superior coverage, 3g everywhere, better roaming agreements are their advantages IMO
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Should Sprint ditch unlimited to ease network congestion?
- Thread starter CrimsonKnight
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
superior coverage, 3g everywhere, better roaming agreements are their advantages IMO
I have no idea how sprint is still in business. I am in the northeast/New England and you are blanketed completely with good signal wherever you go pretty much. Sprints signal is good, there data just flat out sucks. I mean HORRIBLE.
WTF are they doing and WTF is it taking so long to accomplish??? There speeds are the same as it was 4yrs ago lol
I hang out with a pretty large group of friends and through them meet there friends, I have yet to meet anyone in my 34yrs who has sprint service other than me trying it out a few times
WTF are they doing and WTF is it taking so long to accomplish??? There speeds are the same as it was 4yrs ago lol
I hang out with a pretty large group of friends and through them meet there friends, I have yet to meet anyone in my 34yrs who has sprint service other than me trying it out a few times
Unlimited data isn't the reason Sprint's network sucks. Sitting on their hands while everybody else made improvements is the reason their network sucks. I wonder if they saw T-mobile passing them in LTE pops this year at the last Network Vision meeting because it's already happening......
Doing away with unlimited data wouldn't be effective in decongesting Sprint's legacy network, it probably wouldn't even make a dent.
And I'm sure network abusers are few and far between in areas where the network is overburdened, it's virtually impossible to do anything data intensive with speeds like this:
And I'm sure network abusers are few and far between in areas where the network is overburdened, it's virtually impossible to do anything data intensive with speeds like this:
I have found that to be true for the area I live. It is also one of the reasons I upgraded to the iPhone5, so that I can take advantage of LTE. I haven't had a chance to test LTE a lot, but the times I have, it has been a lot faster than Sprint 3G.
I plan on staying as long as I can with Sprint. Decent price for the family plan. Between the LTE and access to wifi in many areas, I will be happy now.
Agreed my understanding may not be accurate, but i believe:
1. A poorly executed integration of iDen and the Nextel Acquisition
2. Conserving what profits remained from that and not building out the network when they had to, as the smart phone revolution was ramping fast
3. A less than profitable bet on clear wire and Wimax as an end-run around other 4G competition
4. Over dependence on federal contracts
...Were some of their mis-steps of late. Now they are trying to catch up fast and use Japanese investment to do so.
Not everywhere, rural areas tend to fair better than urban areas. Suburban areas can go either way in my experience.
I think all internet providers (wireless, home, business, whatever) should charge by volume of data rather than the speed. All internet providers should deliver to you the data as fast as they reasonably can, no artificial speed tiers.
Instead, they should sell volume plans. 1GB for $10/month, 10GB for $20/month, 1TB for $100/month, etc.
This is a far more realistic, and it will incentivize people to budget their data, and thus incentivize companies to develop more efficient systems.
Yes - This is worth repeating.
Instead, they should sell volume plans. 1GB for $10/month, 10GB for $20/month, 1TB for $100/month, etc.
This is a far more realistic, and it will incentivize people to budget their data, and thus incentivize companies to develop more efficient systems.
Yes - This is worth repeating.
That is... awful. We pay $50 for the same (and have never seen it below 70, but have peaked over 100...) for FiOS unlimited. I can get on board with data caps but $100/mo for 400GB?
Well, the best I've ever done in one month was maybe 50-60GB and that was torrenting. We mainly use the home network for browsing and sometimes streaming so this is a high cap for me. I'd have to do ALOT of downloading to reach it and the truth is that most of my internet time is spent on my boss's internet connection, except for weekends.
I pay Cox that amount mainly because I want the speed. If I'm pulling down 20GB or so I'm usually not in the mood to wait a few days to use what I've downloaded.
I suppose I could switch, but Cox is the only cable internet provider in town. Verizon is very very big (and AT&T) here in PHX, but only for wireless. Verizon does not have FIOS out here so the only other option is DSL and there is NO WAY I am going with Century Link. Out here they were Qwest before then and US West before that and each iteration of the company has sucked. I have a friend on Century Link only because he lives so far out Cox does not run cable. He's had nothing but trouble. All my jobs here in PHX that have had Century Link/Qwest as providers have seen constant service failures. So that leaves me with…Cox.
I'd love to pay less, I know others are getting more for less. On the other hand, Cox has been decent and honest with me so until some sort of competition gets in around here it's the least of two evils.
Oh, and the speed I mentioned is just the selling point of the tier. Actual speeds are anywhere from 50-100mbs. Cox also has the habit of bumping speeds up from time to time but not charging the customer for it.
Last edited:
How does it make no sense? If anything, it makes more sense. If you're a netflix user, you should pay for a higher data tier; if you just check email and have no interest in streaming, you pay a lower tier. If you're provider wants you to stream their stuff, they can have that not count against your monthly allotment (similar to how Verizon to Verizon cell calls don't count towards your monthly minutes, for example). If netflix want's to incetivise your streaming, they can subsidize the data cost.
It's not like your water company charges you based on the width of your pipe, they charge you by the gallon. The electric company charges by killowatt-hour used, not by the rated capacity of the wire connecting your house. Every other utility charges by unit used, it makes no sense for internet companies to be the only ones to charge by some abstract or artificial capacity.
Well, the best I've ever done in one month was maybe 50-60GB and that was torrenting. We mainly use the home network for browsing and sometimes streaming so this is a high cap for me. I'd have to do ALOT of downloading to reach it and the truth is that most of my internet time is spent on my boss's internet connection, except for weekends.
I pay Cox that amount mainly because I want the speed. If I'm torrenting down 20GB or so I'm usually not in the mood to wait a few days to use what I've downloaded.
I suppose I could switch, but Cox is the only cable internet provider in town. Verizon is very very big (and AT&T) here in PHX, but only for wireless. Verizon does not have FIOS out here so the only other option is DSL and there is NO WAY I am going with Century Link. Out here they were Qwest before then and US West before that and each iteration of the company has sucked. I have a friend on Century Link only because he lives so far out Cox does not run cable. He's had nothing but trouble. All my jobs here in PHX that have had Century Link/Qwest as providers have seen constant service failures. So that leaves me with Cox.
I'd love to pay less, I know others are getting more for less. On the other hand, Cox has been decent and honest with me so until some sort of competition gets in around here it's the least of two evils.
Oh, and the speed I mentioned is just the selling point of the tier. Actual speeds are anywhere from 50-100mbs. Cox also has the habit of bumping speeds up from time to time but not charging the customer for it.
I mean, if you're happy with it, great! I am just saying that, compared to other packages, $100 for what you are getting seems really expensive to me. I honestly have no idea how much data I actually consume at home. I am sure there is a way to check, but I have never bothered since I have no need. We do heavily rely on streamed content though, especially with our NAS setup, so it might be higher than your usage (I suspect we have higher than typical upload). Anyway, it's sort of a matter of principle for me. If you are dropping a Benjamin on JUST and internet connection, I would expect them to throw you a bone.
Sort of a tangent, but do they offer business plans? I can see 400GB becoming problematic for those running a server or some such.
Happy. Yes. HAPPPPY!!!! No. But the only viable alternative is Century Link. No.
I agree with your principle. I just can't apply it in this market.
Yes, Cox has Cox Business. I cannot say for sure if they have data caps or not, but I do know that if you want a static IP address you have to get a business plan. Servers are allowed only on the business plans I believe.
I've tried to get my boss to go to Cox Business, but the phones are also wrapped up with the DSL and I have no idea whether they pay one bill or two for the phones and the ISP.
Tiers are fine. It's how those tiers are handled that is ridiculous. First off, every wireless carrier (except pay as you go) in America requires a data package with a smartphone, regardless of how I acquired it. If I acquired said phone off contract, I am still required to pay for the data package, which is a minimum of $20. The way I see it, if I am not a mobile data user, I am paying $20 a month just to have the privilege of making phone calls and sending texts on the phone.
Next, we get into pricing, which I already mentioned a bit. $200/300mb (depending on carrier) of data for $20? And then 2/3gb (again, depending) for $30? How on earth does that make sense. That isn't a logical tier, no matter what these companies are promising. I get the idea behind "bulk", but seriously.
Lastly, why has no company incorporated rollover (if they are so truly concerned about the customer getting what they pay for)? There are plenty of months where I am well under 2GB usage. The last couple of months I topped 5GB (various reasons, but not necessarily typical usage). If I were paying for the 3GB package, I would have been fine for months, with room to spare, yet paid $20 in overages for the last few months. What of the data that I paid for before and didn't use? Making people micro manage their accounts is ridiculous, especially with the technology we have available to us. How easy would it be to bump a user to the next tier, for the month, after sending them an "is this ok?" notification and then dropping them back down? If this happens multiple months in a row, another simple notification pops up recommending a permanent change to the tier. The bottom line is, they COULD change it, but they make more money on overages, so why bother?
To be clear, this mini "rant" isn't directed so much at you, as a response to the notion that tiers are a good idea. They certainly can be. And I would be all for them, if they used them in a logical (for the customer) manner. But what I am sick and tired of is this huge corporations saying, straight faced, I might add, that their decisions are heavily based on "what consumers want". Yeah, right!
Happy. Yes. HAPPPPY!!!! No. But the only viable alternative is Century Link. No.
I agree with your principle. I just can't apply it in this market.
Yes, Cox has Cox Business. I cannot say for sure if they have data caps or not, but I do know that if you want a static IP address you have to get a business plan. Servers are allowed only on the business plans I believe.
I've tried to get my boss to go to Cox Business, but the phones are also wrapped up with the DSL and I have no idea whether they pay one bill or two for the phones and the ISP.
I hear that. I went to Iowa State for grad school and internet was horrible. Outages all the time, and we were lucky to have 3 megabit. The kicker was it cost $54.99 a month, and it was either that, or dialup. I lived very close to the university, so if I needed a connection I could count on I would head to the library, which was open late. Ironically, I started using my smartphone for internet because I could count on it much more. Moving to Boston I must have downloaded a few TB in the first couple of months just because I felt I had to keep things going at the speeds I was getting. LOL!
I am totally with you there. The current state of tiered wireless data plans is nonsense. But I think the "unlimited" data that tmobile and sprint offer are somewhat facetious; it's laughable to believe they are trully unlimited.
I do like the idea of the carrier automatically bumping you to a higher plan for one month if you go over. I know Sprint used to do that with minutes; instead of charging you overages, they would just auto-bump you to the next highest plan for one month. I think Ting does that too.
As for being required to buy a data plan as a precondition of being a customer, I think its silly but they are in their right to do that. Some other smaller carriers (prepaid mostly) don't require that, and the market can decide. The problem is the competition isn't very fair right now, so customers really can't decide, and thus are stuck.
And for rollover, I think that could be alright but it doesn't really fit well into the tiered model. The point of tiers is budgeting and incentives; you're incentivezed to use as little as you can and your reward for doing so is saving money. If your usage suddenly goes up one month, you shouldn't be able to escape the cost due to using less earlier on. If you used less earlier on, you should be rewarded with the cost savings of a lower tier.
All of this of course is hypothetical. Ting is the closest carrier to this vision, but they have a long ways to go before they can influence other carrier to adopt this model.
My problem with this, as mentioned, is it requires people to micro manage their usage. It's silly. On top of that, data is a much more complex thing to manage than minutes, or texts. Give me a real tier, where everyone pays the same amount per GB whether they use 1GB or 100GB per month. And $10 per GB? That's incredibly steep, if you ask me... We micromanage enough of our lives on a daily basis. Having to do the same with a stupid data plan is just ridiculous (my opinion, of course).
You have FIOS?! nothing here in Brookline
----------
Larger data buckets in the tiered plans and rollover data would be great. You'd think AT&T would do it since they have rollover minutes but I guess not...
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.
Damn brother. You are getting the shaft out there in Brookline. But hell, it IS a nice place to live, so there's that.