And the government wonders why there's a fake news problem?
They don't, of course, but good post.
As far as rural... rural is often shockingly expensive. Mostly no one wants rural customers without heavy subsidy. The subsidies and the desire for a more complete network is why rural gets service.
You are correct though that given low population density a genuinely unlimited (or very high limits) is possible.
There is a simple technical reason:
A) there is a limited amount of spectrum
B) technologically we need to use a non zero portion of spectrum per connection
C) we are close to capacity today
D). Given a zero cost per byte usage would skyrocket.
Ergo it has to be rationed. T-mobile rations via inconsistent connections and slow performance. Verizon rations via price.
And tomorrow you'll be making the same apologist excuses about today.
I'm not certain will see another surge like we just went through but if we do then yes most likely the context will have changed and today's plans will contain clauses that in the new context don't make sense.
Nice excuse but you're conveniently forgetting that no matter what the max bandwidth of the time was capable of transferring, it was still the same percentage of their overall bandwidth.
That's simply not true. The relationship between a heavy user and the max bandwidth was lower. Landline connections to the towers and available spectrum were relative to today less constrained. Heavy users of data (excluding extremes) were still not going to tax the towers as much as moderate users of voice. The vast majority of people had no desire to consume much bandwidth. Under those circumstances one can be quite cavalier about offering "unlimited". I can offer free unlimited drinking water at a restaurant, I can't offer unlimited farming water.
First off Verizon's model is to take long term fixed costs and break them out as per byte costs. If you aren't willing to incur the full costs for the fixed cost model, for example 20 year contracts and being charged for heavy static usage you don't get to complain about the fact they aren't charging you based on other aspects of the fixed cost model like most bytes incur almost 0 cost to Verizon. You don't get to mix models to your advantage.
Nobody would argue with throttling on specific towers WHEN congestion arises. It's funny how that isn't their solution
Because they didn't design their system to support that. The towers don't know about your rate plan when they serve you signal. That's computed after the fact.
Its not pipes to the towers that's the problem. There are technological limits on interference given a limited range of frequencies. The problem for the carriers is the amount of spectrum available and the current limits on sensitivity of phone antennas plus some algorithm limits based on using TCP/IP. There is going to be quotas based likely on money for over the air internet consumption for a generation at least. Improvements will continue but they will be moderate.
The context changed and this changed the meaning of what they were selling. At the time of EVDO it was almost impossible to use 1GB/mo. You had phones with very limited internet features using a terrible data network. The use case was infrequent internet for short bursts. From there there were use cases like Blackberry which had all sorts of compression features to limit data usage....
Today's phones have rich applications which can consume almost unlimited data and the network is quite good.
Actually they do now. You get data carryover with their new plans.
It's Free Software ("Open Source"). After a project becomes a GNU project (or an IBM project, or a Microsoft project, or whatever), the license allows GNU to continue working on the project whether the original maintainer likes it or not. That's not abusive.
The original maintainer can quit working with GNU, the original maintainer can keep working on the original branch of the software, both sides can claim they are the original and the other is the fork, and there's nothing wrong with any of that. In fact it's beautiful and wonderful and helps us all.
It counts for a lot. I used to figure OSX was worth $1k for me. However:
a) Virtualization kills a lot of the advantages of having a business system on top of Unix
b) fink and darwin getting less attention kill a lot of the advantages
c) The quality of web applications and the move away from desktop kill advantages
d) The new windows form factors are a real plus. I use laptops because I like portability and Windows takes portability much further.
e) Azure integration is a real plus. Microsoft now arguably has better ties with Unix / open source than Windows does because of Azure.
I don't know about speed I've been reading the review and it doesn't seem better. I certainly could use more SSD space. I certainly would like more battery life. I certainly wouldn't mind 32 or 64g of RAM. But it doesn't have any of those things.
I really like the touch aspects. Note taking is a particular strength of the dual form factor and that is useful for college. As far as most users I think the Azure integration features are rather awesome. The core of Windows is office and many Windows users didn't have good sharepoint until recently.
I don't follow. Why would privacy and security on the browser drive an overall drop in quality in the OS, application support and hardware value?
Besides things like integrating tracking protection and ad blocking are not hard to do. I use Safari and those things work today on my system.
Agree with everything you wrote except for Tim Cook. Cook has continued in his manufacturing role. Apple manufacturing is really good, and the complexity of the products has skyrocketed. This has continued and is now far better than under Jobs. They now make very complex products reliably, affordably and quickly.
The problem is that many of the other areas of Apple are stagnating. Cook is doing stuff but he is still acting like head of manufacturing not head of Apple.
Agree and I say this as a guy who has been with OSX since 10.1. You used to be able to make an argument that while Apple gouged on some areas they were a reasonable buy. Today you just can't. They are mostly inferior across the whole line. Meanwhile PCs in the last 2 years have gotten much better. I had planned on buying a replacement for my 1st year rMBP this year. The new systems aren't much faster and better. There is simply no excuse for the Mac Pro having gone almost 4 years without a refresh. There is simply no excuse for the how bad the rMBPs are in terms of comparable performance and battery life.
Meanwhile as you say the PC market has gotten quite good. At $600-1200 price point there are some very good machines. Not comparable to a $3k mac but good machines with some innovative features. I'm buying a PC for my daughter this year. And I'm seriously considering that my next machine be a PC unless next years models are a lot better.
Steve Jobs always made the comment that people vote with their dollars. I hope the message is being heard.
The earth is like a tiny grain of sand, only much, much heavier.