1) My daughter brought back a Palm Sunday palm frond doll from France. It was confiscated by customs, I signed off on the confiscation and was chastised because I did not check off the "plants or seeds" box on the I94 form.
2) I applied for a Global Entry pass for US customs. A year later, I had my application rejected at interview because to paraphrase "I was a lying liar who lies, and imports contraband". I asked WTF, they said "You know." I repeated WTF, they said "Crushed Palm Leaves". I had no recollection, because, recall, what I had confiscated was a DOLL, not a plant.
But you see, the doll that I had was made of plants. And I am supposed to know that. But then, where does it end? My cotton shirt is also made of plants. I'd venture that nobody at all has ever crossed a border guard without some plant material on his/her person.
Where does the responsibility to understand the input materials of our products end? - Is Vanderklok legally required to know what "organics" means, to that agent in that context? He had Powerbars. Does he need to know the list of ingredients, and their family, genus, and species?
- Does someone driving from Vancouver to Seattle need to know the soft materials used in the seating for their car, which may contain plant matter? Or all the other input materials for their car?
- Why is everything so arbitrary? I've had trips where a new and packaged Snickers bar is not considered food by agents that I've asked, and I've had trips where it IS considered food. You can judge which was right, but regardless, it should not depend on the mood of the agent.
If the Homeland Security agents can't nail down what is contraband and what is not, how can we? Ridiculous! A moron in a hurry cannot be expected to be a material science expert on the composition of every product they carry across borders or onto airplanes. Nor should we need to be.
Homeland Security should look for bombs and weapons. That's all most of us really care about our TSA finding. Just keep the plane safe.
"the benefit of the doubt goes to the whistleblowers"
It's a David vs. Goliath fight, and a bold move for any whistleblower, who is always burning bridges. The least we could do is apply an innocent until proven guilty mentality, and a "public defender" level of legal support.
"The ultimate irony, he says, is that everything he was punished for saying has now been proven true."
Tim, I'm 100% pro John Kiriakou. He's a hero. His case is clear. He is saving the country from a massive blunder.
But I need to point out that the test of whether a whistleblower is a hero or a traitor is not whether the information that is leaked is later "proven true."
There is a lot of Top Secret stuff that is better kept secret. Some secrets are ethical, legal, and it is strategically significant that they remain secret. Leaking them would be "true", but still wrong.
That's why the hero/traitor distinction is so fraught with disagreement and subjective evaluations. It's not a cut and dried question of truth - it's a nebulous question of "was this leak the right thing to do for the nation?"
Techdirt tends to focus on whistleblowers which this community think (and I agree) are on the right side of ethics. John Kiriakou, Ed Snowden being prominent examples. But it's not because their leaks were true. It's because the public NEEDED TO KNOW.
"You're saying that my $110 per month, along with all the other customers, is not enough to cover their fixed costs?"
No. I clearly said they make high profits, because of a lack of competition. But we're not discussing what fair profits are, we're discussing pricing models.
" If I want 50 mbps, I pay the company for that capability, and I'm paying to account for their fixed costs"
Yeah, but you probably know that they oversubscribe their customers, and estimate actual usage for network planning purposes. You are not paying for 50 Mbps. You are paying for "up to 50 Mbps, best effort". You do not have dedicated capacity, as business lines often do. If you want 50 Mbps with an SLA (Service level Agreement) to guarantee and dedicate that full capacity to you, then expect to pay hundreds of dollars per month.
Network planning has always been thus (oversubscribe), because it would be stupid to build a network any other way. Roads, toilets at the theater, elementary classrooms, theme park rides, gym memberships. They're all built assuming everyone doesn't use it at once.
Nah. Not on board. I know the theory that packets of data are free is common here at TD, but that's where I diverge with the rest. Mike often makes that case, and Karl too, if I recall correctly.
But there is a very real investment in the network infrastructure, and also an ongoing expense in operations. And when existing network capacity is filled up, significant capital must be invested to increase capacity for the newer traffic.
And there's nothing theoretical about that. Data traffic has grown phenomenally year over year, every year. We could not carry all those bits we send today using 2008's network assets, nor 2012's.
AT&T spent $19 Billion in one year on their network. That's real money. Separately, how do you think companies like Cisco, Ericsson, HP, Huawei, Alcatel, etc. all make their big revenues every year? That money comes from YOU, from your per GB fees, through the carrier, and on to their equipment suppliers. Ericsson will not provide network upgrades for free, so AT&T has to charge those who use data to pay for the upgrades.
So, a fair way to pay for a GB of data is based on the average cost (in operational cost and capital rent) of that GB of data, plus some profit margin.
Sure, the US carriers margins are too high, because competition is too light. But the basic notion that a GB has a cost and a price is entirely fair, and not just some wacky imaginary construct to rape the customer. It's not the only way to charge for the network, but it's an OK one.
If you'd rather pay some rent for some network capacity, then that's just another model. It might work. You'd end up paying near the same amount, though. It would be harder to allocate the higher payments to the people that use more, too.
I would say the construct that "transporting a packet is free" is the fictional construct. It's only true if significant investments were made, and continue to be made, in over-capacity of infrastructure. You make a lot of assumptions there, and you're making them with someone else's capital.
"The network pays for it's bandwidth capacity not it's network throughput."
Analogy time: Restaurants have very high fixed costs, and some marginal costs in labor and food. Do you walk into a Subway and say "I won't give you $6 for this sandwich, that's a farce. The Sandwich is $3 fixed costs, and $3 variable costs. The fixed costs are already done and paid for. I should only pay you the $3 marginal cost for my food and labor inputs."
Cuz that's what you're doing to ISPs.
Listen, ISPs oligopolists are dicks. They're not easy to defend. But occasionally they're right.
It seems to me that all the good arguments against sponsored data rely on the Domino Theory. That is, "Well, this is barely OK, but it's just one step away from being wrong. Therefore this is as good as wrong." But, much as I dislike sponsored data, I can't agree in Domino Theory criticisms. It's like thought crime, and you're the precog:
"it seems like only a matter of time before AT&T mutates the Sponsored Data idea into something notably more awful"
Now, you argue that, based on their history, AT&T can be expected to take the next step, and topple the next domino, entering into shady bad-guy territory. I agree with this. But...precog argument again...I don't believe in pre-crime policing.
"some consumers...weren't understanding the awful precedent AT&T was setting" - but precedent to crime isn't a crime.
I think freedom dictates that we let the stakeholders to the borderline shady plays. Now, it would be better if there were more competition, so we could vote with our wallets, but that's another problem on which we agree.
"[the sponsored model] model puts smaller companies and developers at a distinct disadvantage to their deeper-pocketed counterparts."
Perhaps. But what about a startup that has a service targeting a segment of consumers that just don't have data plans, or have tiny ones. Let's say I'm a startup with one service/app aimed at seniors, and another aimed at latino immigrants. I know my target market has particularly low subscription rates to mobile data. With sponsored data, I have the flexibility to create a biz model where I pay the freight, and can actually have a market to address. In this case, Sponsored Data enables the biz model.
The important thing is that the network is still neutral, meaning that the company that pays for Sponsored Data doesn't have their packets prioritized over a competitor that chooses a more conventional model. This is unrelated to whether the user pays the freight or the content company. I know, you don't trust AT&T not to prioritize in some sneaky way...and you may be right. But then your beef is against the prioritization, not the payment model.
I'm glad this idea is not taking off. I hope it flops. But I think it's a fair idea that opens up different biz models, and that's OK.
In short: For fair biz, each packet needs to be billed the same fair rate, somebody needs to pay, and Sponsored Data should get the same prioritization as regular data. So long as somebody pays, there is no preference, there are just different biz models.
You could still fly your DJI Phantom around DC. The device uses GPS to improve flight stability and navigation. But it can also be flown in manual modes if GPS satellites are not detected.
So...make a tinfoil hat for your Phantom, blocking the view of the sky, and the Quad will never know that it is in the DC no-fly zone, and will happily fly in manual mode, which simply takes more skill from the pilot.
As a DJI flyer, it seems to me the following two questions are very important:
1) Is DJI being very clear about the reduced functionality the update will bring PRIOR to customers accepting the update?
2) Is there an option to NOT take the update, and continue flying in Grandfathered mode for all eternity? This would preclude opt-outers from improvements, too, but the functionality they bought would still exist.
If this kind of update is done with YES answers to the two questions above, then it satisfies your requirements about retaining the functions of the products you own. Sadly, my guess is that the answer to 1, at least, will be no.
That problem was huge pre-2008, but has been largely addressed. Now, - most phones can vary their WiFi RF power, as they do with cellular. - better sleep cycles with mobile device use in mind are integrated, where early WiFi was designed for plugged in devices, then laptops. - in fact, the smartphone power issues having been solved, the WiFi Alliance has been more focused of late designing in the ability of WiFi to compete with Zigbee or Bluetooth in the IoT, where batteries might power embedded modules for years.
I've had one of their phones since pre-launch. Works pretty well. Android smartphone, choose your model, and the phone price is subsidized a bit. Then, $20/mo, unlimited voice, sms, data. (My understanding is that you might get a nastygram if you use too much cellular data.)
CrushU, I'm not sure if you're right about SMS on Republic. Google Voice and Hangouts, and iOS iMessage all do SMS on wifi in one way or another. But either way, SMS over wifi is probably not pursued, since the effort is fruitless due to the minimal data traffic impact of SMS.
Right. Metered service is very fair, and can correctly account for capital investment as well as operational expenses...except that you'd have to have time-of-use price changes to be totally fair and account for peak-load pricing - just as many electricity utilities now do.
And then, also, nobody wants the mental math of calculating the cost of each bit of data they transceive, as Nasch's comment illustrates.
So, another economically sound idea loses out because it is very much the opposite of simple.
Tiered service basically achieves a similar goal, but removes the detailed mental math. Choose a tranche that seems to fit you, and move up or down depending on your usage. BTW, rollover (as discussed in this article) really helps smooth out the individual user's demand from month to month, making Tiered service an even better solution for consumers.
"I'm sure they would, but caps don't have anything to do with that. It's not like the only two feasible options are caps vs an insanely complicated billing scheme."
No, those aren't the only two options. But caps help solve three of the goals: They offer simplicity, they get carriers the ability to upsell and get more profit, and they reduce aggregate demand, both per month and peak.
Sure, there are other options, but the proposal by JP was to charge people in ways more closely tied to reality. Well, reality is really @#$# complicated. Peak load pricing being just one, static element. For reality, we should also factor in the long-term capital expenditure rents, and allocate those to the correct customers.
So, what we're looking for as an ideal billing model is maybe not closely tied to reality, but will be a simplification of it. It would get "those who want data more" and "those who want more data" to pay more, would fund capital investment in network capacity, and would let light users join in for lower rates.
Tiered rates with caps do that.
Please offer better suggestions. You may well come up with one. But "I want unlimited because caps don't make sense." isn't better.
Tragically, in NYC two policemen were shot last month by a deranged lunatic. He saw the cruiser, moved up and assassinated both officers.
In committing the crime, he made use of his eyes and vision. These tools can be used to see police cars when they are stopped at roadsides and other locations, thus, the National Sheriffs Association is petitioning people to remove their eyes, which pose a marked risk to officer safety.
The data doesn't lie: Cases in which eyes have been used to harm officers: basically all Cases in which Waze has been used to harm officers: basically zero
Ha. Funny, and largely true. An example I often have used is that, while US celcos certainly competed pretty hard on the price for the "bucket of minutes" in the first decade of this century, and now compete on the price of a bucket of data, there has been almost NO competition on the price of international roaming for voice or data.
Basically, the industry has learned that when consumers shop for a phone, they can only juggle one or two factors on which to compare carriers. That removes any pressure to compete on other factors, which can still be used to gouge customers.
But as a point of order, to an economist, a competitive market is one in which the participants are "price takers" not "price makers".
If the sellers, as VZW is doing in this article, are able to choose their price at will for a commodity product, the market is not competitive.