Arysyn

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.

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.

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.

I've written plenty about how odd T-Mobile's partipation in the AWS-3 spectrum auction was, which now could very well end up hurting them in the long run. If Sprint participates in the 600mhz auction as I expect them to do, and if Sprint is able to get the spectrum T-Mobile wants, then that'll be a major turning point towards the worse for T-Mobile. They will have to merge with Dish then, in order to remain relevant. If Verizon were to change its mind about purchasing Dish, or if Verizon is just saying its not interested in purchasing Dish as a means of concealing its true intentions, as some here have suggested for me to consider, then I can imagine one of two remaining scenarios for T-Mobile. Either Softbank works with T-Mobile on coming up with some sort of arrangement that would suit the FCC, even if not a merger. Wouldn't it be possible, say for Softbank to purchase the shares of T-Mobile from DT, but keep it as a separate company from Sprint. The two companies could share spectrum, but have separate operations, plans, etc. The other solution for T-Mobile may be to wait out for an administration change for another merger attempt with AT&T, which may not be as difficult to pass through in the current circumstances where AT&T is not in as good of shape as it was during the first merger, which if T-Mobile suffers from further loss at spectrum auctions, then perhaps another merger attempt with AT&T might be possible. To note, I'm not advocating for these ideas, just looking at what is possible for T-Mobile if things don't start improving for them.

I completely agree. I really can't fault Marcelo Claure for what he said to John Legere the other day, which clearly showed the many months of professionalism he tried having with John Legere and the patience through all of the taunting, finally just got to him. The really sad, shameful part to it, was John Legere's continuance in his taunts, when he should have been able to see this was really bugging Marcelo and not just some sort of "having fun", which John Legere used as an excuse for his own behavior a few years ago. Very pathetic.

Oh, I got away from my focus about what these Legerinas likely would say in a scenario where Sprint got most of the reserved 600 mhz spectrum, even perhaps all of it. As we know, Softbank has the money to make this happen for Sprint, whereas DT is very unlikely to fund T-Mobile for this auction. If Softbank goes through with massive funding on this, I can see them getting all of the reserved 30 mhz of reserved spectrum, at least. This would make sense for Sprint to continue with their across the board spectrum holdings. It also would leave T-Mobile's only opportunity at getting this spectrum, is to outbid AT&T and Verizon in areas where the "duopoly" doesn't care to have as badly, otherwise the duopoly could shut out T-Mobile by outbidding them in all areas too, if they wanted to. With that said, my guess is if Sprint goes full force with this, T-Mobile likely won't get more than a single 5x5 in a few areas where AT&T and Verizon let them win out of pity. Then that's when the Legerinas will be bragging about how great and wonderful the "Uncarrier" is, how they were "smart once again" and something like "Well, the Uncarrier played it smart, considering our most wonderful leader, Jon Legere got screwed over by the FCC and made it so small carriers could get a fair deal out of this". Of course, you won't hear them admitting fair defeat by Sprint. Granted, this is based on the scenario of Sprint going AllIn with this. If Sprint decides to go the route of not participating in the auction, which I now doubt they won't, as I'm sure Marcelo Claure would love for this scenario to happen. If though it doesn't, and T-Mobile getting the 30 mhz across the board, the fans will be claiming victory over all and praising Jon Legere as usual anyways.

I'm thinking of the reaction from T-Mobile defenders in the scenario T-Mobile doesn't end up getting much more than their pathetic results from the AWS-3 auction. The defenders kept saying how "smart" T-Mobile was in that auction, where they got so little spectrum not even to be worth the bother getting what they got out of it at all, something I view as worse of a deal than their 700mhz spectrum purchases. Then again, I don't like how the system of broadband spectrum is set up, where carriers are forced to deal with whatever spectrum they can get, as its so needed to the operations of their networks, regardless of how their spectrum amounts, bands, types, etc. vary so much market to market. Fortunately for Sprint, they have the most streamlined spectrum of all the carriers between their three spectrum holdings of 800, 1900, and 2500. I think it is smart they didn't bother with AWS, leaving that for the other carriers to go after while Sprint focused its efforts on what it could obtain more of and more steady across its network, rather than having so many variables market by market.

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.

You could be right, but for now, I'm going by what I'm reading here and on some of the other sites. I'll try to read the FCC site soon and see what I can interpret from there.

Some of us have been discussing this in the Unlimited Family Plan thread, but I'll make a quick mention of my opinion to it here too. I don't believe favoring music, or any particular form of data is fair for carriers to do. I look at the issue though strictly as it is the carriers responsibility to change their unfair actions, along with the FCC's duty to enforce their policies. With that said, all of the dos as donts should be laid out clearly to all customers, and as long as customers abide by those, then any problems resulting are the responsibility of the carriers to resolve. This is why I'm for Sprint and other carriers using responsible network management tools, as long as they treat data and customers fairly.

