2 edits | 4G Throttling Arrived? So last week my 4G really slowed down and went to crap. Was getting full up speed but only 15k/sec down. Figured it was a local tower problem. On my way home I checked Speedtest twice and was getting the same results on different towers.
Returned to work today after being off for three days and getting exact same speed tests.
I agree I'm a bit of a bandwidth glutton. I use it for Netflix and Comcast Xfinity at work. I VPN into my home network from work. I'm going to school via Internet which I also do at work. I consume a lot of bandwidth. What upsets me is the time I use it. I work from 23-07 and 95% of my bandwidth usage falls between those times. While I understand the need for network management is there really a need for me to be throttled at 3AM? I used to easily get 1200k/sec and now I get 15k/sec.
What pisses me off even more and makes no sense is I can switch back to 3G and get great speeds and as far as I can tell never get throttled.
Anyone else experiencing this? |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Eeew.
Man, I really hope I don't bump into this on the Los Angeles 4G network with the Epic. So far, the 4G speed increases have been marginal (2MB vs. 1.5MB? woo...), and if I were to encounter throttling on the next-gen...I'd probably throw my device back at them.
That, or demand the $10/month additional fee be dropped. If I'm paying an additional fee for "super" data access, there damn well not be any throttling. |
|
SLC_231
join:2010-08-03
Salt Lake City, UT | reply to SocialistPig
My speeds in Salt Lake City went to the crapper in September. Granted this was directly through Clearwire and not through Sprint. |
|
| reply to SocialistPig
Mine in Dallas, TX have same thing happen upload speeds twice as fast as download speeds all happened in first week of Nov.
--
Over The Hill |
|
mojo1
join:2006-12-05
Atlanta, GA | reply to SocialistPig
Seems to be ok in Atlanta right now. I'll try streaming some Netflix stuff tonight when I get home to see if that has any effect.
 |
|
| reply to Broken Back
I have the same problem in Dallas. Drastic change last week, 11/08/20101. Can't post the pic here but on 4G:
Download: 0.16 Mb/s
Upload: 0.92 Mb/s
Ping: 250 ms.
Is there anything we can do about this? |
|
criggs
join:2000-07-14
New York, NY | said by Nathan_in_TX :
I have the same problem in Dallas. Drastic change last week, 11/08/20101. Okay, now this is getting very scary.
I've been having exactly the same problem with my 3G, ever since September 28th (it started quite suddenly that day, after having been excellent since July 2009, not 2010, 2009!), terrible download speeds, normal upload speeds. But so far my 4G has been unaffected.
But the bottom line is there are four of us on this forum I've found so far, Jack in VA on Millenicom, Egroll in Ohio on Verizon, Brad Houser in California on Sprint, and myself in NY on Sprint, who have seen their 3G download speeds go into the crapper but who have yet to see similar problems with their 4G, as far as I know.
But, after reading through this page, it's looking like this problem is hitting 4G users as well.
WHAT IS GOING ON???
I doubt if it's accumulated heavy usage, since that would have happened gradually, not suddenly in the middle of September or early October, unless there's something which I'm not taking into account. |
|
criggs
join:2000-07-14
New York, NY | reply to SocialistPig
said by SocialistPig:I agree I'm a bit of a bandwidth glutton. Really? Before you're so quick to buy into the propaganda that those of us who use more than a piddling 5 gigs a month are pigs and should feel guilty, I would take a look at the Cisco study, the results of which are posted at »www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/co···_WP.html . It turns out that the average Internet user downloads an average of 14.9 gigs a month.
Of course, Cisco should also have posted the average deviation (or perhaps I should say standard deviation) from that figure, to really establish what is and/or is not normal. For example, if that figure is +/-20 gigs then that means one has to download 35 gigs in a single month before the self-flagellating epithet of "bandwidth glutton" can fairly be employed.
On the other hand, for all we know, the average deviation from that 14.9 gig figure is only +/- 3 gigs, in which case anyone going over 18 gigs within a month is at liberty to feel guilty.
Of course, I haven't sat down and read the whole study from cover to cover, but someone here may be more intimately familiar with it than me, and may be in a position to provide us with that deviation figure.
Who knows? It could happen; hope springs eternal. |
|
|
|
| Like I said in my most thats that the thing that kills me. I only use my phone & internet at night when there is absolutely no need for 'network management.' Most of my usage is between 1-7 AM.
The other thing that's really pissing me off is how there is no logic to when its being throttled. At least if I knew the rules I could try and work with them. |
|
criggs
join:2000-07-14
New York, NY | said by SocialistPig:The other thing that's really pissing me off is how there is no logic to when its being throttled. To tell you the truth, I don't think, or at least I hope, that what we're seeing here is throttling. I suspect (and hope) that it's a technical issue, since it seems darn close to this 3G issue that a lot of us are having.
I've asked Sprint about this repeatedly and they swear they are NOT throttling. Obviously they could be lying, but if that's the case they're sure being bald-faced about it. |
|
| I could understand a technical issue if it wasn't so damn consistent. Especially when multiple people are getting .015-.016 down, but still full speed up.
When I am being throttled sometime around 2:00-2:30 bam, back to full speed - or at least thats when I usually notice it. Then sometime around 7AM, back to .015. |
|
criggs
join:2000-07-14
New York, NY | said by SocialistPig:Especially when multiple people are getting .015-.016 down, but still full speed up. I guess there's always the possibility that it's a coincidence, that these 4G slows are not the same cause as the 3G slows a bunch of us are experiencing.
The 3G slows that some of us are reporting are extraordinarily slow, unbelievably slow, sub-dialup speeds (in my case, 500bps to 1kbps).
In the case of the 4G slows that you're reporting, at least we're still talking technically about broadband speeds, just s-s-l-l-o-o-w-w- broadband speeds.
Who knows if that is or is not a significant difference between the two slows? I don't know the technology obviously, not being a wireless engineer, so I can't say for sure. |
|
 ckellerI'Ve Got Blue Where?Premium
join:2000-02-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to SocialistPig
My throughput has been crap for a day here in Chicago one minute good next minute not but on average this is what I get tethered to my EVO. On my wife's modem it's been much less and sometimes not connected at all for almost 36 hours. Is anyone else seeing this?
--
CKeller"I come here to get cheered up....you think that's a mistake?" Tony Soprano |
|
| reply to SocialistPig
My speeds vary dramatically when my phone is moved even a little sometimes. Again, the physical limitations of wireless come into play. Sometimes I have to fiddle with the location a bit to get an optimal signal for my location. |
|
| reply to SocialistPig
4G? What are you talking about, they don't have 4G! They barely even have 2G! |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to criggs
said by criggs:said by SocialistPig:I agree I'm a bit of a bandwidth glutton. Really? Before you're so quick to buy into the propaganda that those of us who use more than a piddling 5 gigs a month are pigs and should feel guilty, I would take a look at the Cisco study, the results of which are posted at » www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/co···_WP.html . It turns out that the average Internet user downloads an average of 14.9 gigs a month. The average is heavily skewed by high-end outlier data. Most studies are publishing median data rates in the 2-4GB/mo range. (So half of all Internet users consume 2-4GB/mo or less)
The Cisco study basically confirms the top-end outlier issue:
The top 1 percent of broadband connections is responsible for more than 20 percent of total Internet traffic. The top 10 percent of connections is responsible for over 60 percent of broadband Internet traffic, worldwide. In shared broadband, when the channel becomes congested the experience suffers for everyone. From a business standpoint, it's pretty easy to see why companies are willing to throw that 1 out of every 10 users under the bus for heavy usage to keep the other 9 happy and maintain the revenue stream.
It can be frustrating as hell if you're that 1 in 10 user, but the economics of running a profitable business are inescapable. |
|
criggs
join:2000-07-14
New York, NY | said by espaeth:The average is heavily skewed by high-end outlier data. Most studies are publishing median data rates in the 2-4GB/mo range. Very interesting; thank you for pointing that out. I've been throwing out that 14.9 gig figure like cotton candy every chance I get, as a talking-point in favor of companies going to 20 gig caps, as Millenicom did with their Verizon reselling plan today.
But perhaps I've been too hasty in treating that 14.9 gig figure as gospel. Your point is the first legitimate argument I've seen for marketing a 10 gig cap rather than a 20 gig cap. Hmmm. |
|
