AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Carriers look for new business models to afford iPhone bandwidth
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Carriers look for new business models to afford iPhone bandwidth - Page 2

post #41 of 94
2/16/10 at 10:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

iGenius, this is getting scary. Twice now in the last week or so I find myself agreeing with you. Maybe I'll have to reread all of your posts to see where "I've gone wrong". .

Getting your knuckles virtually smacked with a ruler a few hundred times on this forum has learned him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

That's not a good comparsion. Data doesnt have to be mined and then refined. Its not a limited commodity, the price of it doesnt rise and fall due to supply and demand.

Bandwidth is a limited commodity. We've seen it with the iPhone on AT&T taking an excessive amount of their bandwidth. As our networks and devices get faster and more efficient we'll be wanting even more data. Cellular data is getting hit extra hard from more devices, using more data, more often. I really hope other carriers get the iPhone this year, if only to alleviate some of the issues with AT&T.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #42 of 94
2/16/10 at 10:17am
There's one little problem with a carrier such as AT&T metering all bandwidth: The iPhone and now the iPad were created to be consumption devices tied to the iTunes store, where users pay for content. As such it only makes sense that their access should be unlimited. I mean, say Apple's best customers are purchasing over 5GB/month of movies/TV shows/publications, what happens when the carrier says sorry but you're cut off, or you'll have to pay more, etc.? That would certainly depress sales. No wonder Apple worked out the $30/month unlimited deal with AT&T for the iPad. It wouldn't surprise me though if AT&T were getting some kind of a cut back from Apple based on iTunes sales, though there have never been any reports of such. Just wonderin'.
Hey, this Kool-Aid is delicious, what do you put in it?!
Reply
Hey, this Kool-Aid is delicious, what do you put in it?!
Reply
post #43 of 94
2/16/10 at 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjgienapp View Post

back on topic: 10mbps wireless would kick butt. I suspect S. Korea has better internet at least in part because of the size of the country.

These services are not even available in US metro areas.
Not to mention US GDP per person is over $46K. S Korea is under $17K.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 94
2/16/10 at 10:28am
Bandwidth is a limited commodity. We've seen it with the iPhone on AT&T taking an excessive amount of their bandwidth. As our networks and devices get faster and more efficient we'll be wanting even more data. Cellular data is getting hit extra hard from more devices, using more data, more often. I really hope other carriers get the iPhone this year, if only to alleviate some of the issues with AT&T.[/QUOTE]


C'mon you're more intelligent than that. Bandwidth is just a vessel limited by the carriers. Bandwidth is being unnecessarily being eaten up by ads and flash videos. It doesnt matter how many lanes you add to a highway/freeway because people will just drive more cars.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #45 of 94
2/16/10 at 10:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

That's not a good comparsion. Data doesnt have to be mined and then refined. Its not a limited commodity, the price of it doesnt rise and fall due to supply and demand. None of us complain about the prices we pay for the internet at home, whether we just check our e-mails or download music and movies. Why should we pay the penalty for websites becoming more feature rich. The faster the internet gets the more features websites will get. Most websites are now wide screen because of flat panel displays. Network neutrality is something we're all for but I'm afraid that it'll eventually bite us in the ass.

I thought it was an excellent analogy. Data may not have to be "mined and refined," but that's an arbitrary distinction. The point is, it costs to provide bandwidth and more bandwidth costs more to provide if only because the supply is limited. The "all you can eat" approach penalizes low bandwidth users and rewards the bandwidth gluttons. It's just like an all you can eat buffet -- people who eat plates full of food are subsidized by those with smaller appetites.

Another similar analogy is water. For a long time in many places, water was flat rated -- it wasn't even metered (maybe still is in parts of the world where water is still abundant). This practice encouraged wasteful use, which was fine so long as the supply was unlimited and the marginal cost of providing the water was extremely low. Where water came into short supply, metering was the only way to discourage waste and bring demand into line with supply. That's where we are today with data bandwidth.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #46 of 94
2/16/10 at 10:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccamsAftershave View Post

A particularly unfortunate comparison for the laissez faire crowd.
The Korean Communications Commission is far more involved than the US FCC in regulating and streamlining their 'net.
Which is why the entire country has 100mbps today and will have 1Gbps in 2012, wireless at 10mbps and IPTV.

