
“Too Cheap to Meter”: A History of the Phrase (2016) - dredmorbius
https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2016/06/03/too-cheap-to-meter-a-history-of-the-phrase/
======
tlb
Does anything, ever, get too cheap to meter? Data transfer has gotten several
orders of magnitude cheaper since the days of paying long-distance rates for
300 baud modems, but metered data plans are still very common.

"Too cheap to meter" may depend on the meter costing a lot. Perhaps electric
meters were a significant fraction of the expense of a power hookup at some
point.

~~~
masklinn
> Does anything, ever, get too cheap to meter? Data transfer has gotten
> several orders of magnitude cheaper since the days of paying long-distance
> rates for 300 baud modems, but metered data plans are still very common.

I'm not sure there's still capped broadband anywhere in mainland europe, even
the UK mostly stopped doing that.

IIRC some Japanese providers cap upload, in the 100s of GB, that's basically
just network maintenance.

Residential bandwidth is effectively too cheap to meter, but US ISPs found
they could keep nickel-and-reaming their captive audience, why would they
stop?

~~~
stordoff
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "that's basically just network
maintenance" \- could you explain?

~~~
masklinn
There's little reason to limit the bandwidth, but at the same time you want to
avoid straight abuse (especially when there are connections up to Gbps). So
you put on a high cap on upload as that's usually a minor activity for
residential users.

------
masklinn
Interesting. It's still unclear whether Strauss was assuming Jevon's Paradox
would not strike, or whether he was expecting / hoping for our ability to move
beyond energy (or at least electricity) scarcity.

~~~
ghaff
You have to think given the context he believed (or at least claimed to
believe) in post-electricity scarcity. It's hard to imagine that anyone would
seriously think electricity demand wouldn't rise significantly as the
efficiency of producing it grew. In fact, I can imagine a stronger effect with
electricity than with many other things.

~~~
dTal
I would expect the demand for energy to be more insatiable than any other
commodity because all commodities require energy to create. The only two end-
user forms of energy readily available are electricity and fossil fuels.

I imagine that electricity consumption will rise with supply in the same way
any life multiplies up to the capacity of its food source.

~~~
swagasaurus-rex
Is the end result life that consumes the majority of the energy produced
(dyson spheres come to mind) to create massively more monolithic and efficient
economies, converting enormous amounts of raw material into civilization?

What would make this different than the postulated grey goo scenario,
whereinstead man and machine are the ultimate exponential replicators?

~~~
vikramkr
In grey goo, man is dead. In this scenario, we're alive, well, and taking over
the solar system.

------
Steve44
Which arena of science hasn’t said something like this.

In the history of computing there were quotes from prominent people such as
“there will never be a need for more than five computers in the world”
followed about 30 years later by something like “there is no reason anyone
would want a computer in their home”.

~~~
ghaff
While that's true, neither of these are great examples.

Watson probably never said the former.

And, while Olsen said the latter, it was in the context of a centralized
computer turning lights on and off and so forth. To be sure, we're arguably
starting to get there today (the many issues with smarthome devices
notwithstanding). But it's a very different approach (distributed vs.
centralized--for better or worse).

~~~
dredmorbius
Ed Yourdon also said a variant of the latter.

~~~
ncmncm
They were right, at the time.

------
8bitsrule
Adm. Strauss was talking to science writers.

From the field, writing to colleagues, C.G. Suits (GE's director of research
at Washington's Hanford site - quoted in 'Power from the Atom - An Appraisal',
_Nucleonics_ , Feb. 1951) told a different story:

"At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally costly and inconvenient
means of obtaining energy which can be extracted much more economically from
conventional fuels.… This is expensive power, not cheap power as the public
has been led to believe."

[https://www.ieer.org/pubs/atomicmyths.html](https://www.ieer.org/pubs/atomicmyths.html)

~~~
ncmncm
Yes, the real purpose at the time was to keep an infrastructure and population
of engineers and technicians to draw on for military uses.

Nowadays we use fusion research grants for the same purpose. Unlike fission,
though, there will never be a tokamak fusion plant keeping your lights on.

------
the-dude
Soda refills in American diners.

------
peter_d_sherman
Excerpt:

“Transmutation of the elements,–unlimited power, ability to investigate the
working of living cells by tracer atoms, the secret of photosynthesis about to
be uncovered,–these and a host of other results all in 15 short years. [...]"

This is an interesting quote.

Not sure if all of those things are indeed possible, but it's an interesting
quote nonetheless...

------
HocusLocus
"The problem with free money is that it affects all the other money in a bad
way. I may be a dreamer, but I do not see the same problem with almost-free
energy. I see a revitalized money economy where all things that are
technically possible, even fantastic things, become more feasible because
human ingenuity is ever-increasing. I see reduction in cost of living, cost of
manufacture and cost of fossil fuel extraction that is so pervasive its
positive effect may exceed any economic strategy ever devised. And on that day
far in the future when the last hydrocarbon is extracted, it will be just
cause for a quiet celebration. We'll already be well into the next great
thing. What would the future hold, and what wonders could we achieve— if
energy was simply not an issue?"

My letter to candidate Trump, 2016
[https://archive.org/download/20160422TrumpEnergyLetterSC/201...](https://archive.org/download/20160422TrumpEnergyLetterSC/20160422%20trump%20energy%20letter%20SC.pdf)

~~~
b_tterc_p
I’m curious if you thought he would read this?

~~~
erikpukinskis
Generally when you write a famous person you hope for but don’t expect a
reply.

~~~
ncmncm
A tweet, anyway?

But the question wasn't about getting an answer, it was probably about whether
the writer really believes the President reads _anything_ , never mind
unsolicited advice.

President Obama is known to have read some items addressed to him, like most
previous Presidents. Is there any evidence that the latest has?

