Sprint Dealer Re-explains $10 charge

[oldpueblo]

Logically that's irrelevant because they're both on an unlimited plan, so who cares how much data they use? Sprint must not because it's the same plan for both of them!

 

[Rhody#WP]

You're right. Not only do feature phones and smart phones use the same amount of data in a month but hardware vendors pay sprint to update and maintain their infrastructure to handle the not increased load and employees work for free!

I understand why cell phone companies charge money for their services, and I understand why I paid hundreds of dollars more for my Arrive than I would have paid for a 3G feature phone. You still haven't explained how you can have "increased data usage" above "unlimited data."

Let me ask the question this way:
If a feature phone uses X amount of data in a month and a smart phone uses Y amount of data in a month, where Y > X, X < unlmited, and Y < unlimited, then what is the "premium data" charge for?

 

[Rhody#WP]

I would understand if I got something for the "premium data" charge, like 4G, or even 3G, visual voicemail, increased bandwidth, anything. But I get the "premium data" charge simply because I chose to buy a more expensive device.

I think my "unlimited ice cream" example is on point. It's like getting charged extra because you bought your own spoon instead of buying chop sticks to eat the unlimited ice cream with.

 

[canesfan625]

"Would you like our unlimited A plan or would you like to pay additional for our unlimited B plan?"
"Well what's the difference?"
"There is no difference silly, they're both unlimited!"

What?

so who cares how much data they use? Sprint must not because it's the same plan for both of them!

everyone. With wireless everyone attached to that cell tower is sharing a single connection. Smart Phones use significantly more data ergo you pay more money for the infrastructure to be built to support it. The only time the amount of data that is being used wouldn't matter is a point to point connection.

 

[oldpueblo]

What?



everyone. With wireless everyone attached to that cell tower is sharing a single connection. Smart Phones use significantly more data ergo you pay more money for the infrastructure to be built to support it. The only time the amount of data that is being used wouldn't matter is a point to point connection.

You're telling the wrong guy, I know this and I think everyone does. Once again it's not about price, it's about poor execution and advertising. A lower plan price to look attractive and then saying but wait now you can pay a little more but its still unlimited so nothings changed except the price! I mean they didn't even try to cover it up or fold it into some pointless perk or something that sounds good. They just added a fee that literally does nothing but exist for me to pay it. I'd accept a plan price increase over that logic.

This is how silly it is, what if tomorrow they introduced a new $5 fee for feature phones and said "Its because they have lots of features!" That's literally what we're talking about here.

 

[canesfan625]

You're telling the wrong guy, I know this and I think everyone does.

oh, must be why people keep trying to push the insane notion that data usage is irrelevant.

Once again it's not about price, it's about poor execution and advertising.

Price is a theme that occurs several times in this thread.

A lower plan price to look attractive and then saying but wait now you can pay a little more but its still unlimited so nothings changed except the price!

Wrong! the 5gb soft cap throttle was decided against. This is a big deal for people that actually use their phones.

I mean they didn't even try to cover it up or fold it into some pointless perk or something that sounds good. They just added a fee that literally does nothing but exist for me to pay it. I'd accept a plan price increase over that logic.

So it they would have deceived you everything would have been better?

This is how silly it is, what if tomorrow they introduced a new $5 fee for feature phones and said "Its because they have lots of features!" That's literally what we're talking about here.

If these mystery "features" brought additional overhead to Sprint it would make sense. If they were charging a premium for using brew or java or something that would be silly

 

[starblade876]

Wrong! the 5gb soft cap throttle was decided against. This is a big deal for people that actually use their phones.

If all this is because smartphones use more data than feature phones, what happens when you have a smartphone and only use as much data as (if not less data than) a feature phone on their network. I'm constantly using wifi because I find 3G to be too slow (things that take seconds on wifi can take minutes on 3G) and I'm usually around wifi when I want to use my phone with data (home, office, hotel, etc.) and, when I'm not near wifi, I'll usually be doing something where I wouldn't use my phone heavily (eating out, movies, shopping, bowling, etc.). I doubt I use as much data as a heavy feature phone user, so why am I paying a Premium Data add-on? As Rhody pointed out, I already paid a premium for the premium device ($199 vs. free).

Again, that said, would I pay $40/month for their unlimited data? Yes, I'm already doing it. Would I pay $30/month for their unlimited data and then add-on an $10 for using a lot of data on their network? No, because I don't use a lot of data on their network. If it's an add-on for heavy data usage and I don't use a lot of data from them, why is it required? The verbage doesn't make sense.

You can do that. its called AT&T. You better make sure your use your data lightly though because their overages are stiff. As for the rest of us we will enjoy unlimited data that doesn't get kicked down to edge after a soft cap. Y'know.. those of us that are always streaming something/Netflix, etc.

Nice try. AT&T doesn't cap at 5GB; they cap at 2GB, the $10 add-on only gets 1GB more data, and their site says the add-on is automatic. I suggested a 5GB soft cap with the option to add-on if you want to get out of 2G again. As I said, that is only if they wanted to be actually good instead of just the lesser of the evils.

Additionally, AT&T doesn't have the Arrive, which is one of the main reasons why I chose Sprint. As I said before, another reason I chose them is because I see them as the lesser of the evils.

 

[oldpueblo]

oh, must be why people keep trying to push the insane notion that data usage is irrelevant.

You're missing the point, to all of us it's all unlimited so nothing's different. Only Sprint is trying to say unlimited has different meanings by virtue of this $10 here for this and now $10 here for all these other phones later. They are being inconsistent with their prize trophy message.

Price is a theme that occurs several times in this thread.

Not necessarily in relation to it being too much, more about the way it's defined.

Wrong! the 5gb soft cap throttle was decided against. This is a big deal for people that actually use their phones.

You're really not getting it, I'm not sure how to make it more clear.

So it they would have deceived you everything would have been better?

How is it deceiving if they just put the entire price in the plan for the smartphone line? You have a smartphone, you pay X per line. You have a feature phone you pay Y per line. Both are unlimited. Done! Instead it's "All our lines are unlimited but some are more unlimited than others so you have to pay $10 extra for the extra unlimitedness!" (sarcasm)

If these mystery "features" brought additional overhead to Sprint it would make sense. If they were charging a premium for using brew or java or something that would be silly

What if they kept just adding fees and making up reasons? You don't see that problem? $10 here, $5 there, isn't the point of their plans to be all encompassing? If you have multiple lines as I do, those "extra" fees add up real quick.

 

[oldpueblo]

Again, that said, would I pay $40/month for their unlimited data? Yes, I'm already doing it. Would I pay $30/month for their unlimited data and then add-on an $10 for using a lot of data on their network? No, because I don't use a lot of data on their network. If it's an add-on for heavy data usage and I don't use a lot of data from them, why is it required? The verbage doesn't make sense.

Bingo, it doesn't make logical sense. And when you combine that with how they introduced it piece by piece (first some devices, then all for no discernible reason other than we say so), it not only looks bad it makes you think what's the next fee going to be for? Now 4" devices cost an extra dollar because with the larger screen you will be using the Internet more often! Just restructure the plans to take into account the different phone types, do it per line, be done. Then I also won't have to pay the full smartphone everything data price on a basic feature phone the old guy on my family account is using.

 

[Duvi]

You all aren't getting it. It's not the total of GB you use as much as how much you're using when using data at that time. A feature phone doesn't have the full web experience, so if you go on the same websites as a friend, for the same amount of time, you're going to be taxing the network more than the feature phone and you will use more data.

Maybe it makes sense to me because I've worked for wireless carriers.

This is how silly it is, what if tomorrow they introduced a new $5 fee for feature phones and said "Its because they have lots of features!" That's literally what we're talking about here.

Now that would be nonsense... they would just make all plans $5 more and then $5 premium fee for smartphones.

 

[oldpueblo]

You all aren't getting it. It's not the total of GB you use as much as how much you're using when using data at that time. A feature phone doesn't have the full web experience, so if you go on the same websites as a friend, for the same amount of time, you're going to be taxing the network more than the feature phone and you will use more data.

Maybe it makes sense to me because I've worked for wireless carriers.



Now that would be nonsense... they would just make all plans $5 more and then $5 premium fee for smartphones.

Wow you guys are seriously zooming right by the point. You almost barely grasp it with that last statement. Why not scrap the second $5 charge for premium and just make the plan $10 more?!?! If their intent is to have you pay less with a feature phone, then why can't the feature phone line cost less on my family plan? It doesn't, it costs the same as a smartphone line. Where's the logic in that? It's the same damn concept. This thread has outlived its usefulness though I guess.

