8 ms·

In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

331 points by larubbio 12y ago

derek00 12y ago
I live in SF. Get fast LTE everywhere in the city. A bit slower elsewhere in the Bay Area, but well worth it given the significantly cheaper prices.
drawkbox 12y ago
Best marketing Sprint has ever done. Granted this position probably helps them against the bigger competitors, that is why competition is good. Already we are seeing network providers start to jockey for competitive positions just at the hint of change. Imagine the competition when this actually happens. This position stands in stark contrast to what other carriers, including Verizon and AT&T, have espoused. In particular, the carriers have warned that Title II would provide a major disincentive to invest in upgrades to their internet offerings. They are arguing that our current market setup is encouraging investment in upgrades? Where are they? The current system hasn't spawned investment and new upgrades, but competition will surely do this. Here in Phoenix (Tempe/Scottsdale), the moment Google announced Phoenix would be a possible Fiber market, Cox Gigablast initiative was launched, before that crickets.
- Afforess 12y ago
  I dunno, the fact that Sprint still offers (real) Unlimited data plans in the US is the best marketing they have ever done in my book.
  - ToastyMallows 12y ago
    I know it's the only reason why I'm still with them, that's for sure. This new move definitely solidifies my choice.
  - rcraft 12y ago
    The problem is, in most cities, it's impossible to take advantage of Sprint's "unlimited data plans" because their data speeds are abysmal. I would love to go back to sprint eventually, but for now I'm happy with T-mobile in Denver/Chicago.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      It's almost as if bandwidth isn't free.
      - duaneb 12y ago
        Bandwidth itself is impossible to value. The infrastructure providing the bandwidth is not free, no, but the idea of data caps to provide some sort of artificial value it fairly laughable, not to mention irrational. If they want to make this argument, charge me WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY VALUED (i.e. charge me for what I use based on a variable rate derived from maintenance costs), not some made up cap that likely has to do with what they'll estimate people might be willing to put up with.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        rayiner 12y ago
        No it's not. The amount of bandwidth available on a wireless network is a function of the amount of spectrum ($$), the sophistication of the cell equipment ($$), and the density of the cell sites ($$$). Sprint's network is slow because it spends a fraction of what AT&T and Verizon do,[1] while trying to get the same nationwide footprint. It's a simple math problem. As for prices--every company charges what they estimate people might be willing to put up with. [1] Last year, $6 billion versus $17-20 billion. These are combined CapEx, but most of it goes into wireless.
        zanny 12y ago
        You are describing the costs of total network capacity. The poster above is describing marginal costs of bandwidth. If there is infrastructure in place that is going underutilized and I want to download a megabyte of data, the marginal cost of that data transfer is incredibly negligible. But that infrastructure exists to meet the conditions of peak utilization, when at capacity, and that is what is expensive. If anything, Sprint should give flat rate mobile data and have fixed funding campaigns to increase capacity for each residential block around a tower. If the speeds are too slow end users would then pay to upgrade the infrastructure themselves, or more specifically heavy and business users would subsidize network upgrades.
  - JoshGlazebrook 12y ago
    That is true, but that doesn't make up for the sheer glacial speed that Sprint is moving at to improve their network. They have the most spectrum of all of the carriers but do not use it properly. Quarterly announcements of the Spark network upgrades not meeting their own expectations seems to have become common. You may have LTE but it's not very useful if you can barely get 1Mb/s. T-Mobile on the other hand is having greater success with their CEO and all of the "uncarrier" tactics they are implementing. T-Mobile is now focusing on upgrading the last of their own cell sites to LTE to expand footprint in the rural parts of the country but they still have a ways to go. And that's not to say T-Mobile's existing LTE network isn't great, it's fantastic (if you can actually get it). AT&T is out of new deployable spectrum so their LTE network is slowing down in congested areas. They are deploying tens of thousands of small cell sites to make their network more dense to help with this problem. So say a tower has 100 people sharing 20mhz (10x10) of LTE bandwidth at the same time. If there are now three small cell sites placed away from that tower, each additional site has 20mhz of spectrum to use. So there would then be ~25 on that main tower, and ~25 on each additional small cell site. Verizon's original 700mhz LTE network is very congested in a lot of areas, but instead of deploying as many small sites as AT&T, they instead bought that very large chunk of AWS spectrum from cable companies and have it deployed to the majority of their cell sites. In major cities this is a full 40mhz chunk of spectrum (20x20) which theoretically can net you up to 150Mb/s if you have the right device that can use band 4. They also have started re-farming a small portion of their PCS spectrum (10mhz total) in some testing areas (san francisco especially). They will need to densify their network eventually but they sure have done a great job at buying an ample amount of time. I personally feel Sprint's current slump all comes down to the Clearwire/WiMax decision. Both Sprint and Verizon were in the same situation when it came to deploy their choices of 4G technologies. They both operated CDMA/EVDO 3G networks which with the revision they were using maxed out around 3.1Mb/s. AT&T was in the middle of deploying their HSPA/HSPA+, what they now call "4G" (not to be confused with LTE). Verizon and Sprint did not have the option of this transition period of significantly higher speeds that was not LTE or WiMax. Surprisingly Verizon got this right. They obtained a nationwide chunk of 700mhz block c (band 13) spectrum for their initial LTE network they started deploying in early 2011. This is the same spectrum that has the open access rules attached to it that made them back down on throttling on their LTE network. The sheer speed at which they deployed this LTE spectrum was just ridiculously fast. Right now they have 99% of their entire 3G footprint covered with that layer of LTE while AT&T's national map is still nowhere close to Verizon in terms of overall LTE deployment covering their entire legacy networks. Meanwhile Sprint went ahead with WiMax and we all know how that unfolded. I hope they can recover as 4 national carriers is always going to be better than 3 competition wise, but I just don't see it happening for potentially years from now. In terms of network, Verizon got it 100% right the entire time. AT&T struggled in ~2009 with the iPhone and recovered but is feeling the effects of congestion but they are countering with tons of small cell sites. Verizon has congestion on the band 13 LTE deployment, but band 4 is helping with that. T-Mobile's LTE deployments are great, but they are still focusing on expanding into more rural areas. Sprint is working on their Spark network, and where you can get it, it's good, but they just are moving so damn slow I don't know if it will be fast enough in the long run.
- skywhopper 12y ago
  The very fact that Comcast, Verizon, TWC, et al are arguing that consumer-side bandwidth pricing is inadequate incentive for them to upgrade networks is strong evidence that the market is so broken that net neutrality and municipal broadband are the right policies.
mwsherman 12y ago
Sprint understands that it hurts their competitors more than themselves. NN is unlikely to be strong on the mobile side, and Sprint has little in the way of consumer wireline business. Verizon and AT&T have more substantial wireline businesses. Similar to Walmart supporting a higher minimum wage. Hurts the other guys more. And a nice bit of PR.
- dippyskoodlez 12y ago
  Little consumer wireline but substantial wireline overall. NN is an extremely positive thing for Sprints network planning/design, as they are building capacity over intelligence. Source: I stare at Sprints network maps every day.
HCIdivision17 12y ago
Note the repitition in the letter: 'light touch' and 'allow differentiation'. I think this is likely reasonable, but it certainly gives the carriers enough wiggle room to still play shenanigans. Which is likely fine; Sprint's right that there needs to be room for having differing services. But the good news is they clearly signaled that if they have to, they'll differentiate at the network layer instead of giving up at the services layer. (That's what I read into it - time will tell if it's merely a political gambit :)
r00fus 12y ago
Not mentioned in the article (and perhaps Legere will change his mind) but TMobile is aligned with AT&T and Verizon in opposing Title II reclassification. Disappointed with that stance, since otherwise, I'm thrilled with TMobile from a customer standpoint.
surge 12y ago
Not that surprised, they own a minority share of the market and infrastructure, in their case its too their advantage that they be able to use other's networks uninhibited (roaming, long distance fiber, etc).
forrestthewoods 12y ago
Is this a case of wireless vs wired? Most Title II talks are with respect to wired connections due to last mile issues. Wireless doesn't have that particular issue. And right now wireless has plenty of roaring competition so there's certainly less of a need for a regulatory hand.
- drawkbox 12y ago
  Wireless is already under Title II (also Sprint probably wants in on wired so they are for open competition there), that is why AT&T, Verizon, etc take their winnings from the wired internet market and invest it into competing in wireless because they have to compete as there is competition. The monopolies on the ground were used as wireless investments/banks, nearly all investment went into the wireless side, not fiber or residential internet. We have seen 3G, 4G, LTE etc all rapidly rolled out by all wireless providers, yet we are still running late 90's speeds on wired. The reason is the competition. Title II is at least a start because it somewhat works in wireless, better than wired anyways.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Wireless is only nominally under Title II. Section 332 of the statute instructs the FCC to forbear on most of the parts of Title II when it comes to wireless. And Title II is one reason there is competition in wireless, but you've got the effect backwards. Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon are not cable providers, so their wired networks were heavily regulated by full-on Title II. They invested money in wireless because it was much less regulated. But the big thing was that bandwidth demand for mobile exploded, while growing much slower for wired.
    - drawkbox 12y ago
      Agreed. Wireless was a blue ocean just like cable/broadband was in the late 90s/early 00s where mobile really hit in the last decade. So of course most of the money and investment would go there, but being under Title II somewhat helped rather than, like in wired, a full on monopoly over areas creating stagnation and less demand. They are still competing it out for your business over wired even though Google Fiber may be in even higher demand. However, part of the promise of getting $200B in investment/breaks was to finish building out the wired side, which really has not been done and is now harming us competitively with the world. Part of their promise was to spend it on the less demand areas of wired. Had they built out fiber and competed there would be more demand for it. Google Fiber is in high demand and all Google is doing is using broadband late 90s playbook, just give the people faster speeds and whole unrealized economies emerge that our GDP has been missing for a decade during wireless laser focus.
