Sprint Throttles Top 1% of Data Users, No "Truly Unlimited" Data For US iPhone Users [Updated x2]

[throttlemeister]

It's funny that I was in a lively back and forth about the topic until I asked how many minutes the Brit I was talking to got for free when he was in France, Germany, Latvia, Greece and Russia. Oddly I didn't get a reply to that, it's like he forgot entirely about the thread!

Not a Brit, but I pay 21 euro/mo for 100min/1GB/unlimited text (don't need more and don't want to pay for what I don't use), and it doesn't matter where I use them in the EU and a few of other countries in the world. No roaming charges or other extra charges for phone or data usage in those countries. At least not for 60 days out of the year. At the same time I get data speeds higher than some people have at home everywhere I go, and the concept of dropped calls is something alien to me.

For the record (Re: Tinmania's remark), while the European Union is about half the size of the US, Europe actually covers a significantly larger area than the US. Regardless of your definition, you will find excellent GSM coverage everywhere, even in remote and low populated areas.

That said, having a gazillion different networks and companies using the same network standards makes it a lot easier because the cost is more spread out. Having 3 networks that are also incompatible with each other makes creating a network with 100% coverage for such a large area a very very expensive ordeal for the companies in question.

 

[gnasher729]

Just stop with all these data plans. Meter the usage and have the costumers pay per MB, so each one pays for his own usage. End of abuse.

There are several problems with that.

First problem, if you look at say all customers on a plan "up to 2GB", they use on average a lot less than that. Let's say the average actual use is 800MB. Then to make the same money, the phone company would obviously have to charge the same for 800MB actual use as they charge for "up to 2GB". A lot of people would be very unhappy with that.

Second problem, you have the cost of measuring, you have the cost of sending a different bill to every single customer, you have problems with customers who believe they have been overcharged. To recover that cost, customers would have to pay _more_ for those 800MB actual use than they pay now for "up to 2GB".

 

[AidenShaw]

There are several problems with that.

First problem, if you look at say all customers on a plan "up to 2GB", they use on average a lot less than that. Let's say the average actual use is 800MB. Then to make the same money, the phone company would obviously have to charge the same for 800MB actual use as they charge for "up to 2GB". A lot of people would be very unhappy with that.

Second problem, you have the cost of measuring, you have the cost of sending a different bill to every single customer, you have problems with customers who believe they have been overcharged. To recover that cost, customers would have to pay _more_ for those 800MB actual use than they pay now for "up to 2GB".

Good points - but a good compromise would be to have more tiers - say 1 GB, 2 GB, 5 GB, 500 GB, 500 TB,....

Have reasonable overage charges, so that if you occasionally exceed your cap you're OK - but if you regularly exceed it you'd be better off at a higher tier. (My last AT&T DSL bill had a $30 overage charge. I say "last" bill because I switched to a Comcast unlimited package for the next cycle.)

 

[benpatient]

No, the last thing they want to do is spend money on reinforcing their networks robustness. They gladly take new customers and their money but they rather limit some of their customers than put the money to use.

this is a discussion about throttling off-network data usage. to dumb it down for you, there is nothing for sprint to reinforce, because the throttling in question is not on their network to begin with.

 

[bungiefan89]

Pointing out that viewing advertising requires some common sense, is not the same as supporting it.

Despite the total self-protection that some people seem to want these days (like labels warning against putting fingers under a lawnmower), people should be expected to use some common sense and maturity with respect to product descriptions.

For example, when Steve Jobs said that some software was "magical", that doesn't mean it is. When he said that some display was the "best ever", he usually meant the best ever in an Apple product, not everywhere. Likewise, this is a world with finite resources and "unlimited" is hard to come by in real life.

--

I think a main problem with using "unlimited" in advertising is that there are people who think that everything should be free and without limits (especially for themselves)... and who take everything too literally.

Another problem is that many people are technically illiterate and really do not understand that bandwidth is not unlimited; that to serve everyone, some limits must be put in place when necessary.

Personally, I like the way that Verizon does it: if and only if there is congestion on a cell, the first ones to get throttled are the biggest users.

For those who really need the bandwidth, I think carriers could add a higher tier of "unlimited" data usage plan: with an extra fee to avoid the throttling. But it would probably be prohibitively expensive.

Or perhaps the best solution is to stop using the word at all.

Exactly. Stop using the word at all. Because it's deliberately meant to mislead the customer in to thinking they have unlimited access to the internet under this data plan.

