greenbastard

Don't think you understand what 'rational' means. Again, why are you so fixated on this idea of crucifying the government for a mistake they did a long time ago? They addressed the issue, but for whatever political or ideological reasons, too little, too late. If you don't like government, that's fine. But you can't be so naive as to not understand why government regulation is needed in an industry that is so crucial for the advancement of the human race. You missed the point again. At 64% share of the oil market, Standard Oil still had the resources to take over the market if they wanted to through the railroad rebates and product marketing they commanded. Before the government sued them, they were pruposely fixing prices in markets in which they had competitors in order to bleed them out of existance. Had the government never butted in, they would have continued the practice of undercutting new competitors. They only stopped doing so once they knew the government was on their tail (which was way before the lawsuit was filed) And if it weren't for them being under a microscope by both the government and public, they could have easily bullied the newly discovered reserves in the southwest (not the 'Mideast') that led to their market share decline. But again, even with these emerging oil reserves in Texas and California, Standard still had the ability to take over the market. And with their history of undercutting, they would have done so had they won the anti-trust suit. You'll be hard-pressed to find more scholars who agree that anti-trust laws aren't needed than ones who think they are. If you wish to discuss this matter any further, PM me. There is no need to derail this thread any further from general wireless discussion. I'm sure the mods would agree.

I'm actually a bit surprised T-Mobile won the speed category. There are several areas around Austin in which their network just falls flat.

Government regulation successfully addressed the monster it created after so many years of taking Ma Bell to court. You seem fixated on this idea that government screwed up once so they should butt out entirely. Many companies file for bankruptcy every year. Should we force the private sector out of the auto manufacturing sector because Chrysler and GM screwed up??? No. Just like some companies screw up, expect the government to do so as well from time to time. Nobody is perfect. Get over it. Government regulation, although not perfect at times, is still needed. You can't predict that Standard would lose more share with certainty. Even with 64% of market control, the courts determined that Standard still controlled a lot of the market through transportation pipelines, railroad prices, and wholesale marketing of its products. That itself was a good enough reason for the courts to break them up. Of course you won't. The same regulation you argue against has made it illegal for businesses to conduct secret backroom deals and illegal business practices that would cause Monopolies to thrive in.

Well, the same regulation that broke them up led to the emergence of companies such as Sprint. So if you ask me, its one hell of a convincing argument. Go back and read. Standard Oil wasn't split to reduce prices. I stated that clearly. The price increase was going to happen eventually, break up or not. Standard Oil was undercutting competitors in order to make them bleed and fold. Once all competitors were gone, prices were going to go back up. It was inevitable. What the government did was stop one single company from controlling the entire oil industry. Had they left them intact, Standard Oil would have had the ability of establishing prices at their own discretion, reduce production to inflate market prices, and even sell poorly refined oil since there would be no competition to compete with better quality.

Oh, its accurate. Bell Telephone was broken up by regulation due to them dominating a market that had very little competition (well technically they settled, but they saw the writing on the wall). Due to Ma Bell's break up, companies such as Sprint were able to thrive in the long-distance market and today provide another fine option for wireless consumers. And the break up of Standard Oil wasn't done to lower prices. It was done to stop one company from controlling an entire market. It was done to stop a company that had a history of undercutting competitors for the sole purpose of putting them out of business and growing their own share. Could it been done better? Sure, but it was a necessary move in order to protect consumers in the long run. But if you want to get into an argument that Monopolies are good for society, then that's a whole other argument. Anti trust laws are here to protect consumers and now that Internet is considered a utility, Interet traffic should have a level playing field, no matter what on-line businesses have to sell, buy, collect or distribute.

If we were to let the market figure itself out without any form of regulation, we would all have Bell Wireless branded phones and only have Standard Oil branded gas stations throughout the U.S.

Well, that's on the companies for not charging enough and trying to undercut each other. They shouldn't mess with net neutrality just because of their stupid financial decisions. Shipping companies charge by size/weight and destination...just like Mobile companies charge by Data buckets and coverage. You don't see the USPS charging BOTH the shipper and receiver now do you? No. Your analogy makes no sense.

The customers are paying. They've always paid and will continue to pay for it. First it was price increase, and now its tiered data. Comcast, Verizon FiOS, and At&t u-verse now sell home internet with a 300 GB limit. Companies cannot claim amounting capex from increased Internet usage if all a customer can use is 300 GB before they are charged overages. "Growing Capex" is an outplayed excuse now that Home Internet is tiered in many places. If the current market price doesn't cover costs, then that's on the IP companies for being stupid and not increasing prices or adopting a tiered data. What these companies are doing now is pure greed. Can you blame them for trying to find new sources of revenue? No. But not at the costs of breaking Net Neutrality. The internet should be an open and fair platform for everyone, regardless of usage, business, or ideas. Innovation has always come from the small guys pushing the big guys to try new things. What T-Mobile and Verizon want to do will cause that to end. I know if Sprint started making Google Music unlimited, I would switch from Spotify in a heartbeat and not bother with new and emerging services if they weren't part of an unlimited tier.

Well, they've for sure taken up in using the services being offered under BingeOn by T-Mobile. Look at the current trends where T-Mobile's network is getting congested. We are seeing many places having higher uploads than downloads and it all started getting worse when T-Mobile started Binge On. So yes, people are taking advantage of BingeOn...and one can safely assume that services not covered under BingeOn are being left in the dark by users. Sure, we won't be able to tell for sure without actual data from T-Mobile, but it's no coincidence their network got worse all of a sudden after BingeOn. It all adds up. BingeOn is bad for the entire Internet industry and creates an anti-competitive environment for small guys and start ups.

Until they see that a similar service is being given preference by a wireless provider.... You can't be this naive to not see how this is breaking net neutrality.

Future competition and new start-ups are also a struggle...and they just found a way to eliminate that.

If, for instance, Netflix were to pay Verizon and T-Mobile to make their content unlimited, then it would affect every start up that wants to offer some sort of video service. Potential customers would be discouraged from the get-go from visiting/paying for un-established services since their data traffic would be counted towards their data allowances. And with Comcast, At&t, and Verizon Fiber now selling tiered home internet service instead of unlimited, its something people will notice and will effect how we all use data. Remember when Friendster dominated social media? Remember how it was taken over by Hi5, which was then taken over by bebo, which was then taken over by MySpace, which was then taken over by Facebook, and now being challenged by Twitter????? Well, kiss all the changing trends and innovation goodbye if companies are now given the ability to un-level the playing field to their liking. No more small guys pushing the boundaries as established companies become the standard paying off IPs to shove their small competitors to the curveside.

The issue is that Verizon now plans to treat certain parts of the internet differently from others while getting paid for it. It may not seem like a big deal for you since you'll probably get free data usage from deals like these, but it creates an unfair market for start ups and small on-line businesses that want to challenge giants such as Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon. It's entirely against the spirit of Net Neutrality and the FCC needs to man up and stop it before this trend becomes the norm.

So what was the entire point of Net Neutrality then? Extra rules written on official papers that these companies use to wipe their ass with???? Legere should be made an example for starting this movement.

I can attest to that. Xfinity requires a one time log in and after that you can leave WiFi on and pick it up in lots of places across town without hassle. Unfortunately, driving through an Xfinity city with WiFi on will cause live streams to time out when picking up a WiFi signal. Galaxy S5 tends to hold on to WiFi too long, as a lot of devices do.

Thought I would add these here just to reflect what the latest Rootmetric reports said about Houston and the greater Southeast Texas area. 4G LTE T-Mobile And then HSPA+

The latest results probably have more to do with them finally fixing the load balancing issues where a phone would stay stuck onto B26 even with B41 available. Don't get me wrong, Sprint is the most improved but they still have issues like these from time to time... Band 41 bandwidth probably helped Sprint, but I'd like to know how much of Rootmetric's report is based on indoor tests since Clearwire equipment has a hard time penetrating the thinnest sheetrock walls. I occasionally see decent speeds now that balancing issues have been ironed out, but nothing above 7 Mbps in indoor environments on heavy usage hours. Outdoors, Sprint goes toe to toe with T-Mobile with each averaging about 18-25 Mbps (Sprint pulling ahead most of the times, and smoking magenta with a CA phone). But indoors, advantage T-Mobile most of the time.

Over the past 6 months, I have noticed that Sprint has been tweaking their network and how it balances the load on its bands. My phone used to idle on band 25, but at the start of data sessions, my phone would go to band 26. Then 4 months ago, I started to hang out on band 25 a lot more and would only go to band 26 if my data session required a heavy amount of data (video) or if I bugged the network too much for data. Now as of this month, I've noticed that my phone has rarely gone to band 26. The only time I see it now is after phone calls, but even then it's for a short time (5-10 seconds). If I start a constant stream on band 26, the network will not hesitate to move me up to band 25 during the stream. I've seen the phone switch bands before during active data sessions, but only downwards (2600>1900>800). Now that's no longer the case. My phone will move from band 26 to band 25 while a data session is in session. Load balancing has finally been implemented in (some parts of) SE Texas and it just works. It has been long overdue!

And that's the slippery slope a lot of folks talked about with T-Mobile... John Legere just wiped his ass with copies of the Net Neutrality Rule Book.

Trailer Park Boys. It's definitely an acquired taste in comedy, but if you're able to get past season 1, you'll more than likely end up enjoying the series.

Of all the pricing/data allotment predictions I've seen on this site, this one probably holds the most water. Part because similar scenarios have already played out in other countries. For example in Mexico, data bucket sizes have stayed the same even though the demand for data and prices have gone up. Part of the reason is that companies have gone and made services such as Twitter, Facebook, and Spotify truly unlimited, while everything else being counted towards your allowance. Unfortunately, I do see the same thing happening here in the U.S. T-Mobile may claim that this concept of giving certain services on an unlimited basis is their idea, but the truth is that they stole it from Latin American and European companies and they are breaking net neutrality laws. All internet traffic is not being treated equally.

'No money down' is a universal marketing term. Anyone stupid enough to not know what it meant should contact me about some ocean front property I have for sale in Arizona.

Meh, that's pretty standard for most of Houston's B26. Clearwire B41 didn't do anything to alleviate congestion on B26 sadly.

Open World or Sprint Global Roaming?

Not worth it IMO. Lease will lock you in for 2 more years and new phones that support 3 CA may come out next year. If you break the lease, you'll have to end up paying the remainder of the lease contract you signed.