Sprint now offers shared, capped data plans for small business subs

[JustinRP37]

Now I do not abuse the unlimited data plans, but I will watch the news or catch up on a show during my commute on the train each day. Our whole family plan comes out to about 10-15 gb for 4 lines. One thing that I hate about tiered data is having to worry about going over a cap. Canada and the United States already have the priciest cell phone plans in the world. The problem, though, is the people that do abuse the unlimited model. I honestly do not know how people can get up to more than 10GB on a phone in a month. Most home ISPs have suspended data caps pending more research because data caps drove people to other suppliers in the area (if possible). Granted, there are still people that use a ton of data on a cable connection, thus slowing down their neighbors bandwidth. It should be up to the company to set and acceptable use policy that is enforceable. Termination after you have been warned should be the way to go. I do feel that tiered data is just the next step because it is an easy way to increase prices. It just worries me because many Asian countries are able to offer unlimited data at similar if not faster speeds.

[xcharles718]

[...] though not as long ago as Michael Jackson sang about it...

 

 

 

AJ

I think that just made my night. I have a feeling Michael saw this coming...somehow...

Still, current limited data plans are just to...limiting.

[media]

[JustinRP37]

I think that just made my night. I have a feeling Michael saw this coming...somehow...

Still, current limited data plans are just to...limiting.

 

I whole heartedly agree! I always love those NHL GameCenter Live commercials for Verizon. Watch all the games on 4G LTE from your smartphone. And to get the exclusive content I believe Verizon forces you to use 4G LTE and not offload to wifi. Only problem is one full NHL game on GCL uses close to 1.5GB of data. My team wins, but my wallet loses. Still happy to be with Sprint.

[tybo31316]

Looking at those tiered data plans Sprint is charging extra for hotspot with separate hotspot data pools for different devices. Instead of deducting data from the data pool like att and vzw.

[xcharles718]

Looking at those tiered data plans Sprint is charging extra for hotspot with separate hotspot data pools for different devices. Instead of deducting data from the data pool like att and vzw.

If that's the case, I'm a little surprised that they didn't go along the lines of what they did on Virgin, in which they would just on an extra gig to the total data allotment(pre-throttle) and let you use the combined data between the phone and the hotspot app.

[lynyrd65]

For currently realistic wireless networks, unlimited data is not sustainable with our "human nature," has not been for several years now, though not as long ago as Michael Jackson sang about it...

AJ

 

Let me get this absolutely right.

 

In your opinion is the only viable and sustainable option to use tiered data plans which cap the amount of data transfered on a per month basis?

 

Are there any alternatives that are even worth considering?

[Boosted20V]

Just to throw my $.02 in here... do I remember correctly that SoftBank maintains unlimited data in Japan? I agree that people abuse unlimited without a doubt BUT if SoftBank offers unlimited, I'd have to imagine Sprint keeps it.

[tybo31316]

Just to throw my $.02 in here... do I remember correctly that SoftBank maintains unlimited data in Japan? I agree that people abuse unlimited without a doubt BUT if SoftBank offers unlimited, I'd have to imagine Sprint keeps it.

 

Softbank also wants to make back the billions that they are going to spend acquiring that 70% portion of Sprint.

[Boosted20V]

Softbank also wants to make back the billions that they are going to spend acquiring that 70% portion of Sprint.

 

To be fair, they spent a ton to purchase their network from Vodafone and dropped ARPU to gain sub's in Japan from things I've seen. So from that I'd take that they're willing to endure short term pain to gain subs long term.

[tybo31316]

 

To be fair, they spent a ton to purchase their network from Vodafone and dropped ARPU to gain sub's in Japan from things I've seen. So from that I'd take that they're willing to endure short term pain to gain subs long term.

 

We can only hope that happens.

[Boosted20V]

We can only hope that happens.

 

Agreed, it's all guessing at this point!

[WiWavelength]

Let me get this absolutely right.

 

In your opinion is the only viable and sustainable option to use tiered data plans which cap the amount of data transfered on a per month basis?

 

Are there any alternatives that are even worth considering?

 

Lynyrd, if I have not expressed so yet, I did appreciate your previous, well thought out response with varied options. But I do not believe that speed tiers would be any more tenable than are data tiers.

