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

[Proxcee]

No one as ever suggested that you not be allowed to use your Sprint data. I say, use an unlimited amount of Sprint data on your smartphone. However, at times you can offload your data on your personal WiFi (as long as your personal WiFi performs to what your needs are on your phone at the time), then you should use it.

 

 

Why is it in our best interest (as sprint customers) to do this (use WIFI when available)? Want to make sure I fully understand a position other than my own.

[pyroscott]

So let me use a buffet as an example, because I have seen this specific example many times.

 

These are some guys who go to a buffet and run up and take 50 crab legs the minute they are brought out from the kitchen. If anyone confronts them, they respond with something like "I paid $10 for all you can eat, and I want to eat crab, not bread." They have no consideration for anyone else and may enjoy other selections on the buffet, but eat the crab on principle, out of spite for the restaurant or because they like to be a jerk, or, I guess, because they like crab... A LOT. This is also the person who screams that there isn't enough crab on the buffet, and blames the restaurant for not "having enough for everyone." They also probably steal office supplies from work and print pirated books on the company printer rather than buying a paperback, and then they act like it is the company's fault that the office supply budget is exhausted 3 months before the next fiscal year. "Well, what kind of company can't properly budget for office supplies?"

 

Then on the other side, you have the community-minded people. These are the people that in the proverbial buffet, would know that if everyone took 5 crab legs, they could all get a taste of the premium selection, and have a good meal from the other selections and still only pay $10. They might even eat a salad (gasp).

 

The first crowd doesn't realize that by "getting their money's worth" out of the buffet, they are squeezing the profit margin of the restaurant owner and ruining the experience for everyone else, forcing the restaurant to adapt and either charge more for the buffet and offer more crab legs, or scrap the buffet model and go to a predetermined portion with ala carte available. The restaurant will not continue to offer something that doesn't work.

 

Now apply that to wireless data…

 

Personally, I use WiFi at home and work, and expect the network to handle my needs when I am out and about, ie "mobile network." Don't get me wrong, as paying customers with unlimited data, you are definitely entitled to use nothing but the mobile network, using maximum attainable bandwidth 24/7/52, while sitting next to a wireless router with 100Mbps backhaul that is connected to nothing, just like the guy in the buffet example is entitled to take every last crab leg from the buffet. What some of us are advocating is the community aspect. Taking your usage off the mobile network to allow your fellow Sprint customers to use the mobile network when they are indeed mobile. Hopefully the favor is returned to you, with usable speeds when you are mobile also. Sprint still needs to do their part in providing appropriate carriers/backhaul etc for the number of subscribers. (please don't use this as an opportunity to vent and rant about the inability of Sprint to keep up with demand, that is a moot point, trust me, we know, WE ALL KNOW)

 

Waste of community resources, ie watching netflix on the mobile network while at home with WiFi available, is not good for anyone except the one watching the video. Personally I would rather watch streaming video on a larger screen anyway. I never really got into watching videos on my phone unless there was no other alternative. The point remains that if everyone was responsible with their mobile data usage, there may not be carriers with tiered data. They saw the booming usage from people refusing to offload their data to their home WiFi, and saw a way to earn extra profits, and reward those who don't use massive amounts of data with a lower bill. Sprint is desperately clinging to the old business model of unlimited, why punish them and your fellow Sprint customers by refusing to offload when you have WiFi available?

 

Unless, of course, you want to see Sprint go belly-up or abandon the unlimited data model for a tiered model... And if that is the case, how about you punish Sprint by moving to another carrier and not paying them the monthly bill for service. That hurts Sprint more, and the community less.

[Rawvega]

Why is it in our best interest (as sprint customers) to do this (use WIFI when available)? Want to make sure I fully understand a position other than my own.

 

The more congested the network gets, the more likely it is that network performance will suffer. In turn, that will probably force Sprint to raise rates to pay for additional backhaul and/or go to tiered data. Whereas if everyone who had access to decent Wi-Fi used it, it would save Sprint money (not our concern) which *hopefully* would prevent them from having to rates or at least not raising them by very much (definitely our concern).

[S4GRU]

 

Why is it in our best interest (as sprint customers) to do this (use WIFI when available)? Want to make sure I fully understand a position other than my own.

