Sprint to throttle 'unfair' customers using more than 23GB of data per month

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 78



    That's life.

     

    Put it another way, I go and buy an iPhone 4. A year later they release iPhone 5.  I go into the shop and say here is my iPhone 4 give me the iPhone 5.  You know where they would have me stick my iPhone 4?  Same answer to Sprint.

  • Reply 42 of 78
    jack mac wrote: »

    As long as you are paying your monthly fees you are still entitled to the deal.  Contracts were established only for the purpose of purchasing the phone. I have been out of contract for three years and maintain my unlimited plan and pay full price for a new phone inorder  to maintain my current plan.

    :rolleyes::no:
  • Reply 43 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jack Mac View Post

     



    As long as you are paying your monthly fees you are still entitled to the deal.  Contracts were established only for the purpose of purchasing the phone. I have been out of contract for three years and maintain my unlimited plan and pay full price for a new phone inorder  to maintain my current plan.


    That's just not true.  What is true is that the service providers allow you continued use of a plan that you had while you were under contract. You are not entitled to anything if not in a contract. The whole purpose of the contract is to stipulate what conditions you are entitled to for a fee, during the life of the contract. Any service provider could treat out-of-contract users much differently, because they can. It would be a publicity nightmare, at least until every provider did so. 

     

    If you find anything in your contract stating that you have the same entitlements outside of it, or some point of law, please put a link to that, as I'd be very surprised.

  • Reply 44 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

     

    So it's limited after all.


    You are correct. "Still limited" would also be correct. 

     

    All service providers could avoid any confusion simply by dropping the misleading use of the word "unlimited" just as so many providers have done with the word "broadband". They don't because "unlimited" sounds impressive and so is a great advertising hook. If you sign up for unlimited data and download 45G a month and then are told "No, you're taking too much, we're slowing your roll" it's limited.

     

    If you go to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, they may give you an initial limitation by giving you small plates so you have to make many trips to get your fill. You know that going in. Then the managers sees you have no problem making a dozen trips and says "Whoa! You can't have that much food!" it's no longer all you can eat. If you're eating the food, not loading up bags with it, the manager isn't living up to the AYCE advertising. 

     

    This is what's happening to "unlimited" data use with throttling. ATT raised their throttling limit from 5G to 22G not because they're a magnanimous overlord, but because the FCC didn't agree that throttled data is unlimited data, just as they don't believe any Internet access constitutes broadband. ATT did this hoping the FCC will back off. This is why Sprint is doing this. This in no way should be considered as our data overlords being fair. Like the manager of the restaurant, if your resources don't support your advertising, change your advertising. Throttling is imposing a limitation. "Fairness" has nothing to do with throttling. 

     

    Not to mention that throttling is being done outside of the stipulations of our contracts, instead of changing the terms at renewal, as in any other legal contract.

     

    I hope the FCC establishes a standard definition for "unlimited" just as it did for broadband. Advertising "unlimited" then establishing a limit or limits is simply not "unlimited" yet providers are successfully convincing users it is with it's de facto "standard".

  • Reply 45 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by IndyFX View Post

     



    Sorry wiz ou are dead wrong and pkabir is correct. A cord cutter refers to cutting subscription content services (cable/sat) and going with web based content. (google it)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord-cutting


    To be a little more accurate, cord-cutting is about dropping subscription services and seeking alternatives. It's not specifically for web-based content. Note that the Wikipedia article starts out with cable TV. Cutting the cord could mean dropping the cable subscription and TV programming altogether, getting the content from the web or getting Over The Air (OTA) broadcasts of television content with an antenna.

     

    Trading one subscription service- cable or satellite, etc., for another- Amazon, Netflix, etc., sort of stretches the definition, to my mind, but that's just me.

  • Reply 46 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Command_F View Post

     

    I know this is a contentious issue but throttling is actually a sensible and fair network management practice. 


    I disagree with this statement, if a provider uses the word "unlimited" in advertising and contract.

     

    If you can't use as much data per month for your contracted fee after throttling as you could before, you're not getting unlimited service. If you can't download as fast after throttling as you could before, you are being limited. In fact, even if your hardware somehow fails to allow you to reach the same speeds as a fellow subscriber who has better gear, and some kind of cap is imposed, you are being limited.

     

    Solution: Drop "unlimited" from any advertising where service is offered, and don't offer an actual unlimited plan if the infrastructure can't support it. Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk, so to speak. 

     

    Throttling is a providers method of changing the terms of a contract in force, so that can't be called out for doing exactly what they're doing.

  • Reply 47 of 78
    jensonbjensonb Posts: 532member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lightknight View Post





    Streaming in my opinion only exists for one purpose: tracking use. It diverts consumers from "buy once, use plenty" to "pay per use".



    It has at least one other purpose: reducing storage space requirements.

     

    Not everything is entirely sinister, you know.

