Vicetrailia
Banned
I'm well prepared to throw the internet away. My home life doesn't revolve around it other than GAF.
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 ~$12 deal FB offer is aimed at low income brackets, but doesn't even come with a phone?
Are there any legitimate infrastructure reasons behind the higher prices charged there, or is it mainly due to oligopolistic companies having free reign?
I seriously hope NO ONE buys into this! I'm hoping people start leaving Sprint because of this BS! I use to be with Sprint. My whole family was! Not anymore!
And this, folks, is why net neutrality is going to be abolished. People just don't care.
Sums it up very well. And people will support this.Mmmm hmmm. We're on the way!
Net Neutrality is dead.
![]()
Mmmm hmmm. We're on the way!
If they're low bandwidth, they won't go over the cap. So whats the use of this again?
Because it's on a cell phone it's not the internet anymore?
They are charging Netflix...
The first thing people need to realize is that bandwidth is not a precious and finite commodity mined from the deepest pits of our planet. Its current price is so outrageously inflated that service providers could sell it for half the price and they would still make out like bandits.
There are two reasons behind this plan: a) to keep the perception that your MB/$ 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.
Mmmm hmmm. We're on the way!
Seems like outraged people in this thread are just lumping issues together because information is easier to process by making a blanket statement.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.
Not if it includes messenger.$12 a month is too expensive for Facebook access
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.
Only because we fought with teeth and nails. Telefonica was already salivating at the prospect.Wow feel sorry for you Americans, something like this wouldn't fly in Europe.
Facebook chat at school - sounds like a perfect combination!
For now. And then they'll stop providing plans with access to everything, or make them more expensive.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!
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.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.
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.
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?What if those companies signed up for this?
Mmmm hmmm. We're on the way!
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?
The service also includes a feature that allows parents to restrict which apps children can use on the phones.
Mmmm hmmm. We're on the way!
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'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.
......................Seems like outraged people in this thread are just lumping issues together because information is easier to process by making a blanket statement.
How are they not an ISP? Or are you talking about legal status?For one, Sprint is not an ISP.
This thread is about an internet access plan that offers specific websites. Xbox live needs separate internet access. How is it the same then?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.
How do you prevent it from going any further? What law or regulation would you devise to keep this scheme, but prevent the rest?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!
Lifeline exists specifically for low-income customers: http://www.budgetmobile.com/plans/. Introducing this wasn't really necessary.They currently have a full-access plan at $35.
This is not for those customers.
They are charging less for less in order to try and reach low-income markets.
Why should they be the only option?Lifeline exists specifically for low-income customers: http://www.budgetmobile.com/plans/. Introducing this wasn't really necessary.
How is the plan from this thread a different option? It's not cheaper for the ISP at all, so the reduction in price is completely fictional.Why should they be the only option?
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?
Sprint is an ISP. The apps are free but the data must be provided by an ISP.This plan doesn't serve you the internet. It doesn't serve websites. It serves specific apps.
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...This plan doesn't serve you the internet. It doesn't serve websites. It serves specific apps.
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.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.
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.
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.
Seems like outraged people in this thread are just lumping issues together because information is easier to process by making a blanket statement.
Zoe said:For one, Sprint is not an ISP.
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!
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.
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?