Sprint Will Start Throttling Customers Who Exceed 23GB Monthly (sprint.com)

CNET reports (and CTO John Saw explains on the company's blog) that Sprint has decided to taper access to a slice of its "unlimited" wireless data customers, by throttling access (not curtailing it, at least) to those who slurp down more than 23 gigabytes per month -- the same cap that T-Mobile has imposed. If you think "throttled" and "unlimited" don't quite jibe to describe the same service, you're not the only one to quibble: CNET notes that regulators have "begun scrutinizing the carriers' practice [of slowing access past a cap]. In June, the Federal Communications Commission threatened to fine AT&T $100 million for deceiving its customers by mislabeling its service as unlimited. The FCC also challenged Verizon when the company planned to expand its data throttling policy to its 4G customers. The company retracted that policy last fall. In June, Verizon also stopped slowing unlimited-data traffic for 3G customers."

Comments

Slow anyway

[NoKaOi]

When I had Sprint it was so f'ing slow that there's no way I could ever approach 23GB. I always figure that's how they could get away with "unlimited" data plans.

Re:Slow anyway

[arth1]

2400 bps ought to be enough for anybody.

1200/75, because no one can type faster than 7 characters or read more than a page of text per second.

It's sad, but a good portion of what people spend dozens of megabytes to download, like news reports, could have been conveyed more accurately with more detail in half a page of text. Even web pages are horribly wasteful. Do we really need to see a picture of Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush with every article that mentions them? Don't we know what they look like by now? And do we really need a megbyte of javascript to get the ten lines of text?

I miss Veronica.

Re:Slow anyway

[Andrio]

I had Sprint back from 2011-2013. The data was so slow, when I first signed up I called them a few times, wondering what was wrong, because there was just no way that the data could actually be that slow. Over the next two years, I had developed a somewhat perverted fascination with the slowness of Sprint's network. I ran speed tests all the time just to see those 50-130 kbps speeds (that's bits, not bytes). It's like when you have a sore in your mouth, and you keep touching it with your tongue just to verify that it still hurts.

And yes, that was the speed I consistently saw. It doesn't matter if it was in the morning, afternoon, or 2AM. It was always around those speeds. It doesn't matter if I was on the east coast of florida, west coast, or in central florida. My phone at the time could use their WiMax network, which did get good speed, but it was the most useless technology ever. It basically didn't work unless you were standing right in front of a cell tower.

I then switched to T-Mobile. The first thing I did was run a speed test. I saw 12Mpbs.

Re:Slow anyway

[Cederic]

1200/75, because no one can type faster than 7 characters or read more than a page of text per second.

Clearly you never played online PvP (or PK as they were known in '92) muds.

You don't need to read the text, you need to see it scroll past your eyes. Your brain is excellent at filtering out the noise, and in a big fight there's a lot of textual noise. There's also important information, and you need to see that.

The full text you can scroll back and read once you're dead. Useful for understanding why and how it happened.

Lad balancing?

[tomhath]

FTFA:

Sprint said customers will still be able to use unlimited amounts of data without overage charges, but for moments when the network is congested, traffic from heavy-data customers will move more slowly. Sprint said the policy operates in real time and only applies if a cell site is constrained. Performance for an affected customer returns to normal as soon as the local traffic returns to normal.

Doesn't seem all that diabolical. The alternative is the end of unlimited plans (which is probably coming anyway).

Re:Lad balancing?

[sribe]

only in america, when somebody promises you something for nothing

Since when is a ~$2,000 contract "nothing"???

Re:Lad balancing?

[Frosty Piss]

only in america, when somebody promises you something for nothing, you can sue them when they don't deliver!

What did Sprint offer that they are not delivering on? Have they added a data cap to "unlimited" accounts? You know, I don't think so.

So what have they done? They have said that they will prioritize Data Hogs such that other customers retain some kind of decent up/down speed. "Unlimited" does not mean you get the whole pipe.

And really, why would anyone download 23 GB in a month on their cell phone data plan? Because you are an asshole? Maybe if you are near WiFi you should be using that and be a "good neighbor"? Oh, that's right, you're selfish and unrealistic 20-something.

Sprint's policy is good for all its customers except Data Hogs who so narcissistic that they have no interest in anyone but themselves.

Re:Lad balancing?

[tomhath]

Because they rooted their phone (which violates the contract) and use it as their wifi access point. They are paying for phone service, not unlimited internet for their home entertainment system.

Re:Lad balancing?

[Noah Haders]

it takes a special kind of asshole to watch netflix on a cell phone. it's like being on a rubber dinghy with an asshole, and he uses the last remaining water to wash his socks.

Re:Lad balancing?

[jhol13]

Bloody hell, back here (Finland) they advertise netflix-like services for tablets. Slogan goes "you can watch what ever you like where ever you like, when ever you like" and the picture shows a mobile phone and tablet. But then, they do not limit 4G in any way.
Not that I mind some cap, but 23G is smallish (less than a movie per day).

Re:Lad balancing?

[Noah Haders]

i say these hoggy users should be cut off from the teat! go watch your porn on a laptop!

Re:Lad balancing?

[mjwx]

only in america, when somebody promises you something for nothing

Since when is a ~$2,000 contract "nothing"???

Over 2 years that's $83 per month and most of that is paying for the handset.

The thing about people who think their big contributors is that they actually aren't. Your $83 per month is nothing to a multi-billion dollar business in an industry with extremely high barriers to entry (and forget mentioning regulation, they're insignificant. The major barrier is the cost of infrastructure when it comes to the telecommunications industry). Industries like telecommunications aren't worried about losing one customer, mainly because they know that there's someone from a rival telco who has the exact same idea.

You've reminded me of an event I witnessed in a liquor store a few months back. This guy in an average looking suit was berating the only clerk because he wouldn't carry a carton of beer out of the cool room for him. The guy certainly didn't look disabled and there was no-one else to man the counter. The argument boiled down to the fact the guy just didn't want to carry his own stuff and he was using every arrogant trick in the book. The old "I pay you wages", "I earn x hundred thousand a year", "I'm important", "I'm going to get you fired" and all the other tropes people with little man syndrome love to use. Then a old bloke in jeans and a jumper walks up to him and says "sunshine, you're no-one" and hands him a business card before taking his wine to the checkout. The arrogant guy was livid, threw the card to the ground and stormed out.

I picked up the business card, it was a card from a mining giant and said "Director". The guy in an unassuming outfit buying wine was one of the richest people in Perth. I had to shake his hand and tell him he was a great bloke.

Sorry for the Grandpa Simpson story (yes, I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time), but its a good lesson that you should never think you're too important and being humble and polite is more likely to get you what you want.

Re:Lad balancing?

[marka63]

They can be cut off by not renewing the contract when its term is up. That is the legal way for Sprint to deal with this issue. As long as Sprint keeps renewing the contract then they must keep abiding by the contract. Unlimited means not applying limits in any shape or form.

It is not up to you to decide how someone uses the data they have purchased.

Re:Lad balancing?

[marka63]

This isn't a food line.

Lets say the user used the 23G watching netflix at night and now needs the internet to be doing work during the day. Is it really fair that his work usage gets penalised because he watched netflix at night when he bought a unlimited contract.

If he bought a 23G contract which said "If you are over 23G and there is congestion we will speed limit you." then I would have no complaint as he mismanaged the data he has purchased.

Re:Why 23, though?

[__aaclcg7560]

It's a prime number between 20 and 25.

Re:When in Rome

[CaTfiSh]

One might construe from "unlimited" that it means unlimited use of a service as described. Not, unlimited until you reach a cap where you'll receive a 2nd tier service. As for its impact on other customers, either you can manage an "unlimited" offering, or you can't. The term is deceptive, despite being in the contract. They simply need to find another descriptor for their service.

What are you people doing with your lives?

[kheldan]

I have to question how anyone can use 23GB of data per month on a cellphone. Seriously, what are you doing with your life if you're using the Internet on your phone that much? It's excessive and I really can't blame Sprint for making the decision they're making, and anyone who is using anywhere near that much on their phone in a month on a regular basis, in my opinion, needs to take a hard look at what they're doing and why, and make some lifestyle changes.

Re:What are you people doing with your lives?

[Shados]

I don't use much (3-4gb a month), but i can easily see how someone could do more:

1) watching movies in bed
2) tethering from a coffee shop.

When you have unlimited, some habits also change...I have an unlimited plan now (promotion, obviously I wouldnt with my usage), and I'll do stuff like download a large game while walking to the subway because....I can.

Re:When in Rome

[marka63]

Which is apply a limit above and beyond those inherent in the system. Unlimited means unlimited. If a packet comes there will be a attempt to transmit it. If the buffer overflow on the transmitting path then it overflow. This is expected behaviour of a IP system.

If you preferentially drop packets because the destination has a unlimited plan then you are applying a limit. It may be a soft limit but it is a limit.

Maybe

[nehumanuscrede]

just maybe, they are in those lovely parts of the US of A where they can't get decent broadband. You know, where the big pipe providers skipped because it wouldn't be profitable or promised a fiber rollout for everyone and didn't deliver.

With this in mind, perhaps tethering is their only access to the net. Or, they're running a cellular enabled router ( Like say a Cisco 819 ) to provide a household with net access.

So while it's possible someone is watching Netflix via their phone, or streaming music 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, don't rule out the possibility that, due to the carriers greed, their phone may be one of the few options they have.

Give me what I signed up for

[davidwr]

If I'm grandfathered into a discontinued unlimited plan, keep letting me use the highest speeds that were available when you stopped offering the plan to new customers.

In 2020 I'll either be content with "slow" 2015-era speeds or I'll switch plans (or carriers).

Re:Throttling Customers

[wonkey_monkey]

"Why you little...!"