Sprint Begins Punishing Customers For FCC's Net Neutrality Rules

ourlovecanlastforeve writes: A few days ago Sprint announced their intent to stop throttling certain customers' bandwidth in the wake of the FCC fining ATT $100,000,000 for doing the same. Sprint has now begun circulating an internal memo to their front-line reps that the 12-month warranty on non-branded accessories, a featured selling point, will be eliminated. Additional rumors are emerging that Sprint may increase prices on unlimited data plans and stop offering wireline long distance service.

Comments

TNSTAAFL

[_Sharp'r_]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. - Various Economists and Heinlein

Same types of things happened after the regulations around credit and debit card fees. The money comes from somewhere and ultimately you aren't punishing the big players in the industry with the regulations, but their customers and their smaller competitors.

Another case of people who don't understand regulatory history being doomed to repeat it.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

This is why we have to turn them into public utilities and abolish all exclusive franchising. They only get away with this because they are a protected monopoly.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[PRMan]

This makes no sense. What you are seeing here is this: Fake unlimited is cheaper than real unlimited.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[publiclurker]

you mean another example of a shameless corporate whore blaming the victims for the greed of the companies don't you? Face it, no matter how special your masters told you they were, they are not entitled to screw over anyone no matter how much their CEO want's a new boat.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[khasim]

And that would be accurate if we were actually talking about a limited resource for free.

But we aren't.

You left out the part where the profit margin is flexible. The consumer costs will only rise because Sprint wants to keep the profit as high as it was. Bandwidth is NOT a limited resource in this case.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Those people advertised and sold unlimited plans.

They caught for lying. Pure and simple. And now those assholes as acting like the victims.

We need MORE regulations on these people - and every other business. You advertise "unlimited" anything, it better be unlimited and fuck them if they don't deliver.

In a fair World, I should be able to NOT pay if I do not receive the services I paid for but these assholes rigged the game so that _I_ go to collections and get screwed with they fuck me.

More regulations. If they don't like it then they can give back all the tax breaks and incentives that we - the taxpayer - gave them to do what they were supposed to do.

They owe me, you and every other taxpayer who helped them build out their infrastructure.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Bert64]

And there's nothing stopping them continuing selling the same plans at the same price, they just have to be honest and tell their customers that they aren't unlimited.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

Like everything else, as good as we want it to be.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[caseih]

Ahh well that's all right then. The solution is clearly to just let industry do whatever they way, right? That will clearly benefit customers. Sure regulation does have unintended consequences. But no regulation is surely worse. We've learned that the hard way in Alberta with the privatization and deregulation of utilities. None of the promises of such action came true. There is not more competition and prices for electricity and distribution have more than tripled since we embarked down this road. Not enough regulation is clearly bad for consumers, society, and governments, and too much regulation is clearly bad too.

I agree with the other commenter that telecom companies should all be publicly-owned. Especially when they make their money by exploiting public assets such as right of ways.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Anonymous Psychopath]

First, it's not an unlimited resource, because infrastructure is required to provide it. That infrastructure has finite limits.

Second, those greedy corporate fat cats at Sprint haven't managed to make any profit at all since 2007.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

Nope, the regs are designed to keep the competition out. And so are the very contracts that grant exclusivity. You got it completely backwards.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[jklovanc]

They owe me, you and every other taxpayer who helped them build out their infrastructure.

There is a flaw in this statement. It assumes that infrastructure never changes. Sure the wires do not get replaced often but the switches, software, etc does. Then there is the cost of new technology required to push more data through old wires. New technology, upgrades, etc can only be funded through profit,

Re: TNSTAAFL

[cyber-vandal]

All the people who haven't died of polio, smallpox and whooping cough would like to disagree with your statement.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[known_coward_69]

obviously you have never dealt with ConEd $55 a month just for wiring fee, half a dozen other fees and finally you get to the line item to buy electricity. $25 a month out of a $90 bill

Re: TNSTAAFL

[Martin Blank]

Sprint CEOs have been getting +100% raises since 2007.

That would suggest that the CEO is making 256 times what the position was making in 2006. The CEO was making a lot more than $200,000 in 2006 (referring to the last CEO, Dan Hesse, and his $49M salary package, not the new guy and his $29 million salary package).

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Stolpskott]

Not quite - the cost of building out infrastructure is a huge barrier to entry, but it is not insurmountable for an individual, organisation or corporation with deep enough pockets - see Google's Fiber initiative as an example. Other obstacles exist too (lack of expertise, reputation, existing customer base to determine asset value, and so on), but as with the cost of infrastructure these can be overcome with sufficient up-front investment.
The single biggest thing preventing the launch of a new wholesale carrier to challenge the existing regional monopolies is the fact that many urban areas have either legislative or contractual tie-ins that lock them into an exclusive contract with the existing incumbent, which will result in either the new provider being denied access to poles/underground tunnels or being denied the requisite planning permission to build their own, or they will be allowed to build the infrastructure but not connect the last mile to potential consumers.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[bondsbw]

This is nonsense. Data throttling had nothing to do with profitability of the warranty program. If the warranty program was found to be profitable for Sprint, they would keep it. They certainly wouldn't kill a money-maker right at the same time that they lost another money-maker.

That's all there is to it. This was coincidence, nothing more.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[ArmoredDragon]

Like everything else, as good as we want it to be.

And you base that on what? The people just vote how they think it should be, so that's exactly what it becomes?

Wrong.

There's actually a long established history of why it's wrong too. If history teaches anything, it's that when private industries become nationalized, the service quickly turns to shit. The reason for that is simple: It becomes a monopoly so the people who provide the service don't have to worry about competing with anybody else. Worse than that, politicians often hold it for ransom so that they can promise to fix it later if they get re-elected.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Drethon]

Hmm, interesting. I have paid a debit or credit card fee, never? I just pay things when my statement comes and go without if I don't have money. Not sure how I'm paying for regulation there.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[AK Marc]

And there's a long history of governmnet run utiities that do well. Dallas Water Utilities is a surprisingly good operation. And TXU was much better before "deregulation" and privatization.

The government often does it better, but those examples are ignored by the ignorant and dumb.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[ArmoredDragon]

And there's a long history of governmnet run utiities that do well. Dallas Water Utilities is a surprisingly good operation. And TXU was much better before "deregulation" and privatization.

Running a water utility isn't anywhere near as complex as running a telecom service. How often do you have to call their tech support because your faucet isn't working? Oh that's right, you call a plumber.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[msauve]

The infrastructure is built upon right-of-way and spectrum which belongs to the public. It is not a free market, and the invisible hand cannot operate effectively. Hence the need for a regulated market.

If you want to change that so the companies must negotiate rights-of-way with every property owner whose land they cross, then you can argue that regulation isn't proper. But until then, regulation protects the public's interest in seeing that its resources are used efficiently.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[sjames]

The regulations aren't punishing the consumer. The part you are mising is that they were never actually getting what they were paying for, Now they are. In theory, if they were happy before, that tier of service will be offered and they can then pay for what they are actually getting. It should cost what they were paying before the regulation came in to effect.

Net effect: A better informed and less fraudulent market.

Surely you aren't against a less fraudulent market?!?

Re:TNSTAAFL

[ganjadude]

sometimes != often

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

As long as reelection rates remain at 98%, I will assume the voters approve..

Re:TNSTAAFL

[meglon]

And what you say may well be, however you're creating the same stupid as shit argument that dipshits made about the ACA being a government takeover of healthcare.... the net neutrality regulations ARE NOT a government takeover of the running operations of telecoms. Anyone who says it is is full of shit; anyone who believes them is a fucking moron.

EVERY time a government service is privatized, all that does is add an entire layer of costs to the service... businesses call it profit. Medicare plan B was touted as going to be cheaper, with better service over what the government could provide. Within 3 years the costs were more, even with government subsidizing the private companies.. and the companies were cutting services. Why? THEY COULDN'T MAKE A PROFIT.

I was in the army when the Reagan/Bush base closing started happening, and one of the things that they were saying was that by shifting some non-essential functions to private contractors, money was there to be saved. My $600+ a month was dwarfed by the pay of the civilians they brought in to serve chow, which was once simply another thing we had been cycled through taking care of.... thing is, those civilians served chow only, they didn't also have the skill to call arty onto the threat. End results... way more cost. Why? PROFIT.

It truly fucking amazes me that people don't actually have even a beginning inkling of how the fuck businesses work.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[FlyHelicopters]

You advertise "unlimited" anything, it better be unlimited and fuck them if they don't deliver.

There are reasonable and understood limits to "unlimited" in most situations.

Imagine an all-you-can-eat buffet. Within reason, eat all you like... to a point...

I imagine you can't go there for Breakfast and sit there all day working on your laptop while eating slowly all day long. I also imagine you won't have much of a case when they ask you to leave. They might even refund you, to avoid issues, then ask you to not come back.

There has to be some level of reasonable to the whole thing. Besides, "unlimited" has almost always had conditions, such as not using it for business purposes or for 24/7 downloading.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[meglon]

Same stupid as fuck strawman argument. Net neutrality is NOT a government take over of the running of telecoms. People who think it is are fucking idiots. As for public highways, maybe you should take a look at how much good those highways have done for this country, and look at how dismal the business climate would be without them... like it used to be.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

Hey, if you don't want to pay for infrastructure maintenance, don't blame the crooks your reelect to steal the money for themselves. It's time to cut the government loose from the corporate politburo that owns it.

And keep on trollin' brutha! You the man!

Re: TNSTAAFL

[KermodeBear]

Yeah, because I'm sure that everyone loves their local BMV. Everyone wants it to be fast and easy to deal with, but I will tell you a secret: in most places, the BMV sucks, everyone bitches about it, and it isn't getting better.

Shall I mention the VA or the IRS? I bet we all want those to be good too but, uh, yeah. They suck.

Government agencies, on the whole, are pretty shitty in part because they don't have to be good in order to stay in business.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[mi]

Same stupid as fuck strawman argument. Net neutrality is NOT a government take over of the running of telecoms

My response was to the proposal to turn ISPs into "public utilities", not "net neutrality".

and look at how dismal the business climate would be without them... like it used to be.

Citations missing.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[mi]

All the people who haven't died of polio, smallpox and whooping cough would like to disagree with your statement.

The one about hanging fustakrakich on a lamp-post with his Che Guevara T-shirt stuffed in his gaping mouth? I don't see a connection...

In fact, I don't see a connection between anything I said in the last week and people (not) dying of whooping cough...

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Solandri]

This is why we have to turn them into public utilities and abolish all exclusive franchising.

Dear god no. Lots of different companies all trying different things is exactly what you want amidst technological uncertainty. They thoroughly search the solution space, with the companies that find the better solutions becoming more successful. Cellular data is a perfect example. If the U.S. had fallen in line with the EU in mandating the formed-by-committee GSM standard, then CDMA would've been stillborn and we would still be stuck on 56 kbps data speeds. (CDMA automatically divides bandwidth between all users who are actually using data at that moment. GSM is time-slotted, and each device gets a timeslice whether or not they actually use it to transmit data.) Nearly all 3G GSM data implementations used wideband CDMA (which is why you could talk and use data at the same time on a GSM phone - they had to have two different radios for voice and data, while CDMA phones did both with a single radio). 4G LTE uses bandwidth-sharing technology very similar to CDMA (orthogonal frequencies instead of orthogonal codes), and its development would've taken several years longer without CDMA to lay down the groundwork, if people had even believed it was viable without real-life trials among millions of users.

Public utilities are good when the technology has pretty much peaked and is stable - the best solution has been found, and there aren't any improvements on the horizon. Long distance electrical transmission initially had people advocating both AC and DC as superior. It turned out high voltage AC as the most effective way to transmit power over long distances, so that standard won out. Nothing better has been found in a century so that's a good service to turn into a utility - the optimal solution has probably been found. Likewise, cable TV/Internet is getting to that point. Initially there was lots of uncertainty about how best to hook up houses and subnet the network, so lots of different cable companies tried different things. But now pretty much everyone is using the same solution (it's even been standardized as DOCSIS), and the only looming future improvement is fiber to the home. So the Cable industry should probably be turned into a public utility soon.

But Cellular is still a rapidly developing industry with lots of technological innovations still being made. Turning it into a public utility would be the worst thing you could do to it.

If you want to fix Cellular, prohibit vertical integration. A company can own towers but can't provide service. A company can provide service but they can't own towers or make phones. A company can make phones but can't own towers or provide service. Then make it so you can buy any phone and subscribe to any service provider (as long as the phone supports their technology). The service providers would lease time on different tower networks. If a manufacturer made a good phone, people would buy it without regard for whether or not a carrier sold it. If a tower company put together a good network, lots of service providers would contract with them. And if a carrier had good plans, people would subscribe to them. None of the current BS where a carrier basically leverages their advantage in tower network into restrictions on phone interoperability and plan selection.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[mi]

Hey, if you don't want to pay for infrastructure maintenance

I certainly don't. I want (am willing) to pay for the Internet service. And when a particular service-provider disappoints me, I want to be able to switch to a competing one in a matter of hours, rather than begin the process of raising awareness so some kind of healing can begin and a new political appointee (after the next elections) fixes whatever is wrong — which is the only way to fix a publicly-owned anything.

cut the government loose from the corporate politburo

I would prefer "corporate politburo" (whatever that means) to the actual Politburo (and the inevitable Gosplan that comes with it).

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Opportunist]

Maybe, but at least now they have to be HONEST about it. What they used to do is sell "unlimited" while at the same time limiting you. That's false advertising at best. Fraud at worst.

I don't mind a metered line. I don't mind paying a pretty penny for unlimited. But I expect to get what I buy.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[AK Marc]

How complex is a retirement plan? Most of the problems with Social Security are coded in law. But for a retirement fund, investing in "cash equivalent" like government bonds, the SSA is an order of magnatude more efficient than the private sector (based on cost to manage a fund). And the IRS (similarly handicapped by law) is two orders of magnitude more efficient than the private sector (companies like ADP).

The government is almost always more efficient. The only times they are obviously not, is when the things being compared aren't equal (like schools, where a non-profit church school with free land and no administration is compared to the total cost of a public school, including facilities and administration), but for apples-to-apples, in-class spending, public schools are more efficient than private.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

And when a particular service-provider disappoints me, I want to be able to switch to a competing one in a matter of hours...

Doesn't happen that way, the protected monopoly does not allow you a choice. So, first off you have to ban exclusive franchises. And then you might have to weasel out of the contract you signed with the service. Rights to access are paramount. Only a public utility can provide that.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[AK Marc]

often = often.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[kcitren]

Sprint hasn't been a profitable company in years, they've got 27 Billion in debt, and are expected to need an additional 3 Billion this year to cover expected losses. They're net income has been in the negative Billions each year for the past couple of years.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[mi]

Doesn't happen that way, the protected monopoly does not allow you a choice.

Thankfully, it is not quite a monopoly — several corporations compete in my area, and contrary to constant whining on /., my area is not uniquely competitive. Granted, it is not a properly free market either, but the solution is to free it, not make it a full bona-fide monopoly the way public highways already are.

Only a public utility can provide that.

Bullshit. "Public utility" is a monopoly. And that it is government run only makes it worse. Your argument is exactly the sort of moronic but seductive thinking, that gave rise to AT&T's monopoly and the cable TV-monopolies after that. Those monopolies are — officially — no more, but the monsters they created are still with us today well-entrenched.

But, like I said, 100 years of failure mean nothing to you...

Re:TNSTAAFL

[ArmoredDragon]

And what you say may well be, however you're creating the same stupid as shit argument that dipshits made about the ACA being a government takeover of healthcare.

No, I didn't. The government doesn't own the means of production in that case, making it VERY FAR removed from anything I suggested. And I'm not going to read any further into your post if you're going use straw man logical fallacies right out the gate.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[tsotha]

... the net neutrality regulations ARE NOT a government takeover of the running operations of telecoms.

True, but that's not the same thing as saying net neutrality rules don't affect cost structures for telecoms.

Telecoms could only offer "unlimited" data because it was never truly unlimited. You can't provide unlimited anything in the real world. I don't necessarily think the FCC's ruling is a bad thing, but we're seeing pretty much what you'd expect to see as a result - higher prices for (still not really) unlimited data plans and more explicit data caps.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[tsotha]

I've never seen any evidence this is true. The Catholic high school I went to was far more efficient with money than the local public school. The land wasn't free and we had administration. Not only did that school spend a fraction of what the public schools spent on students, our college acceptance rate was higher.

There are all sorts of areas private companies do better than public. While it's true you pay more for mobile service in the US than other places, that's mostly the result of stealth taxation. Last time I looked Verizon alone had paid seventeen billion to the government just for spectrum.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[tsotha]

It's not that they're acting like victims. It's that if "unlimited" is going to be interpreted this way they have to charge enough to provide it.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Dragonslicer]

Exactly. Assuming that Sprint is a rational actor in the market, there are two possibilities*:

1. Sprint makes a profit from offering things like extra warranties, either directly, by selling the accessories for a higher price, or indirectly, by gaining customers that they otherwise wouldn't gain. If Sprint is making a profit, then they would continue offering these benefits and continue making a profit.

2. Sprint is losing money from offering these benefits. In this case, it would be a net gain in profit to stop offering these benefits.

Note that Net Neutrality regulations and false advertising laws do not appear anywhere in the math.

* I'll ignore the possibility that Sprint is breaking exactly even on it.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[AK Marc]

You didn't read. SS is more efficient. But it's more efficient at the wrong things, as required by law. You are arguing that SS is bad because the laws it's bound to are bad. I'm saying that, for a retirement management fund, it's vastly more efficient than the private sector, even if you don't like it, John Hancock is more expensive for the same service.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[AK Marc]

I'm sure there are exceptions, but the broad studies on schools indicate that public schools get an overall better outcome per dollar of in-class spend, but the issues are that so much of the overall public school spend isn't on classes.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

...the same way that my city made it illegal to have wells and septic systems when they decided to run water and sewers to homes...

Sounds like those politicians need to be voted out. Otherwise, who's gonna listen?

Re:TNSTAAFL

[frank_adrian314159]

Imagine an all-you-can-eat buffet. Within reason, eat all you like... to a point...

Or maybe they could, you know... not lie and not call it unlimited when it isn't? Or in your world is not lying too great a burden on business?

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

You would be much happier in the laissez faire paradise of Somalia. You know, in case you are interested in the present, where we live, well, maybe not you :-)

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Pubstar]

Well, my T-Mobile phone is unlimited besides tethering. I've hit 80GB of data transfer from my phone before and I never got slower speeds. I did get a phone call asking what I was using my phone for though.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[vilanye]

College acceptance rates might be higher but a huge reason for it is that private high schools are selective. Does that stat also include community colleges and regional universities where have a pulse and a HS diploma pretty much the only requirement?

Public schools have to take everyone, including those that will never even apply for college.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[vilanye]

You need a citation for the value, to everyone including business, of public highways and streets?

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Pubstar]

Too lazy to find the strip, but there was one where Dilbert suggests that he and Dogbert live in the 24/7 all you can eat buffet. The topic of showering comes up, and it was decided to use the little wet naps.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Do you seriously think you would have an octocore Galaxy S6 in your hand if it were all government?

Go look up a Trabby car, as governments tried to keep up with the free west. And if not for the west, they wouldn't have even bothered.

I can handle Government Should Do More types, who look to safety and safety nets and such, but your type is found exclusively in cloistered areas of the free west.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Anonymous Coward]

"And there's a long history of governmnet run utiities that do well."

And that history, as are the examples that you provided, are usually where SMALL governments take over SIMPLE operations, not BIG government taking over COMPLEX operations.

Not to mention that government likes to place people into positions of power (and overpay them, though not usually as much as private industry) for reasons of politics rather than reasons of ability.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[meglon]

However, it's still not net neutrality. ATT got busted for fraud basically. They were lying to their customers. Sprint, because of their actions here, are basically admitting that they too were committing fraud, but because ATT got busted and they don't want to, they're going to stop lying to customers; they just needed a scapegoat, which was an easy find because, once again, we have a certain population in this country who HATE the government no matter what.... Sprint simply knew it could jerk their chain and they'd rant, rave, and froth at the mouth voicing their hatred of the government.

Let me fix that for you: "Telecoms could only offer "unlimited" data because it was never truly unlimited, BUT THEY WOULD LIE ABOUT IT SAYING IT WAS."

Re:TNSTAAFL

[TechyImmigrant]

... the net neutrality regulations ARE NOT a government takeover of the running operations of telecoms.

True, but that's not the same thing as saying net neutrality rules don't affect cost structures for telecoms.

Selling an unlimited service and then limiting it is fraud. People should go to jail for that. Requiring vendors to tell the truth about their product and adhere to their product claims in not an unreasonable intrusion into their cost structures.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[dgatwood]

Not quite - the cost of building out infrastructure is a huge barrier to entry, but it is not insurmountable for an individual, organisation or corporation with deep enough pockets - see Google's Fiber initiative as an example.

The problem is that whole "deep pockets" part. The cost of building out the infrastructure isn't insurmountable, but the payoff is over such a long period of time that no bank would give you a loan to do it. That means it is only possible for a company with enough money that they can do it without taking out a loan. And the vast majority of those companies are run by MBA types who would have the same reaction as the bank. "What do you mean, it will take you 30 years to pay off the cost in the best-case scenario? You want a 60-year loan? We don't make loans with periods that long...."

The government is just about the only organization that has both enough funding to do it and enough reckless disregard for turning a profit on their investment. :-)

Re:TNSTAAFL

[AK Marc]

SS is about on order of magnitude more efficient than a private investment house looking after unmanaged securities. And the IRS is about two orders of magnitude more efficient than ADP for the same level of AR functions. Big government is more efficient.

What isn't efficient is when you have byzantine laws micro-managing operations. Schools and the military are managed by Congress, not the department itself. Congress sets rules on what schools can and can't do, and how they do the things they must do. This drives cost, and reduces efficiency. Same with the military, where a surplus base can't be closed because it's ordered open by law by the local congressman. Costs rise because Congress interferes in the day-to-day operations of them.

It's unrelated to big, complex, or government size, and related to politics.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Bengie]

Last time I looked Verizon alone had paid seventeen billion to the government just for spectrum.

Spectrum is a national resource. Are you saying we should give it away to whomever wants to use it? Maybe I want to use the GPS spectrum to run my 1kilowatt wifi base.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Bengie]

ISPs and last mile are two separate issues. I think we should leave ISPs as they are, but socialize the last mile. A Google fiber type approach. Every user gets 100% of their speed to the core network. Let the ISPs plug into the core network. I wouldn't mind having several ISPs being serviced over the same fiber.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Bengie]

If you decoupled the last mile sunk costs from being an ISP, then contracts would be pointless. Do month to month. It designed correctly, it is no cost to activate or deactivate a customer. Just a click of a button.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[FlyHelicopters]

Nothing is unlimited... by your definition, nothing could ever be called unlimited...

Reasonable people are not so black and white...

Re:TNSTAAFL

[gordo3000]

then you don't advertise unlimited without a clear explanation of those reasonable limits.

In every other country I have been in, that is what they do. Buffets set a time limit on the table (usually 90 minutes or so, else people actually come in there and can sit all day).

