Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Excellent timing considering the HN thread [1] about T-Mobile being fined for network management.

"There is no doubt that the US will need to set up the infrastructure to keep pace with the rapid changes in usage and content expected in the future. Like any instance of supply and demand, we will continue to see a give and take in this market. As operators catch up to the current demand and LTE becomes faster, users will opt to use it over others – thus creating greater demand, supply scarcity, and decreased performance. At which point the cycle will begin again."

TL;DR Expect more network management in the future due to heavy demand of a constrained resource.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12745255




>There is no doubt that the US will need to set up the infrastructure to keep pace with the rapid changes in usage and content expected in the future.

I feel like we've been here before. It's almost like it's 1996 again with the Telecommunications Act. Our infrastructure is bullshit and it's making the US economy fall behind its peers. No worries! Instead of actually directly fixing the problem, let's give away all the power to corporations to fix as long as they super-pinky-swear to meet infrastructure goals.

Of course we all know how this ends - they didn't meet those goals, service stagnated even more, there was never any recourse, and we've axed the option to directly fix the problem. How convenient for ISP stakeholders in 1996.


*fined for misleading customers about network management


Your average user doesn't care, as long as they're not charged extra for exceeding their quota.


The quotas on wireless ISPs are already very low and people exceed them very regularly. What can be done to actually improve the situation? What choice do consumers have?


But consumers do have a choice, at least in the US. T-Mobile offers unlimited data plans, and although they were just fined by the FCC for deprioritizing heavy data users in cases of congestion, that's still a significant improvement over standard data caps. (At least T-Mobile never did what AT&T used to do before they were sued, throttling users who weren't connected to congested towers.) Some web searching shows that Sprint just recently started up a similar offering. Sure, the more favorable terms come at the expense of network quality compared to Verizon or AT&T, but they're not that bad and that's the nature of competition...


They'll take my grand-fathered-in unlimited plan from my cold, dead hands...

Actually one more contract-violating rate increase and I'll probably be forced to give it up. The only way I still justify it is everyone is paying an arm and a leg to Verizonopoly in my area.


Voting for representatives that actually represent people and not corporations.


Which means voting for people supporting election financing reform.


I had this thought earlier: how about just electing people who don't give in to corporate lobbying. Keep corporate donations legal, I don't care, just actually look at the disclosure forms of where their money is coming from and don't vote for them if you disagree with conflicts of interest. Or if they have PACs that aren't transparent, don't vote for them.

People are unable to make their voting decisions outside of the TV commercials and news articles they read, so I don't have any real hope for this tactic.


...due to heavy demand of an artificially constrained resource.

If this worked the way free-market idolizers like to pretend there'd be competitors driving prices down and features/capabilities up. But none of that is happening.


Yeah. Saw this other article in the front page of HN and it inspired me to post this one too.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: