4 ms·
Well, it's an awful thing for Sprint to do, since providing access "just to Facebook and Twitter" cannot possibly cost them much less than providing access to t
by worklogin 12y ago
Well, it's an awful thing for Sprint to do, since providing access "just to Facebook and Twitter" cannot possibly cost them much less than providing access to the entire Internet. Thus, they are blocking poor users from the full information of the internet, and they are overcharging users who want the Internet the way it's meant to be for all of us.
To respond directly to your point, you're not entirely incorrect. However, if I pay for the "unlimited destinations package" which is what all current plans are, then there should be no "behind the scenes" throttling of particular sites for non-QoS reasons.
Everyone should have access to the ENTIRE Internet. Shame on Sprint for trying to turn it into a universally walled garden.
- EarthLaunch 12y agoThis is assuming that your standards for the internet access are universal to every person, and that you know every person's financial, social, and internet situation well enough that you're ready to decide for them. If you didn't know all of that for certain, it would be reprehensible of you to force them without knowing. What you said about false advertising is correct, and I agree, that would be fraud.
- worklogin 12y agoWhat is assuming what? I didn't propose any evil, freedom-hating laws or "socialist" protections to an open Internet. I just said that it's a crappy thing for Sprint to do, and it is.