I couldn't agree more with the points raised by Engadget, however, on the Sprint front, while I also agree that their (customer) service sorely needs improvement, their actual service (call quality, data) is simply outstanding.
As a former Verizon customer (since the Primeco PCS days) and existing AT&T customer (work phone), I can say that Sprint's nationwide coverage and overall quality is top notch.
Here's hoping that Dan Hesse follows through on his promise of delivering quality customer service.
agreed.... i would much rather have a better network vs better customer service just because you use their network a hell of a lot more than you would call their cust service people (hell ive only called cust service once in the past 2 yrs on my cell phone).
and sprints 3g network is as good as anybody's which is a big plus imo for this phone because 3g data is vital for these "internet powered" phones.
The quality of Sprint's network is heavily location-dependent. Every test I've seen that lauds Sprint and its 3G network tested it in large urban areas (NYC, Boston, Dallas, Chicago, LA). Where I live, however, Sprint doesn't even cover the suburbs adequately, much less the more rural areas. AT&T and Verizon are far better. A cursory perusal of Sprint's coverage maps suggest that many areas of the country are similar. Not everyone lives in the urban core, despite what tech bloggers seem to think.
every place is like that.... for instance tmobile and at&t are horrible in my city (verizon has always been too expensive for me to try). sprints network in my city was far better than anything else ive used. and i imagine every city is like that.
but you really should turn on that 3g data map at&t has.... they cover almost nothing in texas outside the biggest cities where sprint covers most anywhere they have cell service with 3g.
Get over it guys, mobile networks in the USA suck, period. I don't know why - I usually hear "large area" but I have reception problems and call drops in the frickin' SF bay area, silicon valley, center of the tech world. It's not a large area, and it's densely populated. So WTF.
Compare this to Europe or Asia - call drops are unheard of and reception problems are something you get when you are somewhere out in the woods hiking. Not in the center of a major population center.
Sprint was fantastic for me for the 8 years i was with 'em... too bad there's no CDMA iPhone or i'd still be with them.
By comparison, AT&T feels years behind.
Sprint was the best (and least expensive) coverage i ever had. It's a shame the Pre didn't come out along side the first gen iPhone, i may have stayed with Sprint. ...the other "iPhone Killers" Sprint had were embarrassing.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I couldn't agree more with the points raised by Engadget, however, on the Sprint front, while I also agree that their (customer) service sorely needs improvement, their actual service (call quality, data) is simply outstanding.
As a former Verizon customer (since the Primeco PCS days) and existing AT&T customer (work phone), I can say that Sprint's nationwide coverage and overall quality is top notch.
Here's hoping that Dan Hesse follows through on his promise of delivering quality customer service.
agreed.... i would much rather have a better network vs better customer service just because you use their network a hell of a lot more than you would call their cust service people (hell ive only called cust service once in the past 2 yrs on my cell phone).
and sprints 3g network is as good as anybody's which is a big plus imo for this phone because 3g data is vital for these "internet powered" phones.
The quality of Sprint's network is heavily location-dependent. Every test I've seen that lauds Sprint and its 3G network tested it in large urban areas (NYC, Boston, Dallas, Chicago, LA). Where I live, however, Sprint doesn't even cover the suburbs adequately, much less the more rural areas. AT&T and Verizon are far better. A cursory perusal of Sprint's coverage maps suggest that many areas of the country are similar. Not everyone lives in the urban core, despite what tech bloggers seem to think.
every place is like that.... for instance tmobile and at&t are horrible in my city (verizon has always been too expensive for me to try). sprints network in my city was far better than anything else ive used. and i imagine every city is like that.
but you really should turn on that 3g data map at&t has.... they cover almost nothing in texas outside the biggest cities where sprint covers most anywhere they have cell service with 3g.
Get over it guys, mobile networks in the USA suck, period. I don't know why - I usually hear "large area" but I have reception problems and call drops in the frickin' SF bay area, silicon valley, center of the tech world. It's not a large area, and it's densely populated. So WTF.
Compare this to Europe or Asia - call drops are unheard of and reception problems are something you get when you are somewhere out in the woods hiking. Not in the center of a major population center.
Sprint was fantastic for me for the 8 years i was with 'em... too bad there's no CDMA iPhone or i'd still be with them.
By comparison, AT&T feels years behind.
Sprint was the best (and least expensive) coverage i ever had. It's a shame the Pre didn't come out along side the first gen iPhone, i may have stayed with Sprint. ...the other "iPhone Killers" Sprint had were embarrassing.