Provisioning more bandwidth require more natural resources, more time and energy, etc. By that logic, Ferarris aren't scarce either because, if we wanted to, we could divert resources from other (more highly desired) ends and make a virtually limitless supply of Ferraris.
I don't mean to cherry pick, just point out that when people are charged for what they use, they economize their uses better and there is less waste. Some industries choose not to go this route for a variety of reasons, but that's irrelevant. My point still remains: By lumping in those 1% who use 80% of the resources with the other 99% means the 99% must subsidize the 1% and that makes very little sense if you're part of the 99%. I see no reason why the 1% has the right to feel entitlement towards such an arrangement.
Thanks for responding; I thought that is what you meant. I'll defer to my initial reply that price has everything to do with it. Bandwidth is expensive, storage is cheap, relatively speaking. The cheaper something is, as I said, the more limitless it appears. Of course, in physical reality there are tangible limits, no matter how high they may be. I didn't mean to say that some services can't exist that offer "unlimited" of something, just that every such service has its limits. The question is whether or not the users push those limits or not. I suppose alternatively, you could also just get a CEO you decides he or she doesn't like such things and change course altogether, but that's beside the point.
In the case of data, yes the users do push those limits; it would be very unlikely for all of the providers to set arbitrary cutoffs when additional profits could be made my undercutting and stealing customers from their competitors. Some people think that the providers are monopolies / are part of a cartel, etc. But I don't think there's much evidence for that, at least not if you sufficiently broaden your definition of the "market". In the cell phone market in the US, we of course have 4 major providers. Most of them operate very differently, with sometimes very radically different pricing strategies. It's popular to pick on these companies for having no real competition, but I think it's a wholly unjust claim.
Exhibit A: My cell phone bill. My wife and my parents and I are all on a family plan with Sprint. Several years ago, after taxes, our bill was something like $230-$250. Now we pay $145 for 4 lines, all with data. And the service is better than it used to be (although it is still Sprint, so...) That's just $36.25/line. Cheaper than cricket. Granted, there's no longer that allegedly "free upgrade" that we get every two years. But even if you factor in $15/month for that, since none of us have expensive phones, that's still $205/month: $25-$45 less than it used to be.
T-Mobile has made similar changes. Neither company has as highly-regarded service as AT&T or Verizon, but they make up for it by slashing prices. Obviously, they are trying to undercut and steal from their competitors, so we can't assume that they're in some sort of cartel arrangement. Or, if they are, it seems to be a very volatile one.
Exhibit B: Sprint hasn't posted a profitable quarter in quite some time. I actually just read recently that their parent company has ordered cutbacks because Sprint is holding them back. If it were really so easy to setup a cell phone provider and make ridiculous margins, I wouldn't expect to see Sprint in such financial trouble.
Clearly it was never actually unlimited; no reasonable person would have ever thought so. Even without throttling, it could never be unlimited: if everyone used a large amount all at the same time, these limits would be revealed. I think the intent was to provide an experience that freed the consumer from the fear of overages; I don't know if you recall or not, but it used to be pretty easy to rack up a massive cell phone bill because of such things. Again, I don't think any reasonable person ever thought "unlimited" meant "I have a dedicated network all to myself to abuse as if I'm the only one on it." Or perhaps I'm in the minority. But I can't possibly be the only one who's not surprised that there are in fact limits and that throttling has occurred.
Coming at it from another angle, it was obviously never unlimited data because you can only transfer a limited amount of data at LTE/3G (whatever the plans were at the time) in any given window of time. If they throttle excessive users down to 1/5 speed or whatever, the data is no further from unlimited than it was before. Such distinctions are arbitrary and I posit that anyone of sound mind was well aware of such realities.
That said, could the providers have been more forward thinking and explicit about what would happen if someone used "excessive" amounts of data and what constitutes excessive? Yeah, probably.
I agree with you that because of the ban on JHP rounds, the 9mm is terrible choice for military. I have done considerable research on the topic as well and I haven't found anything to corroborate that modern 9mm self defense rounds (JHP) are in any way ineffective. In fact, most of the guys who seem to do the research all carry 9mm because it's 1) good enough and 2) allows for carrying substantially more rounds.
But yes, on the battle field, where hollow points are banned, I agree 9mm is likely a poor choice. The question remains, though: Do the alternatives really provide much advantage? Could it be that soldiers are accustomed to the stopping power of their rifles and when forced to use their handguns, think "9mm sucks" because it is woefully inefficient compared to a rifle round?
Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.