Top 5% being throttled starting 6/1

[travismheim]

This likely won't effect me or anyone on my account. I'm kind of surprised they didn't already do this honestly.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Johnner1999]

Odd thing is on sprint I used between 8 - 12gb per month. On vzw I have used about 4-6gb and I haven't changed my usage . I mostly stream podcasts and it seems that the poor data connection I had with sprint would keep the podcasts restreaming which wasted data. I would have downloaded more but a 20-80mb podcast took way too long. Just my observation in my area based on my use.

 

The 10gb plan I'm on isn't much more money and I can switch phones with no hassle with EDGE plan.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

I would post "Happy" by Pharell but I forgot how to embed YouTube videos in posts.

[cletus]

On the one hand it is good that something will be put in place against people abusing the network such as people I have seen elsewhere that are pulling 100+GB/month of data. On the other hand, 5 GB is pretty low and if I didn't have superfast wifi at work and home (and for Time Warner customers in Austin there are a TON of WiFi hotspots) I could easily hit that amount. 

 

I get that they are trying to improve performance and cut down abuse but I also feel that maybe they just need to improve the damned network already. T-Mobile, while not having the coverage of Sprint, does not have this issue in Austin and started upgrading towers months after Sprint began and by far has the fastest network here. 

 

The next change may as well be tiered bandwidth plans and doing away with unlimited accounts slowly like Verizon has done.

[swintec]

I know but I swore they said their unlimited data is "truly unlimited, no data cap or reduced speeds" I

 

I think late last year they had an ad on tv where they advertised unlimited with no slow downs or throttling.  I think it was a direct jab at T-Mobile if I remember correctly.

 

Amazing what a few months will do to their attitude isnt it?

[swintec]

On the one hand it is good that something will be put in place against people abusing the network such as people I have seen elsewhere that are pulling 100+GB/month of data. On the other hand, 5 GB is pretty low

 

Dont forget that this is only for the congested sites.  Someone could easily continue doing that 100 gigs a month if the site never sees congestion or only sees it for an hour a day or whatever. 5 GB isnt some sort of cut off either.

[WiWavelength]

I would post "Happy" by Pharell but I forgot how to embed YouTube videos in posts.

 

Just post a pic of yourself in a big hat instead.  We will get the message.

 

AJ

[jamisonshaw125]

I would post "Happy" by Pharell but I forgot how to embed YouTube videos in posts.

[dedub]

I don't think this is going to change anything for pretty much anybody.

 

Sites that are already congested, already have poor speeds.

 

This may, or may not better equalize what bandwidth is available to affected users, but that is typically already the case with normal network.

 

So called bandwidth hogs have no direct control over how fast their particular connection is, it is all based on the available bandwidth of the tower/sector divided by the number of active users.

 

If 100 people are simultaneously maxing out a 30mbs sector, then they will all be getting approx ~.3mbs each. Which is about what ave speed is anyway (3-6mbs).

 

If 1000 people are using a 30mbs sector, then we are down to .03 mbs each.

 

Obviously not all network traffic is a constant stream, so speeds will vary according to whatever bandwidth is available at any particular instant.

 

In summary, congested towers will always have 'throttled' speeds, due to the ratio of users to available bandwidth.

 

The only thing that strikes me is the wording that some users/plans/devices will be prioritized higher (or lower) than other users/plans/devices.

 

That still won't change much with 1000's of people are sharing 30mbs.

 

edit; maths r hard

Edited May 8, 2014 by dedub

[dbsynergy]

I think your math is a little off. 30Mbps/100Users = 30/100 = 0.3Mbps per user. 1000 users is 0.03Mbps.

[dedub]

whoops, indeed

[WiWavelength]

I think your math is a little off. 30Mbps/100Users = 30/100 = 0.3Mbps per user. 1000 users is 0.03Mbps.

 

And users are not really sharing a 30 Mbps pipe.  In the real world RF environment, average maximum throughput is much lower than that.  I have a post on the subject that I will share later.

 

AJ

[jamesinclair]

As someone who uses roughly 1.5GB a month, and has never ever exceeded 2.5GB...

 

 

...I think this was an extremely bad move on Sprints part. Ill write a full explanation why later, but Im seriously surprised theyd kill their biggest brand asset like this.

[dedub]

Well whether its 30 or 20 or 10, the fact is that congestion inherently 'throttles' users.

 

This is much to do about nothing. (other than the explicit prioritization of users/plans/devices).

 

If they were 'throttling' users on *non-congested* towers and/or at particular gb usage limits, then I can see pitchforks being raised.

[JeffDTD]

Odd thing is on sprint I used between 8 - 12gb per month. On vzw I have used about 4-6gb and I haven't changed my usage . I mostly stream podcasts and it seems that the poor data connection I had with sprint would keep the podcasts restreaming which wasted data. I would have downloaded more but a 20-80mb podcast took way too long. Just my observation in my area based on my use.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

I've often thought the same thing.  Same usage patterns of another network have actually resulted in lower total usage than Sprint.  And like Robert, I like getting what I pay for and believe I should be getting.  That principle just fails on entitlement users who want to treat the connection like a wired ISP. 

 

I have no problem with Sprint doing this.  But the decision is a divisive one.  Somewhere, someone who joined the network for unlimited and uses 5GB+ a month is going to wind up on an overburdened site at his place of employment or wherever and be irate because a 1mb connection is suddenly half that much and he was sold something different by a store rep.  The continued "pardon our dust" condition of the network in many places doesn't make explaining changes and limitations to this person either. 

 

I seem to think the T&C's have always said that sprint reserves the right to throttle, so I'm a bit confused about the decision to announce it and invite the hate.  On a slow news day at that. 

[utiz4321]

What does a "reduction of throughput" mean? Does mean sprint will actually cut off your data is your one of the 5% on a tower?

Well I be able to tell you after 6/1 as I am no doubt in the top 5%. For me personal this is going to make me rethink sprint, the whole reason I have them is so I don't have to worry about making sure I am connect to wifi when using data (I do, but I don't want to worry about it).

Hopefully sprint becomes a bit more transparent about what exactly this means, the 2.6 roll out speeds up and they start adding aditional carriers so I don't run across to many congested sites.

[jamisonshaw125]

Well I be able to tell you after 6/1 as I am no doubt in the top 5%. For me personal this is going to make me rethink sprint, the whole reason I have them is so I don't have to worry about making sure I am connect to wifi when using data (I do, but I don't want to worry about it).

Hopefully sprint becomes a bit more transparent about what exactly this means, the 2.6 roll out speeds up and they start adding aditional carriers so I don't run across to many congested sites.

They're only throtting during overloaded times. The rest is not applicable and you will have normal speeds. How much could you use though? You have an iPhone, it auto connects every wifi site you have previously accessed except for like in stores. But its not like you're streaming netflix while shopping lol

[utiz4321]

They're only throtting during overloaded times. The rest is not applicable and you will have normal speeds. How much could you use though? You have an iPhone, it auto connects every wifi site you have previously accessed except for like in stores. But its not like you're streaming netflix while shopping lol

Wifi at work is awful and in many places it's pretty bad. All of what you've voice I agree and said. It depends on how many overload site sprint will have in my area of use ( and getting NV done, rolling out 2.6, 800 MHz and addition 1900 carrier will minimize this number). But the main selling point of sprint for me is not having to think about weather or not I am hooked to wifi, it is why I have stayed with them and not complained about the growing pains of NV. For me I'll have to wait and see how it goes and go from there.

[jamisonshaw125]

Wifi at work is awful and in many places it's pretty bad. All of what you've voice I agree and said. It depends on how many overload site sprint will have in my area of use ( and getting NV done, rolling out 2.6, 800 MHz and addition 1900 carrier will minimize this number). But the main selling point of sprint for me is not having to think about weather or not I am hooked to wifi, it is why I have stayed with them and not complained about the growing pains of NV. For me I'll have to wait and see how it goes and go from there.

Gotcha. Well I really don't think it'll effect you enough. Sprint will have to clarify specifics into how slow they throttle the speeds down to during peak hours....

