Debate on whether you should offload smartphone data on WiFi, even though you pay for "unlimited"

[S4GRU]

If there was ever a point where I got faster speeds and better battery life on LTE' date=' I would probably use that instead.

[/quote']

 

Tsk, tsk. This is part of the issue. Your home speeds are not typical. The average American has just under 6Mbps broadband connection. So Sprint LTE is going to be faster than more 50% of Americans home ISP. If all Sprint customers who have slower than LTE home WiFi speeds refuse to offload for their home usage, we are going to have LTE network congestion sooner.

 

We all should be promoting home WiFi offload. This is only an unlimited phenomenon. AT&T and Verizon users self off load to preserve their remaining data allotment. Sprint customers have no incentive to offload at home. That's why we are trying to educate people it is in their interest to offload. Even if their home WiFi is slower.

 

In reality, it doesn't matter how much slower their home WiFi is compared to LTE, if the slower connection meets their needs. One of the most data intensive things you can do on a smartphone is streaming video. But streaming Netflix on your smartphone works well at 1Mbps, and a champ at 1.5Mbps. So why pollute a shared resource like LTE?

 

If there were three people in your sector streaming LTE from their home and your LTE carrier was at 60% capacity already, that would be enough to start affecting performance for everyone. And since those three could be offloading, the performance hit everyone is experiencing is just a waste of resources.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[Proxcee]

Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 17 January 2011<br /><br />Thanks for the update.

<br />If your that displeased with Sprint why just cost them a few dollars

[irev210]

Tsk, tsk. This is part of the issue. Your home speeds are not typical. The average American has just under 6Mbps broadband connection. So Sprint LTE is going to be faster than more 50% of Americans home ISP. If all Sprint customers who have slower than LTE home WiFi speeds refuse to offload for their home usage, we are going to have LTE network congestion sooner.

 

We all should be promoting home WiFi offload. This is only an unlimited phenomenon. AT&T and Verizon users self off load to preserve their remaining data allotment. Sprint customers have no incentive to offload at home. That's why we are trying to educate people it is in their interest to offload. Even if their home WiFi is slower.

 

In reality, it doesn't matter how much slower their home WiFi is compared to LTE, if the slower connection meets their needs. One of the most data intensive things you can do on a smartphone is streaming video. But streaming Netflix on your smartphone works well at 1Mbps, and a champ at 1.5Mbps. So why pollute a shared resource like LTE?

 

If there were three people in your sector streaming LTE from their home and your LTE carrier was at 60% capacity already, that would be enough to start affecting performance for everyone. And since those three could be offloading, the performance hit everyone is experiencing is just a waste of resources.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

I mean, I could make the same argument that my home cable modem connection is also a shared resource. The more bandwidth I am using takes away availability/capacity from others. If I was at my brother's house, I would never use his wifi if I had sprint LTE there. His cable modem speeds are horrible - his cable provider hasn't invested in its network and there is just a lack of capacity.

 

At the end of the day, I am a sprint customer that pays for a service. Part of that service is allowing me to use something that best meets my needs (and following my end of the agreement I signed up for).

 

When we have people who just waste service just to "stick it to sprint" or "because it's unlimited" or say "I'll replace my cable internet with sprint lte against the TOS" - I completely agree it's wasteful of a shared resource. I don't think anyone should do that. But if I want to surf s4gru.com and sprint LTE did that noticeably faster than my cable connection at home, I would use sprint LTE instead of wifi. I am sure this applies to many who have legacy DSL connections that are horrendously slow. If I had a 1mbit DSL connection or 5mbit sprint LTE connection... I would use my sprint LTE.

 

If I was a rural customer who got Verizon LTE, I would transfer the liability of a legacy LTE customer, pay the 30 bucks for unlimited hotspot, and legitimately use that for my home internet. Sprint made it clear that hotspot data is not unlimited, and I completely understand why (limited shared resource). Verizon has allowed grandfathered accounts to keep unlimited hotspot but at the penalty of no upgrade subsidies.

