Sprint goes off script, says Title II won’t hurt wireless investment

Sprint wants "differentiated services" but offers little opposition to FCC plan.

Read the whole story

 

[samanime]

You know what... I would LOVE to see Sprint start doing really, really well. I currently have Verizon, basically because I have to. They are the only ones around with a half-decent network. However, I despise their business practices.

Sprint isn't a saint, but they haven't done anything especially egregious either (at least in recent memory). If they could get their network to a point where it is worth using reliably, I would love to switch. Maybe Title II will help them do just that.

 

[river-wind]

"Regardless of the legal grounds proposed, Sprint has emphasized repeatedly that net neutrality rules must give mobile carriers the flexibility to manage our networks...

Absolutely! That's only reasonable. Net Neutrality rules that prevented a network from handling DDoS attack traffic would be counter productive.

...and to differentiate our services in the market," Sprint wrote.

Woah, woah, woah. What exactly are we talking about here? Blocking or throttling third party services like competitor's websites or streaming video in favor of your own competing service? AKA "Managed services"? Uh-uh. Barrier to entry and anti-competitive.

Or do they mean not being forced into a utility-style metering plan structure if they don't want to bill that way?

edit:

We asked Sprint to clarify what it means by managing its networks and differentiating its services, but the company declined to comment.

mmmm-hmmmm.

 

[dbmarketing]

I'm not really surprised. Title II wouldn't hurt Sprint or T-Mobile. Due to their small size and financial shape, both could probably get exemptions to any regulatory requirements. Any actual regulatory hardship - and I'm using the term very loosely - would come down on Verizon and AT&T.

Further, Sprint gains brownie points for agreeing with the FCC - which is just another form of regulatory capture, but without the cash bribes that Verizon and AT&T can afford. Sprint can use this letter to come to the FCC in the future, and say "Look, we agree with you - we're reasonable. Obviously X regulation shouldn't apply to us because we're trying to compete with Verizon and AT&T - who hate you!" This is just one more example of how businesses can exert soft power to get what they want.

Anyway, this could also be an effort to guarantee favorable terms at the next spectrum auction.

 

[Solidstate89]

A shame you're a CDMA carrier and your coverage sucks where I live, Sprint. Otherwise you would have shot up my list of national carriers I wouldn't be physically pained giving money to.

Work on those last two.

 

[biscuitsandcookies]

Solidstate89[/url]":trxjvm2b]A shame you're a CDMA carrier and your coverage sucks where I live, Sprint. Otherwise you would have shot up my list of national carriers I wouldn't be physically pained giving money to.

Work on those last two.

The whole CDMA carrier vs. GSM carrier thing is already fading from relevance. In two years, they'll all be LTE carriers.

Whether Sprint will be able to expand their coverage area is anyone's guess. For all our sakes, I hope so.

 

[zarmanto]

samanime[/url]":18wl6kwi]... Sprint isn't a saint, but they haven't done anything especially egregious either (at least in recent memory). ...

I agree -- but it's worth pointing out that your qualifier is quite applicable in Sprint's case. When I first switched from AT&T (due to poor signal and an especially abusive support rep) to Sprint, it was during a period in which news stories about Sprint characterized them as having the single lowest customer satisfaction rating in the industry, specifically with respect to their customer support as I recall. As such, I wasn't too surprised when I had some initial poor experiences with support -- but even at that, it never got to be so bad that it made me want to break contract and ditch them.* So they certainly haven't always worked all that hard at keeping their customers happy.

Fast forward to today, and Sprint seems (to me) to be doing a great deal better at customer support and retention, and their service, while not the best, is largely acceptable in my region. (Plus, based upon my personal experience, they don't appear to be pulling any of that throttling crap. Yet.)

* I eventually did leave Sprint... but that wasn't due to any discontent with them; it was only because Verizon got the iPhone before Sprint did. After my two years with Verizon, I went back to Sprint.

 

[vassago]

I'm very disappointed in TMob in this regard. Not enough to switch, though.
Yet.

 

[Mgamerz]

Oh Sprint, you troll. I wonder how angry this makes the other carriers

 

[craigc]

This whole common carrier thing just isn't as big a deal when there's competition already. Maybe people still don't like the options, but many areas have access to AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and a host of smaller piggy-back guys.
So Sprint's right, but who cares? Where it matters is with the cable/ISP companies who actually have local monopolies. That's where we have no real choice and where reclassification might actually make a difference.

 

[PRMan]

zarmanto[/url]":294vnpsk]

samanime[/url]":294vnpsk]... Sprint isn't a saint, but they haven't done anything especially egregious either (at least in recent memory). ...

I agree -- but it's worth pointing out that your qualifier is quite applicable in Sprint's case. When I first switched from AT&T (due to poor signal and an especially abusive support rep) to Sprint, it was during a period in which news stories about Sprint characterized them as having the single lowest customer satisfaction rating in the industry, specifically with respect to their customer support as I recall. As such, I wasn't too surprised when I had some initial poor experiences with support -- but even at that, it never got to be so bad that it made me want to break contract and ditch them.* So they certainly haven't always worked all that hard at keeping their customers happy.

Fast forward to today, and Sprint seems (to me) to be doing a great deal better at customer support and retention, and their service, while not the best, is largely acceptable in my region. (Plus, based upon my personal experience, they don't appear to be pulling any of that throttling crap. Yet.)

* I eventually did leave Sprint... but that wasn't due to any discontent with them; it was only because Verizon got the iPhone before Sprint did. After my two years with Verizon, I went back to Sprint.

Well, lately with Sprint I had a line crammed on my account and it took several 45-minute-long calls with Sprint employees pointing their fingers at each other, and then a call to the state PUC before it and the charges associated with it were finally removed.

Unlike my previous great experiences with Sprint support, lately they are right and you are wrong, no matter what.

 

[zarmanto]

biscuitsandcookies[/url]":34aaw3zy]

Solidstate89[/url]":34aaw3zy]A shame you're a CDMA carrier and your coverage sucks where I live, Sprint. Otherwise you would have shot up my list of national carriers I wouldn't be physically pained giving money to.

Work on those last two.

The whole CDMA carrier vs. GSM carrier thing is already fading from relevance. In two years, they'll all be LTE carriers.

Whether Sprint will be able to expand their coverage area is anyone's guess. For all our sakes, I hope so.

That is a valid concern: Sprint only just lit up the LTE tower in my neighborhood, late last year. (I've posted about that event in another thread.) Their LTE roll-out is going much slower than they originally projected, but it is happening.

That said: regrettably, the CDMA vs. GSM thing won't really be properly irrelevant until everyone supports VoLTE.

 

[zarmanto]

PRMan[/url]":mqjk897q]Well, lately with Sprint I had a line crammed on my account and it took several 45-minute-long calls with Sprint employees pointing their fingers at each other, and then a call to the state PUC before it and the charges associated with it were finally removed.

Unlike my previous great experiences with Sprint support, lately they are right and you are wrong, no matter what.

Wait... charges for an entirely new phone line were added to your bill, and you had nothing to do with it?!? Not saying that it didn't happen... but if I worked for Sprint support, I'd doubt your claim, too, if you told me that had happened.

How did this come about, exactly?

 

[Solidstate89]

biscuitsandcookies[/url]":3qaqq88e]

Solidstate89[/url]":3qaqq88e]A shame you're a CDMA carrier and your coverage sucks where I live, Sprint. Otherwise you would have shot up my list of national carriers I wouldn't be physically pained giving money to.

Work on those last two.

The whole CDMA carrier vs. GSM carrier thing is already fading from relevance. In two years, they'll all be LTE carriers.

Whether Sprint will be able to expand their coverage area is anyone's guess. For all our sakes, I hope so.

Great. You let me know when my I can purchase an unlocked GSM phone and have it work in its entirety on Sprint's network. Until then, I'm stuck with AT&T, T-Mobile and whatever MVNOs use their networks. Because I'm not going back to being restricted to carrier phones, carrier updates and contract pricing.

 

[toyotabedzrock]

samanime[/url]":e0ujdshm]You know what... I would LOVE to see Sprint start doing really, really well. I currently have Verizon, basically because I have to. They are the only ones around with a half-decent network. However, I despise their business practices.

Sprint isn't a saint, but they haven't done anything especially egregious either (at least in recent memory). If they could get their network to a point where it is worth using reliably, I would love to switch. Maybe Title II will help them do just that.

They have been rolling out LTE in new areas. I actually think my home wireless thing they gave me for free is confusing my phone more than helping it now because they seem to have put up an LTE tower in the area.

 

[toyotabedzrock]

zarmanto[/url]":1d965hyp]

samanime[/url]":1d965hyp]... Sprint isn't a saint, but they haven't done anything especially egregious either (at least in recent memory). ...

I agree -- but it's worth pointing out that your qualifier is quite applicable in Sprint's case. When I first switched from AT&T (due to poor signal and an especially abusive support rep) to Sprint, it was during a period in which news stories about Sprint characterized them as having the single lowest customer satisfaction rating in the industry, specifically with respect to their customer support as I recall. As such, I wasn't too surprised when I had some initial poor experiences with support -- but even at that, it never got to be so bad that it made me want to break contract and ditch them.* So they certainly haven't always worked all that hard at keeping their customers happy.

Fast forward to today, and Sprint seems (to me) to be doing a great deal better at customer support and retention, and their service, while not the best, is largely acceptable in my region. (Plus, based upon my personal experience, they don't appear to be pulling any of that throttling crap. Yet.)

* I eventually did leave Sprint... but that wasn't due to any discontent with them; it was only because Verizon got the iPhone before Sprint did. After my two years with Verizon, I went back to Sprint.

You can always goto Credo Mobile, which has full access to Sprint's network but donates money to charities you pick and has its own customer support which is responsive and nice.

 

[d4Njv]

samanime[/url]":1gu0yvtu]You know what... I would LOVE to see Sprint start doing really, really well. I currently have Verizon, basically because I have to. They are the only ones around with a half-decent network. However, I despise their business practices.

Sprint isn't a saint, but they haven't done anything especially egregious either (at least in recent memory). If they could get their network to a point where it is worth using reliably, I would love to switch. Maybe Title II will help them do just that.

In particular, they were IIRC the only major carrier to not cripple google wallet before google worked around the carriers with the Kitkat implementation.

 

[infernallexicon]

biscuitsandcookies[/url]":1cigqbhm]

Solidstate89[/url]":1cigqbhm]A shame you're a CDMA carrier and your coverage sucks where I live, Sprint. Otherwise you would have shot up my list of national carriers I wouldn't be physically pained giving money to.

Work on those last two.

The whole CDMA carrier vs. GSM carrier thing is already fading from relevance. In two years, they'll all be LTE carriers.

Whether Sprint will be able to expand their coverage area is anyone's guess. For all our sakes, I hope so.

With Sprint's idiotic insistence to use WiMax, you might want to tack on a couple more years

 

[Christarp]

I have sprint and I have noticed an increase in LTE availability in my area recently. They're getting there, and working on it, and it's nice to see some progress in that regard.

 

[infernallexicon]

zarmanto[/url]":2wjef57i]

biscuitsandcookies[/url]":2wjef57i]

Solidstate89[/url]":2wjef57i]A shame you're a CDMA carrier and your coverage sucks where I live, Sprint. Otherwise you would have shot up my list of national carriers I wouldn't be physically pained giving money to.

Work on those last two.

The whole CDMA carrier vs. GSM carrier thing is already fading from relevance. In two years, they'll all be LTE carriers.

Whether Sprint will be able to expand their coverage area is anyone's guess. For all our sakes, I hope so.

That is a valid concern: Sprint only just lit up the LTE tower in my neighborhood, late last year. (I've posted about that event in another thread.) Their LTE roll-out is going much slower than they originally projected, but it is happening.

That said: regrettably, the CDMA vs. GSM thing won't really be properly irrelevant until everyone supports VoLTE.

Also, from experience, their LTE is horridly slow. Consistantly slower than T-Mobile and Verizon, in my area.

 

[sonicmerlin]

Solidstate89[/url]":1n2vdug5]

biscuitsandcookies[/url]":1n2vdug5]

Solidstate89[/url]":1n2vdug5]A shame you're a CDMA carrier and your coverage sucks where I live, Sprint. Otherwise you would have shot up my list of national carriers I wouldn't be physically pained giving money to.

Work on those last two.

The whole CDMA carrier vs. GSM carrier thing is already fading from relevance. In two years, they'll all be LTE carriers.

Whether Sprint will be able to expand their coverage area is anyone's guess. For all our sakes, I hope so.

Great. You let me know when my I can purchase an unlocked GSM phone and have it work in its entirety on Sprint's network. Until then, I'm stuck with AT&T, T-Mobile and whatever MVNOs use their networks. Because I'm not going back to being restricted to carrier phones, carrier updates and contract pricing.

It's expensive but you can buy one at Apple.com. Also Verizon LTE phones are unlocked.

 

[Jake Hamby]

sonicmerlin[/url]":30er039l]

Solidstate89[/url]":30er039l]Great. You let me know when my I can purchase an unlocked GSM phone and have it work in its entirety on Sprint's network. Until then, I'm stuck with AT&T, T-Mobile and whatever MVNOs use their networks. Because I'm not going back to being restricted to carrier phones, carrier updates and contract pricing.

It's expensive but you can buy one at Apple.com. Also Verizon LTE phones are unlocked.

You can also buy a Nexus 5 or Nexus 6. The Sprint carrier activation stuff is included so you can activate it at any Sprint store with a Sprint SIM, but it also works as an unlocked GSM phone, and the Nexus 6 works with Verizon as well.

(edit: Nexus 5 doesn't work with Verizon)

 

[zarmanto]

infernallexicon[/url]":12m4zj2u]

zarmanto[/url]":12m4zj2u]... Sprint only just lit up the LTE tower in my neighborhood, late last year. (I've posted about that event in another thread.) Their LTE roll-out is going much slower than they originally projected, but it is happening. ...

Also, from experience, their LTE is horridly slow. Consistantly slower than T-Mobile and Verizon, in my area.

Your experience may be different than mine -- or you may just have a funny notion of what the word "horridly" actually means. In my experience, Sprint's CDMA network is indeed horridly slow,* compared to Verizon's CDMA network, but Sprint's LTE network appears to be quite acceptable; I watch Netflix shows over Sprint's LTE quite routinely, now-a-days. Now, granted: even now, you'll still see higher peak speeds while using LTE on Verizon, AT&T or T-Mobile* *, but now that Sprint is giving me a consistent 14Mbps connection, I would opine that those higher speeds wouldn't necessarily translate into a significantly improved overall experience.

* Based upon my experience, you can reasonably expect to view standard-definition Netflix streams on Verizon's CDMA network with nary a hiccup... but that's not even remotely a possibility on Sprint's CDMA network. The exact numbers escape me, at the moment, but suffice it to say that we're talking about Kbps on Sprint vs. Mbps on Verizon.

* * In T-Mobile's case, this assumes that you can get a connection at all.

 

[ethd]

infernallexicon[/url]":2g413fzb]

biscuitsandcookies[/url]":2g413fzb]

Solidstate89[/url]":2g413fzb]A shame you're a CDMA carrier and your coverage sucks where I live, Sprint. Otherwise you would have shot up my list of national carriers I wouldn't be physically pained giving money to.

Work on those last two.

The whole CDMA carrier vs. GSM carrier thing is already fading from relevance. In two years, they'll all be LTE carriers.

Whether Sprint will be able to expand their coverage area is anyone's guess. For all our sakes, I hope so.

With Sprint's idiotic insistence to use WiMax, you might want to tack on a couple more years

Most of Sprint's 4G network is LTE. They originally rolled out WiMax but switched partway through. I could be wrong, but I don't think they're putting up any new WiMax towers.

 

[Jake Hamby]

I worked on the Sprint activation logic for the last two Nexus phones at Google last year, so I can share a few technical details on how their network works a little differently from Verizon's CDMA/LTE network (without breaking any NDA's).

Pre-LTE CDMA phones stored all the subscriber info in NV memory inside the baseband and didn't have any SIM card (a few used something called a RUIM), but new LTE phones with CDMA support can be configured to get the CDMA info from NV storage or from the SIM card (technically called a UICC).

On the UICC are a bunch of different applets that the baseband and app processor can read/write records from (or send data to). 2G GSM info is on the SIM app; 3G UMTS and 4G LTE subscriber info (and user phonebook, tower frequencies, MVNO names, etc). is on the USIM app; CDMA info can be stored on the CSIM app, and that's what Verizon does, and has ever since they started selling LTE phones.

So Verizon went from you having to dial "*228" and make a CDMA voice call to set up the subscriber info, into storing it in the UICC, which can be easily and securely updated OTA via a signed "SIM OTA" SMS. That's not how Sprint does things.

Sprint has a client-server setup using a protocol called OMA DM, which makes a data connection to retrieve the CDMA settings, which go into NV or onto the SIM card as before. That part is all under NDA. The other thing they do differently is they want to know the MEID (same as IMEI w/o the last digit) of the device that the UICC is inserted into, so you have to call them whenever you want to swap your account between two devices.

And, if you bought a device that isn't in the MEID block that Sprint wants to allow on their network, you might not be able to activate your device (or at least, not easily). This was in the news with the Apple SIM iPads that you could activate on Sprint only if you bought them from Apple, or from Sprint. But you couldn't activate an iPad with the same Apple SIM that you bought from any of the other carrier stores.

So I guess tl;dr is be careful where you buy a device from if you have any intention to connect it to Sprint, but the good news is the situation is much, much better than just a few years ago when Sprint was only selling phones with non-removable UICC chips (literally soldered to the board) that you couldn't take to other carriers.

 

[infernallexicon]

zarmanto[/url]":1hu6n7xj]

infernallexicon[/url]":1hu6n7xj]

zarmanto[/url]":1hu6n7xj]... Sprint only just lit up the LTE tower in my neighborhood, late last year. (I've posted about that event in another thread.) Their LTE roll-out is going much slower than they originally projected, but it is happening. ...

Also, from experience, their LTE is horridly slow. Consistantly slower than T-Mobile and Verizon, in my area.

Your experience may be different than mine -- or you may just have a funny notion of what the word "horridly" actually means. In my experience, Sprint's CDMA network is indeed horridly slow,* compared to Verizon's CDMA network, but Sprint's LTE network appears to be quite acceptable; I watch Netflix shows over Sprint's LTE quite routinely, now-a-days. Now, granted: even now, you'll still see higher peak speeds while using LTE on Verizon, AT&T or T-Mobile* *, but now that Sprint is giving me a consistent 14Mbps connection, I would opine that those higher speeds wouldn't necessarily translate into a significantly improved overall experience.

* Based upon my experience, you can reasonably expect to view standard-definition Netflix streams on Verizon's CDMA network with nary a hiccup... but that's not even remotely a possibility on Sprint's CDMA network. The exact numbers escape me, at the moment, but suffice it to say that we're talking about Kbps on Sprint vs. Mbps on Verizon.

* * In T-Mobile's case, this assumes that you can get a connection at all.

Sprint's CDMA was pretty much nonexistant. "Horridly" doesn't begin to cover the slowness of it. I was referring to Sprint's LTE speeds. With my Nexus 5, I'd be lucky if it'd be able to stream high definition. In a perfect coverage area. I definitely noticed a difference when I switched from Verizon.

I find that my T-Mobile coverage is typically pretty good. I live in a metro area and don't usually venture too far outside of it. Right now, I'm only on what my iPhone 6 Plus says is "4G" and am only getting 5 Mbps--but I blame it on the building I work in.

Will update when I get home and do a speed test on LTE.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I had noticed an improvement in the LTE speeds on Sprint. But it was only in the past few months. But for most of the year I had the Nexus 5, it was pretty slow.

 

[infernallexicon]

ethd[/url]":38dfbuud]

infernallexicon[/url]":38dfbuud]

biscuitsandcookies[/url]":38dfbuud]

Solidstate89[/url]":38dfbuud]A shame you're a CDMA carrier and your coverage sucks where I live, Sprint. Otherwise you would have shot up my list of national carriers I wouldn't be physically pained giving money to.

Work on those last two.

The whole CDMA carrier vs. GSM carrier thing is already fading from relevance. In two years, they'll all be LTE carriers.

Whether Sprint will be able to expand their coverage area is anyone's guess. For all our sakes, I hope so.

With Sprint's idiotic insistence to use WiMax, you might want to tack on a couple more years

Most of Sprint's 4G network is LTE. They originally rolled out WiMax but switched partway through. I could be wrong, but I don't think they're putting up any new WiMax towers.

What I'm saying is: while Sprint was dicking around with its competing format (and although it may have been the first to adopt "4G") the other carriers weren't distracted. Even if you consider HSPA+ to have distracted AT&T.

And although no new WiMax towers being [edit] are [/edit] put up, they are also not being taken down. At least, not until late 2015.

 

[ethd]

infernallexicon[/url]"92lcp4b]

ethd[/url]"92lcp4b]

infernallexicon[/url]"92lcp4b]

biscuitsandcookies[/url]"92lcp4b]

Solidstate89[/url]"92lcp4b]A shame you're a CDMA carrier and your coverage sucks where I live, Sprint. Otherwise you would have shot up my list of national carriers I wouldn't be physically pained giving money to.

Work on those last two.

The whole CDMA carrier vs. GSM carrier thing is already fading from relevance. In two years, they'll all be LTE carriers.

Whether Sprint will be able to expand their coverage area is anyone's guess. For all our sakes, I hope so.

