
Sprint Will Sell a $12 Wireless Plan that Only Connects to Facebook or Twitter - 01Michael10
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/07/30/sprint-tries-a-facebook-only-wireless-plan/
======
tobyjsullivan
A preview of a world without net neutrality. In the future, your $60 internet
connection includes "access to 500 premium websites!" The rest of the Internet
isn't necessary to the "average" consumer. Like with cable television...

Or maybe I'm wrong about the corporate vision.

~~~
prostoalex
Net neutrality is less of a hot topic in the wireless world compared to wired.

In wired world, the carriers were granted monopoly to dig the trenches, and
the fact that they now abuse that monopoly without giving access to other
players is what riles people.

Wireless world is fairly fragmented - carriers are separate from equipment
companies, which are separate from tower operators. Anybody can buy up some
equipment and tower space and just start offering mobile voice+broadband. Or
start on MVNO to piggyback existing infrastructure and expand from there.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Net neutrality is less of a hot topic in the wireless world compared to
> wired.

That's actually not all that true. While both the 2010 Open Internet Order and
the more recent NPRM for a new version have provided looser rules for mobile
broadband, (fixed wireless has the same rules as fixed wired broadband), its
been on the FCC radar, and a number of big players pushing for more full
neutrality than the current NPRM offers for fixed broadband have also been
advocating for the same treatment for mobile broadband as fixed rather than
two separate models.

> In wired world, the carriers were granted monopoly to dig the trenches, and
> the fact that they now abuse that monopoly without giving access to other
> players is what riles people.

In the wireless world, companies rely on exclusive monopoly licenses to
spectrum, so its an ongoing -- not merely historical -- monopoly on which they
rely.

~~~
prostoalex
Good point on spectrum, but it's artificial scarcity set by the government
policy (or lack thereof).

~~~
opendais
The scarcity isn't artificial. High powered broadcasts on the same chunk of
spectrum directly interfere with each other.

That is why you can't have two FM radio stations on 106.7.

~~~
jjoonathan
> High powered broadcasts... FM radio stations on 106.7

are not even close to comparable. Cellphone towers do not use frequencies and
powers that travel nearly as far as those employed by radio stations.

>The scarcity isn't artificial.

Nope, it's artificial.

The next generation of base stations performs beamforming for physics-based
channel sharing in addition to CDMA ("algorithm-based" channel sharing).
Beamforming effectively allows you to employ a sizable number of "virtual
antennas", each aimed separately at individual receivers. With multiple base
stations it's an even more effective strategy because you can create signals
that constructively interfere at a point rather than along a line. Everyone
gets their own spatially-localized signal and can transmit their own
spatially-localized signal because the same trick works in reverse for
reception.

So no, there isn't fundamental spectrum scarcity. Perhaps there are too few
beamforming base stations installed, but that's a problem to be solved through
investment in new technology, not by allowing carriers to impose business
models that de-commoditize bandwidth.

~~~
foobarqux
None of those systems are interference free in practice, the amount of which
increases with the number of users. Spectrum is still scarce but these methods
may make it more efficient to use, especially if channel use is coordinated.

Also beamforming doesn't work as well from the mobile station because you
don't have multiple, sufficiently separated antennas.

~~~
jjoonathan
> beamforming doesn't work as well from the mobile station

Beamforming gives roughly the same advantage to TX and RX. While I'm sure
mobile stations will eventually take advantage of it for power conservation
purposes, very large advantages still stand to be gained even from a one-sided
implementation at the base stations which _can_ have multiple sufficiently
separated antennas.

Radio astronomy provides a very good example of this: from Earth, stars look
like point radiators, yet VLBI astronomy still yields an insanely powerful RX
advantage once you get up to effective apertures the size of Earth.

------
josho
Now it all makes sense. This HN crowd views the world as paying $20/mth for
Xgb of data. But, the companies fighting against becoming _dumb pipes_ much
prefer to charge $5/mth for a base data plan, plus the $12 unlimited social
package, plus the $10 for 40 hours of music package, etc.

From a business perspective it's brilliant: selling benefits, as opposed to a
commodity (bandwidth). Ie. The price charged for the good sold no longer has
relation to the cost of the good.

Now just imagine if we bought other commodities the same way. Would you buy
gas by distance, e.g. 'enough gas to drive from LA to NY for $50†' \-- a great
deal if you drive a Hummer, but pretty bad for a Prius.

†The actual cost would be much more, but you get the point.

~~~
rayiner
At the end of the day, the companies that invest the money to build the very
expensive infrastructure that all those little bits run around on aren't going
to be content to being "dumb pipes." Ownership of the platform gives you
tremendous leverage (ask Apple or Facebook or Microsoft), and the ISP's own
the platform. Without them, the internet is just a bunch of software not
talking to each other.

~~~
opendais
No. That is what ISPs are without networks like Level3.

The internet, on a B2B level, would work fine without these ISPs. The problem
is these ISPs + natural monopolies on spectrum + governments + barriers to
entry create national networks are abusing that power in the B2C space.

Please don't claim "The Internet" is purely a B2C entity.

EDIT: I'm amused by the downvote. Given I know this is true [e.g. My day job
B2B work purely transits non-B2C ISPs like Sprint or Verizon]. ;)

~~~
rayiner
Building the consumer facing networks is a lot harder and more expensive than
building the core network. Level 3's capex is a fraction of that of companies
like VZN or ATT.

~~~
opendais
1) That is what you said originally. You can change the argument if you like,
that's cool.

2) Smaller companies are able to provider better service in rural areas or
towns than VZN/ATT. It is the effects of capex on their stock price, not the
fundamental economics.

[http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/07/a-city...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/07/a-city-with-two-gigabit-internet-isps-and-neither-one-is-
google-fiber/)

Ya, they may not run it to single residential homes. That doesn't change the
fact they can do it to something like an apartment complex or buisness park
cheaper than VZN or ATT just fine.

And it isn't just them, there are dozens of these companies that are
profitable and do this.

You are fundamentally wrong.

------
Smudge
My worry isn't that service providers are finding ways to package and sell
limited internet access, and that this violates net neutrality. Ideally I wish
there were something preventing this, but if you're paying only for Facebook
access, you know what you're getting, and it's just not the same as paying for
a standard broadband connection.

My worry is that, if the majority of consumers start paying to access only the
sites they care about, we'll end up in a situation where the Internet looks
more like broadcast media than like the world wide web.

Imagine if the barrier to entry for creating a website were such that you had
to negotiate with content and service providers to get your site featured in
the right packages. Looking to start up a new e-commerce site? Get included in
Comcast's "shopping channel" package. Want to start a sports commentary blog?
Make sure you're in AT&T's "unlimited sports" package or you'll be missing out
on your biggest traffic source.

My fear is that the majority of consumers won't really notice a difference, at
least not right away. They'll be able to get access to all their usual
websites, and if it comes at a heavy discount from the full "Internet"
package, they won't really get upset if they can't access a particular
website. Especially if every service already comes with the top 500-1,000
websites in their language. My mom definitely wouldn't notice any difference,
and many of my less techy friends might not either. So if you left it up to
the consumer, you might end up right back where you started with pre-packaged
TV subscriptions, leaving the majority of the long-tail Internet to stagnate.

~~~
Periodic
I think you're understating what an impact this would have. What has made the
web so amazing is the low cost of reaching users allows entrepreneurs to try
new things with lower risk. This has lead to high rates of innovation in the
tech sector. This change would stifle innovation by increasing the barriers to
entry for new web services.

Many of the companies we've grown to love today might not have been able to
get started in a world without net neutrality. Your next start-up might not
have access to Sprint, or AT&T or Comcast subscribers without paying those
carriers.

~~~
erichurkman
Plus, what about all the services that every major site relies on?

Example: Stripe.com, on Alexa's rankings, is #1,331 in the US. Does that mean
every site that uses Stripe is broken, even if you pay for access to the main
site?

------
01Michael10
I can't believe this story is not getting more traction on HN. My submission
was like the fourth one...

$12 for access to one app/website? How is this even any kind of deal? I pay
$32 for the whole Internet on a T-Mobile plan that is unlimited (OK capped at
5GB).

Worse, it's no deal for the poor who now will be conditioned that Facebook is
the "Internet".

EDIT: This submission has made the HN front page but then the url and title
was changed. Go figure...

~~~
kevando
I think this might be something that we continue to deal with. If people just
want to use Facebook on their phone, then that's what the carriers will give
them. Just because the tech community thinks that is dumb; if 10 million
"poor" people want that service, they'll get it.

~~~
01Michael10
I hardy think it is only the "tech" community that will realize this plan is
"dumb".

Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are an idiot... The real fear
is other carriers will adopt this idea and then jack up the prices on normal
data plans which will railroad poorer people into these types of plans.

~~~
B-Con
Journalists have been blaming Google for removing their articles from search
results due to the "Right to be Forgotten". Horrible display of ignorance.

It is tempting to overestimate the public's technical understanding. The
prevailing mindset is: Out of site is out of mind, and any problems with a
website is the fault of the website.

My fear is that communicating information about background forces and
decisions to the public will be ineffective. It already doesn't work well in
other areas of politics.

------
debt
"For that same price, they could choose instead to connect only with Twitter,
Instagram or Pinterest—or for $10 more, enjoy unlimited use of all four.
Another $5 gets them unlimited streaming of a music app of their choice."

This is pretty horrifying.

Although if this gets more people connected to the internet(at least in some
_limited_ capacity) then that's probably a net good for civilization; ability
to reach more people in a disaster, more people get educated(at least in a
roundabout way).

I think we'll likely see more services like this as most internet users
probably spend their time on only a handful of websites anyway. I wouldn't be
surprised if FB started buying up some of the larger content holders(BuzzFeed,
etc.) so as to consolidate the content under one umbrella without having to
worry about copyright issues.

I'm just saying, for instance, how would this handle YouTube embeds? YouTube
just wouldn't work in this scenario? I assume FB will launch their own video
network as well. I assume these types of deals are quite lucrative for both FB
and the carriers.

~~~
click170
What I find horrifying is that this has a good chance of sucking in enough
people so as to set a precedent that it's acceptable, despite the on-going
Netflix shenanigans which have been doing a pretty good job of raising
awareness for Net Neutrality. I don't think most people understand the
connection between the two.

"What does having Facebook on my phone for only 12$ have to do with my Netflix
being slow at home?"

------
modeless
Every unencrypted byte your last mile provider can see gives them power over
you. Here's the only way to fix this: VPNs for everyone. Every single byte
encrypted. Your last mile provider becomes a dumb pipe to your _real_ ISP, who
actually has competition and therefore an incentive to give you good service.

Anything less is unworkable in the long run; it's a race back to the cable
subscription model and the only question is how long it takes to get there.

~~~
Karunamon
As far as I know, the application connections for Facebook and Twitter are
done via HTTPS APIs.

~~~
modeless
The payloads are encrypted, but the DNS lookups aren't encrypted, and neither
are the IP headers with the IPs of Facebook and Twitter servers in them.
That's how Sprint can distinguish Facebook and Twitter traffic from other
traffic, and that's what a VPN would fix.

~~~
Karunamon
I guess I don't see what encryption has to do with the topic at hand then,
since they'd ostensibly only allow access to a known set of addresses with
this plan.

~~~
modeless
If everyone used VPNs as a matter of course, it would prevent the oligopoly
last-mile ISPs like Sprint and Verizon from having the power to implement
anti-net-neutrality plans like this in the first place. It would be a much
healthier state for the industry as a whole.

~~~
tzs
> If everyone used VPNs as a matter of course, it would prevent the oligopoly
> last-mile ISPs like Sprint and Verizon from having the power to implement
> anti-net-neutrality plans like this in the first place.

How? To use a VPN you have to be able to connect to your VPN server. If you
have a service plan that only allows connections to IP addresses that belong
to Twitter and Facebook, I don't see how you are going to use your VPN to
connect elsewhere.