When I get a cell phone plan, they say unlimited data usage but if your data usage goes over X in any rolling window (was 3 days on my last one) your speed will be throttled from whatever the network can handle to Y. Once that period of high use rolls out of the window, you are restored.

Only in the US do they advertise unlimited, promise you a certain speed as long as the network isn't congested, and then refuse to admit they are actually throttling you or tell you under what auspices they have throttled you. It's a real pain in the ass actually that they are allowed to have unwritten rules that you are supposed to just acquiesce to and that are not stated explicitly in your contract.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[penguinoid]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. - Various Economists and Heinlein

Sure there is. Served every day at the local food kitchen. You don't have to be poor or anything -- no strings attached. And the quality is better than your average restaurant (on account of most restaurants get a huge "I hate waiting" penalty).

Re: TNSTAAFL

[Dog-Cow]

Are you really that much of a fucking moron, or do you just play one on slashdot?

Re:TNSTAAFL

[itsenrique]

This, 1000 times this.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[tsotha]

I'm saying government owned providers don't pay for spectrum, so they don't have to recover tens of billions of dollars in your phone bill.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[tsotha]

There's an asshole in every crowd. You, huh?

Re: TNSTAAFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because I'm sure that everyone loves their local BMV. Everyone wants it to be fast and easy to deal with, but I will tell you a secret: in most places, the BMV sucks, everyone bitches about it, and it isn't getting better.

Shall I mention the VA or the IRS? I bet we all want those to be good too but, uh, yeah. They suck.

Government agencies, on the whole, are pretty shitty in part because they don't have to be good in order to stay in business.

I find that every DMV experience I have is a hell of a lot better than any interaction I've had with my cable company. What's your BMV/DMV complaint? That they offer service that is too fast, meaning they are hiring too many people, or that they are too slow, meaning that they don't have enough people?

Because your complaint is definitely one of those two, however you choose to re-phrase it. My interactions with the DMV, while not pleasant, were clear enough. I read the website, went into the office, read the signs, got in line, had 20+ people ahead of me in a 2 teller line and was through in under twenty minutes. I got the form I needed from them (bike registration), filled it out off to the side and the teller took me back in after handling the person she was working with when I finished. I didn't have to get back in the main queue.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[alteran]

Private schools do an excellent job of dumping high cost students (ADHD, special needs, etc) on the public schools, and then babbling about how they're more cost-efficient.
Show me ONE private school that matches the public school's mandate to accept all "last resort" students, and then we'll compare efficiency. Good luck finding one.
Until then, it's just comparing apples to lying assholes.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[readin]

I can see how a government run utility that provides a basic commodity that doesn't ever change could be well run. The technology is well understood and doesn't need to change much. It either works or it doesn't and when it doesn't everyone complains to their government reps.

is broadband like that? If we turn it over to the government will we be happy if it is exactly the same 40 years from now (well perhaps a little less down time)?

Cars are provided by several different companies. In the last 40 years there have been tremendous improvements in safety, efficiency, and comfort. Roads on the other hand are supply by the government. Any improvements there?

I'm old enough to remember the explosion of new services that suddenly became available when Bell was split up.

A private company in a competitive environment has to constantly improve to stay in the market. A monopoly doesn't. A nationalized industry doesn't. A government agency or industry may happen to get good leaders and do well, but if they don't there isn't much pressure to change.

Consider electricity. The uses for electricity have exploded over the last 30 years. The ways it is used, the types of devices, the electronics, the cars, etc. etc. But most places are supplied with electricity by a monopoly or some sort of government run group. Have you seen any modifications in the electricity industry to better supply the new uses of electricity? Any innovations or new ideas for how electricity is delivered to the home to make it more useful and convenient?

If an industry by it's nature is going to be a monopoly then it may make sense to nationalize it. But doing so carries a heavy price in stagnation that must be considered. For the moment most people do have choices. There are cable, fios, cell-tower and/or satellite available to many people. I suspect most people have at least two of those options in their area. A lot of local towns need to figure out how to get out of local monopolies they foolishly (or corruptly) granted, but there is no need to nationalize this stuff and end innovation.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[sjames]

Pick the teleco that has committed the most fraud and other criminal activity (bill stuffing, false advertising, slamming, reneging on various voluntary agreements, etc) and nationalize it. Leave the others to compete as they do now.

If you really believe what you say, you should be fine with that as the national service will be relegated to a service of last resort and the rest will prosper.

Telco and cable routinely end up at the bottom when ranked for customer satisfaction. Apparently they don't have to be good to stay in business either.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[KGIII]

Having availed myself to both, I would have to say that the VA is much better (in my experience and the experiences of everyone I know - quite a few actually) than the private care I have received at hospitals and doctor's offices.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[KGIII]

There seems to be a trend where people believe it is an all-or-nothing scenario. I have forgotten the name of this logical fallacy. "Wait, you do not think the government should be involved in everything? Well, take your ass off the public highways then!"

Re:TNSTAAFL

[AK Marc]

In the last 40 years there have been tremendous improvements in safety,

Almost all of which mandated by the government.

If we turn [broadband] over to the government will we be happy if it is exactly the same 40 years from now (well perhaps a little less down time)?

The government built the Internet. I was on the Internet before you could buy access to it (well, you could buy access, but only with government permission, and you owned your own lines between you and the interconnect point, which at the time were all 100% government owned.

And you are considering commercial monopolies as "government" when it works for your argument. That inconsistency is inconsistent.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[jopsen]

then you don't advertise unlimited without a clear explanation of those reasonable limits.

Even a clear explanation isn't worth much if "unlimited" is written in big letters... and the definition is deep in the fine print.
I believe the EU made a law a few years ago, stating that you must deliver whatever you write in large letters... Basically, that putting things in fine print isn't good enough...

If they have a "reasonable" limit at 1TB, they are selling 1TB traffic, not unlimited.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Anonymous Coward]

If the U.S. had fallen in line with the EU in mandating the formed-by-committee GSM standard, then CDMA would've been stillborn and we would still be stuck on 56 kbps data speeds

So you are saying all European cell users are limited to 56K speeds? You ever been to Europe and used a GSM smart phone? I guess not.

.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[cyber-vandal]

You said socialism failed and I gave you an example of where it had been an amazing success. It's hard to tell though what Americans are talking about when it comes to socialism because it could be anything from the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany to people not being bankrupted for the crime of being sick.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[guruevi]

Transfer doesn't cost money, bandwidth does. So free transfer is indeed possible because the infrastructure has to run regardless of how many bits you send in a month.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[guruevi]

European countries have the same spectrum 'tax'. The issue is that the governments here don't promote competition. Fines and even spectrum should be a function of a companies income or net worth. That way a startup can compete to get spectrum. Also, European countries make spectrum and sometimes even customers non-transferable so you can't buy out a competitor that provides better service.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[mrchaotica]

So, let me get this straight: you want to keep the shitty status quo in telecom because "OMG the 'Free Market' is great!," but calling a third-party IT guy (the equivalent of your plumber example) when your router has a problem would be terrible?

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

The free market made AM stereo the great success it is today. And US cell phone service is one of the greatest acts of piracy and fraud in recent times, making people pay to receive calls, amazing! The bearded lady still sells tickets. You know, the cell phone companies wrote the rules in the US. They should have gotten their own area codes for starters, so the land lines wouldn't get crowded out of available numbers so quickly. It drove me mad to have my area code changed three times over the years to accommodate the bastards.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[mi]

You said socialism failed and I gave you an example of where it had been an amazing success.

No, you haven't. Your examples aren't valid — you didn't identify comparable countries with and without Socialism nor demonstrated, how Capitalism causes people to die from whooping cough.

The Socialism's grotesque failure is obvious, when such examples are identified and, indeed, compared:

• South Korea vs. the North;
• West Germany vs. the East;
• Soviet Socialist Republic of Estonia vs. Finland

In all three examples above, the formerly identical peoples — with the same ethnicity, culture, religion, wealth — lived for several decades under Capitalism and Socialism. The results are screamingly obvious...

Do you think, Linux would've been written, had Finland become the 16th part of the USSR in 1939, when Stalin invaded the little Baltic countries? Would you ever even have heard of Nokia or Samsung, had your dear Socialism prevailed?

Socialism — a.k.a. "Communism-lite" — is the most murderous school of thought known to humanity so far. Even Hitler's peculiarly bloody strand of Fascism (a different side of the same Collectivist coin) is but a distant second. And what did the survivors get? Much lower standard of living and absence of human rights.

The latter is by design — once the Glorious Collective is deemed to trump the lowly, selfish, and cantankerous Individual (for the Greater Good), all sorts of things become possible — from taxing one's work to console another's idleness (such as. Welfare programs), to arbitrary business regulations (such as monopoly "licenses" for various services — just to bring us back on-topic), to others deciding one's maximum acceptable age, to the outright killing fields for the non-conforming. It is only a matter of degree.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[mi]

You need a citation for the value, to everyone including business, of public highways and streets?

Roads are useful, but they don't have to be government-owned. If Japan, which received Capitalism from us at the point of McArthur's guns, can have privately-owned railways and competing subway lines (ever been to Tokyo?), why can't we?

Re:TNSTAAFL

[mi]

socialize the last mile

"Socialize" certainly sounds much nicer than "confiscate"... And it does not matter, whether you are confiscating the already existing cables from the companies (Verizon, Google, Comcast), that laid them, or the taxpayers' monies to lay them anew — by the same unionized public employees, of course, who require 5 workers to change a light bulb.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[mi]

laissez faire paradise of Somalia

This statement is so infamously idiotic, entire articles have been written to debunk it. Fuck off, Commie.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[cyber-vandal]

That's Communism not Socialism. But then I'm not arguing against capitalism (which can be just as brutal as Communism if under a dictatorship), I'm arguing against the demonisation of socialism "because North Korea".

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

;-) Love you too... And keep the faith!

Kisses (Sorry Red, I couldn't resist)

Re: TNSTAAFL

[mi]

That's Communism not Socialism.

There is no difference. Communism is simply the "platonic ideal" of Socialism — that's what I was told every week in school for ten years, while growing up in the USSR.

capitalism [...] can be just as brutal as Communism if under a dictatorship

No, it can not be. Nowhere close. You are, obviously, hinting at Pinochet — just compare his death toll with that of Khmer Rouge. Meanwhile today's Chile is Latin America's TOP economy — thanks to Capitalism.

"because North Korea"

How about "because Venezuela"? Under the rule of Chavez — a guest of honor at "World Social Forum" — the murder rate quadrupled . You think, whooping cough prevention (even if it really did require Socialism) justifies that?

Re: TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

Dear Ayn Rand,

Please, stop being such a silly goose. Communists have to make the deal, just like everybody else. When they bump up against a bigger gun, they, too, have to cough up cold hard currency. It is the iron fist of capitalism without the velvet glove of good entertainment and a KwikiMart.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

You are, obviously, hinting at Pinochet...

Not just Pinochet, it's everywhere south of the Rio Grande.

You know, even under the absolute worst of communism the big crime families all flourished, as they do today. These are the people that run your countries, not the silly little puppet 'governments' that you like to fight over.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[D.McG.]

While I too consider it fraud, and have had my AT&T unlimited service throttled after 5GB/month, I really think that "jail" is not the answer for everything. This was not a violent crime. Simply take ALL of their money, and make them start from scratch again. Could even break them up. Hit them where it hurts, in the wallet. I don't want to pay more for their stay in prison with MY tax money, I want to get a refund with THEIR money.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[fustakrakich]

That's right... Apps!

Re: TNSTAAFL

[cyber-vandal]

How about because Norway or because Sweden? I don't give a shit what you were told in the USSR. The full name of North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Does that mean it's a democracy because they say so? Was the right wing business friendly Hitler a Socialist because he said so?

I was actually thinking of Suharto and Hitler rather than the mere wannabe Pinochet. There was plenty of capitalism under those two. Suharto was even a friend of the West because even though he probably killed a couple of million he made sure the oil and mineral rights were available to be exploited by multinationals.

Socialism failed in the USSR but I don't see a problem with it in Northern Europe but then any hint of common good is evil Socialism and I've just realised I'm arguing with roman_mir so I'm not interested in banging my head against a brick wall. Bye bye.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[AK Marc]

The Internet, when I first connected to it in the early '80s, was 100% government, and without a military presence.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[StewBaby2005]

"Dear god no. Lots of different companies all trying different things is exactly what you want amidst technological uncertainty." If only. reality is that we are cash cows for these robber baron corporations. If there was some competition, I might agree it would be worth it - but there is not. Most geolocations you have one choice and once choice only

Re:TNSTAAFL

[rakslice]

Telling people that nationalizing the system is going to result in shitty service held for ransom by its operators sells the idea pretty well, since it's the same as what they have now, modulo a chance to throw out the management every 4 years. Why not point out the market participants who are providing something better?

Re:TNSTAAFL

[KingMotley]

Have the people in Dallas been demanding twice as much water per second while lowering the cost per gallon every year? No? So they haven't had to change their infrastructure consistently. Not exactly the same thing. They just maintain it.

Re: TNSTAAFL

[ahodgson]

From the same dipshits that argue that any decrease in public spending will suddenly turn us into Somalia.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[AK Marc]

Yes, they are consuming more and demanding lower prices. Why?

Re:TNSTAAFL

[mgcarley]

What you mean the "exclusive" franchising that's already illegal? (Franchises are non-exclusive these days, but there are other - mostly artificial - barriers)

Re:TNSTAAFL

[mgcarley]

Buffets set a time limit on the table (usually 90 minutes or so, else people actually come in there and can sit all day).

I can't speak for other providers, but in our case while we never used "Unlimited", we recently changed our wording from "flat-rate" to "all you can eat" to make explaining the policies easier. I always felt that "Flat Rate" was talking about flat-rate pricing rather than usage, but we changed it to "All You Can Eat" because it relates more directly to usage - in the specs for the plan we make a comparison to being "like a buffet restaurant, but you can't feed the whole neighbourhood" or something. Granted, this is for wired service, not wireless, and I can quite understand the need for some limitation on wireless services.

The same paragraph also mentions that we expect usage of between 1 and 2 TB on that particular plan (but that the limits are still soft, as they always were - chances are if we ever got anyone using 77TB of data like that guy on Verizon FiOS did we might not be too happy about it though). At the same time 2TB equates to about 6mbit/s 24x7 and is - for most households - plenty and for most intents and purposes "practically unlimited", even on a 100mbit/s connection (and as bandwidth prices fall, that threshold will undoubtedly increase).

Even so, most people buy a usage-based plan which offers data topups at fairly reasonable prices.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[werepants]

If history teaches anything, it's that when private industries become nationalized, the service quickly turns to shit. The reason for that is simple: It becomes a monopoly so the people who provide the service don't have to worry about competing with anybody else.

Sounds like you need to go back to history class. Bell, acting as a tightly regulated monopoly, managed to develop basically ALL of the technology of the goddamned information age. Seriously, starting with vacuum tubes, which allowed the first coast-to-coast phone call, and their crazy drive for reliability, which led to the development of the transistor. They developed digital transmission, fault-tolerant communication, operating systems, programming languages, the cellular phone network, etc, etc. Landlines are pretty damn bulletproof too - I don't know if I EVER dropped a call. They literally invented the field of quality control just so they could provide reliable service.

