Unlimited family plan

[Ascertion]

That is the same speed number I've been suggesting Sprint could use it at, being 3mbps is a good limit for audio/video.

They don't even need to throttle audio.  Audio imo uses very low bandwidth, unless you're downloading full-fledged flac files.  I'm talking mp3s, which often don't exceed 320kbps.  (Pandora uses 92kbps, I believe.)

[WiWavelength]

I can say with certainty that they were. I used that information yesterday to file a net neutrality complaint with the FCC. The FCC told me they will serve Sprint with a 30 day notice (on 1 July) to respond to the allegations. But given the news yesterday evening, no response needed now :-D

 

An FCC complaint was really unnecessary.  And I am honestly disappointed by the number of posters or commenters who think that this was a blatant Net Neutrality violation, even going so far as to call Sprint "stupid" about it.  Do you really think Sprint is so "stupid" that it would overlook Net Neutrality implications?  "Damn, we forgot about that Net Neutrality thing.  Thanks for reminding us."

 

No, Sprint has leagues of lawyers and regulatory compliance employees who vet policy decisions, especially in the Ts and Cs.  Additionally, mobile Net Neutrality retains provisions for "reasonable network management."  Capping video throughput across all sources fell under those provisions.  Or Sprint was willing to argue to the FCC that it did.

 

So, some of you need to stop thinking you were so sharp eyed that you spotted a Net Neutrality violation and/or blew the whistle on Sprint. 

 

AJ

[joshuam]

An FCC complaint was really unnecessary.  And I am honestly disappointed by the number of posters or commenters who think that this was a blatant Net Neutrality violation, even going so far as to call Sprint "stupid" about it.  Do you really think Sprint is so "stupid" that it would overlook Net Neutrality implications?  "Damn, we forgot about that Net Neutrality thing.  Thanks for reminding us."

 

No, Sprint has leagues of lawyers and regulatory compliance employees who vet policy decisions, especially in the Ts and Cs.  Additionally, mobile Net Neutrality retains provisions for "reasonable network management."  Capping video throughput across all sources fell under those provisions.  Or Sprint was willing to argue to the FCC that it did.

 

So, some of you need to stop thinking you were so sharp eyed that you spotted a Net Neutrality violation and/or blew the whistle on Sprint. 

 

AJ

 

I honestly am not sure of the Net Neutrality implications, which is why I'll let the FCC take care of deciding that. I do believe many will have a hard look at limiting one particular service that was being throttled "at all times", and whether that is complying with the new rules. Heck, even just a few weeks ago...Sprint announced they would no longer throttle their heaviest users (LINK).

 

I am no way some sharp eyed FCC expert. But the process is established to sort these types of issues out. And I honestly do believe that this was unreasonable. I contacted Customer Service to inquire about my unlimited Framily plan line (and also my 1GB lines for other users on my account). CS told me specifically, that my account does have video throttling. Which is when I contacted the FCC to inquire about filing a complaint. Sprint was served with the complaint today, which should be an easy response given the news from yesterday evening.

[Arysyn]

I honestly am not sure of the Net Neutrality implications, which is why I'll let the FCC take care of deciding that. I do believe many will have a hard look at limiting one particular service that was being throttled "at all times", and whether that is complying with the new rules. Heck, even just a few weeks ago...Sprint announced they would no longer throttle their heaviest users (LINK).

 

I am no way some sharp eyed FCC expert. But the process is established to sort these types of issues out. And I honestly do believe that this was unreasonable. I contacted Customer Service to inquire about my unlimited Framily plan line (and also my 1GB lines for other users on my account). CS told me specifically, that my account does have video throttling. Which is when I contacted the FCC to inquire about filing a complaint. Sprint was served with the complaint today, which should be an easy response given the news from yesterday evening.

Sounds to me you had a good reason to contact the FCC, Joshua. Since Sprint told you that you're video speeds may be throttled, you went to the source that could best investigate this, which is one of the things the FCC does to help protect consumers. Sure is more reasonable than contacting a private lawyer who likely would charge you a lot of money. Also would be taking up the lawyer's time on more important issues to them, though not to say your case isn't important, since it is. Just that they likely have serious personal cases to deal with.

