Top 5% being throttled starting 6/1

[dstar2002]

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

Yep. Exactly my point. If you are a legit phone data user, this doesn't effect you, even in the top 5% You wont even notice the throttle.

 

Unless someone can tell me what legitimate use item will be impacted, I am excited Sprint is doing it.

 

Sent from my HTC M8

[COZisBack]

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

 

Sent from my HTC M8

 

It's not and...

 

Unless someone can tell me what legitimate use item will be impacted, I am excited Sprint is doing it.

 

Sent from my HTC M8

 

There isn't one.

[WiWavelength]

Yep. Exactly my point. If you are a legit phone data user, this doesn't effect you, even in the top 5% You wont even notice the throttle.

 

Unless someone can tell me what legitimate use item will be impacted, I am excited Sprint is doing it.

 

The argument -- not that I support it -- that some will make is that the first use case is illicit but the last two use cases are legitimate, not excluded by the Ts and Cs.  After all, they are just using "unlimited" data on the handset -- even if they are then transferring GBs of that data via SD card over to a computer or outputting that data via an MHL connection to their flat panel TV.

 

AJ

[dmchssc]

From at least a marketing standpoint, I like the idea of saying that throttling will be implemented for those who use more than 10 times more data than the typical (median) subscriber. It's relatively simple from the typical user's perspective, and most people probably don't assume that they use TEN TIMES more than the average Joe. It would be a clear way for Sprint to say "We're prioritizing our network so that the average user is less likely to experience data congestion."

 

Additionally, it would be relatively hard to argue against it from a "fairness" standpoint. Sure, the heavy users are paying for "unlimited", but so are the average users...

[bosox801]

So let me understand this now that I've had some time to chew on this. So on a site that is already slow they are going to slow the 5%er down. This doesnt seem like a highly effective method. I'm not sure what sprints customer base is but say it's 5 million and they have roughly 40k towers that's basically a 6 percent chance of one of us 5%ers being on a site. Seems like a band aid fix to me. Pretty good discussion though hope it stays civil.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

[jamisonshaw125]

So let me understand this now that I've had some time to chew on this. So on a site that is already slow they are going to slow the 5%er down. This doesnt seem like a highly effective method. I'm not sure what sprints customer base is but say it's 5 million and they have roughly 40k towers that's basically a 6 percent chance of one of us 5%ers being on a site. Seems like a band aid fix to me. Pretty good discussion though hope it stays civil.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

But slow down only during peak congestion hours and if it's even needed. If you have a Triband or dual and phone and have b26 or spark... I honestly wouldn't even worry about it

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[centermedic]

I never expected a harsh rebuttal from you, AJ. Unfortunately, data usage isn't one-size-fits-all, and I really don't care what presser tells me that "97% of Americans use less than 2gb, so you should, too!" Those "millions of drivers before me" didn't have the available technology at their disposal like I do in 2014. I guess I should switch jobs, or just sit in my truck miserable, and find a nice AM broadcast of a church sermon to "offload the network." I understand your concern, and firm stance on "data pigs," but please, take into consideration that not everyone is alike in their usage.

Sorry. Unless you are managing your own business aka an unaffiliated owner operator then there is just no way or reason to use that much bandwidth. Yes i was a truck driver with the available tech that is presently available. There are far to many other options including idle air that you can use.

[bosox801]

But slow down only during peak congestion hours and if it's even needed. If you have a Triband or dual and phone and have b26 or spark... I honestly wouldn't even worry about it

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

Yeah after reading the thread this morning it just seems that it won't be an effective method for a site that's already congested. If the site is congested maybe they need some more sites??? But if I was them I would wait until NV was complete until making that investment as maybe by them tri band phones and the clear sites will help relieve the burden hence why I believe it's a band aid fix for a gunshot wound.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

[jamisonshaw125]

Yeah after reading the thread this morning it just seems that it won't be an effective method for a site that's already congested. If the site is congested maybe they need some more sites??? But if I was them I would wait until NV was complete until making that investment as maybe by them tri band phones and the clear sites will help relieve the burden hence why I believe it's a band aid fix for a gunshot wound.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

I personally think they should throttle every single person down to 3G speeds during congestion hours like that if it would mean usablility. IMHO. This feels like just a tiny piece of the puzzle.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[kojitsari]

I personally think they should throttle every single person down to 3G speeds during congestion hours like that if it would mean usablility. IMHO. This feels like just a tiny piece of the puzzle.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say the minimal LTE speeds they advertise (3mbs down?) would be fair though. Its plenty for everything you could need. Even downloads and streaming in decent quality.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[bosox801]

I personally think they should throttle every single person down to 3G speeds during congestion hours like that if it would mean usablility. IMHO. This feels like just a tiny piece of the puzzle.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

Well I guess we will see how this plays out soon enough. All I know is I'm not changing my habits. If I want to watch a show or do whatever on my device I'm gonna keep doing it. Some people buy a sports car and keep in the garage. Not me I'm pedal to the floorboard.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

[jamisonshaw125]

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say the minimal LTE speeds they advertise (3mbs down?) would be fair though. Its plenty for everything you could need. Even downloads and streaming in decent quality.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Okay. Definitely that then. I didn't know minimum speeds they advertise were around 3. As long as people still see the LTE at the top of their phone lol.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[jamisonshaw125]

Well I guess we will see how this plays out soon enough. All I know is I'm not changing my habits. If I want to watch a show or do whatever on my device I'm gonna keep doing it. Some people buy a sports car and keep in the garage. Not me I'm pedal to the floorboard.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

Well. Just beware of slower speeds then. Or just skip out on the tv show or whatever during peak hours if you actually want to have a decent playback and quality lol.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

So let me understand this now that I've had some time to chew on this. So on a site that is already slow they are going to slow the 5%er down. This doesnt seem like a highly effective method. I'm not sure what sprints customer base is but say it's 5 million and they have roughly 40k towers that's basically a 6 percent chance of one of us 5%ers being on a site.

 

No, your math is way off.  If we put Sprint's postpaid sub base at 30 million, then 5 percent is 1.5 million.  Quite simply, the odds are exceedingly high that there are always multiple top 5 percenters in every sector of every site in the Sprint network -- outside of the most rural/highway sites.

 

AJ

[kojitsari]

Okay. Definitely that then. I didn't know minimum speeds they advertise were around 3. As long as people still see the LTE at the top of their phone lol.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure when I swapped the ToS said 3-6 being average LTE speeds. I'm not 100% but I'd say I'm like 98% sure. The funny thing is I haven't seen speeds below 10mbs down on LTE anywhere (excluding the times my signal is -115dbm or lower) regardless of time of day. In my opinion Sprint is selling setting expectations low and surpassing them by far. This "throttling" is a healthy acceptable type, now if they start capping us at 125kbs speeds like att does to their unlimited users after they hit a data limit I'll be upset.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say the minimal LTE speeds they advertise (3mbs down?) would be fair though. Its plenty for everything you could need. Even downloads and streaming in decent quality.

Okay. Definitely that then. I didn't know minimum speeds they advertise were around 3. As long as people still see the LTE at the top of their phone lol.

 

If that 3 Mbps is sustained, then a 5 MHz FDD sector can support roughly five simultaneous users before it is maxed out.  Does that really sound reasonable?

 

AJ

[bosox801]

No, your math is way off. If we put Sprint's postpaid sub base at 30 million, then 5 percent is 1.5 million. Quite simply, the odds are exceedingly high that there are always multiple top 5 percenters in every sector of every site in the Sprint network -- outside of the most rural/highway sites.

 

AJ

Well I guess you can be glad we won't likely share sectors then. And my math was based on sites not sectors that jumps it to 120000 roughly so that's 12 percent still low odds not exceedingly high in my opinion

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

[jamisonshaw125]

If that 3 Mbps is sustained, then a 5 MHz FDD sector can support roughly five simultaneous users before it is maxed out. Does that really sound reasonable?

 

AJ

Oh..... No. I'm not up to date on what it really takes to max out a sector. I didn't realize it was that easy.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[kojitsari]

If that 3 Mbps is sustained, then a 5 MHz FDD sector can support roughly five simultaneous users before it is maxed out. Does that really sound reasonable?

 

AJ

For most of the areas I frequent that's probably the total number of sprint customers . But no it really doesn't, I should've thought a bit more about that. Thanks for making me feel dumb super early in the day AJ .

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Oh..... No. I'm not up to date on what it really takes to max out a sector. I didn't realize it was that easy.

 

People like to cite the 37 Mbps max figure, then use it in their calculations.  But that is attainable only if all mobiles in the sector have ideal signal.  It never happens in the real world.  That is why I am using 15 Mbps as a more realistic figure for longterm average capacity.

 

AJ

[milan03]

People like to cite the 37 Mbps max figure, then use it in their calculations.  But that is attainable only if all mobiles in the sector have ideal signal.  It never happens in the real world.  That is why I am using 15 Mbps as a more realistic figure for longterm average capacity.

 

AJ

Yeah, 5MHz LTE sector can provide downlink speeds of ~37Mbps as long the backhaul is in place, and cell site equipment isn't malfunctioning.

 

But what's lowering that peak spectral efficiency is channel quality, SINR of the user device, which directly affects MIMO utilization, and therefore the throughput. Channel quality is directly affected by chatty devices, especially the ones in indoor environment accessing the outdoor macro sites. That's why it's extremely important especially for LTE operators with high band spectrum to deploy indoor solutions at least in enterprise environment.

