"we're still making money off some of these things so we have to restrict everything until the gravy train stops"
Actually, what they are saying/doing is more like:
"We're still making money of 0.03% of this content, so we have to restrict your access to ALL of it until the gravy train stops."
They are salting the fields. Basically, willing to block access to tremendous amounts of content as collateral damage in their quest for greed-fueled profiteering.
And the irony is the point you made, that this song actually achieved greater fame, profit, joy-delivery, etc. ONLY when derivatives of it were made by Donovan and others. This very song that Music Canada's spokesdouche brought up shows the value of derivative content can often exceed the original.
Also, the public good is not only measured in dollars for the economy. Songs in the public domain can offer $ millions in intangible value (economically called consumer surplus.) Basically, if we enjoy it for free, that is still a good thing, whether it registers in GDP or not.
Dude: You can already go out and buy any GSM phone you want, slide in your AT&T SIM card, and start calling. That's not new.
The OnePlus One is currently the darling phone for people who want this kind of approach.
Fact is, almost nobody does it, though, because the US carriers subsidize their phones, and then make users "pay back" that subsidy in the monthly bill -- whether you bought their cheap phone or your own full-price phone. Thus, most people take the cheaper carrier-tweaked phone.
It is true that a Google MVNO will reduce the power of the subsidy in controlling phones. They will expect people to buy their own Nexus 6 phone, and not subsidize. Of course, they aren't the first. T-Mo already offers this, as do numerous US MVNOs.
But, the Google MVNO will have very specific and unusual hardware, software, and radio requirements. Both Sprint and T-Mo USA have oddball frequencies not consistent with the rest of the world. That doesn't make the combined network an attractive target for hundreds of phone makers. It requires a bespoke phone, which would not ship in high volumes for two reasons: your assertion that there would be hundreds of vendors, and the fact that Google has indicated it is not seeking large scale.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's An Unpopular Opinion
Well, by "you all", I meant more than you individually.
Telcos get crapped on when they underinvest, as AT&T did between the iPhone launch and 2009. They have lots of dropped calls and slow data, and earn a bad reputation.
Then Telcos get crapped on when they DO invest, and stay ahead of rapidly growing data demand. People say "There's no capacity crunch. That's BS." Well, there IS a crunch, but you just don't feel it because they are building out networks like crazy.
Telcos may be dicks. But to criticize them in both of the two fashions above makes the critics also dicks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's An Unpopular Opinion
"Are there other markets that have unlimited mobile data where it causes huge problems, or is it metered everywhere?"
Well, even Sprint is unlimited, right here (if you're in the USA.) So that's part 2 of your question.
For part 1:
Perverse consumption doesn't have to lead to catastrophe.
Assholes leaving taps running in public bathrooms just means wasted water. The local utility won't actually run out of water as a result. But it's still perverse waste.
One result is that public bathrooms have often upgraded to either spring-loaded or sensor-based taps. It makes it harder to wash your hands, but it cuts back the waste. It's analogous to metering or caps.
But on the cellular internet side, if you're looking for a global catastrophe because many people have perverse behavior with unlimited data, you won't find it. It just manifests as dropped calls, slow data, or lost packets to the rest of us. So we get our Uber request in a little more slowly.
Not every bad thing is as swift, binary, and consequential as a guillotine. A slow sawing at your neck is also a negative.
Why the heck would profit-oriented businesses be spending billions on expanding their network capacity if capacity were not a major challenge? It absolutely follows.
And if congestion is not *currently* a huge problem where you are, it is merely the result of years of this kind of investment.
You know, you are kind of damning the carriers if they do, and damning them if they don't. I mean, AT&T fell behind on capacity growth when the iPhone data traffic surprised them, and had real a capacity crisis for a couple of years - so everyone shit on them. In response, all carriers doubled down mobile capacity investments...now you all shit on them saying there is no capacity crunch. OK, maybe not, because they raised their demand forecasts, and built out more capacity. But at peak loads, we are still constrained. And demand continues to grow.
"And that's simpler than knowing you have unlimited data?"
No. Never said it was. I said it was simpler than a meter like the gas station or your electric.
I also said unlimited data gives perverse incentives, and people will leave the tap running like people do in public bathrooms.
"True, I would hardly ever even consider using 16% of my monthly data to get an app. Not everyone has big data plans, because not everyone wants to pay for them."
Good on you. Many people have shifted data use to Wifi, which is one of the correct ways people respond to incentives. They try to use the cheaper network instead of the expensive one. I personally call this an economic success story...but the telcos may not because they don't bill for the wifi use.
"Fully metered would be worse than tiers, but that doesn't prove that tiers are better than unmetered"
No, I used a three step logical argument: 1- "unlimited" causes perverse consumption. Zero is a number that does strange things, in this case, stimulates wonton demand with tremendous waste built-in. We should avoid this kind of waste, so unlimited is not a good model. 2- If we need to put on limits, ample Tiers are better than metered. 3- The moderate competition in the industry should mean that some of the surplus generated from not wasting will go into the consumers' pocket.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You just can't have unlimited data on a limited network
"Excluding the smaller players, the wireless companies are the telcos, are they not? So they're paying themselves."
No. They are paying other telcos. Look at my example. T-Mo, with no fixed infrastructure, pays many other Tier 1 carriers for transport. Of course, for the big two, they can do more of their own backhaul, but even AT&T and Verizon will find themselves buying backhaul from local and regional telcos like CenturyLink, or others.
"So, rather than constantly upgrading their cabling, they should just bury a bundle of high capacity cabling"
OK, but much as you may hate them, the telcos aren't that stupid. They DO bury cable with capacity planned for the future. It's just that until year 2000, there was no concept that a cell tower would need this much backhaul, so that whole installed base of towers is copper-connected. Copper does cost a lot, so just an adequate amount was buried for the envisioned growth of voice traffic.
Of course today they would only bury fiber if a new trench is dug.
"they only want to run enough cable capacity to cover what they immediately need"
Nope. Wrong. They just do a cost/benefit analysis, as any profit-minded business would do. And consider this normal case:
You build a cell tower with copper infrastructure from the local incumbent carrier 500 yard away. The nearest fiber run is 2 miles away. Do you bury copper for 500 yards to meet expected traffic and growth, or do you trench the 2 miles to run fiber for any possible future eventuality?
The choice is clear and obvious. People should not armchair quarterback this shit without understanding the real history, facts, challenges, investments, and capacity planning of the industry.
"I don't think I need to give them any allowances for being so shortsighted."
There were just not that many people prior to 2000 who envisioned the mobile Internet as it is. Few businesses would have invested in fiber to the tower at that time, especially given the much higher cost-per-tower capital expense.
Re: Re: You just can't have unlimited data on a limited network
"That's an easy thing to fix: stop running laughably puny pipes to the towers. 20mbps is ridiculously small."
And THAT is really f'n easy to say when it's not your job. It turns out that it is NOT an easy thing to fix, and an entire industry sector is dedicated to solving the backhaul challenges.
Best, of course, is fiber to the tower. But most towers aren't so lucky to be near a fiber run. So the fiber can be extended, but that's expensive trenching -- which is being done for many towers.
Next best is to pay some telco to backhaul your tower. For example T-Mo pays AT&T all over the country. But that is not cheap, and you can guess how great the AT&T service is for T-mo.
Next best is point-to-point wireless solutions, using directional beams. Dozens of technologies have been used here, from Free Space Optics, to wimax, to millimeter wave, in-band, out-of-band, mesh, yada yada. The problems here are throughput is a function of range, and throughput can be degraded by fog, rain, birds, etc. And latency is introduced. And if the signals have to hop multiple towers in a chain or mesh, some towers have to carry multiple towers worth of traffic and become a bottleneck. In cities, sight-lines, multipath and interference are a huge problem.
Sorry. Not easy. Not at all. You can't armchair quarterback this shit. Building a network is actually very hard. And keeping up with data demand is also hard, as AT&T was kind enough to demonstrate when they first got the iPhone in 2007. We don't have to shed a tear for the carriers. They take a big pound of flesh to do the job. But don't tell me it's easy.
Also, not cheap. So, carriers are CONSTANTLY upgrading their tower backhaul, and it costs money. They do it primarily because data demand is growing...which is why we pay more if we use more data.
Re: Re: You just can't have unlimited data on a limited network
"Except the plan is to remove landline unlimited data too"
A different subject (not entirely, but more or less).
"And if Congestion is a problem, Zero-rated high bandwidth apps wouldn't be a thing"
Here's how that works. The carriers want to make money per MB. People are already using Pandora, Spotify, and Periscope.tv. When they do so, they are using non-optimized feeds of such, and the carrier is cut out of the revenue stream.
If the carrier zero-rates, say Pandora, then they work with Pandora to distribute it into their phones, they work to "optimize" the data rate (read: make it shittier for you), and they take a rev share on the ad revenue for Pandora in return for the distribution. Thus, even though "zero rated" they make more money on that Pandora service than they would if they had done nothing.
By promoting Pandora, they also limit the user's desire to try another service, say Spotify, which isn't optimized. The net effect can actually be a reduction in data traffic, with a share in the music service's revenues. So, it shows how even if "congestion is a problem", zero rating can be a thing.
BTW, I'm not arguing in favor or against zero rating here. I want to stay focused. I'm just explaining to you how it makes sense to some carriers, and is unrelated to congestion.
No argument with what you wrote. Overage fees are, and have historically, been exorbitant and punitive. It's like they are punishing you for guessing wrong.
Data is cheap, on a per MB basis. You said it, I agree. And it's getting cheaper. (But it's not free. And free does weird things to math, and demand, and consumption -- as Techdirt writes about often.) So if a user goes over their tier, they should be charged some reasonable rate for the overage.
I have no defense for carriers charging $15 for a 3MB overage, or even worse, the rates they charge for international roaming. In fact, I'd be the first to write an article saying it's rape.