ClearWire unlimted/unthrottled $49.99 vs $54.99 (new vs existing?)

[MyTravels]

Just called to activate a ClearWireless account and was offered unlimited/unthrottled for $49.99 (I picked the $39.99 plan throttled at 1.5MB/sec download as I though I'd try it first and can always upgrade).

 

When logging online it shows the unlimited unthrottled is $54.99.  I called and asked if $49.99 was for new customers and $54.99 was for exisiting customers and was told all unlimited/unthrottled were now $54.99 and even existing customers already paying $49.99 would recieve the $5/month rate increase.

 

a ) Are old/existing accounts at unlimited/unthrottled not grandfathered into the $49.99/month and having the rate increase (up to $54.99/month)?

b ) If not, does anyone know if there is a different rate plan for new accounts vs existing? (or did the earlier representative misquote the rate)

[MrZorbatron]

This is not an official forum.  This is a users community focusing on the technical aspects of the network, not the administrative ones.  I would suggest that you look on sprintusers.com which, although unofficial, is watched closely by Sprint.  You could also check out Sprint's official "Buzz About Wireless" forum.

[4GHoward]

As of October 1, there are two plan options. The $54.99 plan has download speed of 3-6 Mbps and upload is at 1.0 Mbps while the $39.99 plan has download speed of 1.5 Mbps and upload is at 500 Kbps.

[bandwithhog]

As of October 1, there are two plan options. The $54.99 plan has download speed of 3-6 Mbps and upload is at 1.0 Mbps while the $39.99 plan has download speed of 1.5 Mbps and upload is at 500 Kbps.

 

My old $37.50 plan will not change as long I maintain it. If I fail to pay or go on a vacation hold, I can get only the $54.99 plan back

[ctx1001]

Looks like sprint is increasing my ispot rate to $30, a $5 increase, next month. I hope they dont nickle and dime my rate every month until they shutdown wimax. Lucky I have options but like the mobility wimax has offered me.

[ericdabbs]

As of October 1, there are two plan options. The $54.99 plan has download speed of 3-6 Mbps and upload is at 1.0 Mbps while the $39.99 plan has download speed of 1.5 Mbps and upload is at 500 Kbps.

 

I am glad that the Wimax home plans are limited to just 3-6 Mbps and 1.5 Mbps tiers.  I don't want Wimax sucking up the backhaul bandwidth for TD-LTE.

[bandwithhog]

I am glad that the Wimax home plans are limited to just 3-6 Mbps and 1.5 Mbps tiers.  I don't want Wimax sucking up the backhaul bandwidth for TD-LTE.

 

That is not correct, that is the speed you can expect but I am pulling between 4-12 down and 1.6 up every day. Okay my tower is close but pretty full and Clear will no longer activate in this area because the tower is full.

[Mobilesolutions]

That is not correct, that is the speed you can expect but I am pulling between 4-12 down and 1.6 up every day. Okay my tower is close but pretty full and Clear will no longer activate in this area because the tower is full.

Mr bandwidth hog, how much data are you using monthly on your mobile connection & your home connection?

-Will

[bandwithhog]

Mr bandwidth hog, how much data are you using monthly on your mobile connection & your home connection?

-Will

 

I burn about 500-600GB spread over two devices. One is for the family incl. Smart TV and one is for the Home Office. We don't have cable or Satellite TV and we stream everything especially since local TV is not the best in my area.

[Mobilesolutions]

I burn about 500-600GB spread over two devices. One is for the family incl. Smart TV and one is for the Home Office. We don't have cable or Satellite TV and we stream everything especially since local TV is not the best in my area.

 

And this is all over wireless?  

[dedub]

I am glad that the Wimax home plans are limited to just 3-6 Mbps and 1.5 Mbps tiers.  I don't want Wimax sucking up the backhaul bandwidth for TD-LTE.

 

Jeeze.

 

Clear has always stated 3-6mbs, but it has never been hardcapped download speed, only upload speed.

 

Some days you get 1mbs, others can pull 10ish.

 

This is all dependent on tower traffic just like any other tower.

 

Its more like to be the case, that TDD LTE will be sucking up the bandwidth over wimax, just because LTE will be that much faster peak speed to begin with.

 

In any case, aside from any backend network prioritization, all backhaul traffic will be balanced equally based on load at that particular moment.

[Nickel]

I burn about 500-600GB spread over two devices. One is for the family incl. Smart TV and one is for the Home Office. We don't have cable or Satellite TV and we stream everything especially since local TV is not the best in my area.

There isn't a better wired ISP in your area?

