Top 5% being throttled starting 6/1

[Destroyallcubes]

Well at least this has not gone to where you are throttled down to unusable data. You have a chance to use full speed data, just when the network can handle it.

[Vince]

At least it's not only time specific (during congested times) but it's also location based. So, theoretically, you can move a block, connect to a less congested site, and have the throttle removed, right?

[jamisonshaw125]

At least it's not only time specific (during congested times) but it's also location based. So, theoretically, you can move a block, connect to a less congested site, and have the throttle removed, right?

Yes

[rmorrisonva]

In Economics we call the situation a "Tragedy of the Commons" and I think the theory is applicable here... a primer for those unfamiliar via Wikipedia: "The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory by Garrett Hardin, according to which individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource."

 

IMHO throttling the biggest consumers of the good/resource (bandwidth) in situations where there is a palpable scarcity of it and otherwise no incentives to consume less of it is a good bargain, and a good way to deal with a problem that really can't go away without SOME sort of cost imposed on a individual's consumption of said resource/good.

 

There is no free lunch folks. This seems about the most reasonable and least onerous solution to the problem of network saturation AFAIK from any major carrier.

[duddys31]

Just my opinion but seems that they should of known that the one 1900mhz lte carrier wasn't going to take long to get overburdened even in small towns. And another thing I see is that when Dan and son promote the spark network they talk about speeds of 150 and 200 mbs.

 

If they are going to be throttling people with those kinds of speeds and saying you can watch videos and movies people will not be liking that very much when you advertise that unlimited data and no throttling besides the fine print I'm afraid subscribers will just turn around with these other company's paying etf's and leave.

 

I think that sprint needs to offer something because of lacking coverage and speeds in a lot of places at the moment. I don't have a problem with it as long as it's only implemented on sites overburdened. If anybody watches movies or anything they are going to be over the 5gb.

 

I think there will be some backlash over them putting that statement out when other carriers told them unlimited wasn't sustainable but yet sprint insisted that with spark it was. They just need to get B41 and B26 deployed nationwide pretty quickly. B26 will help places that aren't super populated for a little while but eventually they are going to need another 10mhz total 1900 carrier from refarming 3g nationwide.

From what I have gathered lte adoption for Sprint was very high so I think they could afford to do that where b41 will be a while to get there.

 

Just my 2 cents I think sprint can keep unlimited data with all the clearwire spectrum and they could also get some pcs h block from dish.

[peteyz24]

Speeds are most likely poor on the overburdened/congested sites that they are referring to as it is so will being throttled really make a big difference.  I would think not a whole lot.

[dedub]

Right.  Basically, the use of a few is creating congestion that is unintentionally "throttling" the use of others.  This new policy turns the tables on the cause -- explicitly throttling those who are greatly contributing to the congestion.  I have no problem with that.  Call it operant conditioning.  Reinforce the idea to these few that exceeding 5 GB usage per month leads to throttling, managing data below 5 GB per month leads to no throttling.

 

AJ

 

The use of a few is not what creates congestion, its the use of many that does.

 

1 person 'hogging' the bandwidth by downloading some huge game (or video or whatever) over the air, is automatically 'throttled' when additional people are using the same resource. ie their download speed decreases as the number of other users increase.

 

1 person or 100 people can not 'hog' any more bandwidth than what is available and divided by the number of users.

 

End users do not determine their own priority of bandwidth and never have.

[WiWavelength]

The use of a few is not what creates congestion, its the use of many that does.

 

No, you are wrong about that.  You have long been wrong about that.  But, like the users I am about to describe below, you refuse to give up.

 

If the so called top 5 percent are consuming 50 percent of the actual capacity, they are potentially creating congestion.  They do not give up -- they just keep taking and taking, even as the network slows down, while more normal users often give up.  Remove or curtail those 5 percent and their demand for data, then the more normal users get additional breathing room.

 

I mean, give me a break.  This is a long established principle in wired networks.  I have heard from network admins who say that among the top percent of users, some can be taught to manage their use, some just need to be permanently barred from the network.

 

AJ

[centermedic]

Tech sites going bananas with haters. The usual I thought Sprint always throttled line lol. For some reason I think to the public this may do some harm to Sprint since a lot of people never got the network that they were promised years ago. As for my self I am perfectly fine with this. Thanks to my new job I can afford to pay $40 a month to Verizon for 5gb of data on my LG G pad 8.3 and I use the Nexus 5 on tmobiles $30 5gb plan while having the G2 on Sprint so If sprint can't handle it I have two other networks up for the challenge. Its a phone geek's wet dream.

This may give those people the network they were promised. AJ estimated that the top 5% use 50% of the data. After implementing NV I'm sure Sprint took a look at network activity and identified the top 5% as a problem.

[COZisBack]

I know that 5GB is being associated with the 5% but I honestly believe the top 5% is using over 30GB a month.

[travismheim]

I don't know where this idea of a 5 GB cap is coming from. After re reading the article it just says that if you typically use more than 5 GB in a month, you are probably in the top 5% of users. I'll take this any day over AT&T's 5 GB soft cap and immediate 100 kbps throttled speeds afterward on their grandfathered unlimited plan. 

[dedub]

Shrug, it is not about giving up or not.

 

In any case, sprint is taking care of the issue on their own terms, hopefully less hate going around for all.

[tybo31316]

I know that 5GB is being associated with the 5% but I honestly believe the top 5% is using over 30GB a month.

 

I've been on other forums and users are using absurd amounts of data. There's even one user that left for tmo because sprints data wasn't fast enough for him to constantly download and stream movies while at work.

[hescominsoon]

This will be controversial. They say the top 5% is roughly people who use more than 5GB of data per month. I think there are a lot of our members who use more than 5 gigs a month and then get connected to a well burdened/over burdened site. They will have their speeds reduced.

 

Although I don't like AT&T, I do like my 15GB plan. If I go over, I just pay my fair share of the overage. If I want a lesser bill, I just use less. I also like my Ting plan for the same reason. I pay exactly for what I use. It seems fair. And if I want to save money, I can use my phone very sparsely.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

so now they effectively have a soft-cap..5 gigs.  Next will be the elimination of unlimited data.  

[hescominsoon]

I barely use 2GB on my phone over 4G/3G when I'm out and about, when I'm home I use my WiFi connection to browse the internet, steam music, etc.  I like Sprint's connection optimizer as it automatically switches me over to my WiFi when I get in range of the signal, just set it up and forget about it.  

 

your phone will do it by itself..the optimizer at least for me is highly unreliable..i just let the phone do it itself..

[utiz4321]

Stats and graphs are not going to sway me or change how I feel about this. I've gone down this road before on a different thread here. If your going to market unlimited it should be that. If I need a lawyer to read through t&c then I believe the marketing is deceptive. I appreciate the data and everyone's opinions.

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

Sprint already throttles video content on over burned sites to 1Mbs for every one (or at least reserves the right to). If they throttle the top 5 percent to 1Mbs that would be fine (speaking as someone who is on the heavy use side). If you think about it you don't need more than one Mbs for anything but video streaming. If this is the case it may just improve service with no discernible differance to the end user than the current t&cs allow.

[kojitsari]

5gbs a month seems low to me, I use that much on Pandora alone... 10-15ish(maybe 12?) seems more fair to me.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

so now they effectively have a soft-cap..5 gigs. Next will be the elimination of unlimited data.

No they don't. That isn't even close to what is being discussed here. On towers where the traffic is heavy they will throttle users that are in the top 5% of data users. This only effects people on heavy traffic times and locations. Since I to recall the average WiMAX data user being at something like 7gigs I think the average lte user should be around the same. Meaning the top 5 % is probably significantly north of 7gigs (just a guess and it would include me).

[swintec]

Sprint says: "Once the customer is no longer connected to a congested cell site, or the site is no longer congested, speeds will return to normal."

 

This isnt a throttle that lasts any longer than it needs to (when the site is congested until you are no longer on the site OR the site is no longer congested).  people are acting like as soon as they cross 5 gigs they are done for which isnt the case.

 

BUT...I think it is interesting how sprint says over 5 gigs is the norm for that top tier of users, if the system is set up the way they are trying to sell it to us, it shouldnt matter what the number is.  Top 5% of previous months users are throttled as needed.

 

If the top 5% of users averaged 45 GBs for the previous month does that mean if I used 44 gigs or below I am home free since i wasnt in the top 5%?  The way they are spinning this it would seem so.  What i think they are actually planning on doing either from the start or several months down the road is to do throttling for everyone over 5 gigs regardless, on congested cell sites.

 

Obviously there is only one solution.  Come June 1st we need to all download as much as possible to shoot the 5% number incredibly high so that way we wont have to worry at all. 

[JThorson]

I don't mind if Sprint does this. I mean I only use an upward of 2GB a month currently, but doing this will put less burden on the network and help everyone enjoy a more consistent speeds and than having someone taking up more bandwidth while others get less. I think it's fair.

[peteyz24]

I've been on other forums and users are using absurd amounts of data. There's even one user that left for tmo because sprints data wasn't fast enough for him to constantly download and stream movies while at work.

Wow, that is rediculous.  Does no one work while they are at "work" anymore?  My phone doesn't leave my vehicle while I am at work.

[Vince]

We'll see how this shapes up. I use 20gigs without even trying. I'm never home, and on my phone all day.

[centermedic]

Just my opinion but seems that they should of known that the one 1900mhz lte carrier wasn't going to take long to get overburdened even in small towns. And another thing I see is that when Dan and son promote the spark network they talk about speeds of 150 and 200 mbs.

 

If they are going to be throttling people with those kinds of speeds and saying you can watch videos and movies people will not be liking that very much when you advertise that unlimited data and no throttling besides the fine print I'm afraid subscribers will just turn around with these other company's paying etf's and leave.

 

I think that sprint needs to offer something because of lacking coverage and speeds in a lot of places at the moment. I don't have a problem with it as long as it's only implemented on sites overburdened. If anybody watches movies or anything they are going to be over the 5gb.

 

I think there will be some backlash over them putting that statement out when other carriers told them unlimited wasn't sustainable but yet sprint insisted that with spark it was. They just need to get B41 and B26 deployed nationwide pretty quickly. B26 will help places that aren't super populated for a little while but eventually they are going to need another 10mhz total 1900 carrier from refarming 3g nationwide.

From what I have gathered lte adoption for Sprint was very high so I think they could afford to do that where b41 will be a while to get there.

 

Just my 2 cents I think sprint can keep unlimited data with all the clearwire spectrum and they could also get some pcs h block from dish.

If they knew that a single 5x5 carrier would suffice or not is irrelevant. That is all they had available in the vast majority of markets. I'm sure the no throttling tag line will be dropped if they have not already and I dont recall Sprint ever saying that unlimited was sustainable BECAUSE of Spark. I think this is the right move. Better to piss a few people off now then piss a whole bunch of people down the road.

[caspar347]

I think this is a great and long overdue measure, but as COZisBack said, I seriously doubt that the top 5% of users includes everyone that goes over 5 GB a month. I'd wager a guess that all 5GB+ users are closer to 45% or 50%. If this were, say, the actual top 10% (probably around 20GB+ a month), I'd be much more supportive of this. And, once the network is done it should be theoretically very easy to hit 5GB in a month (150Mbps, right?). But I still feel like the pros outweigh the cons on this move (until the network is complete), other than maybe the publicity backlash which will fade away within a few months.

[centermedic]

Sprint says: "Once the customer is no longer connected to a congested cell site, or the site is no longer congested, speeds will return to normal."

 

This isnt a throttle that lasts any longer than it needs to (when the site is congested until you are no longer on the site OR the site is no longer congested).  people are acting like as soon as they cross 5 gigs they are done for which isnt the case.

 

BUT...I think it is interesting how sprint says over 5 gigs is the norm for that top tier of users, if the system is set up the way they are trying to sell it to us, it shouldnt matter what the number is.  Top 5% of previous months users are throttled as needed.

 

If the top 5% of users averaged 45 GBs for the previous month does that mean if I used 44 gigs or below I am home free since i wasnt in the top 5%?  The way they are spinning this it would seem so.  What i think they are actually planning on doing either from the start or several months down the road is to do throttling for everyone over 5 gigs regardless, on congested cell sites.

 

Obviously there is only one solution.  Come June 1st we need to all download as much as possible to shoot the 5% number incredibly high so that way we wont have to worry at all. 

Somebody else here mentioned it first but it sounds like the 5 gig cap is a limiting factor to make sure the top 5% does not adjust to far down. ATT did not do this when they started throttling the top 5% and some customers complained of getting throttled at 2-3 gigs.