With Sprint's idiotic insistence to use WiMax, you might want to tack on a couple more years

Most of Sprint's 4G network is LTE. They originally rolled out WiMax but switched partway through. I could be wrong, but I don't think they're putting up any new WiMax towers.

What I'm saying is: while Sprint was dicking around with its competing format (and although it may have been the first to adopt "4G") the other carriers weren't distracted. Even if you consider HSPA+ to have distracted AT&T.

And although no new WiMax towers being [edit] are [/edit] put up, they are also not being taken down. At least, not until late 2015.

You claimed Sprint had an "idiotic insistence to use WiMax." The way I see it, they already know that they were wrong to immediately use WiMax, but that doesn't change the fact that they still sold phones with WiMax. (In fact, I bought a brand new Samsung Galaxy S2, a WiMax phone on Sprint, from Virgin Mobile in 2013.)
They're not going to leave their customers who bought WiMax phones high and dry, they'll keep supporting them for a reasonable time, then take down the towers when most people have upgraded to an LTE phone. That's not an insistence, that's a good practice for supporting customers.

 

[oneeyecarpenter]

I have been with Sprint over 14yrs and lived in three different locations around a large metro area. I just started to get 4g LTE last year,and have been testing the speeds. Download is often slower than uploading. But speeds have been near 10 mbps down,and 5-7 up more frequently the past couple months. So,it appears they are making progress,and in some areas around town that were notoriously week,I now get verry reliable service. All in all,I don't have any complaints.

 

[Mordecai Walfish]

samanime[/url]":2v852t6c]You know what... I would LOVE to see Sprint start doing really, really well. I currently have Verizon, basically because I have to. They are the only ones around with a half-decent network. However, I despise their business practices.

Sprint isn't a saint, but they haven't done anything especially egregious either (at least in recent memory). If they could get their network to a point where it is worth using reliably, I would love to switch. Maybe Title II will help them do just that.

Unfortunately for their customers, Sprint tends to do something "especially egregious" each and every time you have the displeasure of working with their customer service. I have literally never dealt with such atrocious service from *any* industry before in my life. Sociopath terrorists would treat you with more respect than their customer service does.

 

[zarmanto]

Mordecai Walfish[/url]":3jrolvqk]
Unfortunately for their customers, Sprint tends to do something "especially egregious" each and every time you have the displeasure of working with their customer service. ...

I'll see your anecdote, and raise you one counter-anecdote...

I briefly alluded to this earlier in the thread: Years ago, I was an AT&T wireless customer, and had been a Cingular customer prior to that. (I'd switched to Cingular from Sprint in order to get one of the early iterations of a Bluetooth capable phone, back when only a few GSM carriers had them.) So I'd been a customer for several years, and during that time I'd been largely satisfied with their service. I'd gotten married, added a phone line for my wife, and we'd moved three times during that period. Throughout, we'd never had any significant cause for complaint.

Mind you, their signal wasn't perfect; in my current townhouse, I could get a usable signal on the top two levels, but it was sporadic at best on the bottom floor. Not a terribly big deal... that's the nature of wireless signals, so it just means I have to go upstairs to take calls, right?

Then, something changed: the signal strength took a nosedive, to the point that it was gone in the basement, and sporadic at best anywhere else in the house. Well, I did a bit of research, and determined that their closest tower was directly behind some major road work over at the nearest highway. I called AT&T's support, and asked the customer support representative if they were aware of the recent issues, and if they could offer some idea of when and/or if the problem would be resolved after the construction was finished. The CSR listened to my tale of woe without the slightest hint of empathy, and then abruptly quipped, "Well you know, sir, we don't actually guarantee service inside of a dwelling."

I cancelled AT&T and switched back to Sprint that very day, where I abruptly discovered that I had five bars* throughout my house... that was probably one of the most satisfying changes I'd ever made in my life, short of getting married.

Mind you, as I noted earlier, this is not to say that Sprint is actually all that great at customer service... but I've never in my life had a technical problem so rudely dismissed, as with that one incident with AT&T.

So all of that was just to say: No matter how bad Sprint customer support may have been at different points in the past, they have never by any means had a monopoly on jackass-ery.

* Note that this all happened before I got an iPhone and started actively using that newfangled "mobile internet" thingy. So five bars just meant that I could make and receive actual phone calls perfectly on Sprint, whereas I had been getting one to three bars at best on AT&T, prior to that.