Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2298754

Cancelled
Jun 21, 2010
4,890
941
Not sure why u think this way, your opinions are not in any way part of the scope of the wireless industry. In fact it's the complete opposite. Carriers want you to consume data. T-Mobile sprint and verzion got it right with offering unlimited data, att will follow soon.

Why would they? De La Vega already said that offering unlimited data was the worst thing they did.

And yes "they'll offer it b/c TMo does" is a lame excuse. TMo is nothing but a follower. First to nothing, late to everything.

----------

Damn brother. You are getting the shaft out there in Brookline.
Yeah :(

I'm just happy I don't have to deal with Comcast. I have RCN. 50/5 internet, full HD cable package, TIVO, etc for $89.99, which is a great deal. VZ only has DSL here.

But hell, it IS a nice place to live, so there's that. :)

I guess... overpriced though lol
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 603
Sep 8, 2011
5,958
13,938
Not sure why u think this way, your opinions are not in any way part of the scope of the wireless industry. In fact it's the complete opposite. Carriers want you to consume data. T-Mobile sprint and verzion got it right with offering unlimited data, att will follow soon. T-Mobile does not have a problem with me using 60+GB per month, I was even offered a teathering plan to match my usage.

Using data is very different from using water or electricity. Actually not using data is a waste of the network.

You're just fussy because under a proper tiered system, you would be paying the most with that usage. :p

There is a very good reason every other commoditized utility charger per unit of usage: It incentivizes efficiency; it punishes wasters and it rewards conservative users. This is a good thing, something we should strive toward.

People don't just leave the water on all day, people don't leave their lights and TV on all day. Just like these things, the delivery mechanism of data doesn't have an infinite capacity; if everyone is efficient, everyone benefits.

I'm not accusing you of being wasteful; god knows I've used well over 60GB/month in the past on my business internet (or, should that expression be "NSA knows..."?). However, if the users have an incentive to be efficient, they will prefer apps and OSes that are efficient, and overall we get a lot more bang for the buck out of our network.

Check out Ting; its a tiny MVNO, but I think they're on the right track. I doubt Ting will really be able to compete in the US, but the a lot of other counties have tiered like plans. Eventually it will catch on here; I am sure of that.
 

osofast240sx

macrumors 68030
Mar 25, 2011
2,539
16
You're just fussy because under a proper tiered system, you would be paying the most with that usage. :p

There is a very good reason every other commoditized utility charger per unit of usage: It incentivizes efficiency; it punishes wasters and it rewards conservative users. This is a good thing, something we should strive toward.

People don't just leave the water on all day, people don't leave their lights and TV on all day. Just like these things, the delivery mechanism of data doesn't have an infinite capacity; if everyone is efficient, everyone benefits.

I'm not accusing you of being wasteful; god knows I've used well over 60GB/month in the past on my business internet (or, should that expression be "NSA knows..."?). However, if the users have an incentive to be efficient, they will prefer apps and OSes that are efficient, and overall we get a lot more bang for the buck out of our network.

Check out Ting; its a tiny MVNO, but I think they're on the right track. I doubt Ting will really be able to compete in the US, but the a lot of other counties have tiered like plans. Eventually it will catch on here; I am sure of that.
not being fussy your just misguided, again this is not the scope of the mobile industry. If it was I would be unemployed.

So how do u define wasteful data users?
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 603
Sep 8, 2011
5,958
13,938
So how do u define wasteful data users?

Easy, the same way as wasting any other utility. If something is downloaded but never consumed or used in any way, or if its needlessly downloaded. Same as running the water without performing any kind of function (washing, drinking, flushing, etc), or same as leaving the A/C on high on all day while nobody is home to enjoy it.

For example: A podcast app that automatically downloads and keeps the 3 most recent episodes of a certain podcast that comes out with a new episode every week, but the user only listens to it once a month. Thus, if every episode is 100MB; that's 400MB of data per month; 300MB of it is wasted (never consumed before it's deleted, or needlessly downloaded). Thus, this hypothetical app + user behavior is at a 25% efficiency.

Also, I understand this is not currently the way the mobile industry operates. Thats my point! I'm calling out that they are the only utility that doesn't operate this way, and I'm arguing that they should be for the better of consumers and users (but not telco executives' pockets).
 

osofast240sx

macrumors 68030
Mar 25, 2011
2,539
16
Easy, the same way as wasting any other utility. If something is downloaded but never consumed or used in any way, or if its needlessly downloaded. Same as running the water without performing any kind of function (washing, drinking, flushing, etc), or same as leaving the A/C on high on all day while nobody is home to enjoy it.

For example: A podcast app that automatically downloads and keeps the 3 most recent episodes of a certain podcast that comes out with a new episode every week, but the user only listens to it once a month. Thus, if every episode is 100MB; that's 400MB of data per month; 300MB of it is wasted (never consumed before it's deleted, or needlessly downloaded). Thus, this hypothetical app + user behavior is at a 25% efficiency.

Also, I understand this is not currently the way the mobile industry operates. Thats my point! I'm calling out that they are the only utility that doesn't operate this way, and I'm arguing that they should be for the better of consumers and users (but not telco executives' pockets).
What u seem to not understand is the technology does work that way. For example: if I install a 24 ch fiber switch and verzion only gets 3-5 customers that's a waste. Using data is not like using water or electricity.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 603
Sep 8, 2011
5,958
13,938
What u seem to not understand is the technology does work that way. For example: if I install a 24 ch fiber switch and verzion only gets 3-5 customers that's a waste. Using data is not like using water or electricity.

I understand perfectly. If Verizon installs a 24-ch fiber switch but only gets 3-5 customers, either their marketing department is inept or their economist/actuary that predicts demand is inept. Either way, yes, that's totally silly.

I'm talking about bigger picture stuff. Let's review the topic that started this thread: there is network congestion. Whether said congestion is responsible for Sprint's slow speeds is irrelevant. There is congestion, it's a fact. In Boston around the time a Red Sox game ends at Fenway park, the ATT connection in that neighborhood crawls; I assume because there are 40,000 people all in one spot arranging meetups with freinds after the game, uploading pictures of the game to social media, etc. This can be observed nearly every day; it's network congestion.

How do we solve any kind of congestion? We can either (1) build a wider pipe, or (2) we can incentivize efficient usage. Option one is glutenious and costly, option two is responsible and better for the long-term. In reality, the solution is a combination of both. However, as I said, long term, the efficiency route always ends up playing a bigger role. We wouldn't be where we are today with technology if it weren't for engineers 10-20 years ago banging their heads against a desk trying to figure out how to crap more data into less bits, how to fit more transistors into a smaller area, how to get more with less. Efficiency efficiency efficiency. It rules the world.

Humans are intelligent; they respong to incentives and stimuli. We always want to get the most bang for the buck. With "unlimited" plans, the incentive is to use as much as you can, to be glutenious, because the more bits you suck through the cheaper each one is. With a tiered plan, the incentive is to conserve, each bit costs the same regardless of how many I use, so the more I use the more it costs. It's simple, it's closer to the reality of it, and it's better long-term.

So you say that using data is not like using water or electricity, but you haven't given me a single reason why. Your example of an x-ch switch with n-users is EXACTLY like water an electricity. There is a capacity of x, and there are n users; solve the equation. It would be just as silly to put up a hydrodam capable of producing 200million Gigawatt-hours of power per year for a village of 50 people. It would also be silly to charge those people different rates based on their voltage demands. No, we charge them based on how much they use, and we develop systems based on their accurately predicted needs.

If you claim water and electricity are so fundamentaly different than data, what about them is different?
 

aliensporebomb

macrumors 68000
Jun 19, 2005
1,907
332
Minneapolis, MN, USA, Urth
Sigh

You know, I have been thinking what is the point of having an iPhone or any device on Sprint with unlimited data when its dial up speeds?

I was thinking, if Sprint stopped offering unlimited data, maybe this would help with data congestion? I know this is one of sprints selling points, but... I'd rather have fast 3G/4G Speeds than unlimited 3G running at 100 K down.


Wanted to see what you guys thought?

Denver has just barely seen ANY of the Sprint Network Vision rollout. You'll need to wait until your town has LTE to really make a judgement.

My answer? NO.

----------

You know, I have been thinking what is the point of having an iPhone or any device on Sprint with unlimited data when its dial up speeds?

I was thinking, if Sprint stopped offering unlimited data, maybe this would help with data congestion? I know this is one of sprints selling points, but... I'd rather have fast 3G/4G Speeds than unlimited 3G running at 100 K down.


Wanted to see what you guys thought?

You're in Denver (see the Sensorly plot of your area):
http://www.sensorly.com/map/4G/US/USA/Sprint/lte_310sprint#q=denver co

I'm in Minneapolis - see?
http://www.sensorly.com/map/4G/US/USA/Sprint/lte_310sprint#q=twin cities mn

We're not completed yet but your town hasn't even really gotten started.

If you knew something about Network Vision and what they're planning on doing you wouldn't have made the post you did.

See S4GRU.COM for the win.
 

2298754

Cancelled
Jun 21, 2010
4,890
941
I'm talking about bigger picture stuff. Let's review the topic that started this thread: there is network congestion. Whether said congestion is responsible for Sprint's slow speeds is irrelevant. There is congestion, it's a fact. In Boston around the time a Red Sox game ends at Fenway park, the ATT connection in that neighborhood crawls; I assume because there are 40,000 people all in one spot arranging meetups with freinds after the game, uploading pictures of the game to social media, etc. This can be observed nearly every day; it's network congestion.

I'm down the street from Fenway now. Ever since the DAS system went up and they allowed the equipment to have LTE, the congestion issues in that areas have gone down with AT&T and VZW. Sprint and TMo are still trash there.
 

2298754

Cancelled
Jun 21, 2010
4,890
941
Easy, the same way as wasting any other utility. If something is downloaded but never consumed or used in any way, or if its needlessly downloaded. Same as running the water without performing any kind of function (washing, drinking, flushing, etc), or same as leaving the A/C on high on all day while nobody is home to enjoy it.

Bingo. Anyone who is downloading 60 gigs of data on their phone:

1) doesn't have a job and sits around all day (in that case, you probably have wifi at home)
2) is torrenting
3) downloading things just because he/she can
4) using it as a replacement for a home connection (which is against TMo's ToS)
5) or is just streaming music/movies all day without actually watching it.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 603
Sep 8, 2011
5,958
13,938
I'm down the street from Fenway now. Ever since the DAS system went up and they allowed the equipment to have LTE, the congestion issues in that areas have gone down with AT&T and VZW. Sprint and TMo are still trash there.

For sure. Back in ~2010 I would literally not be able to get a short email through at the peak time, it's better now. I think 3G speeds there during peak times are still pretty rough, but as people transition to LTE devices it will be improve more.
 

2298754

Cancelled
Jun 21, 2010
4,890
941
For sure. Back in ~2010 I would literally not be able to get a short email through at the peak time, it's better now.
Definitely! It was a trainwreck in the iPhone3G/3GS/4 era.

I think 3G speeds there during peak times are still pretty rough, but as people transition to LTE devices it will be improve more.
Yeah, I would love to run some tests when I'm over there again, but my phone won't stay on HSPA long enough. Keeps getting back on LTE :)
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,753
4,927
It's not android or iPhone, or network congestion that makes Sprint data speeds on par with dial up.

It's an incredibly neglected network infrastructure that is basically falling apart, and Sprint doesn't have the money to get things in order.

Hopefully this Softbank deal will give them the funds they need to get some newer and better equipment in place.
 

Apple Trees

macrumors 6502
May 28, 2013
261
0
It's not android or iPhone, or network congestion that makes Sprint data speeds on par with dial up.

It's an incredibly neglected network infrastructure that is basically falling apart, and Sprint doesn't have the money to get things in order.

Hopefully this Softbank deal will give them the funds they need to get some newer and better equipment in place.

You're exactly right. T-Mo offers unlimited data and their network is still pretty fast (if you're lucky enough to be in an area where it actually has "4G" instead of 2G). So unlimited isn't the reason for their terrible speeds. Most people can barely use over 1.5GB of data on their dial-up 3G network anyway.

Also when Verizon still offered unlimited data the 3G data speeds were never as abysmal as Sprint.

It was already well known before Sprint even got the iPhone that their 3G speeds were bad. They consistently ranked in 4th place (last) in pretty much every nationwide 3G data speed comparison test. Getting the iPhone just made the problem more widely known.

Them and T-Mobile neglected their networks for years while AT&T and Verizon spent billions. Verizon spent a fortune building out their LTE network and now have more LTE than Sprint and T-Mo have 3G coverage. Now Sprint/Tmo are playing catch up spending billions trying to "modernize" their networks. Might be like 2016 before Sprint can complete their "Network Vision" joke and have a 3G network in place with speeds that average above 1mbps. Probably around the same time T-Mobile will actually have 3G data outside the city limits. Verizon might have nationwide LTE-A in place at that point.
 

2298754

Cancelled
Jun 21, 2010
4,890
941
You're exactly right. T-Mo offers unlimited data and their network is still pretty fast (if you're lucky enough to be in an area where it actually has "4G" instead of 2G). So unlimited isn't the reason for their terrible speeds. Most people can barely use over 1.5GB of data on their dial-up 3G network anyway.

