Jump to content
joshuam

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

Recommended Posts

Seems to me that the problem is that Sprint is capping their plan at 6GB before throttling. It seems pretty clear that the lease terms require Sprint to offer the best retail available plan under the EBS program. That would be a 30GB plan. Not sure why Sprint just doesn't offer 30GB and be done with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most judges will see right through that, and get really upset about it.

 

Disobeying a court injunction is a great way to get held in contempt of court, with significant fines levied...

Cell sites die every day all over the country.   A Massachusetts judge would not bother me too much if I was in California at a bad cell site.

It could take a few hours to fix the site or it could take weeks if repair parts no longer exist.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most judges will see right through that, and get really upset about it.

 

Disobeying a court injunction is a great way to get held in contempt of court, with significant fines levied...

 

No, probably not.

 

Sprint can shut down WiMAX sites right and left.  As long as Sprint maintains a minimum of substantial service, the complainants have no recourse with the FCC either.  A few sites per metro will maintain substantial service.  Sprint is not obligated to cover entire metros.  WiMAX never did.  At no point did the complainants have WiMAX service throughout their entire licensed areas.  And their users -- many of whom appear to be mobile hotspot users -- did not have WiMAX service throughout those entire licensed areas.

 

Find an EBS spectrum lease contract stipulation that Sprint nee Clearwire must maintain a certain coverage footprint, and I will rescind my words.  But good luck with that.  The WiMAX footprint was expanding -- until it stopped -- so it was in flux.  And it has included license protection markets that have had just a handful of sites for minimal footprint across entire metro areas.  As such, the complainants and users always have had variable or incomplete WiMAX coverage.

 

Honestly, most of your posts now are against Sprint or in support/defense of T-Mobile.  You really are becoming a bit of a troll.  What do you have to say about that?

 

AJ

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the problem is that Sprint is capping their plan at 6GB before throttling. It seems pretty clear that the lease terms require Sprint to offer the best retail available plan under the EBS program. That would be a 30GB plan. Not sure why Sprint just doesn't offer 30GB and be done with it.

Why would it be a 30 gig plan? How is that the "best" retail available plan? What does the word "best" mean in this context. That is what is going to be litigated. "Best" =/= the largest data plan. It would be interesting to hear sprint's rationale behind placing them on a 6 gig plan.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the problem is that Sprint is capping their plan at 6GB before throttling. It seems pretty clear that the lease terms require Sprint to offer the best retail available plan under the EBS program. That would be a 30GB plan. Not sure why Sprint just doesn't offer 30GB and be done with it.

Because there is no end. MB/MC can keep giving out plans for nothing. If MB/MC can give out 30GB plans for free like candy without end, Sprint B41 will be destroyed. It's always easy to be benevolent with someone else's money! It's better to not even have the spectrum at that point.

 

Why keep building and adding capacity for customers who provide nothing to your bottom line nor capex? And it's limitless. There is nearly an endless supply of people who would take MB/MC's 30GB high speed hotspot. MB/MC can give out as much as they want. And with B41 LTE and the size of Sprint's network, it's going to get more and more attractive.

 

This deal has to be finite. It can't cost more than the spectrum brings value to its customers, or they might as well return it. I said it before when it was Clearwire, and I'll say it again now, EBS spectrum is a huge pain in the ass to manage and probably not worth the trouble. Joan Lappin is a damn fool.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This deal has to be finite. It can't cost more than the spectrum brings value to its customers, or they might as well return it. I said it before when it was Clearwire, and I'll say it again now, EBS spectrum is a huge pain in the ass to manage and probably not worth the trouble.

 

I will play devil's advocate -- for a few different reasons.  Sprint, as the lessee, may not be able to walk away from the leases without penalty.  Mobile Beacon/Mobile Citizen, as the lessor, could still sue for damages if Sprint failed to adhere to the contract.

 

But that might not be the end game.  The lessor might allow Sprint to walk away from the EBS spectrum lease contracts -- because another major operator is waiting in the wings.  If that happens and VZW, for example, picks up the EBS leases, then we can surmise that the other operator probably tampered with the proceedings.

 

AJ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, probably not.

 

Sprint can shut down WiMAX sites right and left. As long as Sprint maintains a minimum of substantial service, the complainants have no recourse with the FCC either. A few sites per metro will maintain substantial service. Sprint is not obligated to cover entire metros. WiMAX never did. At no point did the complainants have WiMAX service throughout their entire licensed areas. And their users -- many of whom appear to be mobile hotspot users -- did not have WiMAX service throughout those entire licensed areas.

 

Find an EBS spectrum lease contract stipulation that Sprint nee Clearwire must maintain a certain coverage footprint, and I will rescind my words. But good luck with that. The WiMAX footprint was expanding -- until it stopped -- so it was in flux. And it has included license protection markets that have had just a handful of sites for minimal footprint across entire metro areas. As such, the complainants and users always have had variable or incomplete WiMAX coverage.

 

Honestly, most of your posts now are against Sprint or in support/defense of T-Mobile. You really are becoming a bit of a troll. What do you have to say about that?

 

AJ

A realist doesn't make a person a troll.

 

Nor does it make a fanboi a bad person ;-)

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, probably not.

 

Sprint can shut down WiMAX sites right and left.

 

Right. Except where this court order prevents them from doing so for the next 90 days. That's what we're talking about.

 

A user suggested Sprint should do so anyway, underhandedly. (In a "It would be a shame if something happened to your service..." manner). And I suggested they shouldn't, because Sprint would probably get fined by the court over it, and I don't think Sprint should waste money paying extra fines.

 

The rest of your post is all true, but not really relevant. Your arguing against claims I've never made.

 

Honestly, most of your posts now are against Sprint or in support/defense of T-Mobile.  You really are becoming a bit of a troll.  What do you have to say about that?

 

Well, my initial reaction is "How on earth could asking Sprint not to get fined by a court, possibly count as being against Sprint?"

 

But in general, I get the impression that you've decided you don't like me, and your letting your opinion of me as a person invent hidden agendas in my posts where none exists.

 

I would humbly ask that you try to imagine that I'm not on some anti-Sprint crusade, and that I might just genuinely enjoy some piece of tech, or think something is funny, when you read my posts. Because when I write them, I go to ridiculiously painstaking care to make sure they don't offend even the most sensitive of users.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find an EBS spectrum lease contract stipulation that Sprint nee Clearwire must maintain a certain coverage footprint, and I will rescind my words.  But good luck with that.  

 

There are service contracts that specify coverage footprints. It's not necessarily an EBS lease, but many groups / nonprofits have them. The City of Grand Rapids has one, for instance :

 

http://grcity.us/technology-and-change-management/Documents/Clearwire%20Agreement%20Summary.docx

http://muniwireless.com/reports/docs/Clearwire_Commission_Memo.doc

http://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/devnews/CLEAR4G0805.aspx

http://grcity.us/technology-and-change-management/Documents/GR-%20Clear%20Agreement%20Summary.pdf

 

Clearwire promise via contract to cover the entire Grand Rapids legal municipal city footprint with "at least 95% outdoor coverage, and at least 90% of interior rooms in residential, municipal, commercial, and other buildings". It's written directly into the contract.

 

As part of that bid, they also agreed to offer a "wireless network access that supports video streaming and high-bandwidth applications without a cap on data use" also to offer a low-income unlimited internet plan at $9.95/month for up to 5% of the households within Grand Rapids (similar to the plan in this lawsuit, but not through that specific organization)

 

--

 

But again, to be absolutely clear, I'm not advocating any right or wrong on the issue. I'm not in any way "pro WiMax" or "anti Sprint". Just saying that Sprint should comply with court orders they receive, while this gets sorted out.

 

Asking Sprint to follow the rule of law is not, in any way "anti Sprint".

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Joan Lappin would say that all of this makes EBS spectrum even more valuable! Even more valuable than 600MHz.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As part of that bid, they also agreed to offer a "wireless network access that supports video streaming and high-bandwidth applications without a cap on data use" also to offer a low-income unlimited internet plan at $9.95/month for up to 5% of the households within Grand Rapids (similar to the plan in this lawsuit, but not through that specific organization)

 

Just to be clear the links you posted the speed was average 1.3Mbps. If this was what MB/MC wanted there would be no problem. But they want 8Mbps+ for each user. Which adds up much much greater than the 5% fcc rules.

 

Sprint does not have to keep all the sites up. They only have to reach lower limit of the agreement. Meaning they can shut some sites down to use their own spectrum for lte. If the agreements say city limits even better. MC/MB was asking for metro coverage.

 

The judge did say that wimax did not have to be turned back on. Which is good news if second carrier clear meant wimax was already down. I saw a lot of that in Tampa and Orlando. Meaning they can test more carriers in those cities and flip a switch like they did for 2xCA in waves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there is no end. MB/MC can keep giving out plans for nothing. If MB/MC can give out 30GB plans for free like candy without end, Sprint B41 will be destroyed. It's always easy to be benevolent with someone else's money! It's better to not even have the spectrum at that point.

 

 

I think that is an exaggeration of reality.

 

They would still be bound by whatever limits they had for providing wimax service, which obviously did not go without end.

 

Further, if you look at the # of customers cited, that is just a drop in the bucket compared to sprints overall subscribers.

 

And even if the greater coverage of LTE allowed them to bring on more customers (even 'without end') it would still be limited to the non-profits, educational, poor, etc that they are already limited to.

 

In other words, it's not like just anyone an their mother can sign up for these services.

 

This is and was all a big todo about nothing.

 

No one was complaining about these customers on the wimax network prior to LTE coming out (at least publicly) and given the ostensibly more robust and awesome network combined with the additional spectrum made available by wimax shutdown, there should be little for anyone on any side to complain about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this injunction delay 3x20 CA deployment? Also any plans for 4x20 or 5x20 CA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt we will ever see 4x or 5x, we will simply see additional carriers and the network will assign different users to different carriers to diversify the load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is an exaggeration of reality.

 

They would still be bound by whatever limits they had for providing wimax service, which obviously did not go without end.

 

Further, if you look at the # of customers cited, that is just a drop in the bucket compared to sprints overall subscribers.

 

And even if the greater coverage of LTE allowed them to bring on more customers (even 'without end') it would still be limited to the non-profits, educational, poor, etc that they are already limited to.

 

In other words, it's not like just anyone an their mother can sign up for these services.

 

This is and was all a big todo about nothing.

 

No one was complaining about these customers on the wimax network prior to LTE coming out (at least publicly) and given the ostensibly more robust and awesome network combined with the additional spectrum made available by wimax shutdown, there should be little for anyone on any side to complain about.

Given that a relatively small number of sprint retail customers are responsible for the majority of the data used on their network your small number argument is a bit specious.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone receive a text about receiving a free year of amazon prime if they buy a new Samsung phone?

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-offers-free-amazon-prime-membership-customers-who-buy-new-samsung-ph/2015-11-06

 

Edit: Text message "SprintFreeMsg: Limited-time offer: One year of Amazon Prime with your Samsung upgrade. http://sprint.us/suGmy Data rates may apply. Reply End to stop."

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is a pretty sweet deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that a relatively small number of sprint retail customers are responsible for the majority of the data used on their network your small number argument is a bit specious.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand, those retail customers are relevant to mc/mb customers how?

 

I'm not providing the 'small numbers', mc/mb is;

 

"Mobile Beacon and Mobile Citizen filed the lawsuit last month and claim they serve 429 schools, 61 libraries and 1,820 nonprofits that are dependent on the WiMAX service for Internet access. They claim those schools, libraries and nonprofits collectively serve more than 300,000 customers, many of them low-income individuals and families who have relied on WiMAX service for Internet access."

 

My point is, those 300k customers were not materially affecting other sprint customers on the same network prior to LTE, it is difficult to believe they would cause harm on the vastly superior LTE network, especially with the additional spectrum being switched over to b41 lte.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is an exaggeration of reality.

 

They would still be bound by whatever limits they had for providing wimax service, which obviously did not go without end.

 

Further, if you look at the # of customers cited, that is just a drop in the bucket compared to sprints overall subscribers.

 

And even if the greater coverage of LTE allowed them to bring on more customers (even 'without end') it would still be limited to the non-profits, educational, poor, etc that they are already limited to.

 

In other words, it's not like just anyone an their mother can sign up for these services.

 

This is and was all a big todo about nothing.

 

No one was complaining about these customers on the wimax network prior to LTE coming out (at least publicly) and given the ostensibly more robust and awesome network combined with the additional spectrum made available by wimax shutdown, there should be little for anyone on any side to complain about.

You got my point all wrong, as usual. The problem wasn't their existing customers on WiMax. If they aren't allowed to have any more customers, not one more, then I'm fine with giving the existing ones a nice plan. Maybe even better than what they had.

 

But the new TD-LTE network now with 100Mbps+ speeds, and incrementally upgrading even further, are going to be much much more usable and desirable. And MC/MB has no deterrence from giving away the whole F'ing farm for free. It is no skin off their back. They want to expand the program further. And it will now be usable to millions more because it will have better coverage and speeds. The only limit to their programs is their marketing.

 

Mark my words, without strict limitations, MB/MC will give away every spare freaking megabit of capacity if they're allowed to. MB/MC needs to be limited to not get more than their 5% of their pie. I don't care how it's divided up within their 5%. But that 5% is pretty ambiguous. And there is a de facto precedent by Clearwire because they never tried to enforce the 5% before. Sprint's screwed.

 

MB/MC will be more emboldened than ever. The judge way more than overstepped her bounds with her injunction. To be so far reaching all over the country, in places where MB/MC is unaffected. She will be happy to give away more of Sprint's resources as long as it's for the disadvantaged.

 

EBS just isn't worth it. SMH

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that they should or will get any service that isn't an equivalent of wimax service.

 

IE, something very similar to the unlimited hotspot service available *now* to everyone! from karma.

 

Like I've said before, the changing of transport from wimax to LTE should be irrelevant.

 

The resulting service should remain the same as currently provided in as much aspects as reasonably possible.

 

 

I will draw a parallel that you may or may not agree with.

 

People donated funds to this site and got access to the sponsor forums and the according level of information (~wimax service).

 

Team then later rolled out 'premier sponsor' forums, that required a greater level of financial support than the regular sponsor forums. (~lte service)

 

People who haven't bothered to continue support, still get access to the same level of forums, while those who provided an additional level of support, get an additional level of forums and information.

 

Now, suppose you had to change forums and/or web hosts that affected the information hosted here.

 

I don't think you would require all sponsor level supporters to 're-donate' to re-access the same information now provided on a different forum, would you?

 

No, I think anyone would expect that regardless of the forum hosting, the user levels and privileges associated with them would transfer to the new hosting.

 

Even though the transfer of hosting may involve additional work and costs by the team, that should not materially affect the users (which don't have any choice in the hosting provided).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

large.png

 

 

Just to clarify this is for the Massachusetts judge....

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I've said before, the changing of transport from wimax to LTE should be irrelevant.

 

The problem with your suggestion is that the change in transport is very significant, since it gives them access to a network they never did till now. One that has 3x the coverage area, capacity, and speed. Why should Sprint have to give away the farm to those users? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sprint is force to maintain this contractual relationship, hopefully there will be a way for Sprint, once these groups are switched, to keep the 5% in check.  Maybe Sprint can allow the 5% to enjoy the speeds of the new network (with a cap), but as soon as the 5% spectrum is exceeded on the network at one time, the people or groups that were last to access the network are throttled to 2G speeds.  Once the number returns to 5% or less, they all enjoy the speeds they are contracted to receive.

 

The hope for me is that MC/MB not oversell their available spectrum by promising the sky to their users.  If they do, it is their problem to solve.  They would be less likely to give it away when they know it will have an impact.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, were these users limited to wimax? Or was the hotspot like any Sprint hotspot that supported wimax... Which had access to evdo as well.

Share this post


Link to post
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...