dedub

Your argument is you should use the mobile network, because you paid for it. Regardless of any interest, otherwise.

I don't think I ever stated that.

I have no problem using wifi, when it is better than whatever I cellular connection I have.

I just don't accept the opinion that you *must* or should choose wifi even if its the same or marginally less, especially if cellular data is not in a degraded mode.

For example, if one is out in rural east heyzeus where where there is only a dial speed connection (but by god it is available on wifi), and 3g which get .2 up to 2 meg at any particular time, one is likely to choose to leave it on cellular.

Likewise, when one gets an easy 4-10 meg on wimax, instead of a slower dsl, who are you to determine that they must use wifi if its available? When the wimax is getting 4-10 meg on a consistent basis, there is no indication or reason to believe that it is overloaded or whatever.

If wimax (or 3g, or even lte) is showing obvious signs of strain and over use, then one would likely choose wifi if available.

Thank you irev210 for putting so eloquently something I failed to adequately express.

The whole post, but in particular;

I think customers (myself included) want the best experience possible. If there is no perceived difference between wifi/4g lte but a user still experienced a substantial boost in battery life, I would think that user would love wifi.

and

So, to answer the thread's question: I think, as a customer, one should do what provides them with the best user experience. I think in the majority of scenarios, offloading smartphone data onto WiFi will provide a better customer experience.

walked into a local sprint store at 9am (which apparently had opened even earlier), and while they were out of stock on 16gb, I picked up a 32g white and was out in about 10 minutes.

@ James, if you truely have an issue(s) that sprint customer service has been unable to resolve to your satisfaction, just email dan@sprint.com with the specifics and it will be taken care of.

some possibly interesting reading

The Analogies Of Highway And Computer Network Traffic (2002)

The buffet example is not quite accurate for networks.

Try the highway example.

When you go to work, do you;

a) drive your own car

car pool/ride share

c) use public transportation

d) walk/bike/other non motor transport

When you go to work, you have (at least) 2 primary paths available to you.

1) the superhighway, slightly more distance, no stoplights but possibility of traffic jams due to excess traffic, accidents and/or construction, or whatever.

2) the local road, slightly shorter distance, but with stoplights and more traffic turning on/off the road, and pedestrians/kids along the roadside.

your home connection could be either 1 or 2 depending your locale and the availability/affordability of higher speed internet access, conversely your mobile connection could be 1 or 2 also.

a, b, c, d are all valid modes of transport, and each has their benefits and tradeoffs.

paths 1 and 2 are both valid paths of transport, and each has their benefits and tradeoffs.

No particular combination of the above is 'better' than any other, nor is any combination 'an abuse'.

@ pyroscott with your buffet example this is called abuse, and I agree is not 'doing the right thing'.

Please read #89.

advocating offloading data = not using data on the sprint network (for any specific period of time).

2 examples;

1) a highly dense industrial area with a high amount of subscribers, lets say there is no wifi available for 'offloading'.

2) a highly dense residential area with a high amount of subscribers, lets say a majority of them are 'offloading' to their own home wifi networks.

area 1 is over-subscribed, and with no wifi available to offload, data degraded and unreliable.

area 2 is over-subscribed and even with a majority offloading data to non-sprint wifi networks, data is degraded and unreliable.

According to #90 and others, everyone in area 2 that is not already offloading is 'an abuser'.

Yet, area 1 which has the same over-subscription problem but no wifi, everyone is not an 'abuser'.

That seems to sum up the whole thread.

I've been into networking of one type or another for 20+ years. Networks are designed to be used. Saying someone is an abuser simply because they have a choice *not* to use the network but continue to use it, is anti-thesis to the whole point of even having a network in the first place.

Let us take this whole offloading thing to it's logical conclusion.

Sprint sends an update to all phones, which force wifi always on, and if there is any type of wifi connection within range, it will disable cellular data. Since your phone doesn't understand whether you do or don't have access to those particular wifi, it doesn't care and will summarily disable your data until you move out of wifi range.

"Sprint, the now network with unlimited data, as long as you offload your data to the nearest wifi hotspot."

offloading (even in aggregate) is not going to magically fix over-subscription or lack of sufficient upgrades.

Not offloading, even if you are able to, does not make magically make you an abuser, simply a user just like everyone else..

I'm out of this topic (again, hopefully).

I have (hopefully) one final thing to say on the matter;

Let's say, in an ideal world where we get 100% users offloading their data usage.

Then what is the point of paying for sprint service?

Ok, then so by yours and others comments, that if sprint had data caps and/or tiered pricing, it would be perfectly ok to use as much cellular data as you could afford.

If so, this makes zero sense, because the excessive usage still affects other users and causes the same network degradation.

If not, this becomes not an issue of unlimited data usage, but the fact that cellular technology and providers have not kept up with the user demand (be it spectrum/technology limits or business decisions).

the abusers don't get it.

This has been a recurring theme through the thread, that anyone who does not offload is an abuser.

I disagree with this mentality. While I appreciate and understand that offloading usage on to non-cellular networks is healthier than not, this does mean that the folks do don't are abusers or criminals or out to take advantage.

The fact that sprint has unlimited data is irrelevant, I would be have the same argument regarding data uses on capped/tiered att/vz services.

If you have immediate access to the car your paying for you can either ride with your friend or drive your own....totally your choice. Now if I don't have access to the car I'm paying (a $10 premium data charge) for anyway...then it's in my best interest to accept the free ride (Wi-Fi).

But you should ride share whenever possible! /grin

I'm not sure what you're saying here with the "use<>abuse" line.

use does not equal abuse.

if all users are 'using' a service within the parameters of acceptable use, no one user is more important than another. I am not expecting anyone else to cede their bandwidth by offloading, any more than anyone should expect me do the same. If by both (or all of us) cause a network degradation to occur, that is not any of our individual faults, its a fault with any number of issues involving technical, economical limitations and/ business decisions of the provider (ie sprint)

Before people began piling on Sprint's network (pre-2010), I was getting amazing speeds pretty much wherever I went. Then people began taking advantage of the cheap, Verizon-like service without a care in the world thinking that nothing bad would happen.

And this is relevant how? because more people were *using* the network (not necessarily *abusing* it), more powerful and capable phones became available, and sprint failed to allocate proper maintenance and upgrades in a timely manner?

If more people begin using the network and maxing it out, that will result in increased network upgrade/maintenance costs. These costs eventually get transferred down to the consumers. But I will concede that a significant portion of prices might be based in competition.

this inevitable given the current trend from pc/home use, towards highly powerful mobile phones and tablets.

Uhh... Nice for the people who don't have access to the Wi-Fi connection that you do?

in this whole thread, I don't think I mentioned once whether I have wifi or not but thank you for assuming!

As I recall, this all started when I stated that I have a 3 meg dsl and that wimax was normally much faster.

No, this just puts them in the same category as people who don't have access to Wi-Fi.

Ok, so I guess the folks don't have home wifi suck as much the people who do, but don't offload to it.

Yes. Please explain how by not offloading when you can you are not negatively impacting someone else's quality of service?

I guess it boils down to this, no one else cares about my quality of service, and I certainly am not concerning myself with others quality of service. When quality of service is bad, I blame the provider for failing to provide adequate services for *all* the affected users.

I guess this makes me a bad person. Sorry I offended everyone's sensibilities.

it was sarcasm.

here is a legitimate point;

- we all pay for use of a shared service, we can use that service where ever it is provided for anything within the law and terms of service, and we don't have to use wifi, at our home or anywhere else. Period.

Would it be nice? Nice for who? I suppose that depends on the performance of the wifi/connection in question. Is it required? no.

Is everyone that doesn't have home wifi a bad person? if not why not?

Is everyone that has a home wifi and doesn't offload to it a bad person? apparently it seems from this thread.

I am telling you how I really feel because many of you in your shortsighted selfishness stand to ruin Network Vision for everyone.

I guess we should all just *stop using the whole network altogether* since any use outside of offloading on your own home network will apparently cause the end of the world. /boggle

So, instead of doing what you can to help ensure low service costs and unlimited data, you're going to almost actively do what you can to use as much network resources as possible?

use <> abuse

Oh wait, even 'use' will cause the collapse of the world as we know it.

No, we might as well not go to Verizon because they are significantly more expensive. However, they are faster, at least partially due to their policies.

VZ was faster way before the newly instituted caps and tiered pricing.

And from posts and pictures posted, it does not look like the caps and tiered pricing is doing all that effective a job of preventing the bandwidth-opocalype.

How exactly do the economics of an unlimited, faster, yet somehow cheaper carrier work? You seem to have some idea as you admit that Sprint might raise prices. But this is the weird thing, and it might really set me apart here: I don't want to pay more.

Raising prices will have little to do with the bandwidth used, and more to do with competition (or lack of) and how much the average consumer will pay before churning elsewhere.

You don't, I don't, but apparently there are alot of vz and att customers that disagree.

Tell us how you really feel.

the whole point is to make money, so if it comes ot the point they need to raise prices, they will.

Until or if the do, its all a bunch of un-needed angst worrying about it.

They have a long way to go with the network before they can even consider it. The cellular landscape may be completely by then.

Besides all that, prices can rise at any time for any reason (albeit they would have to deal with unhappier customers).

If you really want to be mad at rising prices, look at gas prices for the last few years.

With all this entitlement about unlimited data, Sprint should just stop selecting phones that come with WiFi capabilities. If that truly was their mindset "We offer unlimited data, so you don't need to offload data", they should just choose handsets that don't have WiFi capabilities. Let's see where that gets all of us Sprint users on the Now Network.

 

Edit - Before you liked it dedub, I forgot to put /sarcasm at the end.

I like it, sarcasm or not

I always figured that they will eventually start with rolling the 'premium data' charge into the base price, then redistribute the pricing structure from there.

Thanks for your clarification. I wasn't sure what you thought as a bottom line in this discussion until you clarified.

My bottom line is thus;

a kernel of truth.

a kernel, sure

So, if you have Wi-Fi at home and are not offloading, you better have a really good reason why. Otherwise, I would like to punch you.

No one should deserve to be 'punched' (literally or figuratively) because they choose to use the service they pay for, just because they could offload, does not mean they have to, or even 'should'.

So you folks who think "I paid for it, so all the network resources I can muster are mine"

I don't think anyone here is advocating that, I know I never said anything to that effect.

better hope that everyone else in your sector doesn't feel the same way.

I think it is a given for anyone who uses cellular data is acutely aware that their usage affects others, as other's usage affects theirs.

Or you will have to go to another carrier who will daily beat you over the head with data caps to prove the point how wrong you were.

Well there is always tmobile to fall back to, at least for now!

No one should be using the LTE network if they are concerned about data security. Seriously. Neither are secure networks and both are shared resources.

Your home network connection isn't any more secure than LTE, and if you think your home connection isn't part of a shared resource, then you should tour a colo someday (I have no doubt that you, Robert has though).

The whole internet is a shared resource.

Usage from any connection anywhere can affect any other connection from somewhere else if the cross paths somewhere on along the route, or heck even if they don't.

Bickering about wifi offload is irrelevant, people are normally going to use whatever best connection is available to them.

If my dsl performed better than my sprint 4g I would likely use it.

If I did not have 4g, and was stuck with sprint 3g, then I would likely choose my dsl or whatever was available that provided the better service.

Same for any free wifi spots. In the majority of cases of my particular use, I use whatever performs the best at that particular location and time.

I don't feel guilty one bit for utilizing my 4g service instead of latching on to any random or personal wifi spot.

Not to mention, you have no idea what kind of security a public wifi spot may or may not have, or what kind of user tracking they keep on your access.

Using a public wifi hotspot without a vpn is like, well I think you can figure it out.

I work in telecom, I understand to a great degree the differences in costs of shared resources. Further, I'm a stock holder of both sprint and clearwire. If I thought for a second that my (or even nationwide aggregate) use of 3g/4g data use instead wifi offloading at home had an overly negative affect then I might agree. But I don't.

If wimax/lte ever got the point where it performs like sprints current 3g service, then all of you may have a point.

The reality is that currently, the wimax, and ostensibly LTE, have sufficient resources to not require the use of wifi offload, now or for the immediate near term future, especially in areas where load is not over concentrated (such as stadiums/concert venue's/etc).

I pay for sprint service to provide data for my phone. If I use some other service to provide data for my phone, should I continue to be billed by sprint?

It is the principle of the matter, if you pay for a service you should be able to use said service within the terms of your contract, and the contract provider should be providing the services within the contract. Without guilt or ridicule from the moral high ground. No more, no less.

feel entitled

Yes. I feel entitled to use the service I pay for.

Wifi is just as much a shared resource as cellular (visit any coffee shop with wifi at peak time), and you're simply splitting the load from one shared resource to another on the pre-tense that it is selfish to utilize a service that you pay for, for it's intended purpose.

I am not advocating abusive/over-use, I am talking about normal use. I understand that everyone's use affects everyone else's use, particularly within the same tower/area.

@dmchssc its not the wifi sprectrum that is necessarily the limit, it is the bandwidth and utilization of the shared wifi hotspot dsl/t1/cable connection. If you are on your own personal wifi you don't have to share, but you still paying one way or another.

Also note, personally I am on wimax 99% of the time, so my own use is not putting any undue stress on sprints or clearwires available network.

Anyway, we may have to agree to disagree.