56ok.org

Letter on Sprint Merger from the perspective of an Internet Amish Buggy

Hello, for 18 years , I’m always been behind the rest of the world on internet, and not by choice. Until 2008, the only choices were dial up, which did work for video games, specifically Sega Dreamcast, but that service was cancelled in 2003, and everything went faster and we were budgeting bandwidth.

In 2008, we got Sprint Cellular Internet. It wasn’t originally designed to work with video games, but a CradlePoint router got me to use a USB modem web source with Xbox 360. I was grandfathered in for USB modems unlimited data.

Ever since then, whatever new product or service which would benefit me is aways neutered before I could take advantage of it.

In 2010 Wimax 4G was designed to be a way to get Cable-like internet to places to wire. Even my cable company, Time Warner Cable was a WiMax partner.

On 2013, the local DSL company, Frontier, originally didn’t want to provide DSL because they’re ashamed of their speed there, I asked what’s the best they can provide, they said 1.5 Mb/s in 400 kb/s out for $40, Once we told them our current internet, and best so far, is Sprint and gets 500 kb/s in, 200 kb/s out or $60 a month, they changed their mind and welcomed it.

That prompted me to ask Sprint for a 4G WiMax update.

Unfortunately, by this time, Sprint switched to LTE, and said if I were to get a speed upgrade, I’d lose my Unlimited data cap clause. It was off the Frontier.

In 2007, all I needed was 1 Mb/s in 250 KB/s out, for Xbox 360 I got 500 k / 200 k.

In 2013 I caught up. Shortly later, the treadmill sped up. Xbox One came out, which needs 3 Mb/s in 1 Mb/s out.

The other 3 main cellular companies like LTE because they can offer fast mobile internet as a premium service.

Sprint’s original plan was to be the company to bring internet to the places cable and phone companies don’t want to go. The other 3 going LTE kind of forced Sprint to enter 2 markets half-heartedly.

The problem is that a) LTE is more resource-efficient (per Megabit per Second) when at freeway speeds than Wimax at freeway speeds, where WiMax is more efficient per Megabit per second when stationary vs LTE when stationary. and b) Sprint later found that LTE and WiMax cannot exist anywhere on the same tower. So Sprint couldn’t go half-and-half. I don’t know how much is true science, and how much is government hysteria.

Since then updating speed is a nightmare.

Now Time Warner is Spectrum. They surround my house where all street leading out of my cable-less district ALWAYS goes to Spectrum territory. They have an effective cable monopoly. I ask them to come down our street. AT first they said no. Then I contacted our township. Their cable (and other utility policy) was they would neither block any utility form coming in, nor subsidize any utility by throwing tax dollars at them. I told them that the township is not stopping you, and the gave me a $40K installation to my house, and probably a 6 figure number to fill the whole donut hole.

The I tried to ask fr a federal subsidy because in 2010, The federal government had a universal broadband access act, which makes it a federal goal to give everyone access to 3 Mb/s in, 1 Mb/s out, and they were willing to give federal grants to allow it.

Apparently, they don’t adjust regulations to let companies who want to supply us internet in but are putting active roadblocks to keep us shut out.

Sprint offers the best deals people like me. TWICE they came close. One is cellphones have unlimited data for $25/month. Unfortunately, the data cannot be transferred to my computers and games. Later they had $25 Sprint Drive. Unlimited internet, including devices like a Nintendo 3DS. The only catch is that it must be used in a car. They enforce it so much, that there was a device from PeraltaProducts.com that let you circumvent the car-only restriction. When I picked up one device, and when I signed up for Sprint Drive Service, there was a SPECIFIC clause against the Peralta Device, almost by name.

If Sprint has to close down a loophole, either they or their other customers get hurt by this device, or the government is focing them to take this position. It’s partially both, it’s because LTE is a drain standing still. I asked if Sprint could get a government grant by offering internet zoners a package that’s reasonable with a red-zone subsidy,( where a red zone is defined an area with zero land-based internet carriers with a minimum broadband access, [ and now we use the 2016 standards, and my areais a red-zne by the 2010 definition] ) but ridiculously expensive without the subsidy. I said the GPS accurately tells me where I am, can it not be home device internet when on my home property? I can't hide form the GPS, so might as well trumpet it out loud and give me a federally subsidized exception,

They’d say they’d LIKE to do that, but the Federal Government says it’s illegal to discriminate based on availability of land-based internet solutions at a location.

It’s weird that the Cable Company can legally deny me service for not being where their wires are, while shutting out every other cable company by surrounding it, and Frontier can preserve their non-broadband fastest internet solution by lying to the government about our speed, ….

They tell me I’m getting 1.5 Mb/s in 400 kb/s out. They are telling me the truth, and they and I accept it. However when they report to the government, they say my house has 6-12 Mb/s in ! Mb/s out. I looked at government broadband maps, and they gave the whole township that rating, at least one carrier of 6-12 Mb/s in 1 Mb/s out. i say their maps are zoomed out too far. Meaning it’s only accurate if you define it political entity by political entity, like our township. That have to be be the smallest unit legally distinguishable by the federal government, at local political lines and street intersections. My federal local precinct is the East side of Ryan Rd. from Eastlake road in the north, to Kennard road to the south, and then extends one house east on the north side of Kennard. Both the north and the east are "fenced off" by the Township line. I’m 4.5 miles away form the central office using the shortest "along the road" measurement to their office, near the corner of Greenwich and Lake Road, on the North side of Greenwich west of Lake. The shortest distance from there to the closest corner of my district is more than 4 miles. Since I know DSL is a cable-distance-sensitive technology, if full DSL is 6MB/s and the optimal distance is 3 cable miles, and the distance it the closest corner in my precinct is at least 4 cable miles, I thought Frontier was either too zoomed out or made an oversight. I talked to an executive of Frontier, by calling 844 320 4445 extension 1122543. If I didn’t know better, she was GLEEFULLY denying us faster speed when I said we’d be better serviced by a different central office 2 miles away, which is also Frontier. If I read her right she pretty much said (not an exact quote and given a James Bond villain over-the-top-ness. Obviously not an exact quote, but the impression I got...) "Yes we are bandwidth starving your area, because we can. We can define your area as 6 Mb/s in, just to keep federal funding of your neighborhood out. If we wanted to be charitable you are technically right, but we’re not. You jumped aboard us, despite the fact we were hesitant to offer it to you. The only reason you got it was because you convinced a front line salesman that this was a good deal for you, because we tripled your meager bandwidth and saved you $20 a month."

Then i called the federal agency involved in this, and tey say they just post what the companies report. And I asked what if someone challenges it, saying they're lying to the federal government to inaccurately say we don’t need subsidies when we actually do. They said there’s nothing they can do (That mad genius Bond Villain, she was right!!!!!)

So basically when Spectrum charges $40 k t wire about a half mile, and Frontier is lying about numbers to keep competition out, Sprint comes and tries to offer internet, but the federal government, who claims they will fund getting high speed internet to underserved area, is making it difficult for Sprint to come here, who is showering 99% of the American population with internet via invisible light, which is going to be there anyway, for as cheap as it is to drive to the Sprint Store, pick up a device and power it with electricity, and stick an antenna up in the air, The cost is so small, we don’t need a federal grant to get us internet. We can get it from cellular.

Best of all, it costs us so little, we’ll just get one next time we’re in Medina, and it should cost the Federal Government NOTHING (and even SAVE promised money in the subsidy fund) to just make a law that says Cellular companies can make certain services available for cheaper for internet red zones, and for those outside them either unavailable or ridiculously way more expensive. Yes Cable companies have the right not to serve its community, the DSL company has a right to lie to prevent competition for it’s sub-broadband monopoly, yet Sprint who could take advantage of the federal subsidy, but doesn’t by saying we don’t need a subsidy, just a law change, and we can do it for zero federal costs. Instead the Federal government doesn’t reverse a requirement making it illegal to discriminate towards the very people their law says they want to help. And every new device and service must have an anti internet red zone law.

I’d probably set book at even odds that there is not real reason why Wimax and LTE cannot exist on the same tower, except for the invisible foot in the mouth of the Federal government. Is there a scientific reason why LTE and WiMax cannot exist on the same tower, or is that just government doing things towards one goal while ignoring another goal. That’s like you’re denying internet, because, for whatever reason, you don’t like THEIR solution. I don’t know what the hard wired stuff can do that the wireless cannot, and whether those features are citizen friendly or not, but you guys hated cellular in the Obama Administration when Democrats had both federal lawmaking chambers, (Jan 2009-Jan 2011). Notice it was the Trump Administration with a Republican federal congress that allowed the T Mobile/Sprint merger. I probably bet the 2 parties made the exact same argument that Sprint would have like tonhave been a stationary wireless network carrier, but the government made an all-out defense against it, even though they stated they want universal internet.

I guess when T Mobile wanted to enter to stationary wireless market, and heard Sprint getting hammered by every conceivable regulation to get a foothold for home cellular interner, that the easiest way to give the underserved people with internet and introduce competition to previous monopolies, (and in my case, if there is such a word, nullopolies) was to make the the TMobile/Sprint merger happen and make TMobile a mobile wireless internet company, and make Sprint a 100% stationary wireless internet company. the Sprint T Mobile merger will let all Sprint Towers be Wimax 4G and a WiMax-derived 5G broadcast from its towers, best when stationary, while the T Mobile people don’t have to put up separate WiMax only towers or Wimax derived 5G, because they can focus on doing LTE 4G and making making a great mobile LTE-derived 5G, because mobile is in their name. If any of the 3 federal legislators representing me didn’t want the TMobile/Sprint merger to happen, you can see why over half the reason it happened was because you wee denying universal broadband despite claiming that was a federal goal.

Now state legislators: The federal government got the checkmarks they needed. What was done at the state level? I heard Cable Companies were originally territory-gobbling Pac-Men in the 80s and asks for the State’s territorial monopoly protection when they were little and weak, but as soon as they were too big to fail in their local territory, they asked for deregulation, and got it. Now Cable companies can refuse to wire streets, but they know no one else is able to wirethem. Cellular (mainly Sprint) was a big threat to that quasi-state endorsed, quasi market based monopoly. What did the states do (with the most important one being Ohio since I live there, and you two both live and represent people from there) to aid in the Cable exclusivity. Sprint did not say it was specifically a federal regulation, (where I assume most of this falls because the FCC regulates invisible light for communications use.) Did you vote to let Sprint do their thing, give stationary celular internet, ,or kick them out and preserve cable nullopolies, or were your hands tied saying it’s mostly at a different level of government?

If there was reason to deny us internet, at least I’d like to know what good was caused, and hope I can better relate to my suffering for the greater good, But if was serving the Cable companies who refuse to wire our house, and then deny Sprint, because they can, then that’s vindictive politics. If this was Spectrum’s ransom note to our township, I’d like to know that. Because the funny thing was Time Warner Cable, before it became Spectrum, was all in on WiMax, even being a founding partner. Now they work contrary to that.

What are the final state hurdles for TMobile/Sprint to jump? ( mainly concerned about Ohio, but this involves every state, hence why it’s federal,) I understand even if Ohio said yes, it would be either a state-by-state decision, meaning if Ohio says yes, it’s guaranteed in Ohio, but not guaranteed yes or no elsewhere. or do the states have to combine their voices either for or against it? How did you guys vote in Sprint being able to freely distribute WiMax and other issues that actually prevented WiMax in my area.

I hope how you can see, if you’re originally against the merger, how the either the Federal, Ohio State, or both governments caused the very thing they opposed. But before you say no to the merger (I understand there are many government people and the directly elected legislators are the heads of teams they assemble,) since I’m relying on the TMobile/Sprint merger to give me decent internet.

By the way, I’m not greedy, I don’t necessarily want to compete in the Download 500T internet race, (Speeds of 20-50Mb/s inbound would be plenty.) I just don’t want to be an Amish Buggy on the Information Superhighway, (and speaking of Amish, there is an Amish expressway engineered so that 50 MPH cars can coexist with Amish buggies starting in Dover going halfway towards Wooster. And most of the Amish’ internet restriction is a voluntary choice.), if the merger is disapproved, where do you expect me to get my internet from?

Seriously ,I’m relying on Sprint giving me celluar interent for the home and use it on the devices I want to use them on. If that doens’t happen, how will I get served? I asked various federal agencites how do I apply for broadband grants? The answer is the Broadband subsidies are not paid to those who are affected by low internet, but to corproate intereests who can legaly deny those same people internet.

P.S. May I publish your answers to my specifiic questions on the website 56ok.org? By the way 56ok.org is my own personal website which reviews video games on the basis of whether video games can be played under the Xbox and Nintendo required minimum of 3 Mb/s in 1 Mb/s out. If they do and are a good online game in my opinion, I give it a 56OK. If either the game is poor for online gaming, either becuase of bad game design, or a game that causes weird gameplay effects that shouldn't be there (pausing to catch up, losing sync, jump-cut edits wich affects the gameplay.) I give it a 56KO.

By the way, 56k is a symbol for slow internet, even though it's not a literal 56k. Kind of like red-and-cyan glasses is a symbol to quickly represent 3D even though the actual red-and-cyan glasses are rarely used today.

Legislators, indisury execs, and commentators responses.

Coming soon whenever people respond and grant permission for me to print.

© 2019 Brian Ciesicki. All Rights Reserved

Search Engine Optimization and Free Submission