dan@sprint.com response I got

[ubigred]

Originally Posted by travisr528

I am really tired of hearing about the $10 charge. How else are they going to pay for building up the 4G network. Sprint takes a 18% profit margin, compared to Att and Verizons 40 sum percent. Think about the difference between PS3's and Xbox. I have a PS3 but Xbox's features and support blow it out the water, Why paid service vs. free service (Xbox wins). I don't like the charges but I understand why, and will pay for it. Everybody that wants to complain, pick another phone, the $10 a month charge problem will be solved. You just wont have an EVO.

18% OUCH LOL

Well that explains why they couldn't hold on to NFL Mobile...damn that would be sweeeet on the EVO

[gTen]

Originally Posted by travisr528

I am really tired of hearing about the $10 charge. How else are they going to pay for building up the 4G network. Sprint takes a 18% profit margin, compared to Att and Verizons 40 sum percent. Think about the difference between PS3's and Xbox. I have a PS3 but Xbox's features and support blow it out the water, Why paid service vs. free service (Xbox wins). I don't like the charges but I understand why, and will pay for it. Everybody that wants to complain, pick another phone, the $10 a month charge problem will be solved. You just wont have an EVO.

Saying Sprint is 18% profit margin is like saying

"Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches."

Lets look at it this way..take sprint default plan of 69.99..18% profit means the plan costs them $57.39..now they have boost mobile where the plan is $50 unlimited plan..are you saying they are purposely loosing 7$ per person a month?

If by profit margin you mean per plan then don't forget sprint provides a lot of cheap plans for government and etc at bulk costs.

If by profit margin you mean as a whole..sprint management is HORRIBLE..not to mention they are on a buying streak this and last year and bought liek 3 prepaid providers, and a few affiliates and then the Clearwire thing....not to mention eating the loss of Nextel.

[travisr528]

Originally Posted by ajac

hmmm sprint still is making a profit and shouldn't use this an excuse to get more money if they cant afford the venture shouldn't have tried now their putting it on their customers backs because they cant afford to build this grand 4g market and 4g has always been paid for by the customer they just increased the price of it. The 10 dollar fee per month wouldn't be so bad if they had either A. not said 4g was giving more for free at CTIA and B if they made it optional if you wanna use 4g. They complaint it will be a data hog.. so are all smart phones. So take on a 10 dollar fee for every smart phone.

Businesses need to turn a profit to stay in business, that's how things work. If you don't like it, then don't buy the phone. Simple, problem solved.

Originally Posted by gTen

Saying Sprint is 18% profit margin is like saying

"Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches."

Lets look at it this way..take sprint default plan of 69.99..18% profit means the plan costs them $57.39..now they have boost mobile where the plan is $50 unlimited plan..are you saying they are purposely loosing 7$ per person a month?

Yeah and why do you think they are the #3 carrier instead of the #1 carrier.

Originally Posted by gTen

If by profit margin you mean per plan then don't forget sprint provides a lot of cheap plans for government and etc at bulk costs.

If by profit margin you mean as a whole..sprint management is HORRIBLE..not to mention they are on a buying streak this and last year and bought liek 3 prepaid providers, and a few affiliates and then the Clearwire thing....not to mention eating the loss of Nextel.

Companies do not always turn a profit on every product they sell, they have some items that are sold at cost to attract business, and other that are sold at a higher margin to make a profit.
My point is that your plan is cheaper than ATT and Big V. So if you don't want to pay for the service, pick another phone, and live without 4G.

[gTen]

Originally Posted by travisr528

Yeah and why do you think they are the #3 carrier instead of the #1 carrier.

Cause they have less subscribers then everyone else who merged together?and their merge was with Nextel which wasn't even a cdma carrier?

and cause they always had crappy phones? ( I mean they made a big deal out of the instinct )..their management make monkeys look like professors...lets see what else..oh and they can't advertise for their lives? Their CS at one point was the worst for a LONG TIME.

Companies do not always turn a profit on every product they sell, they have some items that are sold at cost to attract business, and other that are sold at a higher margin to make a profit.
My point is that your plan is cheaper than ATT and Big V. So if you don't want to pay for the service, pick another phone, and live without 4G.

No they don't but you gotta realize even on a 30$/month plan they are making a profit. It is just not as big of a profit. Most of sprint's marginal costs are for other reasons.

Also you have to remember that sprint is making money on boost mobile and virgin mobile using the current network that they have. Not ot mention clearwire as well.

[tj.iscool]

Originally Posted by travisr528

Businesses need to turn a profit to stay in business, that's how things work. If you don't like it, then don't buy the phone. Simple, problem solved.


Yeah and why do you think they are the #3 carrier instead of the #1 carrier.


Companies do not always turn a profit on every product they sell, they have some items that are sold at cost to attract business, and other that are sold at a higher margin to make a profit.
My point is that your plan is cheaper than ATT and Big V. So if you don't want to pay for the service, pick another phone, and live without 4G.

They #3 because they network pretty much sucks compared to #1 Verizon

[idkmyhtcpro]

Originally Posted by tj.iscool

They #3 because they network pretty much sucks compared to #1 Verizon

Please explain how Sprints network sucks compared to Verizon when Sprint roams on Verizon. I have sprint because the cost of the plans are the best, voice quality is better than anyone else (including verizon), and the data rocks.

To stay on subject, I know I'm finding a way to afford the extra $10 in my budget. You want to best, you have to pay for it. Nuff said.

[akayareal]

Originally Posted by travisr528

I am really tired of hearing about the $10 charge. How else are they going to pay for building up the 4G network. Sprint takes a 18% profit margin, compared to Att and Verizons 40 sum percent. Think about the difference between PS3's and Xbox. I have a PS3 but Xbox's features and support blow it out the water, Why paid service vs. free service (Xbox wins). I don't like the charges but I understand why, and will pay for it. Everybody that wants to complain, pick another phone, the $10 a month charge problem will be solved. You just wont have an EVO.

Now this I can vouch for. I have both the 360 and the PS3 and I can say if I bought the PS3 for online gaming I would have returned it. I've only had it for a little over a month now and are constantly kicked off the PS network. The 360 the other hand has only had one online problem since I had it (since it came out) and that was game related (COD 4).

Now when talking about it only depends on network speed and not processor speed is not true. Its a combination. I have a 3 mouth old Macbook Pro with a 2.53 dual core processor and a 2 1/2 yr old Gateway without a dual core processor and believe me the processor plays a huge part in download speeds and page loads. A perfect example is both of them running skype on the same network doing a video call, the Mac running Windows 7 will run with no chop in speech and very little video lag if any at all. The Gateway on the other had may have a 3-7 sec video freeze, broken record effect when something being said gets stuck on repeat for a few secs before it clears up. And they both also have 4gb of ram installed and brand new hard drives that are only weeks apart.

[Mswezey]

Originally Posted by akayareal

Now when talking about it only depends on network speed and not processor speed is not true. Its a combination. I have a 3 mouth old Macbook Pro with a 2.53 dual core processor and a 2 1/2 yr old Gateway without a dual core processor and believe me the processor plays a huge part in download speeds and page loads. A perfect example is both of them running skype on the same network doing a video call, the Mac running Windows 7 will run with no chop in speech and very little video lag if any at all. The Gateway on the other had may have a 3-7 sec video freeze, broken record effect when something being said gets stuck on repeat for a few secs before it clears up. And they both also have 4gb of ram installed and brand new hard drives that are only weeks apart.

Processor speed as nothing to do with how fast data comes in or goes out through the network.

Now the processor does effect how it processes the data coming in and going out.

Now with that comes page load times that you are viewing on your desktop, which by todays standards any dual core should load up the page fast after it's received the data from the network. What comes in effect is how efficient your browser uses your CPU to do this. Future browsers (HTML5) are going to have the CPU and GPU working together to process pages which should further the speed in which page loads AFTER it receives all the data from the network.

you have a 2 1/2 year old gateway but you didn't state what your running on it? and you have to take in effect what quality your webcam/microphone is and what bit rate you are sending and receiving through skype.

So to say that your example was the perfect example is false.

But I'm not trying to step on your toes, start a fight, or anything. Just informing you and everyone else. just saying

[gTen]

Originally Posted by Mswezey

Processor speed as nothing to do with how fast data comes in or goes out through the network.

Actually it does a bit...you can actually improve latency by offloading the CRC checks on the packets. This has been proven even in gaming network cards with built in processors helped improve latency. It also can allow for more threads to run thus maxing out the connection better.

[Mswezey]

Originally Posted by gTen

Actually it does a bit...you can actually improve latency by offloading the CRC checks on the packets. This has been proven even in gaming network cards with built in processors helped improve latency. It also can allow for more threads to run thus maxing out the connection better.

Yes, and No. But for the most part no.

And we are talking about loading web pages and skype, not fast paced first person shooters. So as long as you have a good latency, you'll be find.
But latency has nothing to do with downloading speed, as long as your latency is in an acceptable range.

I'm saying if I had my Mobile Intel 2 Duo 2.1 Ghz vs and my AMD Phenom II 3x 720 OC to 3.8 GHz that I nor would anyone else have improvement in downloading speed.