Top 5% being throttled starting 6/1

[WiWavelength]

I agree with what you are saying, but the tone of your commits feel hostile to heavy data users. Sprint has already indicated that they plan to raise the price of unlimited data in the future, who do you think will be willing to pay those premiums but heavy data users?

 

We are a bit "hostile" toward heavy data users because they have caused Sprint and other users considerable grief.  But I agree with you that Sprint should continue to offer a truly "unlimited" (or, at least, very high quota) and unthrottled option -- albeit at a proportionally heavy premium.  And then, mark my words, many of the heavy users will bitch and moan that they want "unlimited," unthrottled data for the $20 per month that they had been paying.  Basically, a lot of the heavy users are not willing to pony up to pay for their actual usage.  They would rather exploit the current "unlimited" option at the expense of other users.

 

AJ

[Johnner1999]

We are a bit "hostile" toward heavy data users because they have caused Sprint and other users considerable grief. But I agree with you that Sprint should continue to offer a truly "unlimited" (or, at least, very high quota) and unthrottled option -- albeit at a proportionally heavy premium. And then, mark my words, many of the heavy users will bitch and moan that they want "unlimited," unthrottled data for the $20 per month that they had been paying. Basically, a lot of the heavy users are not willing to pony up to pay for their actual usage. They would rather exploit the current "unlimited" option at the expense of other users.

 

AJ

 

So if I had a framly plan with the 3gb cap, I'd see fast lte service up to 3gb, rather than the sub 1mb speeds on lte unlimited? And when driving I'd have a reliable data connection?

 

Just seeing if I understand....

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[david279]

When you get to 3 GB your in overage land. Everything after is on you at a cost. Speeds won't get throttled.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

So if I had a framly plan with the 3gb cap, I'd see fast lte service up to 3gb, rather than the sub 1mb speeds on lte unlimited? And when driving I'd have a reliable data connection?

 

Just seeing if I understand....

 

Either that is a joke or no, you do not understand.  This throttling policy has nothing to do with tiered data plans, nor with guaranteed reliable data speeds.  It is an attempt to reduce some of the network burden imposed by the heaviest of heavy users.  And that may lead to more reliable data speeds.

 

AJ

[milan03]

According to Conan Kudo they do the same thing that sprint is going to put into place. They just didn't single out the top 5% of users.

They are traffic shaping large udp and ftp downloads initiated on mobile devices in some areas/sites, but only for the duration of that specific data query, and not for an extended period of time. So if you're torrenting from your smartphone, you won't have the most exciting user experience. 

 

That also isn't limited only to unlimited data plans. 

[david279]

So many people just don't understand what this is all about. Those blogs really brainwashed a bunch of people.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Johnner1999]

Either that is a joke or no, you do not understand. This throttling policy has nothing to do with tiered data plans, nor with guaranteed reliable data speeds. It is an attempt to reduce some of the network burden imposed by the heaviest of heavy users. And that may lead to more reliable data speeds.

 

AJ

No I understand the concept and agree. But the points that are being here make it seem that this new policy will allow the 95% to see improved data connections to what Sprint advertises? I don't see it.

 

In all seriousness, sprint needs to copy tmo, in offering "simple" data caps while including a higher priced unlimited plan. I mean framly plans do already but not very well known. This I think would lower people's bills if it fits yet still leaves the door open to unlimited for those that need it.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[jamisonshaw125]

They are traffic shaping large udp and ftp downloads initiated on mobile devices in some areas/sites, but only for the duration of that specific data query, and not for an extended period of time. So if you're torrenting from your smartphone, you won't have the most exciting user experience.

 

That also isn't limited only to unlimited data plans.

Interesting. I'll have to look into whatever traffic shaping is.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[Johnner1999]

I hate to agree with you but the majority of people are bashing Sprint. They complain about poor customer service, lies of a good network, no/poor service, etc. Sprint has a horrible reputation with the general public and as caspar said, I also don't see it getting better for at least 5 years.