Also when Verizon still offered unlimited data the 3G data speeds were never as abysmal as Sprint.

It was already well known before Sprint even got the iPhone that their 3G speeds were bad. They consistently ranked in 4th place (last) in pretty much every nationwide 3G data speed comparison test. Getting the iPhone just made the problem more widely known.

Them and T-Mobile neglected their networks for years while AT&T and Verizon spent billions. Verizon spent a fortune building out their LTE network and now have more LTE than Sprint and T-Mo have 3G coverage. Now Sprint/Tmo are playing catch up spending billions trying to "modernize" their networks. Might be like 2016 before Sprint can complete their "Network Vision" joke and have a 3G network in place with speeds that average above 1mbps. Probably around the same time T-Mobile will actually have 3G data outside the city limits. Verizon might have nationwide LTE-A in place at that point.

AT&T and VZW have pledged to have up some LTE-A by year end 2013. I'm in a LTE launch market for both carriers. Can't wait.
 

alphaod

macrumors Core
Feb 9, 2008
22,183
1,245
NYC
If you want faster 3G/4G with capped plans, why don't you just switch to AT&T/Verizon?
 

Apple Trees

macrumors 6502
May 28, 2013
261
0
T-Mobile will switch on LTEa well before att and verzion.

Come on now. Let's get real. Verizon has more LTE than T-Mobile has 3G. AT&T might even have more too. What makes you think they will have LTE-A first?

Let's hypothetically say T-Mobile does rollout LTE-A first. What's the real benefit since it will be in the SAME areas that already have LTE and/or HSPA+? As long as they lack 3G at least along major interstates, they will continue to be a second tier carrier along with Sprint.
 

SONiC5

macrumors regular
Sep 21, 2012
186
2
U.S.
It's not android or iPhone, or network congestion that makes Sprint data speeds on par with dial up.

It's an incredibly neglected network infrastructure that is basically falling apart, and Sprint doesn't have the money to get things in order.

Hopefully this Softbank deal will give them the funds they need to get some newer and better equipment in place.

Sprint has the money to improve its situation, Network Vision started and will finish with or without the help of SoftBank. And the network isn't "falling apart", it's simply overburdened in many areas.

----------

Come on now. Let's get real. Verizon has more LTE than T-Mobile has 3G. AT&T might even have more too. What makes you think they will have LTE-A first?

Let's hypothetically say T-Mobile does rollout LTE-A first. What's the real benefit since it will be in the SAME areas that already have LTE and/or HSPA+? As long as they lack 3G at least along major interstates, they will continue to be a second tier carrier along with Sprint.

Because the network technology being deployed by T-Mobile (& Sprint) already supports LTE-A, the technology in use by Verizon and AT&T doesn't. It makes sense that T-Mobile and Sprint will be first to the LTE-A party.
 

2298754

Cancelled
Jun 21, 2010
4,890
941
Because the network technology being deployed by T-Mobile (& Sprint) already supports LTE-A, the technology in use by Verizon and AT&T doesn't. It makes sense that T-Mobile and Sprint will be first to the LTE-A party.

That doesn't mean anything in the real world. They have both proven to us that they don't know how to manage a network. Who cares if the equipment can support it? What good has this "superior" equipment done for them? NV deployment is slow as molasses, and TMobile isn't doing any better.

They have been perfectly content just leaving it as it is. And with Sprint's pathetically slow deployment, *mark my words* , VZW and AT&T will have much much more LTE-A up and running (that includes new equipment and all) before Sprint gets done with rolling out LTE in any sort of measurable quantity (all major cities 100%, etc).

TMobile is a lost cause too. They have no reason to be deploying LTE-A at this point. They're just saying "me too!" They need to get off their ass and get rid of all that EDGE out there before they even think about LTE-A. Their network is already faster than Sprint's.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,753
4,927
Sprint has the money to improve its situation, Network Vision started and will finish with or without the help of SoftBank. And the network isn't "falling apart", it's simply overburdened in many areas.

Their Network Visions rollout is a joke. I was a Sprint customer for about 11 years, and Sprint's data 3G speeds were always abysmal in all areas.

For a Sprint customer even a mild speed bump might seem like heaven. but after moving to AT&T there is no way in hell I would ever go back to Sprint and their ass-end data speeds.

Sprint is the worst provider when it comes to data speeds. I'd go with T-Mobile long before Sprint if I were looking for a budget carrier.
 

2298754

Cancelled
Jun 21, 2010
4,890
941
it's simply overburdened in many areas.

