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

[utiz4321]

It doesn't even make sense. You could make that argument on a tower by tower basis, "oh I didn't use any of my 23 gigs on this tower so I shouldn't be throttled here". The point from sprint's view and non heavy data users is you have consumed enough unobstructed data to put you in the top 3 percent of users so when you are on a busy site you'll have low priority so the vast majority (and more profitable) customers can minimize the number of negative experiences. This is reasonable and a fair way of managing resources.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

That doesn't actually answer the question though. I'll rephrase slightly: If someone travels to a new area that's not congested, how and why would the de-priortization tag affect their service?

Because they didn't use a majority of the data in that new area, and now they're de-prioritized there, even if they use just a bit since they're tagged.

 

Apologies for not explaining this clearly. It's just the geographical part of this that doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[RedSpark]

It doesn't even make sense. You could make that argument on a tower by tower basis, "oh I didn't use any of my 23 gigs on this tower so I shouldn't be throttled here". The point from sprint's view and non heavy data users is you have consumed enough unobstructed data to put you in the top 3 percent of users so when you are on a busy site you'll have low priority so the vast majority (and more profitable) customers can minimize the number of negative experiences. This is reasonable and a fair way of managing resources.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On a nationwide basis? Congestion should be handled on a market by market basis.

[Rawvega]

Because they didn't use a majority of the data in that new area, and now they're de-prioritized there.

 

But if the area is not congested, as you've already established in your hypothetical scenario, in what way is their serviced impacted by the de-prioritization tag?

[PythonFanPA]

Good:  3 GB mobile hotspot is included

Bad:  Off-network roaming is limited to 100MB

Here's a thought I just had regarding roaming quotas - and I'm basically just throwing this out for discussion and will appreciate particularly the input of both the resident elder S4GRU statesmen as well as the Sprint employees past and present who post here: if a customer is allowed 100MB per month of service and with the assumption (and I stress that word here because I have no clue if this is the cade) that the financial/accounting side of things already assumes the cost involved exists given the policy, then would it be at all feasible for Sprint to allow an 'over time' implementation, or 'banking' of that allowance over a reasonable period? I'm thinking say 3 months minimum, to perhaps 6 months max.

 

The issue to me is that, in most cases the average user would hit roaming maybe 1-2 times a year on vacation or such, and 100MB when you hit the wrong place/wrong time could be easily surpassed even for relatively conservative data users. Allowing a sort of moving banked window of accrued roaming data would be in and of itself a sort of 'uncarrierish' perk potentially if Sprint implemented the idea first especially.

 

Again, I have no idea if it would be feasible or realistic, but it was an idea of compromise that came to me. Just tosding out for discussion.

[PythonFanPA]

Sorry for the typos in the above btw - a rare post via mobile for me

[Arysyn]

I understand the point of deprioritizing. However, instead of doing so with people over a certain data limit, there ought to be a smarter system of speed controls, based on traffic percentages. I made a thread about this some time ago, where I used some examples.

 

To update here though, it essentially is a speed cap that intelligently throttles speed, though remains entirely useable speeds throughout, unless a site is really jammed, of course. Generally though, minimum speeds wouldn't go below 3mbps, which I'd sure hope still would be rare, if such an idea were implemented.

[utiz4321]

But if the area is not congested, as you've already established in your hypothetical scenario, in what way is their serviced impacted by the de-prioritization tag?

No, congestion is a site by site issue and that is how it is handled. The limits are a consumer by consumer metric to classify who is and is not deprioritized. That is why your complaint makes no sense.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rawvega]

No, congestion is a site by site issue and that is how it is handled. The limits are a consumer by consumer metric to classify who is and is not deprioritized. That is why your complaint makes no sense.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Exactly what complaint are you referring to? I was asking a question.

[bmoses]

from the FAQ about the 23 gig limit for those who didn't read it

 

What is this about 23 GB of data usage?

In an effort to provide as much information to our customers as possible, Sprint wants to ensure that customers who are interested in our unlimited data plans are aware that customers who use high volumes of data may be impacted by our Quality of Service network management practices.

What is Quality of Service?

To help protect against the possibility that unlimited data plan customers that use high volumes of data may occupy an unfair share of network resources, Sprint employs network prioritization, or Quality of Service (QoS), for customers that use more than 23 GB (adjusted periodically) of data during a single billing cycle. Impacted customers are de-prioritized as compared to other customers at times and places where the availability of network resources is constrained.

Does that mean customers on this plan are actually limited to 23 GB of data?

No. Impacted unlimited data customers can use unlimited amounts of data above and beyond the 23 GB threshold, though impacted customers may experience reduced throughput and increased latency compared to other customers while network resources are constrained. These temporary reductions in performance will only occur at times and places where capacity is constrained.

Is Quality of Service the same as throttling?

No. With throttling, when you hit the applicable data threshold, your wireless data speed is reduced for your entire cycle, 100% of the time, no matter where you are. With QoS, your data is de-prioritized only when and where network resources are constrained.Once network resources are no longer constrained or you move to a non-constrained location, your speed will return to normal.

[utiz4321]

Exactly what complaint are you referring to? I was asking a question.

Sorry my phone is tweaking out on me I was trying to quote someone else. Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

The issue to me is that, in most cases the average user would hit roaming maybe 1-2 times a year on vacation or such, and 100MB when you hit the wrong place/wrong time could be easily surpassed even for relatively conservative data users. Allowing a sort of moving banked window of accrued roaming data would be in and of itself a sort of 'uncarrierish' perk potentially if Sprint implemented the idea first especially.

 

Yes, to borrow an AT&T term, it would be roaming data rollover.  And I like the idea, but I am not sure that it would be financially advisable.  Even roaming 100 MB significantly cuts into Sprint's profit margin, so Sprint counts on most users to roam little, if at all most months.  In other words, Sprint does not want to encourage or enable greater roaming data usage.

 

What I would prefer that Sprint do instead -- and this would cover your vacation scenario -- is install a 500 MB yearly roaming data quota.  That would be less than half of the monthly quota x 12 available now.  And users who roam more than that could purchase additional roaming data allotments at market price or pursue other options -- because they might not be a good fit for Sprint and vice versa.

 

Of course, I may have contradicted myself with my suggestion, as it could enable greater roaming data usage.  Some users on current plans go on vacation once a year and consume up to 100 MB of roaming data.  That is it for the entire year.  Under my proposal, those same users could go on vacation once a year and consume up to 500 MB of roaming data.  Sprint would absorb a greater financial hit.

 

So, I am not sure.  All I can say is that roaming data costs are high.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

I was pretty shocked when I heard how much data roaming costs carriers. I certainly think it's gouging and therefore I don't think data roaming really ought to be included, or else go back to charging roaming. Obviously give customers a choice in the matter ahead of time and be clearly upfront about it, so there isn't any bill shock. Perhaps even shut it off completely, then offer roaming packages, rather than overages.

 

Either way, I really don't see how it should be offered inclusive as it is, all things considered.

[clbowens]

I was pretty shocked when I heard how much data roaming costs carriers. I certainly think it's gouging and therefore I don't think data roaming really ought to be included, or else go back to charging roaming. Obviously give customers a choice in the matter ahead of time and be clearly upfront about it, so there isn't any bill shock. Perhaps even shut it off completely, then offer roaming packages, rather than overages.

 

Either way, I really don't see how it should be offered inclusive as it is, all things considered.

How much DOES data roaming cost carriers?

[PythonFanPA]

Excellent feedback AJ, exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping to see. I like your take too, and there's really both sides of the proverbial coin to consider I suppose.

 

That's why I was referencing the assumption of accounting for the current monthly allotment. I know whatever usage occurs carries a hefty cost, but if the usage is already assumed a given going in in terms of the financials, this line of thought seems more plausible. If it is not and they furthermore just hope and pray that the lower bar they've set now acts as a deterrent from roaming usage, this is probably more likely a moot point.

[Arysyn]

How much DOES data roaming cost carriers?

It has been awhile since I read what it was, but it was some high figure. I'm interested to find out again exactly what it was, but so far, I'm not finding it online. I'll keep looking then report back here about it, if I can find it.

 

Perhaps AJ and Robert might know too, or at least one of the staff here on S4GRU. I'm thinking what I heard was related to T-Mobile though, so the staff here likely knows more accurately what it costs Sprint than I do.

[WiWavelength]

How much DOES data roaming cost carriers?

 

That varies per roaming agreement.  But a conservative average estimate is $0.10 per MB, thus $10 per 100 MB and $100 per GB.

 

AJ

[mittenmitten]

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?

[Arysyn]

That varies per roaming agreement. But a conservative average estimate is $0.10 per MB, thus $10 per 100 MB and $100 per 1 GB.

 

AJ

Ah! There we go, just as I posted the edit to my last post. Thanks AJ!

 

So yes, it is expensive to the carriers, much more so than the average overage rate. I'm curious as to why this is so high though.

[kojitsari]

Per the post I will link below, these new QoS options DO affect legacy plans. If you upgrade your phone 'Even through manufacturers such as Google or Moto' from 10-16-2015 and forward. https://www.reddit.com/r/Sprint/comments/3oztnq/sprint_qos_practices_changing/

[derrph]

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

[clbowens]

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?

It depends on what your definition of "unlimited" is.  :-)

[WiWavelength]

Perhaps AJ and Robert might know too, or at least one of the staff here on S4GRU. I'm thinking what I heard was related to T-Mobile though, so the staff here likely knows more accurately what it costs Sprint than I do.

 

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

[banananuts87]

Does this effect customers with the "my way" plans? It shouldn't right?

[kojitsari]

Does this effect customers with the "my way" plans? It shouldn't right?

See my post above, it does if you upgrade past today's date. Including Nexus devices and Motorola, so unlocked devices...