Sprint to enforce roaming data limits, send SMS notifications

[lafester]

Problem is when you are in good coverage area yet still end up roaming for whatever reason. Sprint should really eat the cost in those situations.

[S4GRU]

Problem is when you are in good coverage area yet still end up roaming for whatever reason. Sprint should really eat the cost in those situations.

Nope. Sprint may not be the best solution to people who frequent those areas. You guys need to find the best provider for you. Sprint doesn't need to eat anything. And if they lose more customers than what they figured, they may decide to take another approach.

 

My guess is that even if they go back to the more generous roaming management because of backlash, it would be only temporary. Masa would focus on areas with high roaming usage and add service. And then just go back to the hard line roaming management.

 

Sprint does need to stop giving money to Verizon in fist fulls. Sprint is likely Verizon's biggest single customer. The CCA/RRPP is the best way to do it. They just need to get that instituted yesterday. I'm pretty sure voice fallback issues are the hold up. Then Sprint can focus on infill and expansion of service in areas currently not covered by Sprint and CCA/RRPP members.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

[WiWavelength]

Problem is when you are in good coverage area yet still end up roaming for whatever reason. Sprint should really eat the cost in those situations.

 

That level of tracking is not feasible.  Sorry.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

On the old plans, it was a soft limit of 300MB...  On the new plans it's a hard limit of 100MB with prices for overage..  Most of the time it's no big deal except when going into the country... Will then have to turn off roaming data to keep it from grinding away....

 

And on previous plans, it is now a hard limit of 300 MB, which is a large amount of mobile data, despite what anyone may say to the contrary.

 

In conclusion, I am not sure if many of you are just penny pinchers or if I am a spendthrift.  But if I were on a 100 MB roaming allotment, which is also a significant amount of mobile data, I would not "turn off roaming data" or worry in the least about accruing some roaming overages a couple of times per year.

 

First, I would rest assured that any roaming overage charges would be capped at $50.  No one should sweat $50 as "bill shock."  Anyone who does is overextended.

 

Second, I would realize that I am saving substantial money every month with Sprint, far more than offsetting any roaming overage charges once or twice per year.  If not, then I would recognize that I am with the wrong wireless provider and find a different solution.

 

AJ

[AppleFanBoy]

And on previous plans, it is now a hard limit of 300 MB, which is a large amount of mobile data, despite what anyone may say to the contrary.

 

In conclusion, I am not sure if many of you are just penny pinchers or if I am a spendthrift.  But if I were on a 100 MB roaming allotment, which is also a significant amount of mobile data, I would not "turn off roaming data" or worry in the least about accruing some roaming overages a couple of times per year.

 

First, I would rest assured that any roaming overage charges would be capped at $50.  No one should sweat $50 as "bill shock."  Anyone who does is overextended.

 

Second, I would realize that I am saving substantial money every month with Sprint, far more than offsetting any roaming overage charges once or twice per year.  If not, then I would recognize that I am with the wrong wireless provider and find a different solution.

 

AJ

 

I tend to agree with most of your responses to posts but this time I do not.

 

"Bill shock" is not necessarily related to your monthly income.  If you were on a say a $45 plan and all the sudden your roaming charge is more than your base plan cost, I would say that would be shocking.

 

As well, to claim that on one hand a $50 extra charge is not substantial and on the other hand state that $10 - $20 a month savings is sounds contradictory to me.

 

That's just my opinion.

[WiWavelength]

I tend to agree with most of your responses to posts but this time I do not.

 

"Bill shock" is not necessarily related to your monthly income.  If you were on a say a $45 plan and all the sudden your roaming charge is more than your base plan cost, I would say that would be shocking.

 

As well, to claim that on one hand a $50 extra charge is not substantial and on the other hand state that $10 - $20 a month savings is sounds contradictory to me.

 

That's just my opinion.

 

Okay, let me rebut your response.

 

"Bill shock," in your provided example, may not be related to income.  Instead, it would pertain to customer ignorance -- since the change in roaming policies has been announced and amended to the Ts and Cs.  The base monthly plan cost is irrelevant.

 

A $50/mo roaming overage charge is the maximum.  Plenty of users will roam while accruing only minimal or even no additional charges.

 

A $20/mo savings, for instance, amounts to $240/yr.  That offsets over four months of maximum possible roaming overage charges.

 

But anyone who regularly racks up roaming overage charges, especially at the maximum level, is probably not a good fit for Sprint and should find a different wireless provider.

 

AJ

[AppleFanBoy]

Okay, let me rebut your response.

 

"Bill shock," in your provided example, may not be related to income.  Instead, it would pertain to customer ignorance -- since the change in roaming policies has been announced and amended to the Ts and Cs.  The base monthly plan cost is irrelevant.

 

A $50/mo roaming overage charge is the maximum.  Plenty of users will roam while accruing only minimal or even no additional charges.

 

A $20/mo savings, for instance, amounts to $240/yr.  That offsets over four months of maximum possible roaming overage charges.

 

But anyone who regularly racks up roaming overage charges, especially at the maximum level, is probably not a good fit for Sprint and should find a different wireless provider.

 

AJ

 

I don't disagree that someone who is spending any extra on roaming charges should reevaluate their provider.

 

And I guess I'm coming at this at the wrong angle since I'm on an old plan where there is a hard cap and no overage charge.

 

However $50 overage charge, regardless of maximum or not, would be a shock to me.

[swintec]

Well, Sprint told us when this plan came out that those on 100 meg or 300 meg roaming options would be cut off at 300 and those on 100 would pay overages from 100-300.

 

I knew the second i read it that they obviously can not cut a user off at 300 megs simply due to reporting delays.  We had the first example up thread.  He was cut off at just above 300 megs....almost 2 weeks AFTER the roaming occurred.

 

So...are roaming overages ACTUALLY capped at $50 in a month or is the marketing department not understanding how the accounting works and they think the roam cut off will be near real time so no one will be able to go over 300 megs?

 

In other words, will charges actually be levied for those users who undoubtedly go over the 300 megs due to the delays of reporting?  Was the $50 cap simply said with wishful thinking on how the whole process works?

 

Also, what good are the text notifications at different %'s when it takes days for usage to update? Someone could be at 200% of their allotment before they even get notification that they are 80% there.

 

Lastly, will people still be canceled if they roam to much?  Majority of their usage, etc like old times or does this replace the previous stipulations?  What if you end up with a gig of roaming this month?

 

Those on 100 meg plans who foresee themselves paying the $50 that month might as well go for broke and hit it hard.

[S4GRU]

Well, Sprint told us when this plan came out that those on 100 meg or 300 meg roaming options would be cut off at 300 and those on 100 would pay overages from 100-300.

 

I knew the second i read it that they obviously can not cut a user off at 300 megs simply due to reporting delays. We had the first example up thread. He was cut off at just above 300 megs....almost 2 weeks AFTER the roaming occurred.

 

So...are roaming overages ACTUALLY capped at $50 in a month or is the marketing department not understanding how the accounting works and they think the roam cut off will be near real time so no one will be able to go over 300 megs?

 

In other words, will charges actually be levied for those users who undoubtedly go over the 300 megs due to the delays of reporting? Was the $50 cap simply said with wishful thinking on how the whole process works?

 

Also, what good are the text notifications at different %'s when it takes days for usage to update? Someone could be at 200% of their allotment before they even get notification that they are 80% there.

 

Lastly, will people still be canceled if they roam to much? Majority of their usage, etc like old times or does this replace the previous stipulations? What if you end up with a gig of roaming this month?

 

Those on 100 meg plans who foresee themselves paying the $50 that month might as well go for broke and hit it hard.

He has a 300MB roaming limit and was shut off at 300MB. Even though he was able to use more, his account says he only used 300MB. So obviously they aren't charging him more, otherwise his usage would be higher than 300MB. Your question has been already answered essentially.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[TheForce627]

I guess it was smart to move away from contracts as this might've been a way to get out.

[S4GRU]

I guess it was smart to move away from contracts as this might've been a way to get out.

Not likely. The roaming limits are the same. They just now are enforcing them essentially. There are people on contracts affected now. I doubt Sprint will let them out because they want to roam more.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[TheForce627]

Not likely. The roaming limits are the same. They just now are enforcing them essentially. There are people on contracts affected now. I doubt Sprint will let them out because they want to roam more.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Wouldn't the new charge be a change of terms though?

[travismheim]

I would prefer the option to disable data roaming automatically once I hit 100MB to avoid overage, but in the grand scheme of things $50 isn't that much. It would suck if every line on my account managed to hit the max on a family vacation but I don't see that ever happening.

 

To those that are really concerned, what are you doing on your phone while roaming that's racking up that much data? Several music streaming apps can cache music locally ahead of time such as google play, Spotify etc. Or you can store music on internal memory. You can store a fairly large area in maps for offline use, or download a full fledged GPS app like TomTom. Or better yet, buy a stand alone GPS, you can pick up a 4" garmin for around $100 now and it's going to work a lot easier than a phone.

 

If you're in a native Sprint coverage area and having network problems, this obviously isn't directed at you. If you constantly go to areas that provide no native service, you would be better off finding a provider that better fits your usage needs. I go in and out of roaming areas every day for work, but I manage to keep my roaming data way down. 100MB goes a long way if you can plan ahead, I rarely use more than 10-20MB while roaming in a month.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

Wouldn't the new charge be a change of terms though?

Sprint reserves the right to change the terms. And this would not even be a 'material' change since roaming limits have always been stated in plans. They are just choosing to enforce them and charge people who exceed the stated terms. People used to be able to exceed their plans. Now they can't exceed 300MB. And 100MB plans will pay for every MB the use over 100 until they reach 300MB.

 

They always could charge or shut people off for exceeding their roaming limits. Nothing really new here but enforcement.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[swintec]

Even though he was able to use more, his account says he only used 300MB. So obviously they aren't charging him more, otherwise his usage would be higher than 300MB.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

oops...should have done the math.

 

i still wonder if they really wont take action on someone that slams through a bunch of gigs

[shockerengr]

Sprint reserves the right to change the terms. And this would not even be a 'material' change since roaming limits have always been stated in plans. They are just choosing to enforce them and charge people who exceed the stated terms. People used to be able to exceed their plans. Now they can't exceed 300MB. And 100MB plans will pay for every MB the use over 100 until they reach 300MB.

 

They always could charge or shut people off for exceeding their roaming limits. Nothing really new here but enforcement.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

the charge part is what's frustrating because Sprint has never defined what happened when you went over (because the never really did anything unless you used way too much)

 

$.25 a meg is a bit ridiculous though

[WiWavelength]

the charge part is what's frustrating because Sprint has never defined what happened when you went over (because the never really did anything unless you used way too much)

That ambiguity was not necessarily a bad thing. Many people exceeded their roaming quotas, were subject to termination, but skated by on Sprint largesse.

 

$.25 a meg is a bit ridiculous though

Somebody has to pay for those who routinely have substantial roaming usage but not enough to accrue actual roaming charges.  Roaming overages may be a way to balance that ledger. 

 

AJ

[tommym65]

And the fact is that, as Sprint's network approaches completion, the need to roam will progressively be reduced.  I have disabled roaming on all 5 of my phones, and not a single family member has threatened me with great physical or mental harm (beyond what they already inflict).  Yes, I know that I live in a very complete market.  But I do travel significantly, and recently have not had too much data difficulty on Sprint.  Plus, the situation is improving daily for markets which have not yet been completed.

 

And, at the risk of offending those who live/travel there, many of the areas where Sprint is absent (thus, where roaming is necessary) would not be profitable for Sprint to cover.  As many others have said, if these areas are critical to you, another vendor might be a better choice than Sprint.

[joshnys8913]

For me and the family its not complex. They leave the roaming off unless they are in a situation that they need it in. If they have to use it, it would be minimum. If I left the roaming on it would text me on and off during the day as I go in and out of roaming areas, if it would to warn me each time I was in a roaming area.

I am with you I keep mine off too, unless I know ill be in a area where I know ill need it.  Other then that I never need to use it. 

[Yuhfhrh]

I'm just thankful Sprint has kept us old users grandfathered in at 300MB.

[JeffDTD]

Anyone who is bitching about limited roaming should consider writing the FCC or their senator and demand more reasonable roaming rates from the big 2. They both have excess capacity to share in many pockets of their networks and demand ransom prices out of greed and fear

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[shockerengr]

That ambiguity was not necessarily a bad thing. Many people exceeded their roaming quotas, were subject to termination, but skated by on Sprint largesse.

 

Somebody has to pay for those who routinely have substantial roaming usage but not enough to accrue actual roaming charges.  Roaming overages may be a way to balance that ledger. 

 

AJ

 

If Sprint is needing roaming overages to balance the ledger then the outlook for the company is looking dimmer.  While you like to characterize roaming usage as an option for folks, it's just as much an option and business decision for Sprint - balancing the needs of customers with the footprint of the network.  I find it ironic that a the native network gets more robust (I rarely bounce to roaming in native coverage anymore unless deep in some metal buildings and on repeaters for other providers) and the footprint for non-roaming coverage has shrunk in recent years (see KS now vs a few years ago) Sprint decides to clamp down on roaming.

 

It's pretty annoying to go on a roadtrip and spend 3 days on the interstate system stuck with 1x coverage - say what you want about customers and "misplaced" expectations, but I'm of the opinion that clamping down ahead of getting the new rural agreements in place is a bad business move for a company with a long disparaged network.

[S4GRU]

If Sprint is needing roaming overages to balance the ledger then the outlook for the company is looking dimmer.  While you like to characterize roaming usage as an option for folks, it's just as much an option and business decision for Sprint - balancing the needs of customers with the footprint of the network.  I find it ironic that a the native network gets more robust (I rarely bounce to roaming in native coverage anymore unless deep in some metal buildings and on repeaters for other providers) and the footprint for non-roaming coverage has shrunk in recent years (see KS now vs a few years ago) Sprint decides to clamp down on roaming.

 

It's pretty annoying to go on a roadtrip and spend 3 days on the interstate system stuck with 1x coverage - say what you want about customers and "misplaced" expectations, but I'm of the opinion that clamping down ahead of getting the new rural agreements in place is a bad business move for a company with a long disparaged network.

 

Sprint's voice and SMS roaming is very generous.  However, their data roaming is limited to 100 or 300MB by plan.  If you need more, then I think it's a strong indicator that Sprint may not be the best carrier for you.

 

I know we all want more roaming.  It would be nice.  But Sprint says they can't afford to offer it anymore beyond what people paid for (100 or 300MB).  If you can't live with that, I think you should show them what you think about it by leaving.  Enough people do that, they'll get the message.  But the truth is, almost none of them are going to leave.  And that's why Sprint decided to do it.  Otherwise, Tmo would be out of business.  Very little domestic data roaming and EDGE speeds in so much of the country.

 

It's a straight up business decision.  And it will be another factor in deciding which provider is best for customers.  People just will do what they gotta do.

 

Robert

[bretton88]

Could sprint open up rrpp coverage as evdo native now? It would seem to expand the native footprint nicely while waiting on the member carriers to deploy LTE.

[S4GRU]

Could sprint open up rrpp coverage as evdo native now? It would seem to expand the native footprint nicely while waiting on the member carriers to deploy LTE.

We really have no idea what the progress and complexities of the RRPP deals are. But a lot of the RRPP members do not have CDMA networks.