dslreports logo
 story category
Sprint Stops Throttling to Avoid Violating New Neutrality Rules

Sprint has stopped throttling the company's heaviest users to avoid running afoul of the FCC's new net neutrality rules, which took effect last Friday. The company had been throttling the top 5% of heaviest users, but only when specific cell cites were congested. According to the Wall Street Journal, Sprint will be implementing a new network management practice, but the report doesn't specify precisely what that will be. While all four major carriers throttle, Sprint's the only one to stop doing so for fear of running afoul of the rules:

quote:
Click for full size
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.
The agency's rules allow companies to use network management to protect the health of the network, the companies just have to be transparent about what they're doing, and can't use network management as a way to make an extra buck. It's unclear what Sprint specifically believed might violate the agency rules.

Sprint's website states that "to more fairly allocate network resources in times of congestion, customers falling within the top five percent of data users may be prioritized below other customers attempting to access network resources, resulting in a reduction of throughput or speed as compared to performance on non-congested sites."

Sprint sent DSLReports.com the following statement in regards to the changes:
quote:
For less than a year, Sprint used a network management practice that applied only at the level of individual congested cell sites, and only for as long as congestion existed. At such sites, we temporarily allocated resources away from the top 5 percent of heaviest users and to the 95 percent of users with normal usage, to try to allocate the effects of congestion more fairly. Once congestion at the site passed, the limitation automatically ended. Upon review, and to ensure that our practices are consistent with the FCC's net neutrality rules, we determined that the network management technique was not needed to ensure a quality experience for the majority of customers.
view:
topics flat nest 
mist668
join:2011-02-15
Middleburg, PA

mist668

Member

QOS

So basically putting them in last place for traffic QOS.

Everyone else gets to use data first and if the tower fills up tough luck you have no connection.

w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR

2 recommendations

w0g

Member

Re: QOS

Obviously but a better option would have just been to equally handle each person.

On congested towers, they should allocate bandwidth to all connections and users equally.

To fix congestion, perhaps more capacity should be added such as new microcells, additional channels, MIMO, and even 5G directed energy.
mist668
join:2011-02-15
Middleburg, PA

mist668

Member

Re: QOS

I agree however I feel it is a win/loss for sprint. While in this area sprint is terribly slow, having an equal speed including grandma and the heaviest user is unfair.

I don't know the best way to solve this issue, however this is just wording to get around "throttling".
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

elefante72

Member

Re: QOS

I thought every Sprint user was throttled Kidding aside this is what Verizon put out last year, but they also put the person in the penalty box for 60 days which I haven't heard of a removal of that crap.

I understand network management, but why should someone who buys "unlimited" be throttled/lower QoS for using their data versus someone on a 2GB plan. This is still bs. Either they get rid of unlimited or not, or add a throttle after a known amount (like many prepaid).

It will come to pass that the era of over-promising unlimited and under-delivering some throttle/cap will be exposed soon enough or at least PLAINLY advertise with caveats.

w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR

1 edit

1 recommendation

w0g to mist668

Member

to mist668
You know T-Mobile doesn't need to throttle at all..

Unlimited users get unlimited.

Also grandma doesn't really make demands on the network. She is a light user who barely knows what the Internet is for. A power user, on the other hand, uses the network a lot, and puts demands on it.

If the user is legit and not a robot or corporate customer running none human services over the network, they should not be throttled.

Instead, as bandwidth is consumed, the particular tower should divide it equally.

The network should be built around the power users needs honestly, because they will make use of the network, and designing for them ensures capacity needs and performance needs are in line with what everyone actually needs.

RandomName69
@charter.com

RandomName69

Anon

Re: QOS

said by w0g:

You know T-Mobile doesn't need to throttle at all..

Unlimited users get unlimited.

So they get unlimited tethering too! awesome. Oh wait...............So T-Mobile has "unlimited" data not unlimited data.
techguru306
join:2015-02-11
Cincinnati, OH
ZyXEL VMG4381

techguru306 to mist668

Member

to mist668
said by mist668:

I agree however I feel it is a win/loss for sprint. While in this area sprint is terribly slow, having an equal speed including grandma and the heaviest user is unfair.

I don't know the best way to solve this issue, however this is just wording to get around "throttling".

How is that unfair that a heavy data user, who is using the data he has paid Sprint for. The problem is that you are blaming the wrong person instead of blaming the heavy data user for using data he has paid for why not blame Sprint for over selling their network and not upgrading towers or area's that are having congestion issue's. They could add spectrum, more backhaul, and or add small cells. But Sprint chooses not to fix the issue so they try to blame a heavy data user who is using the data that Sprint has sold him and he is paying sprint for the data he was sold.
mist668
join:2011-02-15
Middleburg, PA

mist668

Member

Re: QOS

This is the same argument as having a house full of people sharing the same connection but then don't complain when the kids are streaming crap and slowing everyone else down kind of argument.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984 to mist668

Premium Member

to mist668
said by mist668:

having an equal speed including grandma and the heaviest user is unfair.

