Airline argument is simply to point out that when any startup that can't afford the natural barriers to entry in a market, that's just life.
Like when many startups couldn't launch in the days before cloud hosting. There was no "crime" in that. It was expensive to set up your own hosting and datacenter, so you didn't. With Amazon Web Serivces, now many new businesses can flourish. That's awesome, but it doesn't mean there was a crime before.
"The ruling acknowledges that such models create an unlevel playing field for smaller companies who may not be able to pay to play"
I agree. But there should be nothing inherently illegal about an unlevel playing field. "Inability to pay to play" isn't inherently wrong - I can't launch an airline right now either, for lack of capital. I don't think that is unfair. It's just a question of available resources.
If all content providers are faced with the same price to enter the walled garden, and that garden is open to all, then I don't see it as anti-competitive. This applies as long as the network operator is NOT also a content provider, which would have perverse incentives.
I don't like the Facebook walled garden, and think it will harm the open web in India. But I don't see it as "wrong" unless content providers are unfairly blocked from participating.
I saw it before it's release, and stayed well away from it - but not for the reasons stated in this article, for different ones.
Though a beautiful design, and early to the "connected by wifi" thermostat camp, it has the common problem of trying to be "smart" but only going 85% of the way there.
"Smart" home devices are like speech recognition - until they are almost perfect, they suck. A thermostat that tries to predict your life will make countless mistakes. A thermostat that tries to know when you are home, but only senses presence in the hallway where your Nest is will make errors. So, yeah. It's a "smarter thermostat", but not smart enough.
OTOH, I bought three Nest connected smoke/CO alarms. Those are great. Battery lasts 8 years, gives you a monthly status report, and will alert you in advance if the battery needs a change. Funny to me that the shittier product is their marquee.
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.