Top 5% being throttled starting 6/1

[kyle_4thousand]

If you feel you consume a lot of data a good way to lower usage for network junkies like us is to stop mashing the speed test button. I'm guilty of this as I test a few times a day and it accounts for about 30% of my data usage. I think I use around 4GB a month depending if I'm traveling or not.

 

 

 

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

[COZisBack]

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. 

 

Yeah, how about we don't do that. I'm tired of the overburden we're already seeing.

 

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

 

I hate to say it buddy, but uh, yeah, you do have to try to use 20GB a month. Many of us stream, Pandora, Google Music, TuneIn, and Slingplayer almost everyday of the month and are not running that high.

 

Running Speedtest 200x a month, tethering and continuous Netflix will run you up that high though.

[radem]

Everyone on an overburdened cell site is being throttled now. This is not adding throttling, it is changing how it occurs when sites are overloaded.

 

Unfortunately if Netflix or whatever people are requesting from the internet to use huge amounts of data keeps trying to send those huge amounts of data over the airlink to them and takes a while before it slows down. That means that the streaming users have much more data trying to get down the pipe to them than what a typical user has trying to get an email or refreshing their facebook. The typical user is losing right now when not all the traffic can get down that pipe.

 

This will turn the tables and let more normal usage occur in overburdened sites. I for one am sick of getting no data at some locations even though I am on LTE. I would like to see more of this network control. As users move to band 41, overloads will occur much less often and this problem will be greatly reduced.

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 using Tapatalk

[caspar347]

I would appreciate it if someone would be willing to sample in other major forums and comment sections what the popular response is to this new top 5 percent throttling policy, then report back the consensus and some highlights.  I would do it myself, but I fear the worst from uninformed, angry people, and that just might cause me to have an aneurysm.

 

AJ

It's pretty bad on The Verge and Google+. Mostly people spewing stuff along the lines of "Don't ****ing buy T-Mobile! Don't let them do it O Holy John!", "I already left because of 'Broken Promises™'", "Eww, not Sprint in the news again! Is it possible to throttle below zero?!", and "If the merger happens, 'dead-end' CDMA needs to be shut down and refarmed to DC-HSPA+". Hating on Sprint is very popular, and unfortunately I don't see it getting better any time soon.

 

Oh, and The Verge is calling throttling a "threat" and doesn't mention that unlike other carriers' throttling this will only happen on congested cell sites.

[JThorson]

It's pretty bad on The Verge and Google+. Mostly people spewing stuff along the lines of "Don't ****ing buy T-Mobile! Don't let them do it O Holy John!", "I already left because of 'Broken Promises™'", and "Eww, not Sprint in the news again! Is it possible to throttle below zero?!". Hating on Sprint is very popular, and unfortunately I don't see it getting better any time soon.

 

Oh, and The Verge is calling throttling a "threat".

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.

[utiz4321]

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.

Do you mean their reputation getting better over the next five years, because that might be true. It takes along time to rebuild a brand, but if you are talking about the network taking five years to improve I think you time table is way off. You have addition 1900 carriers going online, small cells being deployed, 800 lte carrier being deployed and a dense deployment of 2.6 in the top hundred markets (not fast enough in my mind) over the next year and 8months. The next will be vastly improved in the next two years and in the top 100 markets great improvement.

[jamesinclair]

I would appreciate it if someone would be willing to sample in other major forums and comment sections what the popular response is to this new top 5 percent throttling policy, then report back the consensus and some highlights.  I would do it myself, but I fear the worst from uninformed, angry people, and that just might cause me to have an aneurysm.

 

AJ

 

Here is a good example. It is a videogame forum, their off topic section. Generally people who know a lot about tech, but not necessarilly cell phone technology (ie, theyll watch the press conference about a new phone, but not know anything about the network).

 

User base is global. Moderation is extremely strict - can take months to get account approved, and they hand out bans like candy

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=815203

 

 

First reply:

 

I had sprint for 4 years and it was already unbearably slow at non throttled speeds. I know many want to see them do well since they still have unlimited data plans, but all they do is waste a lot of spectrum that someone else could put to good use.

