Bandwidth (and the infrastructure and operations) to support it isn’t free or unlimited. Given that, you need some way of recouping the cost.
You could charge everyone the same and rather by queue (you just have to wait for your data), or you can ration by usage (use more, pay more). Bandwidth isn’t any different to any other service in this respect. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Price Sent: Friday, 3 July 2015 1:49 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Not so amusing phone story Perhaps. I do believe that most of our imposed limitations are artificial fabrications to monetise. By creating a perceived shortage of something, creates an inflated value that would not otherwise have existed. Who says it's worth that? If it was suddenly it was found that there is no shortage of bandwidth the agreed price of said bandwidth would go down drastically. It's much like net neutrality, controlling data speeds for a price, but the inverse, controlling available download quantities for a price. Don't want. On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 at 11:18 Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com<mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote: From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] On Behalf Of Stephen Price Sent: Friday, 3 July 2015 1:07 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Not so amusing phone story Ken, lol. so true. There are some underlaying questions that need answering. Like WHY are we still worrying about download quotas? Because we are being robbed. If the bandwidth is there it should be used. The system has a self modifying behaviour of going slow when its being over utilised. Its like putting a speed limit of 40km/hour on a major freeway. Make it the Autobahn! go as fast as you can I’m assuming that this is “tongue in cheek” – you’re talking only about the link between your phone and the tower, but you know that actually getting data from somewhere requires and end-to-end connection.
