Best way to offload people to WiFi to relieve some pressure from overloaded networks?

[pyroscott]

In St. Cloud MN, Sprint's data cells are overloaded making the data speeds horrid. In the residential areas where houses are spread out a little more, the speeds are not as bad, but still not great. If I go near the college, the speeds pretty much stop. I set up my phone to access my home wireless, but a lot of people don't bother setting up their phone or don't know how. Sprint has also installed femtocells certain places to help increase data speeds, but that only helps out a few users. What do you think is the best way to offload data use from the network so it can increase for the users who don't have the option at the moment? Verizon and AT&T have tiered plans that give users an incentive to offloading data whenever possible (they don't get stuck with overages). Is Sprint stuck with dealing with usage that could be offloaded until they dump unlimited? Or is there another way?

[WiWavelength]

I have proposed that wireless carriers create an incentive system to encourage subs to offload heavy data usage to Wi-Fi. Carriers could maintain current unlimited or tiered data options and prices but offer data usage rebates to those subs who would keep their WWAN (e.g. LTE, WiMAX, W-CDMA, EV-DO) data usage below a predetermined threshold. In short, subs would pay their $30/month for data, but subs who kept their WWAN usage under, for example, 1 GB would get $5 or $10 knocked off their bills the next month.

 

I feel very strongly that, because WWAN data is a shared resource, people need to take responsibility for their WWAN usage. Continuous audio/video streaming, heavy downloading/uploading, etc., over WWAN is not okay. And throwing more and more spectrum at the "crunch" is not the answer, as that just leads to even greater band class fragmentation, carrier compartmentalization, and interoperability/competition issues. So, we need to use current spectrum more efficiently, need to utilize heterogenous cellular networks -- a mix of customer and carrier deployed microcells (Wi-Fi and/or LTE, etc.) for indoor high traffic, low mobility environments to take a load off of the current macrocell network.

 

AJ

[pyroscott]

I have proposed that wireless carriers create an incentive system to encourage subs to offload heavy data usage to Wi-Fi. Carriers could maintain current unlimited or tiered data options and prices but offer data usage rebates to those subs who would keep their WWAN (e.g. LTE, WiMAX, W-CDMA, EV-DO) data usage below a predetermined threshold. In short, subs would pay their $30/month for data but subs who kept their WWAN usage under, for example, 1 GB would get $5 or $10 knocked off their bills the next month.

 

I feel very strongly that, because WWAN data is a shared resource, people need to take responsibility for their WWAN usage. Continuous audio/video streaming, heavy downloading/uploading, etc., over WWAN is not okay. And throwing more and more spectrum at the "crunch" is not the answer, as that just leads to even greater band class fragmentation, carrier compartmentalization, and interoperability/competition issues. So, we need to use current spectrum more efficiently, need to utilize heterogenous cellular networks -- a mix of customer and carrier deployed microcells (Wi-Fi and/or LTE, etc.) for indoor high traffic, low mobility environments to take a load off of the current macrocell network.

 

AJ

 

That is a great idea. Even though I have never seen a carrier refund money or even be appreciative for not using all of your allocation (I have used about 20% of my monthly minutes for the last several years) with the spectrum crunch looming, they might actually be willing to do something like this. Especially when Verizon and AT&T have so many people on grandfathered unlimited plans.

[shaunm82]

That is a great idea. Even though I have never seen a carrier refund money or even be appreciative for not using all of your allocation (I have used about 20% of my monthly minutes for the last several years) with the spectrum crunch looming, they might actually be willing to do something like this. Especially when Verizon and AT&T have so many people on grandfathered unlimited plans.

 

It'd almost be like our local utility if you have solar panels. They buyback any unused energy at the end of your billing cycle, and credit your account.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Well they have that contract with Smith Micro to use their network management which kinda does the offloading per rules it sets...

Though still yet to see this implemented so no true clue how its going to work fully...or the costs of using it like battery life and such...

 

Time will tell.

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

[pyroscott]

How about a dummy light like in your car. Ding, hey dummy, WiFi is available here...

 

On another note, on the wife's RAZR MAXX, there is a program that you can set it to turn on WiFi at certain geographical locations. There is a bunch of other stuff it can do, but WiFi kills the battery on that phone more than LTE, so it's nice to be able to turn it off most of the time and save her battery.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

How about a dummy light like in your car. Ding, hey dummy, WiFi is available here...

 

On another note, on the wife's RAZR MAXX, there is a program that you can set it to turn on WiFi at certain geographical locations. There is a bunch of other stuff it can do, but WiFi kills the battery on that phone more than LTE, so it's nice to be able to turn it off most of the time and save her battery.

 

There are a bunch of apps like that for android that people use.

 

Problem with the dummy light idea is in order to do that you have to leave WiFi on and scanning and even if done in intervals that process kills battery life and is something users won't be happy about...

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

[pyroscott]

 

There are a bunch of apps like that for android that people use.

 

Problem with the dummy light idea is in order to do that you have to leave WiFi on and scanning and even if done in intervals that process kills battery life and is something users won't be happy about...

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

Wi-Fi actually uses less battery on my phone than the mobile network. Not when there isn't a Wi-Fi connection though. If there was a program to periodically check throughout the day if Wi-Fi was available maybe...

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Wi-Fi actually uses less battery on my phone than the mobile network. Not when there isn't a Wi-Fi connection though. If there was a program to periodically check throughout the day if Wi-Fi was available maybe...

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

Yes that's what I'm saying. When there isn't a WiFi connection it kills ur battery searching for one. Also the act of turning it on to search and then off kills it.

 

Wasn't debating the fact WiFi is better on battery than network when connected.

 

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

[jpkjeff]

While Wifi does use less battery life (when it's working), I've noticed it definitely uses more battery power if I'm either switching back and forth from cellular data to Wifi and/or forgot to turn off the Wifi radio and it's constantly searching for a Wifi signal.

However, I've read that there are new Wifi standards coming out that will allow seamless switching from cellular to Wifi data as well as mitigate battery life concerns.

[blkmiles]

It'd almost be like our local utility if you have solar panels. They buyback any unused energy at the end of your billing cycle, and credit your account.

 

Check out www.ting.com. They offer customizable wireless plans and state that they payback any unused portions. Ting uses Sprint's network and offers 4g wimax where available.

[pyroscott]

 

Check out www.ting.com. They offer customizable wireless plans and state that they payback any unused portions. Ting uses Sprint's network and offers 4g wimax where available.

and they have good phones... moto photon

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[irev210]

I think that if they took a small step to educate consumers about the benefits of wifi, more people would use it.

 

Frankly, the average consumer doesn't want to deal with it. They want something simple.

 

1) At the point of sale, it should be explained in person or over the phone the benefits of wifi.

2) With every phone there should be a seperate printed sheet of paper that explains the benefits of setting up wifi on your phone.

3) Send text reminders to customers who do not setup their home wifi.

4) Other incentives should also be provided (monitary, prizes, discounts, blah blah blah)

[pyroscott]

I think that if they took a small step to educate consumers about the benefits of wifi, more people would use it.

 

Frankly, the average consumer doesn't want to deal with it. They want something simple.

 

1) At the point of sale, it should be explained in person or over the phone the benefits of wifi.

2) With every phone there should be a seperate printed sheet of paper that explains the benefits of setting up wifi on your phone.

3) Send text reminders to customers who do not setup their home wifi.

4) Other incentives should also be provided (monitary, prizes, discounts, blah blah blah)

 

But for Verizon and att once a customer is on tiered they stop caring because it makes them money on overage

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[BenChase7]

I think that if they took a small step to educate consumers about the benefits of wifi, more people would use it.

 

Frankly, the average consumer doesn't want to deal with it. They want something simple.

 

1) At the point of sale, it should be explained in person or over the phone the benefits of wifi.

2) With every phone there should be a seperate printed sheet of paper that explains the benefits of setting up wifi on your phone.

3) Send text reminders to customers who do not setup their home wifi.

4) Other incentives should also be provided (monitary, prizes, discounts, blah blah blah)

 

I agree with your point completely, and it sounds good. And actually, Sprint has been trying to do this, I think. I have seen numerous links while viewing my account balance/useage that promote WiFi.. Also, Sprint just made their Sprint TV app available over WiFi (previously it was not). Although no monetary benefits for the consumer (yet), at least they are suggesting/promoting it.

[BenChase7]

But for Verizon and att once a customer is on tiered they stop caring because it makes them money on overage

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

Amen. VZW and ATT are probably against WiFi usage.. The use of such a thing would only cut their profits.

[S4GRU]

I think that if they took a small step to educate consumers about the benefits of wifi, more people would use it.

