Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Hey, remember how without net neutrality, ISPs might charge money to access certain sites? And remember how none of those rules apply to mobile data? Well, Sprint just introduced their super-low-cost social media only tier   (gizmodo.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

2862 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Jul 2014 at 3:44 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-07-30 11:47:51 PM  
I'm surprised it took so long.  Bastards.
 
2014-07-31 12:31:17 AM  
If they're trying to convince people they aren't money grubbing assholes, they're really doing a poor job of it.
 
2014-07-31 12:43:09 AM  
I reported a problem to a sprint car website I can't hit to their tech support and no one could figure out the problem

/until today
//turns out it's just Verizon customers
///go figure
 
2014-07-31 01:05:35 AM  
I could see it being useful perhaps as a cheap option for kids, but I don't really like the precedent it sets.  Ideally I'd like to see truly unlimited everything (including LTE data) plans start to become more common, and for the prices to drop.  Data on US plans costs much more than it does pretty much anywhere else in the developed world, it would be nice if the much vaunted 'market forces' would actually drive those prices down to be a bit more reasonable.
 
2014-07-31 01:47:02 AM  
Gor-dawn will totally dig it.

/happy connecting
 
2014-07-31 04:01:22 AM  
This shiat
www.dvice.com
was a warning, not a farking suggestion, asshats!
 
2014-07-31 04:05:23 AM  
Jesus, climb in off the ledge. Just don't buy it if you object. The 'slippery slope' arguments about it setting a dangerous precedent are just silly.
 
2014-07-31 04:31:33 AM  

jjorsett: Jesus, climb in off the ledge. Just don't buy it if you object. The 'slippery slope' arguments about it setting a dangerous precedent are just silly.


How is you think dangerous precedents get set, exactly?
 
2014-07-31 04:51:09 AM  

jjorsett: Jesus, climb in off the ledge. Just don't buy it if you object. The 'slippery slope' arguments about it setting a dangerous precedent are just silly.


So if everyone starts doing shiat like this then what?  We either put up with it, or just forego the internet entirely?

WTF kind of choice is that?
 
2014-07-31 04:59:21 AM  

Ambivalence: If they're trying to convince people they aren't money grubbing assholes, they're really doing a poor job of it.


LOL! They don't have convince anyone. All they need to do is continue to line the pockets of politicians.
 
2014-07-31 05:01:15 AM  
RRR! Because internet access is a right to be payed for by someone else!
 
2014-07-31 05:20:01 AM  

robohobo: RRR! Because internet access is a right to be payed for by someone else!


Yeah, because we're getting the internet for free now.
 
2014-07-31 05:30:30 AM  

Slaxl: robohobo: RRR! Because internet access is a right to be payed for by someone else!

Yeah, because we're getting the internet for free now.


The point is that the internet is nowhere near expensive for the vast expanse that is is. It's like whining about the cost of airfare plus baggage. It's insanely cheap for what it is. Damn near the entirety of human knowledge and media for an average of $100 a month? farking really? That's like getting to bone Jennifer Lawrence for a few bucks a night. Also, she begs for it in the poop chute.
 
2014-07-31 05:56:42 AM  

robohobo: The point is that the internet is nowhere near expensive for the vast expanse that is is. It's like whining about the cost of airfare plus baggage. It's insanely cheap for what it is. Damn near the entirety of human knowledge and media for an average of $100 a month?


100 bucks a month ? The hell ? I pay 40 euros a month, and for that I get phone TV, 100Mb, and no data cap (which are unheard of in my country)
 
2014-07-31 06:07:27 AM  

robohobo: Slaxl: robohobo: RRR! Because internet access is a right to be payed for by someone else!

Yeah, because we're getting the internet for free now.

The point is that the internet is nowhere near expensive for the vast expanse that is is. It's like whining about the cost of airfare plus baggage. It's insanely cheap for what it is. Damn near the entirety of human knowledge and media for an average of $100 a month? farking really? That's like getting to bone Jennifer Lawrence for a few bucks a night. Also, she begs for it in the poop chute.


In other words, "You should be happy being screwed."
 
2014-07-31 06:13:55 AM  

Prophet of Loss: robohobo: Slaxl: robohobo: RRR! Because internet access is a right to be payed for by someone else!

Yeah, because we're getting the internet for free now.

