because people don't want to think or care about how much they are using. i pay rent monthly and it doesn't matter how many times i used the bathroom. same idea.Yes it should! I pay for water by the gallon. I pay for electricity by the kilowatt hour. I pay for gas by the gallon. Why should internet, which is like any other utility, be any different? Why not pay per unit used?
Paying per unit incentivizes users and service providers to be efficient. I will try to connect to WiFi whenever possible, and apps like Spotify can compete on data usage (i.e., imagine Spotify advertising same sound quality as Apple Music but uses 25% less data)
Paying for "unlimited" incentivizes waste from both customers and service providers. Why bother compressing the images - customer won't care.
I also have AT&T and TMobile phones in San Diego, and most places (in and around town, not in the mountain and rural areas) where AT&T sucks, TMobile rocks. They have definitely improved. And LTE speeds are off the charts when I do speed tests.This is why I don't currently use T-Mobile. It sounds great, but where I live in the Bay Area and in San Diego, the coverage can't compete with Verizon and AT&T. I tested for about a month with one T-Mobile phone and one AT&T phone -- just wasn't worth it.
Customers WILL care if they can only download an image in 20KB/s. Being unlimited or not, won't make any difference when speed is limited.Paying for "unlimited" incentivizes waste from both customers and service providers. Why bother compressing the images - customer won't care.
That's awesome.I switched from Verizon to T-Mobile. I love it. No real change in call quality or reception, with 1 exception, and that's interstate freeway travel. T-Mobile service drops off on long stretches of highway out in the middle of nowhere, which Verizon managed to maintain at least calling services throughout all of my travels (and data throughout most). I'll take that trade-off for the host of additional benefits and the nearly 40% in savings in my monthly bill. I've completely jumped on board. Love it.
Epic fail, there is nothing finite about water, it just get recirculated and reused. Now this can be expensive if you live in a desert, but if expense is a problem then you shouldn't live in a desert. Too much indoctrination going on.Because water, electricity and gas are finite resources?
You're referring to bandwidth, while the argument is how many 1's and 0's each person can "consume" per month. If 1's and 0's were a finite resource, we'd reach the end of the internet quickly.What? Where does everybody get the strange idea that data capacity is infinite? There are basic physical limits to wireless capacity.
I do R&D at those frequencies. Having good coverage at >10GHz requires a huge investment in base stations. So yeah, frequency reuse (and hence available bandwidth) at E band is great but the infrastructure costs are huge... and currently not low power.DDoS attack on what, the ISP? Not sure what that analogy is supposed to mean. I still don't buy that the finiteness of water is analogous to the finiteness of the internet.
Not really, I think it would be very easily shown that the average data usage of today is dramatically higher than the average data usage of 20 years ago. The increase in technology has allowed us to consume more data, and stated in that article "The cost of increasing [broadband] capacity has declined much faster than the increase in data traffic," says Dane Jasper, CEO of Sonic, an independent ISP based in Santa Rosa, Calif." I don't know that this increase in usage is the case for water (it could be, at which point I'll reconsider).
Once again, I don't believe this is an accurate representation of how the internet works. In general, Netflix is going to have their own infrastructure and servers placed at your ISP, and your ISP is going to serve from those servers directly to you.
Furthermore, Google and other internet companies themselves have been known to purchase the backbone links of the internet, for instance:
My sense of this is that Google and other companies lay fiber, reserve portions of it for their own traffic, place servers at local ISPs that are fed from these networks, and the local ISPs provide you the last link between your home. Please explain to me why the 300 gigs of Netflix I stream is on a per byte cost to the ISP (and a fixed monthly fee to Netflix)
While what you say is technically accurate, it is also misleading. Speeds will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, with complex use of multiple networks, for instance high frequency networks for small areas (e.g., 5G has been tested at 15GHz, 58GHZ, local wifi networks are usable at 60GHZ) that will quickly switch you around. These are technical hurdles being solved
Write to the drive a million times.See how well it works without losing data. Hint: Not infinite as they have a limited number of read write cycles.Plug in a USB stick to your computer. How many times can you copy and read from the drive?
There you go; data transfer. Infinite (well, as long as the computer is on).
I live in DC near the Van Ness Metro stop. I switched three months ago from AT&T after finally giving up the original iPhone unlimited data plan.Anyone in the DC Metro area use T-Mobile? I previously used them about 2 years ago and it was pretty crappy. Anyone currently using it that can tell me if coverage good?