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

[S4GRU]

Use it whenever you need it. I just believe that using it when you have other options, especially at home, is rather ridiculous. It's my opinion. And an opinion of most of us wireless enthusiasts. You all are entitled to be wrong. It's OK.

 

But this is something I am concerned about. Sprint's LTE network is going to perform better than the home ISP of half its customers. If even half start using Sprint LTE for all their home smartphone data, it's going to cause problems. So you folks who think "I paid for it, so all the network resources I can muster are mine" better hope that everyone else in your sector doesn't feel the same way. Or you will have to go to another carrier who will daily beat you over the head with data caps to prove the point how wrong you were.

 

As it states in my profile, "I desire what is good. Therefore those who disagree with me are traitors." - King George III

 

Robert

[dedub]

So you folks who think "I paid for it, so all the network resources I can muster are mine"

 

 

I don't think anyone here is advocating that, I know I never said anything to that effect.

 

better hope that everyone else in your sector doesn't feel the same way.

 

I think it is a given for anyone who uses cellular data is acutely aware that their usage affects others, as other's usage affects theirs.

 

Or you will have to go to another carrier who will daily beat you over the head with data caps to prove the point how wrong you were.

 

Well there is always tmobile to fall back to, at least for now!

[CriticalityEvent]

If my dsl performed better than my sprint 4g I would likely use it.

 

If I did not have 4g, and was stuck with sprint 3g, then I would likely choose my dsl or whatever was available that provided the better service.

 

Same for any free wifi spots. In the majority of cases of my particular use, I use whatever performs the best at that particular location and time.

 

I don't feel guilty one bit for utilizing my 4g service instead of latching on to any random or personal wifi spot.

 

Not to mention, you have no idea what kind of security a public wifi spot may or may not have, or what kind of user tracking they keep on your access.

 

Using a public wifi hotspot without a vpn is like, well I think you can figure it out.

 

To the point that AJ made earlier, you do not need more than a couple Mbps when you’re on your phone. A relative of mine wanted to upgrade her TV/internet/phone after using the same service for nearly a decade. The AT&T rep on the phone pulled up her account and immediately laughed at the fact that my relative was using their 768Kbps connection. The slowest they currently offer is 3Mbps. It was going to be cheaper for her to upgrade to the faster connection.

 

Then there’s the subject of battery life. Is it easier for your phone to communicate with a tower that’s potentially thousands of feet away, or a router 30 feet away?

 

On the subject of security, I cannot claim to know much. I am always wary of going with my instincts or intuition on subjects such as these as there are too many variables.

 

No one should be using the LTE network if they are concerned about data security. Seriously. Neither are secure networks and both are shared resources.

 

Robert

 

I really do not like disagreeing with people whose arguments I’ve sided with thus far (especially when they’re the freaking ADMIN), but from what little I do know, wouldn’t the cellular connection offer a higher degree of security than a public Wi-Fi? When I use public Wi-Fi, I usually disable syncing and try to use https:// logins.

 

 

I'm on the side of "I pay for it, I should be able to use it" side. Especially since I've paid for LTE (well LTE phone and 4g data) since April and have yet to see it! (joking therehaha) Anyway, this was why I left ATT. First it was "you have to buy this data plan with your iphone 3g." So reluctantly, I forked over the money for unlimited data. Next, it was "if you upgrade to the Atrix 4G, you will retain your unlimited data and have 4g speed." So since I was lured in to buy unlimited a while back, I felt entitled to use it unlimited. Never tured on wifi. Then the caps came after I used 2 GB of data. So pissed off, I continually downloaded / uploaded a 1GB file until sprint launched the Galaxy Nexus. Ending the month with 10GB of data used while "capped". Slowing the speeds really helped there, huh.

 

I’m confused… are you saying that you retaliated against a capped plan by deliberately burning up data?

 

Personally I understand bandwidth is a limited resource, but when I was forced to get unlimited, I think it's fair to say that it's not my problem they can't handle the capacity. I'll probably have wifi on when LTE launches here, but I'll only connect at MY HOME. I'm not going to connect a personal device to work's wifi or remember when I'm at mcdonalds/starbucks/jiffy lube or whatever.

