Sprint will sell a $12 wireless plan that connects only to Facebook. +$10 for Twitter
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
- Status
HUELEN10
Member
Well, and I can't believe I am actually seriously talking like this right now, that may be well and good for Canada, and again I can respect that, but I'm an American, in the land of the free, home of the brave, and when bullshit corporations keep fucking people over, our own people over like this, in due time, it will cost us some of those freedoms.
We must speak loudly, take action, and make the public aware about these weirdos, weirdos such as Sprint, and weirdos such as T-Mobile, to protect the fundamentals of a free and open internet. Remember, if we get screwed over, so does the rest of the world (we have a lot of webservers on our soil). I believe in a free and open internet without these corporate weirdos fucking it up, and so should you.
Astral/H3X
Member
On the one hand, I see some people using and enjoying this.
On the other hand, open and free internet.
On the other hand, open and free internet.
OverlordSteph
Banned
who spends that much time on FB and Twitter that they need their own service plan.... madness i tell ya
I'm saying that this has absolutely nothing to do with costs that Sprint is incurring. This is a simple construction of theirs to implement this in more areas, and then start demanding money from websites.
OminoMichelin
Member
except it's not cheap. I pay 6€/mo for 2GB internet (ALL of it), 120 mins and 120 SMSes (which I never use).
Don't come and tell me 7$ for just facebook is acceptable. It's a slippery slope for carriers to keep raising the prices on their services.
2$ would be barely acceptable imho.
I don't follow you how are they going to start demanding money from the websites through this plan?
They may start charging the consumer for access to additional sites but as long as they still offer standard data packages it's a moot point.
Welcome to the world of north American Teleco's where everything is over priced!
I'm not saying the pricing is right, but when compared with their other services it is reasonable!
DurielBlack
Member
I don't even have Internet at home any more because the only way to get access where I live is slow, capped, unreliable, and overpriced satellite or cellular services. I refuse to pay for any service that has a data cap, so I do without Internet. My life-long hobby of gaming is down the toilet. Thousands of dollars of computer equipment collecting dust. And I am not selling my family home for Internet. Fuck these people.
These greedy corporate assholes are going to get their way sooner or later anyways. This is just the start.
Too many ignorant and/or spineless consumers that will eat up this shit. Too much money in politics to ever fix it.
All hope is lost.
The end is nigh.
*posted from my 2006 laptop at the public library*
These greedy corporate assholes are going to get their way sooner or later anyways. This is just the start.
Too many ignorant and/or spineless consumers that will eat up this shit. Too much money in politics to ever fix it.
All hope is lost.
The end is nigh.
*posted from my 2006 laptop at the public library*
Not sure how limiting only to Facebook saves them much money. Facebook has games, videos and pics. I guess it prevents things like Skype, gaming, torrents, etc. but then why +10 bucks for twitter??? Does that really add that much data consumption?
Feels like a sly start at trying to charge for websites like a cable channel disguised as "make things more affordable"
Feels like a sly start at trying to charge for websites like a cable channel disguised as "make things more affordable"
Why would you do that?
Member
This plan existing at all, optional or not, is a blow to net neutrality, which is what is upsetting people, not the plan's details, price, value, etc. Basically, with net neutrality, every Internet provider is supposed to provide equal access to every web site. It's a big reason why our Internet has been the way it is (basically open and freely accessible) for so long.
Internet providers have lately been trying to get around net neutrality in little ways, leading to discouraging pictures bleakly predicting the future like this one (which archeon_xl posted above).
As of late, Internet providers (at least the land line ones) unfortunately started to throttle certain web sites, like Netflix and YouTube, which is against net neutrality. Netflix added fuel to the fire by actually paying off those companies to get equal access.
Also unfortunate is that mobile companies are doing this too, and much more blatantly. T-Mobile is offering free Internet access for a special selection of music streaming services, promoting it as a good thing. Sprint is now offering this deal here, which is exactly what that discouraging picture above predicted. (That picture was actually my very first thought when I saw the thread title.)
I do understand the frustration with people complaining about optional features, but this here isn't about that. It's about the threat to net neutrality and the possibility that this kind of thing will become commonplace.
This is just a start. If other companies look at Sprint and see this as being a profitable thing, what is stopping Verizon/AT&T from doing the same thing? It is just a slippery slope that I would rather not go down, ending up with the picture that acheron posted; where internet is basically a cable package that you choose which websites you want to go to.
As krae_man had said we have had this kind of package in Canada for years and guess what? All major carriers still offer full data. It's only a lower cost option!
HUELEN10
Member
Maybe your guys' telecom corporations aren't greedy behemoths that don't know when to stop; ours NEVER stop fucking us.
I'd buy one for just NeoGAF if I was short on money.
Data is data though. They are simply saying "only this data is allowed", even though the data itself is absolutely no different than data coming from, say, cnn.com.
It's fucking disgusting.
SirMossyBloke
Member
Yep. However that was free with our so called basic packages.
The price is irrelevant.
And this, folks, is why net neutrality is going to be abolished. People just don't care.
Baron Doggystyle von Woof
Member
what the fuck is this shit? time to revolt murica.
Glad I live in Europe.
Glad I live in Europe.
jamesinclair
Banned
Thats actually a fantastic options for seniors and small children that just need an emergency line.
Laieon
Member
I fail to see how them being honest with what you're getting is them "fucking with you". Like all things in a capitalist society, if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. If they were really fucking with you, they would sell you a $7 plan telling you that you can connect to the internet, then you buy it and realize that, yes, while you can technically connect to the internet, you can only go to Facebook.
BronsonLee
Member
While this is rather icky, especially compared to what other cell phone providers are doing, it's a cheap plan for teenagers and such. That's the gambit.
You should be having this argument with your internet provider, not your cell phone provider. That particular issue hasn't applied to wireless for a while now, IIRC.
You should be having this argument with your internet provider, not your cell phone provider. That particular issue hasn't applied to wireless for a while now, IIRC.
perfectchaos007
Member
Isn't this concept what people have been begging for years for? For years people have wanted to pay for the channels they want with their tv provider, and the same concept is applied here. You pay for the apps/websites you want. Its not for everyone, but for someone who pays for a data plan and only uses it for social media will save money on this plan.
DoktorEvil
Banned
Could you be more obnoxious?
I think this is a great deal and a much better option than a Tracfone or w/e they're called.
If these plans become common place, a lot of websites will feel left out, they will lose revenue. They'll want to pay to be included in these plans. There you have it.
It opens up a door for what goes through and more importantly, what doesn't. It will destroy competition on the internet in the future. Imagine if this had been 10 years ago with these plans being commonplace. Myspace would have been entrenched and facebook wouldn't have been able to do much at all.
Websites are nothing like TV-channels. Websites can already have people pay for access. And who has begged for this? I've never heard of such a thing.
Also these people will not be 'saving' anything. The people who will want full access will be paying more.
Most of all, as I have said before. This does not save Sprint any costs. They're still going to have to build and maintain the antennas, regardless of which websites go through. Data is data, for the service provider it doesn't matter where it comes from. Again, this is a scam and it should be illegal.
BronsonLee
Member
Alright, this is starting to get way out of hand so let's nip this shit in the bud right now:
You have never had net neutrality for your mobile broadband data. Ever. It is considered separate from wirelines, as it has been since 2010. They talked about it a few months ago, when all this hubbub started. The FCC is even asking people about this already, since they seem concerned that the exceptions they applied aren't valid today.
Remember when AT&T blocked Facetime over 3G? Totally legal. T-Mobile's free data for preferred music streaming? Legal. This plan? Legal. In the case of mobile data, net neutrality was never alive. If you want it, you need to go out in force and get it, and now.
No one is arguing that data isn't data, but typically as the amount of traffic increases so does the infrastructure needed which is why we have data caps. So carriers instead of offering a ridiculously low cap they just offer unlimited Facebook, twitter, or other common low bandwidth sites. Carrier's maximize profit by charging as much as can while keeping costs as low as they can it sucks but if you don't like it fight for more regulation.
This nefarious plot of extorting sites for money and killing the internet through a $7 cellphone Facebook plan is ridiculous. When they stop offering the basic data plans give me a shout and I will join your crusade.
How does only providing one website, lessen the amount of data? Only if people will actually use it less than they would on a full plan, would it matter a slight bit to the provider. But again, you can accomplish the exact same thing by setting general limits or plans. Limiting connections to only specific websites by itself does nothing.
It has already happened to Netflix. It's quite obvious what the plan is here.
It's just extremely anti-competitive. What if these plans grow, they include hundreds of millions of people. Only the sites that are already established will have any chance. For social websites not to have access to everyone it would cripple their chances.
Net neutrality is just an idea that people want. It doesn't exist anywhere yet, at least in the US. Arguing that it doesn't exist on mobile is beside the point. They want it to exist on mobile.
BronsonLee
Member
In theory, net neutrality actually does/did exist in the US, but the FCC has no teeth in regards to what they can do to companies that have violated it. See: Comcast & throttling Bittorrent.
There are two fights here. The repealing of net neutrality on landlines (the main outrage) and the complete lack of it on mobile spectrum (the real issue at hand).
And people here clearly seem to think they have net neutrality on mobile, going off of posts in this very thread. They do not. So it's not beside the point to alert them to that.
No, in reality, they are in the process of coming up with regulations that can hold up to court scrutiny to regulate providers to preserve an "open Internet." Advocates want these regulations to follow the concepts of net neutrality.
Arguing that it doesn't exist for mobile is beside the point when it doesn't exist for anything. There was a proposal in 2011 and current proposals that seek to exclude mobile, but people still want it for mobile and everything else as well.
TheWarrior
Banned
the best way to tell companies you don't want this type of service is to not buy this type of service.
They are typical low bandwidth sites how much data do you think something like twitter uses its mostly just text. Offering unlimited twitter is probably a lot more attractive to a potential customer than 30/MB of data and then charging for every additional Meg.
Yes and we're talking about cell plans not home internet plans, and the only company potentially restricting bandwidth is Verizon I believe but I'm not American.
Also no carrier is currently charging a fee in addition to their regular plan to access to Netfilx.
That's fucking horrible. I hope this doesn't become the norm.
Bomber Bob
Banned
People will bite
TangoAlphaLima
Member
I think I'm gonna do this. Whenever I need to Google something on my smartphone, I'll just ask my Facebook friends to Google it for me.
If they're low bandwidth, they won't go over the cap. So whats the use of this again?
Because it's on a cell phone it's not the internet anymore?
They are charging Netflix...
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
The first thing people need to realize is that bandwidth is not a precious and finite commodity mined from the deepest pits of our planet. Its current price is so outrageously inflated that service providers could sell it for half the price and they would still make out like bandits.
There are two reasons behind this plan: a) to keep the perception that your MB/$ exchange is not inflated as fuck while reaching new costumers without lowering prices; and b) to pave the way towards a segregated internet in which you have to pay for the websites and services you visit instead of buying a general access connection.
Couple this with the ISP's fierce opposition to net neutrality, and soon enough you'll find yourselves paying to access YouTube via mobile on top of YouTube paying your ISP in order to be able to offer their videos to your ISP's customers.
Not only service providers want to have their cake and eat it, but they also want you to pay for their seconds. This is the first step.
There are two reasons behind this plan: a) to keep the perception that your MB/$ exchange is not inflated as fuck while reaching new costumers without lowering prices; and b) to pave the way towards a segregated internet in which you have to pay for the websites and services you visit instead of buying a general access connection.
Couple this with the ISP's fierce opposition to net neutrality, and soon enough you'll find yourselves paying to access YouTube via mobile on top of YouTube paying your ISP in order to be able to offer their videos to your ISP's customers.
Not only service providers want to have their cake and eat it, but they also want you to pay for their seconds. This is the first step.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll