So, does DoCoMo need to invest more in its infrastructure, or is Android a data hog that needs reigning in?
Given that this is a shortage, and that a shortage is when demand exceeds supply, DoCoMo can either add supply by investing in its network, or they can reduce demand by raising the cost of bandwidth, at least during peak periods. This gives DoCoMo two options to eliminate congestion on its network.
Raising the cost of bandwidth could be done pretty easily by setting caps on peak hour data usage.
Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
If carbon emissions have a nonzero cost, and if negative externalities are a type of market failure, then Markets 101 tells us that raising the price of gasoline by the environmental cost of carbon is entirely justified. And because our children and grandchildren will have to live with the environmental consequences, let's take the revenue and pay down the debt to give them one less thing to worry about.
You'd rather have a permanent cap "during peak time" than fully open transport except in certain circumstances?
During those circumstances, you're stealing from one person to give to another. It's more equitable to give everyone equal access, even if it means reducing demand by raising the price (in this case, through peak hour bandwidth caps). That's how a free market works.
Because a VOIP phone call will suck if the network is congested.
When the network is congested, it like any other shortage means the price is too low, at least at that time of day. Because that's so easy to fix, there's really no need to prioritize packets.
Tolls aren't taxes because they're "imposed for a specific benefit...to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the State of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege to the payor." (source)
Every dollar collected in tolls is a dollar that doesn't need to be taxed. So if you oppose taxes, you must be in favor of tolls.
Amazon benefits hugely from local investments, from schools to roads (not fully paid for by the shippers, BTW), to public internet infrastructure. They have a responsibility to collect the taxes that contribute to upkeep of local infrastructure.
It isn't Amazon's fault if the state doesn't charge the shippers enough to pay for the roads.
The brick-and-mortar retailers should explain to Indiana voters how replacing the regressive state sales tax with a higher progressive income tax would benefit the 99%.
Where do those subsidies come from? The tax payer. So WE (tax payers) are already paying for this.
Because you depend on subsidies, I doubt you can prove that you're paying your fair share. But feel free to try!
And we haven't even gotten into the fact that cities force businesses to overbuild parking lots, and that the negative externalities of gasoline use aren't reflected in the price of gasoline.
You probably wouldn't like your car quite so much if you had to pay full price for the roads, and if cities didn't force businesses to overbuild parking lots, and if the negative externalities of gasoline use were added to the price of gasoline.
In short, you're being bribed and coerced into driving. So forgive me for not believing you.
Duverger's law explains that we only have two viable parties because we use an antiquated voting system that encourages tactical voting. If you don't vote for one of the top two candidates, you're basically "throwing your vote away."
Traditionally, the cell companies have offered unlimited nights and weekends. They could use the same concept for mobile broadband. Periods of low network utilization should not count against the caps. This would encourage people to shift their data usage to the off-peak times and that in turn would save the carrier money by eliminating the need to add capacity.
When it comes to movie distribution, supply usually isn't an issue.
That's just how it works today. If a studio wished, it could restrict supply of copies and thereby keep prices high for a while, then lower prices gradually in order to keep the theaters full.
Do you really want to spend $40/ticket on Mission Impossible so that Young Adult would cost only $3?
I would be happy to wait a couple of weeks for the cost of Mission Impossible to drop from $40. Sometimes, I might even pay the $40 if it means I don't have to share the theater with some noisy rugrats. It would be nice to have the choice.
In a perfect free market people are nothing but resources to be exploited and the disabled would be discarded like broken machinery.
Why would their money not spend the same as anyone else's?
We could make the accommodation that they would never have to spend more for a parking space close to the entrance than an able-bodied person would spend for a spot farther away. This way, the free market is mostly preserved, without the inefficiency of the "one price fits all" model, which just doesn't work very well in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that this is a shortage, and that a shortage is when demand exceeds supply, DoCoMo can either add supply by investing in its network, or they can reduce demand by raising the cost of bandwidth, at least during peak periods. This gives DoCoMo two options to eliminate congestion on its network.
Raising the cost of bandwidth could be done pretty easily by setting caps on peak hour data usage.
