I predict Jack Wallen will regret that statement within 5 years

Now we know the REAL reason for the SSL push from Google.

Quote from Zero Effect:

Steve Arlo: There aren't any GOOD guys. You realize that, don't you? I mean: there aren't EVIL guys, and INNOCENT guys. It's just - it's just... It's just a bunch of guys.

The part I don't understand is how telecoms have a sense that content providers are getting a free ride. The last time I checked I pay for my broadband access and I also pay the content providers (some, like Google indirectly). It makes sense that telecoms would have to adjust their networks based on what their customers want to do with their service (since we are the ones paying the bill). After all I'm paying for INTERNET access not INTRANET access.

That's not mass surveillance, it only records the flight crew and it records on a loop so only the last 30 minutes or so are available at any given time. It also serves a very important purpose in case something happens to the plane.

"a dense husk of degenerate matter that was once a massive star long" - Lindsey Lohan?

So if I ever thought (or said) that I like you then I can't sue you (take legal action)? Tell that to anyone that's been divorced...

Your idea assumes that the price-per-kb is reasonable. If you look at what people are currently charged by AT&T for "overage", you get an idea of what they think they should charge. The only reason that your "package" price-per-kb is lower is because most people don't use it all. If you only actually paid for what you use, you'd be paying a *LOT* more for it (close the the "overage" rate I expect).

I think that's a catch 22. If you where the star of a show making $5000 per episode and found out that each episode was turning a profit of $3,000,000 then you'd probably want a higher salary since your effort is making someone else so much money. Just like with movie actor's salaries if an actor becomes more popular more people come to see their movies and the movies make progressively more money and of course the actor would want a higher salary.

As good as this seems on paper, along with the idea of being able to only subscribe to the channels you want I think the reality of it would suck. I believe that if the revenue model for television had always been a subscription per show or even channel basis then a lot of shows/channels would have never existed. If you look at what shows are popular now then I hope you LOVE reality TV and want to watch all 17 variations of Survivor and American Idol that would come to be. I hope you don't like sci-fi because there wouldn't be enough money in it to make any of those shows. The fact is I (and probably a lot of others) watch a LOT of TV we wouldn't pay specifically for.

Just an observation, in your post you mention "if the device is not subsidized by verizon, and is the user's personal property". Assuming that ownership of the device makes a difference, I think you could argue that he owns it either way. If I buy a phone that's worth $500 for $200 in exchange for a 2 year contract then there will be a penalty that will more than pay for the phone if I cancel. If that penalty is part of my agreement then I don't see how the phone wouldn't be considered "mine" since I've agreed to either honor my contract or reimburse them if I don't; assuming I do either of those that phone is mine.

And my WiFi AP does 600 megabits....

If that's true then the sale of those items should be better controlled. If I walk into a government subsidized bookstore and they let me buy 1000 copies of the same book and walk out the door then there is a problem.