Jump to content

IT'S THE WiMAX COUNTDOWN!!!


S4GRU

Recommended Posts

"Disadvantaged" individuals using cheap/free WiMAX for home Internet, I can understand.  But somebody needs to explain to me rationally why any schools and libraries -- as these non profits claim -- are using WiMAX for Internet access?  Is it their primary Internet access?  Seriously?  I will say it again.  Seriously?  Where are these schools and libraries?  Better yet, who and what are these schools and libraries?  Via tax payer funding, government programs, and other charitable outreach, schools and libraries have access to far superior wired broadband services almost everywhere.

 

 

AJ

The high school I went to here in Harrisburg, NC (a relatively small town) had 2 Gbps wired internet. And we were in no means a state-of-the-art school. So I can corroborate this statement.

 

-Anthony

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mobile Citizen and Mobile beacon is like that kid at school who comes empty handed on a project.. Or late on assignments

 

They KNEW it was shutting down WAY long ago and they're acting upon it now? Yeah, they deserve nothing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate that this Mobile Beacon and Mobile Citizen is trying to delay the WiMax shutdown, when they've known for a long time that this was planned. They certainly are not entitled to an extension, delay, or whatever it is to prevent Sprint from executing their long planned shutdown, of which Sprint has arrangements in this shutdown which will benefit a vast majority of its own customers.

 

In essence, what Mobile Beacon and Mobile Citizen are trying to do, is to harm Sprint's ability to serve its customers, potentially causing churn and a loss of millions of dollars to Sprint's business. I could understand if contractual obligations Sprint has to provide an equal level of service, but it doesn't have to be through the WiMax network, which Sprint can certainly prove that the WiMax network not only is inferior to the LTE service its willing to provide to Mobile Beacon and Mobile Citizen, but that to extend the WiMax operation is increasingly dangerous to its business in how its able to provide competitive service to its own customers in LTE.

 

My opinion is for Sprint to offer the unlimited service to them on LTE, at speeds up to 8/9mbps, equivalent to what I heard from people I knew who had Clear often received at top speeds. I can't see how that is unreasonable in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is for Sprint to offer the unlimited service to them on LTE, at speeds up to 8/9mbps, equivalent to what I heard from people I knew who had Clear often received at top speeds. I can't see how that is unreasonable in any way.

 

Yes, those have been the average speeds, at best, for any WiMAX users.  But throttling these "disadvantaged" users to 8-9 Mbps on "unlimited" LTE would not solve the potential problem.

 

Even at typical but varying speeds no greater than that on WiMAX, it has been documented that many of these charity cases have been consuming tens or even hundreds of GBs per month.  To make matters worse, they are not mobile users but mostly fixed location users, almost constantly loading down certain sectors, and they are not paying Sprint a dime for their service.  If given a more consistent 8-9 Mbps on "unlimited" LTE, their usage is apt to remain the same or even increase.

 

Put the 8-9 Mbps throttling and 23 GB/mo prioritization policies in place for these users.  Then, you might have a feasible plan.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm one of the few, or 1, who supports mobile citizen/beacon.

 

These companies leased to sprint/clear their spectrum. Sprint/clear in exchange for said spectrum agreed to provide a certain level of service.

 

Sprint uses this spectrum in turn to serve both sprints customers and mobile citizen/beacon customers.

 

You can say that mobile citizen/beacon knew of the upcoming transition, but so also has sprint also know of clears (and now sprints) obligations in providing these services to those companies.

 

Just because sprint is changing the method of transport, from wimax to lte, does not (or should not) have any affect on the services they were already being provided in exchange for the use of that spectrum.

 

These services were obviously working on wimax, there is no reason to believe that sprints ostensibly vastly improved network over the clear network will be materially harmed in continuing the previously provided services for the newer and better transport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm one of the few, or 1, who supports mobile citizen/beacon.

 

These companies leased to sprint/clear their spectrum. Sprint/clear in exchange for said spectrum agreed to provide a certain level of service.

 

They also are leasing to Sprint nee Clearwire largely out of necessity -- because they are in a "use it or lose it" situation with their EBS spectrum from the FCC.  Most of these educational institutions lack the ability to deploy their EBS spectrum to any good use, so they make money by leasing it out.  It basically is FCC charity to them.  But they have to maintain at least 5 percent of their capacity toward educational purposes.  Sprint is the one providing them with that ability.  Otherwise, they risk having their EBS licenses cancelled and returned to the FCC.

 

AJ

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm one of the few, or 1, who supports mobile citizen/beacon.

 

These companies leased to sprint/clear their spectrum. Sprint/clear in exchange for said spectrum agreed to provide a certain level of service.

 

Sprint uses this spectrum in turn to serve both sprints customers and mobile citizen/beacon customers.

 

You can say that mobile citizen/beacon knew of the upcoming transition, but so also has sprint also know of clears (and now sprints) obligations in providing these services to those companies.

 

Just because sprint is changing the method of transport, from wimax to lte, does not (or should not) have any affect on the services they were already being provided in exchange for the use of that spectrum.

 

These services were obviously working on wimax, there is no reason to believe that sprints ostensibly vastly improved network over the clear network will be materially harmed in continuing the previously provided services for the newer and better transport.

They are due their 5% and that's all they're due. Sprint is not denying them that. However, they want to use as much as they want on Sprint's network. If Sprint allows that, how much is left for Sprint customers? You do know that Sprint is paying them to use that spectrum, right? At least 95% of it at any rate. How fair is to pay to use the spectrum, pay to host the network and then have dwindling resources for your customers?

 

Meanwhile Mobile Citizen and Beacon give out service at their heart's content, more and more. They will give away all of the capacity of they are allowed to. They want more than their 5%. And why not? They get to be philanthropists at Sprint's expense.

 

MC/MB need Sprint's network. Sprint should just back out of the lease and let them have their spectrum back if they fight too hard. The spectrum won't do them any good without a network. And no one else is going to host it for them for what they want.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only think they should get exactly what service they had before.

 

The change in transport should have zero affect on mc/mb services, and mc/mb services should have no more affect on the sprint network than they had on the clear network.

 

I have no issue with them throttled to the same/similar speeds as wimax (which actually goes up to ~15mbs according to what my wimax service get).

 

So a max ~15mbs unlimited bandwidth shared among any mc/mb customers should have minimal detriment in most cases, and if there are any specific areas of high congestion which are service affecting, then those particular spots can be investigated and determined if there is abuse or if there is some other kind of network issue or lack of backhaul etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only think they should get exactly what service they had before.

 

The change in transport should have zero affect on mc/mb services, and mc/mb services should have no more affect on the sprint network than they had on the clear network.

 

I have no issue with them throttled to the same/similar speeds as wimax (which actually goes up to ~15mbs according to what my wimax service get).

 

So a max ~15mbs unlimited bandwidth shared among any mc/mb customers should have minimal detriment in most cases, and if there are any specific areas of high congestion which are service affecting, then those particular spots can be investigated and determined if there is abuse or if there is some other kind of network issue or lack of backhaul etc.

 

I think everyone is an agreement in principle they should not get more than what they always had.  Everyone except for Mobile Beacon and Mobile Citizen.  I think the only difference where you and I may disagree is that they cannot have 15Mbps for as many customers as they please, taking over all Sprint's capacity.  Or even an unfair share.  You could limit each individual MC/MB customer to 15Mbps and still have so many that it can overwhelm multiple carriers per sector.

 

It needs to be limited to 15Mbps (although I think it should be more like 5Mbps, because almost none of them ever saw 15Mbps), and it can't be more than 5% of EBS capacity.  Sprint pays for and is entitled to its 95%.  If Sprint can't use its 95% fully, they should give it back.

 

In most MC/MB markets, Sprint has ample BRS spectrum.  EBS spectrum in most of these markets is just extra future capacity.  In markets with full BRS holdings, Sprint can do 3xCA without any EBS.  Sprint only needs more than 3xCA down the road, and only in major markets.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only think they should get exactly what service they had before.

 

Cite language in the leases that the lessors are entitled to -- regardless of airlink technology, deployed bandwidth, and network speeds -- x number or "unlimited" number of "unlimited" data accounts to disperse for free or sell for $x at their pleasure.  Then, you might have something.  And I probably would agree with you.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Robert and AJ about this issue.

 

I know there have been unpopular and unfair things Sprint has done, as all wireless carriers have done in certain situations. However, something about this situation just doesn't seem right to me. I can't see Sprint in their time when they are actively doing things to repair their reputation and business to suddenly "screw over" a couple of charitable organizations.

 

I'm sure Sprint tried to make these groups a reasonable offer. Their actions by suing Sprint trying to force them from operating their business as planned for so long which is needed to better serve their customers, is just selfish of these groups and makes me believe they are just trying to take advantage of Sprint at a time they conviently found to do this. I mean, why didn't they start complaining back when Sprint announced the WiMax shutdown months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Robert, no I don't think it should be 15mbs per customer, I think mc/mb (partitioned) service should get capped about ~15mbs  per tower shared among any/all customers of mc/mb. This would be similar to the same customers sharing a wimax tower.

 

So if 3 customers were splitting that 15mbs simultaneously, they would be getting about ~5mbs each on an otherwise unloaded tower.

 

If the total load on the tower were high enough to not support their 15mbs, there partitioned service would be shared with the rest of the global capacity of the site.