 

Otherwise, in busy metro areas, when large amount of users connect to that single high band 2.6GHz, PCS G-Block or AWS cell, it will shrink and perform poorly. Sprint needs to start leveraging DAS, Small Cell or pCell technology like yesterday...

[jamisonshaw125]

Yeah, 5MHz LTE sector can provide downlink speeds of ~37Mbps as long the backhaul is in place, and cell site equipment isn't malfunctioning.

 

But what's lowering that peak spectral efficiency is channel quality, SINR of the user device, which directly affects MIMO utilization, and therefore the throughput. Channel quality is directly affected by chatty devices, especially the ones in indoor environment accessing the outdoor macro sites. That's why it's extremely important especially for LTE operators with high band spectrum to deploy indoor solutions at least in enterprise environment.

 

Otherwise, in busy metro areas, when large amount of users connect to that single high band 2.6GHz, PCS G-Block or AWS cell, it will shrink and perform poorly. Sprint needs to start leveraging DAS, Small Cell or pCell technology like yesterday...

I thought I reD that they are doing testing with pCell. Or was that dish. Either way, I hope masa isn't letting that pass up.

[rf40928]

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

 

YES  this ( throttling ) could help in some places.  Before AT&T got rid of unlimited data there was a lot of bitching going on how in big cities like NY that the heaviest AT&T users sat in their bedrooms and hogged all the bandwidth from the towers that served many and slowed down the service of average everyday users..

 

If a single tower serves 100 people it only takes a few data hogs to slow it way down. This is why Verizon has had slowdowns in many big cities even they currently have more working bandwidth then Sprint ( I didn't say potential bandwidth - I mean currently useable and working ) .. It is only because of Verizon's semi-recent  aquired bandwidth that they are making improvements.. but there are few data hogs on Verizon or AT&T because those high use plans are OUTRAGEOUS..

[rf40928]

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

 

Data speeds don't matter to me.. I'm getting very useable speeds.  It's great to be able to see I'm downloading at 40 ( which I've hit a few times ) on Sprint, but most often get 7 to 15.. You only need to hit around 2.5 to watch Netflix reliably.  My area isn't done.. but I won't pay Verizon the extra money for a 2 or 4 Gb cap just to say ...

 

"Yes ! Verizon has a more consistent network - They started 6 years before everyone else!"

 

Once Sprint deploys all its bandwidth it'll have as good of speeds and as consistent as Verizon.  Sprint will have more deployed bandwidth then Verizon and ATT do combined .. they'll have less throttling... 

 

I can see why some come down on Sprint - but in most places they are no where near done on this rollout.  

 

At the 2 to 3 year mark Verizon was further behind then Sprint.. With good reason.... This had never been done before   and there was NO fiber layed out..

 

Sprint will be most likely to keep unlimited data of all carriers simply because it has more bandwidth to deploy.  

[Johnner1999]

Data speeds don't matter to me.. I'm getting very useable speeds. It's great to be able to see I'm downloading at 40 ( which I've hit a few times ) on Sprint, but most often get 7 to 15.. You only need to hit around 2.5 to watch Netflix reliably. My area isn't done.. but I won't pay Verizon the extra money for a 2 or 4 Gb cap just to say ...

 

"Yes ! Verizon has a more consistent network - They started 6 years before everyone else!"

 

Once Sprint deploys all its bandwidth it'll have as god or better speeds and as consistent as Verizon. Because they'll have more deployed bandwidth then Verizon and ATT do combined they'll have less throttling...

 

I can see why some come down on Sprint - but in most places they are no where near done on this rollout.

At the 2 to 3 year mark I'd say Verizon was further behind then Sprint.. probably because A) This had never been done before There was NO fiber layed out..

I agree, in that the 40+ down I see with my current carrier is useful at all. I do enjoy a consistent user experience in that when playing a podcast or music while driving that it keeps playing. Whereas every few miles, previously it would pause or switch to roam and never switch back unless I toggled airplane mode. Per sprint my town is complete and 3g service is upgraded on the rest of my commute.

 

In areas where my current carrier dropped the ball on lte it's only going to offer evdo - I was upset after finding that out, but zero streaming issues so I couldn't care less. In fact in places where I experienced working sprint evdo updates, sprint rocked and was amazing. Better than the horrid unstable lte they provide where I use it the most.

 

If sprint can actually achieve its goals in my area I'd come back to them in a heartbeat. As I really like Sprint and what SB has the potential to do. But currently I need my $160 to be working for me to pay it. That said I'd go tmo, if they light up their lte towers in my area as currently they are only on 2g.

 

Hopefully this post isn't taken out of context.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk