Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[nexgencpu]

I'm blown away by how tame the reception of deprioritization is. Unlimited is the reason I've stayed with Sprint for as long as I have; that and they were the least expensive. Now that they've upped the price of unlimited and imposed the same data cap T-Mobile has, there's doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to stay with Sprint vs. T-Mobile now, or even AT&T and Verizon, as their caps approach Sprint and T-Mobile.

 

Why the hell would I pay for unlimited if I don't get unlimited? If it's capped at 23gb, just SAY 23gb. And don't give me that B.S. about 'it's still unlimited', it's the exact same crap MetroPCS has been pulling for years; 'unlimited data' for $30 a month!

 

This is outrageous. I thought the network was getting better? What about all that capacity? Why am I getting less water when the pipe is getting bigger?

I think you missed the point, if that pipe is wide enough to serve all its users, you wont see deprioritization affect you. So when Sprint finally has that third and fourth carriers online ubiquitously, it wont be as much a concern whether a tower is over capacity or not.

 

But of course, there will always be exceptions where that capacity just isn't available.

[mittenmitten]

I don't see an issue with the 23gb soft cap. I would think a lot of users won't even touch 20gb in a month. People have really been conditioned to hop on wifi when they can. I've seen my friends who have T-Mobile and Sprint just jump on it when they are at my house or even when their at home. One friend I asked how much data he used last month and he said 7gb.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The thing is, they're raising the price of their plan, and offering less data, as they claim their network is getting better. This is not good business. If your restaurant was seeing less patronage, would you raise prices to compensate for losses? Likewise, if your restaurant was seeing an uptick in patronage, would you raise prices and offer less food? No, you should be streamlining, cutting operating costs, and innovating.

 

If I'm paying more for less, I'm more inclined to seek an alternative. Verizon and AT&T prices are coming down, while T-Mobile and Sprint prices are going up. Then they impose data caps. What exactly differentiates the carriers now? 

[mittenmitten]

I think you missed the point, if that pipe is wide enough to serve all its users, you wont see deprioritization affect you. So when Sprint finally has that third and fourth carriers online ubiquitously, it wont be as much a concern whether a tower is over capacity or not.

 

But of course, there will always be exceptions where that capacity just isn't available.

 

Then why are they doing this now? And not when it's necessary? This is going to stifle growth; poor timing for this. Their slow speeds are due to density, not congestion. T-Mobile had a valid reason for deprioritization; their network is congested. Sprint is adding capacity left and right. 

 

This is a missed opportunity to capitalize on blowback from T-Mobile's cap. I can see that they want to stop potential abuse, but why the hell would they match T-Mobile instead of 1-uping them.

[greenbastard]

I'm blown away by how tame the reception of deprioritization is. Unlimited is the reason I've stayed with Sprint for as long as I have; that and they were the least expensive. Now that they've upped the price of unlimited and imposed the same data cap T-Mobile has, there's doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to stay with Sprint vs. T-Mobile now, or even AT&T and Verizon, as their caps approach Sprint and T-Mobile.

 

Why the hell would I pay for unlimited if I don't get unlimited? If it's capped at 23gb, just SAY 23gb. And don't give me that B.S. about 'it's still unlimited', it's the exact same crap MetroPCS has been pulling for years; 'unlimited data' for $30 a month!

 

This is outrageous. I thought the network was getting better? What about all that capacity? Why am I getting less water when the pipe is getting bigger?

Your price stays the same if you are a current customer and unless you upgrade through lease, 2 year or installment, you won't be subject to the cap. This only applies to new customers or customers who get a new phone. So for now, you are not being capped.

 

Besides, Unlimited =/= high-speed. You can continue to have all the data you can possibly have...but at 2G speeds. Unlimited is unlimited, no matter how it is served. Does it suck? Yeah, but the only two times I have ever been close to reaching 20 GB was when I first got a smartphone and when 4G was turned on. Both occasions were just me being in awe. If you're constantly going over 23 GB, then you're the reason why we can't have nice things.

[nexgencpu]

Then why are they doing this now? And not when it's necessary? This is going to stifle growth; poor timing for this. Their slow speeds are due to density, not congestion. T-Mobile had a valid reason for deprioritization; their network is congested. Sprint is adding capacity left and right. 

 

This is a missed opportunity to capitalize on blowback from T-Mobile's cap. I can see that they want to stop potential abuse, but why the hell would they match T-Mobile instead of 1-uping them.

Because Band 41 is not available everywhere yet (also lets not forget even Band 41 can run into limitations in certain instances). So as long as capacity is limited in certain places it becomes more of an issue for users that want to do basic things and cant because one or two users decided to use their phones as an ISP.

[lilotimz]

Yes, in a blog post or FCC ex parte filing, T-Mobile disclosed that it was paying something like $0.15 per MB for domestic data roaming. I do not recall, however, if that was average cost or peak cost. I put the Sprint estimate at $0.10 per MB to be conservative. And Sprint does seem to have more "friendly" domestic roaming partners than does T-Mobile.

 

AJ

Sprint was $200+ per gb I'm areas where Verizon is the only roaming partner.

 

Sent from my LG-H790

[mittenmitten]

Your price stays the same if you are a current customer and unless you upgrade through lease, 2 year or installment, you won't be subject to the cap. 

 

That's everyone except BYOD, oh wait, those people will get it too!

 

 

Yeah, but the only two times I have ever been close to reaching 20 GB was when I first got a smartphone and when 4G was turned on.

 

I use 20+gb a month through Netflix at my work. Easily. And the App Store. I don't abuse anything, they TOLD me I had no limits, I don't have wifi at work, so I casually watch movies and listen to music when I want, all through legal means, and it just happens to exceed the arbitrary 23gb cap.

 

This doesn't bother you? That we're supposed to be looking forward to 5g, the 'Next Generation Network', higher definition video, VR gaming, etc. and the 2 unlimited carriers supposedly ushering in this revolution are shutting down people who choose them specifically for unlimited data? At a time when Sprint is begging for customers, they say 'everyone but you'. Beggars apparently can be choosers.

[kojitsari]

 

 

VR gaming

Virtual Reality on a mobile phone? Even on Minecraft pocket edition the Gear VR has been inducing motion sickness. Vive + rift have a minimum specification of a 970-980 so thinking mobile VR gaming is going to be a thing anytime soon is ludicrous. The closest we've been was google glass and look at how well that went...

[utiz4321]

The thing is, they're raising the price of their plan, and offering less data, as they claim their network is getting better. This is not good business. If your restaurant was seeing less patronage, would you raise prices to compensate for losses? Likewise, if your restaurant was seeing an uptick in patronage, would you raise prices and offer less food? No, you should be streamlining, cutting operating costs, and innovating.

 

If I'm paying more for less, I'm more inclined to seek an alternative. Verizon and AT&T prices are coming down, while T-Mobile and Sprint prices are going up. Then they impose data caps. What exactly differentiates the carriers now?

They are not offer less data, they are not even offer less lte data. You are only effected on by this if and only if you have already used 23 gigs of data and are on a high traffic tower at a peak time. Then and only then are you give a lower priority that others on that tower at that time. As the tower becomes unburdened then you are reprioritized. This is not a big deal, so calm down.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clbowens]

That's everyone except BYOD, oh wait, those people will get it too!

 

 

I use 20+gb a month through Netflix at my work. Easily. And the App Store. I don't abuse anything, they TOLD me I had no limits, I don't have wifi at work, so I casually watch movies and listen to music when I want, all through legal means, and it just happens to exceed the arbitrary 23gb cap.

 

This doesn't bother you? That we're supposed to be looking forward to 5g, the 'Next Generation Network', higher definition video, VR gaming, etc. and the 2 unlimited carriers supposedly ushering in this revolution are shutting down people who choose them specifically for unlimited data? At a time when Sprint is begging for customers, they say 'everyone but you'. Beggars apparently can be choosers.

Is your job to watch Netflix?!  :-)

[derrph]

They are not offer less data, they are not even offer less lte data. You are only effected on by this if and only if you have already used 23 gigs of data and are on a high traffic tower at a peak time. Then and only then are you give a lower priority that others on that tower at that time. As the tower becomes unburdened then you are reprioritized. This is not a big deal, so calm down.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, took the words right out of my mouth. To be honest this was coming down the pipeline anyways. At least it's at 23 and not some 5gb. Sprint has done a lot of work to redo the network (still work to do) but they aren't going to let it be a free for all let people mess the shit back up. But to each its own.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mittenmitten]

Is your job to watch Netflix?!  :-)

 

I work in security, so kind of.

[jreuschl]

http://www.wirelessweek.com/video/2015/10/tuesdays-roger-sprint-wireless-industrys-canary

 

Thoughts?

 

Also found this from a few months ago:

 

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Where-did-Son-go-wrong-in-Sprint-business?page=2

[Arysyn]

That's everyone except BYOD, oh wait, those people will get it too!

 

 

I use 20+gb a month through Netflix at my work. Easily. And the App Store. This doesn't bother you? That we're supposed to be looking forward to 5g, the 'Next Generation Network', higher definition video, VR gaming, etc. and the 2 unlimited carriers supposedly ushering in this revolution are shutting down people who choose them specifically for unlimited data?

 

I definitely see your point to this, as I do with many people who say that if a carrier sells unlimited, it should be unlimited both in data and speed, as that was how it was advertised. However, data usage where it is jamming sites and not giving paying subscribers that same usage, because others data usage is cramming up the sites, is unfair too.

 

Then the argument can be made that the carriers, instead of limiting customers' usage in any way, ought to just build more sites to accommodate them. After all, carriers should keep their word as advertised, right? Yet, then carriers decided to add on per gb data plans which are not limited, which adds another issue, what if those users, not the unlimited users are the cause of congestion, and shouldn't that necessitate building more sites to accommodate?

 

Of course, I'm not actually asking these questions, only using them as an example of the arguments I often read relating to this issue. Certainly all sides and points have merit, but until carriers can build more sites, they have to manage their networks as best they can.

 

I really think that rather than slowing down certain users, the variable speed cap idea I mentioned, is the best way of resolving this issue, at least temporarily, which is to limit the speeds of all users on a scale based on the amount of congestion present.

 

Then if unlimited data still remains the major cause of congestion, which I don't doubt, but to suggest it may not always be that, the per gb data strategy be implemented across the board, but made affordable enough to satisfy most unlimited data users.

[tybo31316]

I think it's better for Sprint to do this now. Instead of waiting until a year or two from now and have users racking up 500gb to 1tb in usage. I view other forums other than this one and see Verizon and T-Mobile unlimited users do it all the time. It's sickening to see users use that much data regardless if its on their devices or not. So, I think it's better for them to do it now and whoever wants to leave because of it can leave now.

 

Edit- I with AJ about unlimited data being removed and going strictly with a tiered data approach.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

For those who are going to complain about data prioritization beyond 23 GB that may affect them in certain locations at certain times, I suggest that they review the statistics from a recent data usage poll thread.

 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6992-s4gru-members-average-monthly-data-usage-with-poll/?mode=show

 

AJ

[nexgencpu]

I find it hard to understand why anyone would be against this. Think about it, if the tower is congested, no matter who is connected to the tower it will be slow. So why not allow a more consistent experience for 97% of its users, instead of a mediocre one to 100% of them.

[greenbastard]

That's everyone except BYOD, oh wait, those people will get it too!

 

 

I use 20+gb a month through Netflix at my work. Easily. And the App Store. I don't abuse anything, they TOLD me I had no limits, I don't have wifi at work, so I casually watch movies and listen to music when I want, all through legal means, and it just happens to exceed the arbitrary 23gb cap.

 

They TOLD you that you didn't have a limit...and that still hold true.

 

But now they're telling YOU that if you upgrade, you'll be subject to this cap. Sprint hasn't lied to you.

This doesn't bother you? That we're supposed to be looking forward to 5g, the 'Next Generation Network', higher definition video, VR gaming, etc. and the 2 unlimited carriers supposedly ushering in this revolution are shutting down people who choose them specifically for unlimited data? At a time when Sprint is begging for customers, they say 'everyone but you'. Beggars apparently can be choosers.

It doesn't bother me at all. If 5G comes out and creates a more efficient way of using spectrum, then that means users who are on data buckets will see their data prices per GB go down. Maybe in the not so distant future, buying a bucket of 50 GB will become cheaper than what we pay today for unlimited.

 

I think you're more bothered by losing Unlimited, and that's fine too feel that way. But we all knew that gravy train was going to run out soon. I personally like to get the most for my money and as it stands today, Sprint is the best. But the moment that changes, so will my phone provider. I suggest you switch if you no longer feel that Sprint isn't giving you the best value.

[Arysyn]

For those who are going to complain about data prioritization beyond 23 GB that may affect them in certain locations at certain times, I suggest that they review the statistics from a recent data usage poll thread.

 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6992-s4gru-members-average-monthly-data-usage-with-poll/?mode=show

 

AJ

Ah, the poll I created! I was thinking about that the other day, wondering if anyone's usage statistics have changed since then.

 

Anyways, I think all data plans ought to be tiered. My latest, and pretty much final rate plan figures currently are in the plan thread under the Suggestion Box section. I know many people here wonder why I've been so much involved in thinking about those, which I've had evolving ideas towards and posted them along the way. Although, other than one brief update I'm going to make there in a moment, its safe to say I've concluded my exact idea for them and won't be revising it after today, I swear!

