I'd be shocked if cloud services reduce government price (differential) my understanding is part of the reason the prices are so high is that jumping through the hoops to get a contract is very difficult. Often there is only one bid because some small detail is missed by all the competitors, there are entire middle companies that specialize in writing this contracts for a big cut, and then present as normal customers for the typical vendors (there's also entire layers so that they can meet small business procurement and what not, it doesn't go to small businesses, it goes to small businesses that basically take a cut from bug businesses doing nothing but paperwork).
My state (under a million people, so about a medium sized city) tried to streamline print procurement, not a single printer successfully did the paperwork correctly and they scrapped the plan, but I could easily see a situation where only 3 or so succeeded and prices skyrocketed for the state.
As for reduction, yeah, that's what I meant by neglect, costs going down, but not keeping systems up to date would be bad.
There will always be a place for live TV, if they got a good enough deal on the purchase they may be able to make money.
If the tech really does more efficiently stream live TV over IP, they could be the ideal choice for things like HBO (GoT finale was hard to watch on HBO go), Sports, Special events, idle background with no need to make a decision (I'm pretty sure this is HGTVs entire market).
Sure, the live TV market isn't going to be as big as all of cable, but that doesn't mean they are overpaying for the tech to be better at it.
They aren't buying a big established business for its customers, they're buying a small one for the tech, which may or may not be worth it, but isn't completely braindead either.
MetroPCS was a real cell company before Tmobile purchased them.
Now they're basically Tmobile with a different price structure ($30 less/month, prepaid (I think), no international, and always throttled like a tmobile unlimited user that broke 35GB (Tmobile customers get priority over metroPCS)
Why doesn't it scale? Is their any fundamental reason they couldn't use an LTE like technology to broadcast using similar (RF) bandwidth as LTE (I'm using broadcast to mean 1 sender many receivers)?
The broadcast part is pretty much scaled by definition.
for mealtime streaming they'd likely use 5mbps (Netflix HD), that gives a tower 200 homes at a 10-50% reduction in overall network bandwidth (20-100gbps tower), there are probably places that would work too (sparser suburbs, not universally).
There's potential to use caching too, to prevent popular content from hitting the back haul, the LTE network itself is apparently capable of up to 18(subdivided)*128(users)*600mbps (this seems really high, just reading this), if the top 10% of content is 75% of streaming (made up numbers but seem reasonable), that's essentially allows for a lot of streaming that doesn't hit the back haul (perhaps only the popular content can be streamed HD in real time).
if 75% of streams (and all live) are cached, then 20gbps back haul can handle all live (100 channels in HD for 2gbps, with a mix of 5-40mbps), + plus 75% of
cached streaming for some small part of back haul, but a significant part of the Wireless network itself, plus another whole lot of 5 mpbs streams to the end user.
It seems very scalable to me even without being able to broadcast the signal (just caching the live TV, plus the last 1000 hours of streamed content (40mbps * 60 seconds * 60 Minutes / 8 (bits in a byte) gets me 20 TiB of storage for 1100 hours). as That can be the most popular 1000+ episodes of the week, which must be a huge percentage of the non on demand part, if a cell tower really is capable of 1.3tbps, that's 34k steams at 40mbps, assuming 1 in 3 people are streaming at a time, that leaves plenty of space for overhead and the 100mbps of capable of hitting the internet traffic do to back haul.
It seems very scalable to me.
I'm actually going to say that I think they could probably get away with streaming their own service at 40mbps, with only very rarely needing to drop uncached streams to 5mbps.
There are 6 Tmobile towers in my county of 200 thousand households, so it won't work to provide 40mbps for everything even with the newest tech everywhere, but I could see them being able to handle a significant number of households with those six towers (if we say each household is using 3 streams on average at peak (your number) and they allow one 1 ultimate quality and 2 HD per a house for 50 total mbps (I think that sounds really hi), that's 400 mbps at peak, each tower would need to be able to provide 1/3 theoretical maximum to cover 25% of the houses, if it's profitable they can build out more.
Yeah, but I've read that they're 4k isn't much better than upscaled bluray, and I don't think it's HDR (which is only a 25% increase at worst I think (8->10 bits, probably easier to compress though).
My point was they could offer a significant number of channels better than any video most of us have ever seen (I've personally never seen a 4k HDR video that I'm aware of, maybe most people have and I'm wrong).
Bluray quality, but 4k and HDR would be a pretty killer feature I think, and based on my experience with cable (not giving me HD without spedning significantly more) would be something they have that nobody else does. If they're broadcasting it (rather than streaming it personally), it's probably worth using 10% of a tower's capacity to be the best.
Basically, they could offer 50 channels at better than anything else on offer, better than anything I've seen, and able to max out what can be seen on many TV sets (which are mostly not getting more than Netflix 4k, or bluray 1080p right now). They could be the company that brings 4k HDR to TVs, and use that as their killer feature.
Realistically, they'd probably have 3 classes of channel, high bitrate (I proposed 40mbps), standard 4k (Netflix's 15mbps), and HD (Netflix's 5mbps), this would allow them to have 100+ channels, plus some error correction for the inevitable dropped packets, while still only using 2-10% of a tower's capacity.
They dedicate 40mbps*50 channels for 2gbps, that's what, 2-10% of a tower (I'm seeing LTE towers are built for 20-100gbps), assuming they can make devices that pick up broadcastlike.
So for a 2-10% reduction in mobile data speed for customers, they can offer 50 high quality (4k HDR) channels using H.265 (I assume, I don't actually know how efficient it is, I'm basically taking blue ray * 4 (pixels) / 2 (efficiency)).
If they can sell/rent a receiver for a reasonable price that can take their broadcast they can have super high quality live TV for minimal bandwidth reduction for their regular market. They can then lean on people having home Internet or much reduced resolution for on demand content (maybe 5 mbps as Netflix recommends for HD), this is in the realm of what I typically get at a minimum when checking my LTE speed (5-50 in my home city). They could maybe limit on demand content to SD speeds (1.5mbps), but allow you to subscribe to shows and have access the day after aired at 4k, downloading in off times (including allowing the downloading of Netflix downloadable shows).
This seems like a very doable and smart thing in an era of people hating cable.
I find my phone more comfortable when laying in bed than a Desktop or a Laptop, and I feel laying in bed more comfortable than sleeping.
Aside from that, I only live ten minutes from work, so I basically stopped using my computer at home (though I still have it, and still have home internet to watch Netflix on my TV).
But mostly I would suspect porn cuts across class pretty broadly, and a huge percentage of the population only has internet access via their phone.
The dimmable LED tech isn't that consistent for me, so I use a bunch (4) of 60W equivalent (43w) in my recessed lights in my living room. I suspect they draw on average 20w each when on.
I would actually say "phones are hard to distinguish by specs, so brands matter".
Other things matter, but Samsung is popular not because just because they're cool, but also because they are a known quantity (decent build, some interesting features, interface tweaks people (not me) like). An iPhone was for a while smoother (interface), or longer battery than Android, they beI'm came popular when they were arguably better. Yeah, no 3g, but the OG Android (forget the name) couldn't really keep up with 3g anyway.
I use budget phones personally, but even then, I'm brand loyal because of history of value.
I want a phone, 5 inches across, but would take 50% or more depth than current, well made plastic case, 720 resolution, good sun viewable display, but lower midrange specs/price (2GB RAM, SD Card, 32GB Storage, Enough CPU/GPU that it doesn't hang, $180-$250).
There was no functional taxi service where I live except for special events and airport runs.
With Uber and Lyft, short runs can be had in 5 minutes (I watched someone wait 3 hours for a taxi home from my shopping center, I called them a Lyft, 8 minutes).
Even in NYC, getting a pickup at the edges of Bushwick was spotty, and at night, they try to make sure you're not leaving for Brooklyn when getting in.
Maybe taxis do absolutely the most they can profitably (I know Uber and Lyft aren't sustainable at their current price and coverage), but in much of the country taxis we're an industry begging for disruption, just like everyone hated the record companies, we all hated taxis too.
I'm not saying it will recover if it crashes again, but if my choices are to bet on a recovery, or lose 75% I know which I'd take.
Note: if it goes up much higher, I'm going to sell half of my BTC, and have 0 exposure on what's left, and I only out 1 week's fun money in, so I'm not sweating either way
Slashdot Mirror
Just the second period would be enough, we're not that dense.
Yeah, that's what I meant by neglect.
I'd be shocked if cloud services reduce government price (differential) my understanding is part of the reason the prices are so high is that jumping through the hoops to get a contract is very difficult. Often there is only one bid because some small detail is missed by all the competitors, there are entire middle companies that specialize in writing this contracts for a big cut, and then present as normal customers for the typical vendors (there's also entire layers so that they can meet small business procurement and what not, it doesn't go to small businesses, it goes to small businesses that basically take a cut from bug businesses doing nothing but paperwork).
My state (under a million people, so about a medium sized city) tried to streamline print procurement, not a single printer successfully did the paperwork correctly and they scrapped the plan, but I could easily see a situation where only 3 or so succeeded and prices skyrocketed for the state.