The point is, your conventional wisdom which purports to be fact-based is entirely wrong. The service provided under that regulated public utility might have been pricey, but it WAS reliable and constantly improving via Bell Labs innovation. And besides, have you checked your phone bill lately? I for one haven't seen my costs dropping precipitously.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[pnutjam]

Thank you! There is nothing wrong with regulating the ability of companies to lie to consumers.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[pnutjam]

Good news, you won't have to pay any taxes to leave up to $5.34 million to you heirs. It's a pretty safe bet that your good.
SS is designed to avoid pools of money. That same pool of money your talking about saving is a huge temptation for hucksters and bad relatives. You can have one senior moment, or trust the wrong person and spend the rest of your life in poverty.
Well...
, except for your SS.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[pnutjam]

His private school could also bounce out the outliers and save money while improving their "results". Sucks for the poors and disabled.
Sure, those catholic schools give out scholarships, but they really go to athletes, or former students fallen on hard times, not students who would love to attend but can't afford it.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[david_thornley]

Social Security isn't a gamble. It's the exact opposite.

Think of insurance. I've been paying a lot more in auto insurance than I've gotten out of it (I'm a pretty safe driver), but if I get into a really bad accident I'm not going to be financially ruined. I'm paying my insurance company to remove certain risks.

Similarly, there are ways I could lose my current savings and investments. If that should happen, I'll have my Social Security. It won't support me in the style I'm accustomed to (that's what the savings and investments are for), but it'll keep me from being destitute. Therefore, my investments are something of a gamble, while Social Security assumes some of my risk.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Nethemas the Great]

ref 1 ref 2

Re:TNSTAAFL

[Nethemas the Great]

You are trying to create "rationality" for their lying. These plans are not truly "unlimited" but they are telling everyone they are. It doesn't matter what spew the marketing department comes up with in their advertisements. There needs to be an honest document that details exactly what you get. That's what those asterisks are for in the marketing spew. Unlike the others, T-Mobile is an example of being honest. Their marketing spew uses the term "unlimited data" but define the terms of that "unlimited," a certain chunk of data at full speed, thereafter you get a slower rate. The others didn't do that. Their marketing department sold a product their engineering department didn't deliver.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[AK Marc]

all of those advances were developed in the free market, because manufacturers believed they would make more profits if they sold cars with more or better safety features.

Volvo is about the only maker who thought safety sells. Airbags were in no cars the year before they were mandated by the government, and many makers sued to keep them out of their cars. Double-latched doors are required by law, as are double-latched hoods. They were developed by the NHTSA in a regulated market because the makers know that safety doesn't sell. So they cut costs where possible, including cutting safety features.

Most if not all of the internet infrastructure is owned by private companies.

When I was first on the Internet, precisely none of the Internet was privately owned.

Your knowledge of history of cars and the Internet is highly inaccurate. Go read "unsafe at any speed" and let me know what Ralph Nader thinks of safety in the automotive market. Go read the history of the Internet, and how it got where it is today.

I think it is reasobable to assume that another technology could have also taken that place (although likely a bit later).

Yes, the free market could have come up with a solution, but they didn't. That they could have and didn't makes them superior to the government who did actually do it indicates a gross cognitive dissonance.

But the US-centric replacement would have been leased-lines between BBSs, developing into something similar. But more likely would have been the government-owned X.25 (and similar) networks evolving into the Internet. But even that Frame Relay network was mostly owned and funded by governments, as most of the telecoms outside the USA were government-owned monopolies.

Reality has already answered all your question, you must just open your eyes.

Re:TNSTAAFL

[tsotha]

Not true, at least not in my case. They gave out all kinds of scholarships to poor kids.

All I can say is....

[phantomfive]

I'm sure glad I don't work in telecom.

Re:All I can say is....

[fustakrakich]

It's much better to invest in telecom, or maybe it was a few years ago. This bubble has, at best, nine months left in it. Bargain hunters get ready!

Re:All I can say is....

[phantomfive]

This bubble has, at best, nine months left in it.

Really? Think so?

Re:All I can say is....

[fustakrakich]

Happens just before every presidential election. Staged events to be sure, to steer the election one way or another... but the mere possibility of an upset makes everybody a bit jittery for a short while.

Might as well ...

[PPH]

... board up the Sprint storefronts. And post armed guards who threaten to shoot any customers who approach the facilities.

Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[Mr D from 63]

Two different things. Please pay more attention.

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[toejam13]

Yes and no. Some carriers like T-Mobile made deals with companies like Pandora where data from Pandora did not count towards your monthly high-speed quota. That's probably not allowed anymore.

In the case of Sprint, it sounds as if this has more to do with truth in advertising. If they were throttling high-volume users at arbitrary points, that could result in a violation.

I run a small WISP and I instituted monthly quotas. After a user's allotment is gone, that user's connection slows to 256kbps. But I make sure that the quota is listed prominently on any sales material, that they can check it on their status page and that an email is generated when they get down to 10%. Nobody can argue that they didn't know about it. And there are no exceptions to the traffic counter - traffic is traffic.

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[Pubstar]

I don't get why people just don't get on the Unlimited T-Mobile plans. I'm paying $70/month for Unlimited everything with 10GB tethering data (which I use every now and then, roughly 6-7GB/month). The other unlimited data plans are cheaper without the tethering data. I do get calls when I start hitting the 80GB/month transfer though. I use my cell to torrent stuff so I can game without lag. Thank god for 75Mbps downstream from my phone in my house.

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[gregmac]

So.. your "Unlimited Everything" plan has a limit of 10GB tethered data, and 80GB/month transfer..?

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[dugancent]

Nobody pays anyone to post on slashdot. This site doesn't have the influence or readership to matter anymore.

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[Rujiel]

Oh really? Then please explain to me why GHCQ specifically targeted slashdot's users with a man in the middle attack / malware?https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131111/01080925194/gchq-used-fake-slashdot-page-to-install-malware-to-hack-internet-exchange.shtml

If you think there are no paid trolls here, you must not spend any time on environment or Snowden threads. be sure to tell that to cold fjord or SartenX or Jeremiah Cornelius, i'm sure they'll be thrilled that someoene is slow enough to think that they're legit.

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[dugancent]

No need to pay me. Real heros are willing to die for their beliefs. They don't run away.

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[Rujiel]

Yeah, tell that to Ellsberg or Manning. they'll laugh in your face. 2013 called, it wants its lame establishment troll one-liners back.

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[Pubstar]

If I use just the data from the phone and not the hot spot, I do not get throttled speeds at all. I only get 10 GB of transfer when using the mobile hot spot. I know its weird.

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[dugancent]

Manning is a real hero. He stayed and is serving time for it. I think he should be freed, but he was willing to pay the price.

I bet, having known what the cost would be, (s)he would have still done it.

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[david_thornley]

Really? Look back on some of the stories on Russian actions. Sure looked like Putin had hired some shills to come along, monitor the stories, and post comments that looked pitifully like lies and propaganda. (Western consumers are used to much higher-quality propaganda.)

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[Nethemas the Great]

To a large extent I think people have bought into the marketing BS/FUD about coverage area. Most people conduct 99.9% of the daily lives inside of T-Mobile's coverage area, but have been conditioned by competitor advertisements to irrationally fear that 0.1%.

Re:Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[Pubstar]

There are a few places where I wish I had reception with T-Mobile, but its really rare to not have full 4G LTE on my phone. The biggest bummer is that I do not have cell reception in my office at work. Then again, the only people that get service in here is Verizon, and its spotty at best.

Good luck with that!

[whoever57]

Why do people use Sprint? Because it is cheaper than AT&T or Verizon. If Sprint increases prices, they remove that advantage, while retaining the disadvantage of poorer coverage.

This is just sabre-rattling. Sprint cannot increase prices significantly without giving up large numbers of customers.

How is this punishing customers?

[fluffernutter]

Customers have a choice of whether to go with Sprint or not, and now less should on average because there is less service for the same price. Sprints practices were ruled deceitful and now they must make adjustments, thats all it is. Its a big win for the little guy and now hopefully the little guy sees that they should clearly take their business somewhere else.

This reads like a list

[rsilvergun]

of crap they were going to do anyway that they're blaming on the evil govmint and their nasty nasty net neutrality. I've long since noticed businesses doing this; blaming every evil thing they do on gov't regulations because if only they'd just leave us alone to innovate we'd play nice. Didn't happen in the robber baron era and it's not gonna happen in my life.

Re:This reads like a list

[meglon]

I'm sure they do it because they look out and see all the stupid as shit people who froth at the mouth at the first hint they can blame them ebil gubmint types. Just another business catering to the inbred dipshit faction in the US.

Re:This reads like a list

[mschwanke97402]

Then when these big corps need a hand from the government they get some new law passed. Like a ban on municipal broadband projects in so many states these past few years. Hypocrites and thieves, the lot of them.

Unlimited data plans will go bye-bye

[davidwr]

Truly unlimited data plans and "unlimited except for the fine print" data plans will go bye-bye for anything higher than "low end G3" (say, 256Kbps or less).

They will be replaced with metered plans and plans that OVERTLY and PROMINENTLY either cut you off or throttle you to G2 or G3 speeds when you hit your allowance.

You will also see more prominent announcements of "when things get congested, everyone gets throttled" with a clear-cut statement of how the congestion-mitigation-throttling will be done - will everyone's speed be cut proportionately so the congestion goes away? Will those whose "speed tier" is higher than X be reduced to X while those whose speed is already lower won't suffer?

Why? Because the thing that gets companies in trouble with regulators is surprising the customer in a way that hurts the customer.

Personally, I expect companies to start pushing plans based on combinations of MB or GB per hour or day and GB or TB per week or month, and whether you get "cut off" or simply throttled to some slow-ish speed like 10% of "normal" when you hit your limit for the hour/day/month. For family and corporate plans with shared data, parents and company-management will have and easy way to set lower limits and/or alarms on their kids'/employees' phones' usage.

Why?

Because non-technical people "get it" that heavy users should pay more, but they also expect their Internet to keep working at a usable if somewhat-slower-than-they-are-used-to speed even if their kids or a data-sucking app eats up their data plan.

By the way, 30 days has 10,368,000 seconds. This means if you suck data down 24/7 for a month at an average rate of 0.8Mb/sec (0.1MB/sec), you will suck down over 1TB. If it's 10 times that, which many G4 and G5 phones can do under ideal network conditions, it will be over 10TB. Who would be doing this? Short of someone running a whole office over a cell-phone connection, not very many people. But even sucking down the equivalent of a DVD full of video (call it 8.5GB/DVD) every day would be 255GB/month, which is a lot more than average, and if you are sucking down 3 hours of 4K 120fps video every day, well, let's not even go there.

Re:Unlimited data plans will go bye-bye

[Pubstar]

My max speed at home is 75Mbps (9.375MBps) and averages around 50Mbps. So apparently if I max my connection out, I can download 100TB of data from my phone per month? I wonder how pissed my provider would be if I did that. Yes, I have an unlimited 4G LTE plan that I've hit 80GB in a month without a slow down.

AT&T's Fine

[Fnord666]

AT&T's was fined for "deceptive business practices". It had nothing to do with "net neutrality". If Sprint is reacting to and is concerned about AT&T's fine then that tells me a lot about how Sprint executives truly view their own business practices behind closed doors.

Wireless spectrum is NOT unlimited

[davidwr]

Wired spectrum is limited by the capacity of the wires and connections and it can typically be expanded by upgrading the wires and the connectors.

On the other hand, mobile wireless can typically be improved by using different frequencies or technologies or by building more towers. Building more towers is not always possible and when it is, it is frequently not feasible. Using different frequencies or technologies means the entire industry and regulators have to buy in, which means a several-year delay at best.

In the meantime, the wireless spectrum for a given carrier using a given cell tower really is, for all practical purposes, a limited resource.

Now, if you are talking about their landline long-distance, yeah, you probably have a point. Unlike the old days, they probably almost never have to deny or downgrade a landline long-distance phone line due to capacity issues unless there is an outage somewhere that's radically cut into the available capacity.

Re:Wireless spectrum is NOT unlimited

[khasim]

Building more towers is not always possible and when it is, it is frequently not feasible.

You left off "at that profit level".

If Sprint refuses to build out their infrastructure then that is their issue. In other words, they are attempting to artificially limit a resource in order to maintain their choke point in order to maximize profits.

I guarantee that if a competitor started moving into their market and offering services for less, Sprint would suddenly find it very "feasible" to build out their infrastructure.

Re:Wireless spectrum is NOT unlimited

[davidwr]

You missed my point.

In some areas the cost of land and running buried cables to a tower is so high that the only way for it to be economically feasible is to charge so much for cell service that nobody would buy it or to take a loss. While technically you are correct in saying that Sprint is unwilling to put in a tower "at that profit level" when the "profit level" is clearly going to be negative, can you really blame them?

In other areas - typically areas currently with no cell service at all - the cost of putting in a tower to serve a very small number of customers is cost-prohibitive unless the customers are willing to shell out mega-bucks just for service or unless it's a government mandate and refusing to comply is even more expensive in terms of fines.

In other areas it's simply not possible because the landowners simply aren't interested in selling outright and they also simply aren't interested in selling an easement for a tower.

Cancelled long distance

[NothingWasAvailable]

Got a letter today cancelling our long distance (wireline) service.

AT&T/Verizon don't do unlimited

[sethstorm]

If you want anything close to unlimited (without a legacy plan), Sprint and T-Mobile are your only options.

Re:AT&T/Verizon don't do unlimited

[WalrusSlayer]

Well, I switched to AT&T's new data plan a few months ago, which for an extra $3/mo gave me 15G/mo. That's for anything, including tethering. It's spread across four devices (two iPhones and two iPads), but those devices belong to only two people. They then introduced rollover data with no action required on my part, with no uptick in price. The rollover is limited to one month. but I effectively have at least 25GB/mo at my disposal. For me anyway, that is essentially unlimited as I will never come close to that ceiling. So yeah, it's unlimited while being honest about where the boundaries are. This is a problem how?

Re:Sprint "begins" punishing its' customers?

[OrangeTide]

Sprint is the only one that seems to work reliably in my house.

Re:TNSTAAFL - Disclosure

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

T-Mobile & MetroPCS (which is T-Mobile) are simply upfront regarding their 4G data plans: the capped volume is at full speed; overage is throttled rather than being cut off or overcharged for extra gigs. An "unlimited" (which costs considerably more than a capped plan) is actually unlimited, but people who aren't always watching video or living on Facebook don't really need it.

Re:Sprint "begins" punishing its' customers?

[Martin Blank]

Same here. Verizon only works near my front porch; Sprint works throughout the house. I also pay significantly less for Sprint than I would for Verizon or AT&T. I've no real complaints about it.

Only for VZW/ATT

[sethstorm]

Are you a subscriber to either Verizon Wireless or AT&T? They're about the only ones wanting to go that path - and remain on it.

On the other hand, Sprint and T-Mobile will at least offer non/very-lightly metered data plans. With them, sanity prevails.

That's FIne

[DaMattster]

Sprint is really in no position anyway to be dictating any terms to its customers. Of the top 4, it has the worst native network.

Re:That's FIne

[rsborg]

Sprint is really in no position anyway to be dictating any terms to its customers. Of the top 4, it has the worst native network.

Which is really telling - even t-Mobile has stepped up their game - when I get service (major cities and outside of large warehouse-like buildings), it's phenomenal and much better than my coworkers' VZ and ATT networks. With wifi-calling and HD Voice, I get better calls than I ever did on AT&T or VZ.

