to have it as well.
but really i say wait till after CES, rumor is T-Mo will announce their router
I'm with T-mobile for their tremendous pricing plan advantage over Att (I'm also in SoCal and T-mobile has tremendous coverage here)
T-mobile: $10 - $20 per month for 5gb of data
Att: $25 per month for 2gb of data
ap3604 said:
I'm with T-mobile for their tremendous pricing plan advantage over Att (I'm also in SoCal and T-mobile has tremendous coverage here)
T-mobile: $10 - $20 per month for 5gb of data
Att: $25 per month for 2gb of data
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
even more savings with em+ 60 bucks 500 minutes, texting and web
ap3604 said:
I'm with T-mobile for their tremendous pricing plan advantage over Att (I'm also in SoCal and T-mobile has tremendous coverage here)
T-mobile: $10 - $20 per month for 5gb of data
Att: $25 per month for 2gb of data
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What part of SoCal are you in? I'm in the San Fernando Valley and Santa Clarita Valley most of my time. In the North part of both valleys T-Mo data is EDGE only in large areas, and even voice has a hard time getting into buildings. It's really a bummer when I have to spend time up in Santa Clarita.
My house is actually in a little dead/poor coverage area spot even on T-Mo's maps...it's right on the edge of three different towers that don't quite fully overlap their coverage circles. I can get a signal outdoors, but inside not very good without my cellular extender.
I've still got my grandfathered iPhone SIM for one of my Androids (i9000), $30 for true "unlimited" data, no caps or throttles on that one. Someone told me they're using the unlimted data for non-smartphones on their Galaxy S with AT&T because AT&T can't recognize the IMEI and that it's a smartphone. I think that data is $10/month.
PS. SimplyMobile sounds intriguing. Read some good reports of it in another thread. Uses T-Mo's voice and data service, everything unlimited (voice, text, data (3g)) for $60/mo.
clubtech said:
I am with the OP on this one too.
Best Android phone on the market but T-mobile's coverage inside buildings is sub par.
I understand that the 1700/2100mhz spectrum has harder time penetrating buildings but it should not be THAT bad...
I come from Europe where most of the networks only use 2100Mhz and i don't recall seeing such a penetration issue.
It has to be T-Mobile's lack of towers which results in such poor indoor coverage.
at&t is also 90% 1900Mhz in the SF Bay Area and they have no problem with indoor reception, at least not as bad as T-Mobile.
That's my only main issue with the phone.
I ordered a signal booster from JDteck.com (which are the only ones who are providing a 1700/2100Mhz boosters). I'll report back how it works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you have to realize that tmobile's 3g network is still very young, so all the gaps are not filled in which is required for higher frequency networks. since towers need to be spaced closer together for bands such as 1900mhz and higher, i'm sure tmobile only laid out the bare minimum during their initial 3g roll out just to get SOMETHING out there. over time they may fill in the gaps.
and we all know how stellar the coverage is in UK even using the 2100mha band. however its the same story, less physical geography to cover, in addition to better government regulations over there "forcing" one technology standard and set of common frequencies. that makes it much better for ubiquious coverage in general.
distortedloop said:
What part of SoCal are you in? I'm in the San Fernando Valley and Santa Clarita Valley most of my time. In the North part of both valleys T-Mo data is EDGE only in large areas, and even voice has a hard time getting into buildings. It's really a bummer when I have to spend time up in Santa Clarita.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry to hear about your lack of coverage distortedloop
I'm in Orange County area and get great coverage around 3 mbps download on my Nexus One.
distortedloop said:
I've still got my grandfathered iPhone SIM for one of my Androids (i9000), $30 for true "unlimited" data, no caps or throttles on that one. Someone told me they're using the unlimted data for non-smartphones on their Galaxy S with AT&T because AT&T can't recognize the IMEI and that it's a smartphone. I think that data is $10/month.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I looked into that too (since the Vibrant has Att's 1900 3g band built in and Att won't recognize the IMEI) but I believe the $10 data is only available on a family plan and only if they have the unlimited messaging already on their plan, an extra $20 per month.
So say you do this family plan trick the savings are kind of washed out compared to T-mobile:
$70 per month for 700 minutes
$25 per month for 2gb of data for iPhone
$20 per month for unlimited messaging
$10 per month for "dumbphone" data
___________________________________
$125 per month. Yuck!
I'd rather just stick with T-mobile even more plus contract free:
$30 per month 500 min
$10 per month for data
distortedloop said:
PS. SimplyMobile sounds intriguing. Read some good reports of it in another thread. Uses T-Mo's voice and data service, everything unlimited (voice, text, data (3g)) for $60/mo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was wondering about simple mobile and how it worked with the NS..anyone have it?
alnova1 said:
I was wondering about simple mobile and how it worked with the NS..anyone have it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The guy who started this thread has it.
I've seen some posts where they're saying that "unlimited data" on Simple Mobile actually means 1GB cap. I'd check that out before switching.

Results from real-world testing 4G: Verizon LTE vs. Sprint WiMAX in NYC

So watching this video inspired me to do a little real-world field testing.
I just got out of the Verizon store by Grand Central in NYC.
This is disappointing, because I was pricing out the Thunderbolt all day and almost signed up.
Side to side, Sprint beat Verizon at least 75% of the time. It was always 2-4MBps faster on the download (~8MBps vs ~4MBps or so). The other 25% of the time that Verizon was faster it was about 1MBps or less.
I checked coverage maps before I did this and Verizon has full dark red 4G coverage all over NYC, so it should be as fast as it can get. And I can't imagine there's a lot of congestion on their network the day after the phone came out.
Sprint on the other hand has only light green coverage (not dark green "best") in that area. Again, I was inside the store so LTE should have had the edge.
The latencies were comparable, both around 110ms. The only part that blew me away was Verizon's upload speed, about 38MBps compared to Sprint's 1MBps. But as we all know download is more important than upload.
Sorry to say, but LTE isn't all that it's cracked up to be, at least when and where I checked it for myself. Surprisingly, Sprint seems to hold the crown for 4G speeds at the moment.
The problem is as always talked about - the fact that WiMAX kills battery and i assume LTE does the same. They need to come up with a way to have these great - high speed options with better battery life or its relatively useless.
I think the problem with wimax is penetration, because I was at the park today in Philadelphia Pa(Center City). and I reached speeds of 8.04 Mbps but when I am at home (South Philadelphia)...I barely get 1.5Mbps...
OPPOSITE here in Chicago. Both had strong signals
Evo got hammered by the T-Bolt repeatedly on site downloads and speedyest apps. Not even close. ONE time in 15 minutes of test Evo beat TBolt and that's because I didn't hit the Url cleanly!
LTE Verizon + TBolt is fastest mobile phone experience to date. By a mile.
Sprint Wimax is a crock.
aph said:
So watching this video inspired me to do a little real-world field testing.
I just got out of the Verizon store by Grand Central in NYC.
This is disappointing, because I was pricing out the Thunderbolt all day and almost signed up.
Side to side, Sprint beat Verizon at least 75% of the time. It was always 2-4MBps faster on the download (~8MBps vs ~4MBps or so). The other 25% of the time that Verizon was faster it was about 1MBps or less.
I checked coverage maps before I did this and Verizon has full dark red 4G coverage all over NYC, so it should be as fast as it can get. And I can't imagine there's a lot of congestion on their network the day after the phone came out.
Sprint on the other hand has only light green coverage (not dark green "best") in that area. Again, I was inside the store so LTE should have had the edge.
The latencies were comparable, both around 110ms. The only part that blew me away was Verizon's upload speed, about 38MBps compared to Sprint's 1MBps. But as we all know download is more important than upload.