It is 100% fair as everyone is equally paying for the connection.

amarryat
Verizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA

amarryat

Member

Re: QOS

said by r81984:

It is 100% fair as everyone is equally paying for the connection.

You and I both pay for unlimited as well as 100 other people on the same tower. So far this month I've used 200GB and you've used 10GB. WE all try to download something. Is it fair that congestion due to me causes your connection to be slow? Or do you think you should be able to get to 200GB like me without being throttled?
techguru306
join:2015-02-11
Cincinnati, OH
ZyXEL VMG4381

techguru306

Member

Re: QOS

said by amarryat:

said by r81984:

It is 100% fair as everyone is equally paying for the connection.

You and I both pay for unlimited as well as 100 other people on the same tower. So far this month I've used 200GB and you've used 10GB. WE all try to download something. Is it fair that congestion due to me causes your connection to be slow? Or do you think you should be able to get to 200GB like me without being throttled?

You are blaming a user for using data that Sprint has sold him and is using the data he paid for. If Sprint is overselling the service than they need to discontinue unlimited data and sell what they can support or upgrade to tower to handle the data one of the two. People really need to start blaming the right people which in this case is Sprint. T Mobile and Metro PCS offer unlimited data and are able to provide a stable data speed and service, so what is Sprint's excuse. People need to stop blaming the heavy data user who is using the service that they paid for.

Samual
@myvzw.com

Samual to w0g

Anon

to w0g
Some things will always get priority during congestion; VoLTE is the very obvious example. Business accounts traditionally have gotten priority over residential ones in the wireline world, is wireless any different? What about applications like cellular connections for security systems?

All packets are not created equal....
techguru306
join:2015-02-11
Cincinnati, OH
ZyXEL VMG4381

techguru306 to mist668

Member

to mist668
The Problem is the wireless carriers can not signal out a heavy data user if they were sold unlimited or metered data if they still have data left. It is not the customers problem if Sprint can not deliver what they sold. If the tower becomes congested they have to throttle everybody equally. Instead of choosing who they are going to throttle and choosing which ones they are not going to throttle. Which would violate the new FCC rules that is why Sprint stopped their old network management policy's and coming up with a new network management policy that complies with the FCC's new rules.
mist668
join:2011-02-15
Middleburg, PA

mist668

Member

Re: QOS

Yes so instead of throttling just deny a connection at peak times. Or everyone can fight over the already slow connection that is offered. I would like to know what the definition of network management means from the FCC's new rules. Its a new term for throttling.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: QOS

They can throttle, but it has to be equal of all users.

A Nonymous
@verizon.net

A Nonymous

Anon

Fair queueing?

Seems like it would be a lot easier to implement some form of FQ to deal with congestion events.

Pegasus
Premium Member
join:2008-01-04
united state

Pegasus

Premium Member

LOL

"resulting in a reduction of throughput or speed" LOL top 5% must be another term for 100% of customers in sprint speak. the network of promising tomorrow.. after tomorrow's tomorrow.
ocjosh
join:2013-03-19
Anaheim, CA

ocjosh

Member

This is funny.

Sprint is freaking slow. I felt that every Sprint users are throttled and punished here in LA and OC.
We hardly can tell who is not throttled.
photomankc
join:2015-05-07
Liberty, MO

photomankc

Member

Re: This is funny.

Well, these changes should clearly help with that.
jazneo
join:2014-08-25
Hazel Green, WI

jazneo

Member

Re: This is funny.

well they should not label Unlimited on there plains. i hope they get hard like all other cellphone company did.

If you going to use word Unlimited better keep your agreement not lie to still people money

JasonOD
@comcastbusiness.net

JasonOD

Anon

Sprint's real problem....

is they've sold out to dozens of MVNO's, cramping tower bandwidth for Sprint's post-paid users.

RandomName69
@charter.com

RandomName69

Anon

In other news

Sprint announces it is eliminating unlimited data.

tommyanon
@comcast.net

tommyanon

Anon

prepaid also?

what about boost and virgin mobile?

i find it completely idiotic that a company can come public to say they are changing a non-consumer friendly policy for fear of legal consequence but than only do it for certain customers are certain brands when they have many brands. that tells me this is 100% about publicity and competitive marketing versus other carriers and nothing about actual fear of consequence.

Flyonthewall
@teksavvy.com

Flyonthewall

Anon

They as much admit you don't have to throttle to control congestion

All you have to do is develop your network to handle the traffic, it's called spending money. If left alone, they'd pay a fine to the FCC. If they build out network increases for usage by their paying customers, they continue to make money, and the amount spent is the cost of doing business.

Good on them.