Thanks for info there, I didn't know that and it shows a 'benevolent dictatorship' is some managed systems can pay off, not all but some.
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #47 of 94
2/16/10 at 10:38am
Capitalism is all about free enterprise and the people managing a Nation's resources according to ability, as opposed to the politicians owning every asset and decision, including your way of life.

Socialism ignores and suppresses individualism, freedom, and other natural human inclinations, favoring the apt and the connected over the handicapped, as in slavery. They are on a "noble" cause to build a "perfect" society in their own image.

True capitalism is based on fair competition with low or no barriers to entry, which is in most cases more effective than regulation, yet some regulation is needed to preserve fairness. Pure lawless capitalism ends in anarchy.

You can't have true capitalism in the absence of a strong and fair justice system. Laws, not Kings nor Dictators, even if benevolent, as every one of them has to be so, to some degree, to an important sector of society, or they would be short lived.

The overregulation or chartering of an enterprise economy plus a strong authoritarian, socialist regime has a strong name to it -fascism.

Most Americans have never lived under oppression, and may not recognize it from the onset. I have, so please excuse my lengthy diatribe.


Wireless carriers are concessionaires. They paid billions of dollars for the exclusive rights to portions of the rf spectrum. They will fight commoditization of their service and will milk this cow to the last drop.

Hopefully, Apple pulling AT&T out of encroachment will lift the others and result in the accelerated modernization of the US wireless infrastructure.

(All flaming coming my way is understandable, if you have an opposite point of view. I respect you and will not try to convince anybody. Peace)
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 94
2/16/10 at 10:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyapple View Post

There's one little problem with a carrier such as AT&T metering all bandwidth: The iPhone and now the iPad were created to be consumption devices tied to the iTunes store, where users pay for content. As such it only makes sense that their access should be unlimited. I mean, say Apple's best customers are purchasing over 5GB/month of movies/TV shows/publications, what happens when the carrier says sorry but you're cut off, or you'll have to pay more, etc.? That would certainly depress sales. No wonder Apple worked out the $30/month unlimited deal with AT&T for the iPad. It wouldn't surprise me though if AT&T were getting some kind of a cut back from Apple based on iTunes sales, though there have never been any reports of such. Just wonderin'.

IMO ATT made that deal simply because people will not be using the iPad as much as they would an iPhone. And when they do it'll most likely be indoors (cafe/coffee shop, restaurant, school campus, book store, etc...) where WIFI will be readily available.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #49 of 94
2/16/10 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz1492 View Post

Capitalism is all about free enterprise and the people managing a Nation's resources according to ability, as opposed to the politicians owning every asset and decision, including your way of life.

Socialism ignores and suppresses individualism, freedom, and other natural human inclinations, favoring the apt and the connected over the handicapped, as in slavery. They are on a "noble" cause to build a "perfect" society in their own image.

True capitalism is based on fair competition with low or no barriers to entry, which is in most cases more effective than regulation, yet some regulation is needed to preserve fairness. Pure lawless capitalism ends in anarchy.

You can't have true capitalism in the absence of a strong and fair justice system. Laws, not Kings nor Dictators, even if benevolent, as every one of them has to be so, to some degree, to an important sector of society, or they would be short lived.

The overregulation or chartering of an enterprise economy plus a strong authoritarian, socialist regime has a strong name to it -fascism.


Most Americans have never lived under oppression, and may not recognize it from the onset. I have, so please excuse my lengthy diatribe.


Wireless carriers are concessionaires. They paid billions of dollars for the exclusive rights to portions of the rf spectrum. They will fight commoditization of their service and will milk this cow to the last drop.

Hopefully, Apple pulling AT&T out of encroachment will lift the others and result in the accelerated modernization of the US wireless infrastructure.

