The truth: Why the extra fees are a rip off

[sprint_fan]

Once you add in the extra features, and the better sprint coverage overall, it is worth it for sprint at least for me. If you have good tmobile coverage, then they might be better for you, but they just don't have all the features sprint throws into their data plans.

 

[bigdogdan2]

$10 to help them roll out the 4G. Sprint is dying here and I don't want them to merge with verizon...

 

[jonathanlc2005]

I am not happy about the extra fees. Yes, we all know Dan Hesse said 4G was so much cheaper to provide than 3G, and we know he said Sprint wouldn't charge us extra for it on the Evo. We also know Sprint currently doesn't charge extra for it on the mobile broadband plans. There is more to it than that though...

I keep seeing Sprint fanboys say ridiculous things like "It's still the cheapest plan out there" and "It's still the best deal..."

Lets put some facts to that bull. I have done the legwork for everyone. Here is the truth.

Sprint:
450 minutes, unlimited texts, unlimited web: $70 right now + $10 for Evo so $80
1500 minutes 2 line family plan: $130 right now + $20 for Evo so $150
1500 minutes 4 line family plan: $170 right now + $40 for Evo so $210

T-Mobile:
Even More + (no contract, pay full price for device)
500 minutes, unlimited text, unlimited web: $70
1500 minutes 2 line family plan: $120
1500 minutes 4 line family plan: $180

Even More (2 year contract, subsidized device)
500 minutes, unlimited text, unlimited web: $80
1500 minute 2 line family plan: $160
1500 minutes 4 line family plan : $230

I know, I know, the fanboys will say, "But T-Mobile coverage sucks..."
Here is a fact:
"By the end of 2010, T-Mobile expects to have HSPA+ deployed across the breadth of its 3G footprint, covering more than 100 metropolitan areas and 185 million people."
Source:
Unsupported Browser

So how does T-Mobile's HSPA+ compare to Sprint's Wimax? Here are a couple of quotes from a test PC Mag did (both in Philly):
Wimax: "average of 2.25 megabits down and 628 kilobits up, with peaks of 5.13 down and 1.17 up."
HSPA+: "average download speeds of 3.12 megabits/sec, with peaks of 7.65, and upload speeds of 1.26 megabits/sec with a peak of 2.02."
Source:
WiMAX vs. HSPA+: The Hands-On Test - WiMAX vs. HSPA+ Roundup | PCMag.com

And here is a video of the folks at Pocket Now doing a speed test on their T-Mobile HD2 and pulling almost 9 megs:
YouTube - T-Mobile's HD2 Get's Almost 10Mbps Download

Keep in mind, that HD2 isn't even made for HSPA+. It just so happens that HSPA+ is backwards compatible with HSPA, so the HD2 benefits from it. However, T-Mobile will be launching at least one device to compete with the Evo this year, made specifically for their HSPA+ network. And T-Mobile is claiming it will be 3 times faster than Sprint's 4G, as well as cover more people this year.
Source:
T-Mobile will launch HSPA+ smartphone in H2 2010, 3x faster than Sprint HTC EVO 4G – Android and Me

I don't have Wimax in my area right now anyway. But even if I did, assuming I could get T-Mobile coverage here, why the heck would I pay Sprint even more money? The CEO tells you one thing and then does another, so we can't be surprised when their reps don't know what the heck is going on.

call me a fanboy or whatever, but if you dont like it then leave. stop whining about the freaking fee and leave. but dont come whining about the data caps or coverage or whatever. im happy paying for 10 dollars to use wimax and im amazed by it, even though im not in the area.

take it like this... you have access to 4g and your paying for them to add more towers to it. COMPARED TO

your paying with a group of people to pitch in for a pizza. its offered for you and everyone benefits. dont be mad you didnt get a slice

by the way, after typing this.... i ate a slice of pizza