 

A side note... you guys do realize in the contract you signed, Sprint still reserves the right to "pull an ATT", as I like to call throttling. So maybe that'll change your mind about using it as an ISP at least.

 

I feel like you just went the other way at the end there. First, you’re saying that it’s not your responsibility to attempt to use something other than a cellular network (even if it is just a tap of a button on a power control widget), then you advise against using Sprint as your phone’s sole internet connection.

[S4GRU]

I don't think anyone here is advocating that, I know I never said anything to that effect.

 

Thanks for your clarification. I wasn't sure what you thought as a bottom line in this discussion until you clarified.

 

I think it is a given for anyone who uses cellular data is acutely aware that their usage affects others, as other's usage affects theirs.

 

I wasn't sure you did, until now. And I certainly wouldn't give John Q. Cell-Customer the benefit of the doubt on this subject.

 

Well there is always tmobile to fall back to, at least for now!

 

Sure reminds me of Ross Perot. Is he in, or is he out of the race?

 

Robert

[S4GRU]

I really do not like disagreeing with people whose arguments I’ve sided with thus far (especially when they’re the freaking ADMIN), but from what little I do know, wouldn’t the cellular connection offer a higher degree of security than a public Wi-Fi? When I use public Wi-Fi, I usually disable syncing and try to use https:// logins.

 

People can always disagree with me. No problem. I just always ask that they do so courteously and use clear points and facts.

 

In response, I'm sure that the LTE network is more secure than most WiFi networks. Especially public WiFi networks. But my argument was not a comparison of privacy superiority, just that for people who have strong feelings and concerns for security, well, they will not be able to take comfort that LTE is a secure data network. It is far from it.

 

The security problems with LTE are not so much as they provide more security, it's just that there are less people with the know how and/or desire to breach it.

 

Robert

[dedub]

Thanks for your clarification. I wasn't sure what you thought as a bottom line in this discussion until you clarified.

 

My bottom line is thus;

 

a kernel of truth.

 

a kernel, sure

 

So, if you have Wi-Fi at home and are not offloading, you better have a really good reason why. Otherwise, I would like to punch you.

 

No one should deserve to be 'punched' (literally or figuratively) because they choose to use the service they pay for, just because they could offload, does not mean they have to, or even 'should'.

Edited September 19, 2012 by dedub

[theDrizzle]

I’m confused… are you saying that you retaliated against a capped plan by deliberately burning up data?

 

I feel like you just went the other way at the end there. First, you’re saying that it’s not your responsibility to attempt to use something other than a cellular network (even if it is just a tap of a button on a power control widget), then you advise against using Sprint as your phone’s sole internet connection.

 

I've got no beef with Sprint. I'll use wifi so I can keep it unlimited. However, if I were FORCED to buy unlimited, I'd feel entitled to it. I've been on the side where people abused the data (even though I didn't) and saw what that got me. Yes I retaliated by using more data. By their logic, because I was capped, I couldn't use as much data.

[pyroscott]

I have always used WiFi at home and work. Public WiFi, that's a different story. I don't understand why people think it is acceptable to use cellular networks over WiFi at home. It's one thing if you don't have internet at home, but it is a complete dick move to choose to use the cellular network instead of WiFi, especially as some kind of stand to "use what you pay for." Newsflash, you pay for your home internet too....

[Craig]

I"m still not sure what you're doing on your phone that you need so much more speed than you can get off even a slower DSL connection at home? I've streamed Netflix over 3G with no issues, which is certainly slower than even a crappy DSL connection. And if your DSL, or whatever pipe you use to access the internet, is slower than a 3G connection, then you probably are paying way too much for it and in that case, you should just ditch it.

[iansltx]

I have always used WiFi at home and work. Public WiFi, that's a different story. I don't understand why people think it is acceptable to use cellular networks over WiFi at home. It's one thing if you don't have internet at home, but it is a complete dick move to choose to use the cellular network instead of WiFi, especially as some kind of stand to "use what you pay for." Newsflash, you pay for your home internet too....

 

Counterpoint: 3G, let alone LTE, is faster than the home internet that anyone can get at my parents' location, or farther out from it. The wireless ISP here has as much capacity for their whole system as Sprint has for one cell site. Maybe less.

