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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Throttling phone plans vs Net Neutrality

[Mr D from 63]

Two different things. Please pay more attention.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

: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: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.

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.