Uh Oh, Internet: Basic Mobile Video Will be YouTube-Only With MetroPCS Plans

Post by detst » Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 11:17 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #65

detst wrote: post #45

It seems to me that lowering phone prices[0] -- making subsidies, and thus long-term contracts, uninteresting to consumers -- and LTE compatibility across networks will create a more competitive market, lowering prices and forcing these tactics out the door. Obviously, the carriers will do everything in their power to prevent the commoditization of their networks but am I crazy in thinking that's at least a path we a…

lowering phone prices making subsidies uninteresting to consumers I doubt it; irrational consumers will still choose "free with contract" instead of $100. LTE compatibility across networks I doubt this too due to frequency incompatibility.

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 11:28 PM UTC

grantheaslip wrote: post #75

spyne-02139 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it disconcerting that your appeal-to-emotion rebuttel addressing the walled garden premise has garnered so many up votes. The second paragraph is nothing more than an insult to the ideology opposite yours.

I've got nothing against people having an ideology opposite to mine, though we're not talking about polar opposites here -- we probably both agree about the importance of net neutrality. What I do have a problem with is people holding beliefs based on little to no actual evidence. I understand the appeal of trying to slot this into your worldview, but it's totally unsubstantiated. All evidence suggests that neutralit…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 12:17 AM UTC

roc wrote: post #70

JonnieCache wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.i2p2.de/ If they start banning the protocol from routers, we can tunnel it through other protocols. You can push anything you want through an HTTPS link. Good luck banning that protocol. Or we can do the wireless-mesh thing. There are a lot of people working on mesh-based peer to peer routing layers and DNS. Wish I could remember what the projects were called...

I've always liked the idea of wireless mesh networks. [1] But it would limit exposure to ideas, code and data by physical distances. Even expanding out Bacon-style along the social graph as people move about, it would be a huge step back for unfiltered communication. [2] [1] It's a rather romanticized attachment, that originally hinged on people one-day realizing that having all your data primarily on other people's…

Post by jessriedel » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 12:34 AM UTC

irons wrote: post #35

jonknee wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Population density of Germany is 229 persons per km/sq. In the US it's 32. It's a lot more expensive to run the infrastructure for a country 27 times the geographic area and 1/7th the density.

Then explain why there's no EU-comparable regional service in areas of the US with far greater density, like any of the top ten metro areas. Even the cell carriers have large roaming-only gaps and dead zones, not just in the unpopulated western US, but on major freeways in California. Using national population density to explain the extraordinary relative suckage of US broadband is a straw man argument.

Post by GrandMasterBirt » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 8:37 PM UTC

motters wrote: post #9

Blocking sites because they're "not on the service plan" is likely to be much more acceptable in western countries than explicit censorship, as in Iran or China. It's authoritarianism dressed up as commercialism. In the post-Wikileaks era my bet is that governments will either encourage, or at least not do anything to hinder, the erection of walled gardens which make it more difficult for the average internet user to…