The Topic that must not be named: Sprint/Unlimited Data

[frecklenutz]

I think that Sprint has to keep unlimited to keep customers. I work with a bunch of guys that would leave if unlimited was taken away, I think I would as well. I stream Pandora for 10-12 hours a day 5 days a week, without unlimited I would be screwed. I live in central MN and the network is on and off again but I keep telling my coworkers to wait and see what network vision is all about. With unlimited and the high end phones they have they have the potential to disrupt the big 2.

 

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[mirlyn]

Don't forget that even though the browsing habits of a particular individual may not change, the sites they browse do. Even the mobile sites are getting more and more media intensive as high-speed cellular bandwidth becomes more prolific.

[mellimel2212]

Don't forget that even though the browsing habits of a particular individual may not change, the sites they browse do. Even the mobile sites are getting more and more media intensive as high-speed cellular bandwidth becomes more prolific.

 

Very true and not to mention some people don't like the mobile versions of websites.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4g rockin jellybean using Tapatalk 2

[dedub]

tl;dr: WiFi offloading at home works. I can be a power user and still use under 2GB. But I'd love not to have that limitation. Hence my sticking with Sprint.

 

What is you're total bandwidth usage *including* wifi offload? Oh, you mean you are using over 2gb...

 

Just because you are offloading to wifi, that does not mean it doesn't count.

 

If you are using someone other than sprint for wifi, that bandwidth is still being paid for, and could in fact be counting to some other cap (ie att's ~150g cap on dsl).

[iansltx]

What is you're total bandwidth usage *including* wifi offload? Oh, you mean you are using over 2gb...

 

Just because you are offloading to wifi, that does not mean it doesn't count.

 

If you are using someone other than sprint for wifi, that bandwidth is still being paid for, and could in fact be counting to some other cap (ie att's ~150g cap on dsl).

 

It could, but it doesn't. My Time Warner Cable connection has no cap, though they do measure my usage. My parents' Verizon DSL connection? No caps, no meters, nothing.

 

Sure, I've consumed a couple gigs in one day over m home WiFi connection, but my behavior changes when I'm on a connection with tons of capacity (50 Mbps on a node that can handle 150 Mbps, vs. a 5 MHz LTE channel or a 3.1 Mbps CDMA channel) and unlimited (or nearly so) data, versus a cellular connection with less data. Which is why you won't see me watching Doctor Who episodes over the LTE connection on my iPad, but on WiFi the show is fair game even on my GSIII.

[JeffDTD]

I look forward to better data compression /codecs that can allow the users with the most simple needs (like streaming pandora) to continue to do so while greatly reducing their consumption. While pandora remains quite the data hog, pay streaming services have utilized phone storage and different codecs to allow seamless streaming at lower speeds and less data consumption.

 

I would love to see sprint partner with Skyfire, for example, to reduce overall consumption. Pre-load it, optimize it for the devices, and make it the default browser.

 

I said this before.. but I also wouldn't mind throttling. If the network around me is capable of delivering 12mb a second to my device, there will be little to no difference in the quality of my experience with mobile apps whether I'm going at 12mb a second or 3-4. Smarter network management could mean slowing me down a bit to allow others a more favorable bandwidth. I suppose that should occur automatically anyway as more users jump on a tower and the load should be balanced better between towers, but just throwing it out there: I'd rather remain unlimited at 3mb a second than end up without unlimited , blazing along at 12mb.

 

I continue to believe that for the majority of average users, guaranteeing a consistent stream of tunes on pandora and their favorite youtube fart video as well as faster mobile facebook is far more attractive than screaming speedtest results...

[dedub]

I'd agree that *conservative* or tapered throttling would be better than caps and overage charges, but not like how att/tmobile drop you from 3g/4g to an un-usable .0000002kbs* if you go over some arbitrary limit.

 

*obvious exaggeration

[JeffDTD]

I'd agree that *conservative* or tapered throttling would be better than caps and overage charges' date=' but not like how att/tmobile drop you from 3g/4g to an un-usable .0000002kbs* if you go over some arbitrary limit.

 

*obvious exaggeration[/quote']

 

Nope, not in favor of that either

[ChemicalArts]

I'd agree that *conservative* or tapered throttling would be better than caps and overage charges, but not like how att/tmobile drop you from 3g/4g to an un-usable .0000002kbs* if you go over some arbitrary limit.

 

*obvious exaggeration

 

0.0000002 kbps would come out to about 0.72 bits per hour--just to illustrate the magnitude of the exaggeration.

 

Sent from my GS3 on Tapatalk 2

[lynyrd65]

I'm in favor of unlimited forever. If wifi routers can do it and sprint has 160mhz of brs spectrum available as well as Pico cells there is no excuse. I'm optimistic for the future. Virgin mobile as a sprint prepaid subsidiary offers unlimited wimax tethering.

 

Let's see how than use that 5 fold unused brs capacity to wow us in the future.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[caleuche]

I'm in favor of unlimited forever. If wifi routers can do it and sprint has 160mhz of brs spectrum available as well as Pico cells there is no excuse. I'm optimistic for the future. Virgin mobile as a sprint prepaid subsidiary offers unlimited wimax tethering.

 

Let's see how than use that 5 fold unused brs capacity to wow us in the future.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

I think it depends on how users use that unlimited data. Even 160 MHz wouldn't be enough if every sprint customer were streaming pandora 12 hours a day.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[dedub]

Even 160 MHz wouldn't be enough if every sprint customer were streaming pandora 12 hours a day.