 

I think for the majority of broadband customers who have speeds in excess of 5mbit the lower latency and better battery life you will get from wifi outweigh the benefits of LTE. Every situation is different though.

 

For me, wifi is the way to go - but with the way I use my phone, I don't use all that much data. The bigger issue will be people who replace that 1mbit high-latency DSL line with sprint LTE with a rooted android phone and run torrents 24/7. I am sure we'll see sprint tackle that.

[pyroscott]

<br />If your that displeased with Sprint why just cost them a few dollars

 

No kidding...

By my math, the average single line is about $70 per month. Even if you were to pay the maximum ETF of $350, it would only take 5 months before Sprint started taking a $70 hit per month. Wasting bandwidth is not hurting Sprint, it is hurting the other customers in your area and still making money for Sprint as they already have the equipment in place and broadcasting signal.

 

For me, wifi is the way to go - but with the way I use my phone, I don't use all that much data. The bigger issue will be people who replace that 1mbit high-latency DSL line with sprint LTE with a rooted android phone and run torrents 24/7. I am sure we'll see sprint tackle that.

 

That is pretty much exactly what we have been debating here. Forum runner over LTE is a drop in the bucket. It is the video streaming/torrent downloading/etc that could easily be done over WiFi with much less effect on the others on the network.

[WiWavelength]

I mean, I could make the same argument that my home cable modem connection is also a shared resource. The more bandwidth I am using takes away availability/capacity from others.

 

That may be superficially true, but it is not a particularly good parallel. Cable providers have more bandwidth than do all of the wireless carriers combined. Plus, DOCSIS links can easily support 256-QAM all the time, while wireless airlinks are stretching to support 64-QAM within the inner core of each cell. Not to mention, the local cable node likely serves fewer subs than does the local cell site.

 

Simply put, wired and wireless are different paradigms; they are not readily comparable.

 

AJ

[irev210]

That may be superficially true, but it is not a particularly good parallel. Cable providers have more bandwidth than do all of the wireless carriers combined. Plus, DOCSIS links can easily support 256-QAM all the time, while wireless airlinks are stretching to support 64-QAM within the inner core of each cell. Not to mention, the local cable node likely serves fewer subs than does the local cell site.

 

Simply put, wired and wireless are different paradigms; they are not readily comparable.

 

AJ

 

Very true, but at the same time - what can a customer who only has one cable provider do when said cable provider decides to under-invest in infrastructure, leaving its cable subscribers with speeds of under 1mb/sec during peak hours?

 

A cable company can have all the spectrum in the world but if they don't allow customers to use it, it's as good as having no spectrum.

 

I am fortunate to have a great cable company - others, not so much

[S4GRU]

 

I mean' date=' I could make the same argument that my home cable modem connection is also a shared resource. The more bandwidth I am using takes away availability/capacity from others. If I was at my brother's house, I would never use his wifi if I had sprint LTE there. His cable modem speeds are horrible - his cable provider hasn't invested in its network and there is just a lack of capacity.

 

At the end of the day, I am a sprint customer that pays for a service. Part of that service is allowing me to use something that best meets my needs (and following my end of the agreement I signed up for).

 

When we have people who just waste service just to "stick it to sprint" or "because it's unlimited" or say "I'll replace my cable internet with sprint lte against the TOS" - I completely agree it's wasteful of a shared resource. I don't think anyone should do that. But if I want to surf s4gru.com and sprint LTE did that noticeably faster than my cable connection at home, I would use sprint LTE instead of wifi. I am sure this applies to many who have legacy DSL connections that are horrendously slow. If I had a 1mbit DSL connection or 5mbit sprint LTE connection... I would use my sprint LTE.

 

If I was a rural customer who got Verizon LTE, I would transfer the liability of a legacy LTE customer, pay the 30 bucks for unlimited hotspot, and legitimately use that for my home internet. Sprint made it clear that hotspot data is not unlimited, and I completely understand why (limited shared resource). Verizon has allowed grandfathered accounts to keep unlimited hotspot but at the penalty of no upgrade subsidies.

