Unlimited Data/Congestion Solution, Questions About Wideband

[Jeff68005]

Since you mention Chicago specifically, here is an independent comparison between four providers done in Chicago last summer: http://blog.laptopmag.com/fastest-4g-lte-chicago

Sprint's answer to your question may be here: http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-turns-up-the-volume-on-3g-and-4g-lte-in-chicago.htm

Sprint's coverage map makes me say "It depends on where in Chicagoland you are." See their coverage map: http://coverage.sprint.com/IMPACT.jsp?ECID=vanity:coverage

 

Since you are a S4GRU Premier Sponsor, I may refer you to the following threads specific to the Chicago area.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/1084-network-visionlte-chicago-market/?hl=illinois

and

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/5831-chicago-nv-20-progress-permits-etc/

and

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6471-chicagoland-market-20-premier-spreadsheet-map/

[Arysyn]

Alright finally got my Nexus 6 and service with Sprint all setup and doing very well!

 

I'm getting a near constant full bars on LTE, and am waiting a few minutes to get Signal Check Pro, as recommended to me by people here on S4GRU. I'm also getting a minimum of 9 Mbps indoors, which is important...

 

Just got Signal Check Pro. How do I get the image of it here on S$GRU... I'd like to show the screenshot of it here, just that I don't know how to do so yet.

 

Anyways, I figure to make it easier, I'm going to post my congestion ideas and rate plan ideas together on this thread, as I've discovered it is nearly impossible to separate them after all. I'll disregard the other Unlimited Data thread I made, unless someone decides to post something relevant there that isn't as much so here.

 

My idea begins with having a speed cap, in helping to relieve congestion. Actually, it isn't exactly my idea, as it has been mentioned before by others, but since I happen to agree with them, I'll integrate the concept with my own strategies.

 

The speed cap I'm proposing, is 30 mbps/15 mbps Audio/Video maximum download speeds for everyone, decreasing down to 15 mbps/15 mbps Audio/Video typical download speeds, then decreasing down to 9 mbps/9 mbps Audio/Video minimum download speeds, when the network is congested. I realize that sounds like a high minimum Audio/Video download speed, in contrast to what is needed for an HD download, being 3 mbps. However, I'm considering minimum speeds necessary for 4k downloads as well, assuming those need anywhere between 6 mbps to 9 mbps minimum download speeds. I think everyone ought to have minimum working download speeds, even in congestion, as wireless networks ought to be able to handle this at the minimum, especially considering how landline networks already are becoming way ahead of what is minimally necessary.

 

Upload speeds ought to be at least 3 mbps, even in congestion, though I'm not as aware of what is necessary for upload speeds, as I am with download speeds. However, 3 mbps is what I've heard is a decent minimal speed, so I'll leave it at that.

 

I'm still going to look into the personal cell idea, as I stated earlier. I'm already well into the thought of personalization when it comes to service and the idea of unshared data, both the data itself and the speeds of it, as I'm against the idea of people having data prioritization over others, which if the data speeds need to be shared, then having everyone on an equal level of speed seems best, even if it has to lower the speeds for everyone.

 

My rate plan idea will reflect this, as I'm eliminating the concept of shared data. I'll be posting that here soon... 

[avb]

My idea begins with having a speed cap, in helping to relieve congestion. Actually, it isn't exactly my idea, as it has been mentioned before by others, but since I happen to agree with them, I'll integrate the concept with my own strategies.

 

The speed cap I'm proposing, is 30 mbps/15 mbps Audio/Video maximum download speeds for everyone, decreasing down to 15 mbps/15 mbps Audio/Video typical download speeds, then decreasing down to 9 mbps/9 mbps Audio/Video minimum download speeds, when the network is congested. I realize that sounds like a high minimum Audio/Video download speed, in contrast to what is needed for an HD download, being 3 mbps. However, I'm considering minimum speeds necessary for 4k downloads as well, assuming those need anywhere between 6 mbps to 9 mbps minimum download speeds. I think everyone ought to have minimum working download speeds, even in congestion, as wireless networks ought to be able to handle this at the minimum, especially considering how landline networks already are becoming way ahead of what is minimally necessary.

 

Upload speeds ought to be at least 3 mbps, even in congestion, though I'm not as aware of what is necessary for upload speeds, as I am with download speeds. However, 3 mbps is what I've heard is a decent minimal speed, so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

When the network is congested speeds will already decrease below what you're proposing.  You're asking to put an artificial cap on speeds.  What good is a 30mb/s or 9mb/s speedcap if you're in a congested area averaging 1-2 mb/s?  Any time the speeds are above whatever you're proposing means the network isn't congested and can handle the traffic, so why put in an artificial limit?  