[bosox801]

Big fat dislike from me. I use on average 7 gigs a month on average if I remember correctly. If I notice a degradation of service due to throttling I'll simply look at all my other options when my contract is up. We all have choices. I think from a marketing stand point sprint looses with this stance. If they maybe made it 20 gigs or such something high enough that the average consumer would understand as a lot of data it might not have any implications but 5 gigs really that seems very low to me. That's my 2 cents.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

[Bob Newhart]

Big fat dislike from me. I use on average 7 gigs a month on average if I remember correctly. If I notice a degradation of service due to throttling I'll simply look at all my other options when my contract is up. We all have choices. I think from a marketing stand point sprint looses with this stance. If they maybe made it 20 gigs or such something high enough that the average consumer would understand as a lot of data it might not have any implications but 5 gigs really that seems very low to me. That's my 2 cents.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

 

Exactly.

 

Ask the average user how many Gigabytes of data they use per month, they will respond with "what is a Gigabyte?"

 

This is the result of Sprint acknowledging that they have a network problem and can not keep advertizing 'unlimited data' any longer.

 

There are users on here and other sites that will accuse you of abusing your service that you pay for. 

[bosox801]

Exactly.

 

Ask the average user how many Gigabytes of data they use per month, they will respond with "what is a Gigabyte?"

 

This is the result of Sprint acknowledging that they have a network problem and can not keep advertizing 'unlimited data' any longer.

 

There are users on here and other sites that will accuse you of abusing your service that you pay for.

your probably right I was being optimistic. People are entitled to their opinions and can take any stance they want I'm fine with that, I sleep fine at night.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

[JWMaloney]

Big fat dislike from me. I use on average 7 gigs a month on average if I remember correctly. If I notice a degradation of service due to throttling I'll simply look at all my other options when my contract is up. We all have choices. I think from a marketing stand point sprint looses with this stance. If they maybe made it 20 gigs or such something high enough that the average consumer would understand as a lot of data it might not have any implications but 5 gigs really that seems very low to me. That's my 2 cents.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

 

 

Sprint has 32 macro sites in downtown San Francisco today. Take a look what would happen if Sprint deployed a single 30 MHz TDD-LTE carrier in Band 41 on all of them:

 

 

With 100 users connected to one macro site trying to share capacity, almost 35% of users would get practically zero throughput, and no user would even approach 5 Mbps. Even with LTE-A, over 20% of users would get practically zero throughput, and a few would get slightly over 5 Mbps.

 

So what Sprint has decided to do is prioritize connections at overburdened macro sites today, weighing priority for individual users based on a moving average of their last month of total usage. This isn't Sprint trying to punish heavy data users or make them pay more -- this is Sprint trying to allow everyone fair usage of their spectrum-limited network. It is perfectly reasonable to say that a user who has used a large share of the network in the last month should be de-prioritized first in the event of congestion; otherwise, nobody can access anything.

[lilotimz]

Sprint has 32 macro sites in downtown San Francisco today. Take a look what would happen if Sprint deployed a single 30 MHz TDD-LTE carrier in Band 41 on all of them:

 

 

With 100 users connected to one macro site trying to share capacity, almost 35% of users would get practically zero throughput, and no user would even approach 5 Mbps. Even with LTE-A, over 20% of users would get practically zero throughput, and a few would get slightly over 5 Mbps.

 

So what Sprint has decided to do is prioritize connections at overburdened macro sites today, weighing priority for individual users based on a moving average of their last month of total usage. This isn't Sprint trying to punish heavy data users or make them pay more -- this is Sprint trying to allow everyone fair usage of their spectrum-limited network. It is perfectly reasonable to say that a user who has used a large share of the network in the last month should be de-prioritized first in the event of congestion; otherwise, nobody can access anything.

No such thing as 30mhz TDD lte carrier. In addition the graph assumes the traditional deployment of a single sector per physical sector per site. It does not take into consideration the 8t8r equipment is running 3 distinct sectors per antenna per sector. In essence a NV 2.0 8T8R site has 9 sectors per site.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

[JWMaloney]

No such thing as 30mhz TDD lte carrier.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

There's also no four-antenna phones, this is theoretical.

 

 

"We showed what would happen with 30 MHz of spectrum in 2.5 GHz and 20 watts. [...] Sprint's not using MIMO 4x4; there's no four-antenna phones that exist today (that I know of, anyways -- certainly no eight-antenna phones), but we wanted to still give LTE the benefit of the doubt."