 

Another thing to add regarding this Sprint capping issue, is I'm wondering if this was planned to happen this way, rather than by accident, or just ignorance to public perception. Marcelo and Sprint had to have expected an uproar over this, as has historically been the case over perceived slow data caps. By doing this, Marcelo and Sprint decided to "test the waters" and see what would happen, fully prepared to reverse this decision if an uproar occurred, which it did. Elsewise if nothing much happened, while still expecting it to, then Sprint would have set a precedent with this.

 

The advantage of having this cap, had they not had this negative reaction, would have given them a very good way to manage their network and a way forward for the future where with this, there likely would be less need to eliminate unlimited, in the future-speaking sense. It also would have been interesting to Sprint to see if other carriers would follow suit. However, knowing that this unlikely would stick with a positive public acceptance, they were prepared to make a quick reversal and come out appearing pro-consumer with this.

 

I'm not bashing Sprint at all by saying these things, which I acknowledge Sprint could have kept this speed cap had it really wanted to do so, regardless of public views. It is good Sprint reversed this and right now for the moment has the least restrictive unlimited plan of all the carriers. Yet, it does seem to make it more likely now for unlimited to be eliminated more soon than it may have been with this cap.

[travismheim]

I honestly am not sure of the Net Neutrality implications, which is why I'll let the FCC take care of deciding that. I do believe many will have a hard look at limiting one particular service that was being throttled "at all times", and whether that is complying with the new rules. Heck, even just a few weeks ago...Sprint announced they would no longer throttle their heaviest users (LINK).

 

I am no way some sharp eyed FCC expert. But the process is established to sort these types of issues out. And I honestly do believe that this was unreasonable. I contacted Customer Service to inquire about my unlimited Framily plan line (and also my 1GB lines for other users on my account). CS told me specifically, that my account does have video throttling. Which is when I contacted the FCC to inquire about filing a complaint. Sprint was served with the complaint today, which should be an easy response given the news from yesterday evening.

I'm not sure why you were surprised about video throttling in framily, its always been there and was one of the debated topics when the plan came out. I don't remember the exact wording but it was something similar to video speeds may be limited to 1mbps during times of congestion. No one I know even knew if Sprint actually throttled anyone, and the plans have been out for more than a year now so it must not have effected you since you didn't even notice.

 

Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk

[joshuam]

I'm not sure why you were surprised about video throttling in framily, its always been there and was one of the debated topics when the plan came out. I don't remember the exact wording but it was something similar to video speeds may be limited to 1mbps during times of congestion. No one I know even knew if Sprint actually throttled anyone, and the plans have been out for more than a year now so it must not have effected you since you didn't even notice.

 

Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk

Who said I was surprised? I knew the line about "could be limited" being included in my plan. But I was worried it would change to "would be at all times". I rarely stream video because the only time I really have a need to, is while driving (for my kids)...but it switches to 3G so much I rarely try. But the few times I might want it, I don't want a throttle on a non congested tower imacting Disney Jr.

 

So again, nobody is surprised. The FCC has a job, new net neutrality rules (which Sprint supported), and I took advantage of the options afforded to me. In the end, Sprint has an easy task responding to me and the FCC.

[travismheim]

Who said I was surprised? I knew the line about "could be limited" being included in my plan. But I was worried it would change to "would be at all times". I rarely stream video because the only time I really have a need to, is while driving (for my kids)...but it switches to 3G so much I rarely try. But the few times I might want it, I don't want a throttle on a non congested tower imacting Disney Jr.

 

So again, nobody is surprised. The FCC has a job, new net neutrality rules (which Sprint supported), and I took advantage of the options afforded to me. In the end, Sprint has an easy task responding to me and the FCC.

The terms and conditions of the plans can be changed at any time, but Framily and every other plan did not change. Until they actually do something that negatively impacts you, why would you contact the FCC?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[joshuam]

The terms and conditions of the plans can be changed at any time, but Framily and every other plan did not change. Until they actually do something that negatively impacts you, why would you contact the FCC?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Why? Because Sprint CS specifically told me that my unlimited Framily line would be throttled at all times now too. They said it was new for some plans. Now I'll admit, I have no clue if the CS rep was accurate or not...but a 600Kbps throttle would have forced me to switch. The only way I knew to get an absolutely honest answer, was the FCC complaint route.

[travismheim]

Why? Because Sprint CS specifically told me that my unlimited Framily line would be throttled at all times now too. They said it was new for some plans. Now I'll admit, I have no clue if the CS rep was accurate or not...but a 600Kbps throttle would have forced me to switch. The only way I knew to get an absolutely honest answer, was the FCC complaint route.

I see your point, though I would have waited until it effected any of my lines. I'm still not sure the 600kbps throttle would cause any problems with the FCC, its not targeting any particular service and treating them all equally. It would be different if for instance they excluded Netflix or HBOgo from the throttle.

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[JeffDTD]

If you're an average, uninformed consumer who likes to quiz random sprint reps and hang on every answer, then the FCC and the BBB are fair game for you to bring any and all of your concern or contempt for Sprint.   I would expect the knowledge base of an S4GRU member to be better than average.  And if an S4GRU member takes that route because of something front line care said, then the complaint could be argued as  more a desire to complain than an actual need for assistance.    In the future, if you don't like answers you get from front line care, you might try the executive care hotline first instead of growing Sprint's FCC or BBB numbers, 

[joshuam]

If you're an average, uninformed consumer who likes to quiz random sprint reps and hang on every answer, then the FCC and the BBB are fair game for you to bring any and all of your concern or contempt for Sprint. I would expect the knowledge base of an S4GRU member to be better than average. And if an S4GRU member takes that route because of something front line care said, then the complaint could be argued as more a desire to complain than an actual need for assistance. In the future, if you don't like answers you get from front line care, you might try the executive care hotline first instead of growing Sprint's FCC or BBB numbers,

So because we all have a love affair for Sprint, they should be allowed to do whatever they'd like? It's not like a filed a lawsuit against Sprint. If I have a complaint about a company regulated by the FCC, and I can use that avenue...I will. Sprint isn't innocent always. Neither are the other guys. Competition is good for consumers, as is the FCC.

[JeffDTD]

So because we all have a love affair for Sprint, they should be allowed to do whatever they'd like? It's not like a filed a lawsuit against Sprint. If I have a complaint about a company regulated by the FCC, and I can use that avenue...I will. Sprint isn't innocent always. Neither are the other guys. Competition is good for consumers, as is the FCC.

I gathered that your concern was rooted in conflicting answers given by care. I suggested using a department created to address elevated customer concerns. In the end, they will be who you talk to anyway. If you perceive that means I am in a "love affair" with sprint, and we are talking about affairs, then there's a stranger in your house.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[joshuam]

I gathered that your concern was rooted in conflicting answers given by care. I suggested using a department created to address elevated customer concerns. In the end, they will be who you talk to anyway. If you perceive that means I am in a "love affair" with sprint, and we are talking about affairs, then there's a stranger in your house.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I do believe the FCC would have issue with Sprint's video throttling, but that is for them to decide. Since Sprint removed it, likely no reason for FCC to respond. I also think T-Mobile's "music freedom" would violate the new rules, but I'm hopeful someone else will take care of that complaint.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

Look, Sprint customer care is an area that needs lots of work, I don't doubt that, look at JDP. That said, I doubt customer care answers are a solid ground for FCC complaints. The Commission has a duty to evaluate this on actual policy. If they see a concern, they will fire away. They don't need contact in a lot of case, they read the news and lots of time forums like this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

So because we all have a love affair for Sprint, they should be allowed to do whatever they'd like? It's not like a filed a lawsuit against Sprint. If I have a complaint about a company regulated by the FCC, and I can use that avenue...I will. Sprint isn't innocent always. Neither are the other guys. Competition is good for consumers, as is the FCC.

I doubt Joshua is the only person who contacted the FCC about this issue, as there are plenty of wireless tech websites we all pretty much know about where people complain about Sprint, both with legitimate complaints as well as those with trollish complaints. Most of the time it is fairly simple to tell the difference between them, which on this issue alone, there were quite a few real Sprint customers there, possibly some who frequent S4GRU, but felt better about commenting there about their issues with this matter than they would have here.

 

Every customer of any company needs to make decisions based on their own needs, which involves the fact they are paying money for a particular product/service to that company. If that customer feels the company hasn't properly and/or satisfactorily addressed an issue in whichever form/source of communication that customer chooses in contacting the company, then it is the customer's options to take it to either a higher source within the company if there is one they haven't already contacted, or to call a source with oversight.

 

In this case, Joshua contacted the FCC, which is his choice to make, one which is very reasonable. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect other people have done the same in this matter. Its all about the paid service in these matters, not worrying about if a company is going to be punished too harshly by the oversight source, or even if its just a matter over guilt of somehow breaking loyalty to a company by doing this. Money spent matters more in business.

[JeffDTD]

I doubt Joshua is the only person who contacted the FCC about this issue, as there are plenty of wireless tech websites we all pretty much know about where people complain about Sprint, both with legitimate complaints as well as those with trollish complaints. Most of the time it is fairly simple to tell the difference between them, which on this issue alone, there were quite a few real Sprint customers there, possibly some who frequent S4GRU, but felt better about commenting there about their issues with this matter than they would have here.

 

Every customer of any company needs to make decisions based on their own needs, which involves the fact they are paying money for a particular product/service to that company. If that customer feels the company hasn't properly and/or satisfactorily addressed an issue in whichever form/source of communication that customer chooses in contacting the company, then it is the customer's options to take it to either a higher source within the company if there is one they haven't already contacted, or to call a source with oversight.

 

In this case, Joshua contacted the FCC, which is his choice to make, one which is very reasonable. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect other people have done the same in this matter. Its all about the paid service in these matters, not worrying about if a company is going to be punished too harshly by the oversight source, or even if its just a matter over guilt of somehow breaking loyalty to a company by doing this. Money spent matters more in business.

Since you agree with Josh and youre a Tmobile customer, I volunteer you to write a net neutrality complaint to the FCC on Tmobile's music freedom. We all agree it treats data allotment and speed differently based on the application used. What if you're 15mb from exceeding your data limit after a blistering month of uploading facebook pics? Lets assume a user is deaf or just doesnt like music. Is it fair that music fans get to keep going without limit while youre throttled or billed overrages while surfing and farming?

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

Since you agree with Josh and youre a Tmobile customer, I volunteer you to write a net neutrality complaint to the FCC on Tmobile's music freedom. We all agree it treats data allotment and speed differently based on the application used. What if you're 15mb from exceeding your data limit after a blistering month of uploading facebook pics? Lets assume a user is deaf or just doesnt like music. Is it fair that music fans get to keep going without limit while youre throttled or billed overrages while surfing and farming?

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I read your response to me, Jeff, and there is not one thing you said in it that I disagree with. I don't think it is fair for T-Mobile to make music more important than other forms of Data. I actually prefer Sprint's plans to what T-Mobile offers, and while I thought the 600kbps speed limit on video is too low, I'm not against speed caps that are across the board, not just targeted on a particular type of data.

 

People use to dispute me here on speed caps, especially when I mentioned I was under the impression from some of what I read on tech sites, that speed caps would help relieve congestion. While I understood the counterpoints to this which were made to me at the time, I'm now going back to wondering more about the issue, since Sprint obviously had a good reason for attempting to implement this speed cap. I don't believe it was done as a mistake in its concept in theory, just that the number was too low and was questionable in the net neutrality argument over its fairness in targeting video.

 

As Joshua is paying for a service he felt could be affected, he took the steps he believed were right in dealing with the issue. I do think people with non-unlimited plans on T-Mobile, of those with over 21gb on T-Mobile who are being deprioritized, ought to complain about their usage being unfairly treated in favor of these preferred data services.

 

I'd personally even make a case of it myself, despite my usage not being affected, just out of principle even, if I were going to stay with T-Mobile and continue paying them for unequal service. However, I'm leaving them soon for Verizon and in the meantime dealing with some medical issues, so I can't take on a cause of such at the moment, but I do support it. If someone were to petition against T-Mobile, I would surely sign it, even after I switch to Verizon I will, if one ever is created.