~~~
squeaky-clean
The point being made is that if everyone connected to the internet through
their own personal VPN, either by educating everyone to do so, or some default
system built into the infrastructure, then there would be no such thing as
limiting you to a certain websites, because your ISP would never know what
websites you, or anyone, was browsing. The only thing an ISP could see is
bandwidth to/from your IP address, nothing else.

I think it's a pointless argument though. It's too late to set a system like
that up now. The average consumer does not know what a VPN is, does not want
to learn what a VPN is, and does not want extra steps in setting anything up
on their phone or home internet. And what's the other option? Call AT&T and
convince them to pipe everyone's internet to a random VPN not owned by AT&T
before sending the traffic out elsewhere? It can never happen.

------
opendais
This is pure evil. and exactly why we need Net Neutrality.

[http://willchatham.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/net.png](http://willchatham.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/net.png)

They really want to make this real. :|

~~~
quink
I made this five years ago.

It's rather fascinating to see it inch ever closer to reality.

~~~
opendais
Fascinating? I'd use terrifying personally.

~~~
quink
I meant fascinating in a morbid way.

It was also interesting to see in the WCIT leaks a submission by Ofcom that's
surprisingly like my creation here.

Edit: [http://i.imgur.com/roimIHy.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/roimIHy.jpg)

And yes, this was a regulatory agency submitting this to the IT-bloody-U. Not
even a telco.

~~~
opendais
My god. They must be stopped.

~~~
quink
No, not them. Not as much as Internet.org and everyone associated with it and
Facebook Zero and even Wikipedia Zero should be prosecuted with extreme
prejudice. Not necessarily in a judicial court, but definitely crucified in
the court of public opinion.

~~~
tormeh
"the court of public opinion" I don't think that court cares. It usually
doesn't.

------
justinpaulson
How does this even work though? Most of the things that are interesting on
twitter or pinterest are links to other sites. They really lost their value if
you can't even click through the links.

~~~
prostoalex
You see a warning page prior to being redirected to an outside URL.

~~~
bduerst
"For only $0.99 you can view the rest of the internet for 12 hours. Click yes
to approve."

------
the_ancient
So this is really coming true

[http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-12-15-net_neutrality_l...](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-12-15-net_neutrality_loses_whatif.jpg)

~~~
quink
Which is why I made it. Five years ago. As a warning.

Yet here we are with this having been in the WCIT leaks if people didn't have
enough of a warning:
[http://i.imgur.com/roimIHy.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/roimIHy.jpg)

The stuff on the right was created by a regulatory agency acting as part of
the ITU. The I. T. U. And yet it took John Oliver for the average person to
start at least mildly caring.

~~~
jrockway
$5 a month for news is less than I pay for a subscription to The New York
Times, but it's included for free with your hypothetical evil plan.

~~~
quink
Just to clarify, TELCO's great value bundles may not include premium
subscriptions to our peering partners. Unless otherwise indicated what we have
partnered to provide is a prioritised connection to our peering partner to
deliver to you and your family value content quota-free at an affordable price
:)

If you'd like to upgrade your NY Times beyond our $5 News package and access
premium content you can do so from the TELCO portal and additional charges
will be on your TELCO bill for a convenient single-stop experience!
Additionally, we're currently running a bundle on newspaper experiences where
if you bundle both New York Times premium content and another premium news
experience where we've partnered with in our Atlantic news offerings so you
can get three for the cost of just $10 and three months at half price!

Thanks for loving our great value, we're constantly working on getting our
customers the best possible deals and love to hear great feedback like yours
:)

~~~
jrockway
Your advertising is misleading :)

------
edwinnathaniel
I find it interesting to see the reaction of HN crowds.

Services like this is common in 3rd-world country: they charge you for a very
small monthly fee to connect to a select web services as opposed to the "all
of the internet".

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Watsapp, BBM + E-mail only.

The services might grow or reduce depending on the popularity of the web
services.

~~~
wmf
It goes without saying that the HN audience of startup founders who want to
"disrupt" Instagram/WhatsApp/BBM/etc. are opposed to this.

~~~
Guvante
Nothing to do with diruption. The sites I browse most frequently (by an order
of magnitude) are HN and Reddit. Neither of these are useful on such a plan,
since the entire purpose is linking the internet at large.

However if such plans become popular, we could potentially lose (or pay lots
to preserve) the ability to frequent such sites.

------
nickysielicki
I don't know how anyone can say that net-neutraility does not preclude
innovation.

What if I was an up and coming social media site? If all the tweens in the
world were on this cell plan (which I imagine is a core demographic of this)
how in the world would I be able to gain marketshare?

It's so damn clear. It's sad that society doesn't care.

------
fred_durst
_Sprint isn’t being paid by any of the apps, but Mr. Draper didn’t rule it out
in the future. “It’s definitely possible,” he said. “But we have not gone down
that path yet.”_

Sprint is collecting users to be sold to the highest bidder.

"Hi Startup, what to be included in our $10 plan? That will cost you X
dollars."

Goodbye open internet. Never thought it would actually die in my lifetime.
They should start calling this movement ISP 2.0 :(

~~~
aikah
Pay to play. That's how it worked in every industry so far,internet was a
"freak" that need to be locked up according to some. Unfortunatly this model
will be the future of the ISP business...

------
valarauca1
This is very common in 3rd world countries. Where facebook, and twitter will
be free. The idea is that facebook and twitter get members who'll always be
able to connect for free. And those social media platforms encourage people to
go out on the rest of the web and incur large fees from the cellular service
(or pay for a data plan).

~~~
walterbell
Without a neutral net, the "rest of the web" will offer a very different menu
of services than today's web.

In developing countries, those deals were initiated by Facebook and Twitter.
Vodafone declined this option, [http://www.cellular-
news.com/story/Operators/64337.php](http://www.cellular-
news.com/story/Operators/64337.php)

"That the company has been approached by Facebook to do so was revealed by the
Group's CEO, Vittorio Colao who was speaking at a Vodafone shareholders
meeting in New York.

He said that he had been directly approached by Facebook's COO, Sheryl
Sandberg but declined to their proposal saying that it didn't make sense.

"There is no reason why I should give my network capacity for free." he
stated."

~~~
Scoundreller
I'm surprised Facebook and Twitter weren't willing to front (some) of the cost
just to get their user counts up and first-mover advantage. Crudely, each
Twitter user is worth $100 to the company. Double that for Facebook.

But I guess free is better, if they can get it. They'll consider paying in
subsequent iterations.

~~~
walterbell
Apparently some telcos have been burned by their Facebook data deal.

[http://adage.com/article/digital/twitter-facebook-rate-
telec...](http://adage.com/article/digital/twitter-facebook-rate-telecom-
deals-abroad/293741/)

"Yet the future of the deals remains unclear, particularly after Facebook has
soured several operators on the arrangements. Multiple people with knowledge
of the partnerships said Facebook cut the deals for subsidized data without
paying a cent, often strong-arming carriers into adopting its conditions and
footing the data bills.

... Three carriers with sizable global reach -- Vodafone, Telefónica and
Singtel -- have staunchly resisted Facebook's advances. Several others,
analysts said, are showing rising concerns over the bottom line benefits of
zero-rating deals.

... Communicating zero-rating deals to subscribers proved more difficult than
imagined, the former employee said. The packages free up data on Twitter, but
not other websites, a source of frustration and confusion to users."

------
noname123
Quick someone make a web proxy via Facebook/Twitter messenger proxy. Set it up
as a SaaS, surf the web with only the Sprint $12 plan and sell as many
subscriptions before Sprint notices the unusual pattern in their bandwidth
usage!

~~~
malka
oh yes. So much possibilities.

------
bitJericho
This is why we desperately need net neutrality laws.

