And you should know that I am no fan of laissez faire. FWIW, I am a fan of regulated capitalism.
Free markets have good and bad points. One good point is that consumers might get cheap goods. One bad point is that domestic companies might have to compete with slave labor.
Planned economies have good and bad points too.
Something in the middle is likely best.
OK, that's where I stand too. Perhaps I overreacted and I apologize for that. In these days of "populist" uproar to take away every aspect of the social safety net and tear down civil society in favor of economic barbarism, tensions are running a bit high.
And for the record, I still object to you using that quote and substituting "capitalism" for "democracy" but I see you later give proper attribution in a later post so I take you at your word that it was not intended to deceive.
The problem with these companies is they've setup business models that were unsustainable. They padded everyone's monthly cost by offering flat cost packages. This model rewards high-data consumers with low-cost data plans and penalizes low-data consumers with high-cost data plans. From the providers standpoint this guarantees a certain level of cash-flow. Long-term, however, this business model fails miserably. Unlimited plans and similar services were created with short-term data consumption in mind. The providers failed to anticipate a generation of people and devices that would overnight max out their infrastructures capabilities.
To put it another way. Imagine the natural gas companies said, "For 100 dollars a month we guarantee unlimited gas usage." They based their business model on current climate conditions and heating devices. This is a great model providing all things remain constant. It guarantees consistent cash flow and is based on averages, rewarding high-consumption gas users and penalizing, subversively, low-consumption gas users. All of a sudden heating device manufacturers introduce high consumption gas devices and the climate takes a turn for the cold. The gas companies are now in a pickle. They took it upon themselves to promote consumerism and maintain control. It backfires.
Okay, now we all know the gas companies would never, ever manage their cashflow like this. It's way to volatile. But this is how data providers are treating data. It's ludicrous. If they want to promote efficient devices and lower data consumption data usage must be metered just like any other utility. Any other business model will fail. Consumers and device manufacturers must consider their actions. Consumers will be more careful about what sites they visit and how much data they consumer. Device manufacturers and software developers will be more careful about the amount of data their products consume... they won't be able to sell inefficient products because consumers won't buy them if their liable for high-data usage.
I wonder if the real problem isn't that phone companies haven't upgraded their systems at an appropriate rate and are now struggling with data congestion. It's my guess that it's not an increase in traffic, but a lack of adequate cell phone networks.
According to Reuters, he specifically named Google and said the company should not be allowed to control the flow of money through dominating the search and advertising market.
The problem with these companies is they've setup business models that were unsustainable. They padded everyone's monthly cost by offering flat cost packages. This model rewards high-data consumers with low-cost data plans and penalizes low-data consumers with high-cost data plans. From the providers standpoint this guarantees a certain level of cash-flow. Long-term, however, this business model fails miserably. Unlimited plans and similar services were created with short-term data consumption in mind. The providers failed to anticipate a generation of people and devices that would overnight max out their infrastructures capabilities.
To put it another way. Imagine the natural gas companies said, "For 100 dollars a month we guarantee unlimited gas usage." They based their business model on current climate conditions and heating devices. This is a great model providing all things remain constant. It guarantees consistent cash flow and is based on averages, rewarding high-consumption gas users and penalizing, subversively, low-consumption gas users. All of a sudden heating device manufacturers introduce high consumption gas devices and the climate takes a turn for the cold. The gas companies are now in a pickle. They took it upon themselves to promote consumerism and maintain control. It backfires.
Okay, now we all know the gas companies would never, ever manage their cashflow like this. It's way to volatile. But this is how data providers are treating data. It's ludicrous. If they want to promote efficient devices and lower data consumption data usage must be metered just like any other utility. Any other business model will fail. Consumers and device manufacturers must consider their actions. Consumers will be more careful about what sites they visit and how much data they consumer. Device manufacturers and software developers will be more careful about the amount of data their products consume... they won't be able to sell inefficient products because consumers won't buy them if their liable for high-data usage.
The answer to this is simple. Carriers need to begin a shift in their business models. Everything will migrate entirely to data in the [near] future. It's time for carriers to move their voice services to VoIP and start shifting bandwidth allocation from voice to data.
Lower the prices on traditional voice "minutes" while simultaneously raising rates on "data" plans. Essentially customers' bills will remain the same, but carriers will be applying the revenue to where the expenses are going.
