11–20 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno, the fact that Sprint still offers (real) Unlimited data plans in the US is the best marketing they have ever done in my book.
The problem is, in most cities, it's impossible to take advantage of Sprint's "unlimited data plans" because their data speeds are abysmal. I would love to go back to sprint eventually, but for now I'm happy with T-mobile in Denver/Chicago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno, the fact that Sprint still offers (real) Unlimited data plans in the US is the best marketing they have ever done in my book.
The problem is, in most cities, it's impossible to take advantage of Sprint's "unlimited data plans" because their data speeds are abysmal. I would love to go back to sprint eventually, but for now I'm happy with T-mobile in Denver/Chicago.
I'm lucky if I get two bars of 3G.
Looking to move to T-Mo soon.
Certainly information from these businesses on how they believe different legislation will effect them is useful to voters, their representatives and their appointees in performing a legislative calculus.
But what certain companies 'advocate' for? This is hardly useful information for the design of legislation (it's a single bit, and a complicated one). As these large businesses should have no direct say in how they are regulated, I don't see why we the people should care what companies 'endorse'. They don't get a vote.
Whether Google or Sprint or AT&T or Comcast sanctions or opposes net neutrality should mean nothing and should not be worthy of news. The companies that happen agree with the general public do not do so on the ground of ideals or liberty or heroism but on the ground of profit. They are not the stewards of public interest or champions of the public - only the public can do and be this. We can't count on Sprint or Google or any other company to get the legislation we want passed - because if we condone that we also condone their passing of legislation we don't.
Is this a case of wireless vs wired? Most Title II talks are with respect to wired connections due to last mile issues. Wireless doesn't have that particular issue. And right now wireless has plenty of roaring competition so there's certainly less of a need for a regulatory hand.
The monopolies on the ground were used as wireless investments/banks, nearly all investment went into the wireless side, not fiber or residential internet.
We have seen 3G, 4G, LTE etc all rapidly rolled out by all wireless providers, yet we are still running late 90's speeds on wired. The reason is the competition. Title II is at least a start because it somewhat works in wireless, better than wired anyways.
It's a sort of an accepted insanity that the positions which these large businesses take are considered important. Certainly information from these businesses on how they believe different legislation will effect them is useful to voters, their representatives and their appointees in performing a legislative calculus. But what certain companies 'advocate' for? This is hardly useful information for the design of legis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, in most cities, it's impossible to take advantage of Sprint's "unlimited data plans" because their data speeds are abysmal. I would love to go back to sprint eventually, but for now I'm happy with T-mobile in Denver/Chicago.
It's almost as if bandwidth isn't free.
This is really huge, because it endorses applying Title II to wireless networks, not just wired broadband.
Much of the discourse so far has been around wired broadband, and many of the proposals so far (including the FCC regulations that were shot down last year in court) carved out special exemptions for wireless networks.