 

Have you heard of the "long tail" in sales? This is almost assuredly not my unique idea, but let me at least suggest the similar "slow trickle" of wireless data. Unauthorized tethering is problematic, but of late, even more problematic is the constant use of low bit rate streaming services. Several dozen subs streaming Pandora (or similar) several hours a day is enough to take down a 5 MHz FDD LTE sector to little more than minimal service during that time.

 

Those users primarily want to stream low bit rate 64-128 kbps content. They would not be affected by speed tiers. Yet, in sheer numbers, they would affect the capacity of the network. So, what would you do about that? What is your solution?

 

AJ

[koiulpoi]

Hm...

 

My issue is, unsustainable is a rather difficult thing to measure. Unsustainable on 1X/EV-DO is not the same as unsustainable on 4G LTE. Unsustainable during peak hours is not the same as unsustainable at 3 AM. Unsustainable at a low-population moderate-capacity site is not the same as unsustainable at a high-population high-capacity site. There must necessarily be a better solution than flat-rate data pricing, as not all data is created equal.

 

I for one have never thought that tethering was an issue; everything I can do on my computer that could overload on data, I can do on any Android 2.3+ smartphone. I would say, first and foremost, Bittorent traffic should be throttled moderately to severely, as I have watched it cripple networks.

 

As well, I've always liked the idea of incentivizing low data usage. "You have unlimited. But, if you use less than 2.5 GB of data a month, you'll see a $10 credit per line on your next bill." Watch data usage hit the floor.

 

The other thing is customer education. I've had people claim that the connections optimizer turning on 4G WiMAX and WiFi and scanning very, very occasionally is "killing" their battery (in non-WiMAX areas even), when everything points to not. Most still have no idea that WiFi is even a thing, and store reps are still telling people to turn it off, when uninstalling all their ad-filled "free" apps would help much, much more.

[lynyrd65]

Lynyrd, if I have not expressed so yet, I did appreciate your previous, well thought out response with varied options. But I do not believe that speed tiers would be any more tenable than are data tiers.

 

Have you heard of the "long tail" in sales? This is almost assuredly not my unique idea, but let me at least suggest the similar "slow trickle" of wireless data. Unauthorized tethering is problematic, but of late, even more problematic is the constant use of low bit rate streaming services. Several dozen subs streaming Pandora (or similar) several hours a day is enough to take down a 5 MHz FDD LTE sector to little more than minimal service during that time.

 

Those users primarily want to stream low bit rate 64-128 kbps content. They would not be affected by speed tiers. Yet, in sheer numbers, they would affect the capacity of the network. So, what would you do about that? What is your solution?

 

AJ

 

For the network side, lots more capacity.

 

As for plans to finance it, combine the two of my proposals with priority based unlimited data as the base plan with new premium streaming options that include guaranteed low speeds offered as an add-on to the respective priority based data plan.

 

For example plans might be

 

$60 Sprint Unlimited Data - Max Speed

- Max Priority Data services

 

$45 Sprint Unlimited Data - Premier

- High Priority Data services

 

$30 Sprint Unlimited Data - Standard

- Medium Priority

 

Optional Premium Streaming Add-on

 

$20 Streaming Max

 

- 256kbps guarranteed bandwidth

 

$15 Streaming Standard

 

- 128kbps guarranteed bandwidth

 

The prices and tiers may change but you get the idea.

 

Unless customers pay the extra money toward guaranteed streaming they can be pushed to the curb by higher priority users, even Max priority users would be marginalized in this case. So new revenue is generated to help cover the capacity increases needed to take care of this data demand without setting hard transfer caps.

 

I don't know if this set up is optimal but it shows the direction I would like to see it head.

 

Edit: I appologize if this has appeared to change significantly with time. I see more grammar mistakes every time I read it as well as a great lack of clarity. I hope it's easier to read now.

Edited March 2, 2013 by lynyrd65

[xcharles718]

 

[...]Those users primarily want to stream low bit rate 64-128 kbps content. They would not be affected by speed tiers. Yet, in sheer numbers, they would affect the capacity of the network. So, what would you do about that? What is your solution?

 

AJ

What exactly would be an viable solution to that other than outright banning or limiting the amount of time those type of services can be used? It's not the hugest problem in the forefront of wireless telecommunications(compared to...idk, torrenting the first two season's of Breaking Bad in HD over EvDO at 3pm on a Friday afternoon), but there isn't really a solution to that other than what I already mentioned, or make the data cap so low that these type of services over 3G/4G will decrease significantly(a la Netflix).

 

I guess you were getting more at technological limitations of current networks & it's management, but I can be wrong...

[WiWavelength]

Now I do not abuse the unlimited data plans, but I will watch the news or catch up on a show during my commute on the train each day. Our whole family plan comes out to about 10-15 gb for 4 lines. One thing that I hate about tiered data is having to worry about going over a cap. Canada and the United States already have the priciest cell phone plans in the world.

 

People in the US have also come to expect wireless data coverage essentially everywhere. SoftBank in Japan (which is similar in size and population to the state of California) is not an appropriate comparison in area nor population density. Countries in Europe and Asia generally do not provide effective measuring sticks in this regard.

 

Had we established years ago that broadband services would be public works, we might have headed off this problem. But now we are stuck with what the capitalist/oligopolist providers deem sufficiently profitable. Absent nationalization -- oh, how I wish -- we have to make the best policy out of the current reality.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

As much as I know unlimited data is unsustainable for the long term, I don't foresee SoftBank scrapping unlimited for awhile. So the" Hesse is just about to scrap unlimited" banter can be stopped. I heard this two years ago too. Lots of doomsday folks were saying it then, and even pointed to anecdotal indicators to prove their point back then too. And it never came to pass. It's not imminent right now either.

 

We know it is eventually inevitable. But the topic in the OP is not foreshadowing, just like the cancellation of unlimited data on hotspots going.away 15 months ago did not bring the end of unlimited either.

 

Also, since Tmo just brought back unlimited, Sprint is in no position in the short term to can unlimited. Dan Hesse has said that unlimited is the KEY differentiator that Sprint has with the competition to help grow business. Until they are able to get Sprint in position to compete on other levels, they will have to maintain unlimited. There is sand still in the top of the hour glass. But eventually it will run out.

 

Robert via LG Optimus G using Tapatalk

 

 

[tommym65]

I think we may be peeling too many layers off the onion, too soon. 1 year ago, the thought of getting a consistent 20-25 Mbps anywhere on the Sprint network was still a dream. Now, it is rapidly becoming reality, and 1 year from now, it will be the norm virtually everywhere Sprint has coverage. So the sustainable data capacity per sub will have increased a hundredfold in just 2 years. It is reasonable to project a Sprint capacity of 70-80 Gbits per month per sub by March of 2014. I fully realize that most subs (except for Robert and all the rest of us S4GRU addicts) are not using the available bandwidth at 3 in the morning, so even though the theoretical capacity might be 70-80 Gbits per month, bandwidth simply disappears into the ether if not used when available, and the practical capacity is much lower. Still, that's a lotta bits.

 

When 800 and 2500 MHz become available within a couple of years after that, network capacity will more than triple from 2014 levels, especially when you take into account the enormous capacity in the 2500 segment. It is reasonable to project a raw, theoretical Sprint network capacity in excess of 300 Gbits per month per sub. Given that most subs are likely to actually use far less than that, and even accounting for time-of-day congestion, there will be lots of room for data hogs. Nonetheless, it would probably make sense for Sprint to throttle all users at times and in areas of peak congestion, or to at least throttle either the heaviest users or the ones who pay less money. The DSL and cable internet providers do it today. I will leave it to Son-San and Hesse to iron out the details.

 

Please understand that I mean no disrespect to anyone else's opinion as expressed in this thread, but I think that it is too early to declare that unlimited data is already condemned to death. The market will make that determination, and if there is money to be made providing unlimited wireless data, somebody will find a way to make that money.

[DaQue]

80 Gbits per month is only 30.8 kbits per second (ducks)

 

[tommym65]

80 Gbits per month is only 30.8 kbits per second (ducks)

 

 

Hah! I am even righter than I thought I was!!! (Smiley to be inserted when I am not ryping on my phone)

 

(In another thread, I crudely projected the max NV network capacity as 505 Gbits per sub per month, based on 38,000 cells x 3 x a projected 65,000,000 subs. I misquoted my own calculation in my post above. However you peel the onion, it will yield a huge amount of bandwidth, if you can just tolerate that oniony smell.)

[iansltx]

Guess I'll throw my hat in this ring.

 

Having a cap on wireless service, with overages above it, deters usage. Having a cap on wireless service, with throttling above it, does the same thing, to a lesser extent. When you're running a 10x10 700-upper-C LTE network with large cell sizes in urban environments, you need to deter usage. When you're running a 10x10 or 20x20 AWS LTE network (with the associated smaller cell sizes), backhauled by whoever's cheap and available, if a user can get service, you really can throw capacity at the problem and it will work. So you offer cheap plans with low-priority network access in congested areas, and more expensive plans with higher-priority network access in congested areas. Sprint's closest competitor, which is still losing subscribers, is doing exactly this.

 

 

Sprint is in a different situation. Right now, they have 5x5 LTE carriers covering an area slightly larger than what T-Mo's AWS does, on average. They are more coverage focused than TMo, but less so than Verizon and AT&T. The operative word is "right now" though. Fast forward to a year from now and they'll be able to overlay, say, 15MHz of additional downstream capacity over a smaller area than an AWS site and push subs with newer phones onto that. You'll see these overlays more often than you would in a normal situation because SoftBank has a vested interest in getting TD-LTE in 2500/2600 out there.

 

So, what does this mean for capacity now? Well, it's still somewhat limited, but not quite limited enough that you have to purposely deter usage on the consumer side. Fast-forward a year and the need for network management only arises between the time Sprint realizes it needs BRS TD-LTE on a site and the time it deploys it.

 

Getting back to density for a moment, how many subs are on a crowded PCS sector at this point? We aren't talking about at a special event...just normal usage (at a special event you won't be streaming Pandora). Let's say there are 200. Take a worst-case scenario and have 70 of them streaming Pandora at 192 kbps. Also, take a pessimistic case of cell capacity being limited to 25 Mbps overall due to signal issues (that's two-thirds of maximum, roughly). You have 11 Mbps left over for the rest of the subscribers, assuming 70 people streaming Pandora for awhile. AJ, let me know if there are more than 200 users on a crowded, urban PCS cell at a given time, or if my other ratios seem off.

 

Speaking of Pandora, its default is 128 kbps, and unless you pay you get that for, at most, 100 hours per month. Assuming cellular-only usage, that's 5.76GB. Just a data point here, nothing more.

 

I would actually argue that Sprint is launching shared business plans to provide businesses with an apples-to-apples comparison of their services with that of their competitors. When you're using a phone or tablet as a business item, there are certain things that you won't do, particularly if you know your plan is capped. The fear of overages without an unlimited plan is mitigated by the fact that data usage on a business device is, more or less, a cost of doing business. And you may have an "IT guy" who tracks data usage and makes sure things are squared away in that respect; you don't really have that on the consumer side. So, while consumers want unlimited, many businesses, on a mobile connection anyway, can work around capped plans. Or they can go with unlimited plans, since Sprint still offers those.

[iansltx]

So, let's look at pricing. Sprint is cheaper than Verizon across the board, assuming you need as much data as Sprint wants to provide you. Or maybe a little less. Add-a-line fees are identical across the carriers, though Verizon shows data prices without the first line included, while Sprint includes line 1 in their base prices.

 

For smartphones, $140 on Sprint buys you one line and 20GB of data. That same $140 buys you 10GB on Verizon; 20GB is another $50. $275 gets you 40GB of data on Sprint. $10 less on Verizon gets you 10GB less data. Or you can get a full 40GB for $340, $65 more than Sprint. $340 gets you 60GB on Sprint, or 40GB on Verizon. Verizon doesn't have a 60GB plan; the closest alternative is $415 and includes 50GB of data. Winner: Sprint.

