Jump to content

My New Plan Idea with a Network-Variable Speed Cap


Arysyn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello fellow S4GRU members!

 

I've written a bit recently regarding my giving thought to a more realistic plan, in contrast to my more wild, fantastical plan ideas for the future which I've posted here in the past. Also, I've been thinking about Sprint's defunct speed cap idea, something I support in its concept, just not its execution at the speed limit it was intended to have. However, one thing it really got me interested in, was the possibility of this being a part in the process towards implementing reasonable across the board speed caps, which have a few potential benefits depending on what possible purposes they might be used for.

 

In the past, I mentioned two ideas for benefits. One of which, is for lower rates per gb, akin to Cricket's plans. The other idea I mentioned, was for network management purposes in relieving congestion on the network. I received feedback from some people here who were against the congestion aspect of this, while mentioning the point of how having a speed cap would be wasteful in much of the times where congestion really isn't much of a problem. In the case of the congestion issue as relating to Sprint's times of congestion, I've gathered from reading here and on other wireless tech websites, people have mentioned how with Sprint's large spectrum holdings, Sprint would be better utilizing more of its spectrum, rather than to institute speed caps, in resolving congestion issues.

 

Now, while I agree Sprint should use more of its spectrum they have, I realize much of it is in the 2.5 band I've praised Sprint for acquiring so much of, as it truly is wonderful spectrum with great capacity and speeds. Yet, there is plenty of work needing to be done, something Sprint is actively doing, in getting all the coverage necessities worked out so that they can deploy more of the 2.5 spectrum on their network. Regarding the details of such really isn't the point, nor an agenda of this post though. I'm mainly mentioning this for continuity from my past posts on my plan ideas where I mentioned the speed cap idea relating to congestion and the fact those posts were more Sprint-related, at least moreso than what my motives and intentions are for this one here.

 

So, I've already made this initial post my new thread here quite a bit longer than I thought it would be. With that and everything I've said here in mind, perhaps I ought to give my plan idea a few more hours before I post it. One thing I'd like to know, this possibly affecting my plan idea somhow, is how instituting a speed cap helps manage a network, if not strictly for congestion. Already I know it could help with pricing and also make doing speed tests a bit less desirable, maybe even helping people shift from the speed perception to one where a working network regardless of maximum speeds retains the public focus.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to try this again, as Chrome crashed for me on this device earlier today when I was in the midst of typing my ideas here. Hopefully it doesn't crash again this time. Earlier, I started off typing my rate plan first, then went on to describing the idea I have for the variable speed cap used to manage network bandwidth. Instead, I'm going to start by describing the variable speed cap idea here, then move on to describing the rate plan.

 

A few months ago, I came up with a speed cap idea based on what I heard about then, regarding how speed caps may relieve network congestion in ways which would better manage network bandwidth than having a bunch of people clogging the network with high speeds, then having to deprioritize ucertain users in order to allow a better experience for others. I agree with the theory of having everyone at equal speeds on a particular tower, though I also agree with the counterpoints people here made about this issue at the time, that was regarding the notion of having this speed cap active at all times, which in turn could be wasteful for unused bandwidth at times where congestion is scarce.

 

So, seeing as this issue exists as both a benefit and as a hindrance, I thought of a possible way for carriers to use speed caps wisely, without individual deprioritization and without wasting bandwidth. While I cannot give an exact technical explanation of this with completely accurate numbers based on a site's typical allotted bandwidth, I'll give the best example I can on this. I'll do so in another post, as I don't want to lose what I've written so far about this, again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good! Chrome didn't crash that time around. I was getting concerned, as there is some slowdown.

 

Anyways, the speed cap example, for now. I'll post the rate plan idea later.

 

The speed cap is variable, based on the capacity being used at a site. The miminum speed cap I recommend is 15mbps for the maximum speed, though I realize the speed can and often does go under. That speed cap example is based on a site's highest percentage of used capacity, with faster maximum speed caps being placed on less used capacity.

 

If the maximum speed on a site were 450mbps, and the used capacity was 0%, then the maximum speed cap would be 450mbps, which would decrease in maximum speed the more usage of a site's capacity at a given time.

 

This all considering in mind, if such a setup were technically possible and feasible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for the plan :

 

My idea is strictly for an individual plan which replaces all other plans, including unlimited and shared plans. It is a reasonable, yet realistic replacement for unlimited data and also gives an affordable option for avoiding the need to "share" data. So, here it is -

 

$35 monthly for an account with one line, including all fees and taxes, unlimited talk & text, along with 5gb of data. That is what I consider to be a much more fair rate for light data users than what most current plans offer.

 

Additional data is available for only $3 for every 1gb. Even though that is in form of an overage rather than as part of an extended gb bucket plan, I'll type out what the equivalent rate to that would be.

 

Example is 10gb for $50 monthly, 15gb for $65 monthly, 20gb for $80 monthly, 25gb for $95 monthly, and so on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea, I honestly think streaming should be limited to what ever the requirement for 1080p is once an XX amount of data is used and I know in a few years, Once 4k becomes main stream. Data usage will again, be threw the roof.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea, I honestly think streaming should be limited to what ever the requirement for 1080p is once an XX amount of data is used and I know in a few years, Once 4k becomes main stream. Data usage will again, be through the roof.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea, I honestly think streaming should be limited to what ever the requirement for 1080p is once an XX amount of data is used and I know in a few years, Once 4k becomes main stream. Data usage will again, be threw the roof.

Thank you for the like!

 

I gave a lot of consideration to this. One of the issues I thought of, was of how low the maximum allotted speed for the cap should be for this plan. I've read many reviews of Cricket's service since AT&T acquired Cricket, most of those reviews being positive on their 8mbps speed cap, which even T-Mobile copied for their newer prepaid plan.

 

Figuring the plan I came up with is postpaid, which holds a higher standard than prepaid does, I decided on 15mbps, which is the lowest of the variable speed caps based on the available capacity. With that, I considered a lower speed cap for video, which had I chosen, would have been at 3mbps, which also happens to be the minimum workable speed for 1080p for most sources I've read is needed.

 

However, I chose to leave that out, not being sure how a separate speed cap for video is going to work with net neutrality. I've been reading so many conflicting arguments on the issue, I'm not really sure which to go on. I may take a look at the actual policy on the FCC site and form my own opinion on the issue, sometime soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing I'll add to this, as I've been giving some thought to the issue. While this plan covers the light and moderate data users, even the upper-moderate users that are the average for unlimited plans I've seen from reading other sites besides S4GRU (those sites that tend to attract heavier data users, even those who'd not like the term around here of "data abusers"), this plan becomes expensive for those using above 25gb.

 

Now, while there is an intent to lessen very heavy data use by eliminating unlimited, replacing it with affordable per gb data rates that are more fair to lighter users and charging heavier users more appropriately, there are limits to how much heavier users will pay, which if those limits end up limiting them too much, it could have the reverse effect to where these users lessen their usage so much from certain usage modifications, they end up costing the carriers more by not paying for the data which funds network upgrades, etc. This could be a reason why some carriers overcharge people with light data use, as it makes up for the differences in cases like this.

 

Heavier data users also rely often on device upgrades, as they often want the latest technology to go with their heavier data use. Charge them too much for data, they have less reason to upgrade devices.

 

So, I'm proposing that instead of lowering the per gb data rates for heavier data use, which once again, would be unfair to lower data users. My proposal, the per gb data rate of $3 per 1gb I had suggested as the overage rate, becomes the cost for customers not actively paying monthly payments on devices. Whereas, customers on monthly payments and those on leases, in order to encourage active device upgrades, have the per gb data rate for the overage, be $2 per 1gb, saving them $5 on every 15gb they use, and putting that money into their device upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My corporate Verizon line is on a plan similar to yours, $55 for unlimited talk text and 5GB but it also includes device subsidy. I'm not sure what the overage rate is, I don't feel like getting chewed out so I make sure I stay under my limit. When Sprint kills unlimited data, I hope they offer something similar with out the subsidy.

 

What you posted is also close to the $30 T-Mobile prepaid plan, its a good idea but the price seems too low for something like that to ever be offered.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My corporate Verizon line is on a plan similar to yours, $55 for unlimited talk text and 5GB but it also includes device subsidy. I'm not sure what the overage rate is, I don't feel like getting chewed out so I make sure I stay under my limit. When Sprint kills unlimited data, I hope they offer something similar with out the subsidy.

 

What you posted is also close to the $30 T-Mobile prepaid plan, its a good idea but the price seems too low for something like that to ever be offered.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

That is an excellent deal with Verizon!

I didn't know they offered something like that along with a device subsidy. I think that is a better deal than the plan I created, so looks as I'll modify it somewhat. Personally, I'm hoping to get Verizon and wish I could get the same plan you have.

 

I think I'll modify the starting rate as $45 monthly, including fees and taxes, unlimited talk and text, along with 5gb of data. Instead of a device subsidy, as well as considering the needs to keep per gb data rates low enough to be affordable replacements for unlimited data, I'll have the data overage rate at $2 per 1gb. The variable speed cap idea ought to be good enough with managing the network not to need higher data rates.

 

I have some lease concepts I'll post soon here too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an excellent deal with Verizon!

I didn't know they offered something like that along with a device subsidy. I think that is a better deal than the plan I created, so looks as I'll modify it somewhat. Personally, I'm hoping to get Verizon and wish I could get the same plan you have.

 

I think I'll modify the starting rate as $45 monthly, including fees and taxes, unlimited talk and text, along with 5gb of data. Instead of a device subsidy, as well as considering the needs to keep per gb data rates low enough to be affordable replacements for unlimited data, I'll have the data overage rate at $2 per 1gb. The variable speed cap idea ought to be good enough with managing the network not to need higher data rates.

 

I have some lease concepts I'll post soon here too!

Its a corporate plan, if it was available to consumers I would have switched my personal line from Sprint long ago.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point of your rate plan ideas?  We get it you want cheaper rates, we all do, but if we're just going to come up with fantasy numbers I propose a plan that's $7/month (after taxes it's roughly $10) with unlimited minutes and 14gb of data.  That's $0.50 per gb.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is innovation in the network management arena. This is an area Sprint really could innovate and earn a consumer friendly image.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point of your rate plan ideas? We get it you want cheaper rates, we all do, but if we're just going to come up with fantasy numbers I propose a plan that's $7/month (after taxes it's roughly $10) with unlimited minutes and 14gb of data. That's $0.50 per gb.

That sounds like a great plan!

 

I'm trying to strike a balance with a plan that is possible as a plan similar to what we may see once carriers get rid of unlimited data plans. If carriers were to just keep their same per gb data rates in their current rate plans, while some unlimited users will decide to switch to those plans as they are, many will leave for cheaper plans and MVNOs, which would drastically lower revenues for carriers, as customers adjust their usage drastically in cutting down their costs likely much lower than what they are paying now with unlimited data.

 

I'm sure carriers realize this, so if they drop unlimited data, they are likely to have cheaper per gb data rates. Seeing as it'll be Sprint and T-Mobile doing this, it'll directly compete with the rate plans in use at AT&T, which then we'll see a real price war going on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alrighty!

 

This will be my last post in this thread, unless I need to respond to someone. I'm adding the final part to the plan, which is the leasing program. I've already made a few adjustments to the plan, in order to accommodate device leasing, as too much cost to both the rate plan and the leasing wouldn't be good for the overall concept I have for this service pricing plan.

 

I've been contemplating exactly how to make this work in the most reasonable, yet realistic way possible. I've considered all the comments both here in this thread and of those I've received through pm. So, I've decided to do something similar, but in an expanded form of what Sprint did with their former iPhone unlimited lease pricing being cheaper than other unlimited lease pricing. Except that I'm making all lease pricing cheaper in all ways.

 

Here is how it works. The standard service includes all fees and taxes, unlimited talk and text, along with 5gb of data. The price of the standard service without a lease, is $45 monthly. The price of the standard service with a lease, is $35 monthly. Since this plan isn't available in packages of data beyond the 5gb included in the standard service, there is a reasonably priced overage fee. The overage fee without a lease, is $3 per 1gb. The overage fee with a lease, is $2 per 1gb.

 

So, with a lease, customers save $10 monthly, along with saving $1 per 1gb on their data usage. Another reason for these savings on lease offerings, besides those I've already mentioned, is to cover the extra cost on the standard one year lease. Instead of having multiple lease terms with all sorts of different rates and exchange policies, this is a simple one device per year lease, offered in increments of $5 monthly, for leases between $5 monthly and $60 monthly, based on various common leasing factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great business ideas, you should start your own wireless carrier

Thank you for the compliment!

 

I would love to have my own carrier, or at least run one of the main carriers, which I think I'd do pretty well at. Also thanks to wireless tech websites, particularly S4GRU, for helping me learn a lot about this great technology. I still have more to learn though, so I'll be asking questions along the way and accepting advice.

 

I think I'll use this thread to post some specific rates on the monthly lease rates when I'm done considering those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite some ideas you come up with!

 

Based on your new plans, what kind of returns would you expect the company to produce (ARPU, ARPA, etc, etc.)?

I'm very interested in rate plans, in general. I have for many years thought of various concepts in different type of businesses, including hotel rates. Yet still not as much as I've been in architecture. Although regarding your questions which are very important for businesses to have a steady, profitable return, I'm going to give my best perspective of it, though I'm not an expert at what exactly is needed, as I've been basing what I know of this obviously outside of the business.

 

I've supported the leasing concept of devices for quite some time before Sprint implemented it, which I was glad to see them do, though I'm more supportive of one year leases, than two year leases, because of depreciation being less. I also like six month leases for those willing to pay higher monthly rates, as the sooner a carrier receives the device back, the sooner a carrier could resell the device with the least depreciation and hopefully at profit, yet still at a good value.

 

If I ran a carrier, I'd strongly emphasis this, along with having a larger accessory collection at the carrier stores, which I'd want to see such as a Radio Shack-like accessory collection with more specialty items not usually found at many carrier stores. I'd want the stores to offer everything customers need for devices right there in store, rather than having to buy specialty accessories online. I'd have polls out for customers to answer in return for a small discount, asking them which of these and what brands to sell, so there wouldn't be wasted stock of unwanted items.

 

Anyways, I don't want to make a very long post about this right now, though I'm definitely interested in mentioning various ideas how to make this all work out well financially. The main thing I'll say now is to maximize leasing, device resale, and improving in-store retail stock which supports device leasing with frequent upgrades. I'm considering some sort of wholesale package deals which would help ARPU, involving multi-line accounts with large packages of data, but I want to avoid turning it into a "shared" plan package. I'll need to think on that for a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having most of my work experience in some form of retail, stocking those specialty accessories for everything is nearly impossible. The floor space, down to managing the inventory and having your money tied up in that stuff it is unrealistic to have any retailer do that. What do you do when the devices go EOL in six months and you have piles of crap for something you don't carry anymore? By having the items available to order you can support many stores with a smaller supply of those hard to find accessories.

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having most of my work experience in some form of retail, stocking those specialty accessories for everything is nearly impossible. The floor space, down to managing the inventory and having your money tied up in that stuff it is unrealistic to have any retailer do that. What do you do when the devices go EOL in six months and you have piles of crap for something you don't carry anymore? By having the items available to order you can support many stores with a smaller supply of those hard to find accessories.

 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I think there are too many stores for some of the carriers as it is. I think there ought to be fewer, better strategically located stores which are larger, have more staff supporting customers with relatively speedy service, stock larger inventory of products with longer lasting need, smaller inventory of products with shorter lasting need. As long as everything is managed well, keeping track of stock appropriately, there ought to be minimal waste.

 

I'd also suggest there being a larger, more clear section online for accessories than what most carriers have, particularly a better listing of them during the checkout process. Seeing as my rate plan is so simplified, the product and accessory choice selections would appear first in the order process, which if a lease is chosen, that would be the automatic rate applied. No more searching around all sorts of different rate plans and calculating costs with data needs. Besides, the rate plans would be listed right on the front page with very simplistic terms, so people can go right to the order process with the products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it is difficult for me to give an exact image of what I'm thinking of, and I understand any confusion or differences between what I'm thinking and what concept of inventory comes to mind from that. Everyone here who has posted so far have good ideas to add to this. Inventory waste definitely is bad, and if I were operating things, I'd want there there to be what people want for their needs, without going to the competition for them, yet not have stuff that isn't selling there either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ideas and discussion are great.

 

However none of us, nor you, have any power to consider implementing any of your pie in the sky ideas into actual reality.

 

If you want to have some actually effectiveness, you're going to have to get a job at sprint (or some other applicable carrier) which has some kind of influence or power to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ideas and discussion are great.

 

However none of us, nor you, have any power to consider implementing any of your pie in the sky ideas into actual reality.

 

If you want to have some actually effectiveness, you're going to have to get a job at sprint (or some other applicable carrier) which has some kind of influence or power to do so.

I accept that fully. I know I have no power to make these ideas happen. Just that it would be nice to see at least some of them happen in some form. I'm basically giving an analysis to the things I see and what could happen, which they may or may not happen.

 

At least for the moment, giving ideas is a pleasant distraction from the bad stuff going on in wireless, when it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept that fully. I know I have no power to make these ideas happen. Just that it would be nice to see at least some of them happen in some form. I'm basically giving an analysis to the things I see and what could happen, which they may or may not happen.

 

At least for the moment, giving ideas is a pleasant distraction from the bad stuff going on in wireless, when it does.

If you really wanted to and had some start up money, you or anyone could become a wholesale partner with Sprint and create your own MVNO.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
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.

 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Just figured out this is a waste of time. US Mobile and Verizon lock the eSim to the emei while T-Mobile only uses it to see that you have a capable phone, like Red Pocket does with physical sims (although RP does keep track of what phone you are using it on with the emei.)  So @Trip was right in this case on liking physical sims.
    • Verizon has a reputation for being frugal with MVNOs. After looking around, I also decided US Mobile was my best option. People have gotten C band on it.  Hoping for esim for my S21 Ultra.  No luck so far.  Red Pocket does not claim Verizon 5g, although they say Soon!(TM).  I do see some 5g with it. Typically MVNOs are deprioritized, thus I am reluctant to claim truly getting top speeds with one.
    • Did some exploring yesterday/last night and didn't find a shred of C-Band, including with my brand new US Mobile SIM. Did find 4CA CBRS but the site seemed backhaul constrained; both that plus 15x15 B2 and band-locked 2/66 got me 190 Mbps or so.
    • Did some more exploring yesterday/last night and I think I spotted some LAA downtown but didn't get a chance to confirm before it went away in favor of mmW, which also went away pretty quickly. Also saw another n66 site, as well as an n2 site, making AT&T the second carrier to run n2 DSS within a few miles of me. I think at this point they won't be able to advertise anything flashy, but due to the sheer amount of CA they're throwing at customers here they can keep their network at 50+ Mbps until they can deploy both 3.45 and 3.7, and that's probably enough.
  • Recently Browsing

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