 

If you removed all the people who could offload from the network, the network performance is better for everyone when you use it. Our goal should not be able to use as much network resources as possible. Because if everyone did that, there wouldn't be much network left when you need it. Even for yourself.

 

It's kind of like this. I tell my kids they can use as much electricity as they want. I tell them I don't have a problem with the electricity they consume, its the electricity that's wasted. My kids get in trouble when they leave the lights on in rooms they are not in and leave the TV/Xbox on and go outside and play. But they can use as much electricity as they want, as long as they do not waste it.

 

I see data usage the same way. On unlimited data, use as much as you need. And I can even understand the privacy issues of using a public wifi and why you may choose to use LTE in that instance. However, at home, if you have WiFi, and the speed of your WiFi meets the needs of what you are doing on your smartphone, you should use it. Because there could be dozens of people in your sector also parking on LTE. Its the aggregate effect of all the people who do it. Any one offender is not the issue.

 

Its a matter of educating everyone so that all the burden of people who just want to park on LTE at home is minimized.

 

And to quote Russell Peters dad, "Be a man! Doo duh rite ting!"

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[dmchssc]

People are acting like just because they paid for unlimited data, that they should use it as much as possible. By all means, you should use mobile data if you're out of range of reasonable alternatives. However, pointlessly using data instead of WiFi makes no sense. Where are you personally benefitting there? You're slowing down other people. A cost is placed on others while you gain nothing.

 

Unlimited mobile data results in a tragedy of the commons situation. It effectively makes data a non-excludable (meaning no restraint on use) but rivalrous (meaning consumption by one makes less avaliable to others) good. The "proper" response to a situation like this is to make data excludable, meaning charges based on the amount of data used. This results in an optimal use of the resource. People who value it at the price of data or more will use it, people who don't will not. If you have a free alternative to using it, you will almost always choose to use that instead.

 

That is what will have to happen if people irrationally waste the common resource, unless so much of the resource is available that use by one is almost inconsequential. Otherwise, the only way this set up can be retained is if people are conscious of this problem and are willing to at least make free or nearly free decisions that reduce the use of the common resource.

 

(Take note that no one has said you shouldn't be allowed to use data however you want to. It's whether you should if you have a viable, free alternative. Playing the I paid for it, no one should take it away from me card is a complete non sequitur.)

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

[Proxcee]

If you removed all the people who could offload from the network, the network performance is better for everyone when you use it. Our goal should not be able to use as much network resources as possible. Because if everyone did that, there wouldn't be much network left when you need it. Even for yourself.

 

It's kind of like this. I tell my kids they can use as much electricity as they want. I tell them I don't have a problem with the electricity they consume, its the electricity that's wasted. My kids get in trouble when they leave the lights on in rooms they are not in and leave the TV/Xbox on and go outside and play. But they can use as much electricity as they want, as long as they do not waste it.

 

I see data usage the same way. On unlimited data, use as much as you need. And I can even understand the privacy issues of using a public wifi and why you may choose to use LTE in that instance. However, at home, if you have WiFi, and the speed of your WiFi meets the needs of what you are doing on your smartphone, you should use it. Because there could be dozens of people in your sector also parking on LTE. Its the aggregate effect of all the people who do it. Any one offender is not the issue.

 

Its a matter of educating everyone so that all the burden of people who just want to park on LTE at home is minimized.

 

And to quote Russell Peters dad, "Be a man! Doo duh rite ting!"

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

I could possibly get on board with that for no reason other than network degredation and the impact it can have (performance wise) on other users. Team player. What I don't buy into is the notion that some how by scaling back usage of the network that might some how inspire Sprint to keep prices lower or afford us the privilege of having unlimited data plans.

 

I love to pull for the under dog too but lets not forget this under dog is...when it boils down to it...still a business and it is Sprint's obligation to its share holders to make as much money as possible. Data caps you could argue exist to conserve network resources and in some way "a penny saved is a penny earned", however, tiered data plans are solely a revenue generating mechanism.

 

While Sprint's market position isn't the strongest Unlimitied data will generate the most revenue. Once their position improves to the point that tiered data becomes more profitable than Unlimited data, the actions of those who would conserve data in an effort to avoid the inevitable (price increases/tiered data/the end of Unlimited data) will have been in vain.

 

I sincerely hope I am wrong about that...but im on board...especially considering the infancy of the NV network. "Automatic Connections" it is.

[S4GRU]

 

I could possibly get on board with that for no reason other than network degredation and the impact it can have (performance wise) on other users. Team player. What I don't buy into is the notion that some how by scaling back usage of the network that might some how inspire Sprint to keep prices lower or afford us the privilege of having unlimited data plans.

 

I love to pull for the under dog too but lets not forget this under dog is...when it boils down to it...still a business and it is Sprint's obligation to its share holders to make as much money as possible. Data caps you could argue exist to conserve network resources and in some way "a penny saved is a penny earned"' date=' however, tiered data plans are solely a revenue generating mechanism.

 

While Sprint's market position isn't the strongest Unlimitied data will generate the most revenue. Once their position improves to the point that tiered data becomes more profitable than Unlimited data, the actions of those who would conserve data in an effort to avoid the inevitable (price increases/tiered data/the end of Unlimited data) will have been in vain.

 

I sincerely hope I am wrong about that...but im on board...especially considering the infancy of the NV network. "Automatic Connections" it is.[/quote']

 

I don't believe Sprint will lower prices ever because customers are being good stewards with the network. However, if we are unnecessarily burdening the network prematurely ahead of the planned upgrade schedule and budget, then we are degrading network performance and pressuring Sprint to spend money it didn't plan to or may not be able to afford. Then they may have to consider scrapping unlimited or raising prices prematurely.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[Proxcee]

I don't believe Sprint will lower prices ever because customers are being good stewards with the network. However, if we are unnecessarily burdening the network prematurely ahead of the planned upgrade schedule and budget, then we are degrading network performance and pressuring Sprint to spend money it didn't plan to or may not be able to afford. Then they may have to consider scrapping unlimited or raising prices prematurely.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

Agreed. Buying our time I guess.

[dedub]

The buffet example is not quite accurate for networks.

 

Try the highway example.

 

When you go to work, do you;

 

a) drive your own car

car pool/ride share

c) use public transportation

d) walk/bike/other non motor transport

 

When you go to work, you have (at least) 2 primary paths available to you.

 

1) the superhighway, slightly more distance, no stoplights but possibility of traffic jams due to excess traffic, accidents and/or construction, or whatever.

2) the local road, slightly shorter distance, but with stoplights and more traffic turning on/off the road, and pedestrians/kids along the roadside.

 

your home connection could be either 1 or 2 depending your locale and the availability/affordability of higher speed internet access, conversely your mobile connection could be 1 or 2 also.

 

a, b, c, d are all valid modes of transport, and each has their benefits and tradeoffs.

paths 1 and 2 are both valid paths of transport, and each has their benefits and tradeoffs.

 

No particular combination of the above is 'better' than any other, nor is any combination 'an abuse'.

 

@ pyroscott with your buffet example this is called abuse, and I agree is not 'doing the right thing'.

[S4GRU]

The buffet example is not quite accurate for networks.

 

Try the highway example.

 

When you go to work' date=' do you;

 

a) drive your own car

car pool/ride share

c) use public transportation

d) walk/bike/other non motor transport

 

When you go to work, you have (at least) 2 primary paths available to you.

 

1) the superhighway, slightly more distance, no stoplights but possibility of traffic jams due to excess traffic, accidents and/or construction, or whatever.

2) the local road, slightly shorter distance, but with stoplights and more traffic turning on/off the road, and pedestrians/kids along the roadside.

 

your home connection could be either 1 or 2 depending your locale and the availability/affordability of higher speed internet access, conversely your mobile connection could be 1 or 2 also.

 

a, b, c, d are all valid modes of transport, and each has their benefits and tradeoffs.

paths 1 and 2 are both valid paths of transport, and each has their benefits and tradeoffs.

 

No particular combination of the above is 'better' than any other, nor is any combination 'an abuse'.

 

@ pyroscott with your buffet example this is called abuse, and I agree is not 'doing the right thing'.[/quote']

 

For your analogy to work, the car pool has to be leaving from your driveway at the same time and arriving at the same time, and your car goes every day too, regardless whether you drive it or not.

 

And even though your car is going, you are saying you might join the car pool anyway, because you paid into the car pool that month. And at first the car pool may be empty, but when it gets full, you would still ride it anyway forcing someone to sit on someones lap than to ride in your own car which is going to the same destination anyway.

 

Remember, we are only talking about WiFi off loading when it meets your needs.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[Proxcee]

Sprint: Ethernet backhaul gives us 20 times more bandwidth

http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/sprint-ethernet-backhaul-gives-us-20-times-more-bandwidth/2012-08-15

 

Any thoughts?

[Zman1369]

I use wifi always at home. No lte will ever be this fast,, at least I don't think so. Never had it. I'm in Boston Market and hopefully picking up my first lte signal tomorrow.

 

EVO-LUTION 4G LTE

[S4GRU]

I live next to a Sprint site. I will likely get 30Mbps+ speeds when LTE arrives. This will be far in excess of my Windstream DSL at 12Mbps (which only reaches that speed at midday and after midnight). However, I will still use my WiFi at home on my smartphone. Because my WiFi more than meets my needs for smartphone usage, even though Sprint LTE will be faster.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[Proxcee]

I use wifi always at home. No lte will ever be this fast,, at least I don't think so. Never had it. I'm in Boston Market and hopefully picking up my first lte signal tomorrow.

 

EVO-LUTION 4G LTE

 

I've seen LTE speed reach 30+ megs down and uploads as high as 23 megs. I'm sure others have seen higher. Cable pales in comparison to a good LTE connection. Pings for me are on average 50ms.

 

Good luck with the launch!

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

[Josh]

Oh, how I have missed this forum in the last weeks when I was working overtime and gone for an emergency medical situation in my family (everything is fine now)...

 

There are so many posts that I would like to respond to individually, but let me just throw my 2 cents toward everyone posting here:

 

First off, I know that everyone is scared that they might get LTE signal and finally have faster speeds, only to have their dreams smashed across the rocks by having an overburdened network... STOP ACTING LIKE THE SKY IS FALLING BEFORE WE ALL EVEN HAVE LTE. The problem with why sprint's network slowed was mainly because of the old equipment and insufficient backhaul (they had no idea mobile data would get so big so fast, and then thought wimax would cover significantly more people and alleviate the 3G network).

There are several reasons that we should be just fine by sticking to sprint. They have an extra 10MHz of PCS licenses in many of the top markets that they *could* deploy LTE in if there becomes significant congestion, which with new network vision equipment will be relatively easy (VZW is going to have to build out to support their AWS LTE). Sprint also has a majority stake in a company called CLEARWIRE that has something like 100MHz+ in every major metro area, and has the potential of delivering 100Mb/s+ speeds in the cities (talk about a cable internet alternative). Also, in case the readers here forget, sprint will also be deploying LTE in the 800MHz SMR spectrum as soon as next summer, which will match them to the total amount of MHz that VZW has already deployed with a much smaller customer base.

 

We know all this information, and yet some people are posting that if we use sprint's network it will crash/ costs will rise/ unlimited will be gone... I thought this site was supposed to educate people about why we can be excited about the future of sprint and high speed networks.

 

Secondly, anyone that doesn't want to turn on their WiFi out of some sense of moral justification is just stupid (you can argue with me, but you will loose) There is nothing wrong with using either, if your 3G connection is really faster (which I doubt is the case for a majority of our readers, as they are usually technology savvy and would have a decent home internet connection if available) use it! What I think AJ was trying to say is that the entire mentality of 'I pay to use unlimited, so I should try and test the boundaries' will eventually push the costs to the point that sprint will have to raise the prices to the customers or cancel the unlimited. This is because sprint DOES have marginal costs associated with running the network, and if everyone tries to push the network, it will inevitably not be able to handle it at some point.

WiFi will not save sprint from having to invest more or purchase spectrum, but the mentality of not using a free resource just because you pay for a unlimited resource, is a moot point. Neither will cost you any more or less, both will provide you with the same utility from the service on a phone (ie: watching a youtube video), only difference is that WiFi might not drain your battery quite as fast. I understand the reasoning behind not using public WiFi, but most of those scenarios need someone else attached to the same WiFi that is a skilled hacker and wants your personal information... rare situations, not saying that you shouldn't try and protect yourself, but I wouldn't spend my life worrying about a possible attack or that Starbucks knows that I come in twice a week.

