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

[utiz4321]

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?

Yes. This is the case do to returns to scale and because it is not mandated. Vzw and att can't simple rely on there rural base to cover the cost of running their network.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Duggar Mobile? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

I aim to educate, intrigue, and entertain.

 

AJ

[dnicekid]

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.

 

 

Of course wireless will be the new cable co! Att/Directv dish/Tmo

Sprint/Comcast ..... All the mergers/attempted ones are definitely pointing in that direction! Good point

[greenbastard]

Yes, thank goodness we left the likes of highway construction

Governments do not build highways and roads. They contract private sector companies to do that (or at least in Texas).

primary/secondary education,

A lot of our local public school districts have failed us so miserably.

law enforcement

With the ongoing law enforcement injustices that have been highlighted over the past few years (I.e. #blacklivesmatter), this is not a good argument at all for government.

 

As a matter of fact, the current climate in all 3 of those sectors just further antagonise your stance. I'm no anti government but, but you definitely used the wrong examples to prove a point.

[caspar347]

Yes. This is the case do to returns to scale and not mandated. Vzw and att can't simple rely on there rural base to cover the cost of running their network.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but then the rural base is stuck with (practically speaking) no options. I know they're a minority in that regard for wireless, but in wired almost everyone feels the impact of low competition. That's why I feel Net Neutrality is such a necessity for wired broadband. It doesn't make too much sense to have 4 cable providers servicing the same area (insane combined CAPEX for expansion) so whoever's already serving an area doesn't have much to worry about from a competition standpoint. They get lazy and/or greedy (and don't bother upgrading their networks in many cases) and they charge a lot/abuse their positions to promote their own content services. Consumers have nowhere to go because they only have one cable provider. Oversight is necessary to keep that from happening. On the wireless side things are obviously a little better for urban users as far as options go, but again I doubt any new competition is gonna show up outbof nowhere and upset the incumbents.

 

If I knew the wireless market was going to become healthily competitive and stay that way into the future I would probably change my stance on NN for mobile. But the two underdogs are not exactly in healthy financial states and not mandating NN for mobile is something of a slippery slope if we drop to 3 highly territorial national carriers for one reason or another.

[Arysyn]

Duggar Mobile? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

It'll be more intrusive than the NSA, where the Duggar boys will listen into their customers' calls to sex lines, then when caught, claim that "God told them to do it, all in the name of the Lord".

[WiWavelength]

Governments do not build highways and roads. They contract private sector companies to do that (or at least in Texas).

A lot of our local public school districts have failed us so miserably.

With the ongoing law enforcement injustices that have been highlighted over the past few years (I.e. #blacklivesmatter), this is not a good argument at all for government.

 

As a matter of fact, the current climate in all 3 of those sectors just further antagonise your stance. I'm no anti government but, but you definitely used the wrong examples to prove a point.

 

Not really.  My examples hold.

 

Federal, state, and local governments plan and fund highway construction.  That private contractors do the work is irrelevant.  Saying otherwise is like attributing the Sprint network to the myriad contractors who did the manual labor.

 

I will not delve explicitly into the education and law enforcement examples, as that will get too controversial.  But the education and law enforcement issues trend toward lower socioeconomic communities, which perpetuate many of the problems upon themselves.

 

In the end, some people -- including myself -- may not exactly like current realities.  But an alternative universe of private enterprise realities would be even worse for many of those people.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people would see a nationalized system as the return of Ma Bell.

[WiWavelength]

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people would see a nationalized system as the return of Ma Bell.

 

Except in a single, nationalized public/private infrastructure network -- with countless MVNOs operating over the top, charging whatever they can bear, observing or not observing Net Neutrality -- people would pay their bills to VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Duggar Mobile, Hillary Wireless, Peyton Mobility, and many, many, many others.  But not a singular Ma Bell.

 

AJ

[Trip]

No. I just look at the track record of say public wifi or the post office

 

The post office works fine, and would be making a profit were it not required to prefund retirement pensions for employees for 75 years over 10 years.  That's right, the post office, by mandate of Congress, has to prefund retirement pensions for employees who aren't even born yet, to the tune of $5.7 billion per year.  If not for that, it would be making profits.

