New SERO Oct 1st

[beserker15]

nerys, everyone understands your point about the same technology/gas analogy. No one denies that fact. Yes, these new iconic phones uses the same 3G tech that we have been using for years. I would love to use them without the $10 fee as well...as does anyone who is reading this thread.

However, why do you also keep insisting that using more of their service is not costing them more? If everyone all of a sudden switches from using 500mb/month to 5gb/month, are you saying it costs Sprint absolutely nothing to maintain this new increase in use? Sprint doesn't own all of their towers. Cell phone carriers often rents them out from other places. An increase in use means an increase in costs either to maintain their own towers or the costs to rent out the towers. If everyone sticks to non-iconic devices, then Sprint will have less of an issue. You keep saying what happens when there are no more SERO compatible devices, are you also saying Sprint will switch purely to smartphones? Because you know, the majority of cell phone users in the market are not heavy data users and will prefer the simplicity of featured phones.

Also, since you keep trying to push your frustrations across, what do you suggest we all should do? Switch to another carrier (name me one that is cheaper)? Do not use any of Sprint's new devices/technology and cause them to slow down their service upgrades so they'll continue to have a half-assed 4G coverage and no more additional upgrades to their towers? Sure, they aren't losing money with SERO customers (otherwise they'll drop the program after everyone's contracts expire) but a reduction in profits means they do not have more to invest in upgrades.

[BooDaddy]

Originally Posted by beserker15

nerys, everyone understands your point about the same technology/gas analogy. No one denies that fact. Yes, these new iconic phones uses the same 3G tech that we have been using for years. I would love to use them without the $10 fee as well...as does anyone who is reading this thread.

However, why do you also keep insisting that using more of their service is not costing them more? If everyone all of a sudden switches from using 500mb/month to 5gb/month, are you saying it costs Sprint absolutely nothing to maintain this new increase in use? Sprint doesn't own all of their towers. Cell phone carriers often rents them out from other places. An increase in use means an increase in costs either to maintain their own towers or the costs to rent out the towers. If everyone sticks to non-iconic devices, then Sprint will have less of an issue. You keep saying what happens when there are no more SERO compatible devices, are you also saying Sprint will switch purely to smartphones? Because you know, the majority of cell phone users in the market are not heavy data users and will prefer the simplicity of featured phones.

Also, since you keep trying to push your frustrations across, what do you suggest we all should do? Switch to another carrier (name me one that is cheaper)? Do not use any of Sprint's new devices/technology and cause them to slow down their service upgrades so they'll continue to have a half-assed 4G coverage and no more additional upgrades to their towers? Sure, they aren't losing money with SERO customers (otherwise they'll drop the program after everyone's contracts expire) but a reduction in profits means they do not have more to invest in upgrades.

Very well said.

[mykie]

Originally Posted by nerys

4g is not a distinct technology change AND only the evo and epic have it so that argument is out the window too.

Wimax is a completely different technology than EVDO Rev A, not sure where you're getting your information. Maybe you're just comfortable lying to get your point across.

Originally Posted by nerys

When I got my sero account there was not one single phone that I could not use on my account as long as it was power vision (IE I could not easily activate my old sanyo 6200 if I wanted too since it was 1x only)

So sero has NEVER been "limited" in phone selection where those phones are otherwise technology compatible (IE power vision or 1xrtt) so your wrong.

there were NO restrictions on sero accounts that were not ALSO PRESENT on normal accounts.

Your own self contradictions are delicious.

Originally Posted by nerys

that I can understand but phones that are incompatible SIMPLY because sprint says so not because the tech is different.

I'm pretty sure Visual Voice Mail and Sprint Navigation are items not included in the base SERO plan (neither is Anymobile Anytime for that matter). Anyways, how do you know that the provisioning for an Android phone is any different than a Windows Mobile phone? Are you a Sprint engineer? You've clearly shown your ineptness (and willingness to fabricate "facts") in other areas of this debate ("Sprint can't raise rates, that's AGAINST THE LAW!").

I'm not sure where your credibility lies.

Originally Posted by nerys

Sprint has no right to insist I pay more for android over windows mobile. thats the point you keep missing.

They absolutely have the right to ask for more money to use these phones on their network, it's their ball and they can charge whatever they want for us to play with it.

Furthermore, it has been markedly demonstrated that these phones use more bandwidth.

If you don't like that, feel free to keep your Winmo phone or any of the variety of dumbphones that Sprint will continue to offer. You're already perfectly aware that your hands are being forced either way.

I'm perfectly happy to pay a little more for the choices I never had before.

[No1ustad]

maybe this has been covered already, but I fail to see why there isn't an option not to pay for 4G, there isn't a 4G network within 100 miles of my home/work. if there was a switch, or if you paid $10 if you use 4g within that month at any time, or if it was based on your location, i'd see no problem whatsoever.

