Jump to content

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


joshuam

Recommended Posts

If it's market-wide congestion, then people hitting 23 GB in those areas are going to be throttled no matter what for the remainder of their billing cycle/month until additional capacity comes online.

 

That sounds good.  If the 23+ GB subs are part of the reason those markets are congested, then the 23+ GB subs need to own their usage.  That means taking responsibility by reducing their usage, getting prioritized, paying for greater tiered data, or pursuing other options.

 

AJ

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally fine with this as I personally use around 5 GB monthly although I have unlimited. Hopefully this will increase network performance for everyone.

 

I also get this feeling that Sprint and T-Mobile will attempt another merger as plans seem to be becoming very similar and with recent announcements about mergers, financial cuts and buying shares. I also notice both CEOs not attacking each other on social media like before. Finally if they were thinking of merging, Sprint sitting out the auction would lower the cost of spectrum otherwise why announce they were sitting out so early and not going to the auction to at least raise prices. Hmm. Or they could just be copying T-Mobile and be broke but hey, it's just a theory.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, this de-prioritization for 23GB+ users seems great.  However, the theory of a tri-band network is also great, yet it sometimes feels like Sprint handles band prioritization less than adequately.

 

Again though, if Sprint can properly prioritize 23GB+ people, then this bodes well for the network.

 

Also, why 23 and not something different? To copy T-mobile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, this de-prioritization for 23GB+ users seems great.  However, the theory of a tri-band network is also great, yet it sometimes feels like Sprint handles band prioritization less than adequately.

 

Again though, if Sprint can properly prioritize 23GB+ people, then this bodes well for the network.

 

Also, why 23 and not something different? To copy T-mobile?

Probably a percentage of the top users use 23gb's+, top 10% or top 5%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's how Sprint is in most of Florida rootmetrics. Great call, great text and okay or bad data performance. 

 

What is your definition of great data performance? With an average of just over 13 down, there is nothing you can't do. There is nothing okay or bad about 13 down.

 

More like an average of 4 down is okay, and 2 down is bad...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your definition of great data performance? With an average of just over 13 down, there is nothing you can't do. There is nothing okay or bad about 13 down.

 

More like an average of 4 down is okay, and 2 down is bad...

This is true but compared to the competition it is just okay. Sprint is good in Orlando and I have no issue with them but speeds and capacity need to improve for future proofing regardless. All of those other cities I just mentioned in my findings at least where I went get 0.5-3mbps on average and that's on average although not scientific. Point is lots of work to be done.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add to this conversation.. T-Mobile had a 21GB limit before deprioritization happened, but raised that limit to 23GB a few months ago. They claimed the limit will follow data usage trends. So I would assume Sprint is doing the same thing, and that the data usage by heavy users is similar on both networks.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the cap makes sense...

 

What doesn't sit well with me is that sprint raised the price $10, and still not provide a stable data connection with speeds in the 2-5mbps - at least where I've used the service.

 

I also don't see where CA is of any use other than provide amazing speeds but can't offer range.

 

I suspect the root metrics scores will start to show that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps in your opinion, it isn't. Although, I related how in the past, Sprint/Softbank announced replacements along when there were resignations, this one seems quite a bit different. It is odd considering that it hasn't followed that recent track record.

No it isn't just my opinion.  People including executives leave their jobs every day be it voluntary or not. More often than not regardless of the reason for separation, a replacement isn't simultaneously lined up. In a lot of the recent Sprint cases they were critical functions i.e. if you let a CFO go you need a new CFO. Those sort of changes make sense to announce simultaneously.

 

In this case, SVP of corporate strategy and development sounds borderline like a made-up job title and it wouldn't surprise me if Sprint doesn't replace him as part of their cost saving measures. So no, there is nothing inherently "odd" about this and any speculation right now as to what actually precipitated his departure is baseless until if and when we hear more information.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't just my opinion. People including executives leave their jobs every day be it voluntary or not. More often than not regardless of the reason for separation, a replacement isn't simultaneously lined up. In a lot of the recent Sprint cases they were critical functions i.e. if you let a CFO go you need a new CFO. Those sort of changes make sense to announce simultaneously.

