rf40928

I know and agree its not concrete but I've read enough to see Sprint is saying if you use 5gb or more you'll likely find yourself in the top 5%... Its gonna be close Cisco's data says the avg user is only around 2gb.. This puts a 5gb user at 150% over that! Mathematically many more 2gb users exist then 3gb.. and still more 3gb users then 4gb.. With the top 1% probably being over 20gb its easy to see the top 5% is probably in near the 5gb area they mention.

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/5933-top-5-being-throttled-starting-61/?p=317685

AJ pointed out that Sprint seems to be looking at this 5gb mark and i have read a few articles that do say Sprint is around this mark - artificial or not ( Sprint maybe sand bagging ) ... But if the top 1% are using over 15gb - although the curve is steep- this could put 5gb users in the top.. One explanation is with less bandwidth you will have a steeper curve as alot. According to data the avg smartphone user uses around 2gb- although i don't agree with how that data was used- it is out there..

The first flaw with your statement is it's IMPOSSIBLE to have truly unlimited data once they implement the 5gb cap in a few days. This means a decent amount of users will be throttled in busy areas - because plenty are congested. But most of us have already concluded that NO provider makes no promise of speeds ...and...although WE know Sprint has less bandwidth (for now) in many areas then the other big 2 -Most general public subscribers signing on likely don't know or understand fully what this means for them. ( A smaller piece of the pie because there is less - for now) Going on that .. with Sprint's new LTE campaign people signing up now aren't looking at fine print with corporate marketng machine in full swing- making you believe when it comes to speeds - that this LTE network is hot. Its not unreasonable to expect a certain level of speed when you hear the acronym LTE. I'm not arguing this throttle will suck or it will fail. No one knows for sure but until Sprint gets more bandwidth out there they will have to throttle more users and hopefully keep service usable and friendly. Ive been patient and stuck around and i intend to if service doesn't take a turn for the worse. You can argue that no one is promised a certain speed all you want but speeds will increase on all carriers just as they will continue to on isp's .. Because people expect it and like new phones every year - money drives technology. Sprint needs more subscribers and money. So what we are hoping for is useable speeds. If i was concerned about consistently faster speeds then other carriers i would've left a long time ago. I believe for most people this will be good but we can't assume either way. And just because im not blindly loyal to any single private company who provides a service for one thing - Dollars- doesnt mean i want this to fail as this would hurt me too, as i am locked into a contract myself. You can come off firing how unlimited data doesnt mean they promise a certain speed - which again we know, but Sprint is trying to rebuild more then its network - its rebuilding its name and credibility. If this is done properly they will continue to do just that.

I'm on the fence. On one side.. yes its undeniably true some people are using ridiculous amounts of data, but they are also using what they are sold. The marketing behind this (fair or not) is made to attract buyers looking for lack of usage limits they see in those ads and hear from Sprint reps to get them locked into a contract or phone payment to which this means - to most - you're stuck paying us for awhile. .. Unlimited means "without limits" and its not any consumers fault when they sign up with Sprint and find out the hard way that Sprint has less bandwidth then any carrier in their area (perhaps because of no 2500 yet ) - and thus also learn the hard way that Sprint can't handle as many users on those towers. Perhaps this will get much better when 2500 rolls out everywhere.. On the other hand data management will make slow, congested areas .... perhaps - " useable", which makes everyone happy. What we need to determine in the next month before jumping the gun is how this will affect Sprint users. On typical days in typical usage areas. The moral problem with data management is there is no fair way to determine who actually needs data for what mportant reason when you throttle someone for a 5gb target. 5gb is decent usage, but not that much in a world that is increasingly becoming more and more centered on media and communication with pictures and videos. You can have user A] who pays his bills on time and uses 6 or 7 gb for business purposes and person B] who only used 4gb ..but all on facebook and music streaming and it always late paying the bill.. It's not unreasonable for either to expect useable service when they were both sold unlimited data for life. It's easy to nod in agreement when you hear someone say this affects the heaviest users, and Sprint wants to get rid of them, but I really don't think Sprint wants to lose anymore customers. When you sell unlimited data you're selling a product that intentionally and directly gets pushed to people looking to get more for a little less. This is still known as a "Good deal" It's easy to say to someone - well you should go to At&t or Verizon, but this again is not what Sprint really wants. Those guy are also adding bandwidth to their towers and they are also giving out more appealing deals then just a year or two ago because this is a war - it's a fight for your money - and Sprint needs that money as much as anyone else. If Sprint can implement this in a way in which those being throttled will still have usable service while being throttled then this will be good for everyone. Otherwise, Sprint may have to modify it's 'Unlimited for Life guarantee' with a disclaimer: "You'll be flying like an eagle.... At least until 5Gb"

Hope this is the case, but before everyone goes posting on the 1st how it is .. I think we need a month or so of good real useage data for those using 5Gb+ to determine how noticeable in reality this will actually be to those being throttled.. I mean, everyone says it won't be noticeable and that maybe the case... but we'll know soon enough

Actually of the tower you mentioned above.. it is one of 3 towers clustered close that are all still 3g in the middle of a lot of LTE.. the one slightly west of your Broad/Lancaster .. near ( but not quite at ) Broad/ 270 is also 3g and near my work

Yeah .. I'm curious how this will work out.. 5Gb is still considerable data use.. but I don't think they should throttle users this low in markets that have the bandwidth - and supposedly they aren't going to if not needed if the site isn't overloaded.. It seems like Sprint has a hardon for the 5Gb+ users.. but in some markets this is not as big a deal as others. I hope in markets where 2500 is working the extra bandwidth keeps throttling to a minimum as Columbus has decent 2500

Saying what everyone has said is "worthless" speculation is a bit overboard when you in a nutshell said if was all idle. These forums draw in people and obviously the fact they are interested keeps s4gru alive and well.. Keeps them coming and donating. Much posting on any topic has a degree of speculation involved. And its not all speculation - as AJ stated above -we know at what point (5gb) of usage Sprint will throttle and we know the throttling they use wil likely disrupt video at least. Still other things seem fuzzy. Im not sure if it clear if Sprint is throttling by phone - which makes sense, but if they throttle by account - Say 3 phones using a collective 12 GB on one shared unlimited plan- which would be a mistake- alot more people could fit in that category. The idea they might do this is not proposterous as att and verizon have shared plans where peeps share as much data all in one.

If 5gb is the top 5%.. That puts a 3gb user in the top 20% of all users.. Sorry Sprint, but half of everyone on LTE is using 3gb.. I cant see how this curve can be so steep unless Sprint is calculating in on the fact they have less working bandwidth at this particular time as part of the calculation.. I use the lowest amount of data in my family- usually around 2gb.. I can see Sprint wanting to push out 15gb+ users but pushing out people using 5+ gb by throttling them into the arms of another carrier seems like a horrible plan for a company that has all this bandwidth. Maybe its not ready now and thats the problem.

I dont care as long as i dont notice. If they throttle it in a manner in which most things are useable then it won't matter. I doubt Sprint wants to lose more subscribers but what they do will determine if that happens.

Adding to your data from your own source. Here are some statements from cisco. * Average smartphone usage grew 50 percent in 2013. * Mobile video traffic was 53 percent of traffic by the end of 2013. * Average nonsmartphone cellular usage increased 39 percent to 10.8 MB per month in 2013, compared to 7.8 MB per month in2012. Basic handsets still make up the vast majority of handsets on the network (73 percent) - this is still alot of data for an "average" * Global mobile data traffic will increase nearly 11-fold between 2013 and 2018. And this one is my favorite: * Currently, a 4G connection generates nearly 15 times more traffic than a non-4G connection. There are two reasons for this. The first is that many 4G connections today are for high-end devices, which have a higher average usage. The second is that higher speeds encourage the adoption and usage of high-bandwidth applications http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white_paper_c11-520862.html

The data is what it is, but that doesn't mean it's a representation anywhere near what the average user will use today in an unlimited data plan such as Sprint. There are too many legit problems with the data that will skew it: 1st) back in 2011 only 40% of users had a smartphone,.. in 2012 this number jumped to 50%.. in 2013 in went to nearly 60%... In those perspective years the 60%, 50%, and 40% who had flip phones would have TREMENDOUSLY brought down any data use averages.. as the shown avg is under 2Gb.. it should be.. 2nd) In 2011 Tiered data plans came to be and unlimited data plans went away.. by 2012 they were completely gone in any option for Verizon and ATT.. people began to monitor their own data usege.. most probably chose a 2GB plans due to the outrageous prices for that use - this is going to skew the data to an avg closer to 2GB .. now combine limiting tiered data plans with the fact that 40% were still on flip phones using much less data,. 3rd) Sprint had unlimited data in 2011-2013.. but even in 2013.. in most places there was no 4G.. Wimax wasn't in many places in 2011.... Sprints data usage would be artificially low because I know my iPhone usage before 4g was in the hundreds of Mb's.. nowhere near 1Gb.... Unless you had wimax most Sprint smart devices were bricks when not on wifi.. 4th) Increased demand for data from 2011 to 2013 caused ATT & Verizon to add new tiered plans with much higher data plans because people were demanding it. Verizon didn't even have anything beyond 10 Gb until around the end of 2012 ( basically 2013 ) and now it goes up to 50Gb. There is much other data out there: Cable users in the USA have drop by nearly 50% in most markets to what they were just 3 years ago from today. More people are streaming to HD sets as well as smart devices.. I know too many people who have dumped cable in the last 2 years and gone to netlfix or other options of streaming.. I'm banking the avg Sprint smart-device user (in a predominantly 4g area) is closer to 5 Gb of useage.. We all know enough people using that much or more.. and not just on Sprint... There are people on tiered plans who simply can't afford more Gb's .. this will keep numbers looking low.. My son has had his Sprint LG G2 no more then 2 weeks and he has already put 3.5 Gb on it.. Looking at tiered plans the ones who went for the great coverage of Verizon are mostly stuck at 2gb to 6GB probably because of the economics alone.. People will do what they can afford but in unlimited scenarios more people will waste resources..

There are enough people posting 15 & 20 Gb use on all carriers to say there are much heavier users out there. Posted from android police below: ~~~~~~~~~ Matt 5 days ago I don't think it's possible to use 5GB of data in a month on Sprint. That would require coverage and speeds that their network isn't equipped to handle. 28 Reply − Gordon 5 days ago Shall I post a screen shot of my wife's 40+gb & my 30+gb per month? And that's all while traveling 48 states ~~~~~~~~~~ And the point showing it would be foolish to beleive hardly anyone uses 20,25gb and above.. Especially when youre talking top 5%..... Im sure there are peeps with flips phones in the bottom 1% who use then 100mb and hardly send a text.. If people are paying for the 20gb plans on verizon its pretty safe to say people are using that much on sprint.. Verizon and Att have 30, 40 and 50 Gb plans on their cellular offers on both their websites.... I guess in your world no one uses those plans ? That thread is from this link: http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/05/08/sprint-will-begin-throttling-the-top-5-of-data-users-in-congested-markets/

Id say the top 5% are well beyond 25 Gb's.. The reason being there are several cities that had 2500 for nearly a year.. Like NY.. In areas like this user have had access to much more bandwidth then most of us.. I watched a 40 minute standard quality video that was around 500 mb.. There are people out there that actually use their smart device over cellular as tv's Verizon's ceo called the subscribers with 20 gb plans the power users..

Im not angry or offended if we dont see eye to eye but some things are going to change whether we agree or not. If i felt i had to have dependable video streaming right now ( on the road on cellular ) id go to verizon ( because sprint wont be done for another year ) but for me a mobile device is first a communication device. Talk, text, social apps which use little spectrum. Second to that its a device of convience. I personally dont watch much video over cellular and if I did my car is one of the few places i might need cellular only video. Wifi is at wendy, mc d's and almost any public place or work. We live in a world where tv's are everywhere and unless you live in south korea where they have the fastest cellular networks in the world.. Most of the world is still using 2g and 3g.. Most mobile apps use allitle to no spectrum.. Even music is no where near video..

Not sure about the others but Netflix auto detects network speed and auto adjust quality.. Ive streamed on netflix with a connection of just over 1mb down when i was moving a had no cable and i dont know If it can alot lower but if everyone was cut to 300 kbs it would probably work

Yeah i have the HBO app along with others and yes they require a subscription.. And most of those "mobile apps" as you say recommend wi-fi use. Even "small" app updates recommend wi-fi and some larger "mobile" programs for "mobile" devices won't even download over cellular.. So trying to convince me by using the word mobile isn't working. Just because Netflix, Showtime, HBO and a host of others make mobile apps to compliment what they sell doesnt mean it works in harmony with real world conditions over networks not ripe for demand. Video is the most demanding service on bandwidth and again this is why Unlimited data went away with Verizon and ATT - because too many people were asking too much and slowing down the networks.. Perhaps if you're traveling in a car tower to tower with family thats not so bad since youre not loading down one site for extended periods.. Otherwise wifi is almost everywhere. Even some cities provide it. As well as most any hotel.. We can debate this, but even Verizon said 6 months ago that purely unlimited data simply was not sustainable.. No matter what you thnk this is why throttling is here and likely to stay .. How much it affects us.. We'll have to see

I updated my post to show data amounts.. But i did read he said "occasionally".. But we are talking showtime.. This is for wifi... Re read my post.. What would you have to pay for video on Verizon

Why would you use a showtime mobile app as a occasional replacement for cable unless you're on wifi? This is proof too many people will slow down cellular systems for selfish reasons. This is EXACTLY why verizon and ATT capped their data plans - users who streamed video. Try occasionally "replacing" cable with your cellular option over Verizon or ATT and see how many hundreds of $'s you need to spend watching a couple hours of video. A 60 min HD video is according to Verizons data calculator exactly 2 Gigs!! .. That one video is 100% of your capped low end plan on verizon which cost more then a single person unlimited sprint plan.. You think naw.. I wouldnt watch even 2 hours of video? 5 hours of standard video ( youtube) is 3 Gigs... Divide 30 days by 5 hours.. Thats 6 mins of video per day.. Watching a clip.. News.. Music vid.. Again this is why Att and verizon had to cap plans.. What some would call normal use is in fact more then you think. I watch netflix in bed with headphones on wifi.. But to use it on cellular really isn't good. If you wouldnt do it on verizon i guess too many are willing on sprint. Then they wonder why the throttle has to be put in place.. Laptop files are much bigger then anything on a smart device. Most people wont download a large file to use on a smart device and later work on it on the laptop because most of those systems are not compatible. If you could make it more realistic by disclosing what large file you might be downloading to work on perhaps that would help. The majority of people dont work on a smart device because of the lack of business applications compatible with work pc/laptop.. This is the reason all carriers including sprint cap data on hotspot. Sprint knows if they did unlimited data on hotspot it would be a disaster for those using a cellular device to provide internet to a laptop. Smart device world wide web pages are much much smaller in data size then their identically addressed laptop/pc counter part world wide web addresses.. In short anyone who consistently uses cellular to transfer large files for a laptop has to say the least an inefficient way of doing business whether it be personal or otherwise. Doing it now and then wouldn't throttle you.. Its not preposterous to conclude that if Sprint throttles one site only temporarily ( because its rush hour business) and that site is overloaded that a network computer would divide resources.. Possibly giving less data to someone sending text- as they dont need it. ( the speed )..but still slowing data of users using alot more bandwidth. This instead of 4 guys getting 20 Mb down while everyone else only trying to send text and check something on a BIng search get non useable speeds. Maybe for a short time everyone gets only 2 Mb down. Also keep in mind throttling will be worse now ( in a month ) then when Sprint opens up the flood gates and has loads of 2500 LTE with more bandwidth available ( in the future)... Much more bandwidth to use then Verizon or Att. Until 2500 happens everywhere they only have 1900 in most places and for what spectrum Sprint has in 1900 - it will slow down much faster under people trying to use it as a "cheap" cable replacment

Where are the LTE updates? usually Robert post something for accepts and the last week has been slow.. I hope Columbus speeds up

Data speeds don't matter to me.. I'm getting very useable speeds. It's great to be able to see I'm downloading at 40 ( which I've hit a few times ) on Sprint, but most often get 7 to 15.. You only need to hit around 2.5 to watch Netflix reliably. My area isn't done.. but I won't pay Verizon the extra money for a 2 or 4 Gb cap just to say ... "Yes ! Verizon has a more consistent network - They started 6 years before everyone else!" Once Sprint deploys all its bandwidth it'll have as good of speeds and as consistent as Verizon. Sprint will have more deployed bandwidth then Verizon and ATT do combined .. they'll have less throttling... I can see why some come down on Sprint - but in most places they are no where near done on this rollout. At the 2 to 3 year mark Verizon was further behind then Sprint.. With good reason.... This had never been done before and there was NO fiber layed out.. Sprint will be most likely to keep unlimited data of all carriers simply because it has more bandwidth to deploy.

YES this ( throttling ) could help in some places. Before AT&T got rid of unlimited data there was a lot of bitching going on how in big cities like NY that the heaviest AT&T users sat in their bedrooms and hogged all the bandwidth from the towers that served many and slowed down the service of average everyday users.. If a single tower serves 100 people it only takes a few data hogs to slow it way down. This is why Verizon has had slowdowns in many big cities even they currently have more working bandwidth then Sprint ( I didn't say potential bandwidth - I mean currently useable and working ) .. It is only because of Verizon's semi-recent aquired bandwidth that they are making improvements.. but there are few data hogs on Verizon or AT&T because those high use plans are OUTRAGEOUS..

THIS: My guess is that most of the top 5 percent is not just barely breaking the 5 GB barrier but instead pushing the standard deviations way out there past 25 GB. I'd say the habitual Netflix/Pandora/Multimedia/Cloud users have insane data useage well beyond us 5 Gig users..

Also what is a busy site now, might not be at all once 2500 is deployed. With the amount of crazy bandwidth Sprint has in 2500 the whole idea was to deploy this band in densly populated and utilized areas.... right ? The problem is - for now- 2500 isn't as widely deployed as what we need