~~~
bellerocky
Net neutrality is about the desire of ISPs to get paid from both ends of a
connection. ISPs want to get money from consumers for getting access to
content producers and service providers and from the latter in turn for their
content being made available to consumers. The current system is that ISPs are
just being paid by consumers for access to what's put online by content and
service providers. Content and service providers get access to consumers for
free right now. This plan by sprint limits access to consumers of this kind of
connection to a single service that the consumer opts into. It seems relevant,
but I'm not sure. Would net neutrality regulation prohibit something like
this?

~~~
Artemis2
Yes, because net neutrality is mainly about selling only "the Internet" and
giving equal access to all websites to all customers.

You are hearing more about the connection-throttling issues Netflix has with
Verizon currently, but it ultimately falls under net neutrality too, as
Verizon is trying to de-prioritize connections to Netflix.

------
crazy1van
I think this is particularly scary to many not because it will be hated by the
public, but because it may be embraced by the public.

------
dzhiurgis
£12 in UK buys 'unlimited' data, unlimited text and 250 minutes (of which I
probably use 10)

------
politician
I think what a lot of people are missing about this deal - net neutrality
aside - is how silly it is from an advertising and marketing angle.

A significant amount of of Facebook's business model is based on advertising.
Now, those links go where? Nowhere? Error pages?

All of those funny tweets containing links? Do those timeout?

Are the top 500 sites supposed to create closed-loop experiences?

------
ranran876
Well this was more or less inevitable...

I think people are in some kind of serious denial about the drastic increase
in bandwidth being demanded by customers.

I don't think Sprint's solution is healthy for the state of the internet, but
I do think something will have to change.

I personally don't use any high bandwidth services. I don't watch Netflicks,
or a lot of Youtube - and yet I'm stuck with higher and higher internet bills
and I have to subsidize other people's use of the internet. Frankly, that's
ridiculous.

Ultimately I think the system will have to revert to the $/Gb system we used
to have. If we all reverted back to that, I think you'd see some very
competitive pricing.

However the selective traffic stuff.. that's a bit scary. I don't think they
should be allowed to look at our traffic in the first place. I understand you
need to look at the packets to be able to route them, but anything past that
just seems like it should be illegal.

------
hashmymustache
I can't imagine Facebook is in favor since they wouldn't be able to get any
mobile ad revenue

~~~
qbrass
The ads would just go to storefronts hosted by Facebook, who get a larger cut
of the revenue for hosting them.

------
doctorshady
I've got to say, I'm a little impressed by the reaction to this. T-Mobile
doing the exact same thing, sans Twitter, and eventually with a handful of
music streaming services didn't receive nearly as much outrage. Some people
were even defending it.

------
ljosa
AOL all over again.

------
higherpurpose
This is how the Idiocracy future begins, I'm sure of it.

------
diminoten
Unlike home Internet, real competition exists in this space, so something as
stupid as this will go away rather quickly unless there's an actual demand for
it.

------
tormeh
This is it. The "TV channel" Internet we've all been warned about. This
probably won't fly with European regulators. I desperately hope.

~~~
ithinkso
Maybe not so drastically as in US but I think it may also happen. If I recall
correctly some T-Mobile plan in Poland has something like 'free Facebook'.

------
dm2
Has anyone tried using T-Mobile's $10 unlimited data plan + a Google Voice
number + RedPhone + TextSecure? Does it work as good as normal phone service?
(obviously there are areas of the country where it wouldn't work while
traveling, mainly concerned about an area that has good Tmobile coverage.)

[http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/mobile-
internet.htm...](http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/mobile-
internet.html)

It would have only 1 GB of 4G, unlimited 3G, but I personally don't use much
data anyways, 3 GB would be $10 extra per month.

I'd also like to add a VPN to that package, I've used PrivateTunnel in the
past, does anyone have a better recommendation for a VPN service?

[https://www.privatetunnel.com](https://www.privatetunnel.com) $12 for 50 GB,
which would last me a long time on a mobile phone since I use WiFi most of the
time.

Basically $11 per month for unlimited everything and it would be encrypted
through multiple services.

Back on topic: I don't see anything wrong with Sprint offering this package.
Nobody is forced to purchase it since there is sufficient alternatives from
both Sprint and other service providers. I personally wouldn't use it and am
not sure what people would do if they needed to Google something, but if
people want it, let them buy it.

Unrelated again: Why was Twitter (TWTR) up 20% today?

------
ryan-c
[http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5514](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5514)

------
mcintyre1994
Is this going to block adverts? That seems..insane. I mean sure Facebook are
doing well with their mobile app ads (I'm guessing you get Google Play or
something?) but are they just going to stop people clicking adverts that lead
offsite or to an app you're not allowed?

------
hokkos
It already exist in France since several years [1] and never had lot of
traction. I wouldn't be so afraid has everyone else here.

[1]
[http://boutique.orange.fr/mobile/forfait-m6-mobile](http://boutique.orange.fr/mobile/forfait-m6-mobile)

------
valdiorn
And when people realize they can't watch any of the funny videos their friends
link to, or view the 9gag links they post, or sign the change.org petitions
they are hammered with?

Not everything you see on facebook is hosted at facebook.com, and people will
very quickly realize that.

------
iguana
This is going to be awesome for cheap "phone home" drone projects. I wonder if
the sims would work in a mobile hotspot (and just allow traffic to
*.twitter.com) or some other programmatic access. I would pay $12/month for my
dronrs to tweet.

~~~
superuser2
I'm sure the point is for you to "engage with brands" via Twitter. If no human
is looking at the ads, Twitter has no reason to subsidize your access.

------
ivanca
Please Please Hacker News... LETS DO THIS:

Operation Boycot Sprint

=======================

Get yourself and everyone you know out of sprint. Is completly possible to
keep your cellphone number so please do it; we must show how serious we are
about net neutrality.

------
beebs93
I guess serving up ads, giving away different deals, etc. specific to a user's
Internet pipeline (i.e. firehose vs app/site-specific) will be reality as it's
just another filter.

------
SolarUpNote
What's to stop them from having "Sprint Business Network". Set up your
business website with Sprint hosting to allow the $12/mo members to access
your site ... for free!

------
tn13
In case of Sprint this might be a very good thing for average society. I will
never ever pay $40 for any data plan but I will happily pay $5 for only Google
Maps. That way this new innovation will earn sprint and additional $5.
Similarly my poor aunt who needs internet only for Facebook might end up
saving $35 which can then go for her healthcare.

Sprint is clearly addressing a legitimate need in an innovative way and making
money in the process.

I do not thing this comes under net neutrality issue. The difference between
Sprint and Comcast is that Comcast has put cables in cities using public land
and has got a virtual monopoly over the markets. They can screw us from front
and behind and we have to suffer it silently.

------
dmritard96
So what happens with outlinks? My friends post tons of links to FB and
twitter, seems like thats really where I derive most of the value from these
services...

------
jldugger
I think Twitter just found a new paid VPN offering!

------
ephemeralgomi
brb, implementing TCP/IP tunneled over twitter

------
slg
It is worth noting that this will be a good deal for a lot of consumers. That
is the problem with not having strong net neutrality laws. We now need to
educate people on why something like this would seem so attractive but will
lead to bad things in the long term. It is a smart move by Sprint. If the
first salvos in the war over net neutrality are like this and become
incredibly popular, it will easy to use them as a precedent for less popular
moves down the road.

~~~
01Michael10
What alternate reality do you live in? This is not a good deal for anyone!

~~~
slg
There are a large percentage of people who use the internet primarily for
social networking. For those people, a plan like this is a lot cheaper than a
plan that allows them access to the whole internet. For less than $17 you can
have a social media device that allows you to stay connected with family and
friends and provides very limited voice and text connectivity for emergencies.
This is the ideal type of plan for a teenager (with maybe the addition of
unlimited texts) for less than half the price of most prepaid plans and a
quarter of the price of most contract plans.

~~~
01Michael10
Ummmmm... It's great if someone only uses one or two social networks. Most
young people use four or five different social networks at least so this plan
would be useless. Any teen who had this plan would get beat up in school...

I get the whole internet for $32 a month that is unlimited (5GB cap) with
unlimited texting. Come on dude...

------
collyw
Out of interest, would it be possible to create a facebook app that acts as a
proxy server to the outside for this connection?

------
nathan_long
Oh, fantastic. Maybe we can also buy Walmart-sponsored cars that cost $200 and
can only drive to and from Walmart.

------
flyrain
I don't think it's a good idea. I want more than Facebook and Twitter.

------
drderidder
Splinternet. Bad idea. It won't succeed.

------
api
RIP The Open Internet

1993 - 2014

------
dang
We changed the url from [http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-
facebook...](http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-
sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/). Better url
suggestions welcome.

~~~
01Michael10
WTF? There was a reason I choose that url... It was a better article and had a
better title. The url and title you changed it to was already submitted by
someone else two hours before me but it never gained any traction.

EDIT: My original title and url... $12 A Month For Facebook – Sprint Tramples
Over Net Neutrality With New Prepaid Plan [http://www.droid-
life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook...](http://www.droid-
life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-
neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/)

~~~
dang
The title was "Sprint Tramples Over Net Neutrality" and the article began,
"Today, Sprint dispensed with all subtlety. Without any pretense of net
neutrality whatsoever..." It should be obvious that that is far too
tendentious for HN. We're looking for pieces without blatant spin. Readers can
make up their own minds.

We changed to the WSJ article not because it was best, but because it was the
handiest one that wasn't breathy with drama. That's why I asked for pointers
to more substantive articles, if there are any.

As for the original submission not gaining traction, (a) that's fraught with
randomness, and (b) traction doesn't prove goodness—if it did, linkbait (for
example) wouldn't be a problem.

~~~
01Michael10
My point was the title and url you switched to were previously submitted hours
before mine but drew no interest. It was my title and url submission that
caught fire with the HN crowd.

Spin? Come on... The article was right on. I know people like to pretend
everything has two sides but in this case...NOPE. This Sprint plan is totally
bad for consumers and the future of the Internet itself. Any one who thinks
otherwise is a troll or just an idiot.

------
amenghra
Too bad the deal doesn't include Wikipedia :(

~~~
quink
Your view of the universe is ass backwards. What makes Wikipedia and Facebook
and Twitter more worthy than a million other websites that may consume less
bandwidth even if you summed them up?

Why is Wikipedia more special than Project Gutenberg or the Internet Archive?

OpenStreetMap? Hudong or Baike? Github? Debian/Ubuntu? Representing Wikipedia
as the only free source of all human knowledge is about on the same level as a
monopoly on free exchange of ideas. If not today, then at some point, or in
some subject areas.

It's disgusting. Wikipedia Zero may have good intentions, but in practice it
is vile.

~~~
bduerst
Basically, even by playing favorites you're contributing to the problem. All
information should be agnostic with regards to availability - right?

------
EarthLaunch
This is another demonstration of why "net neutrality" is morally wrong (and
therefore not needed). Think about what a law to stop this service means; a
"net neutrality" law. It means forcefully stopping someone from offering this
service. And forcefully stopping someone else from buying this service. Both
of them want to do it by choice, because it benefits them, in their view.

To stop them from doing that, on any non-fundamental basis like an alternate
opinion about the value of long term effects, is morally depraved.

~~~
EpicEng

      "Both of them want to do it by choice, because it benefits them, in their view."
    

Both parties? How did you arrive at that conclusion? I'm not offered a 100mbit
connection in my location. Does that mean that I don't want it? Does that mean
that my 20mbit connection is what I want and that I see the lack of choice as
a benefit?

It benefits the provider, certainly, but the consumer may have no choice if
they want these services. Their bill just went up, but there's little they can
do about it.

~~~
EarthLaunch
Your wanting a 100mbit connection doesn't obligate someone to offer it to you.
"Choice" doesn't mean choosing among anything imaginable, that may or may not
exist. Choice only applies to what exists.

So yes, in the context of what's available (without forcing people to make
what you want), both parties are choosing from among what exists.

~~~
EpicEng

      "both parties are choosing from among what exists."
    

No, one party is dictating what exists, the other is choosing. You need to re-
read your last post. You say that:

    
    
      ""Both of them want to do it by choice, **because it benefits them**, in their view."" 
    

And you are wrong. One party, the consumer, has no real choice. You act as
though this is just a great deal for both sides, which is nonsense.