Of course, consumers are supposed to be smarter than that. They're supposed to be suspicious as a claim as outlandish as an "Unlimited Data Plan", but many of them are not. They're just typical, stupid people who will buy something because the commercial featured a sexy lady and a catchy tune.

 

[wallysb01]

Sprint's offer specifically mentions "Prohibited Data Uses":

But without some sort of "* some limitations apply", its false advertising. There really isn't anything more to it.

The commercial makes it appear as though there are literally no limitations, no throttling, no caps under any circumstances. That is obviously false, they came right out and said it. Whether their was intent to deceive or not, or if they limits they are putting on users are reasonable or not, is meaningless in this debate.

I certainly understand what Sprint means by "unlimited data": It means I can surf the web, do Google searches, and send and receive photos without having to worry about getting charged extra. I also understand that streaming Hulu and Pandora to my phone constantly isn't part of the deal.

Maybe people with the smarts to download all that stuff ought not to play so dumb when it comes to reading the fine print.

But the person selling you that contract has to accurately represent it. If you are verbally lied to and giving misinformation about the contact you're signing, the people selling you that contract are breaking the law.

 

[Lennholm]

this is a discussion about throttling off-network data usage. to dumb it down for you, there is nothing for sprint to reinforce, because the throttling in question is not on their network to begin with.

Let me dumb it down for you: the current discussion I'm involved in has moved off topic, that is, not specific to the case the article is about. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with going off topic as long as it's spun off from the original topic.
I'm talking about the general behaviour of carriers and I'm arguing against those who think it would be perfectly ok for Sprint to throttle even non-roaming usage even though they have specifically promised not to.
As it stands that is still a hypothetical scenario. One that can be discussed nevertheless.
People are still claiming things like "They will do it, it's perfectly understandable and absolutely necessary for the operability of the network" and I point out that that doesn't really matter, if they have promised something they have to face up.

 

[fifthworld]

First problem, if you look at say all customers on a plan "up to 2GB", they use on average a lot less than that. Let's say the average actual use is 800MB. Then to make the same money, the phone company would obviously have to charge the same for 800MB actual use as they charge for "up to 2GB". A lot of people would be very unhappy with that .

So, you basically think it is OK for people using less than average paying the cost for those using more than average? What is this? Telecom communism?

Second problem, you have the cost of measuring, you have the cost of sending a different bill to every single customer, you have problems with customers who believe they have been overcharged. To recover that cost, customers would have to pay _more_ for those 800MB actual use than they pay now for "up to 2GB".

I call this BS. The telecoms are already measuring data usage, and creating a different bill for each costumers and processing their payment is no different than how is done now. A little cost for managing problems with costumers can be easily added without significantly add to the cost per MB.

 

[kdarling]

Exactly. Stop using the word at all. Because it's deliberately meant to mislead the customer in to thinking they have unlimited access to the internet under this data plan.

I think "unlimited" is deliberately used to make the overall plan easier to understand, not to mislead.

We have "unlimited" access to highways, but common sense should tell us that we're sharing them with others and we might have traffic jams.

Likewise, many of us have "unlimited" cable internet, but most people I've talked to understand that if all our neighbors are streaming videos, our speed might suffer. Cell networks are simply mini versions of that scenario.

But without some sort of "* some limitations apply", its false advertising. There really isn't anything more to it.

Legally, sure, they need the (*) notes. Practically speaking, few people ever read those, so we're back to square one: customer ignorance.

I think the ultimate question is: who is responsible for educating the consumer that the airspace is shared like a highway, and thus can have speed and capacity limitations? In other words, in this electronic age, how much should we assume or not that a person knows?

I mean, already we have those annoying popup warnings on our smartphones now about how using data might cost us.

 

[Tinmania]

For the record (Re: Tinmania's remark), while the European Union is about half the size of the US, Europe actually covers a significantly larger area than the US. Regardless of your definition, you will find excellent GSM coverage everywhere, even in remote and low populated areas.

For the record, North America, the continent, is considerably larger than Europe, the continent.

But I was referring to countries not continents.

We have plenty of regional or low-cost carriers that have the same low rates that are being touted by Europeans in a thread about the US carrier Sprint. But amazingly I didn't see people chime in how inexpensive Cricket or Boost Mobile are priced as it really was not relevant.

Get it now?



Michael

 

[atsang]

Has anyone here been throttled by Sprint ever? Because in the past 6 years I've been on Sprint, I certainly haven't and I use it to tether all the time (rooted android).

