RedSpark

Sounds pretty cool. Surveys?

This is borderline unwatchable due to the rudeness of the host, but try to make it though the whole thing if you can. Former FCC Commissioner McDowell made some excellent points about how consumers will be protected by existing laws without having to resort to a full Title II reclassification.

I believe that the Discount has been changed so that it’s only $5/Month off for the first line. See the International Plan Page for Global Roaming: https://www.sprint.com/en/shop/services/international.html?ECID=vanity:international High Speed Data Passes are available. Also see this about the Premium International Experience: https://www.sprint.com/en/support/solutions/international/faqs-about-premium-international-experience.html?INTNAV=LP:IntlRoaming:PIE:LearnMore

Great progress in Chicago: http://newsroom.sprint.com/hey-chicago-sprints-network-has-your-back.htm Hopefully we see this replicated in other cities across the country.

I don’t agree that it’s self-contradictory. Given its inherent responsibilities and authorities, local government is actually the problem and the solution here. Local government has the responsibility to ensure the market conditions for both competition and fair competitive practices at a local level. Net Neutrality is not necessarily the best way to accomplish either of these goals. Instead, local Governments should encourage market entry and overbuilding by providers by reducing bureaucracy and improving efficiency to do so. Companies want to make money. Even in a market with a single ISP, they’re there because they think they’ll make money there... otherwise they wouldn’t be there at all. It’s possible to have protections for customers without resorting to full Title II which can have impacts on CapEx for example. I support light touch regulation as Ajit Pai discussed here in a PBS interview back in April: To the extent that state governments and the federal government can improve the processes for network expansion by providers, they should do so. For example, we all want Sprint’s network to improve and expand coverage. These government bodies can either make it harder or easier for this to happen.

See this MOU between the FCC and FTC. https://www.ftc.gov/policy/cooperation-agreements/restoring-internet-freedom-fcc-ftc-memorandum-understanding Things will be fine.

Not sure what you want me to say other than that no one has said this, except for me: I’m making a declarative statement that these companies are not charities. They do not function as non-profits and we cannot expect that market behavior from them. Interested in your thoughts on the rest of my post.

Does the repeal of net neutrality make it more or less likely you’ll have a competitor to choose from?

ISP’s aren’t charities. They are profit maximizing public (and perhaps privately held) companies. They advocate for their own interests by lobbying government officials, as they are allowed to do by law, but those officials are not obligated to listen or abide by their policy requests. If those policy requests include anti-competitive measures or actions, officials who enact those measures are complicit and ultimately responsible for the abusive market practices of which you speak. Those same officials are also charged and empowered with the responsibility for ensuring viable conditions for competition. If these officials fail to do so, the responsibility is on them and only them. That’s where the blame belongs.

So are you saying you would support more competition for backhaul? What government-level policies would be conducive for facilitating this?

No. I’m going to put the blame squarely on government at the local level for failing to ensure fair competition. These companies need to be held accountable and fined as appropriate for these exclusionary practices. 5G Wireless will inevitably happen... and it would happen sooner if the permitting process was more efficienty run and administered by local, state and the federal government. I blame local governments for failing to provide the conditions for multiple market participants and for failing to prevent anticompetitive actions taken by incumbents.

I concur with you about scale and fixed cost. Government policies establish the guardrails for this equilibrium.

I supported the FCC’s action yesterday. I don’t like monopolies, but I dislike duopolies more because it’s the illusion of competition. I support policies that ensure and encourage vibrant competition between multiple market participants. When physical threats and intimidation are involved, that undermines any legitimacy to one’s position in my opinion.

This needs to be substantially improved.

http://newsroom.sprint.com/sprint-statement-on-fccs-repeal-net-neutrality-regulations.htm

Net Neutrality does not address the scenario you described. Having enough competition does, and that gets us to the questions: “what government policies are preventing competition?” and “what government policies would facilitate it?”

Consumer protection is reverting to the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/statement-acting-ftc-chairman-maureen-k-ohlhausen-fccs-approval Here’s the signed MOU between the FCC and FTC linked to in the release: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cooperation_agreements/fcc_fcc_mou_internet_freedom_order_1214_final_0.pdf The MOU details the responsibilities of each going forward. It also details how the FCC and FTC will work jointly. Local governments can help encourage last mile competition. Unfortunately, they haven’t done that as much as they should or have done the opposite in cases. Ultimately, I believe the last mile problem will be addressed and solved by Fixed 5G Wireless. Local governments should do what they can to expedite it: improved permitting process, etc.

Put the blame where it belongs: Officials on City Councils or Local Governments who don’t have pro-competition policies or who sign exclusive franchise agreements with one company. Want 5G Fixed Wireless to happen sooner so that the incumbent provider has to compete? Make it easier (and faster) for Sprint or another company to build a cell site by overhauling the permitting process. Want another wireline company to provide service? Make it easier for them to enter the market. Governments are in a position to do that. It’s all about who you vote for. Finally, if you don’t like how a company does business, don’t do business with them. The current Sprint Hotspot solution I suggested earlier isn’t ideal for everyone, but if you stand on your principles, it’s certainly a viable option.

You go to the competition.

In a vibrant, competitive market, you won’t have to do without it. You’ll get what you want for what you want to pay... or like you said, you’ll go to the competition. Net Neutrality doesn’t solve the lack of ISP competition in a municipality. That’s the fault of your local Councils, Boards and Governments. If you want a new local competitor, make it easy for them to enter and compete.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m for companies giving people what they want at prices they want to pay. I support easier market entry, faster permitting processes and other pro-competition factors which enable more market participants to allow for a greater level of competition overall. Ultimately through this process, people will select what they want for what they want to pay and be satisfied. This happens with enough choice and competition.

Price ensures supply and capacity. That’s just what it is for anything. We’d like to think of the Internet infrastructure as limitless, but it’s not. It’s a limited resource like anything else. If something is too cheap, there won’t ever be enough of it and there won’t be enough of an incentive to produce it or supply it in quantity. Most conversations I’ve had about markets and supply/capacity starts with: “Why can’t we give everyone “X” for “Y”?” And ends with: “Why can’t we give everyone “X” for “Y”?” Things exist and are often better because people are willing to pay more. It also ensures adequate supply for them. This applies to mailing a letter. Pick your delivery time. There isn’t enough capacity to make all letters express next day and the cost structure can’t support it. However for the people that opt in, there’s enough supply/capacity. This applies to Sprint with its Ultra HD add-on for $10/Month. It’s there if you want it. There likely isn’t enough capacity to make all users Ultra HD, but there is for those expected number who opt-in for it. With enough competition, people ultimately get what they want for what they want to pay. People should have the option to pay to avoid cat video congestion if they’re working on mission critical work (in their minds at least) for example.

Fixed 5G Wireless is the key to all this happening.

It’s my best guess. You can actually do this on Sprint now to a degree. Sprint now offers an Unlimited Hotspot Data Plan for $50/Month. Streaming is limited to 480P (it would be nice to have an HD Add-on) but this is passable. If you want to show Comcast/Verizon and the others how you feel, close your wallet and walk away.

Yup. 5G Fixed Wireless is ultimately where T-Mobile is going for its TV venture with Layer 3. Comcast/Verizon will be cut out of the loop entirely, as you won’t need a wireline, and there’s your competition. Perhaps Sprint will get in on this as well with its trove of 2.5 GHz spectrum. Best thing to do is support local officials that want to expedite the permitting and it’ll all happen sooner.