 

 

"You used upwards of 750K at 1.2kbps last month, time to throttle your speed."

 

 

Ick. I was all set to switch to Sprint, but now I don't know. Maybe I'll do T-Mobile then, but who knows if they'll just get swallowed whole by Sprint anyway...

 

 

Not a lot of Sprint hating, but general comments about how slow the Sprint network is, and how unattractive this policy change makes them.

 

I think anouncing a policy change like this, when the network is still under cosntruction is a huge failure.

 

Someone sitting in Fresno or Sacramento or Hawaii, that doesnt have 4G, and is maxing out at 300kbs on a legacy network is going to read the headline, and its going to be the last straw for them - even if they don't crack 1GB a month. 

 

Why? Their reaction is "theyre going to make my speeds even SLOWER!?!"

 

Thats the problem with a policy change like this - even if it doesnt personally affect them, people get upset.

 

IE: Imagine youre a city and you anounce that parking meters will be in effect from midnight to 3am. All of 4 people might park at a meter during those hours, but you know the mobs and pitckfroks will be out. Why? Because the policy MIGHT affect you - and thats powerful.

 

In reality, only 5% of the users (or less) actually get affected. Problem is, 100% of users get a sour taste in their mouth.

 

What some people call "abuse" is what I consider "the cost of doing business".

 

Yes, people who use 20GB a month slow down the network. But for every one of those, how many users do nothing more than check email and max out at 500mbs a month? Why does Sprint get to punish the users who are doing exactly what they bought into, but not reward those who arent?

 

Buffets dont charge people different rates. When someone gets 7 plates, the restaurant sucks it up because someone else will get half a plate, and the pricing reflects the balance.

 

So as a company,you suck it up, and you deal with these power users because it lets you market yoruself as unlimited. And thats extremely powerful for a lot of people.

 

We all know Sprints reputation is not great. Many people, including lots of posters here, are on Sprint because of their unlimtied data policy.

 

You toss that, and now you have a company that has been "rebuilding from the ground up" for too long, and with pricing that is no longer significantly more enticing than their competitors.

 

 

One last note: Those power users? Theyre the ones telling everyone how amazing Sprint is, because Sprint is the only network that lets them do what they want to do. Theyre out recommending Sprint to Jack and Jill and boasting about how many GBs theyre taking in.

 

Thats good for Sprint, because Jack and Jill will sign up and use 1GB each.

 

Now you anger your power user? Guess what, theyre going to go out there telling people how terrible Sprint is for "screwing them over".

 

Again, the power user is the cost of doing business. The benefit is a network promoter.

[Vince]

Yeah, how about we don't do that. I'm tired of the overburden we're already seeing.

 

 

I hate to say it buddy, but uh, yeah, you do have to try to use 20GB a month. Many of us stream, Pandora, Google Music, TuneIn, and Slingplayer almost everyday of the month and are not running that high.

 

Running Speedtest 200x a month, tethering and continuous Netflix will run you up that high though.

I'm a truck driver. LTE is my main source of Internet. Downloading purchased movies/shows, Spotify, tune in, nbc live extra, netflix, YouTube, plus browsing, email, and social media can really add up. I run a few speedtests per day, usually when my connection goes wonky just to verify a site isn't broken, and it's in fact the connection. Also, I never have, nor will I ever tether illegally. Everything is through my phone. I'm just using my phone for what it is, and what it is meant for. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of an office wifi connection for 8-10 hours a day.

[caspar347]

Here is a good example. It is a videogame forum, their off topic section. Generally people who know a lot about tech, but not necessarilly cell phone technology (ie, theyll watch the press conference about a new phone, but not know anything about the network).

And I think this is a bit of a problem. There are people on XDA that are insanely knowledgeable of phones themselves, but seem to know nothing about the networks at all and complain that their tether speeds are not high enough. You'd think they'd know better.