 

In this case, SVP of corporate strategy and development sounds borderline like a made-up job title and it wouldn't surprise me if Sprint doesn't replace him as part of their cost saving measures. So no, there is nothing inherently "odd" about this and any speculation right now as to what actually precipitated his departure is baseless until if and when we hear more information.

Mr. Nuke, in general you are right.

 

However, I never meant this to be about what is common in business, which your point well defines. My point purely regards what has happened in the past several months with the resignations going on with Sprint executives. This latest resignation doesn't follow the same pattern as the others have, with replacements being announced with the resignation or within hours of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your definition of great data performance? With an average of just over 13 down, there is nothing you can't do. There is nothing okay or bad about 13 down.

 

More like an average of 4 down is okay, and 2 down is bad...

Those figures are around what I think is good and bad

 

My opinion is anything under 3mbps is bad. Tolerable speeds are 3mbps to 9mbps. Average speeds are 9mbps to 18mbps. Above average speeds are 18mbps to 30mbps. Optimal speeds are anything over 30mbps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true but compared to the competition it is just okay. Sprint is good in Orlando and I have no issue with them but speeds and capacity need to improve for future proofing regardless. All of those other cities I just mentioned in my findings at least where I went get 0.5-3mbps on average and that's on average although not scientific. Point is lots of work to be done.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Terrell, as I just wrote in my opinion following up with Courtney, my belief is anything under 3mbps is bad. If that is all you get when you travel outside Orlando, that may be enough leverage you need in talking with someone at Sprint Executive Relations to get out of your contract. Although out of curiosity, what are the average speeds you get on Sprint in Orlando?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrell, as I just wrote in my opinion following up with Courtney, my belief is anything under 3mbps is bad. If that is all you get when you travel outside Orlando, that may be enough leverage you need in talking with someone at Sprint Executive Relations to get out of your contract. Although out of curiosity, what are the average speeds you get on Sprint in Orlando?

Nothing below 5. I have had 80mbps and as low as 5 but very good there overall. Sprint has great value so Im not leaving at the moment. I want to see where the network is a year from now then I will decide to leave or stay. I see Sprint making lots of progress and its always fun to see a underdog make a comback

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing below 5. I have had 80mbps and as low as 5 but very good there overall. Sprint has great value so Im not leaving at the moment. I want to see where the network is a year from now then I will decide to leave or stay. I see Sprint making lots of progress and its always fun to see a underdog make a comback

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I constantly get below 1 Mbps if I sit on B26 in the areas I venture (+4 Mbps B25 is also available but Sprint hasn't figured out how to balance band priorities). Having said that, 1 Mbps is more than enough for browsing and even music streaming. Unless an HD video gets played or a speed test is conducted, most consumers wouldn't know if their network is congested or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I constantly get below 1 Mbps if I sit on B26 in the areas I venture (+4 Mbps B25 is also available but Sprint hasn't figured out how to balance band priorities). Having said that, 1 Mbps is more than enough for browsing and even music streaming. Unless an HD video gets played or a speed test is conducted, most consumers wouldn't know if their network is congested or not.

Thats not necessarily true. 1mbps does not go as smooth on lte as it does on 3g

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What doesn't sit well with me is that sprint raised the price $10, and still not provide a stable data connection with speeds in the 2-5mbps - at least where I've used the service.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a textbook case of an anecdotal experience that is not representative of the entirety of the Sprint network. How many times has it been discussed that one person's experience is not representative of the network as a whole? Your poor experiences in the areas that you frequent cannot be used to shoot down the $10 price hike.