As for reduction, yeah, that's what I meant by neglect, costs going down, but not keeping systems up to date would be bad.
There will always be a place for live TV, if they got a good enough deal on the purchase they may be able to make money.
If the tech really does more efficiently stream live TV over IP, they could be the ideal choice for things like HBO (GoT finale was hard to watch on HBO go), Sports, Special events, idle background with no need to make a decision (I'm pretty sure this is HGTVs entire market).
Sure, the live TV market isn't going to be as big as all of cable, but that doesn't mean they are overpaying for the tech to be better at it.
They aren't buying a big established business for its customers, they're buying a small one for the tech, which may or may not be worth it, but isn't completely braindead either.
MetroPCS was a real cell company before Tmobile purchased them.
Now they're basically Tmobile with a different price structure ($30 less/month, prepaid (I think), no international, and always throttled like a tmobile unlimited user that broke 35GB (Tmobile customers get priority over metroPCS)
Your argument doesn't make sense though.
If a card is being used for fraud, I assume it would be all or nothing.
The odds that I donate to ten projects, then someone steals my card, and donates to an 11th causing the first ten to be reversed seems super low.
Runaway costs?
It says they're dropping (though maybe that's due to neglect).
Why doesn't it scale? Is their any fundamental reason they couldn't use an LTE like technology to broadcast using similar (RF) bandwidth as LTE (I'm using broadcast to mean 1 sender many receivers)?
The broadcast part is pretty much scaled by definition.
for mealtime streaming they'd likely use 5mbps (Netflix HD), that gives a tower 200 homes at a 10-50% reduction in overall network bandwidth (20-100gbps tower), there are probably places that would work too (sparser suburbs, not universally).
There's potential to use caching too, to prevent popular content from hitting the back haul, the LTE network itself is apparently capable of up to 18(subdivided)*128(users)*600mbps (this seems really high, just reading this), if the top 10% of content is 75% of streaming (made up numbers but seem reasonable), that's essentially allows for a lot of streaming that doesn't hit the back haul (perhaps only the popular content can be streamed HD in real time).
if 75% of streams (and all live) are cached, then 20gbps back haul can handle all live (100 channels in HD for 2gbps, with a mix of 5-40mbps), + plus 75% of
cached streaming for some small part of back haul, but a significant part of the Wireless network itself, plus another whole lot of 5 mpbs streams to the end user.
It seems very scalable to me even without being able to broadcast the signal (just caching the live TV, plus the last 1000 hours of streamed content (40mbps * 60 seconds * 60 Minutes / 8 (bits in a byte) gets me 20 TiB of storage for 1100 hours).
as
That can be the most popular 1000+ episodes of the week, which must be a huge percentage of the non on demand part, if a cell tower really is capable of 1.3tbps, that's 34k steams at 40mbps, assuming 1 in 3 people are streaming at a time, that leaves plenty of space for overhead and the 100mbps of capable of hitting the internet traffic do to back haul.
It seems very scalable to me.
I'm actually going to say that I think they could probably get away with streaming their own service at 40mbps, with only very rarely needing to drop uncached streams to 5mbps.
There are 6 Tmobile towers in my county of 200 thousand households, so it won't work to provide 40mbps for everything even with the newest tech everywhere, but I could see them being able to handle a significant number of households with those six towers (if we say each household is using 3 streams on average at peak (your number) and they allow one 1 ultimate quality and 2 HD per a house for 50 total mbps (I think that sounds really hi), that's 400 mbps at peak, each tower would need to be able to provide 1/3 theoretical maximum to cover 25% of the houses, if it's profitable they can build out more.
Why wouldn't Tmobile use their own capacity?
I assume that's the goal, to offer you TV service that is 100% independent from Comcast, AT&T etc.
If they all of the coke?
Also, none of the things I've listed are mutually exclusive.
I think that's true everywhere.
That and drug addiction seem to be the two major causes of homelessness everywhere I've been.
Followed probably by failed to reacclimate veteran. FAS probably isn't even top 10 for cause.
Yeah, but I've read that they're 4k isn't much better than upscaled bluray, and I don't think it's HDR (which is only a 25% increase at worst I think (8->10 bits, probably easier to compress though).
My point was they could offer a significant number of channels better than any video most of us have ever seen (I've personally never seen a 4k HDR video that I'm aware of, maybe most people have and I'm wrong).
Bluray quality, but 4k and HDR would be a pretty killer feature I think, and based on my experience with cable (not giving me HD without spedning significantly more) would be something they have that nobody else does. If they're broadcasting it (rather than streaming it personally), it's probably worth using 10% of a tower's capacity to be the best.