[LuisBOSS302]

I use a tiny bit of data on Sprint in this city. I rarely use my GS5 here because of the terrible service we have. When I do use it it's at most 25MB of data in a day lmao. On T Mobile on my Nexus 5 I easily average 7-12GB of LTE and not downloading anything a month. When I travel or go out of the city a lot during the week my data is from 3-8GB a month.

 

If I downloaded huge files and constantly watched movies on my phone my usage would be higher. I listen to pandora here and there on my phones because I just connect my ipod. Can't stand watching movies on a cell phone.. Would rather wait until I'm home and watch it with a surround sound and large big screen.

[Abe2np]

IMHO Sprint is been unlimited for too many people for too long. Going back in the last five years - so called the smartphone age - Sprint has been practically shoving unlimited to its users. True for a while they were the only ones to offer truly unlimited data and that was their only differentiator, however it has now become clear in retrospect that those other carriers were correct in that it is basically impossible to support unlimited data for such a cheap price.

 

Even T-Mobile under then CEO Philip Humm discontinued unlimited data only to be brought back under John Legere, in T-Mobile's case - and I believe this is the correct model for unlimited - they recently upped the price of unlimited data however and added a slot towards the higher end (the old unlimited data price point) for 5 GB of high-speed data. I believe the much smaller subset of T-Mobile's subscribers are on unlimited data making the network in my opinion more manageable by making them pay up for future upgrades to the network.

 

I know many people on this forum hate T-Mobile, however the fact remains that for many people they are able to access T-Mobile LTE in most of their locations they frequent, and I don't think there's any dispute that generally, currently, T-Mobile has much faster data than Sprint. I therefore believe that Sprint should follow a similar tact in which they should offer more tiers of data and increase the price of unlimited data, that way the people to truly abuse the towers are at least paying for Sprint to upgrade the network more quickly.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Abe2np

[jamesinclair]

IMHO Sprint is been unlimited for too many people for too long. Going back in the last five years - so called the smartphone age - Sprint has been practically shoving unlimited to its users. True for a while they were the only ones to offer truly unlimited data and that was their only differentiator, however it has now become clear in retrospect that those other carriers were correct in that it is basically impossible to support unlimited data for such a cheap price.

 

Even T-Mobile under then CEO Philip Humm discontinued unlimited data only to be brought back under John Legere, in T-Mobile's case - and I believe this is the correct model for unlimited - they recently upped the price of unlimited data however and added a slot towards the higher end (the old unlimited data price point) for 5 GB of high-speed data. I believe the much smaller subset of T-Mobile's subscribers are on unlimited data making the network in my opinion more manageable by making them pay up for future upgrades to the network.

 

I know many people on this forum hate T-Mobile, however the fact remains that for many people they are able to access T-Mobile LTE in most of their locations they frequent, and I don't think there's any dispute that generally, currently, T-Mobile has much faster data than Sprint. I therefore believe that Sprint should follow a similar tact in which they should offer more tiers of data and increase the price of unlimited data, that way the people to truly abuse the towers are at least paying for Sprint to upgrade the network more quickly.

 

Wasnt that what framily was?

 

A price hike for new users AND  video throtelling.

[EvanA]

Wasnt that what framily was?

 

A price hike for new users AND video throtelling.

Video throttling was in place before framily existed.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[rcro]

So my business account actually pays for data, 40gb per month, 10-12gb of it is usually me, and I don't do speed tests or tether. Actually have a hot spot, not that it matters because I paid for 40gb, and I should be able to use it any which way I want whether I do 40gb of torrent downloads, stream music and movies or constantly up and download files from the cloud. I rarely do the first one,but I would imagine I'm not getting throttled because I actually pay for a set amount of data. I wonder if these type of accounts will fall under the same umbrella as unlimited folk.

 

And I have the tmobile rep knocking on my door every month. I demoed a phone for a month, and there wasn't one place in the Philly area where I could say sprint outshined tmobile. People can bash all they want, but even with the NV update, Sprint isn't winning any battles.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the merger, see sprint swap out their CDMA boards for gsm ones and just call it a day. I would think the combined gsm network would make many happy.

 

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Abe2np]

Wasnt that what framily was?

