bobafetthotmail said:
Also, I don't see the point for HD video or ultra mega hyper Hollywood movie quality for tablet or tablet-like devices, where the screen (even if Retina) isn't frankly good enough to show that correctly anyway.
I don't either, but since when is marketing based on reality?

bobafetthotmail said:
Hey they aren't morons. The contracts allocates an amount of bandwith per user, out of a total bandwith "pool" of the medium of the ISP (mobile or not, this is exactly the same for either).
Granted, it's not anywhere near the numbers they trumpet around, but there is.
If they are too dumb to have a big enough "bandwith pool" for every contract they sell (they actually upgrade the hardware based on projections, to never end up in situations where they don't have any more bandwith left), they shouldn't be a ISP in the first place.
It's got nothing to do with that.
My first job was with a telecommunications company.
ROI is all that matters.

Equipment allocation is based on Congestion.
If a route is Congested more than a certain percentage of a given time period, more equipment will (eventually) be allocated.

For example:
There were 12 channels from the peninsula my home town was on, to the state capital (30 years ago).
There were >10,000 subscribers on the peninsula.
12 channels provided an "acceptable" level of congestion.

[QUOTE=bobafetthotmail;2210372]
Why a company has to lobby the gov to change the kind of mobile internet contract it offers over its very own network?
They had timed contracts and pay-per-GB contracts a few years ago, the former disappeared.
[QUOTE]

I don't what the situation is in Italy, but Timed Local Connections are currently banned here.
International and Interstate calls are timed.
Mobile phone calls are handled using some bizarre combination of pricing.

As to why, the companies could increase their profit, without installing more equipment.