If carbon emissions have a nonzero cost, and if negative externalities are a type of market failure, then Markets 101 tells us that raising the price of gasoline by the environmental cost of carbon is entirely justified. And because our children and grandchildren will have to live with the environmental consequences, let's take the revenue and pay down the debt to give them one less thing to worry about.
During those circumstances, you're stealing from one person to give to another. It's more equitable to give everyone equal access, even if it means reducing demand by raising the price (in this case, through peak hour bandwidth caps). That's how a free market works.
When the network is congested, it like any other shortage means the price is too low, at least at that time of day. Because that's so easy to fix, there's really no need to prioritize packets.
"I truly believe that when men and women think about parking, their mental capacity reverts to the reptilian cortex of the brain." (Prof. Donald Shoup, UCLA)
And that goes double for high school students! These quivering blobs of protoplasm need more than the ability to fog a mirror in order to vote.
Outsourcing is not quite as cheap as it seems. Miscommunications and the wrong incentives (e.g. LOC per day) often result in a lot of rework.
Tolls aren't taxes because they're "imposed for a specific benefit...to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the State of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege to the payor." (source)
Every dollar collected in tolls is a dollar that doesn't need to be taxed. So if you oppose taxes, you must be in favor of tolls.
It isn't Amazon's fault if the state doesn't charge the shippers enough to pay for the roads.
The brick-and-mortar retailers should explain to Indiana voters how replacing the regressive state sales tax with a higher progressive income tax would benefit the 99%.
Because you depend on subsidies, I doubt you can prove that you're paying your fair share. But feel free to try!
And we haven't even gotten into the fact that cities force businesses to overbuild parking lots, and that the negative externalities of gasoline use aren't reflected in the price of gasoline.
Does a baby affect the global climate for hundreds of years?
False. Highways, roads, and streets have received more than $600 billion in subsidies over the last 63 years in excess of the amount raised through gasoline taxes.
You probably wouldn't like your car quite so much if you had to pay full price for the roads, and if cities didn't force businesses to overbuild parking lots, and if the negative externalities of gasoline use were added to the price of gasoline.
In short, you're being bribed and coerced into driving. So forgive me for not believing you.
We aren't necessarily better off with antibiotics, because by taking them, we are creating superbugs that are resistant to antibiotics.
We as a species should just decide on whether we want to live in the tropics or the arctic.
Or instead of playing god, why don't we try to limit our effect on the environment and let it decide for itself?
Duverger's law explains that we only have two viable parties because we use an antiquated voting system that encourages tactical voting. If you don't vote for one of the top two candidates, you're basically "throwing your vote away."
if you are pulling over 10gb a month transfer, that is excessive, even for streaming media.
So I can't watch ONE movie a day? Because that would be like 15gb.
If you choose a 2.2 Mbps stream (high quality SD), a movie is about two gigabytes. You can watch five movies with a 10 gigabyte cap.
Traditionally, the cell companies have offered unlimited nights and weekends. They could use the same concept for mobile broadband. Periods of low network utilization should not count against the caps. This would encourage people to shift their data usage to the off-peak times and that in turn would save the carrier money by eliminating the need to add capacity.
~1Mbps service...is useless for Netflix...
False. 0.5 Mbps is good enough.
It's similar to a resume. (I had to google the acronym to figure out what this Slashdot topic was about.)
Yes, I'm paying the cable company $45 per month now instead of $140 per month.
That's just how it works today. If a studio wished, it could restrict supply of copies and thereby keep prices high for a while, then lower prices gradually in order to keep the theaters full.
I would be happy to wait a couple of weeks for the cost of Mission Impossible to drop from $40. Sometimes, I might even pay the $40 if it means I don't have to share the theater with some noisy rugrats. It would be nice to have the choice.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Why would their money not spend the same as anyone else's?
We could make the accommodation that they would never have to spend more for a parking space close to the entrance than an able-bodied person would spend for a spot farther away. This way, the free market is mostly preserved, without the inefficiency of the "one price fits all" model, which just doesn't work very well in the real world.