(All flaming coming my way is understandable, if you have an opposite point of view. I respect you and will not try to convince anybody. Peace)


Well explained and you have some excellent points, it is how to get the US to get this part right without screaming socialism that is the hard part ... " ... yet some regulation is needed to preserve fairness. Pure lawless capitalism ends in anarchy."
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #50 of 94
2/16/10 at 10:51am
So which is it? Are they raking in huge profits from the iPhone or not? If they are, then invest in bandwidth! Less profitable now, more profitable later.

nagromme
Your Mac, PC or PS3 could help cure cancer!

Reply

nagromme
Your Mac, PC or PS3 could help cure cancer!

Reply
post #51 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz1492 View Post

Capitalism is all about free enterprise and the people managing a Nation's resources according to ability, as opposed to the politicians owning every asset and decision, including your way of life.

I agree, I think that politicians sell us a raw deal. They want control, they want the credit when things go right and they're nowhere to be seen when things go wrong - they just blame others.

I often wonder how different the US could be if more people understood that they are smart and can make intelligent decisions. When a politician gets to call the shots, I see them saying "you're not smart enough, you don't understand, you can't possibly take care of yourself without my help, etc". I know there are people who need help but for one to think that the federal government is the only entity that can help is foolish. Just look up the concept of Subsidiarity.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I thought it was an excellent analogy. Data may not have to be "mined and refined," but that's an arbitrary distinction. The point is, it costs to provide bandwidth and more bandwidth costs more to provide if only because the supply is limited. The "all you can eat" approach penalizes low bandwidth users and rewards the bandwidth gluttons. It's just like an all you can eat buffet -- people who eat plates full of food are subsidized by those with smaller appetites.

Another similar analogy is water. For a long time in many places, water was flat rated -- it wasn't even metered (maybe still is in parts of the world where water is still abundant). This practice encouraged wasteful use, which was fine so long as the supply was unlimited and the marginal cost of providing the water was extremely low. Where water came into short supply, metering was the only way to discourage waste and bring demand into line with supply. That's where we are today with data bandwidth.

Still not good. Bandwidth is something that doesnt need to continually be paid for useless you want to increase it. Like a bridge or road, once its built you need only maintain it or add to it. ATT got caught off guard (they really shouldn't have) and has done a lousy job of playing catch up in many places. Good thing they dont build bridges because it'd be people they'd be dropping instead of phone calls.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #53 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I don't think anyone would argue in general, however either side can go too far, e.g. 2005 in the USA. The out of control, unregulated free market managed to nearly wreck the entire global economy. There has to to be balance, common sense and controls, as in most things in life.

Planned economy - no way! Capitalism isn't the best economy model, but it's much better than planned economy.
With planned economy somebody, not you, will decide what you should eat, what you should wear, where you should live and what you should do
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
post #54 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:09am
I just had a thought about the ipad ATT data plan. While it doesnt lock customers into a 2 year contract, it also doesn't obligate ATT to offer unlimited data at that price for more than a month. I'd imagine, since there is no contact other than month to month, they will be able to change their data rates and plans whenever they want with little notice.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

So which is it? Are they raking in huge profits from the iPhone or not? If they are, then invest in bandwidth! Less profitable now, more profitable later.

Well lets do some math and see. Forget what you pay for to get voice, because everyone pays that. So now you add $30 for unlimited internet on a phone that ATT paid over $700 for, you paid $200 for it leaving them in the hole for $500. It takes ATT 1 1/2 yrs to finally recoup the balance of the phone. So you tell me, are they making alot of money?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #56 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Still not good. Bandwidth is something that doesnt need to continually be paid for useless you want to increase it. Like a bridge or road, once its built you need only maintain it or add to it. ATT got caught off guard (they really shouldn't have) and has done a lousy job of playing catch up in many places. Good thing they dont build bridges because it'd be people they'd be dropping instead of phone calls.

No, it's fine. Increasing supply incurs a cost. That's all you really need to know. Take again my water analogy. The primary cost of supplying water is the construction of pipelines and water treatment plants. The marginal cost of every cubic foot of water delivery after that is very small, but as demand grows, eventually supply capacity will be outstripped, and will need to be increased -- and that's a very expensive capital cost. Charging a flat rate for water only moves forward the day when capacity needs to be increased because it encourages wasteful use. Even roads follow the same rule, if you think about it. Not only do they need to be maintained more frequently when they are use more heavily, they often have to be widened to accommodate heavy use. Some roads are managed in just this way for just this reason. They are called toll roads.

People who use more should pay more. It's a simple proposition that works for nearly everything else.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #57 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz1492 View Post

Socialism ignores and suppresses individualism, freedom, and other natural human inclinations, favoring the apt and the connected over the handicapped, as in slavery. They are on a "noble" cause to build a "perfect" society in their own image.

Totally agree. It seems you know what you are talking about
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
post #58 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by skaTM View Post

I just had a thought about the ipad ATT data plan. While it doesnt lock customers into a 2 year contract, it also doesn't obligate ATT to offer unlimited data at that price for more than a month. I'd imagine, since there is no contact other than month to month, they will be able to change their data rates and plans whenever they want with little notice.

BINGO!!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Young man, how did you get to be so smart?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #59 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post

Totally agree. It seems you know what you are talking about

Well Socialism doesnt do that but the people or person does. It's actually a great ideal but people f it up.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #60 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:28am
They need to build more towers and faster connection speeds. They already charge quite a lot for their service already. I think that ATT and Comcast should be offering free wifi to their subscribers to lower the load on cell phones, but that does not mean that ATT Wireless or Verizon get to slow down their efforts to build more and faster networks.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #61 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

So you tell me, are they making alot of money?

Yes, they do.

For 2-year contract with iPhone you pay $200 for the phone itself and at least $40 (voice) + $30 (data) per month. So you'll pay $200 + $70*24 = $1880
Pretty good business, huh?
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
post #62 of 94
2/16/10 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Well Socialism doesnt do that but the people or person does. It's actually a great ideal but people f it up.

Yes, the idea is good, but implementation... All implementations are suffering from human factor, from human nature. Until human nature be changed, every implementation of socialism will suffer from human factor
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
post #63 of 94
2/16/10 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccamsAftershave View Post

A particularly unfortunate comparison for the laissez faire crowd.
The Korean Communications Commission is far more involved than the US FCC in regulating and streamlining their 'net.
Which is why the entire country has 100mbps today and will have 1Gbps in 2012, wireless at 10mbps and IPTV.

Oh, you mean OTHER THAN THE FACT that the US is much much larger than pretty much any other country out there? It takes a LOT of money and money to do a major infrastructure transition of any kind. (We still have to deal with 70 year old power infrastructure.)

I'm not saying many of these should be done. But, I do believe it should be handled by the gov't due to the costs involved and the tendencies of our corporate giants to not want to perform any real investment in ANYTHING other than advertising these days.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 94
2/16/10 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Perhaps a new 'Technology' model is required rather than a new 'Business" model. The billions spent on overlapping, competing and in many cases incompatible networks in the US seems wasteful IMHO. I realize competition accelerates progress in many cases but it seems to be a little wacky in this case. If the companies could agree on a world wide compatible standard system and pool resources to implement that strategy and share costs surely it would be a better scenario. I also realize this would require some oversight by watchdog groups (with teeth) to prevent the public getting screwed but there has to be a better way than this ludicrous waste going on now.

Entirely too much common sense for the wireless companies to provide.

We should have laid out the ground rules at the beginning of digital wireless networks differently. What you see before you is the ridiculous cacophony that results when the individual network provider is valued above the tech company, above the customer, and above the interests of the country.

Simply put, the network should have been built out with compatible protocols, and all the customer should be is in proximity to any tower to make a connection. After your call is taken an AT&T tower, it should be passed on to Verizon free of charge, and vice versa.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 94
2/16/10 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ysean View Post

Oh, you mean OTHER THAN THE FACT that the US is much much larger than pretty much any other country out there? It takes a LOT of money and money to do a major infrastructure transition of any kind. (We still have to deal with 70 year old power infrastructure.)

I'm not saying many of these should be done. But, I do believe it should be handled by the gov't due to the costs involved and the tendencies of our corporate giants to not want to perform any real investment in ANYTHING other than advertising these days.

The size is nothing. We have far more customers, too. And we USED to be pretty good at technology, instead of finance, which has grown in this country like a cancer.

AT&T would be happy if they could just give the federal government all their copper. For a price. We could sell it as scrap, or give it to the boys at Caltech to tell us what we could do with it. Reroute it all and scrap all the relays: fast internet!

Finance, and Wall Street, has made us lazy and greedy, and too ready to say, "I can't do that," when what we mean is, "Comcast can't make money that way." Comcast is a bunch of coax bringing us all "I Love Lucy". Screw 'em if they can't give us what we need.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 94
2/16/10 at 1:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post

Totally agree. It seems you know what you are talking about

Bull. You're talking about totalitarian communism. Socialism is a great boon to civilization.

Or, you can go the Wall Street way, which is feudalism. I belong to Comcast/Fox -- the whole NASCAR uniform. Their squadrons of lawyers lock me down so hard I can't fart without breaking their rules.

Was Abraham Lincoln a socialist? Well, he brought in a lot of the "infrastructure investment" that we're talking about here. Not socialism. But we got a transcontinental railroad, with a lot of taxpayer funds, and we got universal education. Is that socialist?

The American right thinks they defeated the USSR based on its crazy privatist ideology. Actually, the Beatles did a lot. Blue jeans helped. The hippie movement had a big influence on Eastern Europe. Not having a European nuclear war helped. Life, as they say, is chaotic, and not single-factorial. Seeing anything as explained by a single political ideology is... totalitarian.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 94
2/16/10 at 1:23pm
The objective of the current political dictionary is to erase all of the previously commonly-held definitions of economic and political systems. Once you've succeeded at that, which requires years of determined linguistic carpet bombing, completely arbitrary but far more convenient definitions can be substituted. Hardly anyone will notice. The political order of the day is to control the debate, and the country, by destroying meaning itself.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #68 of 94
2/16/10 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

Bull. You're talking about totalitarian communism. Socialism is a great boon to civilization.

Did you live in a socialist country? I did.
So I know that you don't know what you are talking about
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
post #69 of 94
2/16/10 at 2:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post

Did you live in a socialist country? I did.
So I know that you don't know what you are talking about

I lived in what right-wing extremists would call a socialist country, Canada. It is a lot more socialistic than anything that Obama is trying to bring here.

What was your socialist country? Britain? Or a communist country? That's the difference. Conservatives elected Thatcher, and she brought down large parts of the previous policies. By vote, and by the lawful authority of Parliament. I didn't like much of it, but I didn't live there and couldn't vote.

My experience with refugees from communism is that there are two kinds: those who rejected totalitarian rule, the double-speak, the torture and arbitrary arrests -- (Bush, kaff, kaff) -- and those who are completely phobic to any of the mildest, most common-sense measures that were adopted in most countries during the 20th centuries. The state has things that it can do much better and more legitimately than a corporation. I say, when it's rational, we let the state do those things -- and we constrain its powers in the courts, in the Congress, and in the democratic process. There are those on the right who are either too hysterical or too authoritarian to admit that some things are better left to government action, because no company can (or should be) big enough to do it. Instead, they must manufacture the fiction that life under FDR and the New Deal = Stalin or Mussolini. That, to be frank, is nuts.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 94
2/16/10 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ysean View Post

Oh, you mean OTHER THAN THE FACT that the US is much much larger than pretty much any other country out there?

70% of the US population lives on 2% of the land.* Fiber to interconnect these urban centers is much longer than S Korea's, but that's a small fraction of total cost.
(*Another 10% are near/on the fiber trunklines.)
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 94
2/16/10 at 2:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

What was your socialist country? Britain? Or a communist country?

An exUSSR country.
You should divide communist idealogy and socialist planned economy. I'm talking about economy only.
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
post #72 of 94
2/16/10 at 2:55pm
Wireless spectrum is a finite resource. Eventually we will hit a wall.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 94
2/16/10 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

North Korea -- State-controlled and planned economy

South Korea -- Capitalism economy


Do we have to go any further to know which system seems to produce better results?

Yes. They are different in more ways that those you identify. ANd two data points is not enough information.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 94
2/16/10 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I don't think anyone would argue in general, however either side can go too far, e.g. 2005 in the USA. The out of control, unregulated free market managed to nearly wreck the entire global economy. There has to to be balance, common sense and controls, as in most things in life.

I disagree. There's nothing out-of-control free market about the USA. EVERYTHING is regulated. And it's often the regulation that causes the problems. Look at our recent economic troubles. Much can be related to Congress regulating (read that as "interfering") in the market place. Forcing banks to loan to customers that can't possibly repay the money, etc. The Community Reinvestment Act is a joke. It was one of the main contributors to the crisis we're in today. And it's still law.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 94
2/16/10 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

iGenius, this is getting scary. Twice now in the last week or so I find myself agreeing with you. Maybe I'll have to reread all of your posts to see where "I've gone wrong".

If you can figure out when I'm being serious and when I am not, you'll be 90% there. Here's a clue: If I say something absurd, it is unlikely that I am being serious.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 94
2/16/10 at 3:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

That's not a good comparsion. Data doesnt have to be mined and then refined. Its not a limited commodity, the price of it doesnt rise and fall due to supply and demand. None of us complain about the prices we pay for the internet at home, whether we just check our e-mails or download music and movies.

It is a good comparison. There is still a real cost to delivering data, just as there is a real cost to delivering Gas, Electricity, or Water. The price of data usage does rise and fall due to bandwidth supply and consumer demand. The same should be true for data. If a service provider's infrastructure needs upgraded then it makes sense for them to pass the cost onto the consumers who are using that infrastructure. There needs to be competition and their needs to be metered data usage. Then a higher rate can be charge per GB of data usage if it's necessary to make important infrastructure upgrades. It's the only consistent and fair way to charge for data.

Quote:
Why should we pay the penalty for websites becoming more feature rich. The faster the internet gets the more features websites will get. Most websites are now wide screen because of flat panel displays.

I think we should pay for the data we use, not the data we might use. It's inevitable that websites will become more feature rich, however the current business model carriers follow does nothing to motivate developers to write more elegant code or output more optimized imagery. It also prevents carriers from maximizing profits so they can invest in improving their infrastructure. This is because innovation in technology cannot be accurately predicted. Innovative devices, such as the iPhone, Android, iPad, or others consume a lot of data. Their plans were based on current trends and average usage. Their business model failed them. Now they lack the capital to improve their infrastructure because they didn't anticipate data usage would spike and their plans would run them in the red because of the increase in bandwidth consumption.

Quote:
Network neutrality is something we're all for but I'm afraid that it'll eventually bite us in the ass.

Net neutrality is critical. It's important service providers don't get control over how we use data and price it differently accordingly. Anti-Net Neutrality supporters want to charge you more for consuming a 50MB video than a 50MB audio file. That's ridiculous.

This would be like an electric company charging you more for the electricity to run a microwave than the electricity to power your blender... even though they use relatively the same amount of power. Net Neutrality says, "Data is just 1's and 0's, it shouldn't matter what they add up to or are used for. I should be billed for the total data I use... not what I use the data for!"

What will bite us in the *** and hurt the most is service providers forcing us to pay higher rates for information they know we'll use more.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 94
2/16/10 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

I disagree. There's nothing out-of-control free market about the USA. EVERYTHING is regulated. And it's often the regulation that causes the problems. Look at our recent economic troubles. Much can be related to Congress regulating (read that as "interfering") in the market place. Forcing banks to loan to customers that can't possibly repay the money, etc. The Community Reinvestment Act is a joke. It was one of the main contributors to the crisis we're in today. And it's still law.

It's also a straw man, because the CRA does not do what its (brand new) critics claim. The CRA has never required any bank to make any loan to any person. Ever. Not once. It does not to require the banks to change their lending standards. Not any. Not at all. Specifically, not. The people who are now blaming the CRA for the banking crisis are making this up for pure political purposes, and you are and many others who want to believe it, are falling for it. They are lying, plainly, simply, and factually. It is the lenders who threw out their lending standards. They did it completely voluntarily.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #78 of 94
2/16/10 at 4:50pm
They must be smoking dope.

How about this for a business model, take all of the insane amounts of money you're reaping from customers and pump it into your infrastructure.. eventually, you'll have enough hardware to support your user base.. Telco's are penny pinching misers and they're too used to making something for nothing. They need to open up their wallet and make it rain if they want to keep their customers.. if one company doesn't, another eventually will.. and hopefully, that's what will keep them honest.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 94
2/16/10 at 7:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

The size is nothing. We have far more customers, too. And we USED to be pretty good at technology, instead of finance, which has grown in this country like a cancer.

AT&T would be happy if they could just give the federal government all their copper. For a price. We could sell it as scrap, or give it to the boys at Caltech to tell us what we could do with it. Reroute it all and scrap all the relays: fast internet!

Finance, and Wall Street, has made us lazy and greedy, and too ready to say, "I can't do that," when what we mean is, "Comcast can't make money that way." Comcast is a bunch of coax bringing us all "I Love Lucy". Screw 'em if they can't give us what we need.

I like the way you think!
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 94
2/16/10 at 8:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by heath.gerlock View Post

It is a good comparison. There is still a real cost to delivering data, just as there is a real cost to delivering Gas, Electricity, or Water. The price of data usage does rise and fall due to bandwidth supply and consumer demand. The same should be true for data. If a service provider's infrastructure needs upgraded then it makes sense for them to pass the cost onto the consumers who are using that infrastructure. There needs to be competition and their needs to be metered data usage. Then a higher rate can be charge per GB of data usage if it's necessary to make important infrastructure upgrades. It's the only consistent and fair way to charge for data.



I think we should pay for the data we use, not the data we might use. It's inevitable that websites will become more feature rich, however the current business model carriers follow does nothing to motivate developers to write more elegant code or output more optimized imagery. It also prevents carriers from maximizing profits so they can invest in improving their infrastructure. This is because innovation in technology cannot be accurately predicted. Innovative devices, such as the iPhone, Android, iPad, or others consume a lot of data. Their plans were based on current trends and average usage. Their business model failed them. Now they lack the capital to improve their infrastructure because they didn't anticipate data usage would spike and their plans would run them in the red because of the increase in bandwidth consumption.



Net neutrality is critical. It's important service providers don't get control over how we use data and price it differently accordingly. Anti-Net Neutrality supporters want to charge you more for consuming a 50MB video than a 50MB audio file. That's ridiculous.

This would be like an electric company charging you more for the electricity to run a microwave than the electricity to power your blender... even though they use relatively the same amount of power. Net Neutrality says, "Data is just 1's and 0's, it shouldn't matter what they add up to or are used for. I should be billed for the total data I use... not what I use the data for!"

What will bite us in the *** and hurt the most is service providers forcing us to pay higher rates for information they know we'll use more.


You contradict yourself. How can you be for metered data usage and net neutrality at the same time? Where all the comparsions fail is in the fact that the provider of bandwidth (ATT, VZ,etc...)are not also the provider of data (Google, Yahoo, Youtube, etc....). They charge the providers of data x amount and the recepients of data x amount. Electric, gas, and water companies arent paid by other companies to provide you with service. They provide the service and meter it so you pay for what only you use.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Carriers look for new business models to afford iPhone bandwidth