 

For data-only devices, assuming a tablet as the first line on both sides, Sprint's cheapest plan is $60 per month for 10GB. For that price, Verizon offers 8GB. 10GB is another $10 (though Verizon lets you put ten lines on its lower-end plans, while Sprint only lets you share the data with five lines). $110 on Sprint buys 20GB; again, Verizon is 2GB behind or $10 more expensive. At 40GB, both Sprint and Verizon have jumped up in per-GB pricing by a bit; Sprint's $245 is a bit cheaper than Verizon's $270 though. Again, Verizon has no 60GB plan (which Sprint sells for $320), however they do have a 50GB plan...for $345. Advantage: Sprint, though the edge is much smaller vis a vis Verizon.

 

Depending on the plan, either Sprint or Verizon can add more lines before running into a line count cap, which effectively states that you're buying at least 2GB of data per device on Sprint's side. But Sprint emerges as a bit less expensive across the board here, though the advantage shrinks when you're dealing with data-only devices (where Verizon pretty much doesn't have roaming costs).

 

One last comparison: if you got the maximum number of lines on the highest-end plan on both Verizon and Sprint, with smartphones on every line (giving you 2GB of data, on average, per line), you'd be paying $50.33 per line with Sprint, or $55 per line with Verizon. If you got 25 lines on both carriers, you'd be getting 2.4GB of data per line on average with Sprint, for $52.40 per line. So, at full "economy of scale", Sprint gets you a ~4.8% cost reduction and 20% more data. If you used, say, 59GB, Verizon would be adding $135 to your bill, or another $5.40 per line, increasing Sprint's cost advantage to 16.6%. Not bad.

[WiWavelength]

Getting back to density for a moment, how many subs are on a crowded PCS sector at this point? We aren't talking about at a special event...just normal usage (at a special event you won't be streaming Pandora). Let's say there are 200. Take a worst-case scenario and have 70 of them streaming Pandora at 192 kbps. Also, take a pessimistic case of cell capacity being limited to 25 Mbps overall due to signal issues (that's two-thirds of maximum, roughly). You have 11 Mbps left over for the rest of the subscribers, assuming 70 people streaming Pandora for awhile. AJ, let me know if there are more than 200 users on a crowded, urban PCS cell at a given time, or if my other ratios seem off.

 

Yes, I would adjust those estimates.

 

If we take Sprint's 55 million aggregate subs, then divide by 95,000 sectors (i.e. 38,000 sites multiplied by an average of 2.5 sectors per site), we get a result of about 600 subs per sector. Now, that assumes an even dispersal of subs over all sites. But that is hardly the case. Sprint has thousands of rural highway sites that see mostly/only transient use. So, at least 600 subs per urban PCS sector would be a conservative estimate and 1000 subs per sector would not be out of the question.

 

Also, 25 Mbps seems a bit on the high side for average 5 MHz FDD LTE sector capacity. Remember, 37 Mbps is the maximum throughput, but that assumes 64-QAM and 2x2 MIMO for all connections. Subs within a sector are generally so spread out that path loss (thus dynamic rate control) probably follows some sort of normal distribution. For that reason, I would assume the average throughput to be no greater than 50 percent of the maximum, hence 18 Mbps.

 

AJ

[Bob Newhart]

Consumers want what they are sold, if they are sold unlimited, then that is what they expect.

 

Most consumers don't know what a bit, nibble, byte actually are and they will never understand.

 

My at&t work phone costs my company $45 per month, unlimited LTE data, unlimited sms, 450 minutes daytime minutes, plus n&w. They do have thousands of lines. I wish I could get this plan.

Edited March 3, 2013 by JoeJoeJoe

[digiblur]

Consumers want what they are sold, if they are sold unlimited, then that is what they expect.

 

Most consumers don't know what a bit, nibble, byte actually are and they will never understand.

 

My at&t work phone costs my company $45 per month, unlimited LTE data, unlimited sms, 450 minutes daytime minutes, plus n&w. They do have thousands of lines. I wish I could get this plan.

 

No doubting that. When my cable modem went to tiered data caps I check it a couple of times during the month. Then when I notice I have tons of data left in my cap I fire up some legal Linux torrents and contribute to the cause for several days to burn up my cap. Have to get what I pay for and find I use even more data than used to before the caps.

 

Sent from my little Note2