[bandwithhog]

There isn't a better wired ISP in your area?

 

Nope and I am happy with having no cable, no satellite yet still being able to access the Internet at free terms. Okay, WiMax will be gone in 2015 but until that time, I remain hopefully a happy Clear(Sprint) customer

[jroepcke51]

This whole discussion is why Clear does not exist anymore.

[Rocket87]

Fact

 

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk now Free

 

 

[WiWavelength]

bandwithhog is missing the "d" from "bandwidth."  That missing "d" must mean no "discretion" nor self "discipline."  At the piggish rate he is consuming, the absent "d" ought soon to stand for no "data."

 

AJ

[dedub]

The biggest bandwidth hog of all, is non-utilization.

[WiWavelength]

The biggest bandwidth hog of all, is non-utilization.

 

Straw man fallacy.  You know as well as I do that wireless networks currently face over utilization, not under utilization nor non utilization.

 

Next!

 

AJ

[dedub]

How is it a fallacy?

 

Paying millions of dollars for a network, regardless whether it uses wireless or wired transport, that is not fully utilized, is wasted money.

 

Networks function at the millisecond level or faster. Bandwidth not utilized in that millisecond, is *EXACTLY* the same as bandwidth that is used.

 

If a network can transport 1 gigbit per second, but it only transfers 1/2 gigabit per second of actual traffic, that means 500 megabits of bandwidth was WASTED.

 

If a sector of a wireless tower can deliver ~37 mbs of bandwidth per second, anything LESS than ~37 mbs of bandwidth is WASTED.

 

If there is no traffic on a particular sector, then all 37 mbs of bandwidth is WASTED.

[WiWavelength]

How is it a fallacy?

 

You intentionally present an exaggerated version of the situation that can be torn down to suit your argument.  Educate yourself about a "straw man," then get back to me.

 

AJ

[The Dave]

[dedub]

I said, "The biggest bandwidth hog of all, is non-utilization.", of which there is nothing untrue about it.

 

The statement has nothing to do with over-utilization, nor did I imply it did.

 

Over-utilization itself is a misnomer, because its not normally possible to over utilize or exceed the maximum physical bandwidth limitations of a particular network element.

 

More accurately and to your point, wireless networks are often (but not always) over subscribed, meaning that the shared resource is not being "hogged" by any one particular user, but that there are more users than the transport (or spectrum) can support at a performance level that is acceptable or desired.

 

Further, this (over subscription) is 'clearly' not the case for clearwire/wimax as a whole, due to the obviously declining user base migrating to LTE phones and hotspots.

 

While, no doubt that there may or may not be individual towers that still have high levels of users, wimax usage as a whole is in decline.

[S4GRU]

I said, "The biggest bandwidth hog of all, is non-utilization.", of which there is nothing untrue about it.

 

 

Actually there is nothing true about this at all.  This is a platitude that people who want to abuse the network say.

 

Even if everyone did not utilize the network, how would the network be hogged?  This is bullshit, and we ain't buying.  We are already stocked up here.

 

Robert

[WiWavelength]

Actually there is nothing true about this at all.  This is a platitude that people who want to abuse the network say.

 

Even if everyone did not utilize the network, how would the network be hogged?  This is bullshit, and we ain't buying.  We are already stocked up here.

 

I am not sure that I have the patience to write a longer rebuttal to dedub, but I what I interpret he means is that non utilization is poor resource utilization.

 

The problem with this perspective, as I stated earlier, is that wireless networks are rarely, if ever subject to non utilization.  Rather, dedub's issue is really with under utilization.  But I have no issue with under utilization because it means that congestion is far less likely, hence capacity is apt to be there for those who actually need it when they need it. 

 

To present an analogy, harping about under network utilization as poor resource utilization would be like stating that many highways are poor resource utilization because they are not constantly full of traffic.

 

And by the way, that guy who is using 600 GB of WiMAX per month is transferring on average 1.9 Mbps every second of every day.  That is abuse.

 

AJ

[dedub]

hence capacity is apt to be there for those who actually need it when they need it. 

 

And so, the crux of the matter.

 

Who is it to determine who actually 'needs' it, any more than any other user?

 

I am certainly not advocating the 600gig user, but who is to say he is any less important than the user who uses 600 meg?

 

Who is to say the 600 meg user is more important than the 6 gig user?

 

I don't recall ever advocating network abuse.

 

What I do advocate is network use.

 

And yes, I concede that my point was more towards under-utilization rather than non-utilization, but the concept is the same.

 

An un-used or under-used network that costs millions to build and run, is simply a waste of money and resources.