Sorry to say, but LTE isn't all that it's cracked up to be, at least when and where I checked it for myself. Surprisingly, Sprint seems to hold the crown for 4G speeds at the moment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
jonathaflores said:
I think the problem with wimax is penetration, because I was at the park today in Philadelphia Pa(Center City). and I reached speeds of 8.04 Mbps but when I am at home (South Philadelphia)...I barely get 1.5Mbps...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was INSIDE the store , a good 20 yards away from any exit
rockky said:
OPPOSITE here in Chicago. Both had strong signals
Evo got hammered by the T-Bolt repeatedly on site downloads and speedyest apps. Not even close. ONE time in 15 minutes of test Evo beat TBolt and that's because I didn't hit the Url cleanly!
LTE Verizon + TBolt is fastest mobile phone experience to date. By a mile.
Sprint Wimax is a crock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Appreciate the feedback, but simply not so in NYC. So decidedly very regional.
You didn't get that high of an upload speed. I know your phone says you did, but you didn't. Google it.
Btw id drop sprint for verizon anytime, but the girl won't let me grrr
swyped from my cyanogenized and gingerbreaded EVO
Yay for WiMax, if I paid attention to my networking class correctly, WiMax will be expanding for faster up and download speeds in the next year or so.
twiz0r said:
You didn't get that high of an upload speed. I know your phone says you did, but you didn't. Google it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tried, got a link?
twiz0r said:
Btw id drop sprint for verizon anytime, but the girl won't let me grrr
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was planning on the same thing today until I ran the tests side by side.
I only get a download speed of about 2.5 MBps and upload of about 1.7 MBps in St. Louis.
And it kicks me off the 4G every 2-3 minutes. My 3G speeds are literally in the 100-200 KB/s range.
It's the most pathetic thing I've ever experienced. Can't believe I've got one of the best phones on the market with speeds as terrible as these.
I tried to download a beer drinking app the other day from my car and it took a good 10 minutes to download.
EDIT: The St. Louis, MO server is 25.80 miles away. My last test just got 107 KB/s download speed. I wish I were exaggerating.
aph said:
Tried, got a link?
I was planning on the same thing today until I ran the tests side by side.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
go to engadget and read their review on the Thunderbolt. They have a report from speedtest.net saying their app doesn't accurately test the upload speed of the phone. An update will be out shortly to fix the issue. I would assume other speed test sites are the same. The phone hooked up to a PC via hotspot produces much slower uploads than the "38" your phone told you it does cause it is tested correctly. All of that info is found in engadgets post.
aph said:
So watching [Link Removed] video inspired me to do a little real-world field testing.
I just got out of the Verizon store by Grand Central in NYC.
This is disappointing, because I was pricing out the Thunderbolt all day and almost signed up.
Side to side, Sprint beat Verizon at least 75% of the time. It was always 2-4MBps faster on the download (~8MBps vs ~4MBps or so). The other 25% of the time that Verizon was faster it was about 1MBps or less.
I checked coverage maps before I did this and Verizon has full dark red 4G coverage all over NYC, so it should be as fast as it can get. And I can't imagine there's a lot of congestion on their network the day after the phone came out.
Sprint on the other hand has only light green coverage (not dark green "best") in that area. Again, I was inside the store so LTE should have had the edge.
The latencies were comparable, both around 110ms. The only part that blew me away was Verizon's upload speed, about 38MBps compared to Sprint's 1MBps. But as we all know download is more important than upload.
Sorry to say, but LTE isn't all that it's cracked up to be, at least when and where I checked it for myself. Surprisingly, Sprint seems to hold the crown for 4G speeds at the moment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HAHA thats funny, i was at the same verizon store last week and i had the same results as well.
The things that will condemn Sprint's 4G in competition against Verizon's LTE have more to do with external factors than the technologies themselves.
Here in Houston is a perfect example. This was a debut WiMAX network, but has been largely abandoned (along with a ton of other cities) by Clear in favor of spending on new-market rollouts in places like Hemet, CA (I suppose the buffalo and trailer parks needed 10Mbps down on the go) and building worthless retail locations. The Sprint 4G map shows dead spots at a great many busy intersections here in town, and the Clear map shows no planned expansion to remedy the issue. Even Clear's current developmental floundering is set to come to a grinding halt as Clear runs out of debt capacity. Sprint can't/won't come riding to the rescue for two reasons: (1) Sprint shot its load on the network modernization project in December; (2) Sprint and Clear already had a falling out over the last few billion Clear wasted on retail locations instead of service and coverage upgrades. WiMAX coverage in most locations is unreliable and spotty (Try watching ESPN on Sprint TV next time you are on a highway as a passenger for more than 2 straight minutes) and that will almost assuredly not improve.
The bottom line is that Sprint and Clear have neither means nor unity of purpose required to deliver a solid, reliable nationwide 4G network. Verizon has deep pockets and only 1 management chain to control. Unless Sprint's modernization project is going to be truly revolutionary in what it delivers to the entire Sprint coverage footprint, Sprint's 4G just can't compete long-term against the Verizon money machine. I can already see the Verizon guy walking around with a Thunderbolt everywhere going "Is it streaming in HD now? ... Good." Verizon can and will deliver more dense and reliable 4G coverage than Sprint in the next couple of years.
I'm in Houston and I have a Thunderbolt for test purposes. Speedtests show download speeds of 18-40mb/s consistently, and I've also hit 50 mb/s occasionally. Upload speeds have been proven incorrect on the speedtest app, but when I go to the speedtest website and test uploads are showing 3-4mb/s.
Sprint Wimax doesn't work at my house so I leave it off most of the time. When it does work I normally get 3-5mb/s.
Clear is broke and i don't expect them to do much building out until they find an investor, but I don't see that happening. Tmobile was rumored to have some interest because they needed spectrum, but now with the AT&T deal this isn't gonna happen.
Sprint has signed a deal with Lightsquared and I expect to see LTE sooner rather than later. Lightsquared is backed by a private equity firm (it means they have money). Their goal is to build out a nationwide LTE network and be a wholesaler (unlike Clear who wanted so badly to have a successful retail operation). Sprint is a partner, and Cricket has also signed a deal with them. Sprint's deal with Lightsquared will also allow them to put their equipment on Sprint's towers so this well help with the build out. Previously Sprint wanted Clear to do the same and help coordinate the build out, but Clear refused and wanted to do their own thing. Lightsquared has spectrum I believe in the 1600mhz frequencies so penetration won't be an issue like 2500mhz wimax.
Check out Lightsquared's website for more info. They expect to have some consumer products available the 2nd half of 2011, and they say smartphones from partners in 2012. Everything I've posted I pieced together reading about Sprint and Lightsquared, but I think this makes a lot of sense.

Just switched from T-Mobile to Sprint and am getting much worse coverage...?

Couldn't really post my entire question in the title. But what I wanted to finish asking if it this was to be expected? I live in the south Houston region around League City(77573) where the coverage map claims that mostly I'll get optimal performance in and out doors. However my 3G speeds are a joke most of the time. Up at work, where my desk is right next to tons of windows, I get 5-6 bars constantly, but 3G speeds are constantly fluctuating. I recently transferred from T-Mobile and of course am using the Epic flashed with Syn. Frozen.
One test will yield 500-800ms ping, with 200-300 kbps down, 50-100kbps up, and SOMETIMES the upload will be higher than the download.
Sometimes I'll get 1200-1500kbps with about half of that as my upload, with around 100-200ms ping.
At home, in my house, I constantly get 0 to 1 bars constantly, and often enter data roaming. Speedtest results usually report 800ms(if it can even find a server), and about 30-100kbps down and even lower than that in upload.
I honestly didn't expect it to be this bad. Can anyone share their thoughts? I doubt its the device or the towers; I suspect its just a low quality network.