Great post! The misinformation or lies about no problems in my area. Or we will submit a ticket in your area - month after month gets old. Especially after NV is complete in your area.... that's what erked me the most.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

We are a bit "hostile" toward heavy data users because they have caused Sprint and other users considerable grief. But I agree with you that Sprint should continue to offer a truly "unlimited" (or, at least, very high quota) and unthrottled option -- albeit at a proportionally heavy premium. And then, mark my words, many of the heavy users will bitch and moan that they want "unlimited," unthrottled data for the $20 per month that they had been paying. Basically, a lot of the heavy users are not willing to pony up to pay for their actual usage. They would rather exploit the current "unlimited" option at the expense of other users.

 

AJ

I personally would easily pay 20 more than I am paying now for unlimited lte data when Sprint's deployment of all the spectrum they are sitting on is finished. If that day was today no one would need to worry about this policy change because Sprint would be a head of the data consumption curve. These changes are needed because Sprint isn't ahead of the curve and probably won't be getting ahead for a couple of years and that is not ideal for anyone. I don't see the point of blame people who rely on mobile data to a greater degree that most for that problem.

I whole heartily agree that people complaining about it before they even know how it will effect them or even if it does reduce their network experience need to relax and figure out what option works best for them and go for that. I never understood peoples needed to complain about companies when you have choice, vote with you dollars.

[Yuhfhrh]

Sprint should not have announced this, and just did it behind the scenes. I see no benefit to Sprint for letting customers know this.

 

The terms and conditions already state they can do this to preserve the network. That should have been enough.

[WiWavelength]

I never understood peoples needed to complain about companies when you have choice, vote with you dollars.

 

The problem is that all of the major choices are bad in some way.  Pick your poison:

 

VZW = anti competitive, anti Net Neutrality

AT&T = same story as VZW

Sprint = slow in more ways than one

T-Mobile = poor overall network coverage

 

If you care about the future of our nation's wired and wireless broadband infrastructure, then you do not give money to VZ/VZW and AT&T.  You starve them with your wallet.  But, then, your choices are Sprint's slow dysfunction or T-Mobile's spotty coverage islands.  That is not what I would call consumer choice.

 

AJ

[Johnner1999]

The problem is that all of the major choices are bad in some way. Pick your poison:

 

VZW = anti competitive, anti Net Neutrality

AT&T = same story as VZW

Sprint = slow in more ways than one

T-Mobile = poor overall network coverage

 

If you care about the future of our nation's wired and wireless broadband infrastructure, then you do not give money to VZ/VZW and AT&T. You starve them with your wallet. But, then, your choices are Sprint's slow dysfunction or T-Mobile's spotty coverage islands. That is not what I would call consumer choice.

 

AJ

I elected to give my money to Verizon Wireless, for the time being. They provide best in class data speeds in my area, easy upgrades with edge program, price is fair IMHO.

 

I respect your decision and choice.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[mrjeff]

The article states that Sprint has started sending notices to their post-paid customers.  Has anyone here received one?

[JustinRP37]

So we have 11 pages of responses over something that may not, in all actuality, be terrible for even high data users.  Has Sprint specified how low they would throttle the speeds?  Not from what I have seen.  I actually doubt that after NV they would throttle even the highest users to below 500kbps unless the site was severely over capacity (which would hopefully be rectified down the line by network engineers if it were constant).  They just announced the Spotify deal.  I highly doubt they would throttle to the point where many of the people they just signed would want to flee.  They know, better than any company in America, that one unhappy customer tells about 7 people of his/her experience, whereas a happy customer typically only tells 2-3. 

[Bob Newhart]

No I understand the concept and agree. But the points that are being here make it seem that this new policy will allow the 95% to see improved data connections to what Sprint advertises? I don't see it.

 

In all seriousness, sprint needs to copy tmo, in offering "simple" data caps while including a higher priced unlimited plan. I mean framly plans do already but not very well known. This I think would lower people's bills if it fits yet still leaves the door open to unlimited for those that need it.

