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.

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?

[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.

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.