Yup.

LTE can support something like 300-400 connections per band and there are 16 primary bands licensed in the US. 5G and mm wave open things up some more, including beam forming techniques that may allow an antenna array to communicate with two devices on the same frequency at the same time.

But at the same time, each carrier only gets some of those bands, and they want to separate bands by physical space so that neighboring cells are using different bands, and in 3 dimensional space there can be a lot of neighbors. And 300 passive connections simply keeping the connection alive are different from 300 active users trying to actively transmit and receive significant data. Plus real world interference will always make devices come up short from the theoretical max performance.

Temporary/mobile towers go a long way, though, for temporary surges in demand, like sporting events. Things have gotten a lot better on game days in certain places (especially small college towns whose populations basically double on game day, with everyone jammed into a single stadium for about 4 hours).

Yeah, one of the two was a pure safety play, not even ethics.

If I sell the military an ATV for shuffling things around on base, I might engineer a speed limiter to prevent the ATV from going faster than what its safety features are rated at. But a demand that I remove the governor so that the vehicle can go all lawful speeds totally misses the point. Whether it is illegal or unethical to do so, it’s still bad engineering to use dangerous technology beyond the scope of what it (and its safety features) has been designed for.

I’m just not connecting the dots. The amount of money they’re spending on this is astronomical, and they are burning through the cash they have at a rate they can’t sustain, while they’re fighting for their future against Google, Anthropic, plus xAI and Perplexity and others, and maybe foreign competition like Deepseek that the government can’t fully shield them from. While also competing with major data center companies themselves, who may want to build data centers for other non-AI purposes, too. And those competitors have deep, deep pockets.

If they don’t have a revenue model that actually keeps them afloat, then all their capital expenditures will end up going to benefit someone else.

In other words, the central thesis that they want to choke out competition from on-device models kinda ignores that they’re facing a much more immediate, much more pressing threat from their data center competition. It’s like trying to corner the market on snow shovels when a hurricane is bearing down.

Plus one important thing worth noting is that OpenAI purchased the option to buy that much memory, enough to persuade the memory manufacturers to change their own investment decisions for the next 5 years. They’re not necessarily going to actually buy that much. And in theory could sell that option to others. 40% of the market is enough to really move prices, but not enough to actually corner it and exclude others from buying memory. They’ll just have to make it more expensive for themselves at the same time that they make it more expensive, but not impossible, for their true competitors also outfitting data centers.