Basically, they could offer 50 channels at better than anything else on offer, better than anything I've seen, and able to max out what can be seen on many TV sets (which are mostly not getting more than Netflix 4k, or bluray 1080p right now). They could be the company that brings 4k HDR to TVs, and use that as their killer feature.
Realistically, they'd probably have 3 classes of channel, high bitrate (I proposed 40mbps), standard 4k (Netflix's 15mbps), and HD (Netflix's 5mbps), this would allow them to have 100+ channels, plus some error correction for the inevitable dropped packets, while still only using 2-10% of a tower's capacity.
They dedicate 40mbps*50 channels for 2gbps, that's what, 2-10% of a tower (I'm seeing LTE towers are built for 20-100gbps), assuming they can make devices that pick up broadcastlike.
So for a 2-10% reduction in mobile data speed for customers, they can offer 50 high quality (4k HDR) channels using H.265 (I assume, I don't actually know how efficient it is, I'm basically taking blue ray * 4 (pixels) / 2 (efficiency)).
If they can sell/rent a receiver for a reasonable price that can take their broadcast they can have super high quality live TV for minimal bandwidth reduction for their regular market. They can then lean on people having home Internet or much reduced resolution for on demand content (maybe 5 mbps as Netflix recommends for HD), this is in the realm of what I typically get at a minimum when checking my LTE speed (5-50 in my home city). They could maybe limit on demand content to SD speeds (1.5mbps), but allow you to subscribe to shows and have access the day after aired at 4k, downloading in off times (including allowing the downloading of Netflix downloadable shows).
This seems like a very doable and smart thing in an era of people hating cable.
I find my phone more comfortable when laying in bed than a Desktop or a Laptop, and I feel laying in bed more comfortable than sleeping.
Aside from that, I only live ten minutes from work, so I basically stopped using my computer at home (though I still have it, and still have home internet to watch Netflix on my TV).
But mostly I would suspect porn cuts across class pretty broadly, and a huge percentage of the population only has internet access via their phone.
I use some in my house.
The dimmable LED tech isn't that consistent for me, so I use a bunch (4) of 60W equivalent (43w) in my recessed lights in my living room. I suspect they draw on average 20w each when on.
Isn't most porn mobile now?
A random phone battery (for the S4) has a Max output under 2 watts.
With the future of visa programs in question, makes sense to be able to hire in other countries rather than let the knowledge go to other countries.
A reasonable hedge.
I would actually say "phones are hard to distinguish by specs, so brands matter".
Other things matter, but Samsung is popular not because just because they're cool, but also because they are a known quantity (decent build, some interesting features, interface tweaks people (not me) like). An iPhone was for a while smoother (interface), or longer battery than Android, they beI'm came popular when they were arguably better. Yeah, no 3g, but the OG Android (forget the name) couldn't really keep up with 3g anyway.
I use budget phones personally, but even then, I'm brand loyal because of history of value.
Agreed,
I want a phone, 5 inches across, but would take 50% or more depth than current, well made plastic case, 720 resolution, good sun viewable display, but lower midrange specs/price (2GB RAM, SD Card, 32GB Storage, Enough CPU/GPU that it doesn't hang, $180-$250).
Everything seems to be $125 or 5+ inches.
Or taxis suck in much of the country.
There was no functional taxi service where I live except for special events and airport runs.
With Uber and Lyft, short runs can be had in 5 minutes (I watched someone wait 3 hours for a taxi home from my shopping center, I called them a Lyft, 8 minutes).
Even in NYC, getting a pickup at the edges of Bushwick was spotty, and at night, they try to make sure you're not leaving for Brooklyn when getting in.
Maybe taxis do absolutely the most they can profitably (I know Uber and Lyft aren't sustainable at their current price and coverage), but in much of the country taxis we're an industry begging for disruption, just like everyone hated the record companies, we all hated taxis too.
They had to go into debt to turn their options into shares I assume.
I'm sure plenty of people will hang in though.
It's suffered huge drops in the past.
I'm not saying it will recover if it crashes again, but if my choices are to bet on a recovery, or lose 75% I know which I'd take.
Note: if it goes up much higher, I'm going to sell half of my BTC, and have 0 exposure on what's left, and I only out 1 week's fun money in, so I'm not sweating either way
Prevents a terrible disease from spreading, maybe even reverses it some?
Seems pretty straightforward.
Except that'd be worth not even close to a 30 second video.
Not even close to a single small text ad.
I don't think so, I think it's a monthly does in perpetuity, not a permanent fix for even the current generation.