photo 500x90_zpstdr3iova.png

If Sprint's PR department is anything to be believed, Leading the world in 5G data development, and a Sprint and T-Mobile marriage of networks could make it the best wireless carrier available to consumers. On the surface, Sprint seems to have a lot going for it these days. It owns the two big prepaid carriers, it's coverage is the closest to Verizon in terms of overall range of cellphone towers, and it's the first thing that comes to mind when searching for a direct alternative to AT&T. To bad Sprint —as a company— sucked balls like marbles through a vacuum cleaner.

It's not just my opinion. Back in 2017, Sprint came in dead last in categories like talk /text, LTE coverage, AND customer support, according to Consumer Reports survey that year.

The company still hasn't changed much since 2017. The complaints people have are still very much there. Despite excellent marketing and brand recognition that could rival Jesus Christ, all the exposure in the world can't help a company with low quality coverage, Electronic Arts-style prices, and LTE internet slower than AOL Dial-up in 1997.

The LTE sucks.

This image was stolen courtesy of this Tech Quickie article.

This is the problem that holds back Sprint’s sister companies like Virgin and Boost Mobile. Sprint LTE is slow enough to make Internet Explorer in 1996 look like Usain Bolt running from Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Doesn't matter if the coverage is within 1% of Verizon if it feels like you're playing an underwater level in an old Playstation 2 video game every time you load a web page. That is, if it manages to load a page at all.

The Talk and Text is crap most of the time.

This image comes from an article on Even the prices displayed here are completely false.

Your mileage may vary, like I mentioned earlier, but Sprint has probably the spottiest network in the history of hotspots. I have accepted and received calls that sounded like T-Pain's Autotune in a tumble dryer, and had texts that took almost 3 minutes to send after I sent them. Keep in mind, I've been both a Sprint customer for well over a year, and a Virgin Mobile customer since 2014. They both share the same network, and have the same coverage and LTE speeds. Same with Boost Mobile. Same network, same performance. Having lived in both Portland Oregon and California's Orange County, and the coverage has been equally terrible in both places. Yet in Burbank California, and visiting relatives in rural Indiana, the coverage is pretty much spot-on. No dropped calls, or wonky texts.

Most Sprint customers you ask complain about serious reliability issues, especially when traveling more than a mile in any direction. It isn't terrible everywhere, but most of what you hear are complaints from customers who already pay a steep price as it is, and still get the kind of coverage you would expect from bumming your neighbor's Wi-Fi.

Infrastructure is bad.

This is the phone I was trying to get linked to the Sprint network. It's the LG Stylo 4+, and it's the last phone that sprint will ever contaminate in my house.

I opted for the Unlimited Kickstart plan, trying to bring my phone number From Virgin to Sprint, in order to upgrade to a much better  -unlocked- phone. I sit on the phone for about three hours, with customer service reps scrambling trying to figure out why the hell it wasn't working. After being transferred 4 times, someone apparently mentioned what should have been obvious to Sprint technical support, or even sales reps: The $25/month Kickstart plan doesn't work on phone numbers that were already on the Sprint Network. This included Virgin Mobile, which is Sprint's sister company.

So, in order to get my phone number out of the Virgin Mobile prepaid hell, the only other option was the Unlimited Basic; a plan that not only costs an extra $35 more than Kickstart, but added a credit check, followed by a $42 activation fee. So after paying over $100 the first month, I was expected to pay $64 a month for slow internet and talk that sounds like EVP monitors in a haunted house.

I don't even blame the customer care for how long this ordeal even took. apparently, their internal infrastructure is shitting its pants every time you ask it to do anything, and the fact that the terms & conditions of unlimited Kickstart weren't readily available to them -the one group of people who should know what it is- is actually embarrassing.

Website is a mess

If the navigation bar isn't changing faster than a Digimon evolves, half the time, it doesn't actually work. This thing has so many glitches and errors,  you'd thing the website was hosted by Ubisoft Montreal.

I couldn't see my own bill for nearly a month because the website was such an unreliable cluster F*** of errors and spaghetti code.

Having a bad network is one thing, but having both an App and a website less reliable than a heroine addicted roommate is another. This website has been having problems for literally years now, but Sprint is more concerned with going door-to-door and proselyting for the Galaxy S10 like a Jahovas Witness on a Saturday morning than actually fixing the damn problem.