  • Reply 48 of 78
    Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

    It has at least one other purpose: reducing storage space requirements.



    Yeah, but this is. I prefer the “I actually own the things for which I pay” model.

  • Reply 49 of 78
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danny602 View Post



    I'm paying for it, I'll use as much data as I please, throttle this!



    Clearly you've never read a service contract. They all contain fair use clauses. Just look for them. Unless you intend to sue Sprint, change service providers, or file a complaint with whatever bureaucratic agency, they will throttle you past 23GB. Cable internet providers do something similar. They just warn you first, and the amounts are much higher.

     

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    Yeah, but this is. I prefer the “I actually own the things for which I pay” model.


     

    You don't really own most of what you buy in the sense that there are restrictions on use. For example it's illegal in many states to place computers or other electronics in the trash. You can buy a house and not own any kind of mineral rights to the land. Movies may differ slightly, but if you bought one on VHS, ownership won't really help you today. The same goes for dvds.

  • Reply 50 of 78
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post

    You don't really own most of what you buy in the sense that there are restrictions on use.

     

    So in no meaningful sense, then. “I don’t actually own this gun because I can’t use it without restriction.” “I don’t actually own this orange juice because I can’t waterboard someone with it.” I have a local (or physical) copy of the content; that means it’s mine and they can’t take it away. That’s also why I really dislike the Apple TV’s web-based “apps”.

     

    For example it's illegal in many states to place computers or other electronics in the trash.


     

    I threw away all of my compact (and not so compact) fluorescents. Oh well. You don’t provide for me a mercury recycling station? Don’t be surprised when I don’t drive 500 miles out of my way to get to one. Same goes for computer components.

     

    I bet they don’t want you to throw away toner cartridges, either.

     

    You can buy a house and not own any kind of mineral rights to the land.


     

    But... own the house, which is kind of the idea.

  • Reply 51 of 78
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

      Quote:


    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    So in no meaningful sense, then. “I don’t actually own this gun because I can’t use it without restriction.” “I don’t actually own this orange juice because I can’t waterboard someone with it.” I have a local (or physical) copy of the content; that means it’s mine and they can’t take it away. That’s also why I really dislike the Apple TV’s web-based “apps”.


    Okay I get your distinction. There's still the issue of permanence due to divergences in technology. I don't terms to get any more consumer friendly.

     

    Quote:


    I threw away all of my compact (and not so compact) fluorescents. Oh well. You don’t provide for me a mercury recycling station? Don’t be surprised when I don’t drive 500 miles out of my way to get to one. Same goes for computer components.

     

    I bet they don’t want you to throw away toner cartridges, either.



     

    You would be correct.

     

    I've recycled those things. It's a pain in the ass. It would be better to force companies to deal with that on the manufacturing end, because most people don't even know how to dispose of them. It's not promptly displayed anywhere when you purchase the things. They're marketed by energy savings, and they downplay the disposal issues. Some places do have way better electronics recycling services, but it's generally paid for by taxes tacked onto the purchase of said items or bundled with local sales tax.

  • Reply 52 of 78

    I'm a cable chord cutter of 5 years, but still have wifi at home.  I never use wifi in the office, and year to date I have used 19.3GB of data.  That includes time spent streaming kids games and netflix on my phone. 



    I have no idea how anyone does that in a single month. 

  • Reply 53 of 78
    According to metrics provided by the carrier, with 23GB of data users can send 6,000 emails with attachments, view 1,500 Web pages, post 600 photos, stream 60 hours of music and another 50 hours of video.

    That really is not a lot of data some of you need to get real. With continual upgrades and tweek's to OS and Apps eating in to your allowance all the time and if you are serious about your photography you need at least 3 times that.

    I have become disenchanted with iTunes, Job's did us not favours with the poor quality and missing data of MP3's, I now only download or stream HD music which consumes data at a high rate.

    Here in the UK I get 120GB per month and between midnight and 5:00 am free unrestricted downloads and need it.
  • Reply 54 of 78
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    hitchhyker wrote: »
    According to metrics provided by the carrier, with 23GB of data users can send 6,000 emails with attachments, view 1,500 Web pages, post 600 photos, stream 60 hours of music and another 50 hours of video.

    That really is not a lot of data some of you need to get real. With continual upgrades and tweek's to OS and Apps eating in to your allowance all the time and if you are serious about your photography you need at least 3 times that.

    I have become disenchanted with iTunes, Job's did us not favours with the poor quality and missing data of MP3's, I now only download or stream HD music which consumes data at a high rate.

    Here in the UK I get 120GB per month and between midnight and 5:00 am free unrestricted downloads and need it.

    iTunes doesn't use MP3. Where do you get 120GB a month on a cell plan in the UK? My daughter went there for 4 years of university, and we never saw a plan like that.

    She also had to pay a lot of money for Tv on her MacBook Pro, which she never watched. We don't have a government Tv payment requirement like that. Nor do we have to pay 21% VAT on almost everything.