 

 

 

Sprint needs to be put a clear number on lots of things, for example with roaming its either 100MB or 300MB or a % of minutes used in a month. It isn't clear which plan that you have covers what amount, as the online usage amount just says '"see terms" instead of the actual number. Looking at the terms doesn't say what your exact terms are.

 

They just need to be clear, T-Mobile spells out their numbers quite clear for high speed data usage, not so much for low speed data speeds.

 

Straight talk/AIO are very clear with their high and low speed values.

 

My guess is to why Sprint isn't putting exact numbers to the throttling right now is that they don't really know, a work in progress and if they put a speed number, people will complain that they don't even get that speed anyway.

 

The Sprint marketing dept makes me think if they think these days.

[mrjeff]

So we have 11 pages of responses over something that may not, in all actuality, be terrible for even high data users.  Has Sprint specified how low they would throttle the speeds?  Not from what I have seen.  I actually doubt that after NV they would throttle even the highest users to below 500kbps unless the site was severely over capacity (which would hopefully be rectified down the line by network engineers if it were constant).  They just announced the Spotify deal.  I highly doubt they would throttle to the point where many of the people they just signed would want to flee.  They know, better than any company in America, that one unhappy customer tells about 7 people of his/her experience, whereas a happy customer typically only tells 2-3. 

 

 

 

Not sure if it will interest anyone but here is the text of the linked FAQ from 2012.

 

http://www.howardforums.com/archive/index.php/t-1772896.html

[EvanA]

So we have 11 pages of responses over something that may not, in all actuality, be terrible for even high data users. Has Sprint specified how low they would throttle the speeds? Not from what I have seen. I actually doubt that after NV they would throttle even the highest users to below 500kbps unless the site was severely over capacity (which would hopefully be rectified down the line by network engineers if it were constant). They just announced the Spotify deal. I highly doubt they would throttle to the point where many of the people they just signed would want to flee. They know, better than any company in America, that one unhappy customer tells about 7 people of his/her experience, whereas a happy customer typically only tells 2-3.

Sprint needs to be put a clear number on lots of things, for example with roaming its either 100MB or 300MB or a % of minutes used in a month. It isn't clear which plan that you have covers what amount, as the online usage amount just says '"see terms" instead of the actual number. Looking at the terms doesn't say what your exact terms are.

 

They just need to be clear, T-Mobile spells out their numbers quite clear for high speed data usage, not so much for low speed data speeds.

 

Straight talk/AIO are very clear with their high and low speed values.

 

My guess is to why Sprint isn't putting exact numbers to the throttling right now is that they don't really know, a work in progress and if they put a speed number, people will complain that they don't even get that speed anyway.

 

The Sprint marketing dept makes me think if they think these days.

You don't see an exact number and instead see them using the word "prioritization" because that is what they are doing. Network prioritization is not the same as a hard throttle. Network prioritization basically means that the people in the 95% will have priority over the 5% during times of congestion. There's no specific speed the 5% will be throttled to because their requests are simply going to be assigned a secondary priority to the 95%. It will work very similarly to how QoS systems do, only with multiple mobile devices instead of data types.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[COZisBack]

Attention: We accept wireless enthusiasts from all wireless providers, but do not turn this thread into an alternative provider advertising thread. I haven't hidden any posts, but this is the last and only warning.

[Conan Kudo]

Network prioritization is an effective throttle. T-Mobile uses it, CBW used it, AT&T uses it with Aio and Cricket, Verizon uses it with prepaid, and Sprint is just now going to start using it. It's not a throughput throttle, it's effectively a latency throttle. It's a technique to enforce an effective packet processing order that pushes out the simplest/smallest requests ahead of larger ones.

 

I figured everyone already knew that when I mentioned it earlier about T-Mobile's throttle strategy. On unlimited plans, the throttling isn't on throughput, it's on latency. Believe me when I say higher latency hurts way more than lower throughput (though there is a point where low latency+low throughput still hurts a lot).

 

Sprint uses a throughput and latency throttle on prepaid, while it only implements a latency throttle on postpaid. That's very important to keep in mind.

 

T-Mobile implements a throughput throttle on all plans that don't have unlimited high speed data that triggers after reaching your high speed data limit and sends you down to 128Kbps. Latency throttles are implemented in unlimited high speed data plans, but only activated if automatic network load rebalancing (where connections are forced from one sector/cell to another to even out the load) doesn't work.

 

AT&T has a permanent throughput and latency throttle on Aio/Cricket, which is why you only get HSPA 7.2 speeds on its LTE network there. There's a second level throughput throttle that activates after you've hit the proscribed high speed data limit that drops you down to 64Kbps.

 

Verizon implements a latency throttle on prepaid, but doesn't need a throughput one because prepaid users can't use LTE. And besides, Verizon isn't allowed to use throughput throttles on a permanent basis in LTE plans anyway.

[dstar2002]

What are people doing on their phones that throttling will hurt you anyway?

 

No one has really answered this. What is it you do that will be unusable if you were to be in the 5 percent and on an overloaded sector, causing the throttle.

 

Sent from my HTC M8

[tampaflusa]

What are people doing on their phones that throttling will hurt you anyway?

 

No one has really answered this. What is it you do that will be unusable if you were to be in the 5 percent and on an overloaded sector, causing the throttle.

 

Sent from my HTC M8

Google maps for one is extremely slow under 768kps or so expecially navigating. Pandora, Google Music et..

 

 

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

Let's keep in mind that the net result for the 5% is the same before and after June 1st. The Heavy 5% users will only be throttled at sites that are overburdened. So they were already experiencing the slow down anyway at those sites. It's just that the other 95% will now have a chance at those heavy site to see their speeds increase. And 5 percenters still will have no throtlling at any other site/sector. Just the overburdened ones. And if a 5 percenter has a Triband phone, their chances are much lower of being on an overburdened site.

 

This is all much ado about nothing. It's so extremely minor. I'm not even certain it will even help much. And if you're a 5 percenter, then you probably won't even notice a difference. And if you do, then compare what your fate would be in the amount of data you consume over at another provider. If you really do your homework, you'll find most of you are still in a better position with Sprint.

 

This is a temporary stop gap because of the condition of the network. We all see Band 41 and 26 going live all over the country. Band 26 itself doubles Band 25 capacity. And Band 41 grows it exponentially. Overburdened sites will be less and less an occurrence over the next year. But something has to give at these Band 25 sites in the interim. This is it.

 

And I reiterate, it doesn't effect 19 out of every 20 customers. And for the 1 in 20 that it does, it only effects them on overburdened sites/sectors, and when it does, the net result for them is the same as if there was no throttling going on...an underperforming site.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[dstar2002]

Google maps for one is extremely slow under 768kps or so expecially navigating. Pandora, Google Music et..

 

 

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

Google maps has offline mode, you can do your entire area. Navigation uses very little actual data unless you use Street view with it.

 

Google music and Pandora stream fine for me from this 3g only accepted tower, where my download speed check never goes over 200. Maybe it's not studio quality sound, but its better than FM sound.

 

So I consider both of those debunked. Anyone else doing anything truly impact full on their phone that throttling will kill you on?

 

Best I can come up with is video chat. So, your video chat could suffer some quality, when you are in the top 5% AND on an overloaded sector.

 

I'm still not seeing the end of world anarchy in all this.

 

Sent from my HTC M8

[WiWavelength]

So I consider both of those debunked. Anyone else doing anything truly impact full on their phone that throttling will kill you on?

 

Sadly, yes, people are doing impactful things.  They are using illicit tethering as Internet connections for their whole apartments; they are downloading large files, then transferring those files to laptops; they are using video streaming as a replacement for cable, etc.

 

AJ