I read your response to me, Jeff, and there is not one thing you said in it that I disagree with. I don't think it is fair for T-Mobile to make music more important than other forms of Data. I actually prefer Sprint's plans to what T-Mobile offers, and while I thought the 600kbps speed limit on video is too low, I'm not against speed caps that are across the board, not just targeted on a particular type of data. People use to dispute me here on speed caps, especially when I mentioned I was under the impression from some of what I read on tech sites, that speed caps would help relieve congestion. While I understood the counterpoints to this which were made to me at the time, I'm now going back to wondering more about the issue, since Sprint obviously had a good reason for attempting to implement this speed cap. I don't believe it was done as a mistake in its concept in theory, just that the number was too low and was questionable in the net neutrality argument over its fairness in targeting video. As Joshua is paying for a service he felt could be affected, he took the steps he believed were right in dealing with the issue. I do think people with non-unlimited plans on T-Mobile, of those with over 21gb on T-Mobile who are being deprioritized, ought to complain about their usage being unfairly treated in favor of these preferred data services. I'd personally even make a case of it myself, despite my usage not being affected, just out of principle even, if I were going to stay with T-Mobile and continue paying them for unequal service. However, I'm leaving them soon for Verizon and in the meantime dealing with some medical issues, so I can't take on a cause of such at the moment, but I do support it. If someone were to petition against T-Mobile, I would surely sign it, even after I switch to Verizon I will, if one ever is created.

I doubt Joshua is the only person who contacted the FCC about this issue, as there are plenty of wireless tech websites we all pretty much know about where people complain about Sprint, both with legitimate complaints as well as those with trollish complaints. Most of the time it is fairly simple to tell the difference between them, which on this issue alone, there were quite a few real Sprint customers there, possibly some who frequent S4GRU, but felt better about commenting there about their issues with this matter than they would have here. Every customer of any company needs to make decisions based on their own needs, which involves the fact they are paying money for a particular product/service to that company. If that customer feels the company hasn't properly and/or satisfactorily addressed an issue in whichever form/source of communication that customer chooses in contacting the company, then it is the customer's options to take it to either a higher source within the company if there is one they haven't already contacted, or to call a source with oversight. In this case, Joshua contacted the FCC, which is his choice to make, one which is very reasonable. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect other people have done the same in this matter. Its all about the paid service in these matters, not worrying about if a company is going to be punished too harshly by the oversight source, or even if its just a matter over guilt of somehow breaking loyalty to a company by doing this. Money spent matters more in business.

Some of the plans and pricing carriers come up with make sense, though most of them don't. It seems that with each new plan, they are more confusing and unfair to their customers than these carriers claim to be, even though every new plan is aimed at being more "simple" than the last. When they come up with a plan, they add a new one, or extensions to the current one, which is aimed at further simplification and "enhancements", yet does the opposite. The additions which are often for lighter data users, are unfairly overpriced and meant to get customers to pay more for data they don't want, which the per gb data forms of these plans often are significantly cheaper per gb the more a consumer gets monthly, though they are paying more totally every month. Also, while I try staying out of arguments on the issue of the unlimited data means unlimited versus unlimited data means data abuse debates, at least I keep to defending my own 10gb-15gb monthly usage, I'm supportive of those light data users who are upset about the pricing discrepancies in existence often to get people to spend more for more data they don't want. However, I support reasonable data speed caps on fairly priced per gb data plans, such as what Cricket has offered. I have in mind two pricing plan ideas that I've developed as more realistic alternatives to my more far out ideas in the past. I'll post them sometime soon and hopefully gather opinions about them.

Alright, finally an updated Schaumburg-area T-Mobile speed test update from me, which this is my first experience using the upgraded 15x15 in this area. I've complained quite a bit regarding T-Mobile's data speeds around here back when the LTE AWS network was 10x10. Then, the typical data speeds I experienced were around 1-2mbps, rarely going near 3mbps or above. The Schaumburg area seemed much better served by Sprint, which data speeds typically were around 40mbps here, not going below 20mbps, in my experience. Now that T-Mobile has upgraded their spectrum for LTE, one speed test I did about 15 minutes ago, was 70mbps. The one I did 5 minutes ago, was 62mbps. I'll do one more now, as I've done these tests in various areas of Schaumburg, as my mother is driving. We currently are on Roselle and Algonquin roads, just got 20mbps. The data speeds since the upgrade to 15x15 from 10x10 certainly have made quite a big performance improvement for T-Mobile, which now I'm glad to report has also improved data speeds in Schaumburg.