 

Lastly, unlimited usage can still be attainable with LTE. The original idea behind the unlimited data plan is that customers would not have to worry about how much they used, and no fears about overage charges (which I can attest that AT&T was terrible if you even slightly went over your limit). From what I have read on other sites, the average user still uses less than 2Gb of data a month, and that includes people that are in larger tiered data plans and unlimited plans. The average will start to increase as more carriers have networks that will allow customers to blow past the 2Gb mark, but sprint knows this is going to happen and is planning a network that will be able to keep up with this increase.

 

I would even argue that Sprint/Clearwire eventually would like to take market share away from the cable co's by offering more home router options, and they will have this use built into their plans for network vision. As I do not work for sprint, I cannot confirm that this is their plans, but with clearwire's massive spectrum assets, it is a real possibility for dense urban areas.

 

I do hope for the best from Network Vision, but I do accept that if sprint drops the proverbial ball, we could either see increased costs or have another name on our cell phone bills.

 

-Josh

[CriticalityEvent]

I have (hopefully) one final thing to say on the matter;

 

Let's say, in an ideal world where we get 100% users offloading their data usage.

 

Then what is the point of paying for sprint service?

 

I think your problem is that your assumptions are all wrong. I am all about going to an extreme for the sake of an example, but this extreme you’ve gone to simply does not apply. Wi-Fi has a fraction of the coverage that a cell tower provides. In a vehicle or in a park, you will never have a Wi-Fi connection. In the vast majority of public places (bars, restaurants, etc…), you will never have a Wi-Fi connection that you are allowed to access. This being said, there will ALWAYS be cellular usage.

 

 

…

advocating offloading data = not using data on the sprint network (for any specific period of time).

 

2 examples;

 

1) a highly dense industrial area with a high amount of subscribers, lets say there is no wifi available for 'offloading'.

 

 

2) a highly dense residential area with a high amount of subscribers, lets say a majority of them are 'offloading' to their own home wifi networks.

 

area 1 is over-subscribed, and with no wifi available to offload, data degraded and unreliable.

 

 

 

area 2 is over-subscribed and even with a majority offloading data to non-sprint wifi networks, data is degraded and unreliable.

 

 

According to #90 and others, everyone in area 2 that is not already offloading is 'an abuser'.

 

Yet, area 1 which has the same over-subscription problem but no wifi, everyone is not an 'abuser'.

 

 

That seems to sum up the whole thread.

 

No. Area 1 does not exist. The majority of people in area 1 will, at some point, be in an area with Wi-Fi available to them.

 

The people in area 2 (which apparently doesn’t include you), will use their Wi-Fi to ensure people in area 1 have data. Why do you think that this area will have “degraded and unreliable” data if they are offloading?

 

I've been into networking of one type or another for 20+ years. Networks are designed to be used. Saying someone is an abuser simply because they have a choice *not* to use the network but continue to use it, is anti-thesis to the whole point of even having a network in the first place.

 

Let us take this whole offloading thing to it's logical conclusion.

 

Sprint sends an update to all phones, which force wifi always on, and if there is any type of wifi connection within range, it will disable cellular data. Since your phone doesn't understand whether you do or don't have access to those particular wifi, it doesn't care and will summarily disable your data until you move out of wifi range.

 

"Sprint, the now network with unlimited data, as long as you offload your data to the nearest wifi hotspot."

 

offloading (even in aggregate) is not going to magically fix over-subscription or lack of sufficient upgrades.

 

Not offloading, even if you are able to, does not make magically make you an abuser, simply a user just like everyone else..

 

I'm out of this topic (again, hopefully).

 

When I had 4G on my WiMAX phone, I used between 9-12GB/month. Watch how I broke it down: I used 1-2GB/month of cellular data and 8-10GB of Wi-Fi data.

 

Please tell me that I did not help other people who didn’t have access to Wi-Fi.

[S4GRU]

Oh, how I have missed this forum in the last weeks when I was working overtime and gone for an emergency medical situation in my family (everything is fine now)...

 

I was just wondering where you have been recently. I enjoy your posts. Glad things are back to OK with your family.

 

I thought this site was supposed to educate people about why we can be excited about the future of sprint and high speed networks.

 

Here is the S4GRU Mission Statement: "To provide a forum for discussion and education about wireless spectrum, networks, and Sprint Network Vision, in particular, in an online community that is mature, intelligent, and free from uncritical negativity.

 

Do you feel that S4GRU Staff and Moderators failed in maintaining/protecting our core mission with this thread? Even to use your definition of our mission, do you think we failed in that regard too?

 

Robert

[Proxcee]

This might be a small oversight...but unless you live next door to a Mc Donalds or Starbucks...WIFI isn't a "free resource".

[CriticalityEvent]

This might be a small oversight...but unless you live next door to a Mc Donalds or Starbucks...WIFI isn't a "free resource".

 

You are correct, so if you are paying for an internet connection/Wi-Fi in your house, you are wasting resources that you’ve paid for in addition to burdening the cellular network unnecessarily.

[Proxcee]

You are correct, so if you are paying for an internet connection/Wi-Fi in your house, you are wasting resources that you’ve paid for in addition to burdening the cellular network unnecessarily.

 

Sounds like an assumption to me. There could possibly be multiple PC's, tablets, gaming consoles, etc. using that wasted resource. Using that same rational...should we also care about "burdening" the network that the WIFI is connected to? Lets not forget that the mobile network is also being paid for.

[S4GRU]

Sounds like an assumption to me. There could possibly be multiple PC's, tablets, gaming consoles, etc. using that wasted resource. Using that same rational...should we also care about "burdening" the network that the WIFI is connected to? Lets not forget that the mobile network is also being paid for.

 

No one has yet said that their WiFi is overloaded at home with too many devices and it performs too poorly to use, and that's why they use their Sprint LTE at home instead of WiFi. That would be a whole different discussion.

 

The discussion pertains to people who have an acceptable WiFi at home, but refuse to offload to it. That's what I have a problem with.

 

Robert

[CriticalityEvent]

…

Lastly, unlimited usage can still be attainable with LTE. The original idea behind the unlimited data plan is that customers would not have to worry about how much they used, and no fears about overage charges (which I can attest that AT&T was terrible if you even slightly went over your limit). From what I have read on other sites, the average user still uses less than 2Gb of data a month, and that includes people that are in larger tiered data plans and unlimited plans. The average will start to increase as more carriers have networks that will allow customers to blow past the 2Gb mark, but sprint knows this is going to happen and is planning a network that will be able to keep up with this increase.

 

I would even argue that Sprint/Clearwire eventually would like to take market share away from the cable co's by offering more home router options, and they will have this use built into their plans for network vision. As I do not work for sprint, I cannot confirm that this is their plans, but with clearwire's massive spectrum assets, it is a real possibility for dense urban areas.

 

I do hope for the best from Network Vision, but I do accept that if sprint drops the proverbial ball, we could either see increased costs or have another name on our cell phone bills.

 

-Josh

 

First of all, the whole post was GREAT, I just truncated it to the part that I wanted to discuss a bit further.

 

I don’t know if Clear’s home internet service is capped or not, but I kind of see that as the first (or one of the first) attempts at home internet via cellular connections. It was a great idea; reduce costs by not having to run wires to a home/business and just sending the customer a modem-like device which was simple to set up.

 

Unfortunately, this system didn’t quite perform on the same level as a “traditional” wired home/business connection. Several friends of mine (who are somewhat technically-minded) tried it and were having connectivity and speed issues. Granted, this was in densely-populated areas of Chicago during Clear’s nascency, but it still showed a lack of preparation from my perspective. Are the majority of Clear’s customers satisfied with their service? I am absolutely positive that they are, but the same can be said for Sprint. We, the people of forums like this and XDA, are much more aware of things like lags in data speed and signal strength.

 

My fear is that the wireless industry will continue to provide experiences that ebb and flow. As customers’ usage increases, the network performance goes down, which then prompts a network upgrade. I’m sure that improvements would occur regardless of whether or not demand increases, but I don’t want another 2-3 year stretch where my service was terrible.

 

I’m hoping that by educating people to use Wi-Fi, we can help stave off another pre-NV dark age. Anyone here read Asimov’s Foundation?

 

I was just wondering where you have been recently. I enjoy your posts. Glad things are back to OK with your family.

 

 

 

Here is the S4GRU Mission Statement: "To provide a forum for discussion and education about wireless spectrum, networks, and Sprint Network Vision, in particular, in an online community that is mature, intelligent, and free from uncritical negativity.

 

Do you feel that S4GRU Staff and Moderators failed in maintaining/protecting our core mission with this thread? Even to use your definition of our mission, do you think we failed in that regard too?

 

Robert

 

No, you haven’t failed, I’m extremely critical in my negativity. :-P

 

 

Sounds like an assumption to me. There could possibly be multiple PC's, tablets, gaming consoles, etc. using that wasted resource. Using that same rational...should we also care about "burdening" the network that the WIFI is connected to? Lets not forget that the mobile network is also being paid for.

 

I can’t speak for public access points, but if you’re on your home Wi-Fi, I certainly hope you know what’s connected to it. For the sake of this argument, I’ve regularly had 5-6 devices connected to my Wi-Fi, all in active use, and there was no service impact that I could perceive. Granted, most of those devices were just doing relatively light browsing/streaming, but if people can host WoW parties over their Wi-Fi, I don’t see it being much of an issue.

 

And you are right again; you are paying for the mobile network. However, there will ALWAYS be an instance in which you have no choice but to use it. When that happens, you are going to want the best experience possible. For that to happen, there should be as few people using your tower as possible. Where else would they go if not their personal Wi-Fi, if they have it available?

[JeffDTD]

So let me use a buffet as an example, because I have seen this specific example many times.

 

These are some guys who go to a buffet and run up and take 50 crab legs the minute they are brought out from the kitchen. If anyone confronts them, they respond with something like "I paid $10 for all you can eat, and I want to eat crab, not bread." They have no consideration for anyone else and may enjoy other selections on the buffet, but eat the crab on principle, out of spite for the restaurant or because they like to be a jerk, or, I guess, because they like crab... A LOT. This is also the person who screams that there isn't enough crab on the buffet, and blames the restaurant for not "having enough for everyone." They also probably steal office supplies from work and print pirated books on the company printer rather than buying a paperback, and then they act like it is the company's fault that the office supply budget is exhausted 3 months before the next fiscal year. "Well, what kind of company can't properly budget for office supplies?"

 

Then on the other side, you have the community-minded people. These are the people that in the proverbial buffet, would know that if everyone took 5 crab legs, they could all get a taste of the premium selection, and have a good meal from the other selections and still only pay $10. They might even eat a salad (gasp).

 

The first crowd doesn't realize that by "getting their money's worth" out of the buffet, they are squeezing the profit margin of the restaurant owner and ruining the experience for everyone else, forcing the restaurant to adapt and either charge more for the buffet and offer more crab legs, or scrap the buffet model and go to a predetermined portion with ala carte available. The restaurant will not continue to offer something that doesn't work.

 

 

Its also impossible to reason or change the minds of the buffet abusing crowd. They would rather reap it for all its worth as chances as they get , even if they know it will end.

 

This crowd can also be the easiest ones to manipulate with pricing schemes and usually have a pretty short sighted collective memory. When Sprint's gone, they'll take what they can get elsewhere and eventually forget they ever had it better.

 

Not trying to be overly negative here, but so much of this debate reminds me of the reasoning that the biggest schmoozes I come into contact with in my line of work exhibit. (Foreclosed Property Resale). Greed is a god given right in the mind of many of the members of this society.

[Proxcee]

Not trying to be overly negative here, but so much of this debate reminds me of the reasoning that the biggest schmoozes I come into contact with in my line of work exhibit. (Foreclosed Property Resale). Greed is a god given right in the mind of many of the members of this society.

 

...aint that the truth.

[CriticalityEvent]

...aint that the truth.

 

Just to be clear, I think that he’s speaking out against people who refuse to use their home internet connection in favor of Sprint’s network.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you use your wireless at your house?

 

Just out of principle...I feel I shouldn't have to...that's part of what I pay Sprint for.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

I really think we are the ones who started this whole thing.