 

A price hike for new users AND  video throtelling.

Most of Sprint users have joined way before Framily, whether they convert to Framily or not is not the point. My point was that too many people got unlimited data for too cheap. And even for new users I don't think it's so much of a price hike considering many people are actively seeking to make 10 person framilies before joining. I still think they should add a 5 or 6 GB tier and make unlimited data little more expensive.

[utiz4321]

The video prioritizing is kind of the key for me. If sprint pursues this module for higher users (1mbs on over burned towers) then to me this is perfectly fine. Web browsing, music streaming and even video calling will not noticeably be affected. Downloads and video streaming are the on two things that will be noticablly affected and video streaming is already throttled for most customers, so what will really changed in terms of end user experiance. If throttled means the same thing as it does for boost and virgin then I have an issue.

[jlbattagli]

Here is a good example. It is a videogame forum, their off topic section. Generally people who know a lot about tech, but not necessarilly cell phone technology (ie, theyll watch the press conference about a new phone, but not know anything about the network).

 

I have to agree with much of your post - some pretty good insights there.

 

I don't expect this to directly impact me very much. My usage for my last billing was just 3 gigs, and that was exceptionally high for me, due to having a new phone that required a fair amount of data traffic to get set up the way I like it (and generally playing around with my new toy ).

 

But I do find myself getting irked at the somewhat schizophrenic behavior of Sprint (and the rest of the wireless industry in general). I have no fewer than three cloud backup apps on my phone, all of which came pre-installed on one phone or another, and one or two apps which also provide cloud storage functionality, all encouraging increased data usage. I've got music apps (Google Music, Sprint Music Plus, Tune-in Radio, Soundhound), video apps (YouTube, Google TV and Movies, Sprint TV and Movies), games from Sprint and Google, plus apps wanting to automagically upload my photos and videos to the cloud - all of which came pre-installed on my phone! That's not counting apps that I installed on my own. And yet the carriers have conniptions over excess data usage!

 

I personally don't care to stream music or videos (I use Tune-in Radio a couple hours a week, tops, when Bob and Tom are out of broadcast range); I prefer to keep my music and movies on the device (YMMV). But it's getting harder and harder to find a phone that has an SD card slot anymore, further encouraging people to stream and use more data. It just seems like all the wireless providers (not only Sprint) are constantly saying "Look at all the great stuff you can do on our phone/service*"!  (Except we'd rather you just paid us and didn't actually do all this great stuff).

[jamisonshaw125]

I can not come to the conclusion that this is a bad idea. Throttling data to 5% users during peak hours and ONLY during peak congestion hours is reasonable and necessary to maintain positive user experience for the remaining 95% of people...not just 5%. Let's think about this really quick though. Everyone is saying how the high data users are the people who represent the network. But what happens when the lower data users who consume maybe 500mb-1gb a month go to use their phone, AND CAN'T because its overcrowded and someone somewhere might be downloading a movie at that moment or several users are streaming HBO go in HD. And if that 1 less intense data user is experiencing the issue, then theres a chance that the other 94% (out of 100 people for example) are experiencing the same issues at the same time. You think those people aren't going to be pissed? I'd be more worried about the gossip from 95 people, than 5.

 

Now, throw in some data throttling during that peak hour and the 5% user has a slower speed or has to drop the quality of the video or whatever, but the remaining 95 people have a consistent and USABLE service....even if it is for Facebook or web searching. Gotta remember, just because they don't use as much data doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to use their data when they try.

 

Providing consistent cellular service, especially on sprints all new mighty and powerful network, is of utmost priority. You're still receiving unlimited data by the way. 

[digiblur]

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?

What if a site is congested all the time due to the lack of network design?

[JWMaloney]

What if a site is congested all the time due to the lack of network design?

 

Throttled by design!

[JThorson]

Do you mean their reputation getting better over the next five years, because that might be true. It takes along time to rebuild a brand, but if you are talking about the network taking five years to improve I think you time table is way off. You have addition 1900 carriers going online, small cells being deployed, 800 lte carrier being deployed and a dense deployment of 2.6 in the top hundred markets (not fast enough in my mind) over the next year and 8months. The next will be vastly improved in the next two years and in the top 100 markets great improvement.

utiz, I do mean their reputation. I should have specified.

