from Hacker News

In surprise FCC filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality

by larubbio on 1/16/15, 7:38 PM with 65 comments

• by drawkbox on 1/16/15, 9:02 PM

  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.

• by xnull1guest on 1/16/15, 10:01 PM

  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.

• by mwsherman on 1/16/15, 9:30 PM

  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.

• by HCIdivision17 on 1/16/15, 9:34 PM

  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 :)

• by r00fus on 1/16/15, 9:43 PM

  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.

• by chimeracoder on 1/16/15, 10:27 PM

  > 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.

• by surge on 1/16/15, 9:49 PM

  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).

• by grandalf on 1/16/15, 10:26 PM

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

• by LargeCompanies on 1/17/15, 3:50 AM

  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.

• by forrestthewoods on 1/16/15, 9:51 PM

  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.

• by derek00 on 1/16/15, 11:43 PM

  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.

• by bwb on 1/16/15, 10:26 PM

  kick ass Sprint!