Just saw a story on CNN about this exact problem.
They said the problem is that your on Sprint. 
I have no idea what you pay for Sprint, or for that matter what I pay for Verizon, but I can tell you, I have never had a problem with my service accept in places where I do not expect good service-like the middle of BF'ing nowhere Colorado and it has been worth every dime to know that I will have service when I want it.
I don't understand why someone would continue to pay for a service that does not satisfy them.
The difference is about $50 per month. Thing is, we've been with Sprint for over ten years and this is the very first time this has ever been an issue in all that time. I'm allowing for the occasional tech or signal problem before I go hopping around to different carriers. I'm not "loyal" to Sprint, but there IS the fact that we are still in a contrat period (about a year left) and would therefore be subject to an early termination fee if we did switch. Not to mention the extra money we would be paying to buy all new phones on Verizon or some other carrier. All told, before we even start using another carrier, we're talking upwards of $500 or more dollars for an ETF and two modern phones. Then add in the extra $50/month ($600/year) and now we're talking about over a thousand dollars (accounting for one year left in the contract) spent to get out of a frustrating, but likely temporary, technical problem.
Yeah, I get the whole point about not paying for a service that doesn't satisfy me...but the pragmatist in me keeps saying "Yes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and my constant badgering of Sprint may actually get results instead of me just storming out and taking my toys with me. Also, this is a very localized problem so, while the signal in and around my house may be weak, everywhere else I need it the signal is exceptional and I never get dropped."
