Sprint makes Premium Data changes from Jan 30, 2011

[MissJennell]

You absolutely do not. Point is, I found it a more than a little funny for people to make it political (I wasn't the one that did that first) and then yell at Obama in an Android forum and its Sprint sub-forum. That's all. Didn't see you complaining then that people were bringing politics in. I'm all for leaving it out and just discussing technology and phone companies here, if only everyone would apply that standard.

I was being sarcastic when I said that I need that so I can shop more politically correct. I don't shop for politics. I vote for that. I shop for what I want and a good deal.

 

[CriticalCritic]

WOW!! You do realize that the maker of Android, a company in liberal Silicon Valley called Google, is a deep blue (as in Democratic) company when you look at their campaign contributions, don't you? In fact, Google employees, combined, constituted Barack Obama's fourth largest contributing group. Guess what those evil evil Google employees do with the money they make from making Android. Oh noes!

And oh by the way, most of Sprint's PAC donations? Yup, they go to Democrats. Almost by the exact same ratio that Google's PAC donations also favor Democrats. (See opensecrets.org or look up the actual federal data on FEC.)

Now I'm a liberal, so that's kind of good for me. I support the right companies with my phone choice. You on the other hand...

The companies pay money to the party that constantly yells that they make too much money, the party that threatens to eliminate any tax breaks that they get... But then turns its eyes elsewhere when the contributions roll in.
Makes sense to me to pay them off. So long as the contributions amount to less than the millions on top of millions in tax breaks, it makes economic sense. They are businesses with business motivations. Why else would they support the people that threaten to take it all away from them?

 

[yfan]

^^ LOL. Uh huh. If this were a political forum, I'd be happy to take that baseless stuff on. But fortunately for you, this is not one, nor am I willing to turn this into a political sh*tstorm thread.

 

[Sweet Chaos]

To throw my two cents in (and get off the topic of politics), I can see why people who have Sprint and are happy with their situation at the moment (service vs price) would be really upset about this.

Yeah, it's only $10 a month, but that's $240 extra for your two year contract. And of course people can go look somewhere else (I don't think that is in question) but that doesn't mean that 1) they should HAVE to or 2) they should be expected to be all happy about it. I mean seriously, who would find out that they have to pay an extra $10 a month for service and be happy about that? Now they have to take service that they've been happy with and compare it to other companies and find out if it's still the best option for them. Of course they have options, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to complain about the changes.

JMO...

 

[alex51]

I agree, partially. I'm not sure that Apple is demanding certain changes by the carriers. However, the carriers may find it in their best financial interested to modify their data fees when they are about to add the iPhone due to the amount of bandwidth usage of the average iPhone user.

Although I am probably switching to Sprint in the near future, I don't like the $10 "premium" fee being applied to 3g smartphones. I don't like it on two levels - it's inconsistent with their current pricing models and it's terribly bad PR.

It seems to me that Sprint will probably have many new smartphone subscribers moving to 4g phones anyway and slowly phasing out the "old" 3g technology. If Sprints wants to avoid having people buy new 3g smarthphones without the "premium" data fee, then why not simply stop selling 3g smartphones? (Either immediately or through a phase-out over a short period of time.)

IMO, Sprints best strategy to compete with Verizon and AT&T is to be a bargain carrier - offering better pricing and competitive phones. Many people, such as me, are happy with the trade off of saving money each month on our service plan and losing some coverage when we are in BFE.

However, if Sprint eliminates the gap in pricing, then Verizon would be the clear winner as their network is superior. I cannot say the same for AT&T since I don't have them and everybody that I know who does hates their coverage.

The pricing gap is still in Sprints favor with the family plans. However, for some individual plans, the gap is much smaller.

I have no idea about the Apple stuff but I can tell you Sprint isn't remotely close to phasing out it's 3G. In fact Clear, their chosen 4G provider is having big time financial problems,& in dispute with Sprint as to how Sprint is handling payment to Clear for providing 4G. Which no doubt slows Clear/Sprint's ability for further 4G expansion.

Sprint also is in financial trouble & has been since their merger with Nextel & their heavy investment into Clear 4G. The new $10 smartphone fee is more likely about positioning themselves for the class action law suit over the original $10 mo. fee it has/ currently charges for 4G capable smartphone customers,even those that have no access to 4G. Another way is by adding the new $10 fee to all new smartphones (in their eyes) positions themselves in a better position with their bargaining with Clear. Then theres the obvious element of proving the badly needed cash to keep themselves afloat.

In short Sprint has made some very bad business decisions in the last 5-6 yr's..

 

[Rigmaster]

I have no idea about the Apple stuff but I can tell you Sprint isn't remotely close to phasing out it's 3G. In fact Clear, their chosen 4G provider is having big time financial problems,& in dispute with Sprint as to how Sprint is handling payment to Clear for providing 4G. Which no doubt slows Clear/Sprint's ability for further 4G expansion.

Sprint also is in financial trouble & has been since their merger with Nextel & their heavy investment into Clear 4G. The new $10 smartphone fee is more likely about positioning themselves for the class action law suit over the original $10 mo. fee it has/ currently charges for 4G capable smartphone customers,even those that have no access to 4G. Another way is by adding the new $10 fee to all new smartphones (in their eyes) positions themselves in a better position with their bargaining with Clear. Then theres the obvious element of proving the badly needed cash to keep themselves afloat.

In short Sprint has made some very bad business decisions in the last 5-6 yr's..

Sprint's had issues, but they have spectrum. More specifically, spectrum that is great for 4G. The other players - not so much so it's going to get crowded in their space. Think data-throttling will be limited to 3G - I don't. Sprint is better positioned to offer unlimited without throttling going forward.

Apple-Schmapple. Now that it's on another network, it will lose it's luster. iPhans from ATT aren't going to love these vids showing how much slower their network is. Who cares about simultaneous calling and surfing if what you do is mostly one at a time.

Sprint doesn't need to be taking big risks right now so much as nailing execution on what's already on the plate.

 

[dbpaddler]

Why do people think there will be a class action lawsuit over the original $10/mo fee. It's worded as a premium data charge on phones that are more likely to consume more data. That means bigger screens, better processors (ie. Better hardware) are going to make for a better user experience for media, browsing, dwnloading and such. This will lead to greater data usage, and you need to pay to play. It is a coincidence that it happened to begin with the 4g phones. The Moment and Hero weren't really powerhouses. The Evo and Epic were the first two "premium" phones, 4g aside. The newer phones coming out will all be a step above their predecessors, and they are finding out that people with more basic smartphones are utilizing more data than before so it just makes sense to have it across the board on smartphones and the better data centric feature phones (ie. Instincts).

It's the people in non-4g markets that are all pissy because they can't separate the $10 charge from 4g because they have a 4g phone they can't fully utilize in a non 4g market. That is beside the fact they could watch movies , listen to Pandora, and browse the web to your heart's content on 3g without fear of caps or thottling. Compared to what the other companies charge for that level of service, it's a deal. If you don't consme that much data, then oh well. You're still paying a competitive price in the overall market. And if you don't like it, leave. Cricket, Boost, Metro, T-mob...go for it. Don't let the door hit you in the @ss on the way out. They're not going to please everyone, and the masses are consuming more data than ever before whether it's on 3g or 4g.

You want more speed, better coverage, more features, better phones, but you want to pay old SERO prices like Sprint owes you something. They don't owe you a thing. You're entitled to nothing. They're in it for profit and will hopefully provide value to the consumer while doing it. There is zero value in the long run to being known as the low cost provider. Ultimately you'll never shake the image of lesser quality since the genreal assumption is cheap = poor quality. They can still cost a little less than their competitors without having to drop their pants just to make the cheapskates happy. Owning a smartphone isn't a right.

OK, off the soapbox. Got rubbed the wrong way this morning, and this seemed as good a place as any to rant

 

[IOWA]

Why do people think there will be a class action lawsuit over the original $10/mo fee. It's worded as a premium data charge on phones that are more likely to consume more data. That means bigger screens, better processors (ie. Better hardware) are going to make for a better user experience for media, browsing, dwnloading and such. This will lead to greater data usage, and you need to pay to play. It is a coincidence that it happened to begin with the 4g phones. The Moment and Hero weren't really powerhouses. The Evo and Epic were the first two "premium" phones, 4g aside. The newer phones coming out will all be a step above their predecessors, and they are finding out that people with more basic smartphones are utilizing more data than before so it just makes sense to have it across the board on smartphones and the better data centric feature phones (ie. Instincts).

It's the people in non-4g markets that are all pissy because they can't separate the $10 charge from 4g because they have a 4g phone they can't fully utilize in a non 4g market. That is beside the fact they could watch movies , listen to Pandora, and browse the web to your heart's content on 3g without fear of caps or thottling. Compared to what the other companies charge for that level of service, it's a deal. If you don't consme that much data, then oh well. You're still paying a competitive price in the overall market. And if you don't like it, leave. Cricket, Boost, Metro, T-mob...go for it. Don't let the door hit you in the @ss on the way out. They're not going to please everyone, and the masses are consuming more data than ever before whether it's on 3g or 4g.

You want more speed, better coverage, more features, better phones, but you want to pay old SERO prices like Sprint owes you something. They don't owe you a thing. You're entitled to nothing. They're in it for profit and will hopefully provide value to the consumer while doing it. There is zero value in the long run to being known as the low cost provider. Ultimately you'll never shake the image of lesser quality since the genreal assumption is cheap = poor quality. They can still cost a little less than their competitors without having to drop their pants just to make the cheapskates happy. Owning a smartphone isn't a right.

OK, off the soapbox. Got rubbed the wrong way this morning, and this seemed as good a place as any to rant

I wouldn'd mind the price increase if Sprint upped WiMax Speed/Coverage more. Seriously, they had a TWO YEAR head start. Verizon already is passing them up

 

[dbpaddler]

but that is a legitimate beef compared to many of the rants. They had a head start and followed it with piss poor marketing. They have to be the worst at marketing to their strengths. Verizon and T-Mobile seem to get it. AT&T just seems like they get all pissy. One minute they're largest nationwide network, but they fail to mention that's based on old technology, then they say they're the fastest, but that's nowhere near a high percentage of their network. They just respond to Verizon and T-mobile's taunts. Sprint just seems like they're in left field. They keep chasing the queen and can't seem to find her. I don't even see commercials for Clear anymore, and they started off strong.

If they actually knew how to market worth a damn, they might attract more customers, really put a tourniquet on the bleeding customers, and have the cash to put back into the infrastructure. You never hear anything good about their financials. Most of us are customers because of pricing along with decent coverage, but we've never really been wowed. They improve in some areas and take a nose dive in others (like the whole epic upgrade). All their issues allow the competition to come from behind and catch up. With better marketing and a more even playing field, they'll need to do something more than just pricing to get out of a weak 3rd place position.

I wouldn'd mind the price increase if Sprint upped WiMax Speed/Coverage more. Seriously, they had a TWO YEAR head start. Verizon already is passing them up