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

[Arysyn]

Not being argumentative

 

How is the new plan "unlimited freedom" complicated? It's a set price that lowers in tiers.

 

Service aside it's the best deal in town for a post paid offering

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The complication I see comes not from the pricing itself, unlike Framily, but rather the different limitations to both versions of the plan between non-premium and premium. Particularly in the music and gaming parts where people who listen to streaming music or game online using wireless will need to investigate which of the plans best suits their usage needs. That takes away the point of Unlimited Data that brings simplicity from not having to count data, to now having to figure out if these speed limits are going to hinder their usage in terms of speed quality.

 

T-Mobile's One Plan is more simple, at least with smartphone usage, though when factoring in the hotpot usage bit it becomes complicated, and now having to remember to "turn on" high-speed data for these uses, also hinders the benefit of simplicity Unlimited data is suppose to have for customers. In this case, AT&T and Cricket's plans are much better at actually giving customers simplicity in choosing their plans, in regards to their Unlimited plans, not speaking of data plans.

 

Sprint could make a few changes and these plans would be fine. Remove the gaming and music limits to match T-Mobile One in that regard, then its fine. I still think Sprint could come up with a better plan in general, but that is a separate issue from this one. I think Sprint will do this though, and at the rate of $90 monthly for two lines on the Employee Referral plan I mentioned here the other day, it may tempt me to switch eventually when Sprint gets band 41 on more than half the towers here.

[avb]

I don't think that many people care about the music streaming limits or game limits otherwise you would see an uproar and backlash.  I've only seen one person bring those 2 points up across the websites I visit.  The music streaming limits are fine for high quality streaming from everyone but Tidal's high fidelity service (which is pricier at $19.95/month).  Tidal's paying user base is much smaller than Spotify, Apple Music, or Google Play Music, and the people paying for high fidelity even smaller.

[Johnner1999]

Yeah I suspect the Premium fee is to A) appease the net neutrality fans B ) make more money - hey you want it we got it


The limits on the stock plan aren't that bad.

Tmo plan IMHO costs more and unless I'm reading it wrong only slightly better if you travel internationally.

That said - everyone has their own opinions and that's cool!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zodiac12345]

This information on PA and GMOs, is it a fact that it's at a stand still or your opinion? I live in an area of PA where this is an issue and have really been debating switching. I really don't want to switch but I was hoping by now things would have changed. Any information would be very helpful in helping me to make a decision.

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

Sadly, at least based on your location (Mountain Top, PA), it probably won't happen anytime soon. Buildout requirements for the PCS G Block were done based on EAs, or Economic Areas, per the FCC. Here is a map: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/EA_GOM.pdf. Sprint, and any carrier for that matter, must cover a percentage of the population in the area with a given spectrum, not a percentage of the region. Hence, Sprint covered what they wanted to: New York City and its suburbs, and Scranton. Because covering NYC alone probably solved their build out requirements for the EA, they chose to cover what they thought was an economical decision to save money and fund the rest of the country with NV. What Sprint did here, is what other carriers did in other parts of the country, for better or worse in terms of competition. 

 

Sprint kept the rest of the state outside the large cities on GMO, and as far as I know, it still is. Erie and State College got GMO LTE right around the buildout deadline, which was March 31, 2016 if I recall correctly. Both were done purely to protect license for the G Block in their respective EA. Erie got most, if not all sites, go up to GMO LTE right before the deadline. State College had one LTE site go up right after the deadline, and the rest of the sites got GMO LTE in midsummer. Why this happened in waves is unknown.

 

Sprint put up GMO LTE for the purpose of protecting their license, and as a result service has improved because LTE has more throughput. Mountain Top, being part of the EA with Scranton and NYC, does not have this requirement as the FCC will not take away a license when Sprint already covered more than the required population percentage. 

 

As far as funding goes, there is none. Sprint essentially puts GMOs on the bottom of the list for upgrades, unless there is an actual problem with the tower. Any funding Sprint has goes to small cells and putting up Band 41 where needed. Only time will tell whether this is the right decision, whether it will net Sprint customers, and whether Sprint remains a company. From all these statements, I can easily argue that Sprint probably won't upgrade GMOs anytime soon. Its your decision whether to leave or stay. 

 

If service is not usable for you, why keep it? If you can't use your phone for what you want, what's the point of paying for it? There are many MVNOs that use each carrier's network if price is an issue. If you want to have Verizon, go to Total Wireless, for $35/month you get 5 GB of data and unlimited talk/text. If you want AT&T, go with Cricket. And you are more than welcome to try T-Mobile, which should have Band 12 (700 Mhz) up and running. 

 

If you just live near a GMO and don't get service in your house, call Sprint and ask for an Airave or use WiFi calling at home. At home, there are many ways to make service bearable as getting signal inside your house is never easy. However, if Sprint isn't great all around where you work, commute, or whatever you do, then by all means switch. As mentioned earlier, why pay for a phone you can't use, no matter how good the deal?

[Deval]

I still think the Unlimited Freedom plans are too complicated, even though they are easier to understand than the 50% off offers and Framily. Yet, Framily was good in terms of its similarities in pricing to ED1500 from what I understand of them. Sprint really needs something like that to get customers to join and stay with Sprint. For the matter, even Sprint admitted really wel to this when their former Verizon spokesman says its 2016, every network is good. That basically means for Sprint they can't get much from advertising their network, no matter how good it is.

 

Now, if Sprint got T-Mobile to merge with them, then that would be a large enough difference for an incentive to advertise network, as that is a pretty big deal in terms of difference in contrast between them and AT&T and Verizon. However, I don't think simply having a more powerful band 41 network is going to be good enough to work in advertising to customers and bringing them in on that, even though I admit Sprint's band 41 spectrum connection in areas where it is deployed heavily, is an incredible network experience.

 

Sprint needs a good rate plan to go with it. Prior to unveiling the ew Unlimited Freedom plans, I like how Sprint was going with a simple, straightforward, no speed limits here and there unlimited plan at $75 monthly for the first line and $45 monthly for the second line, and so on. Despite my preference being for a flat rate on every line, this was still better than other carriers plans. I think Sprint ought to go back to a rate where they see the most success at, which is around SERO/ED 1500 pricing. $45 monthly per line for a 9mbps speed cap/$75 monthly per line for a no-speed cap plan I think is a good Unlimited Data pricing point. 

 

Buddy, in all due respect, if you think $60 + taxes/fees is too complicated, you may have other problems you haven't considered. It's the simplest thing Sprint has done in the 16+ years I've been a customer.

 

What you're proposing is overly complicated and makes zero sense to consumers. Have you ever worked retail? Have you ever sold wireless? 

[Deval]

The complication I see comes not from the pricing itself, unlike Framily, but rather the different limitations to both versions of the plan between non-premium and premium. Particularly in the music and gaming parts where people who listen to streaming music or game online using wireless will need to investigate which of the plans best suits their usage needs. That takes away the point of Unlimited Data that brings simplicity from not having to count data, to now having to figure out if these speed limits are going to hinder their usage in terms of speed quality.

 

T-Mobile's One Plan is more simple, at least with smartphone usage, though when factoring in the hotpot usage bit it becomes complicated, and now having to remember to "turn on" high-speed data for these uses, also hinders the benefit of simplicity Unlimited data is suppose to have for customers. In this case, AT&T and Cricket's plans are much better at actually giving customers simplicity in choosing their plans, in regards to their Unlimited plans, not speaking of data plans.

 

Sprint could make a few changes and these plans would be fine. Remove the gaming and music limits to match T-Mobile One in that regard, then its fine. I still think Sprint could come up with a better plan in general, but that is a separate issue from this one. I think Sprint will do this though, and at the rate of $90 monthly for two lines on the Employee Referral plan I mentioned here the other day, it may tempt me to switch eventually when Sprint gets band 41 on more than half the towers here.

 

Now you're just splitting hairs. 

 

Customers are giving 2 options, both starting at $60. For 90% of users, that $60 price point works. For the 10% who want extra perks, it's $20 additional. Those 90% of users could care less about sub 2mbps gaming or 480p video, and will enjoy counting their savings every month. 

 

How is that not simple? 

[Deval]

I don't think that many people care about the music streaming limits or game limits otherwise you would see an uproar and backlash.  I've only seen one person bring those 2 points up across the websites I visit.  The music streaming limits are fine for high quality streaming from everyone but Tidal's high fidelity service (which is pricier at $19.95/month).  Tidal's paying user base is much smaller than Spotify, Apple Music, or Google Play Music, and the people paying for high fidelity even smaller.