Welcome to the club of Sprints slowness. I kind of regret the switch as well but I had to leave Att. I'm in Atlanta and 4g constantly sleeps even downtown where I'm suppose to have the best connection. And 3g is slower than a Snail.
I hate "Top Flight Security Mods"
I would say your speeds of 1200 to 1500 down should be about average for 3g (I'm in ohio).
However network strength is a tricky subject as 9000 things can be going on at any given time. But I can not speak for your market. Sometimes sprint has the best tower alignment in an area, sometimes t-mobile, verizon, and I guess in theory at&t.
Honestly it sounds like you have 2 separate issues going on. The 3g bouncing around like that is not normal and sounds like something is going on.
Your house however sounds like you just have crappy coverage.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
crazynotion said:
.....Your house however sounds like you just have crappy coverage....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that is what I am also thinking, Daj don't put 100% on the 3g coverage map it is a joke and the 4g coverage map is even more of a joke like a hit and miss. I been with Sprint 13 yrs so I am already a pro on the areas that have 3g coverage and the limits/cut off signal level down here in S. Tx
I get 5-6 bars at work and depending on the time of day can get 400kbps, to 1.7mbps on 3G. I cannot really complain about the speeds I get...
At home though, I get bad coverage. Called Sprint and complained and they sent me an Airave free of charge. Now I get great speeds at home.
How much did u need to tell sprint to get that?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
When I had sprint for the past 10 years, signal at my house was terrible. In the past year, signal was drastically improved. T mobile has terrible signal at my house even now. It varies but sounds like you need an airave.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App
as retarded as this might sound i don't really want to go the airwave route. I just might just return the phone and get a g2. the airwave sounds like a half baked fix; ive NEVER talked to anyone in my life whos needed some sort of external apparatus(in this case itd be like having a hearing aide)to help them with their cell service and quite frankly, where i'm at, there really should be no excuse for the low signal.
Count your lucky stars... at work with full signal I get 50 kilobits down. Sometimes the speedtest won't even run. Halfway home this evening I was next to a tower with full signal again. 29 kilobits down / 90 kilobits up! WOOHOO!! Full 3G signal.
I roam on Verizon 3G quite a bit at work due to the slow speeds
Been a Sprint customer for over a decade and finally canceled service today due to having to put up with painfully slow 3G and spotty to no 4G coverage as compared to my new Verizon 4G LTE phone. Been hanging on hoping for improvement but it's wishful thinking.
If you update your prl and profile once a month to stay current your 3G should be fine. But thrn again some areas just have bad coverage.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
you can get tmobile family plan with 5 phones all with 200mb 4g for about 190 with university discount (google). I'm currently paying $270 for 5 phones with sprint w/ my university discount! i know its a little off topic but just throwing it out there..

How is AT&T's network (U.S.)?

I'm currently trying to decide which carrier to go with for the GS4, does anyone have experience with AT&T? I know they have a bad reputation for unreliability, has that improved at all? How is their coverage in the NJ/NY area?
NY/NJ are you referring to downstate NY, upstate wise its pretty good and frankly I was already leaving Verizon before today's announcement about the no early upgrades at 20 months crap and no using a MiFi or tablet line for an upgrade both of which are things I enjoyed so FU Verizon and hello AT&T.
RaptorMD said:
NY/NJ are you referring to downstate NY, upstate wise its pretty good and frankly I was already leaving Verizon before today's announcement about the no early upgrades at 20 months crap and no using a MiFi or tablet line for an upgrade both of which are things I enjoyed so FU Verizon and hello AT&T.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm referring specifically to central NJ and Brooklyn, NY (one of my family members commutes there).
snapple232 said:
I'm currently trying to decide which carrier to go with for the GS4, does anyone have experience with AT&T? I know they have a bad reputation for unreliability, has that improved at all? How is their coverage in the NJ/NY area?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I work for at&t.
It's an excellent service for people up north and I've never heard of a complaint from the region. Also, checking our private coverage viewer you seem to be fine around those locations.