 

I'm not advocating tethering without Sprint's tethering plan. However there's a company called Millenicom that sells "unlimited" Sprint 3G (50+ GB will get a call from them wondering what's going on). It's $70 per month. There's also Sprint tethering, which I have no remorse on using instead of parents' WiFi. It's $1.70 or so per day (prorated; I remove the feature when I am not using it).

 

Then there's unlimited data available on my phone, which is faster than what's available (at any price short of bonded T1s) via a traditional ISP. In this case I'll tend to keep WiFi off on my phone (I turn WiFi off when I'm out and about, turning it on only when I know I'll be in an area with a hotspot), pushing web traffic over the cellular network. This is for use on my phone and my phone only...and I'm not slamming the network while doing it...so I figure that this is reasonable behavior.

 

To put things another way, if you're going to go with the argument that unlimited is only unlimited for those who limit their usage...on a network that has as much capacity as a cable network had four years ago (when Comcast sold service with a 250GB cap), you might as well tell people to go another carrier with a capped plan, since that way they pay for what they use. Less angst for everyone, since apparently my usage on a single cell site dozens of miles away from where anyone else on here lives congests the network for everyone and causes Sprint to kill unlimited data. Oh wait...Millenicom's still around.

 

Personally, I like T-Mobile's approach to the data dilemma: unlimited on-phone data is $20 per month. That's more expensive than 2GB of data for $10, and less expensive than 5GB of data plus tethering for $30. So obviously T-Mobile has a reasonable expectation that its subscribers to that plan, while not worrying about their wireless usage, will use somewhere between 2GB and 5GB on average. They have this expectation because they've run the numbers and, with their cost structure, they are willing to take the risks associated with offering an unlimited plan...and the rewards (more customers) of doing so. I know a friend whose family switched to the unlimited data plan on multiple lines of service, grabbed a new phone or two,(including his HTC One S) and saved some money in the process. Thing is, they'll continue to be profitable for T-Mobile despite having a fast network, unlimited data and probably very low WiFi usage...

 

Why do I say very low WiFi usage? Because, for the average Joe, unless they're beaten over the head with WiFi related messages (like many phones do nowadays...if WiFi is turned on), they won't bother connecting to their home wireless network unless the cellular network is too slow for them. Which is fine, because those users (my mom included) aren't doing data-intensive stuff on their phones (500MB of usage per month or so for my mom). Again, it's all a numbers game, and those users are factored in with the numbers.

 

Also, for what it's worth, if a company doesn't want its subscribers to use a lot of data on their unlimited network, they shouldn't advertise functionality that chews through data. But apparently newer networks can take the bandwidth beating that online video dishes out...which is going to be used mostly away from home anyway, because I'm probably the only one who will curl up with his phone and watch a couple episodes of Dr. Who on it, instead of reaching for a device with a larger screen

[iansltx]

I"m still not sure what you're doing on your phone that you need so much more speed than you can get off even a slower DSL connection at home? I've streamed Netflix over 3G with no issues, which is certainly slower than even a crappy DSL connection. And if your DSL, or whatever pipe you use to access the internet, is slower than a 3G connection, then you probably are paying way too much for it and in that case, you should just ditch it.

 

Parents' DSL is 1.5M down, 384k up. It's the fastest speed possible given line conditions (sometimes it gets slower due to weather issues etc.). It's not terribly expensive...$35 or so per month plus a $20 landline...but it's all they can get. Satellite...don't get me started. We *might* be able to get 2M down, 384k up service for $60 per month here, but that's uncertain and seems overpriced compared to what they're paying now (also, no more upload speed). The other wireless ISP in the area wants $100 for 2M, which I'm pretty sure they can't deliver anyway.

 

What's your response in this situation? Not everyone has access to $55-per-month 10Mbit cable.

[CriticalityEvent]

…

No one should deserve to be 'punched' (literally or figuratively) because they choose to use the service they pay for, just because they could offload, does not mean they have to, or even 'should'.

 

You’re right in that they don’t “have to” offload; there’s nothing saying that they MUST not use the service that they pay for if there’s an alternative. However, you absolutely SHOULD use other connections if you have them available to you because other people who are paying for the same service might not have the alternative that you do.

 

I've got no beef with Sprint. I'll use wifi so I can keep it unlimited. However, if I were FORCED to buy unlimited, I'd feel entitled to it. I've been on the side where people abused the data (even though I didn't) and saw what that got me. Yes I retaliated by using more data. By their logic, because I was capped, I couldn't use as much data.

 

So you took it upon yourself to strain an already overloaded network because they were trying to mitigate the damage and ensure the vast majority of subscribers could still maintain a quality connection?

[S4GRU]

You’re right in that they don’t “have to” offload; there’s nothing saying that they MUST not use the service that they pay for if there’s an alternative. However, you absolutely SHOULD use other connections if you have them available to you because other people who are paying for the same service might not have the alternative that you do.

 

 

 

So you took it upon yourself to strain an already overloaded network because they were trying to mitigate the damage and ensure the vast majority of subscribers could still maintain a quality connection?

 

Well, when you say it that way...

 

Robert

[iansltx]

You’re right in that they don’t “have to” offload; there’s nothing saying that they MUST not use the service that they pay for if there’s an alternative. However, you absolutely SHOULD use other connections if you have them available to you because other people who are paying for the same service might not have the alternative that you do.

 

 

 

So you took it upon yourself to strain an already overloaded network because they were trying to mitigate the damage and ensure the vast majority of subscribers could still maintain a quality connection?

 

Have you used anyone's LTE network yet? Or T-Mobile H+? None of the above are overloaded, provided you can get a bona fide LTE or H+ signal

[S4GRU]

Have you used anyone's LTE network yet? Or T-Mobile H+? None of the above are overloaded, provided you can get a bona fide LTE or H+ signal

 

I'm starting to feel that I am getting crowded on Verizon's LTE network sometimes in some places. Speeds are definitely dropping in many congested places at certain times a day.

 

Robert

[Craig]

Parents' DSL is 1.5M down, 384k up. It's the fastest speed possible given line conditions (sometimes it gets slower due to weather issues etc.). It's not terribly expensive...$35 or so per month plus a $20 landline...but it's all they can get. Satellite...don't get me started. We *might* be able to get 2M down, 384k up service for $60 per month here, but that's uncertain and seems overpriced compared to what they're paying now (also, no more upload speed). The other wireless ISP in the area wants $100 for 2M, which I'm pretty sure they can't deliver anyway.

 

What's your response in this situation? Not everyone has access to $55-per-month 10Mbit cable.

 

My response? My response is that I don't know how fast you think 3G is, but all of those speeds you quoted are faster than a typical 3G connection. Even after NV is complete, you're not really going to see over 1.5M-2M with any consistency on a 3G connection.

 

My point is, if I can stream a bandwidth intensive service like Netflix over a 3G connection in Denver where NV hasn't even begun, then any home wifi will be as good as, and 99.9% will be better than my lowly 3G connection. So, you get better performance for whatever it is that you need more than 3M on your phone, you save your battery, and you free up capacity on the local tower. I see no losers in that situation. You?

[iansltx]

My response? My response is that I don't know how fast you think 3G is, but all of those speeds you quoted are faster than a typical 3G connection. Even after NV is complete, you're not really going to see over 1.5M-2M with any consistency on a 3G connection.

 

My point is, if I can stream a bandwidth intensive service like Netflix over a 3G connection in Denver where NV hasn't even begun, then any home wifi will be as good as, and 99.9% will be better than my lowly 3G connection. So, you get better performance for whatever it is that you need more than 3M on your phone, you save your battery, and you free up capacity on the local tower. I see no losers in that situation. You?

 

When EvDO first came here, I was able to get ~1.1M down, 100k up (r0). At the time my ISP offered 384/128. In some areas I can still get 1.5-2 Mbps down and 500-800k up.

 

Now LTE is in town, though it needs to make it to a couple more towers (give it a month) before I can get those speeds reliably inside my parents' place, rather than outside. Their connection will remain at 1.5 Mbps down, 384 kbps up. I can already beat the upload speed half the time on 3G, and 4G leaves it in the dust. On the download side, 1.5 Mbps assumes that no one else is using the DSL connection. If one person is watching YouTube, the remaining bandwidth is comparable to 3G...and way less than 4G.

 

Also, I'm a bit confused by:

 

So, you get better performance for whatever it is that you need more than 3M on your phone,

 

What point are you trying to make here? What (A) has better performance than what else (?

[CriticalityEvent]

Well, when you say it that way...

 

Robert

 

I call ‘em like I sees ‘em. :-P

 

Have you used anyone's LTE network yet? Or T-Mobile H+? None of the above are overloaded, provided you can get a bona fide LTE or H+ signal

 

I have, and they’re extremely impressive connections in my area. My friend pulled down 6Mbps on his T-Mo phone at a Cubs game. Of course, there weren’t many people at the game itself, the stadium is just in a densely-packed area. Haha…

 

However, one could make the argument that they’re so good because of the restrictions placed on them. But even these caps might only go so far because we still get situations like this:

 

I'm starting to feel that I am getting crowded on Verizon's LTE network sometimes in some places. Speeds are definitely dropping in many congested places at certain times a day.

 

Robert

 

To have an LTE connection drop a perceptible amount is something to note. I am curious to know just how much it gets down to, but if you say anything more than 6-7Mbps, I might hate you.

[theDrizzle]

So you took it upon yourself to strain an already overloaded network because they were trying to mitigate the damage and ensure the vast majority of subscribers could still maintain a quality connection?

 

Yes I did. I hope I made a few more customers leave due to bad service. But I probably didn't because their network could handle it and they just wanted me to switch to a tiered plan. So I have no regret. I wanted to $% them over like they've $%ed millions of people. I don't think you know the magnitude of which that I hate ATT. In the end I did nothing significant, but I hope I made some sort of impression on somebody (other than you and everyone here who now probably thinks I'm crazy o.O)

Edited September 19, 2012 by S4GRU
Edited to remove harsh language

[S4GRU]

Yes I did. I hope I made a few more customers leave due to bad service. But I probably didn't because their network could handle it and they just wanted me to switch to a tiered plan. So I have no regret. I wanted to $% them over like they've $%ed millions of people. I don't think you know the magnitude of which that I hate ATT. In the end I did nothing significant, but I hope I made some sort of impression on somebody (other than you and everyone here who now probably thinks I'm crazy o.O)

 

I hate AT&T too. However, I never would use my Johnson on AT&T. I would be afraid of the disease I may get. Please refrain from the F-word in future posts. Thanks.

 

Robert

[pyroscott]

I am noticing slowdowns on LTE data on Verizon. Unloaded towers give me 40Mbps. Loaded towers in a sprawling residential area...

I know 11Mbps is still very good, but I was literally a stone's throw away from the cell site.

[CriticalityEvent]

Yes I did. I hope I made a few more customers leave due to bad service. But I probably didn't because their network could handle it and they just wanted me to switch to a tiered plan. So I have no regret. I wanted to $% them over like they've $%ed millions of people. I don't think you know the magnitude of which that I hate ATT. In the end I did nothing significant, but I hope I made some sort of impression on somebody (other than you and everyone here who now probably thinks I'm crazy o.O)

 

Way to fight the machine.

 

I hate AT&T too. However, I never would use my Johnson on AT&T. I would be afraid of the disease I may get.

…

 

Even if you pull out of your contract?

[S4GRU]

Even if you pull out of your contract?

 

Wow. See what happens when the Admin degrades the conversation. It really opens the door for things to go bad.

 

Robert

[mirlyn]

I'm starting to feel that I am getting crowded on Verizon's LTE network sometimes in some places. Speeds are definitely dropping in many congested places at certain times a day.

 

Robert

I wonder what the networks will do after everyone gets their iJesus iPhone on Friday. Isn't Android the only OS with LTE handsets on the market (not counting hotspots)?

[iansltx]

I am noticing slowdowns on LTE data on Verizon. Unloaded towers give me 40Mbps. Loaded towers in a sprawling residential area...

I know 11Mbps is still very good, but I was literally a stone's throw away from the cell site.

 

...which is still at the top ed of VZW's "loaded network" speed promises: 5-12 Mbps. If Verizon allows speeds to decrease below 5/2 in a given area, then we know we're really in trouble. But for now the network is performing to spec.