Nothing is free. They have to build a network that supports the bandwidth needs of their customers. They have to pay for a connection to the backbone. The more data their customers use the greater their expenses. Maybe one could argue that the marginal costs were 0 if they had a fixed network that never needed to be upgraded, but that's not the case. Yea, they might cram a few too many connections on a pipe and let performance suffer for a while. But eventually they will need to make the pipe fatter. It's much better to let people pay for what they need than to charge everyone the same . This way, they are aligned with their customers. Here's another reason that this is a good thing - they can offer decent performance internet for really low fixed monthly prices. This is huge for lower income families - they don't have to suffer with dial up or the 512kb/sec option any more. They can get a fast connection. They just need to not use it to download a bunch of videos.

Why do you think that this is evil? ISP like TWC have to pay for capacity. Why shouldn't this cost be passed along to the consumer? It's the same as any other commodity - electricity, fuel, etc. Think about it this way - with consumption based pricing, they will have an incentive to give everyone the fastest internet connection. 18+ Mb/s for everyone. Yea, if you are a heavy user - torrenting videos and whatnot then this is going to raise your rates. But as it is, all of the folks who don't consume as much data are paying too much. This is a very fair system (as long as they have competition from DSL or other networks to keep their prices reasonable).

It looks like it doesn't have an easily replaceable battery. Specs say "Integrated 37-watt-hour lithium-polymer battery." Integrated to me means non-user replaceable. So, tack on an extra $250 for the Apple Care 3-yr warranty. It will be interesting to see how much noise this creates today and 15-18 months from now when the batteries start to fail...

aruba

Umm... the Beatles "went digital" when their music was first available on CD back in the 80's. And iPod users have been able to enjoy the Beatles since... the first iPod was created. I know I'm being pedantic, but you really mean that their music will finally be available with lossy encoding and annoying, crippling encryption some time in 2008. I don't see what the big deal is... 95% of what people put on iPod's was ripped from (someone's) CD's. It's not like the Beatles are cranking out any new tunes lately, so the convenience factor isn't all that great. If you like the Beatles, you probably own their CD's and have put them on your iPod, no?

I think that what this really represents is one of the last symbolic milestones that validates the internet as the legitimate heir to the music distribution kingdom.

That's why they have a portable player with WiFi capability. You don't need to stream through a computer. It caches the music in the portable player and provides the same experience as if you were online all the time. IMO, it's the first concept that has disruptive potential since the iPod.

If Microsoft are going to make an impact in the DAP/PMP space then they will need to come out with something MUCH more innovative and appealing than these iPod wannabe products. Seriously, these look like they could come from Creative, iRiver, Samsung or any number of other manufacturers that are anywhere from even with to two steps behind Apple. Listen to this Microsoft - you need to get much further out ahead of the pack if you want to win.

Short answer - this is a net negative cash proposition for the school. Details follow:

School busses don't drive 100K miles per year. According the the FHA, the average is 8K/ year, with some states racking up 15K/year:
http://www.nasdpts.org/paperBusReplacement.html

Given:
- The fuel savings is only good for 50-75 miles per day (there's no way that you're going to get 6 hours of charging time in the middle of the day).
- There are about 180 school days per year (D of Ed)
- Beyond 100 miles per day, they have minimal fuel savings (20% is typical for most hybrids in the real world)
- Baseline non-hybrid fuel economy is 10mpg
- Energy cost savings is 85% (which seems very high; I'd bet it's more like 50% because electricity ain't cheap and diesels are already pretty efficient)
- Diesel cost is $2.50/gal (schools pay less than the rest of us due to negotiated rates, taxes, etc).

Average daily milege is 8000miles/180days=44 miles - so it can run in battery mode all day.

Non-hybrid daily fuel is 44 miles/10MPG=4.4Gal or $11/day

Hybrid energy cost is $11*(1-85%) = $1.65

Hybrid savings is $11-$1.65 = $9.35

Hybrid savings per year = $9.35*180days = $1683

Number of years needed to make up $112,500 cost adder = 66.8
Average life span of a bus = 15 years

Even if the district puts 15K miles/year on its buses and manages to stay on battery power all day, they won't get to break even. They need to get the cost of the add-on down to about $10K for this to really make sense.

If the goal is actual energy reduction and not just nice PR then plug-in hybrid is not a very good solution. Buses generally have several routes each day, and plug-in based systems just aren't going to realistically provide enough capacity to make a major dent in the time it runs on the engine. Another way to look at it is that a bus is an expensive piece of capital equipment that needs to be fully utilized to maximize its return on investment - and that means that a system that only works if it's used for an hour a day just isn't going to fly (this is in contrast to the way that most people use their cars, where an hour a day is just fine).

Buses lose a lot of energy to all of the stopping and going, so brake energy recapture is key to improving efficiency. Given that space isn't a huge concern, they should look at the mechanical energy recapture systems like the one that UPS is starting to use:
http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/Issue/Article/False/38545/Issue

These technologies are still in the prototype phase and are not currently manufacturable, at least not in any volume or at consumer price points. Don't get me wrong... making pretty pictures of products that can be built in 3 or 5 years is interesting and fun. But my point was that you can't really fault the products that are on the shelf today for not using technologies that aren't yet available.