    Everything you guys have to pay for things more than negates what we pay.
  • Reply 55 of 78
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    iTunes doesn't use MP3. Where do you get 120GB a month on a cell plan in the UK? My daughter went there for 4 years of university, and we never saw a plan like that.



    She also had to pay a lot of money for Tv on her MacBook Pro, which she never watched. We don't have a government Tv payment requirement like that. Nor do we have to pay 21% VAT on almost everything.



    Everything you guys have to pay for things more than negates what we pay.



    There aren't many mobile plans that get into double digit GBs in the UK (or they claim unlimited) so I imagine that must be a typo, or he's talking about home broadband.

  • Reply 56 of 78
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,323moderator
    crowley wrote: »
    There aren't many mobile plans that get into double digit GBs in the UK (or they claim unlimited) so I imagine that must be a typo, or he's talking about home broadband.

    It says on the following site that Three offers a 1TB limit:

    http://www.knowyourmobile.com/mobile-phones/4g-uk/16065/unlimited-data-which-uk-network-offers-most
    http://support.three.co.uk/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBISAPI.DLL?Command=New,Kb=Mobile,Ts=Mobile,T=Article,varset_cat=internetapps,varset_subcat=3583,Case=obj(3833)

    the rest are pretty low. I don't know why companies or even governments aren't pushing ahead with trying to blanket cities with wifi antennas like with high range ones in street lamps or other objects. Telecoms companies have been overpricing their data plans for far too long. Just 100-200 1 mile range antennas for the biggest cities and leave cellular for outside the city and in wifi dead-zones.
  • Reply 57 of 78

    Tablets don't have unlimited plans first off, and second the unlimited phone data is only for your phone if you are sharing that it is limited (i.e. tethering) and if you have rooted your phone then you are breaking Sprint's ToS. B41 (TD-LTE) from what I have been told by Engineers @ Sprint they are getting 1 Gbps connections as they are going to carrier aggregate 2x 20 MHz chunks. Cellular does not have the capacity to replace home internet systems, do not confuse this with PtP a la WISP systems which can take a lot more traffic. Cellular at the moment is supplemental, now once mmWave stuff and 2nd Gen LTE-A networks come online we can re-address this.

     

    Also as far as people saying Sprint (or any carrier) should be sued for not being unlimited, the data is unlimited however they have never made any claims how fast the connection would be, in fact the speeds carriers associate with LTE are often pretty low Verizon officially says "5-12 Mbps and upload speeds of 2-5 Mbps" and Sprint says "6-8 Mbps downloads and  2-3 Mbps uploads." Unlimited is not equal to un-throttled.

  • Reply 58 of 78
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    It says on the following site that Three offers a 1TB limit

    That's a practical limit, not a cap.  Three call it unlimited.

  • Reply 59 of 78
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Marvin wrote: »
    It says on the following site that Three offers a 1TB limit:

    http://www.knowyourmobile.com/mobile-phones/4g-uk/16065/unlimited-data-which-uk-network-offers-most
    http://support.three.co.uk/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBISAPI.DLL?Command=New,Kb=Mobile,Ts=Mobile,T=Article,varset_cat=internetapps,varset_subcat=3583,Case=obj(3833)

    the rest are pretty low. I don't know why companies or even governments aren't pushing ahead with trying to blanket cities with wifi antennas like with high range ones in street lamps or other objects. Telecoms companies have been overpricing their data plans for far too long. Just 100-200 1 mile range antennas for the biggest cities and leave cellular for outside the city and in wifi dead-zones.

    Interesting. I wonder what the gotcha's are, or how long they would offer it. I can't see how they would make a profit off that,
  • Reply 60 of 78
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    pkabir wrote: »
    Tablets don't have unlimited plans first off, and second the unlimited phone data is only for your phone if you are sharing that it is limited (i.e. tethering) and if you have rooted your phone then you are breaking Sprint's ToS. B41 (TD-LTE) from what I have been told by Engineers @ Sprint they are getting 1 Gbps connections as they are going to carrier aggregate 2x 20 MHz chunks. Cellular does not have the capacity to replace home internet systems, do not confuse this with PtP a la WISP systems which can take a lot more traffic. Cellular at the moment is supplemental, now once mmWave stuff and 2nd Gen LTE-A networks come online we can re-address this.

    Also as far as people saying Sprint (or any carrier) should be sued for not being unlimited, the data is unlimited however they have never made any claims how fast the connection would be, in fact the speeds carriers associate with LTE are often pretty low Verizon officially says "5-12 Mbps and upload speeds of 2-5 Mbps" and Sprint says "6-8 Mbps downloads and  2-3 Mbps uploads." Unlimited is not equal to un-throttled.

    Not true. My iPad, from the beginning, on AT&T had an unlimited service. I was never throttled for several years. Then we went to Verizon, and no unlimited plans.
Sign In or Register to comment.