Quote:
Originally Posted by breakmyfootoff
Thats exactly it though, I'm not getting ripped off. Yes, I'm paying more, but I'm also getting better 3g coverage and the phone I wanted that isnt available with any other carrier. I would be willing to pay more than I'm paying now to a different provider if that provider offered even more complete 3g coverage and a phone that I wanted. We just have different priorities.
|
Yeah, it really comes down to priorities. From my perspective,
It's hard to say what's considered better 3G coverage. about a year ago, Gizmodo did a Coast to Coast 3G test, and Sprint came out on top in the most cities, and at least was very close to the other leaders in the cities it lost concerning 3G. This past summer, PCWorld/PCMag (can't remember which one off the top of my head) did an independent test across the US and Sprint was marked as most reliable. When you compare 3G map area, I'd say sprint's network coverage in areas worth comparing are almost on par with Verizon. Seriously who really needs 3G out in the middle of a nevada desert (for example), in most scenarios. Yet just because Verizon's 3G map has a little bit more 3G coverage in an area I most likely will never travel to, it's better? Or, it's better in certain cities vs other cities?
Given these things, in my opinion, I would be getting ripped off paying more for what I would say is comparable service when I can get it a lot cheaper. You're right about the phone, I may not have the phone selection I want at the moment. But at least I'm saving my money, which is a priority to me, and I have faith that the company will sooner or later give me a phone that I want. Because sooner or later, someone is bound to offer the same services at a cost that meets my expectations and then I can get the phone I want with it. Until then I have a phone I picked that can do a lot of the same functions the new phones offer.