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'.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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?