Of course there are peering agreements. However, you seem to think that those peering agreements specify data rates of the order of several dollars per megabyte and that's why people get charged several dollars per megabyte. This is simply not true.
The networks do not pass on their own costs to customers, instead they charge a vastly inflated rate to their own customers who have the temerity to use roaming.
What happens is that the peering agreements specify a charge rate which represents something nearer a wholesale cost and provide billing information to your own network. Your own network provider multiplies what it was charged by the peer by some enormous amount and then charges you by that vastly inflated sum.
The peer doesn't care what type of agreement you have with your own provider.
In your case O2 charges AT&T some fraction of a cent per megabyte for your usage and then AT&T charges you several dollars per megabyte.
Hell, whenever I roam, my carrier sends me an SMS saying 'hey, you're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. Turn off your data or face the wrath of the roaming charge!'
Usually, I get an SMS telling me that I have free (albeit slow) data roaming.
The charges are due to the peering fees the networks agree to charge each other.
Try again. The roaming fees are pure profit for the networks. The fees are completely unjustified by costs. The networks figure that a small number of people will pay the vastly inflated charges while travelling. If T-Mobile can provide free data roaming in most countries, then the other carriers also can.
At US$35,000 base, there are 564 new vehicle types (that's models and trim levels together) listed on Edmunds.com which are less expensive (I ruled out 11 vehicles that were almost $35k, accepting only anything sub-$34.5k.)
Yes, but many, or perhaps most of those 564 types don't attract a $7,500 subsidy from the federal government, which probably about half the model 3s' buyers will get.
Personally, I would not invest in something that, in the best case scenario, will break even after 12 years and has some risk that it will never break even.
I hope you have factored in panel degradation, although this may be offset by increases in electricity prices.
To be clear, if my previous post was not. I think that the financials you describe have a low chance of actually paying back ever, given the risk that the installer may go out of business before the 10 years are up.
so my cost situation is that it will increase my electricity costs by about 20% for 10 years, then it'll be paid off and I'll have "free" electricity for another 15, plus however long the system lasts after the warranty period ends.
If the company that installed it and provides the warranty is still in business then. Warranty support is the single advantage that a lease or PPA has. If the company that owns the lease goes bankrupt, either another company will take on your contract (including the warranty), or the system will effectively be yours.
I sell surplus electricity to the utility during the day at an average price of $0.35/kWh in summer and about $0.25/kWh in winter. I buy back the electricity I use to charge my EV at night at about $0.12 per kWh. I estimate the system will have paid for itself in 5-6 years.
I think you will find most people are NOT freaking out about it.
Perhaps, but here is some anecdotal evidence. I need to find a new tenant for my rental house in the UK because the tenant lost his job as a direct result of the Brexit vote.
It takes 3 or 4 phone calls, and some "do not disclose" paperwork in order to find out that you won't save any money, and you won't own anything.
Depending on the state in which you live, your roof orientation, shading, etc., a solar installation can pay off in as little as 5 years,
But leasing or PPAs are a mug's game. As you state, with leases or PPAs, you don't own anything. Worse still, the solar panels may make it more difficult to sell or refinance your home. Also, some states have rescinded their net energy metering programs, which means that only the smallest solar installations have any chance of paying off.
SolarCity, in particular, claims that they don't put a lien on your house, but, they do put a UCC-1 fixture filing against your house, which has the same effect as a lien.
If they managed to get a stake worth $7 billion from spending $2 billion, that $2 billion is arguably well spent, even if the actually places the money went look silly.
The problem is that the $2B spent is cold, hard cash that came from investors, while the $7B valuation is just an estimate, based on what a few people think. It may prove to be ephemeral.
UK business and growth will get a great boost from fall in pound
Except that UK citizens will be worse off because the cost of imported products (including such basics as oil) will increase.
Perhaps you are too young to remember, but try googling the following words: "the pound in your pocket Wilson". Devaluation didn't work out then and there is no reason to think that it will work out now.
The Leave campaign was based on lies and this continues. A few days after the vote, there were statements in the newspapers proclaiming how the pound had risen strongly. Yes, the pound had risen a little, but it was still way less than than its pre-Brexit-vote value. The small bump in the value of the pound was irrelevant in comparison to the large drop immediately after the vote.
I disputed the charges through Bank of America, and BOA told me that Travelocity was their "marketing partner" so the fraudulent transactions could not be reversed.
What that a debit card or a credit card? Had you given the card number to Travelocity?
The worst time was in Europe when they had made use of the chip reader mandatory, except for cards that did not have a chip.
Travelling in Europe with a US credit card (no chip at the time) and many shop assistants only heard that the use of the chip reader was mandatory. They didn't seem to hear the part about what do do if the card did not have a chip.
It is quite another to decide that anyone has the right to call my phone whenever they want for any purpose they might have in mind.
I know it has been out of fashion for quite a while, but RTFA. In fact, just read all of the summary. The judges did not say that there is a general right to robocall your phone at any hour. What they said was that the government could not ban calls with a specific type of content -- in this case political calls.
Had the law enacted a ban on robocalls that was independent of content, it would have been OK.
