Sprint Ends Throttling of Unlimited Plans

[dkyeager]

http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2015/06/sprint-ends-throttling-unlimited-plans

 

I did not see the other policy of overloaded site based limits for the biggest users as totally bad, although the throttled levels were severe.

[joshnys8913]

http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2015/06/sprint-ends-throttling-unlimited-plans

 

I did not see the other policy of overloaded site based limits for the biggest users as totally bad, although the throttled levels were severe.

It does say Unlimited is not to stay, so keep it if you got it while you can!!

[caspar347]

See, every time this was previously discussed, I questioned if Sprint had ever actually throttled anyone. Surely if they had and someone had evidence of it people would be screaming it at the top of their lungs on Fierce and just generally freaking out on the internet. I guess it never actually happened.

 

 

Whereas IIRC there was evidence of T-Mobile doing it before they even formally announced it.

[Terrell352]

See, every time this was previously discussed, I questioned if Sprint had ever actually throttled anyone. Surely if they had and someone had evidence of it people would be screaming it at the top of their lungs on Fierce and just generally freaking out on the internet. I guess it never actually happened.

 

 

Whereas IIRC there was evidence of T-Mobile doing it before they even formally announced it.

Sometimes it's hard to know if your being throttled because there capacity is so bad in alot of areas its like a permanent throttle. But I would say this is not good news at all especially for non spark markets. Unlimited may need to go soon.

[anthony.spina97]

Sometimes it's hard to know if your being throttled because there capacity is so bad in alot of areas its like a permanent throttle. But I would say this is not good news at all especially for non spark markets. Unlimited may need to go soon.

I'm not sure how many Sprint markets there are in the US that are so congested that they are down to 2G speeds, but I'm guessing there isn't many. The whole "permanent throttle" argument isn't really valid anymore.

 

-Anthony

[Terrell352]

I'm not sure how many Sprint markets there are in the US that are so congested that they are down to 2G speeds, but I'm guessing there isn't many. The whole "permanent throttle" argument isn't really valid anymore.

 

-Anthony

Not really on market basis but certain towers in congested markets with no band 41 does have 2G speeds. I have seen it on plenty of towers so it is a valid argument. Root metrics shows similar results in plenty of markets

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[joshuam]

I'm not sure how many Sprint markets there are in the US that are so congested that they are down to 2G speeds, but I'm guessing there isn't many. The whole "permanent throttle" argument isn't really valid anymore.

 

-Anthony

 

Come to Baltimore :-)

 

There are definitely some areas where Band 25/26 is below 1Mbps, and Band 41 either isn't active on that tower, or the range is terrible because its a CLEAR site.

[anthony.spina97]

Not really on market basis but certain towers in congested markets with no band 41 does have 2G speeds. I have seen it on plenty of towers so it is a valid argument. Root metrics shows similar results in plenty of markets

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Exactly. It's only certain towers. A couple of towers in an entire market is not enough to say that there is a permanent throttle in place because of congestion.

 

-Anthony

[Terrell352]

Exactly. It's only certain towers. A couple of towers in an entire market is not enough to say that there is a permanent throttle in place because of congestion.

 

-Anthony

It's probably more than a couple tower in a entire market more like 15-30% per market other wise sprints speeds would at least line up with At&t in most markets.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[anthony.spina97]

other wise sprints speeds would at least line up with At&t in most markets.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

AT&T also had multiple competitive advantages over Sprint: AT&T has much more low-band spectrum than Sprint (which means they could cover a lot more people with LTE a lot wuicker and easier), AT&T has HSPA+ (which already puts Sprint at a disadvantage because of how much higher throughout HSPA+ has than EVDO Rev. A), and AT&T has also purchased a lot of smaller carriers that help expand their coverage and their spectrum portfolio, etc. etc.

 

You can't try and compare Sprint with AT&T when Sprint isn't at AT&T's level yet. That's like saying "why doesn't T-Mobile have as good of coverage as Verizon?". It's just not fair. Not yet.

 

-Anthony

[Terrell352]

AT&T also had multiple competitive advantages over Sprint: AT&T has much more low-band spectrum than Sprint (which means they could cover a lot more people with LTE a lot wuicker and easier), AT&T has HSPA+ (which already puts Sprint at a disadvantage because of how much higher throughout HSPA+ has than EVDO Rev. A), and AT&T has also purchased a lot of smaller carriers that help expand their coverage and their spectrum portfolio, etc. etc.

 

You can't try and compare Sprint with AT&T when Sprint isn't at AT&T's level yet. That's like saying "why doesn't T-Mobile have as good of coverage as Verizon?". It's just not fair. Not yet.

 

-Anthony

T-Mobile is attempting to have very close coverage to Verizon. If they can secure some low band spectrum in places where they have none they could very well do that. Plus Sprint has nationwide 800. You must mean capacity not coverage. That's the point more capacity deployed is obviously a better experience. Sprint has the least of the 4 deployed thus the experience is not great in plenty places just passable.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[anthony.spina97]

You must mean capacity not coverage.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

No, I meant coverage. It's going to take years for T-Mobile to be at the point that Verizon is at. T-Mobile doesn't have LTEiRA like Verizon does, which in and of itself gives Verizon a HUGE upper hand. And T-Mobile has nowhere near nationwide low-band spectrum, and it's going to be awhile before they do (Ch. 51 interference and having to wait for 600 MHz auction, if it ever happens, and waiting for that spectrum to be deployable, AND getting equipment that can broadcast it, along with UE that cam connect to it).

 

Anyways, this argument is off-topic for this thread. So I'm going to secede from it before it goes any further.

 

-Anthony

[Terrell352]

No, I meant coverage. It's going to take years for T-Mobile to be at the point that Verizon is at. T-Mobile doesn't have LTEiRA like Verizon does, which in and of itself gives Verizon a HUGE upper hand. And T-Mobile has nowhere near nationwide low-band spectrum, and it's going to be awhile before they do (Ch. 51 interference and having to wait for 600 MHz auction, if it ever happens, and waiting for that spectrum to be deployable, AND getting equipment that can broadcast it, along with UE that cam connect to it).

 

Anyways, this argument is off-topic for this thread. So I'm going to secede from it before it goes any further.

 

-Anthony

Agreed. Off topic. Convo over.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk