Warning for new Unlimited Plans on Sprint

[eyoungren]

Unlimited data, "for life."

We can argue semantics all you like, but one cannot honestly say that the data plan is unlimited if they reserve the right to throttle. By design, that artificially LIMITS how much data one can possibly use in a billing cycle.

This is one of my biggest problems with Sprint. I believe in truth in advertising. The word unlimited by definition means no limits.

No limits on data consumed. No limits on the type of data consumed. No limits on how you consume the data or how fast you consume the data, etc. Tacking limits on to "unlimited" means it's no longer unlimited because you have put a limit on it.

Sprint either has unlimited plans or it has plans it calls unlimited but aren't. If it's the latter then they should not be advertising it as unlimited, even if the limits are so high no one can see them.

Thankfully I still have my Everything Data 1500 family plan.

 

[CoMoMacUser]

Unlimited data, "for life."

I don't remember Sprint promising me that it would be for life or that it would be at a certain minimum speed.

----------

This is one of my biggest problems with Sprint. I believe in truth in advertising. The word unlimited by definition means no limits.

No limits on data consumed. No limits on the type of data consumed. No limits on how you consume the data or how fast you consume the data, etc. Tacking limits on to "unlimited" means it's no longer unlimited because you have put a limit on it.

Cellular networks are limited by definition. There's a finite amount of backhaul, spectrum and radios. It would be impossible to build a network that can deliver the maximum speed that every sub's device is capable of handling. Unlimited always has, and always will have, an asterisk after it. That's widely accepted, including by regulators. If it weren't, there would have been plenty of successful class-action lawsuits by now.

It's like people who pop wood over the prospect of having 1 Gbps FTTH. The reason why Sonic.net, Google and others can afford to offer those speeds is that most consumers won't use anywhere near 1 Gbps, even in bursts such as at the start of a movie. So those operators are spared the expense of provisioning the network to be capable of providing 1 Gbps to every sub every minute.

 

[2298754]

http://www.tuaw.com/2013/07/24/sprints-lte-rollout-in-nyc-begins/

Sprint is finally rolling out LTE service for parts of New York City, including the Bronx and Brooklyn. Sprint says it will flip the switch for those areas on July 30.

Sprint has been way behind AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile in rolling out high speed LTE services. There is currently some coverage in Queens, Manhattan and Staten Island, although there has been no official start date announced.

New York City is the most populated city in America, and implementing new cell service is difficult due to interference from tall buildings and finding locations for hardware. Not to mention all the people fighting for bandwidth on those towers. In the last 6 months, Sprint has added 12 new towers in the New York City area, and 906 data speed upgrades.

Sprint says it has 110 4G markets, and New York City will make 111. Sprint is also working on cell service in all 277 subway stations, beginning with 36 stations it hopes to have up and running in early 2014. AT&T and T-Mobile already offer cellular connections in select underground locations. Verizon and Sprint are signed up with Transit Wireless for the underground connectivity.

Sprint was the 3rd U.S. carrier to offer the iPhone, signing on with Apple in October of 2011.

Sprint has JUST launched NYC and even then, it's only parts of it. WTF. Even TMobile has almost fully launched LTE there.

And some numbers (as of 7/24).

Sprint: 110 markets
TMobile: 116 markets
AT&T: 336 markets (will be done by early '14)
VZW: 500+. (already done. Now filling in with AWS)


The fact that TMobile has more markets up is pathetic. The nearest "elite" carrier has 3x as much LTE up. It's not even close.

 

[eyoungren]

I don't remember Sprint promising me that it would be for life or that it would be at a certain minimum speed.

It's in the new fine print for the new plans, the for life part at least.

Cellular networks are limited by definition. There's a finite amount of backhaul, spectrum and radios. It would be impossible to build a network that can deliver the maximum speed that every sub's device is capable of handling. Unlimited always has, and always will have, an asterisk after it. That's widely accepted, including by regulators. If it weren't, there would have been plenty of successful class-action lawsuits by now.

It's like people who pop wood over the prospect of having 1 Gbps FTTH. The reason why Sonic.net, Google and others can afford to offer those speeds is that most consumers won't use anywhere near 1 Gbps, even in bursts such as at the start of a movie. So those operators are spared the expense of provisioning the network to be capable of providing 1 Gbps to every sub every minute.

I get that. And that fact means that what Sprint offers is not Unlimited. It's a very high amount, but still limited. I would much prefer calling it something else. Perhaps "All You Can Use" or something like that.

I could handle that because the carrier would still be able to control its bandwith and speeds and I would be getting all I could use from what's available from that.

Semantics, I know, but my wife has taught me that words have meaning and whether the limit is high or not, it's still a limit. My cable provider has a 400GB cap. Try as I might I can never reach that, but it's there. But my cable provider in no way advertises that it has unlimited data.

This is just my thinking though. I get what you are saying and can understand the concept as it's applied to the common customer.

 

[jav6454]

LOL. For years, pundits and members of Congress and the FCC lamented that the U.S. lagged Europe and Asia when it came to availability of new wireless technologies. Some people laid the blame on our government's failure to mandate a single technology instead of allowing the market to fragment into CDMA, GSM, TDMA, et al.

Now we've leapfrogged the rest of the world when it comes to LTE-covered POPs. Why? A major reason is fragmentation: VZW and other CDMA ops knew that their technology was dead ending, that EV-DO couldn't compete with HSPA+ and that LTE offered a superior cost structure. So some of them, particularly VZW, aggressively rolled out LTE. That's pressured GSM ops to expand their HSPA+ coverage while adding LTE. And several years ago, I was enjoying 1+ Mbps EV-DO even in the boondocks while most European in cities were poking away on EDGE.

Yes, U.S. networks aren't perfect. LTE still isn't everywhere, but it's in a hell of a lot more places than in APAC, LATAM and EMEA.

You can't argue in Latin America. My home country of Honduras is covered at a 65% 3G network. We are talking of a country that is over 85% mountains and not huge flat lands like the US.

At 65% that is impressive. Although 3G HSPA speeds are tanking on 1.5 or 5Mb/s, but that is due to other non-carrier constraints.

 

[scaredpoet]

I don't remember Sprint promising me that it would be for life

Yeah, I'll just leave this right here....

or that it would be at a certain minimum speed.

My argument is not that there was no guaranteed minimum speed. It's that there is an artificially-constrained maximum speed that is arbitrarily decided and well under the capabilities of a properly provisioned, current-technology wireless data network. This, by definition, limits the "unlimited" plan.

 

[CoMoMacUser]

Yeah, I'll just leave this right here....
Image

That's a new promotion, one that wasn't in effect when I was a customer. Those who are smart enough to read the fine print will see that this new promotion has its share of limitations, including no international data and: "Other plans may receive prioritized bandwidth availability. Streaming video speeds may be limited to 1 Mbps. Sprint may terminate service if off-network roaming usage in a month exceeds: (1) 800 min. or a majority of min.; or (2) 100 MB or a majority of KB. Prohibited network use rules apply."

Yep. All of the usual asterisks are there. They have to be because the laws of physics and the realities of running a business require them to be.

My argument is not that there was no guaranteed minimum speed. It's that there is an artificially-constrained maximum speed that is arbitrarily decided and well under the capabilities of a properly provisioned, current-technology wireless data network. This, by definition, limits the "unlimited" plan.

How do you know that it's "well under the capabilities of a properly provisioned, current-technology wireless data network"? Do you work for Sprint? Do your work in telecom, for that matter?

 

[scaredpoet]

That's a new promotion, one that wasn't in effect when I was a customer.

Not all points made revolve around a single, specific individual. The point is that people, now, are being roped in.

Those who are smart enough to read the fine print

And this is where you proceed to make my point for me: that it is disingenuous at best and duplicitous at worst to offer "unlimited data, for life" when the fine print places limitations starting on day one. Thank you.

How do you know that it's "well under the capabilities of a properly provisioned, current-technology wireless data network"?

For starters, I don't have my head under a rock. I can, and have, observe competing wireless networks far exceeding the performance of the Sprint network despite having greater user loads to contend with. One does not need to work for Sprint to realize that Sprint has systemic, significant issues with its network; deficiencies that it must address. Even Sprint acknowledges it, though they do try to downplay its severity.

Do you work for Sprint?

I think it's pretty evident by my unwillingness to blindly and rabidly defend Sprint, as you do, that I am not employed by them. Not that I would if I were employed by them; if they were hiring me, it would be because they acknowledge they have work to do.

Do your work in telecom, for that matter?

If i did, I would not jeopardize my position by admitting it here. Do you?

 

[CoMoMacUser]

Not all points made revolve around a single, specific individual. The point is that people, now, are being roped in.

That's their problem. I can't help it if they're too stupid to read the fine print. Such people are why McDonald's and Starbucks have to put warnings on their cups that the liquid inside is very hot.

And this is where you proceed to make my point for me: that it is disingenuous at best and duplicitous at worst to offer "unlimited data, for life" when the fine print places limitations starting on day one. Thank you.

Again, I can't help it if some people are too stupid to read the fine print. That's their problem -- and why there's no class-action lawsuits trying to argue your point.

If i did, I would not jeopardize my position by admitting it here. Do you?

Yes. In fact, I've said so here multiple times over the past year. You worry too much. The telecom cops won't come to take you away.

 

[scaredpoet]

That's their problem.

*shrug* If that was the response to everyone who objected to shady tactics, why have a forum to discuss anything?

On the other hand, some of us would like cellular carriers to perhaps suck slightly less, and so we bring these issues up from time to time. It's unfortunate that you take it personally, but it seems clear now that you have a reason to. That still doesn't negate when others object in ways that don't align favorably with those who sign your paycheck.

 

[CoMoMacUser]

*shrug* If that was the response to everyone who objected to shady tactics, why have a forum to discuss anything?

I don't perceive it as shady. Fine print is a fact of life. If so many other people supposedly agree that it's shady, where are the class-action lawsuits?

It's unfortunate that you take it personally, but it seems clear now that you have a reason to. That still doesn't negate when others object in ways that don't align favorably with those who sign your paycheck.

I'm not taking it personally. You have a problem with the way that some companies do business. Fortunately you have alternatives. If you choose not to switch to one of them, it's silly to whine about that company's business practices. That's a personal problem I can't help you with.