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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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."
I think the parent's point is that the people are the entities most affected by change and their voices should be the ones that matter.
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.
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.
Similar to Walmart supporting a higher minimum wage. Hurts the other guys more. And a nice bit of PR.
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.
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.
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.
Disappointed with that stance, since otherwise, I'm thrilled with TMobile from a customer standpoint.