OMG, haha. You sound like the people on S4Gru.

Why is the network overburdened? Because it is deteriorating from years of no upgrades, etc, while Sprint is perfectly content trying to sell more and more high end smartphones, while their network can't clearly support that the baggage that comes with them.

If the network wasn't falling apart, all Sprint would have needed to do is get new backhaul, put new antennas up, and be done with it. (Which is exactly what AT&T/VZW are doing) Why is completely new equipment needed throughout the entire US, if it wasn't falling apart?
 

eyoungren

macrumors Penryn
Aug 31, 2011
28,660
26,604
Only so much you can do with T1 lines and copper backhaul.

If being overburdened was the only issue then all Sprint would have to do is slap up more "Data Speed" upgrades (T1 lines) and be done with it.

They aren't doing that of course, which is good, but they could have put in fiber backhaul years ago. That they didn't do.

And then contracting out with vendors who can't turn profits is another issue. At least one vendor (Alcatel-Lucent) responsible for my market hasn't had a profit and positive cash flow since 2006. But Sprint contracted with them for NV buildout! Never mind that A-L can still seem to get the job done quickly for the other carriers.

A-L's CEO stepped down in February and the new guy is going to sell assets and cut jobs. Wall Street is thinking A-L is being positioned for a buyout. That's great. One of the vendors possibly gets bought out while in the middle of a massive network upgrade.

No, overburdening of the network is just one issue among many. Poor management is one of the bigger issues I think.
 

SONiC5

macrumors regular
Sep 21, 2012
186
2
U.S.
That doesn't mean anything in the real world. They have both proven to us that they don't know how to manage a network. Who cares if the equipment can support it? What good has this "superior" equipment done for them? NV deployment is slow as molasses, and TMobile isn't doing any better.

They have been perfectly content just leaving it as it is. And with Sprint's pathetically slow deployment, *mark my words* , VZW and AT&T will have much much more LTE-A up and running (that includes new equipment and all) before Sprint gets done with rolling out LTE in any sort of measurable quantity (all major cities 100%, etc).

TMobile is a lost cause too. They have no reason to be deploying LTE-A at this point. They're just saying "me too!" They need to get off their ass and get rid of all that EDGE out there before they even think about LTE-A. Their network is already faster than Sprint's.

Why doesn't it mean anything in the real world? LTE-A is LTE-A, is it not? And this "superior" equipment will allow T-Mobile and Sprint to upgrade to LTE-A without having to physically do much of anything. And I'd bet that Sprint will have much more LTE-A up and running before Verizon/AT&T have all cities at 100% as well. And while I agree that T-Mobile needs to do something about all the EDGE-only areas, I disagree with the notion that they're simply following behind Verizon/AT&T/Sprint.

I don't get the constant Sprint/T-Mobile bashing on this site, we all know their current situations, why keep beating a dead horse? And let's not pretend like "the big two" are devoid of problems.

Their Network Visions rollout is a joke. I was a Sprint customer for about 11 years, and Sprint's data 3G speeds were always abysmal in all areas.

For a Sprint customer even a mild speed bump might seem like heaven. but after moving to AT&T there is no way in hell I would ever go back to Sprint and their ass-end data speeds.

Sprint is the worst provider when it comes to data speeds. I'd go with T-Mobile long before Sprint if I were looking for a budget carrier.

How is their Network Vision rollout a joke? And fail to see how it even relates to your experience with Sprint. As far as Sprint's 3G speeds being abysmal in all areas, that claim is inaccurate.

I'm not an advocate for Sprint, I wouldn't recommend their service to anyone in my area, I just dislike misinformation. And I too would choose T-Mobile's service over Sprint's.

OMG, haha. You sound like the people on S4Gru.

Why is the network overburdened? Because it is deteriorating from years of no upgrades, etc, while Sprint is perfectly content trying to sell more and more high end smartphones, while their network can't clearly support that the baggage that comes with them.

If the network wasn't falling apart, all Sprint would have needed to do is get new backhaul, put new antennas up, and be done with it. (Which is exactly what AT&T/VZW are doing) Why is completely new equipment needed throughout the entire US, if it wasn't falling apart?

And you sound angry. The network is overburdened due to a lack of appropriate upgrades, we all know that. But their network isn't falling apart, they could've went the AT&T/Verizon route, but for what? Why not have 1xRTT/EVDO/LTE in a single panel? It's much more efficient than juggling multiple networks. You'd think that'd be common knowledge, considering everyone here seems to know so much about Sprint and it's network.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.