 

Interesting fact: The post offices losses last year were $5.5 billion dollars.  That's almost exactly the amount of the unnecessary payment Congress stuck them with.

 

- Trip

[utiz4321]

Trip... I would much rather walk into ups or fedex over walking into a post office and do anything. The last time I went to the post office I got yelled at for trying to pick up a missed package the same day they attempted delivery. The pensions you mention are not just a problem for the post office but most things run by the federal government.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

Trip... I would much rather walk into ups or fedex over walking into a post office and do anything. The last time I went to the post office I got yelled at for trying to pick up a missed package the same day they attempted delivery. The pensions you mention are not just a problem for the post office but most things run by the federal government.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Customer service would be from the MVNO, not the post office.

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

[utiz4321]

Except in a single, nationalized public/private infrastructure network -- with countless MVNOs operating over the top, charging whatever they can bear, observing or not observing Net Neutrality -- people would pay their bills to VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Duggar Mobile, Hillary Wireless, Peyton Mobility, and many, many, many others. But not a singular Ma Bell.

 

AJ

Except it wouldn't work that way. Let's assume wireless work the way you advocated right from the beginning. The federal government built out a national analog network that was really first rate back in let's say the early 1980's. Further, let's assume your MVNO model and the government let companies use the "national infrastructure" for a trivial fee, like the national highway system. Where would we be 30 years later, well let's look at similar pieces of infrastructure, I don't think you would argue that the national highway system is in great shape. At least you would be arguing against the wind, it has been starved of funds, hasn't really seen any major expansions since the project was finalized. Further, highways have much lower rates of depreciation that a wireless network. The lack of funds would be felt far fast and far more intensely in a wireless network (sprint is a great example of that.). Further, why would we ever have moved to digital, or 3G or 4g or lte? How would we have ever picked the most efficient technologies assuming we did? In your world progress on the pipe side of things would have been much slower and hence progress on the content side.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

Customer service would be from the MVNO, not the post office.

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

Depends on which customer you are talking about. For the MVNO would be the customer of the federal network authority.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

Not really. My examples hold.

 

Federal, state, and local governments plan and fund highway construction. That private contractors do the work is irrelevant. Saying otherwise is like attributing the Sprint network to the myriad contractors who did the manual labor.

 

Exactly, but they don't build. I have a couple of friends in Highway construction & maintenance companies and I can tell you its not irrelevant. They submit their bids and the only way to make money is to win those bids and stick strictly to the plan they submitted. The margin of error is extremely low. Having worked in the public sector, I can tell you that when employees do mistakes, it hardly results in termination. Some of the most incompetent co-workers I have ever worked with were public sector workers. Had those people been in the highway construction industry, they'd be unemployed.

I will not delve explicitly into the education and law enforcement examples, as that will get too controversial. But the education and law enforcement issues trend toward lower socioeconomic communities, which perpetuate many of the problems upon themselves.

 

Are you seriously saying that African Americans bring a lot of the police harassment to themselves just by being black?! Social injustices by cops is just the tip of the iceberg. Corruption along the U.S. border is about as rampant as fleas on a stray dog. The U.S. Border Patrol is the BIGGEST example of bureaucracy. Their budget has grown by the billions per year, with zero effectiveness.

In the end, some people -- including myself -- may not exactly like current realities. But an alternative universe of private enterprise realities would be even worse for many of those people.

AJ

We can only speculate on how some of today's government sectors would thrive or fail under private sector management. But you can't deny that in the current form, law enforcement and education is broken. I won't advocate for selling them to the highest bidder, but major reforms are needed.

[lordsutch]

The problem (from a non-philosophical perspective) as I see it with nationalized wireless infrastructure with carriers running as MNVOs on top of it is that the decisions about what places would get infrastructure would, inevitably, be politicized. And in our system of government, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, which in politics translates into the rich and powerful getting more resources and the poor and marginalized getting fewer. We see this in government-built infrastructure: a national passenger railroad system designed to appease politicians rather than serve customers; government agency upon government agency run from West Virginia because a powerful senator diverted resources to his state as a jobs program for his constituents; highways built to wall off "undesirable" communities from wealthy neighborhoods. "Universal" wireless might well claim to serve everyone, but it'll serve those with political connections much better than those who don't have them.

 

And when the poor and marginalized get screwed by the government, they can't vote with their feet or pocketbooks and choose another government instead.

 

Besides which, we've seen what we get from government-owned wireless in the United States already. And nobody would hold up the likes of iWireless, SI Wireless, or Swiftel as paragons of technological prowess or customer responsiveness.

[jeffcarp]

If you ask advocates of net neutrality it isn't, why? Near as I can tell because it benefits them, i.e. Content providers. I for the life of me don't understand why consumers care, But it a strict sense yes it is.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see anything wrong with offering features like this when they are strictly impacting billing and not monetarily penalizing those that prefer to use services. It would be different if they were speeding up or slowing down the network for certain services. They're not though. And they aren't charging people more who make other choices. This is simply a free perk.

 

An analogy would be like the airlines charging for luggage but then offering the customers using their credit card free bags.

[Fraydog]

The LTEiRA carriers were pretty advanced for rural but they had help. Verizon wanted brownie points to help out the little guy and also to expand their LTE where they didn't own networks already: mission accomplished. Of course it was a bit of a Trojan horse but the LTEiRA customers I know aren't complaining. Sprint is moving hard now with RRRP and the roaming hub which is similar. This is all good. Network sharing that provides more rural competition.

 

Of course there's the lone wolf like Viaero that does well but that seems like the exception. SI Wireless, Swiftel, and iWireless all lag their parents or affiliates in high speed data.

[derrph]

Verizon doesn't want unlimited users on its network. They'll let you keep it but you'll be paying for it. #priceincrease

 

more signs of the time to come.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/8/9478093/verizon-increasing-unlimited-data-price

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trip]

Trip... I would much rather walk into ups or fedex over walking into a post office and do anything. The last time I went to the post office I got yelled at for trying to pick up a missed package the same day they attempted delivery.

 

I'm sorry to hear you've had a bad experience; as you know, places like UPS and Fed Ex are not immune from individual bad apples either.  All of my USPS experiences have been wonderful.  In addition, I do much more mailing through USPS (sending and receiving) than via UPS or Fed Ex and yet I have had far worse delays, damages, and issues with either of them than USPS. 

 

I've never attempted a pick up same day like that from any of the three.  I wouldn't have even thought you could do that, since the box is presumably sitting on the truck being driven around until the close of business.

 

The pensions you mention are not just a problem for the post office but most things run by the federal government.

No, only the US Postal Service is required to pre-fund pensions for the next 75 years. Every other agency does not have to do that.

 

- Trip

[Arysyn]

Verizon doesn't want unlimited users on its network. They'll let you keep it but you'll be paying for it. #priceincrease

 

more signs of the time to come.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/8/9478093/verizon-increasing-unlimited-data-price

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was an interesting read, including the comments. Seems most people there who have it, are keeping it. Makes me wonder if Verizon may eventually bring it back, but at a much higher price, then force those who've been grandfathered onto it for years to pay the new, much higher price.

 

Back in the 2000s before unlimited voice was offered by the national carriers except for Nextel, which offered it for $100 monthly, Verizon offered a 6000 minute plan for $300 monthly. I'm suspecting Verizon might price unlimited data at that rate, figuring very few people will keep it then, or even sign up for it, yet by bringing it back in some form will somehow "redefine" the value of unlimited data.

 

However, I only say this based on the possibility of what if those who claim unlimited data will make a comeback on Verizon and AT&T, is true. It'll likely cost at least that, per line, and no sharing of course.

[tybo31316]

That was an interesting read, including the comments. Seems most people there who have it, are keeping it. Makes me wonder if Verizon may eventually bring it back, but at a much higher price, then force those who've been grandfathered onto it for years to pay the new, much higher price.

 

Back in the 2000s before unlimited voice was offered by the national carriers except for Nextel, which offered it for $100 monthly, Verizon offered a 6000 minute plan for $300 monthly. I'm suspecting Verizon might price unlimited data at that rate, figuring very few people will keep it then, or even sign up for it, yet by bringing it back in some form will somehow "redefine" the value of unlimited data.

 

However, I only say this based on the possibility of what if those who claim unlimited data will make a comeback on Verizon and AT&T, is true. It'll likely cost at least that, per line, and no sharing of course.

I highly doubt that VZW will bring back unlimited data. What I can see them doing is offering more GB at their current pricing but unlimited data is not coming back. In fact if Sprint and T-Mobile were as big as the big 2 they wouldn't be offering unlimited either.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

[Arysyn]

I'm sorry to hear you've had a bad experience; as you know, places like UPS and Fed Ex are not immune from individual bad apples either. All of my USPS experiences have been wonderful. In addition, I do much more mailing through USPS (sending and receiving) than via UPS or Fed Ex and yet I have had far worse delays, damages, and issues with either of them than USPS.

 

I've never attempted a pick up same day like that from any of the three. I wouldn't have even thought you could do that, since the box is presumably sitting on the truck being driven around until the close of business.

 

 

No, only the US Postal Service is required to pre-fund pensions for the next 75 years. Every other agency does not have to do that.

 

- Trip

I vastly prefer USPS over UPS, which I despise more than a dozen cloned John Legeres running a dozen different T-Mobile MVNOs. So, that ought to show how much I loathe UPS. At least 95% of shipments I've received from UPS have been damaged.

 

Hence, I try to avoid UPS whenever possible, and go with either USPS or even FedEx. I've never had an issue with either of them.

[Arysyn]

I highly doubt that VZW will bring back unlimited data. What I can see them doing is offering more GB at their current pricing but unlimited data is not coming back. In fact if Sprint and T-Mobile were as big as the big 2 they wouldn't be offering unlimited either.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6

That is my general thinking, though I do try to consider the possibilities from those who say it might. There even are people so adamant about unlimited data making a comeback, they say things like, "Unlimited Data is the future" Maybe the waaay future, though not anytime soon. Although if it were, I wouldn't expect it to be below $300 monthly, which if Verizon were to implement, it likely would get most unlimited data customers onto the per gb data plans.

 

I'm still hoping Verizon will lower the per gb data rate down to $5 per gb on its mid level plans, and $3 per gb on its upper level plans. 15gb for $75 monthly, 50gb for $150 monthly, and so on. Along with a reduction to the per line cost under these "bucket-style" plans, down to $10 each. I have an idea for what I envision Verizon could do with an allin-style leasing plan.

 

BTW, did Sprint get rid of their All-in plan, or was that just promotional?

[tybo31316]

That is my general thinking, though I do try to consider the possibilities from those who say it might. There even are people so adamant about unlimited data making a comeback, they say things like, "Unlimited Data is the future" Maybe the waaay future, though not anytime soon. Although if it were, I wouldn't expect it to be below $300 monthly, which if Verizon were to implement, it likely would get most unlimited data customers onto the per gb data plans.

 

I'm still hoping Verizon will lower the per gb data rate down to $5 per gb on its mid level plans, and $3 per gb on its upper level plans. 15gb for $75 monthly, 50gb for $150 monthly, and so on. Along with a reduction to the per line cost under these "bucket-style" plans, down to $10 each. I have an idea for what I envision Verizon could do with an allin-style leasing plan.

 

BTW, did Sprint get rid of their All-in plan, or was that just promotional?

I think the all-in plan was replaced with family. Then they killed family in favor of the unlimited single line and data share plans. I think the carriers should waive the access fee for the first device and charge for devices 2-10. Also I like what VZW is doing with the $20 access fee instead of $40.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6