Umm...Everyone has mentioned title II. The exact topic is Pai's intent to declare that ISPs are not subject to Title II; which is ridiculous as it clearly should be.
The long pole in the tent is not the cost of copper over glass. It's in the cost to run the lines. The profit-motive to run fiber to single-family homes out in the middle of nowhere just does not exist. And there are often political struggles in running the fiber along existing utility-poles, forcing quite a bit of the fiber to buried, which raises costs even more. This is worth it when you are hooking up a wealthy suburban community, or better yet, a large apartment complex. But to run it out to the farmhouse in Iowa, or the impoverished mining-town in the mountains of West Virginia? That ain't happening without government subsidies. We had the same problems when telephone and power were new, and we solved them thanks very much to the New Deal Act.
I happen to very much enjoy the ability to not jump through sneaky hoops just to tether a device to my phone. The first time I saw that message asking me to pay an extra $15 a month just for the privilege of using my laptop screen instead of my phone screen, it broke my brain. It's a big part of why I went out and bought that Linux phone so I could make it behave how I wanted instead of how the wireless carriers decided they felt like inventing charges for. When the 2015 law went into effect, all that tethering charge bullshit halted.
ARPAnet was the first network in existence that evolved into the Internet (along with England's NPL network, but nevermind that). It was paid for using DoD funds, and intended for government use only, specifically for ARPA projects. So yes, it was for military projects. Memos on the use of the network granted the use of the network for trivial non-commercial messaging purposes, which became email, which became ARPAnet's killer app. It took well over a decade until NSFnet came along, which allowed for broader academic uses. When you say "a small part", you may be thinking of MILNET which was a chunk of ARPAnet that was physically split off for security reasons. At that point, MILnet was reserved for unclassified military purposes and the remainder of ARPAnet continued doing research projects.
NASA was the entity doing quite a lot of the cutting edge research on earth-science, merely because it had to remain useful, but couldn't afford lunar or planetary missions. From that, it did indeed learn quite a lot about the mechanisms that drive global climate change. Now, if you want to shift those responsibilities back to NOAA where it was originally intended, that's fine, but then they need sufficient budget to run their experiments, and the ability to work with space agencies (NASA or otherwise) to facilitate any space-based research they feel to be useful. As is, Trump is talking about cutting their already underfunded budget. As is, we only have three weather satellites in operation; they are all way past expected lifetime. The most recent one sent up malfunctioned last year, and it's replacement was ordered to be destroyed by Congress just last September in order to save on storage costs. If we lose just one more, we stand to have blackouts in coverage, which is terribly dangerous for tactical reasons.
As far as NASA overspending, well, you generally need to in situations where you are innovating and pioneering technology. SpaceX and such is able to save a ton of money by reading NASA publicly available research, and learning from them what things work and what things do not. As far as the contracts, they all get renegotiated constantly. Rarely does a contract run more than 2 years without investigating the feasibility of doing a rebid. But sure, privatized spaceflight is fantastic. Once it gets off the ground, then NASA's job should be to fund the massive investigatory projects that require the resources of a world superpower to accomplish. Commercial companies are only able to act when the pure-monetary-profit-potential is immediately evident.
I mean, it depends. The Soyuz rockets all burn hydrocarbons, but our old Saturn V rockets used liquid Hydrogen+oxygen for stages two and three. And our space shuttle used a combination of solid rockets and that big orange thing in the center was again, Hydrogen+oxygen. No pollutants or greenhouse gasses during that portion!
Adding to this: This was the original intention way back in the 1970s: NOAA comes up with the experiments, NASA helps to jam them into an appropriate satellite or whatever, and get it into space. Then, after massive budget cuts to NASA, NOAA, and the USGS (who also likes looking down at Earth for learnin' stuff) that took place shortly after this plan, NOAA had to drop out of the satallite climate change investigation, and NASA had to cancel much of its planetary and lunar investigation programs. So they did cheaper terrestrial research instead, since, you might as well do something useful while you're learning how to get better at doing space stuff. During that time, NASA did indeed do some things that inherently simultaneously taught them about "Air And Space" as well as about climate-change. Looking into the effect of the ozone layer, solar-activity, and investigation into the atmosphere on Venus, which is what initially tipped us off that carbon-dioxide operates as a greenhouse gas. But certainly, if there's a desire to move back to the model where NASA works in tandem with NOAA for the sake of climate change research, that's perfectly fine by me at least...So long as NOAA has a sufficient budget to participate in the development and execution of these experiments, and NASA has sufficient budget to help get their experiments and equipment up into orbit or wherever else it may need to be.
Unfortunately, the definition of broadband is set by the FCC, and Pai is changing it so that potentially even 4G service on the high end satisfies as broadband. Naturally, this is a load of crap.
You can absolutely provide everything that broadcast television provides. They just implement it by only transmitting the channel being watched at that given moment. I'm under the impression that things have worked this way since back when cable switched to digital.
You can potentially use higher power with fixed-mobile setups, allowing for longer range. Also, they are talking about setting up lots more smaller antennae, particularly in more densely populated cities. But, 5G isn't defined yet, so who knows.
Thank you! I wish the media wouldn't let telecom companies get away with this. Telecoms did the same damned thing during the 4G era. Including Sprint trying to push WiMax and Verizon pushed the initial version of LTE, neither of which satisfied what the ITU finally set for the definition of 4G, formally known as IMT-Advanced. They argued that No one bothered to trademark the term, so they can claim that 4G means whatever they say it means.
30ghz is reserved for microwave ovens, but yeah, there are bands reserved a little bit below and above that range in the US. That said, 5G compliant systems can potentially go down as low as 4Ghz or so (the standard isn't actually finalized yet). But yeah, above around 10Ghz, rain/snow is going to lower your data rate. But if it's implemented correctly (and I'm under the impression that it will be), then it won't kill your signal or make your calls sound bad, it'll just lower your transfer rates, such that you might need to drop video to a lower resolution or longer buffering in order to stream.
You are mistaken. 5G is a whole scope of telecom standards (that aren't even finalized). Among those are some optimizations for fixed, directional antennae. But they are not a requirement.
Wireless is not the most expensive in the case of line-of-sight connections using directional antennae. With those sort of fixed-mobile connections, the only added cost to the telecoms compared to fiber is the few extra watts needed in signal power. The expensive part of getting fiber to rural areas is running the cable that last mile.
The reason why telecom hates installing fiber in rural areas is that last mile. They don't mind running fiber to the occassional tower NEARLY as much. Further, the towers don't all require fiber. Multiple towers can bounce signals to a centralized location via microwave.
I've been out of things for a little while, but as far as I can tell, this is not quite right. 3G 4G and the currently proposed 5G all allow for a wide range of carrier frequencies. It merely depends on what providers in your region has selected to implement; though certain ranges do tend to get agreed upon by providers so that handsets work across mobile carriers. It is not a tradeoff of range and bandwidth, it's an inverse relationship between signal penetration and frequency, and a direct relationship between frequency and maximum bandwidth. Range is dependent on a combination of transmission power and antenna radiation pattern.
There are so many headaches with getting optical to work right. To be sure, when it works correctly, it works wonderfully. It has potential value for niche applications as a backbone connection, but it's not particularly feasible for endpoint connections, like to a home. If the laser is not sufficiently high-power, the signal goes to heck in poor weather.
So a possible solution here, particularly in the case of rural areas would be to use directional antennas that are trained on locations, and then, yeah, give them either priority on that tower, or even exclusive access. It's much cheaper to add and orient a new antenna on an existing tower than it is to run new fiber out to remote locations. Of course, that was already possible going back as far as 3G, and would be able to deliver usefully decent quality service in 4G. Keep in mind, the move from 4G to 5G looks to be pretty boring compared to the other mobile generation changes. I worked for a company that did this for providing service fishing boats far out to sea, but that was 2G and only involved voice and text if I recall correctly.
The summary/article is mistaken. Modern glitter is a thin-film coating of metal (aluminum) over a plastic substrate. It's like dicing up a space-blanket (Mylar).
That's exactly what QoS does. Short of selling someone a dedicated channel, which is only appropriate if they plan to transfer data 24/7, QoS is achieved by reserving channels for prioritized sources during times when bandwidth is limited. Comcast's statements on Twitter hold very little weight. The proposed changes state that ISPs can implement mechanisms exactly like this so long as it is documented in the subscriber agreement. So it becomes an "I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it further" situation. And while it's true that there would be a horrible backlash if they implemented such a "service", they would just respond with the crummy PR responses explaining how it's no big deal, and in fact it's even a really good thing, and eventually, the rage would die down when people realize that there's nothing they can do about the change, because, oh yeah: regional monopolies. A major reason why they quickly backed off in the past was because of fear of legal action. The FCC took Comcast to court from 2008-2010, and Verizon took the FCC to court from 2010-2014, and FCC mandated net neutrality the next year. And if Ajit does this change, it will likely go to court once again, and nothing will happen for a couple years more. And at any point during all of that mess, Congress can get a bill passed, which would trump the FCC. And if we're so lucky, that'd likewise almost certainly get taken to court by the telecom industry. That's how bad they want these sort of deals.