[dedub]

Think of network bandwidth like a collection of different size pipes that are flowing at different speeds to different places.

 

 

On any section of pipe of the same size, (assuming no 'network management prioritization') all users using that section of pipe equally share the total capacity of that pipe.

 

So, for example, if the flow of a segment of pipe is 100 (doesn't matter if its kbs, mbs, or whatever).

 

1 user can use up to 100 of that pipe.

 

a 2nd user starts using the pipe, now they are both at 50.

 

when a 3rd person starts using the pipe they all 3 at 33.

 

4th, all 4 are at 25.

 

and so on

 

except in longer duration streaming or downloading cases, network traffic is often in bursts.

 

You load a web page, it downloads the pages content in a few seconds and stops using the network until a reload or click another page.

 

In this manner dozens or hundreds of people can all share a pipe, get reasonable speed the majority of the time, until at some point the number of people simultaneously trying to use the pipe overwhelms it and the speed drops to a fraction of the total.

 

So if 100 people are using that 100 pipe, you are obviously down to 1 per person, instead of the 20+ when only a few are using it.

 

It is impossible for 1 person to 'hog all the bandwidth', because the user has no control over the priority of their stream, and they can't 'steal' your portion of the pipe, they simply get the total of the stream divided by the number of users, so the portion get smaller the more people that are sharing.

 

Where 'hogging' comes more in to play is with lots of people using the pipe for longer periods of time.

 

It's like when an airplane or hotel is over booked.

 

No one can hog an airplane or hotel, however they can certainly overstay their welcome.

[S4GRU]

 

 

No one can hog an airplane or hotel, however they can certainly overstay their welcome.

And if the airline had unlimited tickets and the hotel had unlimited nights stays, many more would overstay their welcome.

 

Using Moto X² on Tapatalk

[dedub]

Airlines and hotels do have unlimited tickets and stays. They may not have unlimited tickets PER PLANE, or unlimited rooms PER HOTEL, they most often have multiple PLANES and/or HOTELS at a different time and/or location.

 

Assuming one wants to continuously buy hotel rooms and plane tickets, the hotel/airplane will most certainly accommodate them in most cases.

 

Unless someone else has already bought the last room/seat *on a particular plane/hotel*, and ergo they become overbooked/oversubscribed. 

 

Now if you were trying to imply that 1 person could (or could not) buy all the seats or the rooms, well depending on the person (or company), that can and very well does happen too.

[Arysyn]

I didn't realize network congestion made speeds that low. I figured prioritization speeds getting that low were an oversteep preventative measure against certain customers, hence all of the recent complaints about it regarding T-Mobile. Many people have said they'd be fine with a speed cap of 9 mbps during those times, which is why I figured that, along with my estimates on minimum data speeds necessary for certain data usage.

 

I might get some complaints for saying this, but I think if a network gets that bad during congestion where people are getting around 1 mbps or less, than that is a real problem that needs to be resolved by building a better network in those areas. With technology advancing as it is, I just don't believe that is acceptable.

 

I agree with the comments regarding the unlimited issue, which is why I believe in having a happy resolve in converting over from unlimited plans to data plans, even though I personally like unlimited and don't want to see it go over to high expense gb data plans, but rather something more reasonable, along with a reasonable speed cap, to better manage networks. As I'm not a network technician, I can't really give more technical ideas to resolve congestion issues, though I'd like to learn more about it so I can give some sort of more technical solutions for it.

[dedub]

Building a network is a lot like building in las vegas.

 

When a casino or hotel gets too full, they build another.

 

When a casino or hotel gets too empty or unprofitable, they tear it down and build whatever is currently too full.

 

When 100 people are trying to share a 100-rated pipe, and 1 per person is not sufficient, then they build a bigger pipe. maybe a 200 pipe, or maybe a 1000 pipe.

[Dkoellerwx]

Anyways, I figure to make it easier, I'm going to post my congestion ideas and rate plan ideas together on this thread, as I've discovered it is nearly impossible to separate them after all. I'll disregard the other Unlimited Data thread I made, unless someone decides to post something relevant there that isn't as much so here.

 

Topics merged. 

[S4GRU]

Airlines and hotels do have unlimited tickets and stays. They may not have unlimited tickets PER PLANE, or unlimited rooms PER HOTEL, they most often have multiple PLANES and/or HOTELS at a different time and/or location.

 

Assuming one wants to continuously buy hotel rooms and plane tickets, the hotel/airplane will most certainly accommodate them in most cases.

 

Unless someone else has already bought the last room/seat *on a particular plane/hotel*, and ergo they become overbooked/oversubscribed.

 

Now if you were trying to imply that 1 person could (or could not) buy all the seats or the rooms, well depending on the person (or company), that can and very well does happen too.

Oh God, you are not going to use a horribly inaccurate and weak unlimited airline ticket and hotel stays (which do not exist anywhere in the freaking world) as your basis? I will just claim victory now if that's your supposition.

 

And it will save us the heartache that will ensue if I try to argue and reason with the poor analogy. We have been down this unlimited road before, I know how it ends. And I like you now, so I just don't even want to go there.

 

Now I think I'm going to go celebrate Cinco de Mayo. It falls on Taco Tuesday this year. ¡Ole!

 

Using Moto X² on Tapatalk

 

[Arysyn]

Building a network is a lot like building in las vegas.

 

When a casino or hotel gets too full, they build another.

 

When a casino or hotel gets too empty or unprofitable, they tear it down and build whatever is currently too full.

 

When 100 people are trying to share a 100-rated pipe, and 1 per person is not sufficient, then they build a bigger pipe. maybe a 200 pipe, or maybe a 1000 pipe.

 

I agree with this, dedub.

 

My thinking along this line, is this...

 

If a hotel frequently gets full, sometimes even gets overbooked, hotels won't tell their frequent guests who take advantage of their services so often they also end up often using points for discounts, especially when hotels raise their rates on evenings where their hotel is more full, yet even still, the hotel will never tell these guests they have to share a room with other guests, as they've been deprioritized for too many stays/too many points.

 

Rather, a hotel will just try sending those overbooked guests to other hotels, which a similar act won't happen in the wireless industry, at least until there is more synchronization, possibly less competition. 

[Arysyn]

Currently, I'm reading an article about 4k video streaming bitrates, and how Netflix's 4k video streams around 15mbps, which is higher than the 9mbps I had been assuming it would be, based on my assumption that the 4k streaming rate would be only a few times more than the streaming rate for 1080p video streaming.

 

However, I'm now figuring that a great per gb data rate plan to replace unlimited plans, would need to have a speed cap on data streaming, in order to provide a reasonable rate conversion for consumers over to per gb data rate plans from unlimited plans, as the big issue for many unlimited data users is the high expense of data and the limited amount given for the cost. Surely enough, the companies need a good reason to do this in keeping these customers, which involves the companies having a way to prevent congestion issues, since they claim data caps provide (even though I don't believe that, other than in scaring consumers from using much data due to high cost. Speed caps on data streaming are a great way in helping to reduce congestion issues, as I've mentioned before.

 

However, my ideas for what those speed caps might be, have altered since my earlier posts here in this thread, among other posts I've made here on S4GRU mentioning the 9mbps theory. Before I begin to be called "Mr. 9mbps" here on S4GRU, for mentioning the data speed so often, I'm going to change that data speed to match what I've said would be a good typical speed, that being 15mbps. I'll also mention that while it has been told to me that typical data speeds during congestion are often much slower than 15mbps, or even 9mbps, I'm considering minimum speeds needed for what eventually in the very near future (not the distant future) will be typical usage activities, such as 4k video streaming. Not that I'm advocating for heavy, data intensive usage of it, but the occasional 4k video stream ought to be handled by 4k data networks well enough, even during congestion. After all, youtube already has 4k streaming on their site, which I've heard their new vp9, will reduce bandwidth requirements.

 

Hopefully the speeds needed for seamless 4k streaming will go down to at least 9mbps, or less, though I can't imagine a tolerable speed of any less than 3mbps for it. Although, seeing as 3mbps is the speed needed for 1080p to run smoothly, I'll say that in any such plan I might imagine with a speed cap, 3mbps should be the minimal speed, while 15mbps be not only the typical speed, but the maximum speed as well, giving congestion relief and a good tradeoff for less expensive data per gb, that I believe most unlimited data users would be satisfied with.

 

Anyways, I'll have my rate plan in detail ready to post here by this Friday.

[Vince]

I might get some complaints for saying this, but I think if a network gets that bad during congestion where people are getting around 1 mbps or less, than that is a real problem that needs to be resolved by building a better network in those areas. With technology advancing as it is, I just don't believe that is acceptable.

It's a problem that will never go away. In fact, it's just going to continually get worse as smartphone content grows and grows. LTE is a shared medium. Spectrum is limited, and backhaul is, too. Providers can only build so many sites, and expand their spectrum holdings in a particular place so much. It eventually hits a wall. Smart cellular consumers have to know this, and accept it to an extent. If I'm at a football game with 35,000 people, and get pissed because I can't load up an HD video, then I'm uneducated.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

[travismheim]

Why would you need to stream UHD content to a phone? That's ridiculous as is adding speed caps. The network will manage itself, by capping speeds you lose out on efficiency if the network has available capacity that isn't being used.

[EvanA]

Is Chicago one of those markets?

Yes.  

 

There are very few markets where Sprint does not have enough BRS/EBS to run 3 band 41 carriers.

[Arysyn]

Why would you need to stream UHD content to a phone? That's ridiculous as is adding speed caps. The network will manage itself, by capping speeds you lose out on efficiency if the network has available capacity that isn't being used.

Hi Travis,

 

Personally, I have no need to stream uhd content on a wireless device regularly, just for a once in a while deal, which I won't do until a 4k device is available, something which might be available in just a year or two, which at that time, there will be many people wanting to do this, so the networks need to be ready to handle this. Since there will be a demand for it greater than my occasional use, one of the companies at least will prepare for this, as I imagine more than that will, such as Verizon and AT&T, who both stand to gain a lot of money made from data for this, which at that point I expect they will lower the per gb data rate enough so people see more value in the data and end up spending more because of it with 4k driving that demand for more data, and making Verizon and AT&T more money.

 

I'm not the only person suggesting speed caps, and far from it. I've read several comments from the various wireless tech sites I visit, calling for it as a way to reduce congestion and give reason to wireless companies to lower the per gb data rate. I've just finalized a rate plan I think will become common in a few years, which would accommodate 4k streaming, be affordable to consumers, yet still profitable for wireless companies who would be able to really sell this to people on current unlimited plans. I've even managed to figure out how these companies could keep unlimited data, but at a much higher monthly rate. I'll be posting that here later tonight, early Saturday morning, and be interested in what people here think of it. However, it will carry a speed cap, as it would be impossible for wireless companies to have the rates I'll be suggesting, while managing their networks properly. I'm thinking along the lines of an enhanced Cricket service, with a futuristic boost to their promotional 20gb advanced plan they had for awhile this year for $60 monthly/$55 monthly with autopay.

 

Edit Note : I neglected one of Travis' points I'm adding here, about the losing out on efficiency if the network capacity isn't being used. I suggest in those cases, a way to have available data speed given equally among users during those times, in a similar but reverse way from how network prioritization works, but done equally among users, unless you or others think it might be better to offer a higher priced option for those to access that privilege, as companies might prefer to be done. I'm only making suggestions to options available for enhanced services available to people, as I see there being a threat to current unlimited plans in media reports I've read. I like unlimited plans nonetheless, and don't want to see them go away, but I'm pretty sure they will from what I've read, which is concerning as there are a lot of people dependant on them, including myself. Current per gb data pricing just isn't a viable solution to many of us unlimited data users.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Arysyn

[travismheim]

I see what you're saying, but artificially limiting speed isn't necessarily going to free up congestion. The only point I see in having speed tiers is to price your product differently as many home ISPs do. Completing a data request and getting the user back to idling is going to be better to clear up congestion.

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[Dkoellerwx]

-snip-

 

Artificially limiting speeds really won't do much to relieve congestion. Once you add several people onto the same site, all using data simultaneously, speeds will drop below that speed cap anyway. The ONLY way to truly relieve congestion is to get people spread out evenly across different LTE bands, and a dense network of sites. 

[Arysyn]

I think wireless carriers need to incorporate all of these ideas into their networks, and giving more choice to consumers through these data plan ideas. Also, I'm very interested in the pcell idea I read about here on S4GRU and would like to think about that as an alternative to traditional means of wireless networking. All need to come together in offering a better solution to giving consumers a data plan, rather than charging them $10+ per gb of data, while in the meantime resolving some of the congestion issues along the way.

[dedub]

Your whole speed cap idea is simply not suited for mobile networks, which by their very nature are entirely VARIABLE in available bandwidth, and the fact that as explained earlier, the network *already* speed caps the users to the (Number_of_Users divided by Amount_of_Bandwidth).

 

There simply is no point to assigning some arbitrary 'speed cap' to mobile, which if done so would either be too high or too low to be of any practical use, and would not help with congestion one single bit.

 

Fixed landline internet, that is typically very static in speed, at least in particular the specific connection between a residence and the ISP, and in which the very concept of speed caps and speed tiers is already in place and prevalent.

[Arysyn]

There are a lot of people calling for a speed cap solution to data plans over wireless, not just me. I happen to agree with them at least on the level of it offering a better rate for people on higher gb amounts, such as what Cricket has done. The network congestion issue I won't defend so much, as I'm certainly not an expert on it and would rather trust the judgement of people here on S4GRU regarding the issue. In theory, I'd tend to think it could help, hence why I mentioned it, if it somehow would provide more bandwidth, as people commenting on behalf of the speed caps have mentioned on the other sites I've seen those comments on, but again, I can't defend that issue properly, so I won't. I'm definitely more interested on the side of pricing, while looking into other more technical ways of resolving congestion, which I've mentioned here that I'm going to look into, then post here about those ideas for review.

[Dkoellerwx]

There are a lot of people calling for a speed cap solution to data plans over wireless, not just me.

 

Can you provide some links? How credible are these folks? As dedub said, speed caps just are not fitted for mobile networks given all the variability that can occur. At least in the sense of relieving congestion. As part of a discount plan (MVNOs), that's a different story. 

[Arysyn]

Can you provide some links? How credible are these folks? As dedub said, speed caps just are not fitted for mobile networks given all the variability that can occur. At least in the sense of relieving congestion. As part of a discount plan (MVNOs), that's a different story. 

 

I read several different websites whenever I look through Google news, under the usual search terms I enter, which are "Verizon", "ATT" and "Sprint", though I don't search for T-Mobile news, as I usually just go to TMoNews for news about T-Mobile. The main websites I look out for are FierceWireless, ArsTechnica, BGR, and one of the many Android-named sites, as those usually have comments. I actually prefer reading news articles where I'm bound to find comments on, as many of them either are more informative than the article, or are more humorous for various reasons, seeing people go into detail defending their positions and such lengths in these comments sections.

 

Now that I know I'm going to be discussing the speedcap issue more, I'll pay more attention to these comments and post links to them here in this thread. I see these comments quite frequently whenever there is an article about a pricing promotion, and sometimes about a network upgrade. The issue of credibility is something I'm unsure of, though some people do seem more knowledgeable in their defenses than others. However, I do value the postings here on S4GRU more than on comment sections, as people here are a part of a knowledge based community where there is a specific network based outlook, alongside the main topic of Sprint network enhancements. Therefore, I believe people's opinions on network related issues more than those commenting on news articles, with the exception of those names I see rather frequently, whom I consider similarly to those here, in terms of network knowledge.

 

Again, I'll link here where I see such comments in the future and such. I look for wireless information practically daily, so I'd imagine it won't be long until I see someone mention the speed cap idea. In the meantime, I'll keep to focusing on the rate plan benefit, as that is my main wireless-based interest, at the moment.

[dedub]

The only time any type of speed cap would reduce 'congestion' is where 1 class of user was speed capped, at lets say 3 megs, and another class of users was uncapped, or lets say has a 10 meg cap.

 

So going back to the theoretical 100 pipe with 10 users;

 

5x users are capped @ 3, so thats = 15 out of 100 accounted for.

 

5x users are capped @ 5, so thats = 25 out of 100 accounted for.

 

added together, that means 40 out of 100 of the available bandwidth is being used.

 

so we have 60 bandwidth completely going to waste, while 10 users are being artificially slowed down, which increases the amount of time it takes to finish whatever it was they were doing.

 

So instead of 10 users each getting 10 each for shorter periods of time, we have 10 users getting their 3 or 5 each, doubling or tripling the potential time it takes to finish and thus increasing their actual 'time on network' drastically. All so we can have an extra 60 bandwidth doing absolutely nothing.

 

But lets quadruple that load;

 

20 people X 3 = 60 out of 100

20 people X 5 = 100 out of 100

 

oops, now we are at 160 out of 100 bandwidth

 

ok ok, the cap only a max speed, not a minimum speed.

 

so now we are back to;

 

100 / 40 = 2.5 each, below both of the speed caps.

 

speed cap solved congestion ? nope

 

oh, but wait there is more.

instead of speed cap, we should use sliding scale speed caps, where 1 group gets proportionally less speed than the other group!

 

or instead we can just do it by priority instead of speed, where 1 group has to sit and wait while group 2 gets to finish what they are doing before group 1 can even start!

[Arysyn]

Thank you for the information, dedub.

 

That makes sense now. I certainly wouldn't want unused network capacity when users are connected being limited, though neither do I like the deprioritization either. Perhaps some sliding scale speed caps might work better, and it could be considered having a higher speed cap for those paying more, as I'd imagine any similar plan done in real world by companies would offer. Though it would be a pain for me to calculate all the price differences between them, so when I post my idea here hopefully later tonight, I'll be sticking to one plan. Hmm... I'll just type what I have, and see what everyone says/gives their input about it. Should make for a fun discussion...