Evo V worth losing $25 plan?

[ilcavallo]

I can essentially upgrade from the Triumph to Evo V for free, but i'll lose my $25 plan.

Is it worth it? Is any phone currently on VM worth losing the plan for?

 

[Watagump]

Do you use enough data to warrant the $10 more a month for 4G? Just ask yourself that.

 

[ilcavallo]

i'm not even in a 4G city, hahah.

i'm just sick of the triumph.

 

[Watagump]

i'm not even in a 4G city, hahah.

i'm just sick of the triumph.

Well then that makes is tougher to answer. The EVO V is a nice phone, if the Triumph bothers you that much then maybe $10 more a month will give you peace of mind.

 

[hiwatt]

I'm pretty sure that whole $10 a month won't break you.

 

[aml1025]

I had essentially the same opportunity, to get an EVO without cost to myself, and went for it, even though I lost the $25 plan, and even though I don't live in 4G (I do end up in 4G coverage about once a week, though; it's a nice bonus).

If you have any discretionary income at all, it's worth the $10/month difference to have a phone that works well. I justified the expense by figuring I'd cut out one fast food meal a month, and combine a couple of driving trips I'd otherwise make separately.

Most of us are here because we love our cell phones more than the average person, right? Especially after hearing all the frustrations people have had with the Triumph, I think going to the EVO will be a real treat for you. If you have any doubts, you can activate it for a month with a new number, so that you preserve your Triumph's $25 plan, and decide whether to swap to it after that.

 

[ilcavallo]

thanks for the info guys - have there been any significant issues with the Evo that i should know about beforehand? it's running ICS, right? any chance it gets an update?

 

[ilcavallo]

BTW i've also been contemplating the move to TMobile $30 plan and either getting a used Nexus or the LG L9 phone. thoughts?

 

[mogelijk]

BTW i've also been contemplating the move to TMobile $30 plan and either getting a used Nexus or the LG L9 phone. thoughts?

If you live in an area with good T-Mobile coverage, it is a good option -- especially if you live in an area with T-Mobile 4G (HSPA+) coverage. This is the list of cities that have HSPA+ 42 coverage, there are 130 cities not listed that have HSPA+ 21 coverage -- and the Galaxy Nexus and LG L9 phones only have HSPA+ 21. But HSPA+ 21 speeds are as fast as WiMax, without using a separate antenna.

With a Nexus phone, you have the advantage of getting the current version of Android as they come out -- not to mention having stock Android without the bloat carriers like to add. As for the L9, from what I've seen it is a solid phone for the price.

As for the Evo, I doubt it ever sees another update. If you want Jellybean for it, you will need to root and ROM.

 

[ilcavallo]

If you live in an area with good T-Mobile coverage, it is a good option -- especially if you live in an area with T-Mobile 4G (HSPA+) coverage. This is the list of cities that have HSPA+ 42 coverage, there are 130 cities not listed that have HSPA+ 21 coverage -- and the Galaxy Nexus and LG L9 phones only have HSPA+ 21. But HSPA+ 21 speeds are as fast as WiMax, without using a separate antenna.

With a Nexus phone, you have the advantage of getting the current version of Android as they come out -- not to mention having stock Android without the bloat carriers like to add. As for the L9, from what I've seen it is a solid phone for the price.

As for the Evo, I doubt it ever sees another update. If you want Jellybean for it, you will need to root and ROM.

i DO live in a hspa42 market, but only have 2G coverage at my particular address. i really want a newer OS but can't drop a lot of coin right now, which is why the L9 or a used galaxy nexus looks good to me if i go TMobile. rumors of the Evo V being $99 at RS next week are enticing as well...however TMobile's coverage really beats VM's.

 

[ragnarkar]

I switched my Samsung Intercept to an Evo V and never looked back (despite having to pay $10/mo each month.) The difference was like night and day. When I occasionally lose 4G and it falls back to 3G, it gets me wondering "wow, how did I cope with those pathetically low speeds back then."

IMO, Virgin Mobile's 3G is unacceptably slow.. it sometimes takes several minutes to load up a Yelp review for example. On the other hand, the 4G is more than enough for my needs.

 

[goobert]

I am debating trying this ... I did ask though tech support if I would be able to keep my plan or need to upgrade to the $35/month. Tech support says I can keep my $25 per month plan without having to pay extra at the $35 per month level with a new phone?

Maybe have to try pulling some strings.

 

[m-cman]

I am debating trying this ... I did ask though tech support if I would be able to keep my plan or need to upgrade to the $35/month. Tech support says I can keep my $25 per month plan without having to pay extra at the $35 per month level with a new phone?

Maybe have to try pulling some strings.

Pretty sure that is wrong. You will have to upgrade to the $35 plan. I am on the original $40 plan (1200 min instead of 300) with an LG Olympus V and will have to go to the $45 plan with my new HTC EVO V. Sorry...

 

[ilcavallo]

still unsure of if i want to do this or not. i'd really like to try out t-mobile.

 

[mogelijk]

I used to have Virgin Mobile, I even had an Evo for awhile. I switched to T-Mobile because my 3G speeds were horrible and too many places, where I need to go, did not have 4G (WiMax) coverage. With 3G I probably averaged around 300 Kbps but far too often I'd have speeds well under 100 Kbps.

I bought the Galaxy Nexus and have enjoyed T-Mobile. My speeds typically are above 3 Mbps and average around 5 Mbps (the max speeds I've typically seen are just over 8 Mbps), so my low speeds tend to be over 10x the average speed I was getting with 3G on Virgin. I've also loved being able to run stock Android, with no bloatware, and get the updates as Google releases them. Another minor advantage, if you travel, is that T-Mobile does have voice (but no data) roaming for prepaid. The speeds are similar to what I got on WiMax, with the advantage of not having to worry about turning on an extra antenna and having it eat battery life.

Oddly, one of my biggest "complaints" is that T-Mobile charges every 30 days, rather than monthly; I much preferred knowing that my payment was due on the same day every month. I guess that shows that I haven't had much I felt I have needed to complain about.

If you decide to stay with Virgin, I'd personally wait to get a phone with LTE (unless you live in an area that isn't getting LTE this year). While the Victory is not exciting, particularly for the price, there should be new LTE phones released over the next few months -- some will likely be better priced and/or will push down the price on the Victory (much like the price has dropped on the Evo V).

I expect, if I am willing to change phones (since the GNex does not have LTE), I'll have LTE on T-Mobile here by the end of the year.

 

[goobert]

Pretty sure that is wrong. You will have to upgrade to the $35 plan. I am on the original $40 plan (1200 min instead of 300) with an LG Olympus V and will have to go to the $45 plan with my new HTC EVO V. Sorry...

Then I will be ebaying this phone before opening the package. If forced to upgrade.

.....About the sprint network mogelijk was talking about ......

I get network problems when at the gym for example on minute I have 6 bars then I have 2 or 1 of 3g. Tech support has stated they have begun 2013 network vision upgrades in my area and this is why. Check your area here... https://network.sprint.com/search

I do however have 1 mbps connection constant of 3g at my house. Which is good enough. I use my gyms wifi to stream coast to coast am instead of 3g atm.

$25 per month is a steal for a smart phone. And I'm sorry but I'm dirt poor or at least I live my life like that so that I have a rainy day fund thats always growing.

 

[mogelijk]

Then I will be ebaying this phone before opening the package. If forced to upgrade.

.....About the sprint network mogelijk was talking about ......

I get network problems when at the gym for example on minute I have 6 bars then I have 2 or 1 of 3g. Tech support has stated they have begun 2013 network vision upgrades in my area and this is why. Check your area here... https://network.sprint.com/search

I do however have 1 mbps connection constant of 3g at my house. Which is good enough. I use my gyms wifi to stream coast to coast am instead of 3g atm.

$25 per month is a steal for a smart phone. And I'm sorry but I'm dirt poor or at least I live my life like that so that I have a rainy day fund thats always growing.

Sprint's network in some cities has been horrible, though it has been good in some cities. While Network Vision has helped in some areas, and customers moving to LTE (where available) helps, as well, it can still be pretty bad.

A great example of this is PC Magazine's Fastest Mobile Networks of 2012. If you go through the cities you tested, you will find several have terrible average download speeds. For example, the worst it probably Las Vegas, where the average Sprint 3G download speed was 190 Kbps.

What I find more interesting about that review is that they did multiple download tests, in multiple areas of the city, and noted how frequently the speed was above 144 kbps. In most cities, Sprint had downloads slower than 144 kbps at least one third of the time. In Las Vegas, the speed was below 144 kbps over half the time.

Now to contrast this, most of the other carries have speeds above 144 kbps over 90% of the time. To use Vegas as an example, Spring had downloads faster than 144 kbps only 46.43% of the time. Next worst was Verizon 3G, which was above 144 kbps 87.50% of the time. To go along with that, Sprint's 3G (as I mentioned) was 190 kbps while Verizon's averaged 930 kbps.

I'm looking forward to the 2013 tests and how Sprint does. Not to mention, in cities with LTE most people won't care nearly as much about slow 3G speeds. In my case, if WiMax would have been reliable I likely wouldn't have cared -- but there were far too many areas where WiMax didn't work and my 3G speeds were pathetic. I also find it interesting that PCMag's testing is very similar to my own experience -- they show that in my city the average Sprint 3G speed was 310 kbps, with the speed over 144 kbps only 44.56% of the time.

While $25 was a decent price (though it was $35 when I went to the Evo), the $30 with T-Mobile for much faster speeds has been better for me. And, I'll admit my T-Mobile speeds aren't quite as good as their tests (average of 7.92 Mbps, which is 7920 Kbps to stay consistent), but I have a Galaxy Nexus, which is HSPA+ 21, so not as fast as the HSPA+ 42 phone they tested with.

 

[ilcavallo]

well i decided to not buy the Evo V. budget is pretty tight and although the phone wouldn't have cost me anything out of pocket, that's $120 more per year for the same not awesome service. if i were in a 4g city, maybe.