 

I think for the majority of broadband customers who have speeds in excess of 5mbit the lower latency and better battery life you will get from wifi outweigh the benefits of LTE. Every situation is different though.

 

For me, wifi is the way to go - but with the way I use my phone, I don't use all that much data. The bigger issue will be people who replace that 1mbit high-latency DSL line with sprint LTE with a rooted android phone and run torrents 24/7. I am sure we'll see sprint tackle that.[/quote']

 

It's unfortunate you feel this way. Since you will WiFi offload, then you personally will not effect the network negatively. But your comments will only embolden those who will. If 50% of people who can WiFi offload at home refuse to, it is going to have a noticeable performance hit on LTE.

 

It will cause speed reductions sooner, it will cause the 75% capacity performance threshold to be breached sooner, it will cause carrier capacity to happen sooner (and maybe in some places before the additional LTE 800 carrier gets deployed). And it will cause the pass/fail threshold to be crossed sooner.

 

All for data that could easily be run over WiFi. I'm not advocating people not use their service. But I'm asking people not to use LTE data at home if they have WiFi that is at least 1.5Mbps speeds for their smart phones.

 

Sprint has a plan in place for additional LTE carriers in SMR and with Clearwire. In some markets, they may be able to add one more PCS carrier. However, those plans are based on their finances available and a time schedule. If we force Sprint to an earlier upgrade schedule, then we run the risk of higher prices or the end to unlimited...or worse...a degraded performance LTE network.

 

All because people felt they had the right to use the LTE network at home when they could have easily off loaded to WiFi. Yes, we all have paid for the network services. But it is in our interest to do things that will benefit us all in the long run. We cannot cut off our nose despite our face.

 

Everyone wins from home WiFi offload. Even the people who do it. Even the people who have a slower WiFi than LTE.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[S4GRU]

 

Very true' date=' but at the same time - what can a customer who only has one cable provider do when said cable provider decides to under-invest in infrastructure, leaving its cable subscribers with speeds of under 1mb/sec during peak hours?

 

A cable company can have all the spectrum in the world but if they don't allow customers to use it, it's as good as having no spectrum.

 

I am fortunate to have a great cable company - others, not so much [/quote']

 

Your previous point wasn't that you were advocating for people with slower than 1Mbps speeds with their home ISP using LTE. You are changing your argument. You said in instances where if you had a faster LTE than WiFi, you would use the LTE.

 

Most people who only have access to sub 1Mbps speeds live in rural areas. They are less likely to have enough impact on their carrier to matter. That is a whole different issue.

 

But anyone who has a 1.5Mbps+ WiFi at home should be off loading their smartphone usage at home on it. 99% of what you would do on a smartphone wouldn't have any noticeable difference whether you had 1.5Mbps WiFi or 30Mbps LTE.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[WiWavelength]

I guess it boils down to this, no one else cares about my quality of service, and I certainly am not concerning myself with others quality of service.

 

This statement really bothered me a few days ago, and I wanted to address it but did not have opportunity until now.

 

dedub, think about where you are making this post. If it is true that "no one else cares about [your] quality of service," then you have just invented a paradox because Robert never would have created S4GRU and the staff here never would have devoted countless hours to educating everyone about Network Vision.

 

AJ

[irev210]

Your previous point wasn't that you were advocating for people with slower than 1Mbps speeds with their home ISP using LTE. You are changing your argument. You said in instances where if you had a faster LTE than WiFi, you would use the LTE.

 

Most people who only have access to sub 1Mbps speeds live in rural areas. They are less likely to have enough impact on their carrier to matter. That is a whole different issue.

 

But anyone who has a 1.5Mbps+ WiFi at home should be off loading their smartphone usage at home on it. 99% of what you would do on a smartphone wouldn't have any noticeable difference whether you had 1.5Mbps WiFi or 30Mbps LTE.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

I am not trying to get pegged down with a specific threshold where WIFI>LTE. I think it really varies by usage type and by customer. I don't think you can peg down an exact number. I think the majority of customers in urban markets where broadband speeds tend to be the fastest and where congestion tends to be the highest should be a particular focus for Sprint. The benefits of wifi (and the overall customer experience) are substantial.

 

The reality is, far too many customers don't know the benefits of wifi, or even know what their router's wifi password is. I think the most powerful tool to get more users using home wifi is not setting arbitrary thresholds as to when it's better to use wifi offload vs. not.

 

I think it's to make sure every customer knows how to setup wifi and what the benefits are. Let the customer decide if the benefits to them are tangible and something that they want to continue using.

 

While internet forums are a great place to start, Sprint needs to really start this conversation at the store with every associate that signs up a new customer, in the box of every phone it sells, on the customers bill, etc. Get the customer educated.

 

It's an interesting discussion, obviously there are some strong opinions here - so it's good to see at least we can talk about this without turning it into a flaming war.

[dedub]

@ James, if you truely have an issue(s) that sprint customer service has been unable to resolve to your satisfaction, just email dan@sprint.com with the specifics and it will be taken care of.

[S4GRU]

 

I am not trying to get pegged down with a specific threshold where WIFI>LTE. I think it really varies by usage type and by customer. I don't think you can peg down an exact number. I think the majority of customers in urban markets where broadband speeds tend to be the fastest and where congestion tends to be the highest should be a particular focus for Sprint. The benefits of wifi (and the overall customer experience) are substantial.

 

The reality is' date=' far too many customers don't know the benefits of wifi, or even know what their router's wifi password is. I think the most powerful tool to get more users using home wifi is not setting arbitrary thresholds as to when it's better to use wifi offload vs. not.

 

I think it's to make sure every customer knows how to setup wifi and what the benefits are. Let the customer decide if the benefits to them are tangible and something that they want to continue using.

 

While internet forums are a great place to start, Sprint needs to really start this conversation at the store with every associate that signs up a new customer, in the box of every phone it sells, on the customers bill, etc. Get the customer educated.

 

It's an interesting discussion, obviously there are some strong opinions here - so it's good to see at least we can talk about this without turning it into a flaming war.[/quote']

 

You make some great points. But you say that we shouldn't set arbitrary thresholds. Is 1.5Mbps really arbitrary? Do you not agree with my assessment that almost all smartphone data usage can be handled extremely well with a consistent 1.5Mbps connection?

 

Is it just arbitrary because it is cited by S4GRU? Would it be less arbitrary if CNET said it? How about if Bob Azzi said it?

 

S4GRU is not about creating policy. So it doesn't matter how arbitrary it may sound. Lets debate the point. What do you think about a 1.5Mbps threshold for home WiFi offload? Don't you think that by saying it depends by each customer, would just be a justification for anyone who does chose to not WiFi offload, even if they could with no impact to them?

 

You just basically called the average customer an idiot and that they cannot figure out their home WiFi. Yet, you expect them to figure out whether home WiFi offload works for them? But you have a problem with me throwing out a number like 1.5Mbps because it appears arbitrary to you.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[koiulpoi]

While internet forums are a great place to start, Sprint needs to really start this conversation at the store with every associate that signs up a new customer, in the box of every phone it sells, on the customers bill, etc. Get the customer educated.

They have. Sprint.com has messages about how WiFi can save you up to 50% battery life, every Sprint paper bill has a section on it about how awesome WiFi is, and store reps are starting to tell people. It's definitely already there, just Sprint doesn't quite have the marketing down. 50% extra battery life is pretty good, though...

[WiWavelength]

They have. Sprint.com has messages about how WiFi can save you up to 50% battery life, every Sprint paper bill has a section on it about how awesome WiFi is, and store reps are starting to tell people. It's definitely already there, just Sprint doesn't quite have the marketing down. 50% extra battery life is pretty good, though...