 

Unless one of the carriers decides to post a rate plan consisting of under $1 per gb rates, which at this point, is unlikely. The lowest currently seems to be T-Mobile's promotion of four lines, if each has the $10 for 10gb add-on, at $160 monthly for 80gb total, essentially $2 per 1gb.

[mittenmitten]

nexgencpu, on 16 Oct 2015 - 2:56 PM, said:

 

I find it hard to understand why anyone would be against this. Think about it, if the tower is congested, no matter who is connected to the tower it will be slow. So why not allow a more consistent experience for 97% of its users, instead of a mediocre one to 100% of them.

If they don't implement it like T-Mobile has, where you get slowed to .1mbps on every 'congested' tower, for an entire month, I would be ok with this. If I was slowed down to a still usable speed. Fine. I just don't see this playing out like that.

Quote

This QoS practice is intended to protect against a small minority of unlimited customers who use high volumes of data and unreasonably take-up network resources during times when the network is constrained. It’s important to note that this QoS technique operates in real-time and only applies if a cell site is constrained. Prioritization is applied or removed every 20 milliseconds. And performance for the affected customer returns to normal as soon as traffic on the cell site also returns to normal, or the customer moves to a non-constrained site.

This looks good, but again, it matters how MUCH they slow you down to. If other people on the tower are getting 100mbps, and I get .1mbps, it's absurd. That would destroy reliability. If I still get like 5mbps, I'm completely fine with this. I just have my doubts.

[WiWavelength]

For those who are going to complain about data prioritization beyond 23 GB that may affect them in certain locations at certain times, I suggest that they review the statistics from a recent data usage poll thread.

 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6992-s4gru-members-average-monthly-data-usage-with-poll/?mode=show

 

And if you want the TL;DR version of the thread and its stats, among S4GRU readers who responded to the poll, about 90 percent fall below the 23 GB threshold.  That means about 10 percent are above the threshold.

 

But here is the more interesting stat -- that 10 percent minority above 23 GB consumes in aggregate about 43 percent of all data usage.  And that is even being conservative with the statistical estimates.  It could be closer to 50 percent of all data usage.

 

Basically, some of you have brought this upon yourself.  You are using too much mobile data potentially to the detriment of many others.

 

AJ

[Ascertion]

I wonder if with this new depriortization, will I be seeing better speeds in areas where I get under 1mbps speeds, even when I have a -100dBm signal on LTE. As much as I want truly unlimited data, I believe this is a great way to combat the abusers, while allowing those who desire peace of mind to utilize the network as intended. Sprint could just axe all unlimited plans and switch completely to shared/tiered. I prefer unlimited and at the ED 1500 price, I can't really complain.

 

Sent from my MotoG3

[mittenmitten]

WiWavelength, on 16 Oct 2015 - 3:09 PM, said:

 

And if you want the TL;DR version of the thread and its stats, among S4GRU readers who responded to the poll, about 90 percent fall below the 23 GB threshold. That means about 10 percent are above the threshold.

 

But here is the more interesting stat -- that 10 percent minority above 23 GB consumes in aggregate about 43 percent of all data usage. And that is even being conservative with the statistical estimates. It could be closer to 50 percent of all data usage.

 

Basically, some of you have brought this upon yourself. You are using too much mobile data potentially to the detriment of many others.

 

AJ

That's based on Sprint's current network though. For a lot of people, that's all they can use. I would think people would use more if Sprint had a faster and denser network, which is what they're shooting for.

 

It's like some customers drive muscle cars and some drive Pintos. The ones with Pintos aren't going to have the same experience the other people will have; they don't get to 'race around'. They might enjoy driving more with a faster car. If I owned a POS Pinto, I wouldn't drive around much, but it doesn't mean I don't want to.

 

You're pointing at people with slow cars and saying "see? they don't like driving fast!".

[WiWavelength]

Ah, the poll I created! I was thinking about that the other day, wondering if anyone's usage statistics have changed since then.

 

Yeah, many of the staff initially were not in favor of your data usage poll thread.  It seemed like another needless thread -- also one that could serve to glorify excessive data usage.  But as time has gone on, the poll has served as a valuable source of usage statistics.  So, thanks.

 

AJ

[utiz4321]

This looks good, but again, it matters how MUCH they slow you down to. If other people on the tower are getting 100mbps, and I get .1mbps, it's absurd. That would destroy reliability. If I still get like 5mbps, I'm completely fine with this. I just have my doubts.

Seriously this isn't a big deal. Site congestion is a real problem in some areas and why should data hogs (again I am one of them) get the same level of priority as the vast majority of users at constrained places and times? Get over it or find someone who offers you a better deal for your needs.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk