Sprint's CEO Thinks This Whole Killing Net Neutrality Thing Is Pretty Nifty

from the with-friends-like-these... dept

So when the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules were passed, we warned how the agency's failure to include zero rating (exempting an ISP's own content or the content of a deep-pocketed partner) was going to let ISPs creatively engage in anti-competitive behavior. And sure enough, companies like Verizon and AT&T began exempting their own content from usage caps, giving them a leg up in the market. Carriers like Sprint similarly began to fracture the internet experience, at one point charging users more money if they wanted to enjoy music, video and games without having their connection throttled.

T-Mobile pushed these creative barriers further with its Binge On offering, which exempted only the biggest and most popular video services from the company's usage caps. This automatically put thousands of smaller video providers, non-profits, educational institutions and startups at a notable market disadvantage, but by and large nobody outside of the EFF and academia gave much of a damn because a) ill-informed consumers are happy laboring under the illusion that they're getting something for free and b) the public (and by proxy media) was lazy and tired of debating net neutrality.

Just as the Wheeler FCC realized the error of their ways and began showing signs of cracking down on carriers that use usage caps and zero rating as an anti-competitive weapon, Trump won the election and Ajit Pai's FCC began dismantling the rules entirely. You know, for "freedom." As the U.S. moved further away from a truly open internet, regulators in other countries (like India) moved to prohibit ISPs from using usage caps or zero rating as an anti-competitive bludgeon against smaller operators, startups and non-profits.

With the rules now on the chopping block, and ISPs successfully gutting FCC and state oversight of ISPs, zero rating is going to be the least of our problems. We're back to now worrying about things like "paid prioritization," or the ability of ISPs to give their own video content (or the content of the deepest-pocketed companies) priority treatment on the network. And ISPs that were previously against such deals are now walking back their promises at an unsurprising pace.

Throughout all of this, carriers like Sprint repeatedly professed their breathless dedication to net neutrality while they continued to implement policies that made consumer connectivity less transparent, more expensive, and less open. And speaking at the Mobile World Congress this week, Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure made it clear that the company doesn't think this whole paid prioritization thing is that big of a problem, either:

"I don’t think there’s anything wrong for you to eventually charge a higher price for a faster access to your network,” Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure said during a keynote discussion here at the Mobile World Congress trade show. “You have this anyway. In the United States in many roads you drive, you have a faster road and you pay more. There’s nothing wrong with that. We’re still determining what is going to be the price for 5G and how we’re going to charge you, but the economics say, consumers are willing to pay more for a better service and are willing to pay less for a different type of service."

Except net neutrality rules have always carved out massive exemptions for prioritization (medical services, high-end VOIP service, etc.). It's only the anti-competitive paid prioritization deals the rules hamstrung. ISP executives know this, they just like to conflate the two to justify their quest to turn the internet into the modern equivalent of mid nineties walled gardens like AOL. Claure proceeded to imply that past net neutrality rules didn't let the company "manage its networks," which was never the case:

"We’re big believers in the open internet,” Claure said. “I believe there needs to be some light regulation, and it needs to be very light, in order for us to manage our networks."

Added Claure: “We need to manage our networks … That’s the most important thing to us."

Again though, the FCC's net neutrality rules never stopped Sprint from "managing its networks." In fact it took years of hashing out specifics in the rules to ensure that would never be a problem. Meanwhile, you don't get to proclaim you're "big believers in the open internet," while at the same time pushing for changes that could completely tilt the whole god-damned thing on its axis by letting giant companies (often a company's own subsidiaries) pay for lower latency, higher priority, and better service -- leaving startups, non-profits and educational institutions in the dust.

Just a few years ago we were concerned that loopholes in the 2015 rules would result in caps, overage fees and zero rating being used anti-competitively (and they were and are). Now, with the FCC's rules officially slated to expire in April, most of those problems are going to appear god damned quaint in comparison with the nonsense awaiting all of us just over the horizon.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, fcc, marcelo claure, net neutrality, wireless, zero rating
Companies: sprint

Trump Still Falsely Taking Credit For Sprint Jobs He Had Nothing To Do With

from the magic-man dept

Last month, we noted how Donald Trump proudly implied he was single-handedly responsible for Japan's Softbank bringing 50,000 jobs and $50 billion in investment to the United States. The problem, of course, is that it's not clear those numbers are entirely real, and there's absolutely no evidence suggesting they had anything to do with Donald Trump. The jobs were first unveiled back in October as part of a somewhat ambiguous $100 billion global investment investment fund between Softbank and Saudi Arabia aimed at boosting technology spending worldwide.