 

Exactly.

 

90% of users will take their $60 plan and enjoy their savings, and life will go on.

[JDD]

Sadly, at least based on your location (Mountain Top, PA), it probably won't happen anytime soon. Buildout requirements for the PCS G Block were done based on EAs, or Economic Areas, per the FCC. Here is a map: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/EA_GOM.pdf. Sprint, and any carrier for that matter, must cover a percentage of the population in the area with a given spectrum, not a percentage of the region. Hence, Sprint covered what they wanted to: New York City and its suburbs, and Scranton. Because covering NYC alone probably solved their build out requirements for the EA, they chose to cover what they thought was an economical decision to save money and fund the rest of the country with NV. What Sprint did here, is what other carriers did in other parts of the country, for better or worse in terms of competition. 

 

 

 

Thanks for the detailed reply. I have been kicking around the idea of VZW or AT&T. It's not an easy choice as I have been a customer for over 13 years and I had better coverage before the upgrades. 

 

Thanks again for your help.

[Arysyn]

Buddy, in all due respect, if you think $60 + taxes/fees is too complicated, you may have other problems you haven't considered. It's the simplest thing Sprint has done in the 16+ years I've been a customer.

 

What you're proposing is overly complicated and makes zero sense to consumers. Have you ever worked retail? Have you ever sold wireless? 

 

As I responded to Johnner1999, it isn't the pricing, but the setup that I believe is complicated, in having all the different speed limitations for this and that. Having one flat speed cap is fine, but it gets confusing when customers have to look at their different needs and see if this speed cap for this, and this speed cap for that, is fine for what they want. Plus, not everyone is a gamer and doesn't need the extra speed for that, but may need more than 500mbps speed for music, which if they upgrade, they essentially are paying more than what they need for one thing, versus the other. Having a flat speed cap that meets all needs is preferable, hence my idea to make it similar to Cricket, by having unlimited at 9mbps, a slight bit faster than Cricket for competitions sake.

 

I don't understand how having a flat speed cap and a flat fee is complicated. $45 monthly at 9mbps for all lines is complicated?

It takes away the discounting calculations needed for additional lines by pricing the first line less, but charging more for each additional line at a flat fee. That is as simple as it could get, other than of course my additional idea of having a truly totally unlimited $75 monthly per line, which is the rate Sprint was charging before they replaced it with Unlimited Freedom, with the exception of the discounted additional lines.

[Dkoellerwx]

As I responded to Johnner1999, it isn't the pricing, but the setup that I believe is complicated, in having all the different speed limitations for this and that. Having one flat speed cap is fine, but it gets confusing when customers have to look at their different needs and see if this speed cap for this, and this speed cap for that, is fine for what they want. 

 

It is not complicated. You are overthinking it. Really. It makes sense to my mom (this is not a joke) who still has a flip phone because smartphones are complicated (she knows how to use one, just doesn't want it). 

[Johnner1999]

I don't think a flat speed limit that high 9mbps would help with network congestion though.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

It is not complicated. You are overthinking it. Really. It makes sense to my mom (this is not a joke) who still has a flip phone because smartphones are complicated (she knows how to use one, just doesn't want it). 

 

Well, we'll see how well this new plan works out for Sprint. I know for me it is the first time I've ever been really disappointed in their rate planning, as they've always been the most fair, straightforward in their pricing plans, despite Framily. I think Sprint will likely modify these areas anyways, as they did when they had the speed limit on the All-In plan, which other than the speed limit, it was a pretty neat plan to include device payments. Time will tell with this. 

[Arysyn]

I don't think a flat speed limit that high 9mbps would help with network congestion though.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That is a good point. I've been confused by the issue, actually. There are people on two sides of the speed cap idea I hear from online. Those that say it does help with that, and those who say it doesn't. I'm thinking of this mostly has a competitive purpose to Cricket's offering, which in my opinion other than AT&T's Unlimited Data Plan for television subscribers, Cricket has the best deal overall, if people are okay with the 8mbps speed cap. Really though, 8mbps is plenty fast, and at $65 monthly on autopay, is a really great deal.

[WiWavelength]

Lol, can you spot me a plane ticket

 

Uh, there you are.

 

Yeah, I spotted you right over there.

 

AJ

[Johnner1999]

I don't think a flat speed limit that high 9mbps would help with network congestion though.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[payturr]

As I responded to Johnner1999, it isn't the pricing, but the setup that I believe is complicated, in having all the different speed limitations for this and that. Having one flat speed cap is fine, but it gets confusing when customers have to look at their different needs and see if this speed cap for this, and this speed cap for that, is fine for what they want. Plus, not everyone is a gamer and doesn't need the extra speed for that, but may need more than 500mbps speed for music, which if they upgrade, they essentially are paying more than what they need for one thing, versus the other. Having a flat speed cap that meets all needs is preferable, hence my idea to make it similar to Cricket, by having unlimited at 9mbps, a slight bit faster than Cricket for competitions sake.

 

I don't understand how having a flat speed cap and a flat fee is complicated. $45 monthly at 9mbps for all lines is complicated?

It takes away the discounting calculations needed for additional lines by pricing the first line less, but charging more for each additional line at a flat fee. That is as simple as it could get, other than of course my additional idea of having a truly totally unlimited $75 monthly per line, which is the rate Sprint was charging before they replaced it with Unlimited Freedom, with the exception of the discounted additional lines.

1) No salesperson will ever mention speed limits. "You get unlimited data including unlimited standard definition video". Who cares about 500Kbps of streaming music or 2Mbps for gaming? No one is that hardcore, no need to mention it. Want HD video? $20 on top of $60

2) At 9Mbps you can watch HD video, and at $45 that would destroy the quality of the network because everyone would be on it. Bad idea.

[Johnner1999]

1) No salesperson will ever mention speed limits. "You get unlimited data including unlimited standard definition video". Who cares about 500Kbps of streaming music or 2Mbps for gaming? No one is that hardcore, no need to mention it. Want HD video? $20 on top of $60

2) At 9Mbps you can watch HD video, and at $45 that would destroy the quality of the network because everyone would be on it. Bad idea.

Yeah I pretty positive that normal folk (that excludes most people reading this) just want to have FB posts occur quickly - send photos or videos to friends - and stream pandora. If it works they are happy.

 

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dnicekid]

All of our ideas are useless without sprint actually getting more equipment deployed. Deploy deploy deploy.......use that damn spectrum we have been hearing about the last 10 years (seems like it) already!!!! Sprints huge advantage is barely advantage anymore because they can't get it out fast enough. Others have bought and deployed to nullify sprints progress

[Dkoellerwx]

 

Today Sprint and Nokia kicked-off the launch of three-channel carrier aggregation in Kansas City’s LTE Plus Network with a live demonstration at Kauffman Stadium. Just prior to the Royals vs Yankees match-up, the companies showcased three-channel carrier aggregation reaching peak speeds as high as 230 Mbps inside the stadium using the Samsung Note7, Galaxy S7, S7 edge, HTC 10 and LG G5.

 

Also:

 

 

Three-channel carrier aggregation is slated for enablement on devices via an automatic software update following network deployment.

 

Full news release

[lilotimz]

it'shappening.gif

[Dkoellerwx]

 

 

it'shappening.gif

 

I win. 

 

 

- - sneaky stealth edit removes the proof - - 

[Johnner1999]

Also:

 

 

Full news release

I'll play the role of the broken turntable:

 

All that CA is amazing but with out a stable blanket of reliable LTE / these press releases are sort of funny.

 

Similar to how some here laughed at VZW for testing 5g.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

I'll play the role of the broken turntable:

 

All that CA is amazing but with out a stable blanket of reliable LTE / these press releases are sort of funny.

 

Similar to how some here laughed at VZW for testing 5g.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hard to compare tech we wont see for years vs months...

[Paynefanbro]

Except 5G isn't commercially deployed. When Sprint tested CA in 2014 and was getting insanely high speeds of 1Gbps+ we all said "cool but that's obviously not happening on our phone anytime soon". Likewise for VZW and 5G. 

 

Sprint's press releases about 3xCA and getting 230Mbps is something that is happening in the field today and can be utilized by devices that are out now (even though they require a software update). That's the difference.

[IamMrFamous07]

I have a feeling they are going to announce a "nationwide" launch of 3x CA when the iPhone 7 launch.

 

Bookmark this page lol