This is a Cable TV story, Not A Mobile Phone Story
AT&T's offer ensures that customers who get Unlimited Data ALSO have a paid TV subscription and thus will watch much of their content on a home TV, not the mobile phone. Also, many of the new unlimited customers will have U-Verse DSL as well. That means they'll be on Wi-Fi at home when they stream video to their phone.
The only customers who would get the most out of this (i.e. the cord and cable cutters) are the ones who are specifically NOT included in the offer. This offer is more likely to tip some customers towards an AT&T TV subscription versus a competing cable or Dish Network offer.
In the end, this offer is more about competing in the cable TV sector than the mobile phone sector.
To you and me, the definition of what their technology does is: it throttles video transmissions to 1.5 Mbps. Nice and simple, no semantic games. This COULD be presented as a feature, if it were done honestly, and one could opt-out [which one can]. So close, T-Mo, you almost did it. But the subterfuge is never appreciated by the market.
Legere isn't just playing with words. He's playing with words, their meanings, context, and implications. To him:
It's not "throttling" which is bad, it's "optimization [throttling] that gives you the benefit of not hitting your cap as fast" which is good. See?
To him, because of the existence of a cap, throttling IS a good thing, and is synonymous with optimization.
"HDCP plays a critical role in linking consumer electronics devices, personal computers, cable and satellite set-top boxes, and other Digital Devices to allow consumers to access and enjoy digital audiovisual content across a wide array of products, all while effectively protecting the rights of copyright owners and controlling access to copyrighted digital content."
Wrong. HDMI does that. HDCP's specific role is to PREVENT those connection.
But I stand by my point. Many people not trained in risk management would not immediately realize that "removing risk" is a real economic incentive, as good a payoff to a business as a literal bag of money.
The gov't can offer this "risk reduction" bribe without needing to allocate any budget, carve any checks, or send any suitcases of cash. It's "off balance sheet", and almost invisible to the voting public. The costs are socialized, but not a tax, so Grover Norquist won't bitch about it. It slips under the radar.
As such, it can be easily corrupted, as good as any slush fund and as honest as any Iran-Contra payoffs.
Geez. Let's just write up another song. It's such a simple, mindless song that we can surely conjure up another similar Public Domain version in a matter of minutes.
But inventing a new song, and putting it in the public domain would NOT work, would it? Because people have learned the existing song, memorized it already. It's part of the fabric, part of our culture.
It is, thus, the culture and the people that imbue that stupid little song with it's extraordinary value. The value comes from US. The incongruous notion of treating that value as Real Property, and as specifically the property of Warner/Chappell is bullshit.
It is the public that has created the value in the song, and Warner/Chappell has made us pay them for the value we created.
That said, you are otherwise right. The problem we have with the media is that terrorism is completely aligned with the business goals of news channels. Fear and terror make people turn on the news more, and stay tuned longer. Terrorism is great for Nielsen ratings.
This applies to domestic shooters, or political, or theocratic terrorists. It bleeds, it leads. Wash, rinse, repeat.