 

[pmz]

I'm laughing at you... and the other 100 posts before they updated the article.

When will anyone ever learn to fact check? No offense to macrumors, but it's essentially a big blog. MR doesn't claim to be a journalistic site, but the places they quote do... and they're often in error or wrong.

----------



AT&T throttles the top 5% of data consumers. They don't hide the fact. If you're getting throttled, you really are a data hog considering they have what, close to 100 million subscribers?

Are you using it as your only internet source or something? Because that's a lot of data for a mobile device.

I don't get why a wireless company can't provide unlimited data aside from the greed factor though. Yeah, spectrum and congestion can be issues... but LTE has the potential to be a one stop internet source. I think people would highly consider dropping DSL or something for unlimited LTE if the coverage were good where they lived. It really doesn't cost them the money they cry and claim it does.

Its really not anyone's business. AT&T should never have offered Unlimited Data if they couldn't honor the commitment. 10 GB of data is not a lot, I really don't care what anyone's opinion is of it. And it doesn't matter.

Unlimited should mean 2 MB, 1 GB, 100 GB, doesn't matter, its UNLIMITED.

No matter how you look at it, AT&T screwed up, and instead of spending their obscene profits to improve the situation, they're screwing their loyal customers instead.

 

[wallysb01]

Legally, sure, they need the (*) notes. Practically speaking, few people ever read those, so we're back to square one: customer ignorance.

I think the ultimate question is: who is responsible for educating the consumer that the airspace is shared like a highway, and thus can have speed and capacity limitations? In other words, in this electronic age, how much should we assume or not that a person knows?

I mean, already we have those annoying popup warnings on our smartphones now about how using data might cost us.

Oh, I don't know. I notice the *. I can't say I read them all that often, but it does make me aware that there is more to it than the ad may say. Which of course is pretty much always the case, but I still believe we need these laws. They protect consumers from being taken advantage of. We're all ignorant about some thing, and sales people will try to take advantage of that. A true free market requires that the consumers are not being deceived when making purchasing discussions. Otherwise, you lose that "free" part of thee free market.

So to me it isn't about educating people, its about those making products not being allowed to lie about what that product is. I don't have to know the physics governing the limitations of using electromagnetic radiation to transmit data to make a purchasing choice free from manipulation.

 

[twoodcc]

i tried out sprint once, and i read that in the contract. i found it odd, and wasn't sure how comfortable i felt with it. the service wasn't good in my area, so i didn't stick with them anyways

 

[CTCheeseman]

Top 1% of Sprint throttled is not true

Sprint made an official statement saying that they DO NOT throttle users.

http://community.sprint.com/baw/com...th-no-throttling?ECID=SM:TW:20120106UnlimData

Just letting you know that these claims are unfounded.

 

[throttlemeister]

For the record, North America, the continent, is considerably larger than Europe, the continent.

But I was referring to countries not continents.

We have plenty of regional or low-cost carriers that have the same low rates that are being touted by Europeans in a thread about the US carrier Sprint. But amazingly I didn't see people chime in how inexpensive Cricket or Boost Mobile are priced as it really was not relevant.

Get it now?



Michael

Get of your high horse and stop acting like a jerk. And while you're at it, get your facts straight. The size of the US is 3.8 million square miles and that includes the great lakes and territorial waters. The size of Europe is 3.9 million square miles, land only. And don't start yapping about NA again, because your post I was referring to said 'our country' aka the USA since you live in AZ and not everything from Panama to Canada. The only reason I made a differentiation, is because the term Europe is a bit ambiguous, as it used for the European Union and related countries, Western Europe and the continent Europe.

Perhaps when they actually come here and see how large and spread out this country is to blanket with cell coverage as they can do there.

But apparently the inability or unwillingness of carriers to blanket such a large and spread out country is a bit touchy feely for some people when reminded that other areas of similar or larger scale are blanketed.

But again, if that area is divided up by smaller autonomous areas that all want to have good coverage in their area and they all use the same network technology and frequency bands, the cost of blanketing those smaller areas is more manageable for individual carriers while the result is a blanket over the entire area.

Get it now?

 

[wallysb01]

Get of your high horse and stop acting like a jerk. And while you're at it, get your facts straight. The size of the US is 3.8 million square miles and that includes the great lakes and territorial waters. The size of Europe is 3.9 million square miles, land only. And don't start yapping about NA again, because your post I was referring to said 'our country' aka the USA since you live in AZ and not everything from Panama to Canada. The only reason I made a differentiation, is because the term Europe is a bit ambiguous, as it used for the European Union and related countries, Western Europe and the continent Europe.

I don't have a horse in this debate, but that's an interesting tone your taking while simultaneously telling someone to "get of (sic) your high horse".

He WAS referring to North America, so why you create the straw man of US vs Europe in surface area is a bit odd. I suppose people in Vancouver or Montreal are more economically separated than people from those in Seattle or New York, then the people of London and Paris? The line you're trying to draw is just plainly stupid and completely arbitrary.

But apparently the inability or unwillingness of carriers to blanket such a large and spread out country is a bit touchy feely for some people when reminded that other areas of similar or larger scale are blanketed.

Uh, to your second "point", the US has roughly 307 million people. Europe contains roughly 857 million people. So when you have nearly 3x the population density, don't you think its going to be a little easier for cellular providers to pay for "blanketing the continent?"

But again, if that area is divided up by smaller autonomous areas that all want to have good coverage in their area and they all use the same network technology and frequency bands, the cost of blanketing those smaller areas is more manageable for individual carriers while the result is a blanket over the entire area.

Get it now?

Whether its 2-3 huge carriers and a small number of local carries, or just a ton of local carriers, the ability and cost of blanketing a continent or country by the sum of carriers wouldn't change.

From the look of it here, no one is able or willing to discuss the economics of why similar European and American cellular contracts have different costs. I'm guessing population density has a great deal to do with it. It may also be that the US with really only 2 large national carriers lacks sufficient competition to drive prices down to European like levels. I'm pretty sure though, shear size in and of it self has pretty much nothing to do with it, one way or another.

 

[vrDrew]

It may also be that the US with really only 2 large national carriers lacks sufficient competition to drive prices down to European like levels. I'm pretty sure though, shear size in and of it self has pretty much nothing to do with it, one way or another.

Geographic size does have something (but not everything) to do with it: If a mobile carrier has to put up towers to enable coverage in sparsely populated parts of Arizona and West Texas - places where there are likely to be very few paying customers - then chances are those costs are going to be borne by customers living in places like New York and Philadelphia. Apart from northern Scandinavia, most of Europe is generally pretty densely populated, at least compared to the US.

They key reason for the US mobile market being a) more costly and b) offering worse service than in Europe however lies elsewhere. And strangely enough, it came about because US regulators wanted to make sure there was sufficient "competition." They succeeded: unfortunately it was the wrong type.

US regulators dictated that there should be no single wireless standard. And each carrier had to build its own competing but incompatible network - and in most cases duplicating the infrastructure without doubling (or even increasing) the network's carrying capacity. Phones which work on one network don't work on others - so a consumer has to make decision on which phone to buy separate from his decision on which carrier to choose. This is a situation which is largely unique to the US.

I've been widely ridiculed for suggesting that "competition is good" is an oversimplification. But its worth remembering that it was AT&T's highly regulated monopoly that gave the US near universal landline service at a cost and level of service that was the envy of the world despite our geographic vastness. US regulators' desire to ensure "competition" in the cellular market has resulted in a situation where our mobile service is more costly, with worse coverage than most of our European and Asian friends. Go figure.

 

[timinbovey]

Exactly. When I go visit my wife's family, I become

"a guy in his house in rural Montana"

BTW, let me know when ANY provider actually HAS "nationwide 4G".
When a provider publishes news releases that say things like "Blah Blah Company rolls out 4G in 20 more cities" I don't get too excited. A news release that says ".....in 25,000 more cities." I might notice.

 

[kdarling]

US regulators dictated that there should be no single wireless standard. And each carrier had to build its own competing but incompatible network - and in most cases duplicating the infrastructure without doubling (or even increasing) the network's carrying capacity.

I've seen people post this before. Do you have any cites that it was "required"?

The only reason I could think of for requiring such a thing would be in the interest of national security during the Cold War. It would be a good idea to have multiple methods and networks in place in case of WW-III. However, the Cold War effectively ended years before cell carriers began deploying CDMA and GSM.

Remember also that the huge companies like Verizon and AT&T didn't exist until a few years ago... they were made of mergers of many smaller companies each doing their own thing because there was no national plan.

It all came down to cost and effort. Engineers knew that CDMA radios were the better way to go than the TDMA radios that GSM used, but CDMA towers required more up-front planning and investment. Heck, it wasn't even considered feasible at first, because of the timing synchronization issues involved.

A longterm benefit was that 3G for both networks used CDMA type radios and tower siting. Thus the USA carriers who started with CDMA were able to fairly easily deploy 3G across the country years ago.

The GSM carriers had to overlay another network (UMTS-3G using WCDMA radios) on top of their older 2G TDMA network, in order to get 3G coverage, and in the USA they're still working at it, partly because their original tower siting is all wrong for WCDMA. On the upside, by waiting until airspace opened up, they're able to leverage WCDMA to get greater speeds.

Now everyone is moving to add LTE as yet another network on top of their older ones. For Verizon/Sprint users, that means having two radio types in their phones. For ATT users, that will mean now having three radio types in their phone.

 

[wallysb01]

They key reason for the US mobile market being a) more costly and b) offering worse service than in Europe however lies elsewhere. And strangely enough, it came about because US regulators wanted to make sure there was sufficient "competition." They succeeded: unfortunately it was the wrong type.

US regulators dictated that there should be no single wireless standard. And each carrier had to build its own competing but incompatible network - and in most cases duplicating the infrastructure without doubling (or even increasing) the network's carrying capacity. Phones which work on one network don't work on others - so a consumer has to make decision on which phone to buy separate from his decision on which carrier to choose. This is a situation which is largely unique to the US.

That sounds about right. When something sucks, the source of the problem generally seems to be the government....

 

[Roofy.]

I've been reading a lot recently that AT&T is throttling unlimited plans around 2 gigs. Isn't it interesting that their new top tier just happens to be 2 gigs? They can't cancel your 'unlimited' contract so they just throttle you back to the same limits.

Yes. It is ridiculous. I spoke to my father about it and he said the same. they are just trying to get oyu to switch to the 2 gig plan so when you doooo go over, this time they can charge you. Cell phone comapanies are so corrupt its pathetic. ATLEAST verizon allows higher data plans.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It's absurd to argue that the concepts of rate and amount are unrelated.

If I run a bank and say that you are allowed to write an unlimited number of checks without any per-check fee and then you find out that "unlimited" means that you're only allowed to write one check per month, would you still feel like you were a enjoying unlimited check writing privileges?

If you buy a toll tag that charges a flat monthly fee for driving on the tollway in your city and then you're told that after 100 miles of driving you had to drive a 5 mph would you still think that your toll fees afforded you unlimited mileage?

There's a very real point where the rate at which they are willing to provide a service effectively limits the amount that they, in the same breath, promise is unlimited.

It's not where they draw the line that's infuriating, it's that they draw it at all.

And I fully expect that once they get us used to the concept of unlimited data being limited through throttling that the parameters of its implementation will only continue to change further in their favor.

If the bank says you can write one check, but not two... that's a hard, physical limit. The bank cuts you off.

As far as I know... Sprint does not cut off your data... they just slow it down.

True... you won't be able to use as much data being throttled as you would un-throttled... but they still aren't setting a limit to the amount of data.

Yes, but its like if someone wanted to sell you a new car, for say, $21,000, and they promised you along with this car you get free gas for the life of the car. You buy it, then later find out the car will only go 2 miles per hour, after you've reached 50 miles for each month.

There still is no limit on the amount of gas you receive. (I don't know where you got the limit of 50 miles)

 

[Tinmania]

Get of your high horse and stop acting like a jerk. And while you're at it, get your facts straight.

I did. Perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Apparently hypocrisy is though. <sigh>

The fact is this country is spread out far more than those in most of Europe--if not all of them. The density is simply less. Was it really that hard to understand that it is therefore indeed more difficult to blanket in cell coverage? Seriously? It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

The size of the US is 3.8 million square miles and that includes the great lakes and territorial waters. The size of Europe is 3.9 million square miles, land only. And don't start yapping about NA again, because your post I was referring to said 'our country' aka the USA since you live in AZ and not everything from Panama to Canada. The only reason I made a differentiation, is because the term Europe is a bit ambiguous, as it used for the European Union and related countries, Western Europe and the continent Europe.

Wow you are off on a strange tangent. I referred to this country compared to anyone else's in Europe making comments in a thread that has nothing to do with them (about low-cost carriers while at the same time seemingly ignorant to the fact that we have plenty of low-cost carriers but no one is chiming in about them). I did not compare this country to an entire continent. Only you did that. And it's asinine.

I'm going to assume you still won't get it so don't even try.



Michael

 

[juliusaugustus]

the 1 percent versus the 99 percent