I just think it isn't justifiable to charge any user the $10/month 4G fee for something that specific customer may not get to use.

[muyoso]

Originally Posted by No1ustad

maybe this has been covered already, but I fail to see why there isn't an option not to pay for 4G, there isn't a 4G network within 100 miles of my home/work. if there was a switch, or if you paid $10 if you use 4g within that month at any time, or if it was based on your location, i'd see no problem whatsoever.

I just think it isn't justifiable to charge any user the $10/month 4G fee for something that specific customer may not get to use.

If you ever want to see 4g in your area, you will pay the fee and accept that you are an early adopter of the technology and are helping to build the network by paying extra for said service. How is this so difficult to understand people? In a few years, there will be no 4g fee because 4g will have become the standard and the network will be fairly well established.

[mykie]

Originally Posted by No1ustad

maybe this has been covered already, but I fail to see why there isn't an option not to pay for 4G

Yes, it's been covered in hundreds of threads and blogs, and your option is not to choose a 4G phone. The "4G fee" also removes the 5GB cap on 3G access.

[No1ustad]

Originally Posted by muyoso

If you ever want to see 4g in your area, you will pay the fee and accept that you are an early adopter of the technology and are helping to build the network by paying extra for said service. How is this so difficult to understand people? In a few years, there will be no 4g fee because 4g will have become the standard and the network will be fairly well established.

Exactly my point. right now i DONT want to see 4g in this area.. I could care less. I'm on campus in a campus town and everyone in this little town can handle everything via free WiFi from the Uni. (no, it's not seattle, just haven't changed my location yet)

It's not difficult to understand. I understand it really well. I also understand if a company wants to put out a "feature" and force people to pay it, whether or not they CAN use it, it should be considered part of the package, like nights and weekends... not as an add-on

[yankees45us]

Originally Posted by muyoso

If you ever want to see 4g in your area, you will pay the fee and accept that you are an early adopter of the technology and are helping to build the network by paying extra for said service. How is this so difficult to understand people? In a few years, there will be no 4g fee because 4g will have become the standard and the network will be fairly well established.

How is the fee not going to be around in a few years? Your telling me that after sprint gets their 4g to every subscriber they are going to take the fee away? I highly doubt it. This premium fee is going to be around forever. What may happen more likely is that sprint will introduce completely new plans made for 4g phones that will include the premium fee within the price. This price increase is here to stay.

Also if this fee was for the building of the 4g network then sprint would have said that instead of saying it was for having a more powerful phone. At least that would have sounded better to all their customers. Also, the network is being built and financed mostly by clearwire. So this $10 fee is most likely not for the building if the network. If that was the case then sprint is really taking a risk going into this thinking they can build their network from early adopters. Unless any of you have proof that this is the reason why sprint has the premium fee then don't talk and make things up just to say something.

Sent from my Evo using Tapatalk

[beserker15]

You're right, the 4G fee would not likely go away. You're also kinda right about the networks being built mostly by Clearwire. Sprint owns 54% of clearwire...so they are needing the money. They are trying to one-up Verizon and AT&T by having the 3rd biggest provider adopting something first...which means yes, they are taking quite a bit of a risk. Especially since wimax might eventually gets ditched and everyone holds hands and join LTE.

Here's a source for evidence:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...664233330.html

[chardog]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

Originally Posted by beserker15

nerys, everyone understands your point about the same technology/gas analogy. No one denies that fact. Yes, these new iconic phones uses the same 3G tech that we have been using for years. I would love to use them without the $10 fee as well...as does anyone who is reading this thread.

However, why do you also keep insisting that using more of their service is not costing them more? If everyone all of a sudden switches from using 500mb/month to 5gb/month, are you saying it costs Sprint absolutely nothing to maintain this new increase in use? Sprint doesn't own all of their towers. Cell phone carriers often rents them out from other places. An increase in use means an increase in costs either to maintain their own towers or the costs to rent out the towers. If everyone sticks to non-iconic devices, then Sprint will have less of an issue. You keep saying what happens when there are no more SERO compatible devices, are you also saying Sprint will switch purely to smartphones? Because you know, the majority of cell phone users in the market are not heavy data users and will prefer the simplicity of featured phones.

Also, since you keep trying to push your frustrations across, what do you suggest we all should do? Switch to another carrier (name me one that is cheaper)? Do not use any of Sprint's new devices/technology and cause them to slow down their service upgrades so they'll continue to have a half-assed 4G coverage and no more additional upgrades to their towers? Sure, they aren't losing money with SERO customers (otherwise they'll drop the program after everyone's contracts expire) but a reduction in profits means they do not have more to invest in upgrades.

I pay for unlimited data with sero, so...