There is a reason though it works. It is because humans are selfish and greedy. It is easier to find greedy smart people who will sell there own mother's than truly altruistic good people.
The problem with your theory is that it only identifies the greedy people. It doesn't identify the smart people.
Slashdot Mirror
Idiot.
Of course there are peering agreements. However, you seem to think that those peering agreements specify data rates of the order of several dollars per megabyte and that's why people get charged several dollars per megabyte. This is simply not true.
The networks do not pass on their own costs to customers, instead they charge a vastly inflated rate to their own customers who have the temerity to use roaming.
What happens is that the peering agreements specify a charge rate which represents something nearer a wholesale cost and provide billing information to your own network. Your own network provider multiplies what it was charged by the peer by some enormous amount and then charges you by that vastly inflated sum.
The peer doesn't care what type of agreement you have with your own provider.
In your case O2 charges AT&T some fraction of a cent per megabyte for your usage and then AT&T charges you several dollars per megabyte.
Usually, I get an SMS telling me that I have free (albeit slow) data roaming.
Try again. The roaming fees are pure profit for the networks. The fees are completely unjustified by costs. The networks figure that a small number of people will pay the vastly inflated charges while travelling. If T-Mobile can provide free data roaming in most countries, then the other carriers also can.
Yes, but many, or perhaps most of those 564 types don't attract a $7,500 subsidy from the federal government, which probably about half the model 3s' buyers will get.
Ooops, looks like it was me that missed the joke ....
Did you hear that "whoosh" sound? Because it was the joke flying over your head!
All I can say is: good luck!
Personally, I would not invest in something that, in the best case scenario, will break even after 12 years and has some risk that it will never break even.
I hope you have factored in panel degradation, although this may be offset by increases in electricity prices.
To be clear, if my previous post was not. I think that the financials you describe have a low chance of actually paying back ever, given the risk that the installer may go out of business before the 10 years are up.
If the company that installed it and provides the warranty is still in business then. Warranty support is the single advantage that a lease or PPA has. If the company that owns the lease goes bankrupt, either another company will take on your contract (including the warranty), or the system will effectively be yours.
I sell surplus electricity to the utility during the day at an average price of $0.35/kWh in summer and about $0.25/kWh in winter. I buy back the electricity I use to charge my EV at night at about $0.12 per kWh. I estimate the system will have paid for itself in 5-6 years.
Perhaps, but here is some anecdotal evidence. I need to find a new tenant for my rental house in the UK because the tenant lost his job as a direct result of the Brexit vote.
If you have such poor self control, you probably should not have a debit card.
I have, frankly, lots of cash available to me; I exercise self-control in not spending this cash.
No, there was no data released. Just a promise to release it, along with a new product announcement.
Yes, the company did say that it would release data at the conference, but this did not happen.
Depending on the state in which you live, your roof orientation, shading, etc., a solar installation can pay off in as little as 5 years,
But leasing or PPAs are a mug's game. As you state, with leases or PPAs, you don't own anything. Worse still, the solar panels may make it more difficult to sell or refinance your home. Also, some states have rescinded their net energy metering programs, which means that only the smallest solar installations have any chance of paying off.
SolarCity, in particular, claims that they don't put a lien on your house, but, they do put a UCC-1 fixture filing against your house, which has the same effect as a lien.
The problem is that the $2B spent is cold, hard cash that came from investors, while the $7B valuation is just an estimate, based on what a few people think. It may prove to be ephemeral.
Except that UK citizens will be worse off because the cost of imported products (including such basics as oil) will increase.
Perhaps you are too young to remember, but try googling the following words: "the pound in your pocket Wilson". Devaluation didn't work out then and there is no reason to think that it will work out now.
The Leave campaign was based on lies and this continues. A few days after the vote, there were statements in the newspapers proclaiming how the pound had risen strongly. Yes, the pound had risen a little, but it was still way less than than its pre-Brexit-vote value. The small bump in the value of the pound was irrelevant in comparison to the large drop immediately after the vote.
So you choose to use a card that provides less legal protections to you?
What that a debit card or a credit card? Had you given the card number to Travelocity?
The worst time was in Europe when they had made use of the chip reader mandatory, except for cards that did not have a chip.
Travelling in Europe with a US credit card (no chip at the time) and many shop assistants only heard that the use of the chip reader was mandatory. They didn't seem to hear the part about what do do if the card did not have a chip.
I know it has been out of fashion for quite a while, but RTFA. In fact, just read all of the summary. The judges did not say that there is a general right to robocall your phone at any hour. What they said was that the government could not ban calls with a specific type of content -- in this case political calls.
Had the law enacted a ban on robocalls that was independent of content, it would have been OK.
Being born in the USA isn't a requirement. Ask John McCain or Ted Cruz.
And if you think that Trump and the Republicans are going to cut back on H1-B visas, I have a very nice bridge to sell you.
Don't forget that Microsoft also "accidentally" forgot to comply with a judgement for about a year.
Has this guy ever objected to any action by a telecom company?
The problem with your theory is that it only identifies the greedy people. It doesn't identify the smart people.
"circumventing" isn't the same as "violating". Are you alleging that they violated the law?