Pricing is awful

If you were to go to Sprint's website right now, and look for the actual price of wireless service for an actual smartphone you actually OWN, you will be lead down enough rabbit holes to have a working map of the lost city of ZION from the Matrix Reloaded. Apparently, Sprint is so ashamed of their actual plan's prices, they would rather show you a collage of advertisements for the Galaxy S10, and how many fetishes the company seems to have for asking people to LEASE the damn thing, that you would have to be halfway --or more-- through signing up for a 2-year contract before you can actually get a straight answer as to what you're going to be paying. This is not surprising, considering smartphone LEASES seem to be the only way this company makes money!

I don't ask for much from my wireless carrier. All I ask is that I don't pay anywhere near $65 for wireless service, whether it's reliable or not. I could buy tablets and smartphones every month for the amount of money I pay in wireless service fees. I don't even pay $65 for high-speed internet in my own house, let alone slow internet on my phone.

Yet and still, the Unlimited Basic -The only actual plan they have for unlocked smartphones- is $65 freken' dollars a month, and goes up from there. Forget everything you heard about $40 unlimited, or $25 kickstart. It's all bullcrap. there will always be some excuse to get you sucked into the Unlimited Basic plan, and everything else is just a gateway drug until they get you hooked on that for two years. Unlimited Basic is their actual lowest priced plan, and everything else is just a two-year gateway drug until you end up on the $60 plan, because let's face it: that is the only way this company is making money.

Sprint already undercuts Verizon by a considerable margin, and out here in California, that's still less than what T-mobile is charging for the same plan. Thing is, Verizon -despite being a shady company in it's own right- actually has a reliable network, and T-Mobile doesn't ask you for your god damn credit score just to pay a phone bill.

That's another thing all together, which is why I would recommend against going with Sprint. Not only does Sprint send inquiries on your credit score just for signing up, (seriously, too many inquiries in a month could lower your credit score,) but it also expects a down payment/service activation fee just to get started, AND you're paying more than $60 a month just to have it. Every plan is on a 2-year contract as well, which leaves me asking: what year does Sprint think it is?

Everything about the way this carrier does business is stuck in 1996; a year when having a cellular device was treated as though you were leasing to own a nuclear warhead. The privilege of paying your own bill was treated like you were taking out a mortgage in those days. Nowadays, in an age where prepaid is king, companies who adopt this model of business -even when you're not even leasing to own the phone you're bringing to the network- are just being tacky at this point. It's no wonder this company is falling behind.

How sprint can fix itself

Every time Sprint is in a little bit of trouble financially, it buys out its closest competitor. It's been doing this for over a decade now. It bought out Virgin, then Boost, and now its merging with T-Mobile, awaiting approval from Congress, The FCC, and even the president. Yet, it isn't doing the one thing it should have done in the first place; fix its infrastructure.

You see, Sprint is a publicly traded company, and needs to dump money into acquisitions like Virgin, Boost, and even T-Mobile just to keep their shareholders happy, and not dumping stock by the time their quarterly reports get published. Don't quote me on this, but for all we know, this is technically Sprint inflating its numbers to give shareholders the impression that the company is worth more than it actually is. The problem is, if this theory is correct, it would explain bad prices, bad performance, and overall customer dissatisfaction in 2018; The company isn't interested in customers, so much as it's interested in shareholders. The fact that Sprint -one of the most recognizable names in mobile computing- managed to sink to the bottom of customer satisfaction, yet still has the balls to propose a merger with T-Mobile is evidence of the overarching problem with the company.

Sprint needs to fix its network FIRST! Not after a merger, not after another TV AD campaign. Other carriers like Verizon and even ATT know that coverage is the name of the game in the mobile carrier market. Anything less than three bars anywhere nationwide is unacceptable.

Why Sprint Sucks Right Now | The TakeDown


A little over a month from uploading this, Sacha Baron Cohen gave a speech, where he lambasted Facebook and YouTube for promoting questionable political ads, and allowing people to have edgy teenage opinions on social media platforms without his permission. A lot of people have given their nuclear takes on this topic, and have been kicking this dead horse into the ground like they're making compost fertilizer. And so, In typical RAGE PRO fashion, I got on this topic later than Microsoft Internet Explorer's download speeds. Bear with me here, because there's a lot to unpack.

