Sprint ok's FREE HOT SPOT on 2.2 and teethering

[MrHawaii]

Originally Posted by boredandtattooed

and an EVO is no more capable of being a bandwidth hog than any of the other several 1ghz devices out already.... non 4G customers will barely be able to use more band than they already do now on current devices

That may or may not be true, I wouldn't have data to back it up either way. They are surely speculating we will use more with features never really used in the US before like video conferencing. I would think that takes up a lot more bandwidth than anything else we do today. When I get my first bill with one full month of service, if it's on there I will compare kb usage with the EVO from the TP2.

Lets say for this discussion it is true, I use the same amount of bandwidth with my EVO on 3G/4G than I did with my TP2 on 3G. Heck, lets say I used less. Wouldn't the cost to maintain both networks for me to use when I'm ready to use it be more than the one network alone?

Look at it this way, (these numbers are purely speculation) if the cost to run one 3G site 24/7 for one month is $100. The cost to run one 4G site, which is cheaper, (what Hesse actually said) for 24/7 for one month is $50. The cost for them to run both sites, for me an EVO user to use when I am ready, is more than the cost of either site on it's own.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by MrHawaii

That may or may not be true, I wouldn't have data to back it up either way. They are surely speculating we will use more with features never really used in the US before like video conferencing. I would think that takes up a lot more bandwidth than anything else we do today. When I get my first bill with one full month of service, if it's on there I will compare kb usage with the EVO from the TP2.

Lets say for this discussion it is true, I use the same amount of bandwidth with my EVO on 3G/4G than I did with my TP2 on 3G. Heck, lets say I used less. Wouldn't the cost to maintain both networks for me to use when I'm ready to use it be more than the one network alone?

Look at it this way, (these numbers are purely speculation) if the cost to run one 3G site 24/7 for one month is $100. The cost to run one 4G site, which is cheaper, (what Hesse actually said) for 24/7 for one month is $50. The cost for them to run both sites, for me an EVO user to use when I am ready, is more than the cost of either site on it's own.

#1: Whether it costs more or not, Hesse said we would not be charged more. Period.

#2: Most of us don't have 4G where we live anyway, so your point is moot.

[MrHawaii]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

Did you watch the video I posted? He clearly says it is like getting HD from the cable company, and then says but they charge extra to get HD- with 4G we're giving you HD for free, because we're not charging any extra...

Last I checked, you still get the SD channels when you upgrade to the HD package. So your whole point is wrong.

Yes I did. In post 46 I requoted what tool2269 quoted for this portion of the vid. In the beginning of the quote Hesse said "4G" meaning 4G alone and 3G + 4G. When there are devices that operate on 4G alone, it should be cheaper than 3G alone or 3G/4G combo.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by MrHawaii

Yes I did. In post 46 I requoted what tool2269 quoted for this portion of the vid. In the beginning of the quote Hesse said "4G" meaning 4G alone and 3G + 4G. When there are devices that operate on 4G alone, it should be cheaper than 3G alone or 3G/4G combo.

No, you're wrong. he clearly said it is like upgrading to HD, only when you upgrade to HD you get charged extra, with 4G it is free because they are not charging extra.

Again, when you upgrade to the HD package at any cable company, you still get all the SD channels too. So you're wrong.

Watch the video again if you need to. But you are just wrong with this ridiculous point that "we're not paying extra for 4G, we're paying extra because we still have 3G" or whatever.

It's hillarious the extent some fanboys will go to try to twist Hesse's words into NOT saying it would be no extra charge, lol.

[MrHawaii]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

#1: Whether it costs more or not, Hesse said we would not be charged more. Period.

I ask you again, show me where he says 3G+4G users would not be charged any more than 3G users. You won't because he is talking about 4G only users. You are only hearing the parts you want to hear when you watch the video. Don't just take one line from that statement where he says it will cost no more or it will be free of charge. I showed you in my earlier post if you take one part of what someone said, it can sound like something totally different. If you forgot lets see it again.

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

#1: I'm pretty...

If you take it into full context, he is saying the cost of and charge to subscribers to deliver 4G alone content will be no more than it is to deliver 3G alone content currently.

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

#2: Most of us don't have 4G where we live anyway, so your point is moot.

This part I agree with. My biggest gripe was for those of us who doesn't live in a 4G area. I do, so for me fortunately it doesn't affect me but I understand how it will suck for those of you who don't.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by MrHawaii

I ask you again, show me where he says 3G+4G users would not be charged any more than 3G users. You won't because he is talking about 4G only users. You are only hearing the parts you want to hear when you watch the video. Don't just take one line from that statement where he says it will cost no more or it will be free of charge. I showed you in my earlier post if you take one part of what someone said, it can sound like something totally different. If you take it into full context, he is saying the cost of and charge to subscribers to deliver 4G alone content will be no more than it is to deliver 3G alone content currently.

Again, he used cable and HD as an example. With cable, you get BOTH SD AND HD when you upgrade to the HD. So clearly, he was talking about BOTH 3G AND 4G.
How about this, YOU show ME where he says he is NOT talking about 3G and 4G. You can't, because he didn't. And since the example he gave included BOTH SD and HD, and he flat out said we would not be getting charged anymore than we are now, then it would be on you to prove he actually meant something else.

Originally Posted by MrHawaii

This part I agree with. My biggest gripe was for those of us who doesn't live in a 4G area. I do, so for me fortunately it doesn't affect me but I understand how it will suck for those of you who don't.

I don't live in a 4G area. In fact, with 4G only in 11 states out of 50, most of the nation doesn't live in a 4G area.

[MrHawaii]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

How about this, YOU show ME where he says he is NOT talking about 3G and 4G. You can't, because he didn't.

Deal, I will use the same post that tool2269 tried to use to prove y'alls point. I will underline where Hesse says and is talking about 4G only. You then show me where he is talking about 3G+4G.

Originally Posted by tool2269

[URL]

while speaking to the host "steve" dan says the following

9:34AM With 4G, "because we can produce a gigabyte cheaper, we can offer more to the customer."

9:35AM "It's like standard def versus high def, but with that analogy, you paid more for the better service. With 4G, we're giving you more for free."


of course thats out of context...heres exact quote:


"4G, we can offer because we can produce a gigabyte cheaper, we actually offer more. A good analogy that has been used for 4G, and 3G, and 2G, is kind of moving from Dial-up data at home, to low speed DSL, to a cable modem and then to faster speeds. Or in TV terms, standard def versus high def, but if you looked at those models, you paid more for faster speeds. You paid more for the HD channels. In essence what we're doing with 4G is we're throwing in the HD channels for free, because we're not charging any more and we're giving customer's more."

I will give you the HD analogy, but if I give you the HD analogy I am taking the home internet analogy. Because with home internet you don't continue to use the previous service if you upgarde to the newer one.

I would like to call special attention to this part here:

Originally Posted by tool2269

"4G, we can offer because we can produce a gigabyte cheaper, we actually offer more. A good analogy that has been used for 4G, and 3G, and 2G, is kind of moving from Dial-up data at home, to low speed DSL, to a cable modem..."

Notice he starts off by saying "4G" not 3G+4G, he continues with an analogy explaining the steps of 4G, 3G, and 2G like that of home internet.

In this one paragraph (in the same paragraph that is trying to be used to prove your point) I count 4 times in which he clearly states or refers to 4G as a standalone service when comparing to 3G. I count 1 time where an analogy he used could be misunderstood as referring to 4G in combination with 3G. I honestly think it was a bad analogy.

Now your turn, find me times where Hesse said 4G in combination with 3G use will cost no more or cost less than 3G alone. Please keep your quotes accurate and in context. Thank you.

[marctronixx]

you guys have all showed those of us watching this thread that you can clearly get two different meanings from what someone says.

let me help...

those of you who feel dan lied to you about the cost of 4g, fight back! do so by not spending any more money with the company. dont even purchase the evo. wait for another carrier to offer a suitable replacement and one that does not do a bait and switch (which those of you who say dan lied about 4g has done) and spend your money there.

those who feel dan did not lie then continue to support the company and purchase their products and services.

there will always be one more rebuttal unless you guys agree to disagree...

this is like those " last one to post wins" threads...

each of you all have made a compelling argument! lets move on. im just trying to help as it seems the focus of this thread has been lost and is going out of control...

[MrHawaii]

Originally Posted by marctronixx

you guys have all showed those of us watching this thread that you can clearly get two different meanings from what someone says.

let me help...

those of you who feel dan lied to you about the cost of 4g, fight back! do so by not spending any more money with the company. dont even purchase the evo. wait for another carrier to offer a suitable replacement and one that does not do a bait and switch (which those of you who say dan lied about 4g has done) and spend your money there.

those who feel dan did not lie then continue to support the company and purchase their products and services.

there will always be one more rebuttal unless you guys agree to disagree...

this is like those " last one to post wins" threads...

each of you all have made a compelling argument! lets move on. im just trying to help as it seems the focus of this thread has been lost and is going out of control...

Thanks. Agreed. It is almost like that game Telestrations. Oh it is so fun. You take a word or phrase that someone writes down and you try to draw it. You pass your drawing to another person who without looking at the original word tries to guess what you drew. You then pass that to someone else who tries to draw what the other person guessed without looking at the orignal word or drawing. You do this a couple times and see what the last drawing/guess comes out as compared to the original. So fun.

[gTen]

MrHawaii he clearly said it would be free..your trying to go too far...i'll give a good example look.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is an amendment of the constitution granted free speech..but congress can order to shoot the people that speak freely because no where does it say congress can't punish those that speak freely..