This is something to think about for all those (primarily Libertarians) who constantly cheer for "small government!!". You see, much like an investment porfolio, a government functions best when it is larger, and has more diverse interests represented. For example, voters in NYC would not be in favor of Wyoming's gag law, but their opinions don't matter to the state of WY, and thus small government also means small-minded.
Think of all the studies that show diversified thinking results in better decisions. Small gov't ignores that.
Think about a resource-extraction state, like Alaska. Do you think Alaska is "balanced" in their governance when choices are between protecting the environment, and extracting more oil or trees? Well, since most people in the state are paid either directly or indirectly by resource extraction, they get lots of "drill baby drill", and nothing else.
Ever see a mining town that was anti-mining? Iowa is corn first, WY is cows first, Alaska is resource extraction first, and damn the consequences. Great!
This is not an argument for "one world government", much as a stock porfolio diversity plan does not need thousands of stocks. A dozen or more provides adequate diversity. A nation as diverse and as large as the USA has plenty of diversity built-in. But distilled down to the state level, local priorities may be biased by local enterprise.
You're example is a fixed broadband. That is relatively commoditized, but this article is wireless. I'm not clear if we're on the same page or not. But there is more to wireless competition (and fixed) than just price.
Some key differentiators for wireless: - network coverage footprint - speeds across that footprint - customer service quality - customer service wait times - retail, brick and mortar presence - device availability, exclusivity - Free included apps, or even better, lack of those apps - Faster OS updates for Android phones - SIM locking phones or not - Offer subsidized model, or not with discount (like T-Mo) - content exclusivity (VZW has NFL) - international roaming inclusion - wifi offload inclusion - better, simpler billing - better bundles, family plan - integration with IoT - etc, etc.
If a carrier got all the above right for me, I'd gladly pay them multiples of the cheapest offer. Heck, I pay AT&T about 3X for my AT&T lines versus what I pay Republic for my 1 line there. There's a reason.
I hope you're kidding, or just misusing the word "evolving".
I think you may mean "adapting" or changing our culture.
Because evolution is a much slower process, takes millenia, and requires those "less fit" to not reproduce and/or die. Because of our healthcare and our somewhat monogamous family structure, many of the "less fit" take their turn at reproduction. I'm not sure how humans are likely to evolve. It seems that natural selection has been "denaturalized" by humans. Our rates of reproduction are also odd, such as 8 children per woman in Uganda to the sub 2/per rates we see in developed nations.
Karl, I fundamentally don't agree with your argument here.
Let's abstract it, and not talk about VZW and Tmo at all.
Businesses do NOT have to compete on price. Not at all. Apple doesn't, Faberge doesn't, Nike doesn't, LL Bean doesn't, etc.
You can compete on a number of qualities depending on the product. Yes, price will always play a role, but customers have proven that they will choose a higher priced product if other factors are considered superior. Quality, differentiation, new features, exclusivity, location, speed, service, cachet, brand, accessibility, privacy...these are all features that could affect the price consumers are willing to pay for a product.
He outlined three specific concepts for companies to succeed, only one of these was price. While I don't accept his argument as 100% law, his arguments are pretty useful to disabuse the notion that competition MUST always be on price.
Frankly, the entire economy would be a race to the bottom if it were so. There would be little differentiation, no innovation, and little quality if your hypothesis from this article were correct. It would be a sad, sad outcome.
It's not extreme. Either you have NN, or you don't. A "little bit of a walled garden" is immediately 100% NOT a neutral network.
That's the funny thing about stuff like NN, pregnancy, binary bits. You either got it, or you don't.
I'm actually not dead-against Internet.org, but I sure don't think it offers NN. I think it *could* be OK, so long as the walled garden content providers PAY the carrier the same rate per MB to carry the data to the customers as the customers would pay for any other content, AND the users are in no way blocked from other content. This would make it like 1-800 phone numbers where the businesses pay the toll.
"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.