In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#41

Post by spiralpolitik » Sat, Jan 17, 2015, 2:40 AM UTC

mdasen wrote: post #35

JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

AT&T isn't in as nice a spectrum position as Verizon, but the situation isn't what you've portrayed. AT&T has AWS spectrum in most markets, but it isn't a 40MHz chunk. That's still additional capacity. AT&T is also re-farming spectrum previously used for 2G/3G services for LTE. Likewise, the 150Mbps theoretical speed won't happen in real-world conditions (just as 10x10 LTE doesn't give you 75Mbps speeds). It will off…

Do T-Mobile and AT&T still have the roaming agreements with each other in place from back in the day when they were SBC/PacBell and Voicestream respectively ? I seem to remember in the early days of T-Mobile in California for the most part you were roaming on AT&T and T-Mobile branded phones had the firmware hacked to show 'T-Mobile' instead of 'SBC'.

(I noticed a month or so ago my T-Mobile SIM ended up on an AT&T network when I was out in the wilds of Arizona so have been curious if this was still the case)

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#42

Post by zanny » Sat, Jan 17, 2015, 2:48 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #24

duaneb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 estim…

You are describing the costs of total network capacity. The poster above is describing marginal costs of bandwidth.

If there is infrastructure in place that is going underutilized and I want to download a megabyte of data, the marginal cost of that data transfer is incredibly negligible. But that infrastructure exists to meet the conditions of peak utilization, when at capacity, and that is what is expensive.

If anything, Sprint should give flat rate mobile data and have fixed funding campaigns to increase capacity for each residential block around a tower. If the speeds are too slow end users would then pay to upgrade the infrastructure themselves, or more specifically heavy and business users would subsidize network upgrades.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#43

Post by drewinglis » Sat, Jan 17, 2015, 2:54 AM UTC

noselasd wrote: post #30

warfangle wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're saying that they doesn't even have the signal strength part.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#44

Post by forrestthewoods » Sat, Jan 17, 2015, 3:24 AM UTC

duaneb wrote: post #39

forrestthewoods wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not artificial if the network is overloaded by users. It's not like fiber where an optical running from user end point to the ISP can be fully saturated all the time without affecting other users.

Yes, but that's an entirely different problem. It's not like imposing fees after a certain point of use will help that problem at all, it would make more sense to a) absorb it and raise the monthly subscription when necessary, b) charge per byte, c) charge based on your % of network, or charge maintenance or service fees and don't charge for bandwidth at all. The current, tiered model only makes sense to use "overloa…

Monopoly? Who has a cell network monopoly? Prices are going down and features up due to ever increasing competition.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#45

Post by LargeCompanies » Sat, Jan 17, 2015, 3:50 AM UTC

Was a Sprint customer for two years then last year I kept seeing all these great deals pop up due to T-Mobile. I kept calling them asking if they had anything competitive. The only thing they had was this terrible framily plan where I had to work to find people/anyone to join this plan with. Even deadbeats. Stupid & when I started to travel I noticed how bad their network is!

I have since switched to an ATT family plan. 15 Gigs split between 4 users, free WiFi hotspot (had to pay $15 additional a month to Sprint for that) and I pay less then $50 a month. ATT coverage is solid everywhere in this state and up and down the east coast.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#46

Post by adventured » Sat, Jan 17, 2015, 3:59 AM UTC

duaneb wrote: post #39

forrestthewoods wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not artificial if the network is overloaded by users. It's not like fiber where an optical running from user end point to the ISP can be fully saturated all the time without affecting other users.

Yes, but that's an entirely different problem. It's not like imposing fees after a certain point of use will help that problem at all, it would make more sense to a) absorb it and raise the monthly subscription when necessary, b) charge per byte, c) charge based on your % of network, or charge maintenance or service fees and don't charge for bandwidth at all. The current, tiered model only makes sense to use "overloa…

The US mobile network system has plenty of competition presently. In fact, it's competitive enough that it has evolved faster faster and better than most European mobile networks. It took nearly all of Europe a very long time to get 4G adoption above even 50% of the population.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#47

Post by adventured » Sat, Jan 17, 2015, 4:02 AM UTC

LargeCompanies wrote: post #45

Was a Sprint customer for two years then last year I kept seeing all these great deals pop up due to T-Mobile. I kept calling them asking if they had anything competitive. The only thing they had was this terrible framily plan where I had to work to find people/anyone to join this plan with. Even deadbeats. Stupid & when I started to travel I noticed how bad their network is! I have since switched to an ATT family pl…

I second this. Switched from Verizon to AT&T. I can get good speeds on AT&T's 4G LTE network in some of the lowest population spots - in the middle of nowhere - on the east coast. Their network has been impressive so far.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#48

Post by adventured » Sat, Jan 17, 2015, 4:05 AM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #19

All this means is that Sprint thinks it is on the losing end of some deals made by competitors.

Along with every US customer of 'broadband' paying $50-$75 per month for 5-15mbps fixed non-broadband.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#49

Post by Zigurd » Sat, Jan 17, 2015, 5:34 AM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #27

duaneb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or it could be worth $0 if shared by smart radios. Fixed reservations of spectrum is technologically obsolete and economically very sub-optimal.

Spectrum "ownership" will be the taxi medallion of the 21st century.

Re: In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

#50

Post by venomsnake » Sat, Jan 17, 2015, 7:27 AM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #44

duaneb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that's an entirely different problem. It's not like imposing fees after a certain point of use will help that problem at all, it would make more sense to a) absorb it and raise the monthly subscription when necessary, b) charge per byte, c) charge based on your % of network, or charge maintenance or service fees and don't charge for bandwidth at all. The current, tiered model only makes sense to use "overloa…

Monopoly? Who has a cell network monopoly? Prices are going down and features up due to ever increasing competition.

I was able to get in austria in 2006 3g for 1 EUR/GB . How are prices falling down?