 

Thats not necessarily true. 1mbps does not go as smooth on lte as it does on 3g

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I have read a lot of people stating this, but I don't see how that is possible. I think it is more of a placebo effect rather than that actually being true. People see LTE and expect it to be blazing fast, but instead it moves at 3G speeds. People see 3G and expect it to be painfully slow, but it runs at a healthy 1 mbps, which is pretty darn good for EVDO. The LTE FEELS slower because you expect it to be extremely fast. The 3G FEELS faster because you expect it to be extremely slow. It's all in your expectations.

 

-Anthony

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a textbook case of an anecdotal experience that is not representative of the entirety of the Sprint network. How many times has it been discussed that one person's experience is not representative of the network as a whole? Your poor experiences in the areas that you frequent cannot be used to shoot down the $10 price hike.

 

I have read a lot of people stating this, but I don't see how that is possible. I think it is more of a placebo effect rather than that actually being true. People see LTE and expect it to be blazing fast, but instead it moves at 3G speeds. People see 3G and expect it to be painfully slow, but it runs at a healthy 1 mbps, which is pretty darn good for EVDO. The LTE FEELS slower because you expect it to be extremely fast. The 3G FEELS faster because you expect it to be extremely slow. It's all in your expectations.

 

-Anthony

I have literally tested and witnessed 3g handling 1mbps better than lte. When your in a slow lte area see for yourself. Even Robert has acknowledged this.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No real science behind it, but my device struggles on slow (1-2mbps) LTE connections as well. Disabling LTE (and subsequently grabbing 3G) immediately makes the experience more tolerable.

 

Different note - just checked my usage stats again.

 

July: 25 gigs

August: 13 gigs

September: 18 gigs

 

So I am on the hairy edge. July was a travel heavy month where we spent a lot of time on the road (and let the kids YouTube/Disney Junior stream) for multiple days. August was not much travel, and was on home wifi often. September was a 'normal' month. Really, this deprioritization thing does not seem like a big deal. I would be interested in hearing a definition on when Sprint considers a site to be congested though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds good.  If the 23+ GB subs are part of the reason those markets are congested, then the 23+ GB subs need to own their usage.  That means taking responsibility by reducing their usage, getting prioritized, paying for greater tiered data, or pursuing other options.

 

AJ

 

There aren't any 'greater tiers' though, that's the whole reason a lot of people are on unlimited, because it's unlimited, and we don't have to deal with tiers. If Sprint introduced another 'unlimited' tier that pushes deprioritization back to 40gb, then would you be saying the same thing? Because at that point it would be for monetizing more than decongestion. The 23gb is completely arbitrary. They should have done 24gb, or at least something to make their data cap more attractive than T-Mobile. 

 

In all honesty, the cap doesn't bother me as much as the idea that they're selling unlimited, with limits. Don't call it unlimited if it's not unlimited; this is not unlimited because 23gb is a limit. I'll end my hissyfit on that note. :P #moveforward

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have literally tested and witnessed 3g handling 1mbps better than lte. When your in a slow lte area see for yourself. Even Robert has acknowledged this.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

No real science behind it, but my device struggles on slow (1-2mbps) LTE connections as well. Disabling LTE (and subsequently grabbing 3G) immediately makes the experience more tolerable.

 

Different note - just checked my usage stats again.

 

July: 25 gigs

August: 13 gigs

September: 18 gigs

 

So I am on the hairy edge. July was a travel heavy month where we spent a lot of time on the road (and let the kids YouTube/Disney Junior stream) for multiple days. August was not much travel, and was on home wifi often. September was a 'normal' month. Really, this deprioritization thing does not seem like a big deal. I would be interested in hearing a definition on when Sprint considers a site to be congested though.

I just wanted to mention that I too have some anecdotal evidence myself. When I was in Ocean City Maryland this summer there were several times when I was connected to LTE and I could not get any usable data so I had to toggle my phone to 3G Only, and the speeds were actually fairly good.

 

My only guess was that either the LTE on the towers in Ocean City were messed up or they were severely congested.

