Sprint Plans To Kill The One Thing That People Liked About It: Unlimited Data

from the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot dept

Wed, Jun 24th 2015 3:45pm — Karl Bode

Before the FCC's new net neutrality rules went into effect, Sprint surprised a few people by coming out in favor of Title II based net neutrality rules, making them the only one of the big four carriers to clearly and publicly support the shift. Now news reports also suggest that while T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon continue to throttle customers (unlimited or otherwise), Sprint has announced that just before the rules took effect the company decided to stop throttling its customers entirely, just to be on the safe side:

"Sprint, the third-largest U.S. wireless carrier, had been intermittently choking off data speeds for its heaviest wireless Internet users when its network was clogged. But it stopped on Friday, when the government's new net-neutrality rules went into effect....Sprint said it believes its policy would have been allowed under the rules, but dropped it just in case. "Sprint doesn't expect users to notice any significant difference in their services now that we no longer engage in the process," a Sprint spokesman said.

Specifics are skimpy as to precisely what Sprint was doing, but it seems likely that the company wasn't entirely sure that it could prove the throttling was necessary due to network congestion. Meanwhile, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile continue to use throttling as a network management practice, but they apparently hope to use semantics to play patty cake with FCC lawyers should the commission have any problems with what they're up to:

"T-Mobile spokespeople have been trying to convince Ars that "de-prioritization" isn't actually "throttling." Verizon has also claimed that its own "network optimization" isn't throttling. The tactic is reminiscent of Comcast's claim that its data caps aren't actually "data caps." Regardless of what semantics the carriers use, they are slowing down their customers. T-Mobile's policy is fairly generous, though. As of now, it applies only to unlimited customers who use more than 21GB of data in a month. Those customers are "de-prioritized for the remainder of the billing cycle in times and at locations where there are competing customer demands for network resources."

The semantics of the word "throttling" aside, the FCC has made it pretty clear the rules allow ISPs to use throttling as a network management tool to deal with congested networks, carriers just can't use throttling and network management as a pretense to make an extra buck. And as we've seen with AT&T being sued by the FTC and fined by the FCC, regulators are making it pretty clear they won't tolerate carriers that offer an "unlimited" service, then throttle it without making that clear to the end user. Watching the hammer come down on AT&T's throttling of unlimited data plans specifically is likely what prompted Sprint to back off its own throttling practices.

Granted, Sprint has bigger problems than the FCC's neutrality rules at the moment. The company continues to lag in last place in most network performance and customer satisfaction surveys, and has struggled to retain customers in the face of AT&T and Verizon's superior networks, and T-Mobile's consumer-friendly theatrics. Sprint currently has to figure out how to repair and substantially expand a last-place network while managing to nab market share from the other three carriers. So far, there's every indication that the company isn't going to be able to do that and compete on price at the same time. New company CEO Marcelo Claure has now suggested several times the company is going to kill one of the few things customers like about Sprint: unlimited data.

So while it's great that Sprint's so enthusiastic about complying with the FCC's new net neutrality rules, that won't mean much to consumers if Sprint implodes, or decides to weaken the competitive field by pricing services just like AT&T and Verizon.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, unlimited data
Companies: sprint

27 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mark Wing, 24 Jun 2015 @ 4:02pm

The news to me in all this is that there were people who liked Sprint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2015 @ 4:25pm

Sprint has come a long ways in the last couple years and their network metrics have been steadily improving. There are still problem areas, but service for me is pretty good. I generally get good to great data speeds now and have no issues with voice calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2015 @ 6:04am
  
  Re:
  --There are still problem areas
  
  So what you are saying is they are not much better than they were 10 years ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2015 @ 4:43pm

If they are delivering those customers' data via a lower priority QOS tier, that seems exactly appropriate to ensure other users can get work done, but doesn't really affect the QOS customer when there's no actual congestion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2015 @ 4:44pm

I'm confused: the title "Sprint Plans To Kill The One Thing That People Liked About It: Unlimited Data" doesn't have anything directly to do with the article, which seemed to be about Sprint stopping it's throttling. Am I missing something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 24 Jun 2015 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re:
  The last 7 lines.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2015 @ 5:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    In which case the title should be changed. It's an entire article discussing how Sprint is stopping it's throttling. And a single sentence blurb about the title that fucking explains nothing, just gives a link to another website if you actually want to learn a damn thing about what the title says.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl Bode (profile), 24 Jun 2015 @ 7:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I tend to agree with you. I floated between two titles, but found the fact that they're killing unlimited data to be more interesting than the fact they backed off throttling unlimited data, so I went with the former as a title, thinking users would read through for full context and background. In the process I probably buried the lede pretty painfully, sorry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2015 @ 12:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me rephrase. This article title is click bait. The article has fuck all to do with Sprint planning to end unlimited data. I saw the title, and read the article to learn:
        
        -When Sprint said this, and the reliability of the statement or if it was just a rumor.
        -The likelihood they would actually carry through with this.
        -When and how unlimited data plans would actually be terminated, or if they'd simply be no longer offering it to newcomers and people making changes to their plan.
        -The likely impact on the price of their services.
        
        Those are the things that would actually make the article about Sprint planning to end unlimited data. It has none of them. This article is wholly about "Sprint ends throttling practices". A single sentence linking to an article that actually is about the title does not change that. This isn't burying the lead, this is an article that has nothing to do with the title. You could move that one sentence to the top, and it would not change that, and suddenly make the article accurate to the title.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl Bode (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 5:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The article has fuck all to do with Sprint planning to end unlimited data."
        As noted I get your point about the headline, but this comment suggests to me you didn't actually read the last two paragraphs of the story, as the other commenter noted, and don't actually care about the background details in regards to neutrality (which are important). Needless to say, I shant disappoint you again. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I floated between two titles, but found the fact that they're killing unlimited data to be more interesting than the fact they backed off throttling unlimited data,
        
        I'm curious why you spent almost the entire article talking about the part you found less interesting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl Bode (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because it's less interesting, but more important.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 24 Jun 2015 @ 6:40pm

Unlimited data is the only reason my sister has Sprint. Outside of that, she is not pleased. I'd bet that she's going to switch back to Verizon soon.

T-Mobile does have unlimited data. Not that "Unlimited" plan that they advertise that gets throttled after 7G, they have a truly unlimited data plan (I think it's actually called "Truly Unlimited"). They don't advertise it, you can't buy it online, and you have to spend lots of time explaining exactly what it is you want, but you can get truly unlimited from T-Mobile. It also costs $80-$90 a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl Bode (profile), 24 Jun 2015 @ 7:32pm
  
  Re:
  Interestingly it looks like T-Mobile's now putting a 21 GB soft cap on that unlimited data. Which to me is certainly very generous, but still struggled with that whole dictionary thing:
  
  http://www.tmonews.com/2015/06/21gb-soft-cap-quietly-added-to-t-mobiles-unlimited-4g-lte-simple-choi ce-plans/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 24 Jun 2015 @ 8:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I may have to test this. Supposedly, I have a different plan than their unlimited. The only problem is it doesn't say anything about me getting messages letting me know and only getting a lower priority, so I may never know.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2015 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    But it sounds like a QoS setting not a hard limitation. If they are the only ones using they network then they won't notice. They would only notice slowness if the network is congested.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They would only notice slowness if the network is congested.
      
      So how important it is depends on how often the network is congested where you are. And either way, that makes it much less attractive as a primary internet connection - which I suspect is the goal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl Bode (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 10:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes I think the new T-Mobile cap only applies on congested towers, and only for users that signed up after June 12.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 8:11am
  
  Re:
  you can get truly unlimited from T-Mobile. It also costs $80-$90 a month.
  
  That's actually not bad if you use a lot of data (until this 21GB cap Karl is mentioning anyway). I'm paying $50 for 1GB from Verizon - and that one wasn't on their web site either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Philip Giorno, 25 Jun 2015 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I use 74 GB of My T-Mobile truly unlimited data without being throttling.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2015 @ 9:11pm

What good is unlimited data on Sprint's network when their network is so poor it's almost unusable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2015 @ 12:53am

Well i guess they are not prepared for the future of 4k/60fps video streaming...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 8:12am
  
  Re:
  Well i guess they are not prepared for the future of 4k/60fps video streaming...
  
  I doubt any mobile data provider is prepared for that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl Bode (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 8:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Definitely not. Most fixed-line TV companies aren't even ready for that and won't be for years.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2015 @ 4:18am

typical reaction of any and all companies.

'if it's good for customers, it has to be stopped at all costs because it must be bad for us!!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2015 @ 11:15am

No significant difference
"Sprint doesn't expect users to notice any significant difference in their services now that we no longer engage in the process," a Sprint spokesman said.

...it seems likely that the company wasn't entirely sure that it could prove the throttling was necessary due to network congestion.
Doesn't the quote prove it was unnecessary, and they know it? If throttling were the only thing holding back congestion, their system would be immediately overloaded, and people would notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
D, 26 Jun 2015 @ 4:48am

I'll bounce
If Sprint does away with unlimited data, then there is no reason for me to remain with them. I can go with T-Mobile to get unlimited data. Sprint's network performance is in last place for a reason. Unlimited Data is the only reason I came to them and if they remove it, there is no reason to remain with them. They had better seriously consider this, because others will leave as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]