Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[WiWavelength]

I knew that Sprint would eventually join Tmo in this. But I am against it when Sprint does it too. It will just condition us to think that non-neutrality of data is OK if it works out for them in the short term. I just don't like this at all.

 

 

AJ

[utiz4321]

I could see a future where wireless companies end up more like cable companies, where you would choose your "package" with preferred apps or sites, rendering non-packaged competitors irreverent or just plain inaccessible.

 

Wireless companies will end up being the new Cable Co's, and we all know how well that's worked out for consumers.

It could. What I see is more of the same where somethings count towards your data and others don't. I don't think they'll charges the end users unless the fcc rules out charging the providers and doesn't rule out charging end users for some reason. But the industry wants to charge content providers for data not to count against the customer.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

It could. What I see is more of the same where somethings count towards your data and others don't. I don't think they'll charges the end users unless the fcc rules out charging the providers and doesn't rule out charging end users for some reason. But the industry wants to charge content providers for data not to count against the customer.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tmobile has done an amazing job at pushing this "promotion" as a "feature" and consumer friendly, Legere is a great marketing guy. But the reality of the situation is definitely the opposite, this is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

This crap is a very slippery slope,

 

Adding insult to injury, the word "freedom" is used to market it, as to poke fun at the american consumer for being uneducated on net neutrality.

[greenbastard]

Yea, I don't agree with this...

I'm ok with it as long as Sprint isn't getting any kickbacks from Clear Channel, Pandora, or Slacker.

 

Now as far as network management, I sure do hope this doesn't bite Sprint in the butt and cause network congestion for post-paid Sprint customers. Music streaming may not be as big of a burden on a network like videos, but it's definitely something to keep an eye on.

[Ascertion]

I'm ok with it as long as Sprint isn't getting any kickbacks from Clear Channel, Pandora, or Slacker.

 

Now as far as network management, I sure do hope this doesn't bite Sprint in the butt and cause network congestion for post-paid Sprint customers. Music streaming may not be as big of a burden on a network like videos, but it's definitely something to keep an eye on.

It shouldn't be too bad.  Pandora I believe is 92kbps.  Very slow connection, even 1x data could supply it.  But, I do agree that in crowded areas with music lovers, it can cause a lot more strain on the network.  Maybe they're implementing it onto Sprint post-paid customers at a later date, once B41 takes off?

[tybo31316]

I hope the FCC comes in and crack down on it. No ISP/CELL Carrier should show favoritism towards a certain service. That's what kills innovation.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

[utiz4321]

I hope the FCC comes in and crack down on it. No ISP/CELL Carrier should show favoritism towards a certain service. That's what kills innovation.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

That is far from true. Innovation will continue and what you seem to forget is all of the capex intensive innovation on the side of the carriers. How many major network upgrades have there been in the last 7 years? The four major carriers alone are looking at spending 25 billion on capex this year. They have to be able to monetize that or all the advances we have seen in pushing the networks to improve will end. Remember two of the four carriers haven't been able to monetize the capital spends yet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tybo31316]

That is far from true. Innovation will continue and what you seem to forget is all of the capex intensive innovation on the side of the carriers. How many major network upgrades have there been in the last 7 years? The four major carriers alone are looking at spending 25 billion on capex this year. They have to be able to monetize that or all the advances we have seen in pushing the networks to improve will end. Remember two of the four carriers haven't been able to monetize the capital spends yet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm talking about from the development side of things. When you have apps and services that's getting special access (not counting against your cap). If and when new services are available users aren't going to want to try them out because it will count against the cap.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

[utiz4321]

I'm talking about from the development side of things. When you have apps and services that's getting special access (not counting against your cap). If and when new services are available users aren't going to want to try them out because it will count against the cap.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

That is a hard claim to support. If you have a good app or service people will use there data to get to it. If you have a copy cat service that offers only a marginal improvement on existing services then people might weight that marginal improvement against the marginal value of using a service that doesn't use their data. On the other side of the coin the carriers have much higher capex built into providing a good network experience and innovating with the network when compared to that capital costs developers tend to face. That innovation needs to be paid for and it is a good thing that carriers make profits from improving there network, as it encourages them to keep doing it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tybo31316]

That is a hard claim to support. If you have a good app or service people will use there data to get to it. If you have a copy cat service that offers only a marginal improvement on existing services then people might weight that marginal improvement against the marginal value of using a service that doesn't use their data. On the other side of the coin the carriers have much higher capex built into providing a good network experience and innovating with the network when compared to that capital costs developers tend to face. That innovation needs to be paid for and it is a good thing that carriers make profits from improving there network, as it encourages them to keep doing it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well maybe the service like Pandora, Netflix, etc should charge the ISPs for their users to access their services. These companies have cost to like the bandwidth to stream the content.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

[utiz4321]

Well maybe the service like Pandora, Netflix, etc should charge the ISPs for their users to access their services. These companies have cost to like the bandwidth to stream the content.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

The don't provide bandwidth though. Look, when you can't stream pandora because the network is over loaded who do you get pissed with? The carrier is the one that allows Pandora to reach its customer where their customers want to use them. It sounds to me like Pandora is a customer of the carriers too.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

That is far from true. Innovation will continue and what you seem to forget is all of the capex intensive innovation on the side of the carriers. How many major network upgrades have there been in the last 7 years? The four major carriers alone are looking at spending 25 billion on capex this year. They have to be able to monetize that or all the advances we have seen in pushing the networks to improve will end. Remember two of the four carriers haven't been able to monetize the capital spends yet.

That is a hard claim to support. If you have a good app or service people will use there data to get to it. If you have a copy cat service that offers only a marginal improvement on existing services then people might weight that marginal improvement against the marginal value of using a service that doesn't use their data. On the other side of the coin the carriers have much higher capex built into providing a good network experience and innovating with the network when compared to that capital costs developers tend to face. That innovation needs to be paid for and it is a good thing that carriers make profits from improving there network, as it encourages them to keep doing it.

 

You seem hellbent on helping Big Channel (or Big Carrier or Big Operator -- whatever you want to call it) get "some of that Internet money" from Big Content.  Too bad.  That is not how it is supposed to work.

 

Like it or not, Big Channel exists to be a "dumb pipe."  And it gets largely constant revenue, month after month, year after year.  Long term returns.  If Big Channel does not like that or cannot afford the CAPEX, then it can get out of the business.  Go do something else.

 

And maybe that last point just highlights the ridiculousness of the wireless sector of Big Channel with fully four separate national infrastructure operators.  Do we have four separate, privately operated Interstate type highway systems crisscrossing the country?  No, that would be ludicrous.

 

From an infrastructure standpoint, nationalize the whole damn thing.  One public/private network infrastructure building entity.  Every current or future wireless "carrier," "operator," "provider," or whatever you want to call it is an MVNO.  Selling service over the top of the public/private network infrastructure.  VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint could be as neutral or anti neutral as they please -- because there would be hundreds of other MVNO competitors.

 

Duggar Mobile could whitelist all AshleyMadison.com browsing -- but block all porn sites for protection of your soul.  Hillary Wireless could entice users with private e-mail servers -- all e-mail data encrypted and whitelisted.  Peyton Mobility -- an intentionally ironic branding -- could inject all data traffic with ads for Nationwide Insurance and Omaha tourism, as well as recipes for chicken parmesan sandwiches.  The MVNO possibilities abound.  They could do whatever they want.  They would come and go, as some would succeed, and others would fail.

 

That would be the free market, real competition, not the bullshit competition that you think exists under the current system, telling us to choose another provider if we do not like the anti neutral stance(s) of a current provider.  That is hardly real choice in any given market with typically only four, maybe five real providers.  Besides, they mostly just ape each other.  One makes a move -- the others follow suit.  And this has become particularly problematic since John of Bellevue has become the savior, "innovating" and "disrupting" the industry.

 

AJ

[utiz4321]

Aj

 

Thank whatever divine spirit animates the world the network wasn't nationalized at any point in our history. There would have been very little innovation from that point on, we would certainly not be anywhere close to an near ubiquitous deployment of lte.

 

As far as big this getting profits from big that, I don't really care and don't see why any consumer should. The market will work this out and consumers will choose based on where they feel they get value. Profits, will take care of themselves that is what I am advocating.

 

If you would like greater choose among providers advocate positions that reduce returns to scale like lessening the regulatory burden on network deployment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Aj

 

Thank whatever divine spirit animates the world the network wasn't nationalized at any point in our history. There would have been very little innovation from that point on, we would certainly not be anywhere close to an near ubiquitous deployment of lte.

So, are you one of those anti government folks? Living in a Libertarian fantasy world? Big government never does anything well!

 

Yes, thank goodness we left the likes of highway construction, primary/secondary education, and law enforcement solely up to private industry.  I am glad that those services are focused on high short term profit areas at prices that justify the CAPEX to shareholders.  Wink, wink.

 

As far as big this getting profits from big that, I don't really care and don't see why any consumer should. The market will work this out and consumers will choose based on where they feel they get value. Profits, will take care of themselves that is what I am advocating.

That is more market based economic bullshit. The market fails consumers all of the time -- because what we have is not really a free market. That is why we require government regulation or even nationalization.  The wired broadband market has failed consumers right and left with too few choices, leading to onerous prices and policies -- some of which have been anti neutral.  The wireless market is headed down the same path if you and others continue to be apologists for Big Channel being anti neutral -- especially as you justify Big Channel CAPEX as good reason for even coercing/extorting money from Big Content.  That is outrageous.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

And this has become particularly problematic since John of Bellevue has become the savior, "innovating" and "disrupting" the industry.

 

AJ

You forgot to add something here, AJ. His proper name is T-Lord St. John of Bellevue, His Highness Majesty over all Magentans in the Realm of his Supreme Holy Land of Legere, where all worship him under the guidance of his magistrate Fabian and the knights guarding most fiecely of his almighty throne, for which Lordship John Legere presides over, while tossing free data and free music streaming to his wailing peasant Magentans.

 

He gives them just enough so they will continue to worship him, but dare they cross the 21gb barrier for the month, they shall be chained and given many lashes according to how many gbs they went over their limit. Then, they shall serve penance, where they confess all their sins to his Majesty, including that of repentance for their years as customers of the Duopoly. Although, the name of Sprint is forbidden to be spoken of in his presence, for reasons such as it makes him very angry and may cause harm to himself or others.

[JeffDTD]

Im also against it.

 

As a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint, I find it even more offensive for this to be limited to Virgin customers. With the disappearance of contracts and the availability of financing showing up on prepaid, the line between postpaid and prepaid is far more thin and blurred than it used to be. If network speed and capacity is a finite resource for the average sprint user and streaming remains one of the main causes of congestion, allowing it on prepaid but not postpaid is a kick in the face to sprint users with data buckets

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

Personally, I think this is an amazing, simply wonderful idea in general, but especially for Sprint retail stores, considering how problematic many of its retail stores are with a lot of employees who are clueless and careless. Of course, not all are like that, but it seems a great many are. I've read many reports of people while liking most everything about Sprint, despise having to go into a Sprint corporate store and dealing with obnoxious staff there who often treat customers like crap.

 

I, for one, have realized with a device at least 2x CA capable and with good rf, the network actually is pretty good, as long as I'd backup the device with whatever I really need for travel, in case of the slower areas all carriers have. The problem though, which is why I still don't have Sprint (fully), is because of retail issues.

 

In any case, I think this would be great as long as Sprint has higher up corporate technical staff train these robots, rather than the current store staff these robots might replace :

 

http://www.rcrwireless.com/20151007/carriers/sprint-considering-human-like-robots-for-retail-stores-tag15

[utiz4321]

So, are you one of those anti government folks? Living in a Libertarian fantasy world? Big government never does anything well!

 

Yes, thank goodness we left the likes of highway construction, primary/secondary education, and law enforcement solely up to private industry. I am glad that those services are focused on high short term profit areas at prices that justify the CAPEX to shareholders. Wink, wink.

 

 

That is more market based economic bullshit. The market fails consumers all of the time -- because what we have is not really a free market. That is why we require government regulation or even nationalization. The wired broadband market has failed consumers right and left with too few choices, leading to onerous prices and policies -- some of which have been anti neutral. The wireless market is headed down the same path if you and others continue to be apologists for Big Channel being anti neutral -- especially as you justify Big Channel CAPEX as good reason for even coercing/extorting money from Big Content. That is outrageous.

 

AJ

No. I just look at the track record of say public wifi or the post office or the upkeep of the interstate highway system and can't see any reason why I would want telephony renationalized. Oh, then they is the history of a nationalized telephony itself.

 

The large capex cost involved in maintaining and upgrading networks is a big reason for the markets structure and who should pay for it is an open question, content drives a lot of those costs.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeffDTD]

If unlimited audio streaming remains an accepted practice, I hope Sprint would consider allowing it as a feature with slightly higher price points on shared data plans. Theyre basically giving away the farm with the current $120/40GB 4 line plan when u consider 10GB is $100. If I were Sprint, I think $120 for 4 lines to share 10GB and get free audio streaming is the safer bet. I guess we will have stay tuned as the current offers expire soon

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

I love the idea of one single ubiquitous nationwide network handling all of the spectrum frequencies accessible to all customers, with MVNOs selling access to it. That would work so much better than the current system of things, including these messed up spectrum auctions I despise.

 

Although, I'd be happy enough with carriers running their own networks, if only the FCC would treat the public airwaves more fairly and equally divide this spectrum between carriers, giving all of the carriers an equal nationwide balance of spectrum based on shifting subscriber numbers, etc. The spectrum would be reevaluated every year, and there wouldn't be any waste or "spectrum squatting" allowed.

[WiWavelength]

The large capex cost involved in maintaining and upgrading networks is a big reason for the markets structure and who should pay for it is an open question, content drives a lot of those costs.

 

As has been stated ad nauseam in these Net Neutrality arguments, Big Content already pays for its Internet bandwidth -- just like I do with my home broadband.  But Big Channel envies the rapid profits of Big Content -- even though many of those companies end up as flashes in the pan -- so Big Channel wants to charge for data twice.  Charge Big Content to deliver its data.  And charge the user to receive that data.  Once more, that is a bullshit solution.

 

If Big Channel cannot stand the heat -- it wants "some of that Internet money" -- then get out of the kitchen.  Leave the business if it cannot hack the CAPEX for longterm return.  A public/private infrastructure entity would have no problem with that longterm return.  And do note the public/private aspect.  Private industry would still get to construct networks, just not run every aspect of them.

 

AJ

[utiz4321]

As has been stated ad nauseam in these Net Neutrality arguments, Big Content already pays for its Internet bandwidth -- just like I do with my home broadband. But Big Channel envies the rapid profits of Big Content -- even though many of those companies end up as flashes in the pan -- so Big Channel wants to charge for data twice. Charge Big Content to deliver its data. And charge the user to receive that data. Once more, that is a bullshit solution.

 

If Big Channel cannot stand the heat -- it wants "some of that Internet money" -- then get out of the kitchen. Leave the business if it cannot hack the CAPEX for longterm return. A public/private infrastructure entity would have no problem with that longterm return. And do note the public/private aspect. Private industry would still get to construct networks, just not run every aspect of them.

 

AJ

You might get your wish. We might end up with two national carriers, but I don't think that is ideal. But it seems to be all the market can bear in a net neutral world.

What would be the incentive for a nationalized network to upgrade itself? The rapid advance in network tech. Has been driven by competition of networks, if you turned it into a monopoly (on the network side) then innovation would stop, cost to the MVNOs would be monopolistic and investment would be minimized. Just look at the history of government run monopolies, it is awful, in this country and in every other.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Although, I'd be happy enough with carriers running their own networks, if only the FCC would treat the public airwaves more fairly and equally divide this spectrum between carriers, giving all of the carriers an equal nationwide balance of spectrum based on shifting subscriber numbers, etc.

 

That cannot happen -- unless you are willing to throw smaller regional or rural operators under the bus.  I understand your perspective living in the Chicago metro.  Your market is reduced now to just the four national operators -- VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint.  The same is true in my market.  But that is not the case everywhere.  Reassigning consistent nationwide spectrum to the four national operators would run roughshod over the likes of USCC, C Spire, Commnet, Viaero Wireless, Nex-Tech Wireless, and many other smaller operators.

 

AJ

[caspar347]

Your analogy is not a good one. The highway department is a government enforced monopoly, consumer have no choice but to use highways run by the highway department. Consumer do have choices when it comes to wireless and ip providers. That allows them to shape the market the way they prefer.

But is this really the case? A good portion of the country is only well-served by two or three wireless providers (though this is becoming less of an immediate issue as Sprint and T-Mobile expand) and the vast majority of the country is stuck with one or two ISPs that provide what the FCC defines as broadband. The choices are further limited thanks to the dominant players in the two industries (the duopoly of wireless and big cable) offering nearly identical pricing structures. Do Verizon and AT&T really count as adequate competition with their nearly-identical (admittedly less so recently) pricing?

[S4GRU]

Duggar Mobile? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30