The point is that the internet is nowhere near expensive for the vast expanse that is is. It's like whining about the cost of airfare plus baggage. It's insanely cheap for what it is. Damn near the entirety of human knowledge and media for an average of $100 a month? farking really? That's like getting to bone Jennifer Lawrence for a few bucks a night. Also, she begs for it in the poop chute.

In other words, "You should be happy being screwed."


How in the world is that being screwed? If you can't afford $100 a month for 100Mb with no cap, you have bigger problems. TW in my area is going to 300 with no payment increase later this year to combat Google Fiber, which is currently only in the shiattier areas of KC.
 
2014-07-31 07:11:07 AM  

jjorsett: Jesus, climb in off the ledge. Just don't buy it if you object. The 'slippery slope' arguments about it setting a dangerous precedent are just silly.


Not sure if you're trolling or not, but this is just testing the waters.

Seriously, wait until Comcast decides that if you want Netflix, that it's a extra $10 a month, but for $20 a month you ca get access to streaming video from any website.

Oh, did I mention?  Without those packages all video streaming is blocked.

It seems to me that most of these social media sites will be crippled by this.  Don't people on Facebook ever link to anything NOT on Facebook?  Are they filtering by domain?  What about 3rd party advertisers coming from other domains?
 
2014-07-31 07:16:01 AM  
Ah..true capitalism at its finest.   The goal isn't to make the consumer happy.  The goal is to find that sweet spot of maximum profit, which is delicately located somewhere between resentful tolerance, early termination penalties, and competing alternatives that only off the same.
 
2014-07-31 07:18:52 AM  

robohobo: Prophet of Loss: robohobo: Slaxl: robohobo: RRR! Because internet access is a right to be payed for by someone else!

Yeah, because we're getting the internet for free now.

The point is that the internet is nowhere near expensive for the vast expanse that is is. It's like whining about the cost of airfare plus baggage. It's insanely cheap for what it is. Damn near the entirety of human knowledge and media for an average of $100 a month? farking really? That's like getting to bone Jennifer Lawrence for a few bucks a night. Also, she begs for it in the poop chute.

In other words, "You should be happy being screwed."

How in the world is that being screwed? If you can't afford $100 a month for 100Mb with no cap, you have bigger problems. TW in my area is going to 300 with no payment increase later this year to combat Google Fiber, which is currently only in the shiattier areas of KC.


I will let the gentle reader decide if you're an asshole or not.
 
2014-07-31 07:22:34 AM  
Currently I'm paying $30 for cable TV, phone and 100mb Internet, no cap. That is happening in the very backside of Russia (it's even cheaper in Latvia, where I usually live), so don't give me that "but the US is big!". Sure, labor costs a bit more in the US, but how many actual real human-hours an internet needs? I think you are being ripped off in the US simply because companies "can do that".
 
2014-07-31 07:22:44 AM  

Nuclear Monk: Ah..true capitalism at its finest.   The goal isn't to make the consumer happy.  The goal is to find that sweet spot of maximum profit, which is delicately located somewhere between resentful tolerance, early termination penalties, and competing alternatives that only off the same.




Customer happiness is not as profitable when you've got a monopoly to abuse.
 
2014-07-31 07:31:13 AM  
gfid:
Not sure if you're trolling or not, but this is just testing the waters.

Seriously, wait until Comcast decides that if you want Netflix, that it's a extra $10 a month, but for $20 a month you ca get access to streaming video from any website.


So, by providing an option that is cheaper than having a full data package and providing limited services they are testing the waters for a plan that would charge an additional fee on top of a full data package to access services?

That doesn't really seem to make any sense.  You seem to be comparing two completely different things.  They are not charging an extra fee, they are offering a discounted service with limited service options.
 
2014-07-31 07:35:26 AM  

gfid: jjorsett: Jesus, climb in off the ledge. Just don't buy it if you object. The 'slippery slope' arguments about it setting a dangerous precedent are just silly.

Not sure if you're trolling or not, but this is just testing the waters.

Seriously, wait until Comcast decides that if you want Netflix, that it's a extra $10 a month, but for $20 a month you ca get access to streaming video from any website.

Oh, did I mention?  Without those packages all video streaming is blocked.

It seems to me that most of these social media sites will be crippled by this.  Don't people on Facebook ever link to anything NOT on Facebook?  Are they filtering by domain?  What about 3rd party advertisers coming from other domains?


VPNs will be all the rage if this stuff really does happen.
 
2014-07-31 07:48:11 AM  
Someone should ask both their customers what they think.
 
2014-07-31 07:58:09 AM  

robohobo: Slaxl: robohobo: RRR! Because internet access is a right to be payed for by someone else!

Yeah, because we're getting the internet for free now.

The point is that the internet is nowhere near expensive for the vast expanse that is is. It's like whining about the cost of airfare plus baggage. It's insanely cheap for what it is. Damn near the entirety of human knowledge and media for an average of $100 a month? farking really? That's like getting to bone Jennifer Lawrence for a few bucks a night. Also, she begs for it in the poop chute.


A) How much should it really be? I don't care about your opinion, tell us what the true market value is.
B) Sprint doesn't actually own "the internet", they aren't building sites and creating the content
 
2014-07-31 07:59:07 AM  

notto: gfid:
Not sure if you're trolling or not, but this is just testing the waters.

Seriously, wait until Comcast decides that if you want Netflix, that it's a extra $10 a month, but for $20 a month you ca get access to streaming video from any website.

So, by providing an option that is cheaper than having a full data package and providing limited services they are testing the waters for a plan that would charge an additional fee on top of a full data package to access services?

That doesn't really seem to make any sense.  You seem to be comparing two completely different things.  They are not charging an extra fee, they are offering a discounted service with limited service options.


Salami tactics.

Charging $12 for FB sounds great, but really that also translates into charging a premium if you want the whole internet.

That image someone posted above could very well be where we're headed.
 
2014-07-31 08:25:19 AM  

notto: gfid:
Not sure if you're trolling or not, but this is just testing the waters.

Seriously, wait until Comcast decides that if you want Netflix, that it's a extra $10 a month, but for $20 a month you ca get access to streaming video from any website.

So, by providing an option that is cheaper than having a full data package and providing limited services they are testing the waters for a plan that would charge an additional fee on top of a full data package to access services?

That doesn't really seem to make any sense.  You seem to be comparing two completely different things.  They are not charging an extra fee, they are offering a discounted service with limited service options.


You don't start by blocking Netflix and asking for $20 to reactivate it. You start by offering a cheaper service that doesn't include some things. That way people who don't want said things will say "Oh, that's great for me, I'll get that" instead of everyone switching to a new phone carrier because you're trying to charge extra for something you already had.

What this does is establish payment tiers for levels of access to the internet and get people used to it in a non-threatening way. (And it works. See how you don't feel threatened and are actively defending it?)

But then you start getting packages that offer everything but video streaming for a discount. Or just let you visit news websites. Or add Wikipedia for $1 a month. And people will buy these packages because it's cheaper and they offer their most used internet features anyway.

Thing is, if the audience with unfettered access to the internet suddenly plummets because a large percentage are restricted to pre-determined sites by their package, what does that do to new websites/businesses?

If you have a package that only allows access to Facebook for social media, and people get it because the only Facebook-like social media platform they use is Facebook, you have just guaranteed that no one will ever be able to compete with Facebook because no other social media platform of that nature will be able to build a customer base out of people who can't access them.

And once everything gets split into tiers, there's no longer a "discount" for less. There are lower prices for less content and higher prices for more, and those are fully adjustable by the ISP. In 20 years, who is going to be able to tell if one package is more or less than the internet "would have been" with open access.

Plus, this gives a club that the cable companies can use, and already have used on Netflix. "Gee, you sure are a popular site. It'd be a shame if anything happened to your userbase. Pay up, or we'll make them pay to access you."
 
2014-07-31 08:50:28 AM  
As someone who has suffered for the last two years with Sprint's "mi-fi" service, I can honestly say that anyone who signs up for Sprint is definitely not doing themselves any favors....  I have been eagerly waiting for August 1, 2014 for about the last year and a half and come tomorrow, I am canceling my service and don't even want to hear the word "Sprint" ever again.....
 
2014-07-31 09:00:22 AM  

robohobo: Prophet of Loss: robohobo: Slaxl: robohobo: RRR! Because internet access is a right to be payed for by someone else!

Yeah, because we're getting the internet for free now.

The point is that the internet is nowhere near expensive for the vast expanse that is is. It's like whining about the cost of airfare plus baggage. It's insanely cheap for what it is. Damn near the entirety of human knowledge and media for an average of $100 a month? farking really? That's like getting to bone Jennifer Lawrence for a few bucks a night. Also, she begs for it in the poop chute.

In other words, "You should be happy being screwed."

How in the world is that being screwed? If you can't afford $100 a month for 100Mb with no cap, you have bigger problems. TW in my area is going to 300 with no payment increase later this year to combat Google Fiber, which is currently only in the shiattier areas of KC.


And this is what's wrong with the U.S.: corporations have convinced people to be happy when they get screwed over and ripped off.
 
2014-07-31 09:06:14 AM  
is there to be a goatse only plan
 
2014-07-31 09:32:34 AM  

jjorsett: Jesus, climb in off the ledge. Just don't buy it if you object. The 'slippery slope' arguments about it setting a dangerous precedent are just silly.


Yes, just let the free market decide, amirite?  You'll be singing a different tune when ISPs start charging you extra to be a boneheaded shill on news aggregater websites.
 
2014-07-31 09:38:48 AM  

way south: Nuclear Monk: Ah..true capitalism at its finest.   The goal isn't to make the consumer happy.  The goal is to find that sweet spot of maximum profit, which is delicately located somewhere between resentful tolerance, early termination penalties, and competing alternatives that only off the same.

Customer happiness is not as profitable when you've got a monopoly to abuse.


Ayup

Not sure why anyone would defend this. The internet should not be a tiered medium of communication and education.
 
2014-07-31 09:40:52 AM  

Fark you, Sprint.


I was a Sprint PCS customer for about 19 years - I had one of the "black bricks", which came out when they first started PCS service. Not any more. When I heard about this bullshiat, I immediately switched over to a T-Mobile plan - unlimited talk, text, data, no over-consumption charges (just throttling.) I'll be damned if I spend one more dime on Sprint.

Again, fark you, Sprint. I'm done.
 
2014-07-31 09:50:51 AM  
I tunnel all my IP traffic over twitter anyway, so this isn't so bad.
 
2014-07-31 09:55:03 AM  

readymix: jjorsett: Jesus, climb in off the ledge. Just don't buy it if you object. The 'slippery slope' arguments about it setting a dangerous precedent are just silly.

Yes, just let the free market decide, amirite?  You'll be singing a different tune when ISPs start charging you extra to be a boneheaded shill on news aggregater websites.


If there were a free market, net neutrality wouldn't be as important as it is now - it would still be important, but if I had 5 broadband options available and the barriers to entry weren't so high I probably wouldn't care that much.
 
2014-07-31 09:55:04 AM  
We used to call this AOL.
 
2014-07-31 10:16:36 AM  
I would think sites like Facebook would want to fight harder against this, What percentage of its users would drop it if they had to pay? I sure as hell would be one of them.
 
2014-07-31 10:18:57 AM  

Nadie_AZ: way south: Nuclear Monk: Ah..true capitalism at its finest.   The goal isn't to make the consumer happy.  The goal is to find that sweet spot of maximum profit, which is delicately located somewhere between resentful tolerance, early termination penalties, and competing alternatives that only off the same.

Customer happiness is not as profitable when you've got a monopoly to abuse.

Ayup

Not sure why anyone would defend this. The internet should not be a tiered medium of communication and education.




Indeed.
Bits are bits, watts are watts.

The problem is this is a new technology and the sensibility that developed to keep power companies in line (so far as they've been kept in line, anyways) has not extended to data companies.
They've been accustomed to billing you a multitude of different ways for data by phone and cable. So it's not surprising that they want to cook up new methods to screw you over for internet access.

We need to put the Kabosh on this right the fark now.
 
2014-07-31 10:19:34 AM  

browntimmy: I would think sites like Facebook would want to fight harder against this, What percentage of its users would drop it if they had to pay? I sure as hell would be one of them.


I think though the next step for this is that it would be free, that is paid for by Facebook and Twitter.
 
2014-07-31 10:29:06 AM  
WTF are you idiots going on about? This has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's a low cost data plan that people who only want to use Facebook, Twitter etc. can choose.
 
2014-07-31 10:29:58 AM  

browntimmy: I would think sites like Facebook would want to fight harder against this, What percentage of its users would drop it if they had to pay? I sure as hell would be one of them.


That's what I am thinking. I don't get why the content creators don't seem to realize they have all the power. I would love it if Google or Facebook or someone told one of the ISP that the ISP should be paying them a percentage, not the other way around. I mean people sign up for internet because they want shiat like facebook, or gmail or netflix. In that situation those guys should have the power.
 
2014-07-31 10:40:16 AM  
What's the problem? It's like getting only the channels you want from the cable company. Winner!

Besides, what does anyone do with the rest of the internet really...?
 
2014-07-31 10:46:14 AM  
robohobo:
How in the world is that being screwed? If you can't afford $100 a month for 100Mb with no cap, you have bigger problems. TW in my area is going to 300 with no payment increase later this year to combat Google Fiber, which is currently only in the shiattier areas of KC.

If I could get 100Mb service for anywhere near $100/month, I'd be doing cartwheels in the street. Instead I'm paying $72/month for 20Mb service since Time Warner decided that the $60/month I was paying last year (for the same level of service) wasn't enough.

Heck, neither of the ISPs around here even offers anything faster than 50Mb (which is over $100/month), and that's been their highest tier for about 5 or 6 years now.
 
2014-07-31 10:55:01 AM  

jjorsett: Jesus, climb in off the ledge. Just don't buy it if you object. The 'slippery slope' arguments about it setting a dangerous precedent are just silly.


You're either an idiot or a dumbass. It's tough to tell which.
 
2014-07-31 10:57:41 AM  

ReapTheChaos: WTF are you idiots going on about? This has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's a low cost data plan that people who only want to use Facebook, Twitter etc. can choose.


How is a preference to certain data sources nothing to do with net neutrality?
 
2014-07-31 11:06:25 AM  

ReapTheChaos: WTF are you idiots going on about? This has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's a low cost data plan that people who only want to use Facebook, Twitter etc. can choose.


They are charging for access to specific data, and rejecting all other sources on that plan--this is exactly what net neutrality is about.  What if you want to start a competing business to Facebook because you can do it better in some way...sorry, all those potential customers on this plan cannot access your competing service because Facebook paid enough to Sprint to prevent it.

People are complaining because the next step is to increase the cost of the data plans that we already have today (or, at least, not lower them in line with the improvement in technology) to try and force people to these sorts of piecemeal plans when we otherwise would have unfiltered internet.
 
2014-07-31 11:09:33 AM  

ReapTheChaos: WTF are you idiots going on about? This has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's a low cost data plan that people who only want to use Facebook, Twitter etc. can choose.


It's not a low cost data plan.

It's a low cost Facebook, Twitter plan.

I can't use this low cost data plan to get to Fark.

And yet, to Sprint, the cost of sending my packets to and from Facebook, Twitter, FARK, LinkedIn, OkCupid, Reddit are identically the same.
 
2014-07-31 11:09:54 AM  

FarkGrudge: ReapTheChaos: WTF are you idiots going on about? This has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's a low cost data plan that people who only want to use Facebook, Twitter etc. can choose.

They are charging for access to specific data, and rejecting all other sources on that plan--this is exactly what net neutrality is about.  What if you want to start a competing business to Facebook because you can do it better in some way...sorry, all those potential customers on this plan cannot access your competing service because Facebook paid enough to Sprint to prevent it.

People are complaining because the next step is to increase the cost of the data plans that we already have today (or, at least, not lower them in line with the improvement in technology) to try and force people to these sorts of piecemeal plans when we otherwise would have unfiltered internet.


No they aren't.  They are basically saying that for a few bucks you can have certain sites not count against your data usage.  If someone doesn't get this add on they can still use Facebook or any other site.
 
2014-07-31 11:17:26 AM  
They have been doing this in Latin America for years.

In Colombia my sister in laws have phone plans that give them talk, text, and allow access to social networks, and whatsapp, but can do no no internet browsing unless they pay for it.
 
2014-07-31 11:27:03 AM  
Ah, classic. Twenty 20 yrs of bullshiat about pay this fee to help bridge the Net Divide, that mandate, more regs -- and the regulators of government-created cartels are just gonna sit back and let one of their partners sell digital Soma to the masses. Wall them off in pointless little soc-med ghettoes, send them EBT cards, and "free" health care, and wonder why the populace gets dumber and dumber.
 
Displayed 50 of 69 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report