User: TDBearCT
These are the most recent forum messages posted by TDBearCT:
I have to agree...
... with the previous two posters. T-Mobile is honest about how phone subsidies work, and if you have the ability to pay up front for your phone you can save a significant amount of money over the lifetime of a contract (or potentially go contract free for a similar price point).
Insurance is not bundled with other carriers-- if I did not pay for insurance on my AT&T or Sprint phone I'm in the same boat as a T-Mobile customer.
And ...
Re: Blazing
I was a long time T-Mobile customer who switched to AT&T a number of years ago. T-Mobile had surprisingly solid 2G coverage throughout Connecticut, with the only dead spots being areas of the Litchfield hills.I cannot comment on their HSPA+ network because my current phones do not support AWS.
It should be noted that as of today T-Mobile has not refarmed any of their HSPA+ network to the cellular / PCS bands in CT, the first step to having LTE ...
Re: Still no LTE in Hartford
I've never had issues with Sprint, but then again I have a SERO plan that is pretty sweet-- AND they have decent 4G coverage in the areas I travel (NYC, Boston and most of Connecticut).
The only thing that is keeping me from cancelling the Sprint line is AT&Ts lack of 4G where I live and work.
FWIW I tested AT&Ts 4G in NYC and New Haven and I was getting better data rates from Sprint 4G. When I was in ...
Re: Still no LTE in Hartford
That is true, but it's disappointing that there is LTE service in five of the six largest cities in Connecticut but not the largest one.
Still no LTE in Hartford
You would think with the number of insurance companies based in the capital city, they would have deployed here already.
Sorry, just venting my frustration that pretty much every carrier EXCEPT AT&T has 4G service where I live and work. Even Sprint (mind you, it's WiMax, but still).
Data speeds
Has anyone compared data speeds on the LTE network (compared to the HSPA+ network). I was in Boston and New Haven CT over the summer and had phenomenal speeds, but last week down in New York City I was getting speeds slower than HSPA+ (and yes, both times the LTE icon was displayed on the phone).
Re: HSPA+ on all bands?
From the T-Mobile website:
UMTS: Band I (2100);UMTS: Band IV (AWS);UMTS: Band V (850)
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/Phones/ cell-phone-detail.aspx?cell-phone=Samsung-Gal axy-S-III-Pebble-Blue-16GB
Re: Planned availability
Now it's when hell freezes over.
Sorry, just frustrated that AT&T / Samsung missed two delivery dates in a row. But the local T-Mobile stores have it, maybe it's time to change carriers.
Re: Planned availability
Now it's June 28th,
Re: HSPA+ on all bands?
Bad news... the specs are wrong:
UMTS 850 / AWS / 2100
So if you're in an AT&T area with HSPA+ in the PCS band you're SOL.
HSPA+ on all bands?
Does anyone know if HSPA+ is available on all bands? I am considering buying this phone full price from T-Mobile, unlocking it and using it on AT&T until I can get off-contract.
Planned availability
June 21st for people who have pre-ordered the phone, June 24th for the general public.
Re: Only the 16Gb version...
Actually both. If at&t had LTE in my area, I'd live without the extra 16mb (although the choice to not carry the 32gb version seems arbitrary). If the phone has 32gb, I'd live without the LTE since I know it will eventually be available.
My Sprint line is up for renewal in September, and the local Rep thinks that LTE may be up by then around here (which is doubtful, but I'll take her at her word). I'll proabaly wait.
Re: Only the 16Gb version...
Agreed.
Right now, Verizon has LTE coverage in my area (home, office) and Sprint has WiMax. Nearest AT&T LTE is 15 miles south of me.
I desperately want to get down to a single phone for voice and data, but although I love my EVO the battery life leave a lot to be desired (and is the main reason I won't buy a data-centric phone without a removable battery).
If Sprint LTE was available here I'd jump in a heartbeat, close down ...
Re: No 64GB version?
I use my android phone as a storage device for work. I was hoping to do 64gb + 64gb SD card. I really have files that large that I transfer between work and home.
Re: Only the 16Gb version...
My backup phone is on Sprint, but without LTE the Sprint S3 would just be a toy. I may go back to T-Mobile at this point or (gasp) big red.
Re: The silence from Big Blue is deafening...
Last one out of the gate, and they're only offering the 16Gb version.
Only the 16Gb version...
... they are kidding, right?
I need to get out of contract so that I can move to a carrier that actually has 4G in my area, and doesn't do things half arse.
The silence from Big Blue is deafening...
Four of the five major carriers have announced their release date for the S3. The only holdout... AT&T. I wonder if they think they can sneak in a product change, like removing NFC, or up the price without anyone noticing.
Re: No 64GB version?
The quad core processor, although the dual core processor scores better than the quad core in real world testing.
I suspect the 64gb version is in the cards, since it could be used as a leverage point between the S3 and the iPhone 4S.
Re: Samsung, smart, very smart!
Well the One X was released in the US not long after the European versions.
I'm still getting the Galaxy S3 because I think it's optimistic for a high-powered phone to have a battery last two years.
Re: All with the same name?
I suspect there will be two basic versions-- CDMA/LTE and GSM/LTE. The CDMA/LTE version will be used by Verizon and Sprint, the GSM/LTE version will be used by AT&T and T-Mobile.
Re: Metro uses AWS for LTE right?
I think three of the four largest US carriers have some AWS spectrum-- the only hold-out would be Sprint, who is using 800/850/1900 for their LTE network.
Now wouldn't it be nice for us consumers if:
- The LTE carriers developed networks using a common spectrum
- Instituted roaming agreements
It would allow all carriers to build out over time, lowering their roaming costs as they build out their own networks.
The surprise of the year...
:)
Will this have Google Wallet?
If so, I'm in...
What they say and what they mean...
What they are saying is:
Allowing users unrestricted access to their phones operating system can jeopardize the security of their customers data and the reliability of the Verizon network if phones are compromised and used for a DDoS attack.
Which is TRUE.
What they did not say is:
Allowing unlocked bootloaders also allows customers to use their phones in a manner that prevents Verizon from collecting additional revenue (such as tethering fees) and discourages users from upgrading phones (and signing lucrative long-term ...
Darn you, AT&T...
... you couldn't leave well enough alone, you had to downgrade the processor.
Re: Could Sprint have a new target ?
Sprint will not attempt to acquire T-Mobile. T-Mobile has an entirely different infrastructure, and Sprint already knows what a disaster running multiple incompatible networks is.
Both MetroPCS and US Cellular are better fits, because they currently have CDMA infrastructures and are migrating to LTE (something that is already in Sprint's roadmap). Both carriers are probably roaming partners with Sprint now, making a migration even easier.
Re: Sour Garpes?
In the case of T-Mobile, I think they are more concerned about being locked out of AWS spectrum which Verizon would purchase and potentially not use (or sell/trade with a smaller carrier).
Re: So what does this mean for Sprint?
Remember that Sprint has spectrum in four separate technologies now: IDEN, CMDA, WiMax and LTE. I believe they are planning on decommissioning the IDEN network in favor of an all CDMA (or hybrid CDMA/LTE) solution, which may allow them to reuse the IDEN bandwidth for other uses.
Build-out is the issue, they don't have the $$$.
And why is AT&T complaining...
... you would think Verizon and the regional carriers would be the ones complaining.
Unless AT&T is talking about RoadRunner or some other joint deployment effort for rural areas.
Eminent Domain
Is there some form of eminent domain clause in spectrum licensing, where a carrier can lose the rights to the spectrum if it is not used (or they cannot show a viable plan for its use)?
And the name will be...
Bazen? Tida?
Oh, I know....
TADA!
Re: He's right...
No, actually I don't...
Either way, AT&T will raise their prices. They'll just use the "we don't have enough bandwidth / the FCC worked us over, waah waah waah" argument if they don't get the merger approved.
No LTE?
Will there be LTE support on the Galaxy Nexus Global?
He's right...
... blocking the merger will cause AT&T to raise their prices, since their network cannot handle the amount of traffic on it (both now and in the future).
If the merger is permitted, the combined company most certainly will raise prices since they will be the only nationwide GSM carrier in the US.
For AT&T customers, it's a lose-lose situation.
This is good for both parties...
1. Unlimited plans will cause more customers to defect from AT&T to Verizon, which will hopefully bring down the congestion on the AT&T network.
1a. The likelihood that the Verizon network will be swamped by unlimited iPhones is partially mitigated by the "no simultaneous voice and data" limitation.
2. This may force AT&T to start offering an unlimited iPhone plan again.
As another poster stated-- people want an unlimited plan not because they would use unlimited data, but for the assurance that ...
Re: maybe their just smarter
This has always been T-Mobile's strategy. In the US, they never deploy bleeding edge technology. They wait until the other carriers deploy first generation infrastructure (i.e. base stations, antennas) and do their deployment when second generation infrastructure is available (and they can see the mistakes that the other carriers made).
Re: Sprint coverage?
Actually, no, that is not true.
Compare this map for Sprint native coverage:
http://www.virginmobileusa.com/c heck-cell-phone-coverage
to this map for Verizon native coverage (dark purple):
http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com /dotcom/coveragelocator/Default.aspx?requestt ype=NEWREQUEST?requesttype=newsearch&coverage type=prepay
Sprint has roaming agreements with Verizon and other roaming partners, which makes their network appear muck larger. Verizon has similar agreements with Sprint and the same roaming partners, so in effect both carriers have a similar footprint (native and non-native).
FWIW Sprint's native coverage is much better than it was a few years ago, but it is nowhere near Verizon's coverage. ...
Apple Tax???
Could this be in preparation for announcement of a new smartphone for Sprint?
(older messages not shown)