Some of that money could end up in the United States in the form of investment and jobs, but it has never been entirely clear how much. It's even less clear given that Softbank's Sprint here in the states has been trimming thousands of jobs over the last few years as it struggles with soaring debt. Still, all it took was a Manhattan meeting with Softbank Chair Masayoshi Son -- and a few Tweets by the President-elect -- to have the newswires filled with stories about how Donald Trump was somehow already performing miracles before even taking office:It was, of course, quietly pointed out by many that Softbank's pledge didn't have anything to do with Trump and had, in fact, been announced more than a month before Trump was even elected. But over the holiday, Sprint intentionally reignited the story again, announcing via press release that the company would be hiring as many as 5,000 new employees at Sprint over the next four years. Again, this was all thanks to the investment plans Softbank had already announced, but Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure was quick to feed Trump's ego by vaguely tying his administration to the (potential) new jobs:

"We are excited to work with President-Elect Trump and his Administration to do our part to drive economic growth and create jobs in the U.S.,” said Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure. "We believe it is critical for business and government to partner together to create more job opportunities in the U.S. and ensure prosperity for all Americans."

That allowed Trump to launch a new media event at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, again implying the jobs he had absolutely nothing to do with creating were somehow thanks to his incredible business accumen (even as the same reports now try to inform people this just isn't true):

"I was just called by the head people at Sprint, and they are going to be bringing 5,000 jobs back to the United States," Mr. Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. "They have taken them from other countries. They are bringing them back to the United States."

...Although Mr. Trump claimed credit for SoftBank’s $50 billion investment in the United States, those plans predated the election, and Mr. Son has owned a controlling stake in Sprint, among other companies, for several years.

So what's actually happening here? And why would Sprint be encouraging the press to falsely give Trump credit for something he had nothing to do with? Because Masayoshi Son wants regulatory approval for the company's planned acquisition of T-Mobile, which was rejected by U.S. regulators in 2014 because it would have reduced sector competition (and, ironically, jobs). Son has been pushing for another chance ever since, and apparently sees feeding Trump's ego as a smart path to success. Of course, as the New York Times noted today, Softbank and Sprint aren't the only companies pursuing this particular strategy.

Sure, it's possible that Trump is encouraging the false claims and undeserved press just for PR benefit and has no intention of giving Son what he wants.

But there's no real signs that's true. There's every indication that Trump intends to appoint revolving door regulators and telecom sector allies to the FCC. These folks have made it clear they intend to gut the agency and strip back numerous consumer protections, including net neutrality. They've also made it clear they don't think things like telecom monopolies are real, and they're unlikely to appoint any FCC Commissioner eager to use his regulatory authority to thwart job-killing mega-mergers like Sprint T-Mobile. Most analysts believe the telecom sector will soon be getting everything it wants, and then some.

The end result of these policies is going to be something decidedly less pleasant than is being sold, suggesting that everybody may want to keep their receipts.

Filed Under: credit, donald trump, jobs, marcelo claure, masayhoshi son, pr, propaganda
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

Sprint Customer Listening Tour Goes Sour, Company Has To Pull Ad Calling T-Mobile A 'Ghetto'

from the bungled-PR dept

Poor Sprint. Ever since T-Mobile became the darling of the wireless industry simply for treating consumers well (ingenious!), Sprint hasn't quite known what to do with itself. After T-Mobile leap-frogged Sprint to become the nation's third-largest carrier last year, Sprint has been trying desperately to convince customers that hey, it's really cool too. But Sprint has found it hard to shake the image that it's little more than a decidedly unhip copycat with a less competent network. A lot of Sprint's PR struggles have been thanks to the fact that it hasn't been easy keeping up with T-Mobile's foul-mouthed, hipster-esque CEO, John Legere.

Sprint's latest effort was to involve a series of ads featuring Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure sitting down with hundreds of "normal folk" in 10 different cities to, apparently, make fun of T-Mobile. Unfortunately the company's very first ad in the series has ruffled more than a few feathers for being little more than thirty seconds of people laughing at the idea of T-Mobile as a "ghetto":So yes, the idea of an ad in which a group of mostly white people sit around laughing at the idea of ghettos just isn't something most PR departments would sign off on. Sprint unsurprisingly had to pretty quickly pull the ad, and Claure headed to Twitter to insist that the company was just trying to have a conversation with regular folk:

We're sharing real comments from real customers. Maybe not the best choice of words by the customer. Not meant to offend anyone.

— MarceloClaure (@marceloclaure) April 13, 2016

My job is to listen to consumers. Our point was to share customer views. Bad judgment on our part. Apologies. Taking the video down.

— MarceloClaure (@marceloclaure) April 13, 2016

And Sprint's adventures in bad PR could have ended there, were it not for a follow up exchange between one annoyed customer and Claure, in which the CEO lectured a Latino man on just how he should behave while being offended:

@luism1023 that I won't take. I am as Latino as you are so don't try to pull that card.

— MarceloClaure (@marceloclaure) April 13, 2016

Right, except that as a CEO you made $21.8 million in fiscal year 2014, making your life experiences notably...different. You're also supposed to be conducting a customer listening tour, remember? So even if your intentions were good and you don't agree with your customers being offended, you were supposed to be listening to them. Not giving them a lecture on how or when they're allowed to be offended. All in all it's another example of how, even with funding from Japan's SoftBank propping up its sagging reputation, Sprint just can't seem to get out of its own way and find a path to consumers' hearts.

Maybe next time just try lower prices and a better network?

Filed Under: advertising, ghetto, marcelo claure, pr
Companies: sprint, t-mobile