 

Frankly, the average consumer doesn't want to deal with it. They want something simple.

 

1) At the point of sale, it should be explained in person or over the phone the benefits of wifi.

2) With every phone there should be a seperate printed sheet of paper that explains the benefits of setting up wifi on your phone.

3) Send text reminders to customers who do not setup their home wifi.

4) Other incentives should also be provided (monitary, prizes, discounts, blah blah blah)

 

One issue I have encountered now a couple of times with folks (mostly on Verizon) is that they don't want to switch to WiFi because most of the WiFi connections they encounter are much slower than Verizon LTE. In our area, most businesses that offer WiFi have typical performance speeds between 300k and 3MB download. Whereas Verizon LTE in our area is a consistent 20MB+.

 

So many consumers in this position will say, 'I just leave it on LTE because it's faster than WiFi.' However, I will follow up with them and ask, "what are you doing that requires the 20MB LTE speed over the Starbucks 2MB WiFi?"

 

They usually say things like, posting a Facebook status, browsing an e-mail, reading the news, etc. I even had one say they were playing Angry Birds, and it ran better on LTE over WiFi. I almost died when I heard that one!

 

Anyway, I try to educate folks in this position that it is in their interest to switch to WiFi, and that they actually will notice almost zero difference in performance between 2MB download speed and 20MB for 95% of what they do on their devices. Even Netflix works just fine at 2MB on a smartphone (actually even much slower). You are just being a spectrum hog and using up your allotment faster and unnecessarily.

 

It's kind of like me with my kids and electricity usage (or wastage I should say). My power bill was $350 last month (about $100 higher than normal). I sat them all down and explained, 'hey, I don't care how much power YOU USE. Use as much as you want!' They were shocked. I then explained, the issue wasn't the amount of power they actively used, it's how much they waste. Electricity being consumed for no reason, no enjoyment or purpose. Lighting rooms (and garages) that are not in use. TV's left on, etc. If you use it, great, but don't waste it.

 

Spectrum is the same way. If you have a use for that super fast LTE network for something that cannot be done on WiFi (or performance suffers), then great. Use the LTE network. But if you have a perfectly good WiFi signal that provides a connection that meets your needs for your use at the moment, then use that over the LTE. Don't be a spectrum waster, man! Just like it's been hit on above, people just need to be educated.

[McDroidBurger]

 

One issue I have encountered now a couple of times with folks (mostly on Verizon) is that they don't want to switch to WiFi because most of the WiFi connections they encounter are much slower than Verizon LTE. In our area, most businesses that offer WiFi have typical performance speeds between 300k and 3MB download. Whereas Verizon LTE in our area is a consistent 20MB+.

 

So many consumers in this position will say, 'I just leave it on LTE because it's faster than WiFi.' However, I will follow up with them and ask, "what are you doing that requires the 20MB LTE speed over the Starbucks 2MB WiFi?"

 

They usually say things like, posting a Facebook status, browsing an e-mail, reading the news, etc. I even had one say they were playing Angry Birds, and it ran better on LTE over WiFi. I almost died when I heard that one!

 

Anyway, I try to educate folks in this position that it is in their interest to switch to WiFi, and that they actually will notice almost zero difference in performance between 2MB download speed and 20MB for 95% of what they do on their devices. Even Netflix works just fine at 2MB on a smartphone (actually even much slower). You are just being a spectrum hog and using up your allotment faster and unnecessarily.

 

It's kind of like me with my kids and electricity usage (or wastage I should say). My power bill was $350 last month (about $100 higher than normal). I sat them all down and explained, 'hey, I don't care how much power YOU USE. Use as much as you want!' They were shocked. I then explained, the issue wasn't the amount of power they actively used, it's how much they waste. Electricity being consumed for no reason, no enjoyment or purpose. Lighting rooms (and garages) that are not in use. TV's left on, etc. If you use it, great, but don't waste it.

 

Spectrum is the same way. If you have a use for that super fast LTE network for something that cannot be done on WiFi (or performance suffers), then great. Use the LTE network. But if you have a perfectly good WiFi signal that provides a connection that meets your needs for your use at the moment, then use that over the LTE. Don't be a spectrum waster, man! Just like it's been hit on above, people just need to be educated.

 

So you mean LTE doesn't help Angry Birds run faster? Doh!!

 

Sent from my EVO 4G via Tapatalk