Sounds like I didn't understand you and you didn't understand me either!
I think we can both agree that the theoretical limit of data transfer is much higher on wired connections than on wireless. On a wired connection, carriers can always add more wires if nothing else, so all the connections can always go through.
What this means in practice for wireless connections is where we don't quite agree.
When wireless saturation occurs, the carriers have three options: 1. Allow unlimited data transfer, which slows everyone down. This means they end up charging the same rates to your grandmother as they do to a tech savvy hacker. 2. Charge based on usage. This means people who use more pay more, which is probably fine for most of us. We'd rather get more for no extra cost, but I think we can agree that's a futile proposition, so paying for more isn't unreasonable. 3. Charge based on tiers AND traffic. Here's where there's some confusion. My point is that it's better for carriers to do this because they make more money. Major sites like Google, Microsoft, etc. will be able to pay for the extra traffic allowance. Small sites like mine or yours won't. The carriers will still have to charge based on usage, but now they can charge content providers as well.
I think the misunderstanding comes in that you're saying the third option can still have an unlimited and/or unthrottled option, whereas I don't think that would ever be the case. If the wireless connection is saturated (as I stated in the original post) there's no incentive for the carriers to ONLY charge the content providers. They can (and will) charge the users for their usage as well; if for no other reason than it would be unfair for unlimited users to be able to hit a paying content provider constantly without any financial repercussions.
I think you're confused by what net neutrality means.
But in any case, the wireless spectrum has physical limitations; I don't think anyone would argue with that. From a purely economic standpoint, things that are limited are generally sold to the highest bidder. So a tiered, pay-per-use system would give the providers of the service more money than a flat system with a fixed monthly rate. This is why net neutrality is good for users, but bad for providers.
The problem isn't the protocol, it's wireless bandwidth. Even with better hardware and better compression, there's only so much data you can cram in the airwaves.
Sir or madam, my name is Prince Natobe and I need you to help my family send $100,000 to my daughter in Nigeria. If you could help launder... I mean "send" the money, you will be paid 10%. Thank you.
Depending on your point of view, it's either funny or scary that I was playing Carmegeddon around the time I learned to drive.
Every so often I wasn't as alert on the road as I should have been, and started thinking in terms of scoring points. Now thankfully, I never did drive over any old ladies IRL, because those walkers would cause a lot of damage to the bearings.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep your FACTS out of my politics!
Your reward is a long, healthy life. That's more valuable than money, IMO.
That's likely what will happen, but not necessarily the only result.
To lower company premiums, Safeway bribes employees to quit smoking and/or lose weight:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html
How can one be expected to do online business in a country where a domain can be rescinded at any time?
This is EXACTLY the same thing that happened to Google in China.
Sounds like I didn't understand you and you didn't understand me either!
I think we can both agree that the theoretical limit of data transfer is much higher on wired connections than on wireless. On a wired connection, carriers can always add more wires if nothing else, so all the connections can always go through.
What this means in practice for wireless connections is where we don't quite agree.
When wireless saturation occurs, the carriers have three options:
1. Allow unlimited data transfer, which slows everyone down. This means they end up charging the same rates to your grandmother as they do to a tech savvy hacker.
2. Charge based on usage. This means people who use more pay more, which is probably fine for most of us. We'd rather get more for no extra cost, but I think we can agree that's a futile proposition, so paying for more isn't unreasonable.
3. Charge based on tiers AND traffic. Here's where there's some confusion. My point is that it's better for carriers to do this because they make more money. Major sites like Google, Microsoft, etc. will be able to pay for the extra traffic allowance. Small sites like mine or yours won't. The carriers will still have to charge based on usage, but now they can charge content providers as well.
I think the misunderstanding comes in that you're saying the third option can still have an unlimited and/or unthrottled option, whereas I don't think that would ever be the case. If the wireless connection is saturated (as I stated in the original post) there's no incentive for the carriers to ONLY charge the content providers. They can (and will) charge the users for their usage as well; if for no other reason than it would be unfair for unlimited users to be able to hit a paying content provider constantly without any financial repercussions.
I think you're confused by what net neutrality means.
But in any case, the wireless spectrum has physical limitations; I don't think anyone would argue with that. From a purely economic standpoint, things that are limited are generally sold to the highest bidder. So a tiered, pay-per-use system would give the providers of the service more money than a flat system with a fixed monthly rate. This is why net neutrality is good for users, but bad for providers.
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=69570
The problem isn't the protocol, it's wireless bandwidth. Even with better hardware and better compression, there's only so much data you can cram in the airwaves.
But hey, you got your own flagpole now.
I think if you were hounded by the paparazzi as much as Jennifer Aniston, you might have a different take on the issue.
Even in death, Steve Jobs will always be Apple's Eternal Leader. He can appoint his son as the Dear Leader.
*facepalm*
Windows Update can't solder a keylogger into my USB subsystem, so even if I used Windows, I wouldn't be too worried about that.
Not if the hardware was compromised.
Immanentizing the eschaton?
The list of prizes includes "... the machine running the browser."
Who would be dumb enough to use a computer they won from a hacking contest?
"A bubble boy?"
"He lives in a bubble!"
Sir or madam, my name is Prince Natobe and I need you to help my family send $100,000 to my daughter in Nigeria. If you could help launder... I mean "send" the money, you will be paid 10%. Thank you.
Studies also show that due to the icon, most Chrome users thought they were downloading a Pokemon application.
...is it an enterprise-y solution?
That's why I still use Ask Jeeves.
Wake me up when we finally have fusion in Livermore, CA.
Seems to me, if your blood pressure is too high, you could always go for bloodletting!
I hear leeches are popular; or mosquitoes for that matter.
Depending on your point of view, it's either funny or scary that I was playing Carmegeddon around the time I learned to drive.
Every so often I wasn't as alert on the road as I should have been, and started thinking in terms of scoring points. Now thankfully, I never did drive over any old ladies IRL, because those walkers would cause a lot of damage to the bearings.
...the real reason the government keeps telling us to cut our sodium intake?