Sprint will sell a $12 wireless plan that connects only to Facebook. +$10 for Twitter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shouldn't be legal if only because the plan piggybacks off the success of Facebook to make money, without having ownership, patent, copyright, trademark, or any other legal claim to profit from Facebook
 
Once again I sit here astounded at how mobiles are such poor value in the US.

$18 (£12) a month will get you a Moto G with 500mb of data, several hundred minutes & texts in the UK on a two year contract. This ~$12 deal FB offer is aimed at low income brackets, but doesn't even come with a phone?

Are there any legitimate infrastructure reasons behind the higher prices charged there, or is it mainly due to oligopolistic companies having free reign?
 
GaimeGuy said:
Shouldn't be legal if only because the plan piggybacks off the success of Facebook to make money, without having ownership, patent, copyright, trademark, or any other legal claim to profit from Facebook
Click to expand...

You really think they are doing this without making a deal with FB?
 
I seriously hope NO ONE buys into this! I'm hoping people start leaving Sprint because of this BS! I use to be with Sprint. My whole family was! Not anymore!
 
Little Old Man said:
Once again I sit here astounded at how mobiles are such poor value in the US.

$18 (£12) a month will get you a Moto G with 500mb of data, several hundred minutes & texts in the UK on a two year contract. This ~$12 deal FB offer is aimed at low income brackets, but doesn't even come with a phone?

Are there any legitimate infrastructure reasons behind the higher prices charged there, or is it mainly due to oligopolistic companies having free reign?
Click to expand...


A little bit from column A, a HUGE bit from column B.
 
AstroNut325 said:
I seriously hope NO ONE buys into this! I'm hoping people start leaving Sprint because of this BS! I use to be with Sprint. My whole family was! Not anymore!
Click to expand...

Too bad the other telcos do this strat, too.

Nobody wins.

Did you leave your ISP over Netflix and YouTube?
 
Mr. Sandman said:
Net Neutrality is dead.
Click to expand...

Bingo.


acheron_xl said:
net-neutrality-thumb-550x1224-27419.jpg


Mmmm hmmm. We're on the way!
Click to expand...

RIP Internet
 
msv said:
If they're low bandwidth, they won't go over the cap. So whats the use of this again?
Click to expand...

To provide a more simple option to consumers who have no clue on how much data they use or only use a specific site?

You can still purchase basic data if you choose!


msv said:
Because it's on a cell phone it's not the internet anymore?


They are charging Netflix...
Click to expand...

We are discussing an optional wireless plan addition that sprint has introduced check the thread title, and BTW ISP's are charging for preferred treatment if Netflix didn't pay their connection would still work it just would not be as fast. Its a crappy thing to do but they have very little to do with each other.

Funky Papa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bandwidth is based upon the provider’s infrastructure, infrastructure costs money and requires people to maintain it. And yes, as I have said in this thread north american telecom's overcharge for everything because they can and whether or not net neutrality succeeds your still going be paying ton. If you really want to effect change you need to regulate the basic unchecked oligopoly most of these providers have.
 
oneran said:
We are discussing an optional wireless plan addition that sprint has introduced check the thread title, and BTW ISP's are charging for preferred treatment if Netflix didn't pay their connection would still work it just would not be as fast. Its a crappy thing to do but they have very little to do with each other.
Click to expand...
Seems like outraged people in this thread are just lumping issues together because information is easier to process by making a blanket statement.
 
Karkador said:
$12 a month is too expensive for Facebook access
Click to expand...
Not if it includes messenger.

This is a perfect plan for young children and teens. Combine that with Wi-Fi access which is becoming more prevalent within school systems, it covers pretty much anything they need.
 
Zoe said:
Not if it includes messenger.

This is a perfect plan for young children and teens. Combine that with Wi-Fi access which is becoming more prevalent within school systems, it covers pretty much anything they need.
Click to expand...

Facebook chat at school - sounds like a perfect combination!
 
Wait, is it completely unable to access domains other than those included on the plan? So you don't get the push notifications (which are handled by Apple/Google/Microsoft/Blackberry and not Facebook's servers), cannot open the links (which make up most of the posts on my feed) and can't even update the FB/Twitter app?

This is rich. Even if they don't block anything but charge for access to other domains, it means iPhone users will pay extra regardless, because you simply can't tell iOS to use mobile data only for specific domains.
 
oneran said:
To provide a more simple option to consumers who have no clue on how much data they use or only use a specific site?

You can still purchase basic data if you choose!
Click to expand...
For now. And then they'll stop providing plans with access to everything, or make them more expensive.

Point is, it's not their business to start doing this. They do not own Facebook, Twitter, any of that. They are selling products that are not theirs to sell. Do you not care about the anti-competitiveness of it? It's just ridiculous to think that this won't go any further, be realistic here.

We are discussing an optional wireless plan addition that sprint has introduced check the thread title, and BTW ISP's are charging for preferred treatment if Netflix didn't pay their connection would still work it just would not be as fast. Its a crappy thing to do but they have very little to do with each other.
Click to expand...
We're discussing them selling plans, selling specific access to companies, that they have no business in selling. After a while this might cause disagreements between the 'ISP's' and websites, which will make it necessary for them to come to agreements. But at the point where such agreements could be made, about a website being included (or not) in an internet access package, it starts to becomes a legal shitstorm. To protect consumers we'll have to come up with laws and regulations by predicting what can be done with this crap in the most negative of ways. And for what? Nothing. Plans like this are worth nothing to our society, they don't do anything for the customer, they don't make it cheaper for the ISP. All they do is make the aforementioned convoluted mess a possibility.

Instead of putting the burden on lawmakers, which we know aren't the brightest bunch, to protect us from shenanigans in the future, net neutrality is necessary. Ergo, data is data, you sell access to internet and nothing more. One easy rule that keeps everyone happy, and is not limiting in any way. These plans might make for nice marketing, but they don't serve any practical use.
 
msv said:
Point is, it's not their business to start doing this. They do not own Facebook, Twitter, any of that. They are selling products that are not theirs to sell. Do you not care about the anti-competitiveness of it? It's just ridiculous to think that this won't go any further, be realistic here.
Click to expand...

What if those companies signed up for this?
 
Zoe said:
What if those companies signed up for this?
Click to expand...
In that case, as I said, what about the companies that didn't? They will be excluded. Maybe there should be a panel to categorize any and all websites, and ISP's can only choose from these categories to make plans with? Or maybe some other convoluted scheme. All that effort, to accomplish what exactly?
 
msv said:
In that case, as I said, what about the companies that didn't? They will be excluded. Maybe there should be a panel to categorize any and all websites, and ISP's can only choose from these categories to make plans with? Or maybe some other convoluted scheme. All that effort, to accomplish what exactly?
Click to expand...

For one, Sprint is not an ISP.

The access is only allowed through the apps. It's like if Xbox Live offered Netflix but not Hulu. I would imagine other services could allow access a la carte as well.

This line from here tells me they're directly targeting parents who want to give their children access to some services but not all:
The service also includes a feature that allows parents to restrict which apps children can use on the phones.
Click to expand...
 
msv said:
For now. And then they'll stop providing plans with access to everything, or make them more expensive.

Point is, it's not their business to start doing this. They do not own Facebook, Twitter, any of that. They are selling products that are not theirs to sell. Do you not care about the anti-competitiveness of it? It's just ridiculous to think that this won't go any further, be realistic here.
Click to expand...

So your basically all upset over something they have not done (Cancel basic data plans) nor that they have announced they will do? Completely logical

And it has happened in Canada and it didn't go any further!

msv said:
We're discussing them selling plans, selling specific access to companies, that they have no business in selling. After a while this might cause disagreements between the 'ISP's' and websites, which will make it necessary for them to come to agreements. But at the point where such agreements could be made, about a website being included (or not) in an internet access package, it starts to becomes a legal shitstorm. To protect consumers we'll have to come up with laws and regulations by predicting what can be done with this crap in the most negative of ways. And for what? Nothing. Plans like this are worth nothing to our society, they don't do anything for the customer, they don't make it cheaper for the ISP. All they do is make the aforementioned convoluted mess a possibility.

Instead of putting the burden on lawmakers, which we know aren't the brightest bunch, to protect us from shenanigans in the future, net neutrality is necessary. Ergo, data is data, you sell access to internet and nothing more. One easy rule that keeps everyone happy, and is not limiting in any way. These plans might make for nice marketing, but they don't serve any practical use.
Click to expand...

claviertekky said:
Seems like outraged people in this thread are just lumping issues together because information is easier to process by making a blanket statement.
Click to expand...
......................
 
Zoe said:
For one, Sprint is not an ISP.
Click to expand...
How are they not an ISP? Or are you talking about legal status?

The access is only allowed through the apps. It's like if Xbox Live offered Netflix but not Hulu. I would imagine other services could allow access a la carte as well.
Click to expand...
This thread is about an internet access plan that offers specific websites. Xbox live needs separate internet access. How is it the same then?
 
oneran said:
So your basically all upset over something they have not done (Cancel basic data plans) nor that they have announced they will do? Completely logical

And it has happened in Canada and it didn't go any further!
Click to expand...
How do you prevent it from going any further? What law or regulation would you devise to keep this scheme, but prevent the rest?
 
Peace out, net neutrality.

And only having Facebook data is dumb, what if you want to click on a link to a YouTube video or external site? The whole point is that FB connects to everything you already use, that's why it got so popular.
 
msv said:
How are they not an ISP? Or are you talking about legal status?


This thread is about an internet access plan that offers specific websites. Xbox live needs separate internet access. How is it the same then?
Click to expand...

This plan doesn't serve you the internet. It doesn't serve websites. It serves specific apps.
 
Zoe said:
This plan doesn't serve you the internet. It doesn't serve websites. It serves specific apps.
Click to expand...
It says clearly in the OP's article that these are wireless plans. Either you're saying that you actually need an internet connection before you can purchase these plans, or you're saying that yes, it does serve you internet but only to the selected domains - which was already established...

And what do you mean 'specific apps'? You won't be able to connect via a browser? Still don't see how that would change anything. Care to explain?
 
turtle553 said:
I never get why when a company offers some optional plan that people get so up in arms about it. If it doesn't work for you, then don't buy it. They won't force you to get it.

But this sounds more like something parents might buy for their teens or something to get people onto Sprint and then upsell them later once they realize only connecting to FB is useless.
Click to expand...
Because this is horrible and a bad precedent. The data used for Facebook is the same as any other data. This is like buying cable packages for internet websites. Fucking horrible.
 
BronsonLee said:
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.
Click to expand...

BronsonLee said:
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.
Click to expand...

claviertekky said:
Seems like outraged people in this thread are just lumping issues together because information is easier to process by making a blanket statement.
Click to expand...

Zoe said:
For one, Sprint is not an ISP.
Click to expand...

oneran said:
To provide a more simple option to consumers who have no clue on how much data they use or only use a specific site?

You can still purchase basic data if you choose!
Click to expand...

For people saying that this is not a net neutrality issue, or that it's not something wanted for mobile, or that serving "apps" and not the Internet, or variations of these arguments, we need only look to the FCC rules for the C block mobile spectrum, which are one of the few places that net neutrality rules are in place:

Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
Open networks: Third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.
Click to expand...

Now, we just need to look at Sprint's plan to see if it violates these net neutrality rules. Of course, the C Block rules do not apply to Sprint since it is not bound by those rules, but it is a good way to see if the plan violates the concept of net neutrality.

Actual violation of the C Block rules from the FCC:
Blocking tethering apps, requiring an extra charge for tethering: http://www.fcc.gov/document/verizon-wireless-pay-125-million-settle-investigation

The FCC is also today threatening Verizon that it may be breaking its obligations by its plan to throttle users:
http://scribd.com/doc/235480273/VZW-Letter-07-30-14
What is your rationale for treating customers differently based on the type of data plan to which they subscribe, rather than network architecture or technological factors?

...

How does Verizon Wireless justify this policy consistent with its continuing obligations under the 700 MHz C Block open platform rules, under which Verizon Wireless may not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the C Block networks?
Click to expand...
 
The internet is fighting a losing war. We are all currently funding the opposition by using their product. Until the government steps in and declare internet use a utility, we are fucked.

Too bad the government doesn't care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

should I use twitter
40
420
forsakkenSoul replied
  • Locked
Resetera no longer supporting Twitter
3
1K
Hookshot replied
You got 10 sequel points to give sequels to 10 movies that you wish would've gotten sequels.
37
2K
bitbydeath replied
  • Poll
Just for laughs : Dear Elon Musk , please rename "x" back to "twitter"
20
2K
Cyberpunkd replied
Meta wants to flood Instagram and Facebook with AI bots | Anyone will soon be able to generate accounts, complete with bio and profile picture.
43
2K
Days like these... replied
Top Bottom