xnull1guest 12y ago
It's a sort of an accepted insanity that the positions which these large businesses take are considered important. Certainly information from these businesses on how they believe different legislation will effect them is useful to voters, their representatives and their appointees in performing a legislative calculus. But what certain companies 'advocate' for? This is hardly useful information for the design of legislation (it's a single bit, and a complicated one). As these large businesses should have no direct say in how they are regulated, I don't see why we the people should care what companies 'endorse'. They don't get a vote. Whether Google or Sprint or AT&T or Comcast sanctions or opposes net neutrality should mean nothing and should not be worthy of news. The companies that happen agree with the general public do not do so on the ground of ideals or liberty or heroism but on the ground of profit. They are not the stewards of public interest or champions of the public - only the public can do and be this. We can't count on Sprint or Google or any other company to get the legislation we want passed - because if we condone that we also condone their passing of legislation we don't.
- duaneb 12y ago
  I don't think insanity is the right word—these companies definitely have expertise in the field that should be considered valuable. It's kind of insane that the positions are taken at face value, though.
- Guvante 12y ago
  Why is it insanity? You are implying that the companies are adding no value to the discussion by chiming on the topic. Shouldn't the entities most impacted by the change be listened to when it comes to decide on policy? You can certainly make a case that you need to adjust for their self-interest, but ignoring them completely is even more questionable than taking their statements at face value.
  - xnull1guest 12y ago
    > Certainly information from these businesses on how they believe different legislation will effect them is useful to voters, their representatives and their appointees in performing a legislative calculus. > But what certain companies 'advocate' for? This is hardly useful information for the design of legislation... We agree. I'm not saying ignore everything they possibly say. What I am saying is ignore what they merely advocate for and pay attention to why they advocate for it and what information they can give relevant to the design of a healthy and flourishing industry. When political discussion devolves into a series of corporate for-against it looks more like a sport and cheerleaders than a democracy. Legislation can not be about deciding who wins in the market but about designing markets that eliminate rent seeking, moral hazard, and externalization of costs while promoting fair competition between businesses of all sizes. You can't know how to design such legislature without understanding the conditions of an industry and how changes will effect current players. But you also can not design markets within the confines of regulatory capture or by merely noting which current players will stand to benefit or lose from a given legislative delta. The word insanity here is meant to convey a lack of grounding in the reality of the situation: advocation doesn't signal whether legislation will make a market healthier or serve customers/citizens/nations. We know what Sprint wants - more money. What we need to know from Sprint is not whether given legislation will or will not lead to their getting more or less money but details that clarify how proposed legislation will or will not "eliminate rent seeking, moral hazard, and externalization of costs while promoting fair competition between businesses of all sizes."
bwb 12y ago
kick ass Sprint!
grandalf 12y ago
All this means is that Sprint thinks it is on the losing end of some deals made by competitors.
- adventured 12y ago
  Along with every US customer of 'broadband' paying $50-$75 per month for 5-15mbps fixed non-broadband.
chimeracoder 12y ago
> So long as the FCC continues to allow wireless carriers to manage our networks and differentiate our products, Sprint will continue to invest in data networks regardless of whether they are regulated by Title II, Section 706, or some other light touch regulatory regime. This is really huge, because it endorses applying Title II to wireless networks, not just wired broadband. Much of the discourse so far has been around wired broadband, and many of the proposals so far (including the FCC regulations that were shot down last year in court) carved out special exemptions for wireless networks.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  The FCC regulations that were shot down in court, and the proposed follow up, did not differentiate wireline from wireless, they differentiated fixed from mobile. Those are approximately the same, but the definitions and explanations made clear that broadband delivered wirelessly could be "fixed" (e.g., via microwave transmitter to a fixed location.) Its important to note, because in addition to opposing net neutrality overall, ISPs have pitched that any regulation in that direction should use a wireline/wireless distinction rather than fixed/mobile distinction.
LargeCompanies 12y ago
Was a Sprint customer for two years then last year I kept seeing all these great deals pop up due to T-Mobile. I kept calling them asking if they had anything competitive. The only thing they had was this terrible framily plan where I had to work to find people/anyone to join this plan with. Even deadbeats. Stupid & when I started to travel I noticed how bad their network is! I have since switched to an ATT family plan. 15 Gigs split between 4 users, free WiFi hotspot (had to pay $15 additional a month to Sprint for that) and I pay less then $50 a month. ATT coverage is solid everywhere in this state and up and down the east coast.
- adventured 12y ago
  I second this. Switched from Verizon to AT&T. I can get good speeds on AT&T's 4G LTE network in some of the lowest population spots - in the middle of nowhere - on the east coast. Their network has been impressive so far.

