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

[Arysyn]

Verizon was the first to throttle their unlimited plan - it wasn't deprioritization either, which is less extreme than full on throttle. Oh, not only was it throttled, but it would happen at 5gb, none of that 20+gb that's being implemented now.

 

After years of not offering unlimited data, and getting people to drop their unlimited plans by not offering subsidized upgrades, the few remaining people with unlimited have it pretty good. Except for the part where their prices are going up.

Yes, but now are the days of deprioritizing unlimited data, no longer the days of full throttling. Verizon chose to completely end its throttling, and unlike its closest competitor, AT&T, Verizon isn't deprioritizing data. Sure, they raised the price by $20 monthly. For unlimited data on the nation's best network currently, at least until Sprint gets NGN and/or merges wit T-Mobile, Verizon's unlimited plan cannot be beat in most areas.

[anthony.spina97]

Yes, but now are the days of deprioritizing unlimited data, no longer the days of full throttling. Verizon chose to completely end its throttling, and unlike its closest competitor, AT&T, Verizon isn't deprioritizing data. Sure, they raised the price by $20 monthly. For unlimited data on the nation's best network currently, at least until Sprint gets NGN and/or merges wit T-Mobile, Verizon's unlimited plan cannot be beat in most areas.

Except for that fact that new customers can't get on Verizon's unlimited plan. You have to be an existing customer who has the unlimited plan. So, if you're a customer who is shopping around carriers, Verizon's plan can most definitely be beat.

 

-Anthony

[Arysyn]

Except for that fact that new customers can't get on Verizon's unlimited plan. You have to be an existing customer who has the unlimited plan. So, if you're a customer who is shopping around carriers, Verizon's plan can most definitely be beat.

 

-Anthony

In terms of price, you are absolutely correct. Sprint's $70 monthly and T-Mobile's $80 monthly are a much better deal than Verizon's $110 monthly, especially since that particular Verizon plan isn't available anymore. Although, for those who have the Verizon plan, despite the extra cost, is a better deal in most cases, except for where T-Mobile and/or Sprint match Verizon's coverage. If someone travels alot though, Verizon still is a better deal.

 

On the tired data side, I'm particularly interested in how Verizon did end up competing in price, despite their saying they wouldn't. In many ways they are a better deal than AT&T, and a better deal than T-Mobile and Sprint on the single line addition. However, T-Mobile and Sprint still are much better deals than Verizon is on anything over one line.

[Arysyn]

Currently, the unlimited plan Verizon has is $60 monthly (rounded) for 450 minutes, plus now $50 monthly (rounded) for unlimited data. In contrast, the current tiered data $30 plan with one line, is $50 monthly including unlimited talk&text, plus 1gb of data. Even without that 1gb of data, that still is $10 cheaper than what they are charging customers on the 450 minute plan.

 

So, I'm going to even this out adding that $10 over to the cost of data, and say the unlimited data portion really is $60, rather than $50. That would equal out the voice portion, as how many people nowadays really use more than 450 minutes. Now, take GoogleFi's $20 monthly base fee for unlimited talk&text. That is $30 less than the fee I reduced Verizon's voice feature to in matching with their 1gb tiered data plan rate of $50 with line.

 

Now, I'm going to take that $30 difference and add it to the cost I concluded as the true cost of Verizon's unlimited data portion of that plan, from $60 to $90. Add the $20 fee GoogleFi charges as the monthly base fee for unlimited talk&text, equals $110 monthly, the same rate Verizon is now charging for customers on their unlimited data plan, only the true costs are $20 for unlimited talk&text and then $90 for unlimited data.

 

My thought is, it might be possible Verizon could bring back unlimited data under special promotions, but at a higher rate, of course. I believe it would cost $150 monthly and be an individual line only plan, rated based on their initial $60 voice plan and the $90 unlimited data portion of my calculations.

[Rocket87]

In terms of price, you are absolutely correct. Sprint's $70 monthly and T-Mobile's $80 monthly are a much better deal than Verizon's $110 monthly, especially since that particular Verizon plan isn't available anymore. Although, for those who have the Verizon plan, despite the extra cost, is a better deal in most cases, except for where T-Mobile and/or Sprint match Verizon's coverage. If someone travels alot though, Verizon still is a better deal.

 

On the tired data side, I'm particularly interested in how Verizon did end up competing in price, despite their saying they wouldn't. In many ways they are a better deal than AT&T, and a better deal than T-Mobile and Sprint on the single line addition. However, T-Mobile and Sprint still are much better deals than Verizon is on anything over one line.

Mark my words sprint will go to all plans being unlimited 2g data with throttling after your high speed bucket runs out.

 

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

Mark my words sprint will go to all plans being unlimited 2g data with throttling after your high speed bucket runs out.

 

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

I agree.

[dnicekid]

Currently, the unlimited plan Verizon has is $60 monthly (rounded) for 450 minutes, plus now $50 monthly (rounded) for unlimited data. In contrast, the current tiered data $30 plan with one line, is $50 monthly including unlimited talk&text, plus 1gb of data. Even without that 1gb of data, that still is $10 cheaper than what they are charging customers on the 450 minute plan.

 

So, I'm going to even this out adding that $10 over to the cost of data, and say the unlimited data portion really is $60, rather than $50. That would equal out the voice portion, as how many people nowadays really use more than 450 minutes. Now, take GoogleFi's $20 monthly base fee for unlimited talk&text. That is $30 less than the fee I reduced Verizon's voice feature to in matching with their 1gb tiered data plan rate of $50 with line.

 

Now, I'm going to take that $30 difference and add it to the cost I concluded as the true cost of Verizon's unlimited data portion of that plan, from $60 to $90. Add the $20 fee GoogleFi charges as the monthly base fee for unlimited talk&text, equals $110 monthly, the same rate Verizon is now charging for customers on their unlimited data plan, only the true costs are $20 for unlimited talk&text and then $90 for unlimited data.

 

My thought is, it might be possible Verizon could bring back unlimited data under special promotions, but at a higher rate, of course. I believe it would cost $150 monthly and be an individual line only plan, rated based on their initial $60 voice plan and the $90 unlimited data portion of my calculations.

 

 

The idea is great! However sitting with 110mil+ pops and the majority on family share it would be crazy. You're thinking as a consumer not a business man. People are paying ~200+ for 18 gb for 3 lines and phones. Individuals are ~150 for 18gb with vzw

Why offer Ul at all??? That would give the consumer all access to the best network for 150. Verizon couldn't handle the customers and the usage that follows.

Verizon knew they would have capacity issues way back when. They knew data buckets would ease capacity and be more profitable. I know many vzw people who beg for wifi to keep under their numbers. I am sure one day they might bring it back......

When sprint expands or densifies. 18gb for $100 is a helluva lot better than what they were offering this time last year.

[Arysyn]

The idea is great! However sitting with 110mil+ pops and the majority on family share it would be crazy. You're thinking as a consumer not a business man. People are paying ~200+ for 18 gb for 3 lines and phones. Individuals are ~150 for 18gb with vzw

Why offer Ul at all??? That would give the consumer all access to the best network for 150. Verizon couldn't handle the customers and the usage that follows.

Verizon knew they would have capacity issues way back when. They knew data buckets would ease capacity and be more profitable. I know many vzw people who beg for wifi to keep under their numbers. I am sure one day they might bring it back......

When sprint expands or densifies. 18gb for $100 is a helluva lot better than what they were offering this time last year.

You make some good points here, which regardless of different opinions, I love discussing rate plans nonetheless. I'm not a huge fan of unlimited plans, though they serve a purpose for midheavy data users I consider 15gb to 30gb. The current per gb rates still are too expensive to be attractive towards those users.

 

The 18gb with one line is $120 monthly, nearest equivalent to $6.66 per gb without going over $120. That is still too costly for many people, including on unlimited plans. The unlimited data, talk, & text rate I suggested at $150 monthly, the equivalent data at $6.66 per gb without going over, is 22gb at $146.52. 22gb, right between T-Mobile's old 21gb deprioritization point and their new 23gb deprioritization point.

 

In that sense, it shows Verizon is charging twice what T-Mobile and Sprint are charging for equivalent data in a system without overages. There isn't a reasonable justification for that, except with unlimited where people can stretch that equivalent charge out less by using my using more data. While some people do that, not everyone will.

 

Those who won't, will make Verizon more money based on the perceived value in contrast to the other plans. At the very least, a very limited time unlimited everything promotion of $150 per individual line, would make for an interesting experiment. To protect the network, no tethering allowed at all with this and no added option for it.

[dedub]

Mark my words sprint will go to all plans being unlimited 2g data with throttling after your high speed bucket runs out.

 

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

If they do, there is not much point in staying with sprint, with ostensibly better coverage/network elsewhere for the same or similar type of plan/price.

[Paynefanbro]

If they do, there is not much point in staying with sprint, with ostensibly better coverage/network elsewhere for the same or similar type of plan/price.

 

Wait. I'm confused. You think that if sprint got rid of overages, they'd lose customers? I feel like Sprint's best bet is to eliminate overages but offer the opportunity to pay per GB for more high speed usage.

[dedub]

No, I think if they turn unlimited plans into 2g unlimited + buckets, then there will be no point in staying with sprint.

 

If you're already on a bucket plan and they add 2g unlimited, that would be a bonus.

 

Of course if unlimited '2g' is equivalent to 1x speeds, then that really isn't worth squat can you can't do much of anything on a 1x connection.

 

If unlimited 2g is equivalent to unloaded cdma speeds (1-3 megs), then that would be at least worth using.

 

In any case, if any throttled plan amounts to basically un-usable speed (aka ATT/TMO throttling), then there is no point.

[cortney]

Yes, but now are the days of deprioritizing unlimited data, no longer the days of full throttling. Verizon chose to completely end its throttling, and unlike its closest competitor, AT&T, Verizon isn't deprioritizing data. 

 

That doesn't make Verizon superior in any way shape or form. Being the only carrier without a proper deprioritization policy (for at least unlimited users), VZW can and will feel the heat in and outside of the seemingly good looking urban areas.

 

T-Mobile was forced to deploy a deprioritization policy. It was found to help. The magentans and press OK'd it because it was T-Mobile. AT&T finally deployed a realistic 22GB policy for their remaining postpaid unlimited users, and they throttle only at congested towers. That was good, but all the VZW and T-Mobile fanboys slandered it. Likewise, at least some here awaited and were happy to hear Sprint implemented a deprioritization policy. It will surely help the performance of the current Sprint network as NV upgrades are finishing (on time) and the coming wave of NGN improvements begin. And of course, the opposing fanboys slandered it. 

 

At least I do not want to see the removal of this policy from Sprint, or from any of the 3 carriers intelligent enough to deploy and maintain this common sense policy. Even if NGN were to make Sprint practically the second biggest, it should be here to stay. If one needs more than 23GB without any possible stipulations, then seriously find a different means. 

[Dkoellerwx]

 

If you're already on a bucket plan and they add 2g unlimited, that would be a bonus.

 

 

This is how I understood the post. Not making changes to unlimited plans.

[RedSpark]

Glad to see Sprint is on the leading edge when it comes to supporting the advanced features of iOS, but also for an innovative way to always have the latest iPhone.

 

Marcelo's really pushing the iPhone as far as it can go on Sprint! I'm glad he was able to smooth over the relationship with Apple. Per Marcelo's comments in the Kansas City Star (November 2014):

Claure has said he spent his first day on the job flying to Apple’s headquarters to meet with CEO Tim Cook because Sprint’s relationship with the iPhone company was “pretty damaged.”

Now there's: "iPhone Forever"....

Now there's Band 41 Carrier Aggregation and Band 12 support...

Now there's enhanced WiFi Calling and Single Number Support.

From what I can tell, Brightstar basically runs Apple's trade-in program and it can turnaround Sprint's devices from the "Forever" Program,

And lastly... Sprint Zone's substantial redesign for iOS (Yeah, it's been a while since it was done, but hey, I'll take it, and it works pretty well!)

 

Great work Marcelo and Sprint people! You've come a long way!

[Rocket87]

This is how I understood the post. Not making changes to unlimited plans.

Im not sure what that guy was reading. All i meant was getting rid of overages on tiered plans.

 

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

That doesn't make Verizon superior in any way shape or form. Being the only carrier without a proper deprioritization policy (for at least unlimited users), VZW can and will feel the heat in and outside of the seemingly good looking urban areas.

 

T-Mobile was forced to deploy a deprioritization policy. It was found to help. The magentans and press OK'd it because it was T-Mobile. AT&T finally deployed a realistic 22GB policy for their remaining postpaid unlimited users, and they throttle only at congested towers. That was good, but all the VZW and T-Mobile fanboys slandered it. Likewise, at least some here awaited and were happy to hear Sprint implemented a deprioritization policy. It will surely help the performance of the current Sprint network as NV upgrades are finishing (on time) and the coming wave of NGN improvements begin. And of course, the opposing fanboys slandered it.

 

At least I do not want to see the removal of this policy from Sprint, or from any of the 3 carriers intelligent enough to deploy and maintain this common sense policy. Even if NGN were to make Sprint practically the second biggest, it should be here to stay. If one needs more than 23GB without any possible stipulations, then seriously find a different means.

Courtney, from reading your past posts, I know you and I both are not huge fans of John Legere. He made it so he brought his network's congestion issues upon himself because of his comments to his "fans". T-Mobile ended up being the first carrier to deploy deprioritization for the very reason of its own consequences.

 

Unfortunately, some of the victims of those consequences, people who bought into what John Legere falsely offered them, decided to migrate over to Sprint and now, Sprint has enacted this deprioritization policy too, when Sprint never had to do this before. While I understand the necessity of it now that the Sprint network has those people from T-Mobile over on its network, it now is placed upon longstanding Sprint customers once they upgrade their device. It is unfair to them and it all spans back to John Legere.

 

Yes, there are those who use way more data on their devices than they need. However, it was John Legere who made that all acceptable, which now is affecting Sprint, AT&T is just doing the deprioritization policy because they can, not that they really need to. Verizon could too, but they don't. Deprioritization is unfair, especially when there are better ways to manage network congestion.

 

An intelligent speed management system is one idea, but at this point, perhaps it's better to eliminate unlimited data altogether. Have affordable per gb data rates between $1 per gb and $3 per gb, which would be affordable to all, except for those already using more data than they need. I have another idea I'll post in the T-Mobile thread soon.

[reedacus25]

He made it so he brought his network's congestion issues upon himself because of his comments to his "fans". T-Mobile ended up being the first carrier to deploy deprioritization for the very reason of its own consequences.

 

Unfortunately, some of the victims of those consequences, people who bought into what John Legere falsely offered them, decided to migrate over to Sprint and now, Sprint has enacted this deprioritization policy too, when Sprint never had to do this before. While I understand the necessity of it now that the Sprint network has those people from T-Mobile over on its network, it now is placed upon longstanding Sprint customers once they upgrade their device. It is unfair to them and it all spans back to John Legere.

 

Yes, there are those who use way more data on their devices than they need. However, it was John Legere who made that all acceptable, which now is affecting Sprint, AT&T is just doing the deprioritization policy because they can, not that they really need to. Verizon could too, but they don't. Deprioritization is unfair, especially when there are better ways to manage network congestion.

 

What exactly did John Legere personally do that both caused congestion issues on both the T-Mobile network, and vicariously the Sprint network? The "consequence of his actions" was adding ~20M customers to a network in progress, almost a 2/3 increase in total subscribers.

 

People will abuse anything. Give them an inch, they will take a mile, and then raise a stink when you call them out on it. It sucks for the people who only took a foot or a yard, but one bad apple spoils the whole barrel.

 

To claim this all "spans back to John Legere" is a far fetching conspiracy theory. Sprint has network abusers, just like T-Mobile, ATT, and Verizon.

 

The network has finite resources, and each user pulls from a single resource pool. Just like a buffet restaurant, you can't get a garbage bag and dump tray after tray and the complain when other paying customers want their plate or two or three. Deprioritization is not some evil scheme concocted in a Bellevue office throwing darts at Marcello's face. It is an acceptable means of network management. I understand that you have your own ideas and opinions about how to manage a network, but trust me, there are people much more qualified and knowledgable about this than most everyone in this forum that have that as their job. Guess what non-deprioritized users see for network speeds in congested areas. Bad speeds. That's why it's called congestion. So if there is only 0.5 Mbps to share across a single congested sector, and they drop the deprioritized user to 0.1 Mbps is the difference all that great? Did you not get enough data up to that point already?

 

I understand this is a Sprint forum, I understand Legere isn't everyone's best friend here, but these claims go just a tad beyond reason in my book. This is not a personal attack at you, you have plenty of great posts, I just take issue with the "Legere is the root of all evils" thesis of your post.

[S4GRU]

Personally, I like the deprioritization decision Legere made. Best decision he ever made. It was the right call. No second guesses from me. And it's the right move for Sprint now.

 

Also, I can confirm from some of our friends that it looks like Sprint is internally working on a 2G throttling of tiered plans above their stated limits. Essentially removing overages and making a tiered plans virtually unlimited.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

[Arysyn]

What exactly did John Legere personally do that both caused congestion issues on both the T-Mobile network, and vicariously the Sprint network? The "consequence of his actions" was adding ~20M customers to a network in progress, almost a 2/3 increase in total subscribers.

 

People will abuse anything. Give them an inch, they will take a mile, and then raise a stink when you call them out on it. It sucks for the people who only took a foot or a yard, but one bad apple spoils the whole barrel.

 

To claim this all "spans back to John Legere" is a far fetching conspiracy theory. Sprint has network abusers, just like T-Mobile, ATT, and Verizon.

 

The network has finite resources, and each user pulls from a single resource pool. Just like a buffet restaurant, you can't get a garbage bag and dump tray after tray and the complain when other paying customers want their plate or two or three. Deprioritization is not some evil scheme concocted in a Bellevue office throwing darts at Marcello's face. It is an acceptable means of network management. I understand that you have your own ideas and opinions about how to manage a network, but trust me, there are people much more qualified and knowledgable about this than most everyone in this forum that have that as their job. Guess what non-deprioritized users see for network speeds in congested areas. Bad speeds. That's why it's called congestion. So if there is only 0.5 Mbps to share across a single congested sector, and they drop the deprioritized user to 0.1 Mbps is the difference all that great? Did you not get enough data up to that point already?

 

I understand this is a Sprint forum, I understand Legere isn't everyone's best friend here, but these claims go just a tad beyond reason in my book. This is not a personal attack at you, you have plenty of great posts, I just take issue with the "Legere is the root of all evils" thesis of your post.

I can't blame you or anyone for thinking my posts fault John Legere a bit much and/or unfairly. I think he's overrated for many things, though I have credited him for the good I see him truly do where I believe is unique and unlikely to have been done by anyone else.

 

Also, I credit him for the bad he's done. Although, I realize I shouldn't have made it seem like he was the sole reason for Sprint enacting their deprioritization policy. Yet, I can't help but to think many T-Mobile customers who were convinced by John Legere's open encouragement of heavy unlimited data usage on the T-Mobile network, left for Sprint after T-Mobile enacted deprioritization, and continued their heavy unlimited data usage on the Sprint network.

 

Surely though, as I should have noted before, not everyone did this, and perhaps some who left T-Mobile for Sprint after T-Mobile enacted deprioritization, may have decided to use less data, out of concern that Sprint might do the same as T-Mobile did, by enacting deprioritization.

 

I realize deprioritization isn't a horrible thing, which certainly there are people who take out too far by comparing it to throttling. My issue with deprioritization is nowhere as severe as that in how I view it, though I believe in other options as better remedies to relieve network congestion.

 

I appreciate the responses I've been engaging here though. It is good to share ideas and opinions on these issues respectfully. I'm also interested in what these new Sprint plans are going to be like.

[JonnygATL]

I agree.

Oh. My. God. Your shortest post ever. I didn't even give you my first born (I'm gay, so, good luck with that). Short. Sweet. Effective (dare I even suggest it?) And to the point. You, my dear sir, are appropriately commended.

#keepitup

[joshuam]

Personally, I like the deprioritization decision Legere made. Best decision he ever made. It was the right call. No second guesses from me. And it's the right move for Sprint now.

 

Also, I can confirm from some of our friends that it looks like Sprint is internally working on a 2G throttling of tiered plans above their stated limits. Essentially removing overages and making a tiered plans virtually unlimited.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

Smart move to get rid of overages. It is a BIG differentiating factor between the duopoly.

[dedub]

Mark my words sprint will go to all plans being unlimited 2g data with throttling after your high speed bucket runs out.

 

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

 

Im not sure what that guy was reading. All i meant was getting rid of overages on tiered plans.

 

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

I was just going by the "all plans". To me, this implied that you were saying 'all plans' were going to be converted to unlimited 2g + buckets (or would be the only new plans going forward).

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[Arysyn]

Oh. My. God. Your shortest post ever. I didn't even give you my first born (I'm gay, so, good luck with that). Short. Sweet. Effective (dare I even suggest it?) And to the point. You, my dear sir, are appropriately commended.

#keepitup

I will try! ☺

[Arysyn]

Smart move to get rid of overages. It is a BIG differentiating factor between the duopoly.

I don't mind overages, as long as they were sensible, say $5 per gb or less. However, the current overage rates on carriers is way overpriced at $15 per gb.

[Ascertion]

I did a speedtests on my dad's phone and it looks like Sprint has activated their full 120Mhz in CA!

 

Sent from my MotoG3