Sounds to me you had a good reason to contact the FCC, Joshua. Since Sprint told you that you're video speeds may be throttled, you went to the source that could best investigate this, which is one of the things the FCC does to help protect consumers. Sure is more reasonable than contacting a private lawyer who likely would charge you a lot of money. Also would be taking up the lawyer's time on more important issues to them, though not to say your case isn't important, since it is. Just that they likely have serious personal cases to deal with. Another thing to add regarding this Sprint capping issue, is I'm wondering if this was planned to happen this way, rather than by accident, or just ignorance to public perception. Marcelo and Sprint had to have expected an uproar over this, as has historically been the case over perceived slow data caps. By doing this, Marcelo and Sprint decided to "test the waters" and see what would happen, fully prepared to reverse this decision if an uproar occurred, which it did. Elsewise if nothing much happened, while still expecting it to, then Sprint would have set a precedent with this. The advantage of having this cap, had they not had this negative reaction, would have given them a very good way to manage their network and a way forward for the future where with this, there likely would be less need to eliminate unlimited, in the future-speaking sense. It also would have been interesting to Sprint to see if other carriers would follow suit. However, knowing that this unlikely would stick with a positive public acceptance, they were prepared to make a quick reversal and come out appearing pro-consumer with this. I'm not bashing Sprint at all by saying these things, which I acknowledge Sprint could have kept this speed cap had it really wanted to do so, regardless of public views. It is good Sprint reversed this and right now for the moment has the least restrictive unlimited plan of all the carriers. Yet, it does seem to make it more likely now for unlimited to be eliminated more soon than it may have been with this cap.

Excellent idea!

That is the same speed number I've been suggesting Sprint could use it at, being 3mbps is a good limit for audio/video.

Personally, I don't like these usage type-specific bandwidth limits, though if Sprint is going to have one, they could at least have it be at a useable rate. Many here have differing opinions as to what that rate could be. I'm thinking 3mbps would be sufficient, even though it would be better not to have a rate at all. Regarding network usage, everyone has different opinions about this issue, which ultimately the carriers are going to need to decide on, as they are the providers. I think my monthly 10-15gb usage is fine and acceptable, which my current provider, T-Mobile seems to agree with, since I use well under 21gb monthly.

I cancelled Tidal yesterday, due to cost. The account was at the end of the month, and I decided for me, it wasn't worth keeping anymore, as I also have a $4.99 monthly account with Deezer for 320k mp3, which I'll keep until Deezer's Flac exclusive with Sonos ends, hoping Deezer will then offer Flac as an option for all subscribers. I use a Belkin car audio Bluetooth connection for car speakers, which Flac sounded better to me than compressed mp3. That is, in the car's speaker system my mother's car has. Simpler audio devices that don't produce a difference between Flac and mp3, such as listening through a smartphone's speakers, it would be better on the network not to take advantage of something that is not going to give an audio quality difference, yet be taxing to the network. However, if there is an audio setup a person has where Flac does produce a difference, then it is worth using. I ended up using around 8gb per month of Tidal during the few months I had it, so essentially I wasn't abusing the network with it. I can see how others might though, which is where mobile carriers and content providers should work out these usage issues. For some reason though, they encourage its use more than not. As exampled, T-Mobile offers Tidal as part of their Music Freedom program. If they wanted to, they could limit that to the lesser, non-Flac service. Yet, they don't.

I wasn't doing an exact minimum speed just for Flac, but a safe minimum a listener will definitely get a buffer-free experience from, which 3mbps will definitely do it. Also, 3mbps is a minimum for HD video, so if Sprint wanted to have a good minimum workable download speed number that would both provide its subscribers enough spped for streaming, yet still help manage their network traffic appropriately, as they seem to be wanting to do with its current speed cap. I'm not, nor am I trying to make a case here for Flac. It is what Tidal offers its customers, and if anyone has a problem with its usage streaming on mobile devices, take that out on Tidal, not on me, and not on other Tidal customers.

I figured it would be odd for Verizon to block higher quality YouTube content. Good to know they don't, especially since I'll be getting Verizon as soon as the Sony Xperia Z4v is available for purchase..

Is that for both the data (per gb) and the unlimited plan, or just on the unlimited plan. I can't see Verizon doing this on the data plan, as it could prevent overages and extra income.

Whew! Just got through reading through the posts here from today and did a lot of post liking to most of the posts I've read here. Since I agree the 600 speed thing isn't good and most of you wrote basically what I would have said, I'll keep this post short. If Sprint really needed/wanted a throttle on video speed, HD video needs a minimum of 3mbps, which also is the rate flac audio seems to play best on, minimum.

That device looks really good!

Too many Republicans would complain about that infringing on business choice. Though technically speaking on the particulars of death panels on technology, they could add a suicide code into devices, such as one if a person used too much data, but then human rights groups would complain.