 

fact or conjecture? I'd like to see the math on that, either way.

 

Pandora is probably a bad example to use, since it is not real time streaming, its simply a buffered audio file and will download as fast or slow as the network provides, and once the playing track finishes transferring, it stops and waits for the next track, so it is not a constant stream, its a stop and go of variable time and size.

 

pulling out the random numbers and conjecture, lets say that on average pandora users xfer ~5 meg every ~5minutes. The faster the network can transfer that 5 meg, the less time is spent using that spectrum.

 

I don't know what the current or projected customer base numbers are, nor do I know how much spectrum that 5 meg every 5 minutes uses, so I can't really provide any further basis for extrapolation, but I'm sure someone here can fill in the blanks.

Edited September 4, 2012 by dedub

[caleuche]

 

fact or conjecture? I'd like to see the math on that, either way.

 

Pandora is probably a bad example to use, since it is not real time streaming, its simply a buffered audio file and will download as fast or slow as the network provides, and once the playing track finishes transferring, it stops and waits for the next track, so it is not a constant stream, its a stop and go of variable time and size.

 

pulling out the random numbers and conjecture, lets say that on average pandora users xfer ~5 meg every ~5minutes. The faster the network can transfer that 5 meg, the less time is spent using that spectrum.

 

I don't know what the current or projected customer base numbers are, nor do I know how much spectrum that 5 meg every 5 minutes uses, so I can't really provide any further basis for extrapolation, but I'm sure someone here can fill in the blanks.

 

Ok, lets think about it.

 

50 million customers and 30000 towers gives, let's say, 1600 subscribers per tower (and the rule of thumb is supposed to be 350 subscribers per sector so that would be high but it should give an order of magnitude). Going per sector, 533 users each streaming 192 kbps audio would be 102.3 mbit per second. A third of the radius of the sector will be 64QAM, the next third at 16QAM, and the outlying third QPSK (again going rule of thumb), and 160 MHz would provide 160 million symbols per second, so presuming an average of 2/3 FEC and 16QAM would give you 533 mbps per layer per sector. If the deployment is 2x2 MIMO (2 spatial layers) without other overhead we could expect about 1066 mbps delivered, of which our hypothetical audio streaming alone would consume a tenth of.

 

That's actually not bad. If you presume that they all are streaming netflix on top of that it would put it over the top though.

 

You get about 2 mbps per second per user on average, and depending on how fairness is set up that would support the average user streaming netflix. That's without coding and control overhead as well as IP and udp or tcp overhead. Realistically you could probably expect about 1.4 mbps per user.

 

So yes, 160 MHz is quite a bit, enough for everyone to stream audio, not quite enough for everyone to stream netflix.

 

You can see why though if they are stuck with a single 5 mhz lte channel the problem is substantial, that's only about 16 mbps per sector and therefore only about 31 kbps per user (and maybe 22 kbps realistically)

 

As it is, there certainly must be a significant amount of hope that everyone doesn't suddenly start treating their unlimited handsets as really unlimited.

[twospirits]

Its funny, reading this thread reminds me of that water story that a member posted in another blog elsewhere. It reminds me of what the other carriers (AT&T and Verizon) are doing as opposed to what Sprint does by offering unlimited but using water as the data coming in

 

The Water Story...

I have an interesting situation. My water utility sells me metered water for washing dishes, watering the lawn, showering, and other limited purposes.

 

The utility offers a Tasting plan for an additional monthly charge. Under this plan, I am allowed to use the water also for cooking and drinking. (Even though my water use is metered, and each gallon of water for cooking and drinking is delivered by the same pipes!).

 

Dear Customer:

Our records indicate that you have been using water for cooking and or drinking. Please upgrade your water rater plan to our convenient Tasting plan that allows for this usage. If you continue to use water for cooking and drinking, you will be signed up for the Tasting plan automatically.

 

I think the Tasting plan is just a fee that they made up. It isn't a service they provide. They just want more money from me. I've got a workaround of using a container to obtain water from another room for the purpose of cooking and drinking.

 

Some people shout: Theft of Service!

But what service? They're already delivering water to me, and metering it, and I'm paying for it, and its delivered by the same pipes!

 

Some people shout: But you signed an agreement and using water for cooking and drinking is a breach of that agreement!

Ask a lawyer about the term "unconscionable contract". Nobody in their right mind would agree to this if they had any actual choice in the matter. Just because they have the power and can force you into paying this ridiculous fee or doing without doesn't make it right.

 

I say that this Tasting "service" is no service at all, its just a fee for delivering nothing at all extra to me. It's a case of the utility wanting something for nothing. Yet people seem to think it is somehow wrong to use the water I'm paying for , for drinking or cooking unless i sign up for the more expensive Tasting plan.

 

In order to add legitimacy to their Tasting plan, the water company says that the Tasting plan is actually delivering something" it includes an additional 2 Gigabytes of water per month, giving you 4 total Gigabytes of water.

 

But what if I only needs 2 Gigabytes of water and therefore my existing monthly 2 Gigabytes plan is plenty? the water company already charges $10 per extra Gigabyte of water I use over the limit. So if I used excess water, it's not like they wouldn't get paid.

 

Furthermore, once I sign up for the Tasting plan, they don't make any distinction between water used for drinking/cooking and water used for other purposes. I could use 3/4 of it for tasting, and 1/4 for bathing/dishwashing. Or any other split. Or all of it purely for tasting. So then if I paid for tasting and used only 2 Gigabytes of water, which I already paid for, then why did I need the Tasting plan?

 

TS