Just know that for individual lines, at&t can be expensive.
Your entry level plans are as follows.
85$ for 1 gig of data and unlimited talk and text.
90$ for 3 gigs of data, 450 minutes to landlines, unlimited to other cellphones and unlimited text.
You can save been 4 to 12 dollars a month depending on where you work. Discounts can be added through paystubs or work emails.
After tax expect it to come to around 100 dollars a month.
snapple232 said:
I'm currently trying to decide which carrier to go with for the GS4, does anyone have experience with AT&T? I know they have a bad reputation for unreliability, has that improved at all? How is their coverage in the NJ/NY area?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've had every major carrier. I rate AT&T to be nearly as good as Verizon, personally, and faster data. I've used it in Washington D.C., los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, Indianapolis, and various other large cities and I've never had any complaints.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747
Verizon is much better in Chicago. Been with at&t since 2004 and have the same dead zones and during 9-5 hours downtown, the network is unusable. Verizon crushes at&t in reception and speed in Chicago. Fact.
And I'm an at&t customer. Lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
I know in South Jersey, AT&T is much better than Verizon. In fact, my girlfriend finally went on my plan because she was tired of not having very good coverage in Glendora, NJ.
cfn87 said:
Verizon is much better in Chicago. Been with at&t since 2004 and have the same dead zones and during 9-5 hours downtown, the network is unusable. Verizon crushes at&t in reception and speed in Chicago. Fact.
And I'm an at&t customer. Lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe, but it really depends on where you spend most of your time. When I was in Chicago I never lost a good signal for an entire weekend and my data speeds killed my friend on Verizon. Maybe we just didn't go to the AT&T dead zones.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747
I travel all over - rural and cities - the only place that I have ever strugged with AT&T in the past year has been San Francisco.
I came from 13 years of Sprint to AT&T for the first time today. All I can say is, nothing can be worse than Sprint. At least with AT&T, I get reception INDOORS. Good grief Sprint's indoor reception is just balls.
snapple232 said:
I'm referring specifically to central NJ and Brooklyn, NY (one of my family members commutes there).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Should be good especially in Brooklyn.
There are several android apps that compares cell phone coverage for any given area.
If you are using an android smart phone now you could download one and see what the coverage looks like according to the various cellmap / cell coverage apps
[Also ask your relatives in the areas that they live in to do the same!]
I used one app called: Cell Maps Mobile Coverage (I think) and it was quite accurate for my area and the different service providers. I was lucky to hit the right provider without it, but I can say that what the app provided in results matched what I had seen!
My opinion:
#1. Coverage is the key more than anything.
Check the area where you are going to use the phone. Don't use the provider maps of coverage -they are pretty useless. Get an app like I mentioned and drive arround. Ask folks who are in the area what phone service they have there. We on XDA are all over the world and that won't help you (much).
#2. AT&T coverage in lower NYC, SI and Jersey-opposite the city for me has been fine.
Service is also important, (but not as important) I am in California and have used AT&T for years now. But I visit family and friends in Staten Island and the NYC area and my AT&T coverage has been very good. Including in Jersey area across the river. Every now and then I can hit a weak spot, but no serious complaints.
#3. Service is also important (but not as important as coverage)
I like the personal service of AT&T, especially their call-in phone support operators (their stores are not so hot. . .) I had VZ for years and Verizon was not really good at listening or caring for my problems or questions. AT&T is really good at that.
However, AT&T is also pretty expensive. They say they are not, but it just doesn't seem to work out that way! (Verizon is close!) Some folks who could do AT&T for good phone coverage use Straight Talk for their good price. Although they seem to have zero personal suppport service --at least for most people I have talked with. (my opinion only).
#4. Bottom line: If you can't talk, you might as well not have the phone, so number one priority is to get an app and to test the coverage in the target area.
Then go with the company that gives you the best coverage. (price and service come after coverage!)
Good Luck!

Resources