The answer to this is simple. Carriers need to begin a shift in their business models. Everything will migrate entirely to data in the [near] future. It's time for carriers to move their voice services to VoIP and start shifting bandwidth allocation from voice to data.
Lower the prices on traditional voice "minutes" while simultaneously raising rates on "data" plans. Essentially customers' bills will remain the same, but carriers will be applying the revenue to where the expenses are going.
It'll take some time. LTE will have to be well entrenched. Voice will likely still cost extra per month, but it might be a flat rate. Voice isn't just data, it's a specific phone number, it's your voicemail and, most importantly, it's QoS that will make the call feasible.
Verizon will be offering LTE for data with CDMA still being used for voice. CDMA has a good voice codec, it's well known and paid for so there is no reason to move from this tech right now. I think it'll be used for the next decade. How GSM-based networks will proceed seems less certain. NTTDoCoMo is adding LTE this year with LTE phones coming in 2011 so we'll get to see how they are handling voice by then.
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?
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.
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.
You're absolutely right. 3-5 different networks co-existing is a waste. The govt should've set a standard and let the carriers pool their money and let a 3rd party actually build the network, and then require them to spend x amount of dollars upkeeping and upgrading. I can only imagine how dirt cheap our current plans could be.
When the Internet came, it was pay per minute - now it's a montly fee for your selected speed.
When the Mobile Internet came it was pay per kb - now it's getting popular and we're trying flat rates, pay per MB, pay for 1 GB then per MB etc.
The only thing we can assume for sure is that mobile internet usage will get more and more popular. And it will grow faster if the devices are more user friendly, like with Apple's mobile devices.
So the only right thing to do is to build a better system that is designed to work over time, designed to be upgradable and designed to coop with an increasing ammount mobile network traffic.
I'm truly surprised that CEO's in the mobile carrier are surprised by this. And even more surprised that they aren't happy about it. This should be great news, if you were ready for it technically.
And you should know that I am no fan of laissez faire. FWIW, I am a fan of regulated capitalism.
Free markets have good and bad points. One good point is that consumers might get cheap goods. One bad point is that domestic companies might have to compete with slave labor.
Planned economies have good and bad points too.
Something in the middle is likely best.
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".
I've often thought a more balanced approach to an economic system .. one that pays equal consideration to environment, people and profit should be the answer. How to get there, 'tho, seems to be the problem ... no one wants to consider anything outside their "sphere of influence".
It would not only take a "regulated capitalistic system" but an overhaul of government systems that allow/encourage power brokers and lobbyists to "lead" the government where they want them to go. I fear I will not see that in my lifetime, but I still can hope.
The problem with these companies is they've setup business models that were unsustainable. They padded everyone's monthly cost by offering flat cost packages. This model rewards high-data consumers with low-cost data plans and penalizes low-data consumers with high-cost data plans. From the providers standpoint this guarantees a certain level of cash-flow. Long-term, however, this business model fails miserably. Unlimited plans and similar services were created with short-term data consumption in mind. The providers failed to anticipate a generation of people and devices that would overnight max out their infrastructures capabilities.
To put it another way. Imagine the natural gas companies said, "For 100 dollars a month we guarantee unlimited gas usage." They based their business model on current climate conditions and heating devices. This is a great model providing all things remain constant. It guarantees consistent cash flow and is based on averages, rewarding high-consumption gas users and penalizing, subversively, low-consumption gas users. All of a sudden heating device manufacturers introduce high consumption gas devices and the climate takes a turn for the cold. The gas companies are now in a pickle. They took it upon themselves to promote consumerism and maintain control. It backfires.
Okay, now we all know the gas companies would never, ever manage their cashflow like this. It's way to volatile. But this is how data providers are treating data. It's ludicrous. If they want to promote efficient devices and lower data consumption data usage must be metered just like any other utility. Any other business model will fail. Consumers and device manufacturers must consider their actions. Consumers will be more careful about what sites they visit and how much data they consumer. Device manufacturers and software developers will be more careful about the amount of data their products consume... they won't be able to sell inefficient products because consumers won't buy them if their liable for high-data usage.
That's the only solution.
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.
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.
For all the people who think the free-market ruined the economy, you might want to check out how many special deals, tax-breaks, tariffs, etc are put in place to protect the large businesses and lobbyists. The US is not a true free market.
I lean more in the middle between a heavily regulated economy and an unfettered free-market. We need regulations that actually regulate instead of exceptions for certain companies.
Big Business loves Big Government because Big Government looks after Big Business because Big Business pays off Big Government...
back on topic: 10mbps wireless would kick butt. I suspect they have better internet at least in part because of the size of the country.
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
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.
Comments
Yes, I know that.
And you should know that I am no fan of laissez faire. FWIW, I am a fan of regulated capitalism.
Free markets have good and bad points. One good point is that consumers might get cheap goods. One bad point is that domestic companies might have to compete with slave labor.
Planned economies have good and bad points too.
Something in the middle is likely best.
OK, that's where I stand too. Perhaps I overreacted and I apologize for that. In these days of "populist" uproar to take away every aspect of the social safety net and tear down civil society in favor of economic barbarism, tensions are running a bit high.
And for the record, I still object to you using that quote and substituting "capitalism" for "democracy" but I see you later give proper attribution in a later post so I take you at your word that it was not intended to deceive.
Maybe they could get more people to pay 20 cents each for 140 byte text messages.
To put it another way. Imagine the natural gas companies said, "For 100 dollars a month we guarantee unlimited gas usage." They based their business model on current climate conditions and heating devices. This is a great model providing all things remain constant. It guarantees consistent cash flow and is based on averages, rewarding high-consumption gas users and penalizing, subversively, low-consumption gas users. All of a sudden heating device manufacturers introduce high consumption gas devices and the climate takes a turn for the cold. The gas companies are now in a pickle. They took it upon themselves to promote consumerism and maintain control. It backfires.
Okay, now we all know the gas companies would never, ever manage their cashflow like this. It's way to volatile. But this is how data providers are treating data. It's ludicrous. If they want to promote efficient devices and lower data consumption data usage must be metered just like any other utility. Any other business model will fail. Consumers and device manufacturers must consider their actions. Consumers will be more careful about what sites they visit and how much data they consumer. Device manufacturers and software developers will be more careful about the amount of data their products consume... they won't be able to sell inefficient products because consumers won't buy them if their liable for high-data usage.
That's the only solution.
According to Reuters, he specifically named Google and said the company should not be allowed to control the flow of money through dominating the search and advertising market.
The Bullhockey is running deep today.
South Korea -- Capitalism economy
Do we have to go any further to know which system seems to produce better results?
The problem with these companies is they've setup business models that were unsustainable. They padded everyone's monthly cost by offering flat cost packages. This model rewards high-data consumers with low-cost data plans and penalizes low-data consumers with high-cost data plans. From the providers standpoint this guarantees a certain level of cash-flow. Long-term, however, this business model fails miserably. Unlimited plans and similar services were created with short-term data consumption in mind. The providers failed to anticipate a generation of people and devices that would overnight max out their infrastructures capabilities.
To put it another way. Imagine the natural gas companies said, "For 100 dollars a month we guarantee unlimited gas usage." They based their business model on current climate conditions and heating devices. This is a great model providing all things remain constant. It guarantees consistent cash flow and is based on averages, rewarding high-consumption gas users and penalizing, subversively, low-consumption gas users. All of a sudden heating device manufacturers introduce high consumption gas devices and the climate takes a turn for the cold. The gas companies are now in a pickle. They took it upon themselves to promote consumerism and maintain control. It backfires.
Okay, now we all know the gas companies would never, ever manage their cashflow like this. It's way to volatile. But this is how data providers are treating data. It's ludicrous. If they want to promote efficient devices and lower data consumption data usage must be metered just like any other utility. Any other business model will fail. Consumers and device manufacturers must consider their actions. Consumers will be more careful about what sites they visit and how much data they consumer. Device manufacturers and software developers will be more careful about the amount of data their products consume... they won't be able to sell inefficient products because consumers won't buy them if their liable for high-data usage.
That's the only solution.
This is so obviously correct -- I totally agree.
Lower the prices on traditional voice "minutes" while simultaneously raising rates on "data" plans. Essentially customers' bills will remain the same, but carriers will be applying the revenue to where the expenses are going.
The answer to this is simple. Carriers need to begin a shift in their business models. Everything will migrate entirely to data in the [near] future. It's time for carriers to move their voice services to VoIP and start shifting bandwidth allocation from voice to data.
Lower the prices on traditional voice "minutes" while simultaneously raising rates on "data" plans. Essentially customers' bills will remain the same, but carriers will be applying the revenue to where the expenses are going.
It'll take some time. LTE will have to be well entrenched. Voice will likely still cost extra per month, but it might be a flat rate. Voice isn't just data, it's a specific phone number, it's your voicemail and, most importantly, it's QoS that will make the call feasible.
Verizon will be offering LTE for data with CDMA still being used for voice. CDMA has a good voice codec, it's well known and paid for so there is no reason to move from this tech right now. I think it'll be used for the next decade. How GSM-based networks will proceed seems less certain. NTTDoCoMo is adding LTE this year with LTE phones coming in 2011 so we'll get to see how they are handling voice by then.
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?
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.
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.
You're absolutely right. 3-5 different networks co-existing is a waste. The govt should've set a standard and let the carriers pool their money and let a 3rd party actually build the network, and then require them to spend x amount of dollars upkeeping and upgrading. I can only imagine how dirt cheap our current plans could be.
South Korea -- Capitalism economy
Do we have to go any further to know which system seems to produce better results?
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.
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?
Yeah, but S. Korea has universal health care so by American standards, they are wild-eyed Bolsheviks.
I like the idea of everything being run by free market principles. What could possibly go wrong?
When the Mobile Internet came it was pay per kb - now it's getting popular and we're trying flat rates, pay per MB, pay for 1 GB then per MB etc.
The only thing we can assume for sure is that mobile internet usage will get more and more popular. And it will grow faster if the devices are more user friendly, like with Apple's mobile devices.
So the only right thing to do is to build a better system that is designed to work over time, designed to be upgradable and designed to coop with an increasing ammount mobile network traffic.
I'm truly surprised that CEO's in the mobile carrier are surprised by this. And even more surprised that they aren't happy about it. This should be great news, if you were ready for it technically.
Yes, I know that.
And you should know that I am no fan of laissez faire. FWIW, I am a fan of regulated capitalism.
Free markets have good and bad points. One good point is that consumers might get cheap goods. One bad point is that domestic companies might have to compete with slave labor.
Planned economies have good and bad points too.
Something in the middle is likely best.
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".
I've often thought a more balanced approach to an economic system .. one that pays equal consideration to environment, people and profit should be the answer. How to get there, 'tho, seems to be the problem ... no one wants to consider anything outside their "sphere of influence".
It would not only take a "regulated capitalistic system" but an overhaul of government systems that allow/encourage power brokers and lobbyists to "lead" the government where they want them to go. I fear I will not see that in my lifetime, but I still can hope.
The problem with these companies is they've setup business models that were unsustainable. They padded everyone's monthly cost by offering flat cost packages. This model rewards high-data consumers with low-cost data plans and penalizes low-data consumers with high-cost data plans. From the providers standpoint this guarantees a certain level of cash-flow. Long-term, however, this business model fails miserably. Unlimited plans and similar services were created with short-term data consumption in mind. The providers failed to anticipate a generation of people and devices that would overnight max out their infrastructures capabilities.
To put it another way. Imagine the natural gas companies said, "For 100 dollars a month we guarantee unlimited gas usage." They based their business model on current climate conditions and heating devices. This is a great model providing all things remain constant. It guarantees consistent cash flow and is based on averages, rewarding high-consumption gas users and penalizing, subversively, low-consumption gas users. All of a sudden heating device manufacturers introduce high consumption gas devices and the climate takes a turn for the cold. The gas companies are now in a pickle. They took it upon themselves to promote consumerism and maintain control. It backfires.
Okay, now we all know the gas companies would never, ever manage their cashflow like this. It's way to volatile. But this is how data providers are treating data. It's ludicrous. If they want to promote efficient devices and lower data consumption data usage must be metered just like any other utility. Any other business model will fail. Consumers and device manufacturers must consider their actions. Consumers will be more careful about what sites they visit and how much data they consumer. Device manufacturers and software developers will be more careful about the amount of data their products consume... they won't be able to sell inefficient products because consumers won't buy them if their liable for high-data usage.
That's the only solution.
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.
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.
For all the people who think the free-market ruined the economy, you might want to check out how many special deals, tax-breaks, tariffs, etc are put in place to protect the large businesses and lobbyists. The US is not a true free market.
I lean more in the middle between a heavily regulated economy and an unfettered free-market. We need regulations that actually regulate instead of exceptions for certain companies.
Big Business loves Big Government because Big Government looks after Big Business because Big Business pays off Big Government...
back on topic: 10mbps wireless would kick butt. I suspect they have better internet at least in part because of the size of the country.
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.
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.