[WiWavelength]

I'm a truck driver. LTE is my main source of Internet. Downloading purchased movies/shows, Spotify, tune in, nbc live extra, netflix, YouTube, plus browsing, email, and social media can really add up. I run a few speedtests per day, usually when my connection goes wonky just to verify a site isn't broken, and it's in fact the connection. Also, I never have, nor will I ever tether illegally. Everything is through my phone. I'm just using my phone for what it is, and what it is meant for. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of an office wifi connection for 8-10 hours a day.

 

Sorry, but being a truck driver without "the luxury of an office" does not entitle you to special wireless data privileges.  You will not get much sympathy for that here.  Millions of truck drivers before you survived on AM/FM and CB radio.  So, with the new throttling policy, you may have to curtail your usage or have it curtailed for you.  Those are the breaks.  And if significant data access is that important to you, you may need to reconsider your chosen profession.  People do that every day.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

It's pretty bad on The Verge and Google+. Mostly people spewing stuff along the lines of "Don't ****ing buy T-Mobile! Don't let them do it O Holy John!", "I already left because of 'Broken Promises™'", "Eww, not Sprint in the news again! Is it possible to throttle below zero?!", and "If the merger happens, 'dead-end' CDMA needs to be shut down and refarmed to DC-HSPA+". Hating on Sprint is very popular, and unfortunately I don't see it getting better any time soon.

 

It may be just as well.  Let them eat T-Mobile cake.

 

People have short memories.  I do not.  And not so long ago, T-Mobile was utter shit -- because it had no wireless broadband solution.  Now, T-Mobile is experiencing a renaissance of sorts.  What goes around comes back around.  It will not last.

 

You see, John Legere, Neville Ray, Kathleen Ham, and company do not crap magic beans.  If enough bandwagon jumpers pile on to the T-Mobile network, it is going to become congested.  What T-Mobile offers now is about as good as it is going to get for the foreseeable future.  The rest is downhill.

 

So, let T-Mobile steal away Sprint subs.  Their departure just frees up more capacity for those who remain, positioning Sprint for its renaissance down the road.  What goes around comes back around.  And so the cycle goes.

 

AJ

[centermedic]

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.

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.

[dkyeager]

This should have been a technical paper released at some research forum. It generates far too much bad press for Sprint as others have stated.

The bigger the pool is of heavy users, the less each one of these users will be effected when their lower priority throttles their data speed. Hence it should not be aimed at just the extremely high data users, but a lower threshold to be less noticeable. Ideally every site sector should always have some reserve capacity to be responsive.

The classification of users priority should be refined if possible to heavy users during peak times on congested site sectors and bands.

Sprint should also be more open about what sites are congested at what times on what bands (which may encourage more tri-band phone adoption).

Sprint can also take actions to reduce or alter data consumption. Backups of data to the cloud should be timed for overnight use. All phones should allow removable sd cards to reduce cloud data use (Google et alia does not deserve total trust anyways). Software which allows movies to be downloaded during off peak hours should be encouraged by Sprint.

In the end it comes down to network design, project management, and pricing. Those in legacy areas will feel even more punished and should likely be discounted if on unlimited plans. Those with Sprint b41 should likely pay extra for unlimited given its increased capabilities. Limited plans should add off-peak options.

Sprint should be using more of its bandwidth in the congested places (Sprint NV2.5 b41 instead of Clear LTE NV2.0 and LTE 1900 on more channels if possible). More micro site use in congested areas as well. NV1.0 should be completed as quickly as possible with launched areas occurring sooner in smaller areas so as to get the marketing credit sooner.

This could be a forebearer of bad things to come, but it could also just be Sprint being more honest. There will always be limited resources.

My current view still stands: AT&T and Verizon users are typically hunting for Wi-Fi, Sprint and T-Mobile users are generally hunting for LTE.