The hero 'woke comedy' needs

Mainstream news sites have been plastering Twitter and Facebook with news of the 'brave and virtuous' Sacha Baron Cohen's speech at the Never is Now summit, held by the Anti Defamation league.

Cohen, best known for playing a racist caricature of an antisemitic Khazacstani goat farmer named Borat, slams Facebook and YouTube for promoting "racist and antisemitic posts" on their website. You know, that thing Facebook never actually did?
This film, where Cohen's character Borat famously sang the song "Throw the jew down the well". His promoters advertised this very film on Facebook, but now, all the sudden edgy politics are a "problem".

After accepting the ADL's International leadership award, Cohen –the guy who played a white guy trying to be a ghetto AF black guy for five years in films and television– lambasted major social networks like YouTube and Facebook for what the wealthy elitist boomers who likely wrote Cohen's acceptance speech claim are directly responsible for "murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities"
This is the guy who wants to tell you what's appropriate on the internet.

here's some notable quotes from the speech he gave during an election season, which totally isn't suspicious or anything.

all this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history
 Says the guy who used both Facebook and YouTube to promote his film, where he played the role of a flamboyant homosexual fashion designer, chasing down straight people.

I feel like this speaks for itself.

The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth … As one headline put it, just think what Goebbels could have done with Facebook.

 If you pay them, Facebook will run any ‘political’ ad you want, even if it’s a lie,

 And they’ll even help you micro-target those lies to their users for maximum effect. Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were around in the 1930s, it would have allowed Hitler to post 30-second ads on his ‘solution’ to the ‘Jewish problem’.

Cohen then went on to roast Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for saying that Facebook is a bastion of "Free expression." Which is bullshit, by the way.

I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and paedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.

He then goes on to say this:

Internet companies can now be held responsible for paedophiles who use their sites to target children. I say, let’s also hold these companies responsible for those who use their sites to advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or religion. And maybe fines are not enough. Maybe it’s time to tell Mark Zuckerberg and the CEOs of these companies: you already allowed one foreign power to interfere in our elections, you already facilitated one genocide in Myanmar, do it again and you go to jail.

Why is this a problem?

I think anyone who has used the internet for more than a week in their entire life knows that Facebook doesn't know what humor is, or that there is such a thing as being facetious or sarcastic. Meme pages are taken down faster than a pedophile on an FBI watch-list, and posting articles from sites that are among Facebook's competitors is enough to get your article banned. It's a similar situation with YouTube. Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube all banned InfoWars at relatively the same time, and most YouTube videos aren't even monetize-able, because so many videos might contain the word "fuck" in them.

Yet, music videos, and clips uploaded from major Holywood and music studios are able to stay untouched, AND have ad revenue⁠ —despite containing content that breaches the TOS (Terms of service) of all these websites. Why? Because they have money. Just goes to show you how disconnected rich dudes like Cohen are from the world, as seen by the poor and middle class. He's  rich, so he never had to deal with censorship in social media first hand.

The "freedom for security" question

Yeah, you could argue that Facebook needs to censor people in order to protect the fragile Minds of its incredibly stupid users, but let's be real here: If Facebook took the moral policing approach in the mid 2000's, while he was making jokes about the holocaust and playing a wigger named ALI-G for 5 years, Cohen wouldn't have a comedy career at all. He would be banned on the platforms he's criticizing now, and would probably be fighting off more allegations of racism than a police officer serving an arrest warrant in a black neighborhood.

It seems like the only way to get away with making edgy jokes is to be paid up with the right people. It's always like that with these "famous people", isn't it? If Stephen Colbert does a white nationalist salute on his late night TV show, he gets national syndication, because he has enough money and fame to make the context matter. But if I made that same joke, in the same context, My videos will get demonetized, I'd be suspended from Twitter, and my ass would probably be on a government watch list or something. 

Stephen Colbert mocking Steve Bannon on his late night show in 2017, but it's okay when THIS white guy does it, because he's making fun of the Trump administration, and CBS pays him a lot of money.

If I walked around for years famously pretending to be a hood n**** from the streets, getting that paper, my ass would be cancelled faster than a Jeffrey Epstein's prison term. Unless, of course, I were, say, a famous film director like Quintin Tarantino. Then, everyone is cool with it. Suddenly, as long as you make a film starring a black comedian that made 426 million dollars, you get to walk around like you're posted up on the block, and say the n-word any time you feel like it. If my Italian ass walked around wearing jerseys three sizes too big, and speaking fluent food stamps, somebody would check me almost immediately. I would get the shit kicked out of me faster than a homosexual walking into an ISIS hideout for a job interview. 

Just goes to show you how disconnected rich assholes like Cohen are from the real world. People like Cohen haven't seen a crackdown on freedom of expression, because he's too rich to have to deal with it himself. So, like most wealthy 40-something boomers with their head up their ass, they just assume the censorship their ego trip is looking for doesn't exist.

But the fact that Cohen is the one saying it makes it feel even more disingenuous. Hearing a guy -who made his living off of these platforms- start slamming them now is like watching Mitt Romney pretending to care about poor people. This asshole waits until he's made all the money he possibly could for more than a decade, then he chooses to promote censorship now that he made all his money. 

The 'woke' epidemic in comedy

Cohen's sellout mentality isn't unique, however. Nearly every celebrity who made their careers in edgy humor starts getting a superiority complex any time they get a little bit of clout, don't they? Amy Schumer, for example, built her entire career on edgy humor. Her repertoire included rape jokes, racist jokes, you name it. Yet, the moment she got mainstream clout, she's throwing fellow comedy writer Kurt Metzger under the bus because he made an off-color joke on Twitter about false rape accusations...?

How about Sarah Silverman? She spent more than a decade as one of the edgiest comics in show business. She was racier than comics like Doug Stanhope and Luis C.K., with more antisemitic humor than the /pol/ message board on 4Chan when the subject of Israel comes up. She's used the N-word with a hard R in one of her bits on 'the Sarah Silverman program,'  on Comedy Central, yet, because she had a network deal worth millions of dollars, nobody said a damn thing. But, this same woman can turn around years later and start giving the rest of the world "woke" lectures about 'equality' on her cancelled Hulu show "I love you America"?

Don't get me wrong: This clip is hilarious, but come on, people. Don't pretend you're the wokest Apple user at Starbucks after you got famous off of shit like this. 

But, even in light of those examples, Sacha has got to be the biggest sellout in the history of comedy. Cohen hasn't headlined a movie since 2011, and he's worth nearly 180 million dollars. Yet, in his nearly 30 year career, he never once said anything even remotely close to a rebuke toward social media during the Obama administration. No, he waits until TRUMP is president, then all the sudden, he complains about "racist ads" and "fake news". Funny how deafening his silence was when he was trending on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, when his promoters were using these platforms, paying his way to the top of the comedy scene. Real "virtuous" of you, Cohen. Way to throw the rest of us comedians under the bus.


The way I see it, no one who is pro-censorship in has any business calling themselves a comedian. Rich assholes like this will never know what it's like to have to build a comedy career from nothing in the age of cancel culture, the way I and other young comics would.
Cohen will likely never know what it's like to do a set on a college campus in the 2020's, and get treated like you're only black guy at a Klan rally. He's never going to know what it's like to go on Twitter, make a joke about his own ethnicity, and get treated like he just stuck a baby in a microwave. This is the reality we -as comics- face every time we do our act in public these days. 

No, I don't like the Genocide in Myanmar. I don't like Anti-semetism, and I don't like BoomerBook or YouTube. But I don't like these platforms Cohen criticizes because they are inherently hypocritical. They condemn based on personal politics, rather than principle ⁠—much like Cohen's speech at the ADL.

No, I'm not saying Cohen hates edgy humor. I'm not saying he wants to BAN edgy humor, but I am saying social media is a machine, and machines don't know what humor is. If Facebook, YouTube and Twitter took the steps he's talking about now, he would never have made it as a filmmaker. He would have been blacklisted and swept up in the wokepocalypse just like the rest of us, so it's easy for him to talk his bullshit up in his ivory tower.

...But he has a lot of money, so fuck everybody else, I guess.

Why That Sacha Baron Cohen Speech at the ADL was Bull | The Takedown

Next PostNewer Posts Previous PostOlder Posts Home