 

Indeed. I meant to reference this but forgot to do so. Thanks for mentioning it. Sprint does use bill inserts to promote Wi-Fi offloading. I think that I may have even received an automated SMS to the same end.

 

AJ

[irev210]

You make some great points. But you say that we shouldn't set arbitrary thresholds. Is 1.5Mbps really arbitrary? Do you not agree with my assessment that almost all smartphone data usage can be handled extremely well with a consistent 1.5Mbps connection?

 

Is it just arbitrary because it is cited by S4GRU? Would it be less arbitrary if CNET said it? How about if Bob Azzi said it?

 

S4GRU is not about creating policy. So it doesn't matter how arbitrary it may sound. Lets debate the point. What do you think about a 1.5Mbps threshold for home WiFi offload? Don't you think that by saying it depends by each customer, would just be a justification for anyone who does chose to not WiFi offload, even if they could with no impact to them?

 

You just basically called the average customer an idiot and that they cannot figure out their home WiFi. Yet, you expect them to figure out whether home WiFi offload works for them? But you have a problem with me throwing out a number like 1.5Mbps because it appears arbitrary to you.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

I think it comes down to the user saying "yeah, this provides me a better experience vs. having this feature turned off." That's all. I think for a lot of people, less than 1.5mbit would still work great (especially if it is a low latency line) while others that may have 5mbit connection (but with a bunch of teenagers playing games, watching YouTube, downloading stuff) not so much. We could talk about the granular differences, but at the end of the day, if a customer gets an improved customer experience, they will leave wifi on and let it auto-connect when they get home. If not, they'll probably just turn it off and forget all about it.

 

I think customers (myself included) want the best experience possible. If there is no perceived difference between wifi/4g lte but a user still experienced a substantial boost in battery life, I would think that user would love wifi.

 

So, I think everyone should try turning on wifi and see how they like it. I bet the vast majority would see the benefits of using the wifi network that they already have at home and just let it auto-connect (speed and data usage aside).

 

So, to answer the thread's question: I think, as a customer, one should do what provides them with the best user experience. I think in the majority of scenarios, offloading smartphone data onto WiFi will provide a better customer experience.

 

 

Another discussion should be what Sprint should do with all of the customers that pull down gigs of data running torrents, running wifi hotspots for their home, etc. Dan Hesse just made it a point to mention that at the recent conference he spoke at.

 

It's interesting that Sprint also made it a point of turning away from wifi offloading since Sprint can't control the user experience with unlicensed spectrum and said that they would rather have clearwire fulfill that roll.

[dedub]

Thank you irev210 for putting so eloquently something I failed to adequately express.

 

The whole post, but in particular;

 

I think customers (myself included) want the best experience possible. If there is no perceived difference between wifi/4g lte but a user still experienced a substantial boost in battery life, I would think that user would love wifi.

 

and

 

So, to answer the thread's question: I think, as a customer, one should do what provides them with the best user experience. I think in the majority of scenarios, offloading smartphone data onto WiFi will provide a better customer experience.

Edited September 21, 2012 by dedub

[WiWavelength]

I suspect that either side of the issue could use this to argue its point. Regardless, I want to throw this out there. How quickly we forget that handsets just a few years ago (see my BlackBerry Curve example linked below) conspicuously included Bluetooth but excluded Wi-Fi because EV-DO was fast enough.

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=737972&fcc_id='L6ARBU20CW'

 

At the time (c. 2007-2008), BlackBerry devices were some of the biggest consumers of data, but EV-DO networks still had plenty of available capacity. So, Wi-Fi was not truly necessary, though arguments certainly arose over its omission.

 

Now, Wi-Fi capability is ubiquitous among smartphones. I do not think this just a goodwill gesture from wireless carriers or even a natural step in technological evolution. Rather, it is a necessary measure. Wi-Fi has become a requirement to support the overpopulation of smartphones.