 

Either way 3G work great for me where as the LTE was pretty much useless the whole week I was in Ocean City MD.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just wanted to mention that I too have some anecdotal evidence myself. When I was in Ocean City Maryland this summer there were several times when I was connected to LTE and I could not get any usable data so I had to toggle my phone to 3G Only, and the speeds were actually fairly good.

 

My only guess was that either the LTE on the towers in Ocean City were messed up or they were severely congested.

 

Either way 3G work great for me where as the LTE was pretty much useless the whole week I was in Ocean City MD.

Sprint is totally useless overall in OC. Some of the towers still aren't upgraded for some reason. Even Verizon is way congested there...Sprint really need another tower.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint is totally useless overall in OC. Some of the towers still aren't upgraded for some reason. Even Verizon is way congested there...Sprint really need another tower.

I completely agree!

 

However, the weird thing is that my phone was showing strong LTE, on both the Stock Signal Bars indicator, and on Signal Check Pros signal bar indicator.

 

So that is why I was suggesting either the towers were very congested or that there's something wrong with the LTE on the towers in Ocean City Maryland.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing below 5. I have had 80mbps and as low as 5 but very good there overall. Sprint has great value so Im not leaving at the moment. I want to see where the network is a year from now then I will decide to leave or stay. I see Sprint making lots of progress and its always fun to see a underdog make a comback

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

As long as it stays above 5, that sounds fine. Just when you mentioned those below 3mbps speeds elsewhere, I got to thinking, "How is it Sprint is being so stubborn not to let him out his contract, or anyone's for that matter if it is that slow.

 

Even 3mbps to 9mbps is unacceptable for anyone paying postpaid service rates, considering that is the typical speed range for Cricket. I'll admit I have certain high standards for wireless service, which I believe that 3mbps to 9mbps ought to be speeds only during heavy congestion with everyone on a congested site geting throttled to that only if need be, as part of my network variable speed cap solution as a way to more fairly manage network traffic, instead of heavily throttling heavier users.

 

My belief is that regular congestion speeds ought to be 9mbps to 15mbps, while average speeds people notice as an indicator of congestion building, between 15mbps and 18mbps. I further believe that normal expected data speeds using wireless service be between 18mbps and 30mbps. Anything over 30mbps is great, but not necessary.

 

I know some people will claim some of my ideas here as fantasy, etc., backing their claims against me as unrealistic. While I like this site and believe S4GRU is one of the best sources of wireless technology information online, I really would like it if some people here wouldn't get so upset at me and some others for sharing their opinions and wireless experiences, as long as they aren't bashing, unfairly criticizing, trolling, etc. While I can't speak for everyone, I know my motives are genuine and pure, which despite my having these differing ideas, they aren't meant to be harmful.

 

So yes, I know perhaps some of my speed examples during congestion may be a bit higher than the norm of what current technology can handle during congestion. However, I'm looking at it from when technology is more ideal to allow for some of these basic speed ranges. Surely congestion often slows down speeds further than I've exampled here, but I don't think these are unreasonable for how technology ought to provide, which is what all of the carriers are striving for.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't any 'greater tiers' though, that's the whole reason a lot of people are on unlimited, because it's unlimited, and we don't have to deal with tiers. If Sprint introduced another 'unlimited' tier that pushes deprioritization back to 40gb, then would you be saying the same thing? Because at that point it would be for monetizing more than decongestion. The 23gb is completely arbitrary. They should have done 24gb, or at least something to make their data cap more attractive than T-Mobile.

 

In all honesty, the cap doesn't bother me as much as the idea that they're selling unlimited, with limits. Don't call it unlimited if it's not unlimited; this is not unlimited because 23gb is a limit. I'll end my hissyfit on that note. :P #moveforward

Again, Unlimited is not the same as high speed. Unlimited 'Data Speeds' would be ∞ speeds, which is impossible. Unlimited Data =/= Unlimited speed. Stop confusing the 2. You're still getting all the data you want but at lower speeds. Besides, go back and read the contract you signed. It clearly states that speeds cannot be guaranteed, which is why wireless providers never sell you internet based on actual data speeds and instead do on generic '3g' or '4g' brands. 4G technology is still considered 4G at dial up speeds.

 

 

If it bothers you too much, then just imagine you're in 2012 and have pre-NV speeds. If that doesn't help, then I suggest you let your voice be heard and switch providers.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as it stays above 5, that sounds fine. Just when you mentioned those below 3mbps speeds elsewhere, I got to thinking, "How is it Sprint is being so stubborn not to let him out his contract, or anyone's for that matter if it is that slow.

 

Even 3mbps to 9mbps is unacceptable for anyone paying postpaid service rates, considering that is the typical speed range for Cricket. I'll admit I have certain high standards for wireless service, which I believe that 3mbps to 9mbps ought to be speeds only during heavy congestion with everyone on a congested site geting throttled to that only if need be, as part of my network variable speed cap solution as a way to more fairly manage network traffic, instead of heavily throttling heavier users.

 

One of the few times I'll side with AJ:

 

Your expecting to much from a technology that is still fairly new. Your standards are not only too high, but a bit unrealistic for today's wireless industry.

My belief is that regular congestion speeds ought to be 9mbps to 15mbps, while average speeds people notice as an indicator of congestion building, between 15mbps and 18mbps. I further believe that normal expected data speeds using wireless service be between 18mbps and 30mbps. Anything over 30mbps is great, but not necessary.

 

Well, you better hope for a plague, because with the growing demand for data, there simply is not enough spectrum out there to accommodate your desires.

 

To put it in perspective, 15 Mbps would be almost half of the bandwidth one sector can offer in a real world environment for a 5x5 carrier from Sprint. So for your desired needs, you would have to have optimal signal with no more than 2 people in your area (yourself included). For 18 Mbps, you would literally have to be the only one online for that to happen.

I know some people will claim some of my ideas here as fantasy, etc., backing their claims against me as unrealistic. While I like this site and believe S4GRU is one of the best sources of wireless technology information online, I really would like it if some people here wouldn't get so upset at me and some others for sharing their opinions and wireless experiences, as long as they aren't bashing, unfairly criticizing, trolling, etc. While I can't speak for everyone, I know my motives are genuine and pure, which despite my having these differing ideas, they aren't meant to be harmful.

 

So yes, I know perhaps some of my speed examples during congestion may be a bit higher than the norm of what current technology can handle during congestion. However, I'm looking at it from when technology is more ideal to allow for some of these basic speed ranges. Surely congestion often slows down speeds further than I've exampled here, but I don't think these are unreasonable for how technology ought to provide, which is what all of the carriers are striving for.

Again, what you're expecting from wireless companies would be akin to expecting car manufacturers to build a car that could run on water...Today.

 

Unless pcell technology proves to be the real deal, I doubt any of us may be around to experience what you are describing.

 

Lower your expectations.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Was able to install the March 1 Android security patch. Seems slightly more accurate with 5g ca band id, but can not swear by it. Updated google play system update through the software information screen to March 1. *#73# still works. Froze updates waiting on SCP update beta to fix n41 showing as n38.
    • Just installed it. Thanks for the info.  71 mb mar 1st date.
    • There's a permit for a new 47 story building at 205 Montague St in Downtown Brooklyn. The problem is that  T-Mobile eNB 48352 is on the building next door and this new building will block two out of 3 sectors of the site. For reference, the new building will be roughly as tall as 16 Court St which is right across the street. This site is the primary site covering Cadman Plaza so I wonder what the plan is. Will they just try to change sector placement, move to a different building, or will this just speed up the conversion of the Sprint site at 25 Monroe Place?
    • At least not recently.  I think I might have seen this a year ago.  Not Sure.
    • Did they previously hop between n38 and n41 in prior version of SCP, or have you always seen n41 displayed properly?
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...