I liked Sprint when I had it 20 years ago. But data is the game and all advances in mobile are driven by data. Sprint has got to improve their network.

decent lunch for decent price

[gl4ss]

that does exist. you're not getting it though.

in USA you can get a decent lunch for a decent price.. but only when it comes to jeans and food.

when it comes to 21st century things like mobile data plans and warranties on consumer goods americans are getting shafted.

like fuck, why can't you just have a 24 month warranty on it? do you really want to buy shit that the manufacturer thinks will break in 3 months? seriously? shit that you buy on a fucking plan that you pay for 2 years mind you!

in other parts of the world unlimited means unlimited as well. no 2 gig limit. no 5 gig limit. no 30 gig limit. I got a 300kbyte/s torrent downloading over a mobile connection as I write this - of course, not in the USA, in the "sticks" in a country with a far less population density than USA - this area population density wise is comparable to rural arkansas and much much less population density than rural north east of the USA. oh and the monthly cost on that connection is about twenty bucks, ten bucks would get you a "slower" 3.5g connection. still unlimited though.

the thing with mobile data transfer limits is that as long as you have those then people will very rarely even hit those limits - people adjust their viewing habits so that they don't view youtube on them, so that they don't do fucking anything with them because they'll feel bad when they look at a mobile website and see that their precious quota is being drained by autoplay video adverts! .. and as a result the phone company wins again - they don't have to build a decent network because nobody is using it like it's the 21st century.

Re:decent lunch for decent price

[CrimsonAvenger]

when it comes to 21st century things like mobile data plans and warranties on consumer goods americans are getting shafted.

Really? My monthly mobile data plan costs less than a family dinner at one of our better restaurants. Or two dinners at an average restaurant....

Re:decent lunch for decent price

[dcollins117]

in USA you can get a decent lunch for a decent price.. but only when it comes to jeans and food.

These jeans taste terrible.But they're free, Hurrah!

No Excuses!

[Anonymous Coward]

They owe me, you and every other taxpayer who helped them build out their infrastructure.

There is a flaw in this statement. It assumes that infrastructure never changes. Sure the wires do not get replaced often but the switches, software, etc does. Then there is the cost of new technology required to push more data through old wires. New technology, upgrades, etc can only be funded through profit,

NO EXCUSES!

YOU sell unlimited plans, you deliver unlimited access. PERIOD.. No Excuses. Period.

Otherwise YOU are a liar. Period. No Excuses.

WTF is so hard to understand about that?

These people deserve the fines and more. They deserve to be sued and more. Because they are LIARS! Period. No excuses!

Bandwidth is limited over the air.

[Sycraft-fu]

It's the whole Shannon-Hartley theorem. The data rate you can get is limited by the frequency range and SNR you have. Well with stuff over the air the SNR is fixed by transmission power (which needs to be kept low to keep battery life up) and background noise. Frequency range is licensed since not all frequencies are created equal and everyone wants a piece. So the throughput you can get is limited. You can't do like with a wire and just add more wires, in a given area everyone has the same bandwidth to share.

So, you have to play nice. "Just increase the bandwidth" isn't a possibility. They can't magic around the laws of physics. What that means is if people play nice, and use their mobile bandwidth only as needed, it can be fast for everyone. However if people want to try and use it 24/7 and slam it, the speed will suck.

So one way or another, you have to keep people from using too much. I agree that total use isn't the best way, but it is one of the easiest to meter and understand, hence it gets used. Regardless of what method is used, something has to be. Otherwise you are going to have poor wireless speeds and nothing can be done to improve it.

Stop being childish, its not punishment.

[Revek]

Its business. It is the pathological version of business but that is who is in charge at all these corps. I've said it before on here: they are not going to operate at a loss.

Re:Stop being childish, its not punishment.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

They're not losing money, it was never about that.

Re:Sprint "begins" punishing its' customers?

[ganjadude]

verizon is all that works by me sadly

but it does work flawlessly

:TANSTAAFL

[rossdee]

its There Ain't no such thing as a free lunch

I disagree

[rsilvergun]

The success of Net Neutrality certainly had a role in making the bureaucrats bold enough to fine AT&T.

Re:I disagree

[luther349]

kinda old news being at@t lost there class action and was forced to be upfront. the fine was part of that old mess.

changing themeaning of 'unlimited' != 'free lunch'

[electrosoccertux]

I'm sorry, but a telco or commco changing the meaning of the word 'unlimited' to mean 'less than unlimited' is a free lunch. FCC just took it back.

All they have to do now, is actually specify the speed tiers. 10GB? full speed. after? 256kbps.

Meh. Not going to kill their business, nor is it a slippery slope to something worse that we're sliding down towards like socialism. This is simply defense of the english language against greed.

A Brazilian's experience

[zedaroca]

I live in a small city in Brazil, we used to have an Internet monopoly here, but not due to regulations. The fastest we could buy was 10Mb from Telefonica over copper, but only in the rich parts of the city. Most of the city had only 256K to 2M.
Now some guy started a small ISP and we are getting 20Mbps over fiber. It costs two times more than the Telefonica plans, but it is fast and reliable.
People talk a lot about the huge costs involved in starting on this area, but the guy here started serving a few neighborhoods in my city and now he is working on two cities. When the regulations allow, and the big players suck, others can grow.

No 12-month warranty?

[thegarbz]

As a person who lives in a country where a seller is legally obligated to provide a 12 month warranty on a product I am astounded.
As a person who lives in a world where electronics are getting cheaper and more poorly made every day I am astounded.

Why do I see this as a step towards hardware subscription payments? Force people to buy cheap shit without warranties, and charge for upgrades constantly.

Re:No 12-month warranty?

[luther349]

read the wording it was on un-branded phones not there own. an getting rid of landline long distance in this age will be funny as every sub dumps them. there just rattling the cage because they cant lie to your face on hard there gauging you they have to be honest on how hard there gauging you poor things.

Re:No 12-month warranty?

[thegarbz]

Point is the same regardless of branding. A company selling something locally should be forced to stand behind it's product in some form of consumer protection. Our laws didn't just appear they were an extension of the "fit-for-purpose" clauses and I would expect even an unbranded piece of garbage to last a year.

Remembering warranty typically covers manufacturing / design defects, not abuse. Is it unreasonable that we buy a product that actually does what it says on the box for only 1 year?

bah sprint

[TheRecklessWanderer]

I'm sure the 12 people that use sprint will be very upset.

Sprint can do what ir wants ...

[CaptainDork]

... as long as it meets or exceeds its mission statement:

"Our mission is to get you to pay us money and feel good about doing so."

If Sprint fails in that, it doesn't turn out well.

They're acting like a bunch of crybabies...

[wardrich86]

It was to be expected, but it's still funny to see this immature reaction to being called out on your bullshit.

US needs an OFCOM

[RubberDogBone]

It's too bad the US has no real authority to review advertising for matters of whether its truthful or not. For example, calling their plans "unlimited" when they aren't would not fly in the UK.

But in the US you can call anything anything and modify it as needed with tiny disclaimers.

It would be fun one day to see an add for a new phone with a disclaimer saying you actually get a paving stone and some wadded up paper, ala the faked game console/iPad boxes that always appear in stores during the holidays.

maybe it's been too long.

[JeffreyCrotty]

Neutrality woe what a new concept I know even if if it doesn't concern us

Don't laugh

[davidwr]

I knew a guy who ran his small business over an ~1Mbps cell phone connection.

Getting a T1 was too expensive and DSL and Cable weren't options in the industrial park where he was located. Satellite wasn't even considered. If line-of-site wireless was available it was either slower than the cellular connection or more expensive.

Granted, this was about 10 years ago. I'm pretty sure by now either DSL or Cable Internet is available.

NO CARRIER

[kwoff]

At least peo.....ple can sti....ll voice the...ir opin.....inos abou.....t i{`+#$%{`&+#{@$`%+NO CARRIER

Private Schools

[phorm]

Yes, because it's a lot easier to drop trouble-students from a private school than a public school. They also don't get as many students from lower-income brackets (which come with various issues: malnutrition, skipping due to having a job, parents who can't get kids to school) because, guess what, THEY CAN'T AFFORD PRIVATE SCHOOL.

So yeah, no shit your private Catholic school is going to do better in that regard, they get students from better-off families, and can drop/reject the ones they don't want.