Top 5% being throttled starting 6/1

[kojitsari]

And in that respect, you are most likely not on an over burdened sector. Being in the cave, on a DAS. So you wouldnt get throttled anyway.

Oh yes I know. I have no problem with the way they're implementing this "throttling" currently. My point as just that it isn't terribly hard to GI above 5gigs. Thanks for taking time to actually read and respond instead of flipping out.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Johnner1999]

I uploaded maybe 2 - 3gb of videos to YouTube in the last several days, one upload was 1.3gb its self. Took maybe 15 minutes maybe.... I was shocked actually and had zero issues downloading while on vacation at Walt Disney world. In a crowded park I was seeing 20-30mb down when I used a speed test a few times.

 

So I'd have to say either data buckets is the way to go and or vzw knows how to manage it's technology (I do know they have both 700mhz and AWS deployed also no issues in updating it's network)

 

Granted vzw isn't the best in all places. Many towns near where I live are on evdo still and vzw said they have no plans to convert to lte till 2016. But I can stream music, podcasts and YouTube with no issues so I don't care. Just pointing out my own observations.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[jamisonshaw125]

I uploaded maybe 2 - 3gb of videos to YouTube in the last several days, one upload was 1.3gb its self. Took maybe 15 minutes maybe.... I was shocked actually and had zero issues downloading while on vacation at Walt Disney world. In a crowded park I was seeing 20-30mb down when I used a speed test a few times.

 

So I'd have to say either data buckets is the way to go and or vzw knows how to manage it's technology (I do know they have both 700mhz and AWS deployed also no issues in updating it's network)

 

Granted vzw isn't the best in all places. Many towns near where I live are on evdo still and vzw said they have no plans to convert to lte till 2016. But I can stream music, podcasts and YouTube with no issues so I don't care. Just pointing out my own observations.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Probably better on LTE there than disney wifi which really sucks. I was at condado springs for the half marathon last year and the wifi literally was about 1mb/second. Its funny, because my brothers gf's sisters who live in Puerto Rico said that the internet is crazy fast! I'm assuming they meant the ping time, because the download speeds sucked. When I was in puerto rico, the ping time on their ISP was around 300 ms. Horrible.

[WiWavelength]

In a cave on campus(where all my classes are) that doesn't have WiFi but does have a sprint DAS since they sponsor our campus.

 

What kind of campus has Sprint DAS but not Wi-Fi?  That sounds like a bad IT department.

 

AJ

[Gmotif6]

Seems like it's a coverup to not fix the "dead spots". I wouldn't think a couple of users could bog down a tower in an area that already has crappy service

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rf40928]

I guess in the end, it all comes down to what sprint is going to consider an overcrowded site. And if they will raise the "power" usage of 5gb or more to 10gb or more. Some people are right, they are definitely saying that we should use our LTE because we pay for it, but then kinda saying we don't want you to use it.

 

But again, I stand by what I said earlier. This is not going to be 100% of the time. It is only during peak hours, on peak congestion sites. It is not going to be everywhere, and will change as soon as congestion dissipates, and/or you switch to a more suitable band. If this is necessary to maintain a usable service for everyone on the site, then I am all for it. Every provider will/does probably have this issue already, including the all might magenta god. There is only so much a network can handle before it starts crumbling. 

 

Also what is a busy site now, might not be at all once 2500 is deployed.  With the amount of crazy bandwidth Sprint has in 2500 the whole idea was to deploy this band in densly populated and utilized areas.... right ?

 

The problem is - for now- 2500 isn't as widely deployed as what we need

[rf40928]

Apparently, it is not "pretty low."  Rather, it is a telling statistic, if true, meaning that 95 percent of users consume less than 5 GB of macro network data per month.  It would be interesting to see the actual distribution curve.  My guess is that most of the top 5 percent is not just barely breaking the 5 GB barrier but instead pushing the standard deviations way out there past 25 GB.  

 

AJ

 

THIS:  My guess is that most of the top 5 percent is not just barely breaking the 5 GB barrier but instead pushing the standard deviations way out there past 25 GB.  

 

I'd say the habitual Netflix/Pandora/Multimedia/Cloud users have insane data useage well beyond us 5 Gig users..

[jamisonshaw125]

Seems like it's a coverup to not fix the "dead spots". I wouldn't think a couple of users could bog down a tower in an area that already has crappy service

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hardly. This is to prevent congestion on their sites. And if there is "already crappy service," then this should help until NV upgrades arrive and improve it.

 

Edit: also, its most likely not just a "couple of users" that would lead sprint to activate throttling. 

[S4GRU]

This is a genius move by Sprint. Utter brilliance. Think about it this way...

 

It does not affect 95% of their customers. So 19 out of every 20 customers will see no difference. None.

 

The last 5% consume way more services than everyone else, often at the expense of the other 95%. In fact, when you consider how many 95 percenters Sprint has lost as customers, it's reasonable to conclude that these 5% cost Sprint money and don't even add anything to their bottom line except woe.

 

So Sprint is saying to these 5% at overburdened sites, we will slow you down. Sprint is prepared to let their non profitable over using customers to go to Tmo. But only half of them will leave.

 

This is the fairest throtlling scenario of all providers. It only throttles those who use the most, and only when they are affecting the performance of the site. And if these folks decide to leave, it's a win for everyone.

 

It's a win for the customer who leaves because he will finally pay for his consumption wherever he goes. It's a win for other Sprint customers to not have to compete so much for resources. And it's a win for Sprint to get rid of a customer who was unprofitable and hurting a huge amount of core customers.

 

Remember, it only affects 1 in 20 customers. If you find yourself in that one, I think you should teach Sprint a lesson and go overuse the Tmo network.

 

But the other 95% are unaffected and looking forward to some breathing room on the network as capacity is being added this year.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[jamisonshaw125]

Finally. Glad I was not the only one who felt that way. We miss you Robert. Look forward to having you back.

[Paynefanbro]

Oz has spoken!

[WiWavelength]

Oz has spoken!

 

But what happens when you pull back the curtain?

 

 

AJ

[Deval]

Actually, I think we are very sensitive to Sprint bashing. I think an equal amount of people hate on Verizon, AT&T and T-mobile. The entire industry has a bad reputation. Let the haters hate. Web blogs/sites are not representative of the average user.

 

Honestly, the reason why we are so sensitive is because it has gone on for WAY too long. Everywhere you go, it's "Sprint sucks, Sprint sucks, Sprint sucks".

 

I can already see douche bag magenta clown boy posting on Twitter about how "#Sprint sux hah hah throttle dez nutz"

[cdk]

Honestly, the reason why we are so sensitive is because it has gone on for WAY too long. Everywhere you go, it's "Sprint sucks, Sprint sucks, Sprint sucks".

 

I can already see douche bag magenta clown boy posting on Twitter about how "#Sprint sux hah hah throttle dez nutz"

 

You need to stop reading Legere's tweets.  

[Deval]

This is a genius move by Sprint. Utter brilliance. Think about it this way...

 

It does not affect 95% of their customers. So 19 out of every 20 customers will see no difference. None.

 

The last 5% consume way more services than everyone else, often at the expense of the other 95%. In fact, when you consider how many 95 percenters Sprint has lost as customers, it's reasonable to conclude that these 5% cost Sprint money and don't even add anything to their bottom line except woe.

 

So Sprint is saying to these 5% at overburdened sites, we will slow you down. Sprint is prepared to let their non profitable over using customers to go to Tmo. But only half of them will leave.

 

This is the fairest throtlling scenario of all providers. It only throttles those who use the most, and only when they are affecting the performance of the site. And if these folks decide to leave, it's a win for everyone.

 

It's a win for the customer who leaves because he will finally pay for his consumption wherever he goes. It's a win for other Sprint customers to not have to compete so much for resources. And it's a win for Sprint to get rid of a customer who was unprofitable and hurting a huge amount of core customers.

 

Remember, it only affects 1 in 20 customers. If you find yourself in that one, I think you should teach Sprint a lesson and go overuse the Tmo network.

 

But the other 95% are unaffected and looking forward to some breathing room on the network as capacity is being added this year.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

Rob wins the thread.

 

This should be copied and pasted on EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE out there complaining.

[Deval]

You need to stop reading Legere's tweets.  

I don't have to read them, can already anticipate what they will say.

 

*depressing*

 

The worst part of it all is that the general user base loves it. 

[jamisonshaw125]

I don't have to read them, can already anticipate what they will say.

 

*depressing*

 

The worst part of it all is that the general user base loves it. 

tiny minds.

[COZisBack]

tiny minds.

 

They're suffering from what we call HTC Disease. "Small Antennas".

[Deval]

tiny minds.

The problem is not only with the tiny minds, its the marketing pull that goes with them.

 

Depending on the market, T-Mobile is a viable option, and spending 15 minutes in any Sprint store in this market shows that it's the same customer base that would inevitably go to T-Mobile anyway. So now you have a room full of weak minded individuals, all pulling away from Sprint, lowering subscriber count.

[Conan Kudo]

This is a genius move by Sprint. Utter brilliance. Think about it this way...

 

It does not affect 95% of their customers. So 19 out of every 20 customers will see no difference. None.

 

The last 5% consume way more services than everyone else, often at the expense of the other 95%. In fact, when you consider how many 95 percenters Sprint has lost as customers, it's reasonable to conclude that these 5% cost Sprint money and don't even add anything to their bottom line except woe.

 

So Sprint is saying to these 5% at overburdened sites, we will slow you down. Sprint is prepared to let their non profitable over using customers to go to Tmo. But only half of them will leave.

 

This is the fairest throtlling scenario of all providers. It only throttles those who use the most, and only when they are affecting the performance of the site. And if these folks decide to leave, it's a win for everyone.

 

It's a win for the customer who leaves because he will finally pay for his consumption wherever he goes. It's a win for other Sprint customers to not have to compete so much for resources. And it's a win for Sprint to get rid of a customer who was unprofitable and hurting a huge amount of core customers.

 

Remember, it only affects 1 in 20 customers. If you find yourself in that one, I think you should teach Sprint a lesson and go overuse the Tmo network.

 

But the other 95% are unaffected and looking forward to some breathing room on the network as capacity is being added this year.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Honestly, I'm surprised it took so long for Sprint to put this in place. T-Mobile and most other mobile network operators with "unlimited" plans have had this in place from the beginning. In fact, T-Mobile even admitted as such on multiple occasions. You can get throttled on truly unlimited data (aka the $80/mo plan and the older $70/mo plan), but only on a temporary basis based on the loading of the cell you're on. If the cell is overloaded, T-Mobile will attempt to redistribute connections. If that fails, it will activate throttling mechanisms. This is why it is extremely rare to see throttling occur on the unlimited high speed data plan.

 

I applaud Sprint for finally implementing this. The network needs it.

[S4GRU]

Honestly, I'm surprised it took so long for Sprint to put this in place. T-Mobile and most other mobile network operators with "unlimited" plans have had this in place from the beginning. In fact, T-Mobile even admitted as such on multiple occasions. You can get throttled on truly unlimited data (aka the $80/mo plan and the older $70/mo plan), but only on a temporary basis based on the loading of the cell you're on. If the cell is overloaded, T-Mobile will attempt to redistribute connections. If that fails, it will activate throttling mechanisms. This is why it is extremely rare to see throttling occur on the unlimited high speed data plan.

 

I applaud Sprint for finally implementing this. The network needs it.

I was thinking this was the case, but I wasn't sure enough of myself to post it. Thanks.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[JosefTor]

I'm just a little scared that they said they will only do it in an area that is overloaded. In the past couple weeks I've been to San Diego, Vegas, OC, LA, SF, and Napa and the whole area seemed overloaded. :-( simple things like visiting a Web page was difficult.

[WiWavelength]

Honestly, I'm surprised it took so long for Sprint to put this in place.

 

Well, Sprint was trying to use "unlimited" and unthrottled data as its unique marketing hook.  But it has not been working.  Rather, it has been just retaining and attracting the excessive data users who want to take, take, take as much and as fast as they can.  That has been to the detriment of more normal data users, many of whom have been churning because of network congestion.  We shall see if this new policy helps alleviate network congestion over the next few months.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

I'm just a little scared that they said they will only do it in an area that is overloaded. In the past couple weeks I've been to San Diego, Vegas, OC, LA, SF, and Napa and never once had good data. I was able to load a few Web pages some of the time. When can Sprint just fix their network because it has never been worse on the west coast.

 

If you are talking LTE, those sites were already nearing capacity.  There you go.  This throttling policy may help to "fix" that.  Sprint cannot just wave a magic wand and say, "Abracadabra, let there be faster data for everyone all the time!"

 

AJ

[jefbal99]

My only problem with this is that I find it very hard to believe that 5GB is the top 5%.  As I've stated many times, we don't have High Speed Internet at home.  My wife uses her phone for Social Networking (Facebook/Pinterest), a little Netflix, web surfing, email, and runkeeper.  She's close to 4GB per month and not a "power" streamer.

 

I have no problem with the throttling and have previously suggested it (possibly to my own detriment as I regularly use 15GB), however, I'd love to see the data behind the Top 5%