ad supported != free

In general, operating systems are more becoming more walled gardens for the vendor's "store" and designed around "affiliated" experiences rather than actual pieces of software that make it easy for the user to install and use the software and services of their choosing. "Free" or not, Ubuntu going down this slope reflects this frustrating trend.

...and if they can can get a high quality image that fills their field of view with sound that is powerful and convincing, that is good enough for some people to feel like they have actually experienced something, as opposed to just "watching" it.

Of course, most of the people who can afford to create these artificial experiences in their home somewhat convincingly can also afford to actually go to places and have the real life experiences to which you are likely referring. But then, a convincing presentation of something is the closest ANY person can get to "experiencing" events and places that can't possibly be experienced in real life.

I'd never grant that movies can be a substitute for actually going places and interacting with the environment and the people, especially as someone who usually chooses to spend disposable income on travel instead of upgrading the home theater. However with the right presentation and material, movies the can be life experiences you'll never forget.

The stuff on cable is so compressed to hell and filtered that it was never really HD to begin with.

I don't buy this "can't be done do to the nature of wireless communications" explanation. It's not because I completely understand the technical details (far from it), but because I have been to very densely populated places with high penetrations of "smart" devices", that have cheap mobile data, which their usage reflects, and got consistently great performance. I have video Skyped half way around the world on a GSM network (not even "4G"), with people doing other data heavy tasks all around me without performance issues.

Now, it may come down to politics and very real problems when managing our spectrum, getting permission to build and "wire" for mobile communcations, etc, but it being technically impossible for mobile networks to handle "high" data demands? I think not.

Obviously the kind of horseshit that enables a company like Verizon to maintain a 40 - 50 percent profit margin on their customers.

American corporations are not incompetent. Many are making record profits in one of the worst economic downturns in recent history. They know what they are doing, especially when it comes corrupting our government for their benefit and locking in customers. Deserving of eternal damnation, yes. Incompetent, no.

That depends. Verizon was recently fined for not adhering to open access provisions of their spectrum purchase. If he has a 4G LTE device ("C-Spectrum"), Verizon might be forced to allow free tethering regardless of his plan. The article to which you link reports Verizon "interpretation", which seems like they are still trying to dig their heels in, or continue to half-ass in their obligations with regard to the spectrum purchase. Whether that would survive if the FCC reviews Verizon's compliance again is a different story.

More likely, they will just find ways to force they unlimited customers into new contracts.

You don't need a 1 Gbps connection to stream 720 or 1080p video. That is even assuming REAL 1080p video, not the compressed to hell crap Netflix, cable providers, Amazon, iTunes, etc. advertise as such when it does not deserve that distinction. When properly mastered, Blu-ray gives transparent 1080p video and lossless HD audio at or below 0.05 Gbps. (Usually achieved at around 0.03 Gbps.)

Bandwidth caps would be reached quickly, and tiers with that kind of bandwidth are still pricey outside of Google Fiber, but the requirement of fiber and 1 Gbps, not really. (Not even for 4K)

All those statements could also explain the emergence of men who can get their sexual gratification from other men instead.

Almost makes one envy their ability to do so.