Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#21

Post by djb_hackernews »

rcraft wrote: post #8
Afforess wrote: post #3

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 have no fight in the game but I've been a Sprint customer for a long time and have never had any problems with service or speed. I've lived in 2 major cities and EBF fly over country and travel frequently.

For the month of December I used over 10GB of data and 8GB of that was Youtube, Netflix and streaming music.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#22

Post by [deleted] »

duaneb wrote: post #17
rayiner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if bandwidth isn't free.

Bandwidth itself is impossible to value. The infrastructure providing the bandwidth is not free, no, but the idea of data caps to provide some sort of artificial value it fairly laughable, not to mention irrational. If they want to make this argument, charge me WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY VALUED (i.e. charge me for what I use based on a variable rate derived from maintenance costs), not some made up cap that likely has to do…

[deleted]

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#23

Post by Guvante »

xnull1guest wrote: post #14

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…

Why is it insanity? You are implying that the companies are adding no value to the discussion by chiming on the topic. Shouldn't the entities most impacted by the change be listened to when it comes to decide on policy?

You can certainly make a case that you need to adjust for their self-interest, but ignoring them completely is even more questionable than taking their statements at face value.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#24

Post by rayiner »

duaneb wrote: post #17
rayiner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if bandwidth isn't free.

Bandwidth itself is impossible to value. The infrastructure providing the bandwidth is not free, no, but the idea of data caps to provide some sort of artificial value it fairly laughable, not to mention irrational. If they want to make this argument, charge me WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY VALUED (i.e. charge me for what I use based on a variable rate derived from maintenance costs), not some made up cap that likely has to do…

No it's not. The amount of bandwidth available on a wireless network is a function of the amount of spectrum ($$), the sophistication of the cell equipment ($$), and the density of the cell sites ($$$).

Sprint's network is slow because it spends a fraction of what AT&T and Verizon do,[1] while trying to get the same nationwide footprint. It's a simple math problem.

As for prices--every company charges what they estimate people might be willing to put up with.

[1] Last year, $6 billion versus $17-20 billion. These are combined CapEx, but most of it goes into wireless.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#25

Post by ComputerGuru »

JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #9
Afforess wrote: post #3

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.

That is true, but that doesn't make up for the sheer glacial speed that Sprint is moving at to improve their network. They have the most spectrum of all of the carriers but do not use it properly. Quarterly announcements of the Spark network upgrades not meeting their own expectations seems to have become common. You may have LTE but it's not very useful if you can barely get 1Mb/s. T-Mobile on the other hand is havi…

I haven't enjoyed reading a comment on HN this much in a very long time. Thank you for this very informative post!

(I realize this comment doesn't add value, but what's the point of a commenting system that doesn't let one echoes gratitude with more than just an upvote?)

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#26

Post by rayiner »

drawkbox wrote: post #15
forrestthewoods wrote: post #12

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.

Wireless is already under Title II (also Sprint probably wants in on wired so they are for open competition there), that is why AT&T, Verizon, etc take their winnings from the wired internet market and invest it into competing in wireless because they have to compete as there is competition. The monopolies on the ground were used as wireless investments/banks, nearly all investment went into the wireless side, not fi…

Wireless is only nominally under Title II. Section 332 of the statute instructs the FCC to forbear on most of the parts of Title II when it comes to wireless.

And Title II is one reason there is competition in wireless, but you've got the effect backwards. Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon are not cable providers, so their wired networks were heavily regulated by full-on Title II. They invested money in wireless because it was much less regulated. But the big thing was that bandwidth demand for mobile exploded, while growing much slower for wired.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#27

Post by rhino369 »

duaneb wrote: post #17
rayiner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if bandwidth isn't free.

Bandwidth itself is impossible to value. The infrastructure providing the bandwidth is not free, no, but the idea of data caps to provide some sort of artificial value it fairly laughable, not to mention irrational. If they want to make this argument, charge me WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY VALUED (i.e. charge me for what I use based on a variable rate derived from maintenance costs), not some made up cap that likely has to do…

The actual bandwidth the tower has actually costs a lot of money.

65Mhz of highband bandwidth was worth 40 billion at the last auction.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#28

Post by anon4 »

duaneb wrote: post #17
rayiner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if bandwidth isn't free.

Bandwidth itself is impossible to value. The infrastructure providing the bandwidth is not free, no, but the idea of data caps to provide some sort of artificial value it fairly laughable, not to mention irrational. If they want to make this argument, charge me WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY VALUED (i.e. charge me for what I use based on a variable rate derived from maintenance costs), not some made up cap that likely has to do…

If they charged you on usage percent times maintenance cost plus future upgrade plans, they wouldn't make nearly enough for buying golden yachts. You'd be paying like 20$/month for 10Mbit unlimited data.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#29

Post by dragonwriter »

chimeracoder wrote: post #20

> So long as the FCC continues to allow wireless carriers to manage our networks and differentiate our products, Sprint will continue to invest in data networks regardless of whether they are regulated by Title II, Section 706, or some other light touch regulatory regime. 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 ar…

The FCC regulations that were shot down in court, and the proposed follow up, did not differentiate wireline from wireless, they differentiated fixed from mobile. Those are approximately the same, but the definitions and explanations made clear that broadband delivered wirelessly could be "fixed" (e.g., via microwave transmitter to a fixed location.)

Its important to note, because in addition to opposing net neutrality overall, ISPs have pitched that any regulation in that direction should use a wireline/wireless distinction rather than fixed/mobile distinction.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#30

Post by noselasd »

warfangle wrote: post #13
rcraft wrote: post #8

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.

Their coverage map shows solid 100% 4G coverage for me. I live in one of the most populous cities in the US. I'm lucky if I get two bars of 3G. Looking to move to T-Mo soon.

Coverage != speed. You can have excellent signal strength, sharing the bandwidth with thousands of other mobile devices.
Post reply on HN