331 points by larubbio 12y ago

I live in SF. Get fast LTE everywhere in the city. A bit slower elsewhere in the Bay Area, but well worth it given the significantly cheaper prices.

drawkbox 12y ago

Best marketing Sprint has ever done. Granted this position probably helps them against the bigger competitors, that is why competition is good. Already we are seeing network providers start to jockey for competitive positions just at the hint of change. Imagine the competition when this actually happens. This position stands in stark contrast to what other carriers, including Verizon and AT&T, have espoused. In particular, the carriers have warned that Title II would provide a major disincentive to invest in upgrades to their internet offerings. They are arguing that our current market setup is encouraging investment in upgrades? Where are they? The current system hasn't spawned investment and new upgrades, but competition will surely do this. Here in Phoenix (Tempe/Scottsdale), the moment Google announced Phoenix would be a possible Fiber market, Cox Gigablast initiative was launched, before that crickets.

Afforess 12y ago
I dunno, the fact that Sprint still offers (real) Unlimited data plans in the US is the best marketing they have ever done in my book.
- ToastyMallows 12y ago
  I know it's the only reason why I'm still with them, that's for sure. This new move definitely solidifies my choice.
- rcraft 12y ago
  The problem is, in most cities, it's impossible to take advantage of Sprint's "unlimited data plans" because their data speeds are abysmal. I would love to go back to sprint eventually, but for now I'm happy with T-mobile in Denver/Chicago.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    It's almost as if bandwidth isn't free.
    - duaneb 12y ago
      Bandwidth itself is impossible to value. The infrastructure providing the bandwidth is not free, no, but the idea of data caps to provide some sort of artificial value it fairly laughable, not to mention irrational. If they want to make this argument, charge me WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY VALUED (i.e. charge me for what I use based on a variable rate derived from maintenance costs), not some made up cap that likely has to do with what they'll estimate people might be willing to put up with.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 12y ago
        No it's not. The amount of bandwidth available on a wireless network is a function of the amount of spectrum ($$), the sophistication of the cell equipment ($$), and the density of the cell sites ($$$). Sprint's network is slow because it spends a fraction of what AT&T and Verizon do,[1] while trying to get the same nationwide footprint. It's a simple math problem. As for prices--every company charges what they estimate people might be willing to put up with. [1] Last year, $6 billion versus $17-20 billion. These are combined CapEx, but most of it goes into wireless.
        zanny 12y ago
        You are describing the costs of total network capacity. The poster above is describing marginal costs of bandwidth. If there is infrastructure in place that is going underutilized and I want to download a megabyte of data, the marginal cost of that data transfer is incredibly negligible. But that infrastructure exists to meet the conditions of peak utilization, when at capacity, and that is what is expensive. If anything, Sprint should give flat rate mobile data and have fixed funding campaigns to increase capacity for each residential block around a tower. If the speeds are too slow end users would then pay to upgrade the infrastructure themselves, or more specifically heavy and business users would subsidize network upgrades.
- JoshGlazebrook 12y ago
  That is true, but that doesn't make up for the sheer glacial speed that Sprint is moving at to improve their network. They have the most spectrum of all of the carriers but do not use it properly. Quarterly announcements of the Spark network upgrades not meeting their own expectations seems to have become common. You may have LTE but it's not very useful if you can barely get 1Mb/s. T-Mobile on the other hand is having greater success with their CEO and all of the "uncarrier" tactics they are implementing. T-Mobile is now focusing on upgrading the last of their own cell sites to LTE to expand footprint in the rural parts of the country but they still have a ways to go. And that's not to say T-Mobile's existing LTE network isn't great, it's fantastic (if you can actually get it). AT&T is out of new deployable spectrum so their LTE network is slowing down in congested areas. They are deploying tens of thousands of small cell sites to make their network more dense to help with this problem. So say a tower has 100 people sharing 20mhz (10x10) of LTE bandwidth at the same time. If there are now three small cell sites placed away from that tower, each additional site has 20mhz of spectrum to use. So there would then be ~25 on that main tower, and ~25 on each additional small cell site. Verizon's original 700mhz LTE network is very congested in a lot of areas, but instead of deploying as many small sites as AT&T, they instead bought that very large chunk of AWS spectrum from cable companies and have it deployed to the majority of their cell sites. In major cities this is a full 40mhz chunk of spectrum (20x20) which theoretically can net you up to 150Mb/s if you have the right device that can use band 4. They also have started re-farming a small portion of their PCS spectrum (10mhz total) in some testing areas (san francisco especially). They will need to densify their network eventually but they sure have done a great job at buying an ample amount of time. I personally feel Sprint's current slump all comes down to the Clearwire/WiMax decision. Both Sprint and Verizon were in the same situation when it came to deploy their choices of 4G technologies. They both operated CDMA/EVDO 3G networks which with the revision they were using maxed out around 3.1Mb/s. AT&T was in the middle of deploying their HSPA/HSPA+, what they now call "4G" (not to be confused with LTE). Verizon and Sprint did not have the option of this transition period of significantly higher speeds that was not LTE or WiMax. Surprisingly Verizon got this right. They obtained a nationwide chunk of 700mhz block c (band 13) spectrum for their initial LTE network they started deploying in early 2011. This is the same spectrum that has the open access rules attached to it that made them back down on throttling on their LTE network. The sheer speed at which they deployed this LTE spectrum was just ridiculously fast. Right now they have 99% of their entire 3G footprint covered with that layer of LTE while AT&T's national map is still nowhere close to Verizon in terms of overall LTE deployment covering their entire legacy networks. Meanwhile Sprint went ahead with WiMax and we all know how that unfolded. I hope they can recover as 4 national carriers is always going to be better than 3 competition wise, but I just don't see it happening for potentially years from now. In terms of network, Verizon got it 100% right the entire time. AT&T struggled in ~2009 with the iPhone and recovered but is feeling the effects of congestion but they are countering with tons of small cell sites. Verizon has congestion on the band 13 LTE deployment, but band 4 is helping with that. T-Mobile's LTE deployments are great, but they are still focusing on expanding into more rural areas. Sprint is working on their Spark network, and where you can get it, it's good, but they just are moving so damn slow I don't know if it will be fast enough in the long run.
skywhopper 12y ago
The very fact that Comcast, Verizon, TWC, et al are arguing that consumer-side bandwidth pricing is inadequate incentive for them to upgrade networks is strong evidence that the market is so broken that net neutrality and municipal broadband are the right policies.

mwsherman 12y ago

Sprint understands that it hurts their competitors more than themselves. NN is unlikely to be strong on the mobile side, and Sprint has little in the way of consumer wireline business. Verizon and AT&T have more substantial wireline businesses. Similar to Walmart supporting a higher minimum wage. Hurts the other guys more. And a nice bit of PR.

dippyskoodlez 12y ago
Little consumer wireline but substantial wireline overall. NN is an extremely positive thing for Sprints network planning/design, as they are building capacity over intelligence. Source: I stare at Sprints network maps every day.

HCIdivision17 12y ago

Note the repitition in the letter: 'light touch' and 'allow differentiation'. I think this is likely reasonable, but it certainly gives the carriers enough wiggle room to still play shenanigans. Which is likely fine; Sprint's right that there needs to be room for having differing services. But the good news is they clearly signaled that if they have to, they'll differentiate at the network layer instead of giving up at the services layer. (That's what I read into it - time will tell if it's merely a political gambit :)

r00fus 12y ago

Not mentioned in the article (and perhaps Legere will change his mind) but TMobile is aligned with AT&T and Verizon in opposing Title II reclassification. Disappointed with that stance, since otherwise, I'm thrilled with TMobile from a customer standpoint.

surge 12y ago

Not that surprised, they own a minority share of the market and infrastructure, in their case its too their advantage that they be able to use other's networks uninhibited (roaming, long distance fiber, etc).

forrestthewoods 12y ago

Is this a case of wireless vs wired? Most Title II talks are with respect to wired connections due to last mile issues. Wireless doesn't have that particular issue. And right now wireless has plenty of roaring competition so there's certainly less of a need for a regulatory hand.

drawkbox 12y ago
Wireless is already under Title II (also Sprint probably wants in on wired so they are for open competition there), that is why AT&T, Verizon, etc take their winnings from the wired internet market and invest it into competing in wireless because they have to compete as there is competition. The monopolies on the ground were used as wireless investments/banks, nearly all investment went into the wireless side, not fiber or residential internet. We have seen 3G, 4G, LTE etc all rapidly rolled out by all wireless providers, yet we are still running late 90's speeds on wired. The reason is the competition. Title II is at least a start because it somewhat works in wireless, better than wired anyways.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Wireless is only nominally under Title II. Section 332 of the statute instructs the FCC to forbear on most of the parts of Title II when it comes to wireless. And Title II is one reason there is competition in wireless, but you've got the effect backwards. Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon are not cable providers, so their wired networks were heavily regulated by full-on Title II. They invested money in wireless because it was much less regulated. But the big thing was that bandwidth demand for mobile exploded, while growing much slower for wired.
  - drawkbox 12y ago
    Agreed. Wireless was a blue ocean just like cable/broadband was in the late 90s/early 00s where mobile really hit in the last decade. So of course most of the money and investment would go there, but being under Title II somewhat helped rather than, like in wired, a full on monopoly over areas creating stagnation and less demand. They are still competing it out for your business over wired even though Google Fiber may be in even higher demand. However, part of the promise of getting $200B in investment/breaks was to finish building out the wired side, which really has not been done and is now harming us competitively with the world. Part of their promise was to spend it on the less demand areas of wired. Had they built out fiber and competed there would be more demand for it. Google Fiber is in high demand and all Google is doing is using broadband late 90s playbook, just give the people faster speeds and whole unrealized economies emerge that our GDP has been missing for a decade during wireless laser focus.

xnull1guest 12y ago

It's a sort of an accepted insanity that the positions which these large businesses take are considered important. Certainly information from these businesses on how they believe different legislation will effect them is useful to voters, their representatives and their appointees in performing a legislative calculus. But what certain companies 'advocate' for? This is hardly useful information for the design of legislation (it's a single bit, and a complicated one). As these large businesses should have no direct say in how they are regulated, I don't see why we the people should care what companies 'endorse'. They don't get a vote. Whether Google or Sprint or AT&T or Comcast sanctions or opposes net neutrality should mean nothing and should not be worthy of news. The companies that happen agree with the general public do not do so on the ground of ideals or liberty or heroism but on the ground of profit. They are not the stewards of public interest or champions of the public - only the public can do and be this. We can't count on Sprint or Google or any other company to get the legislation we want passed - because if we condone that we also condone their passing of legislation we don't.

duaneb 12y ago
I don't think insanity is the right word—these companies definitely have expertise in the field that should be considered valuable. It's kind of insane that the positions are taken at face value, though.
Guvante 12y ago
Why is it insanity? You are implying that the companies are adding no value to the discussion by chiming on the topic. Shouldn't the entities most impacted by the change be listened to when it comes to decide on policy? You can certainly make a case that you need to adjust for their self-interest, but ignoring them completely is even more questionable than taking their statements at face value.
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  > Certainly information from these businesses on how they believe different legislation will effect them is useful to voters, their representatives and their appointees in performing a legislative calculus. > But what certain companies 'advocate' for? This is hardly useful information for the design of legislation... We agree. I'm not saying ignore everything they possibly say. What I am saying is ignore what they merely advocate for and pay attention to why they advocate for it and what information they can give relevant to the design of a healthy and flourishing industry. When political discussion devolves into a series of corporate for-against it looks more like a sport and cheerleaders than a democracy. Legislation can not be about deciding who wins in the market but about designing markets that eliminate rent seeking, moral hazard, and externalization of costs while promoting fair competition between businesses of all sizes. You can't know how to design such legislature without understanding the conditions of an industry and how changes will effect current players. But you also can not design markets within the confines of regulatory capture or by merely noting which current players will stand to benefit or lose from a given legislative delta. The word insanity here is meant to convey a lack of grounding in the reality of the situation: advocation doesn't signal whether legislation will make a market healthier or serve customers/citizens/nations. We know what Sprint wants - more money. What we need to know from Sprint is not whether given legislation will or will not lead to their getting more or less money but details that clarify how proposed legislation will or will not "eliminate rent seeking, moral hazard, and externalization of costs while promoting fair competition between businesses of all sizes."

bwb 12y ago

kick ass Sprint!

grandalf 12y ago

All this means is that Sprint thinks it is on the losing end of some deals made by competitors.

adventured 12y ago
Along with every US customer of 'broadband' paying $50-$75 per month for 5-15mbps fixed non-broadband.

chimeracoder 12y ago

> So long as the FCC continues to allow wireless carriers to manage our networks and differentiate our products, Sprint will continue to invest in data networks regardless of whether they are regulated by Title II, Section 706, or some other light touch regulatory regime. This is really huge, because it endorses applying Title II to wireless networks, not just wired broadband. Much of the discourse so far has been around wired broadband, and many of the proposals so far (including the FCC regulations that were shot down last year in court) carved out special exemptions for wireless networks.

dragonwriter 12y ago
The FCC regulations that were shot down in court, and the proposed follow up, did not differentiate wireline from wireless, they differentiated fixed from mobile. Those are approximately the same, but the definitions and explanations made clear that broadband delivered wirelessly could be "fixed" (e.g., via microwave transmitter to a fixed location.) Its important to note, because in addition to opposing net neutrality overall, ISPs have pitched that any regulation in that direction should use a wireline/wireless distinction rather than fixed/mobile distinction.

LargeCompanies 12y ago

Was a Sprint customer for two years then last year I kept seeing all these great deals pop up due to T-Mobile. I kept calling them asking if they had anything competitive. The only thing they had was this terrible framily plan where I had to work to find people/anyone to join this plan with. Even deadbeats. Stupid & when I started to travel I noticed how bad their network is! I have since switched to an ATT family plan. 15 Gigs split between 4 users, free WiFi hotspot (had to pay $15 additional a month to Sprint for that) and I pay less then $50 a month. ATT coverage is solid everywhere in this state and up and down the east coast.

adventured 12y ago
I second this. Switched from Verizon to AT&T. I can get good speeds on AT&T's 4G LTE network in some of the lowest population spots - in the middle of nowhere - on the east coast. Their network has been impressive so far.