 

Further, if necessary, that shared partition could even be de-prioritized so that primary sprint customers would be even less affected.

 

So math-like;

 

total load = ((15mbs / # of mbmc customers) / all other sprint customers)

 

@AJ we both know that none of us have any of the details and information that both sprint and the other companies have, neither do we know what if anything sprint offered or did not offer or whether it was reasonable. Like so many other conversations and threads that happen here, its all just opinion and conjecture with the occasional educated guess.

 

I do know for fact, that as a clearwire customer, sprint offered nothing.

 

They did not even offer to convert me to a standard sprint capped data plan with or without any contract, discount or incentive.

 

'Sorry, your clear service is being shut down, we can't help you but hey here is another provider who may be able to provide you service; excede '

 

They didn't even try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Robert, no I don't think it should be 15mbs per customer, I think mc/mb (partitioned) service should get capped about ~15mbs  per tower shared among any/all customers of mc/mb. This would be similar to the same customers sharing a wimax tower...

 

I kinda like this idea.  However, I don't think the network can do it as you suggest.  It may require a dedicated channel for that to happen, just for those customers.  And that may not be a bad idea.  Sprint often has odd sized chunks left over that can't be used for a 20MHz carrier.  Could give them their own 5-10MHz LTE carrier.  When it's full, it's full.  If they over commit, it's their problem not Sprints.  They can buy more from Sprint like an MVNO, if they want.

 

I think that really is the core issue for Sprint.  It's the over commital part.  MB/MC wants to keep committing as many customers as they can, and Sprint just serve them.  Sprint wants a way to draw line in the sand and let MB/MC customers suffer consequences of their own success.  Not Sprint customers.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sprint offering 5 Mbps LTE and cap off at 15 GB is plenty good enough. These guys pay a cheap $10/month for service so its not like they are contributing much to Sprint's bottom line.

 

Per the reports, the end users are not paying Sprint anything.  As part of the EBS leases, Sprint nee Clearwire is giving the accounts to the charity middlemen, and they are selling them to these "disadvantaged" users at the low rate of $10/mo.

 

That is my understanding.  If it is inaccurate, then anyone with additional knowledge is welcome to clarify.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AJ we both know that none of us have any of the details and information that both sprint and the other companies have, neither do we know what if anything sprint offered or did not offer or whether it was reasonable. Like so many other conversations and threads that happen here, its all just opinion and conjecture with the occasional educated guess.

 

dedub, I know that we have had our differences, but I am not trying to bait you here.  Rather, I am giving you an opportunity.  I do believe that the lease details and negotiation offers are out there -- because of the publicly available FCC filings and court injunction request seeking relief from the WiMAX shutdown.  I do not have the time right now to sort through those documents, but if you or anyone else wishes to do so, we welcome that information -- even if it means that we or Sprint is wrong.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone want to buy a lightly used Photon 4G?

 

Well, here is the phone number (401) 934-0500 for Mobile Beacon.  They probably would love it if you would donate that WiMAX device to them.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ robert, if they set them up like an mnvo, I don't see why they couldn't partition or otherwise separate and manage the traffic, much like sprints own mnvo's and various roaming agreements have differing network management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ robert, if they set them up like an mnvo, I don't see why they couldn't partition or otherwise separate and manage the traffic, much like sprints own mnvo's and various roaming agreements have differing network management.

I'm sure they can but we don't want their high usage to have a negative impact on sprints main customers' experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done some research on Mobile Beacon and Mobile Citizen.  One tidbit I found is why libraries oddly are using WiMAX for Internet provision.  They are not using WiMAX for their own Internet connections -- that would be too slow for entire buildings.  Instead, they are checking out mobile hotspots to patrons.
 

Providence Community Library is loaning out the internet. Literally. They have purchased two hotspots from Mobile Beacon. Library patrons can check out the hotspots for up to a week. The hotspots can accommodate up to five users at a time, with no bandwidth usage limits. Library director Laura Marlane explains:
“More libraries need to be customer service driven. It’s about providing the access our community members need. They need access to the internet at home or wherever they may be. They need access through any kind of device (tablet, smart phone, laptop, desktop) and they need multiple family members to be able to access the internet simultaneously. We are meeting the needs of our community.”

 

https://www.webjunction.org/news/webjunction/Clear_Resellers_Impact_Broadband_Adoption.html

 

I question the utility of this service.  If people can afford Wi-Fi connected devices at home, then they also can afford basic home broadband -- which they might even qualify to receive via a government subsidized program.  If not, then they still can go to the library proper for Internet access.  And are "disadvantaged" people the ones who actually are checking out the mobile hotspots?  Or is it largely patrons who just want to take advantage of free Internet on the go?

 

AJ

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...