Nah. Lawyer jokes aside, they're just doing their job as part of the Adversarial System. And while it's true that lobbyists are pretty slimy, they're still just people fulfilling a very strong demand for lobbying services. No, "The bastards" in this context are the executives and the larger shareholders that are directing the executives. By drawing this stuff out, they pay massive legal fees and they at least feel and are likely correct that they miss out on millions of dollars on lost revenue opportunities.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm...Everyone has mentioned title II. The exact topic is Pai's intent to declare that ISPs are not subject to Title II; which is ridiculous as it clearly should be.
The long pole in the tent is not the cost of copper over glass. It's in the cost to run the lines. The profit-motive to run fiber to single-family homes out in the middle of nowhere just does not exist. And there are often political struggles in running the fiber along existing utility-poles, forcing quite a bit of the fiber to buried, which raises costs even more. This is worth it when you are hooking up a wealthy suburban community, or better yet, a large apartment complex. But to run it out to the farmhouse in Iowa, or the impoverished mining-town in the mountains of West Virginia? That ain't happening without government subsidies. We had the same problems when telephone and power were new, and we solved them thanks very much to the New Deal Act.
I happen to very much enjoy the ability to not jump through sneaky hoops just to tether a device to my phone. The first time I saw that message asking me to pay an extra $15 a month just for the privilege of using my laptop screen instead of my phone screen, it broke my brain. It's a big part of why I went out and bought that Linux phone so I could make it behave how I wanted instead of how the wireless carriers decided they felt like inventing charges for. When the 2015 law went into effect, all that tethering charge bullshit halted.
ARPAnet was the first network in existence that evolved into the Internet (along with England's NPL network, but nevermind that). It was paid for using DoD funds, and intended for government use only, specifically for ARPA projects. So yes, it was for military projects. Memos on the use of the network granted the use of the network for trivial non-commercial messaging purposes, which became email, which became ARPAnet's killer app. It took well over a decade until NSFnet came along, which allowed for broader academic uses. When you say "a small part", you may be thinking of MILNET which was a chunk of ARPAnet that was physically split off for security reasons. At that point, MILnet was reserved for unclassified military purposes and the remainder of ARPAnet continued doing research projects.
As far as NASA overspending, well, you generally need to in situations where you are innovating and pioneering technology. SpaceX and such is able to save a ton of money by reading NASA publicly available research, and learning from them what things work and what things do not. As far as the contracts, they all get renegotiated constantly. Rarely does a contract run more than 2 years without investigating the feasibility of doing a rebid. But sure, privatized spaceflight is fantastic. Once it gets off the ground, then NASA's job should be to fund the massive investigatory projects that require the resources of a world superpower to accomplish. Commercial companies are only able to act when the pure-monetary-profit-potential is immediately evident.
I mean, it depends. The Soyuz rockets all burn hydrocarbons, but our old Saturn V rockets used liquid Hydrogen+oxygen for stages two and three. And our space shuttle used a combination of solid rockets and that big orange thing in the center was again, Hydrogen+oxygen. No pollutants or greenhouse gasses during that portion!
You seem like a friendly person. You wanna go ride bikes? I know some really good hills!
Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_...
Unfortunately, the definition of broadband is set by the FCC, and Pai is changing it so that potentially even 4G service on the high end satisfies as broadband. Naturally, this is a load of crap.
You can absolutely provide everything that broadcast television provides. They just implement it by only transmitting the channel being watched at that given moment. I'm under the impression that things have worked this way since back when cable switched to digital.
You can potentially use higher power with fixed-mobile setups, allowing for longer range. Also, they are talking about setting up lots more smaller antennae, particularly in more densely populated cities. But, 5G isn't defined yet, so who knows.
Thank you! I wish the media wouldn't let telecom companies get away with this. Telecoms did the same damned thing during the 4G era. Including Sprint trying to push WiMax and Verizon pushed the initial version of LTE, neither of which satisfied what the ITU finally set for the definition of 4G, formally known as IMT-Advanced. They argued that No one bothered to trademark the term, so they can claim that 4G means whatever they say it means.
30ghz is reserved for microwave ovens, but yeah, there are bands reserved a little bit below and above that range in the US. That said, 5G compliant systems can potentially go down as low as 4Ghz or so (the standard isn't actually finalized yet). But yeah, above around 10Ghz, rain/snow is going to lower your data rate. But if it's implemented correctly (and I'm under the impression that it will be), then it won't kill your signal or make your calls sound bad, it'll just lower your transfer rates, such that you might need to drop video to a lower resolution or longer buffering in order to stream.
You are mistaken. 5G is a whole scope of telecom standards (that aren't even finalized). Among those are some optimizations for fixed, directional antennae. But they are not a requirement.
Wireless is not the most expensive in the case of line-of-sight connections using directional antennae. With those sort of fixed-mobile connections, the only added cost to the telecoms compared to fiber is the few extra watts needed in signal power. The expensive part of getting fiber to rural areas is running the cable that last mile.
The reason why telecom hates installing fiber in rural areas is that last mile. They don't mind running fiber to the occassional tower NEARLY as much. Further, the towers don't all require fiber. Multiple towers can bounce signals to a centralized location via microwave.
I don't think that many millennials think of the Viet Cong when they hear "charlie". That's a baby-boomer thing.
I've been out of things for a little while, but as far as I can tell, this is not quite right. 3G 4G and the currently proposed 5G all allow for a wide range of carrier frequencies. It merely depends on what providers in your region has selected to implement; though certain ranges do tend to get agreed upon by providers so that handsets work across mobile carriers. It is not a tradeoff of range and bandwidth, it's an inverse relationship between signal penetration and frequency, and a direct relationship between frequency and maximum bandwidth. Range is dependent on a combination of transmission power and antenna radiation pattern.
There are so many headaches with getting optical to work right. To be sure, when it works correctly, it works wonderfully. It has potential value for niche applications as a backbone connection, but it's not particularly feasible for endpoint connections, like to a home. If the laser is not sufficiently high-power, the signal goes to heck in poor weather.
So a possible solution here, particularly in the case of rural areas would be to use directional antennas that are trained on locations, and then, yeah, give them either priority on that tower, or even exclusive access. It's much cheaper to add and orient a new antenna on an existing tower than it is to run new fiber out to remote locations. Of course, that was already possible going back as far as 3G, and would be able to deliver usefully decent quality service in 4G. Keep in mind, the move from 4G to 5G looks to be pretty boring compared to the other mobile generation changes. I worked for a company that did this for providing service fishing boats far out to sea, but that was 2G and only involved voice and text if I recall correctly.
The summary/article is mistaken. Modern glitter is a thin-film coating of metal (aluminum) over a plastic substrate. It's like dicing up a space-blanket (Mylar).
That's exactly what QoS does. Short of selling someone a dedicated channel, which is only appropriate if they plan to transfer data 24/7, QoS is achieved by reserving channels for prioritized sources during times when bandwidth is limited. Comcast's statements on Twitter hold very little weight. The proposed changes state that ISPs can implement mechanisms exactly like this so long as it is documented in the subscriber agreement. So it becomes an "I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it further" situation. And while it's true that there would be a horrible backlash if they implemented such a "service", they would just respond with the crummy PR responses explaining how it's no big deal, and in fact it's even a really good thing, and eventually, the rage would die down when people realize that there's nothing they can do about the change, because, oh yeah: regional monopolies. A major reason why they quickly backed off in the past was because of fear of legal action. The FCC took Comcast to court from 2008-2010, and Verizon took the FCC to court from 2010-2014, and FCC mandated net neutrality the next year. And if Ajit does this change, it will likely go to court once again, and nothing will happen for a couple years more. And at any point during all of that mess, Congress can get a bill passed, which would trump the FCC. And if we're so lucky, that'd likewise almost certainly get taken to court by the telecom industry. That's how bad they want these sort of deals.
Nah. Lawyer jokes aside, they're just doing their job as part of the Adversarial System. And while it's true that lobbyists are pretty slimy, they're still just people fulfilling a very strong demand for lobbying services. No, "The bastards" in this context are the executives and the larger shareholders that are directing the executives. By drawing this stuff out, they pay massive legal fees and they at least feel and are likely correct that they miss out on millions of dollars on lost revenue opportunities.
Whether or not it turned out to be alien, finding silicon lifeforms would be pretty satisfying, yes.
Well that explains this horrible mess, but how did the bacteria get there???