 

Unless we are willing to throw all of our current and future spectrum at duopolists VZW and AT&T -- as they would like us to do -- we will never be able to satisfy fully our growing data demand on macro cellular networks. Offloading has to become a way of life. And as the saying goes, it starts at home.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Thank you irev210 for putting so eloquently something I failed to adequately express. The whole post, but in particular; and

 

You realize he didn't make your point, but actually mine, right? He said you should try your WiFi and use it if it meets your needs. He is making a case for WiFi offloading and only adding caveats for when it would be acceptable to not offload.

 

Your argument is you should use the mobile network, because you paid for it. Regardless of any interest, otherwise.

 

Robert

[dedub]

Your argument is you should use the mobile network, because you paid for it. Regardless of any interest, otherwise.

 

I don't think I ever stated that.

 

I have no problem using wifi, when it is better than whatever I cellular connection I have.

 

I just don't accept the opinion that you *must* or should choose wifi even if its the same or marginally less, especially if cellular data is not in a degraded mode.

 

For example, if one is out in rural east heyzeus where where there is only a dial speed connection (but by god it is available on wifi), and 3g which get .2 up to 2 meg at any particular time, one is likely to choose to leave it on cellular.

 

Likewise, when one gets an easy 4-10 meg on wimax, instead of a slower dsl, who are you to determine that they must use wifi if its available? When the wimax is getting 4-10 meg on a consistent basis, there is no indication or reason to believe that it is overloaded or whatever.

 

If wimax (or 3g, or even lte) is showing obvious signs of strain and over use, then one would likely choose wifi if available.

[S4GRU]

I don't think I ever stated that.

 

I have no problem using wifi, when it is better than whatever I cellular connection I have.

 

I just don't accept the opinion that you *must* or should choose wifi even if its the same or marginally less, especially if cellular data is not in a degraded mode.

 

For example, if one is out in rural east heyzeus where where there is only a dial speed connection (but by god it is available on wifi), and 3g which get .2 up to 2 meg at any particular time, one is likely to choose to leave it on cellular.

 

Likewise, when one gets an easy 4-10 meg on wimax, instead of a slower dsl, who are you to determine that they must use wifi if its available? When the wimax is getting 4-10 meg on a consistent basis, there is no indication or reason to believe that it is overloaded or whatever.

 

If wimax (or 3g, or even lte) is showing obvious signs of strain and over use, then one would likely choose wifi if available.

 

My argument has always been offload on WiFi at home or any WiFi that you feel is secure, IF IT MEETS YOUR NEEDS. Not use which one is best. If you have a 30Mbps WiFi at home, but you are getting 37Mbps from Sprint, you would still use the Sprint LTE because it is better?

 

Robert

[dedub]

I probably wouldn't, but I don't need anyone else to determine my needs for me, or tell me my needs are going to cause the bandwidth apocalypse and loss of unlimited data and higher prices, or that I need punched because I didn't turn on wifi.

[pyroscott]

I probably wouldn't, but I don't need anyone else to determine my needs for me, or tell me my needs are going to cause the bandwidth apocalypse and loss of unlimited data and higher prices, or that I need punched because I didn't turn on wifi.

And we finally get to the truth.

 

"DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO"

 

Wow, outstanding reasoning.

[pyroscott]

I use cellular data instead of WiFi all the time! I do what I want!

 

NSFW

[WiWavelength]

I probably wouldn't, but I don't need anyone else to determine my needs for me, or tell me my needs are going to cause the bandwidth apocalypse and loss of unlimited data and higher prices, or that I need punched because I didn't turn on wifi.

 

The wireless data "apocalypse" is already here. Can you not see that? As I suggested in a previous post, you seem to forget where you are. If the status quo were fine and Network Vision were not necessary, then S4GRU would probably not exist.

 

AJ

[strung]

The only way Wifi offload would work is if Sprint offers incentives (e.g. discounts) to off-loaders, or forces it (via handset software or threatening to terminate service), or institutes data caps.

 

Otherwise, if Sprint is faster than people's Wifi people will use Sprint and turn off Wifi. It's all about incentives. Econ 101 and /thread