 

[Rhody#WP]

You all aren't getting it. It's not the total of GB you use as much as how much you're using when using data at that time. A feature phone doesn't have the full web experience, so if you go on the same websites as a friend, for the same amount of time, you're going to be taxing the network more than the feature phone and you will use more data.

You just said it there: more data. Well, more data than what? More than unlimited? How do you know that I will use more data? I think you meant to say that it is possible that I could use more data.

I'm not arguing price. Sprint is still the best value for me. I'm arguing the semantics and the simple fact that I'm paying an extra fee and getting nothing in return.

There are feature phones with video and radio apps. There are plenty of people with feature phones who use way more data than I do. I don't get a higher cap because nobody gets a cap. I don't use different cell towers or betters switches. A 3G feature phone gets the same 3G as my 3G Arrive.

I pay $10 extra because it's possible that I might use more of my unlimited data than another person might use of his unlimited data. That doesn't sound unlimited to me.

It's like they said that they'll offer a plan for an infinite amount of data per month. Then they decided that group A (feature phone users) use an average of 1GB/month while group B (smart phone users) use an average of 3GB/month. So they decided to charge group B for that extra 2GB/month. How can they do that and still call their plan an "unlimited data" plan? How do people not follow this? IT'S SO SIMPLE!

Sprint isn't the only company doing this either. Look at the T-Mobile commercials. They have a "truly unlimited plan" with an asterisk that says they'll throttle after 2GB/month. Is that TRULY unlimited? No. A throttle is a mechanism used to LIMIT data usage.

 

[Rhody#WP]

I wonder what would happen if an "all you can eat" restaurant charged large people a "premium food" fee because it's possible they could eat more. Would people stand for that?

 

[canesfan625]

I wonder what would happen if an "all you can eat" restaurant charged large people a "premium food" fee because it's possible they could eat more. Would people stand for that?

These "what ifs" are getting out of control.

There would never be a "premium food" fee because of how buffets work. Quick turnover, recycled food, and more often than not people fill up on low cost starches and the operation has lower labor costs. Furthermore, people tend to eat less at a buffet then the standard entree size at a restaurant.

 

[starblade876]

You all aren't getting it. It's not the total of GB you use as much as how much you're using when using data at that time. A feature phone doesn't have the full web experience, so if you go on the same websites as a friend, for the same amount of time, you're going to be taxing the network more than the feature phone and you will use more data.

If that's the case, then I really don't get it. Do we both have 3G or do we have 3.25G and they have 2.89G? If we both have 3G, the data speeds should be the same. The only difference is the processing of the data, which is done by the phone, which we already paid for when we paid for the phone. Also, the way I see it, if we both did the same thing on the same website, I'd be done quicker and, thus, free up "space" on the network for someone else.

Besides that, their reasoning I gathered from the website implies that it's because smartphones use 10 times more data on average and the add-on is to allow the 10x "while on the Sprint network." Again, if that's the case, why is the add-on required even if I don't use 10 times more data than the average feature phone user on their network?

We require this add-on for phones made to deliver a superior wireless experience including Web, email, video and social networking.


Additional details:

The Premium Data add-on charge is required for smartphones.

Sprint smartphones currently are: Android, BlackBerry, Palm, Instinct and Windows Mobile phones.

On average, smartphone users use 10 times more data than customers with basic or feature phones. With this charge, Smartphone customers will continue to receive unlimited data and experience Sprint?s simplified services and rates, being able to take advantage of a rich data experience while on the Sprint network.

If you would like an unlimited data plan, for a lower rate, and avoid this charge, you may want to check out some of our feature phones which do not require the $10 Premium Data add-on charge.

 

[canesfan625]

If that's the case, then I really don't get it. Do we both have 3G or do we have 3.25G and they have 2.89G? If we both have 3G, the data speeds should be the same. The only difference is the processing of the data, which is done by the phone, which we already paid for when we paid for the phone. Also, the way I see it, if we both did the same thing on the same website, I'd be done quicker and, thus, free up "space" on the network for someone else.

It's the difference between whats being pulled though the network. Your feature phone could be 4g and it still wouldn't be the same i.e Your website visits are going to have more media content, streaming video and music, apps and whatever data they use, you're more likely to use your smart phone to upload video and pictures, etc. It's the same reason ISPs are trying to just cap your internet. Netflix is usually the first service they point their finger at.

Besides that, their reasoning I gathered from the website implies that it's because smartphones use 10 times more data on average and the add-on is to allow the 10x "while on the Sprint network." Again, if that's the case, why is the add-on required even if I don't use 10 times more data than the average feature phone user on their network?

Unless you barely touch your smart phone it would be a stretch to say you are using a similar amount of data. Over the last few weeks of just Zune and web browsing I am already pushing 1gb of data. I never came close to these when I had my Samsung A900 and A500

 

[starblade876]

Unless you barely touch your smart phone it would be a stretch to say you are using a similar amount of data. Over the last few weeks of just Zune and web browsing I am already pushing 1gb of data. I never came close to these when I had my Samsung A900 and A500

As I said already, when I use my phone heavily, I'm usually using wifi because I find 3G to be too slow by comparison. I used the BandWidth app to do a quick check and, on average, my home wifi gets ~7.6 Mbps download and ~1.5 upload while 3G at home gets ~0.28 Mbps download and 0.20 Mbps upload. I haven't tested it in the office, but I have no doubts it will smash 3G speeds, too.

Instead of streaming music, I usually just listen to the music I already have on the phone (if not the radio in my car). I've tried Sprint TV and, while I commend it for no noticeable buffering, the quality was definitely not something to write home about, making me have little desire to make that a usual thing. I also have the Cartoon TV app and, while it's a much higher quality, it constantly needs to buffer or wait for it to download more to be enjoyable on 3G. Besides, I have video files that were previously purchased and synced to my phone for that purpose. When I browse the web on 3G, it's usually to quickly check prices and reviews while I'm out shopping or to quickly check forums and Facebook when I'm waiting. Even then, I don't do it that often.

According to my last bill, assuming it's in KB, I used 350,172 KB on their network. My partner, who has the terrible Samsung Transform (a low-end Android device), used significantly less with 59,640 KB. More than likely, we'll move him over to a feature phone next renewal, especially since wifi hotspot costs $30/month extra while it was FREE on the Verizon Palm Pre Plus, which actually feels as fast as the Transform despite having a slower processor... Anyway, the question still remains: if it's because of the "10 times more data," why is it required for people who don't use 10 times more data?

 

[Rhody#WP]

If that's the case, then I really don't get it. Do we both have 3G or do we have 3.25G and they have 2.89G? If we both have 3G, the data speeds should be the same. The only difference is the processing of the data, which is done by the phone, which we already paid for when we paid for the phone. Also, the way I see it, if we both did the same thing on the same website, I'd be done quicker and, thus, free up "space" on the network for someone else.

Besides that, their reasoning I gathered from the website implies that it's because smartphones use 10 times more data on average and the add-on is to allow the 10x "while on the Sprint network." Again, if that's the case, why is the add-on required even if I don't use 10 times more data than the average feature phone user on their network?

Totally agree. That 10x logic doesn't fly. It's like saying, "for one price we'll give you unlimited data... unless you actually use it... then you pay more."

 

[Rhody#WP]

These "what ifs" are getting out of control.

There would never be a "premium food" fee because of how buffets work. Quick turnover, recycled food, and more often than not people fill up on low cost starches and the operation has lower labor costs. Furthermore, people tend to eat less at a buffet then the standard entree size at a restaurant.

You have a knack for missing (or avoiding) the point.

 

[Duvi]

I wonder what would happen if an "all you can eat" restaurant charged large people a "premium food" fee because it's possible they could eat more. Would people stand for that?

That was a very bad example. I work in NYC, so I have experienced "premium" fees (as you call it) for buffets. And now that I'm wring this, every place that charges kids less for buffets are doing essentially the same thing, no? If it's unlimited, why is this kid getting charged less? Oh I know why, because they'll eat less. Why do senior citizens get a free bus ride? Aren't we all taking the same bus?

These "what ifs" are getting out of control.

There would never be a "premium food" fee because of how buffets work. Quick turnover, recycled food, and more often than not people fill up on low cost starches and the operation has lower labor costs. Furthermore, people tend to eat less at a buffet then the standard entree size at a restaurant.

Exactly.