This is not the danger, it will be killed quickly. The danger is when she attaches this to the an infrastructure bill, maybe the defense appropriations bill or some other essential but completely unrelated bill.
That's why it's up to us to repeatedly tell our congressmen what's up. I email mine almost weekly (Kenny Marchant) and while he does a great many things I despise I do have yet to see him sign on as a cosponsor to one of these internet restriction acts. If our congressmen begin to believe they will have to pay a political price, they'll won't want to be the first one to come out in favor of an internet restriction act. If everyone is afraid to be first, then no one will be.
No, not really. Individuals and businesses typically own the property, but the zoning of said property created "easements" which allow utilities access to certain parts of your land. Other than streets, parks and city property the utilities run on private property in my neighborhood. I'd gladly welcome someone digging up my land if it meant I would have a choice other than AT&T or Time Warner Cable, though.
I wonder if this will be open to all handsets, or just exclusive to Android devices? I was thinking about doing some carrier hopping and would be interested to try them, provided something makes them stand apart from all other MVNOs.
Yes, but the FCC can't really do that even if they want to, not by themselves. Raising the definition of 'broadband' (heh heh) is something they can do, hilariously enough.
They can use their authority under the 1934 and 1996 telecommunications acts to reclassify ISPs as Title II, then mandate line sharing. They have the authority today to do this, and they should.
Quoted for truth. I love the flexibility of Intel's in-house graphics, in that they support Linux and Windows both quite well. Using PowerVR takes a lot of flexibility off the table. I suppose if your plan is to always run the manufacturer operating system and do nothing else with the tablet, this is fine. But that's never my plan when it comes to the hardware I buy.
You'd have a valid argument if that's not exactly the system the cable companies operated under until 2002, and the phone companies operated under until 2005. For your logic to hold, there would have been little investment by the cable companies in data service until after 2002 and by the phone companies until after 2005. But that isn't the case; since 2005 infrastructure spending by telcos and cable companies has gone DOWN.
Off site backup. Out of home access to home resources (streaming off of the DVR, using my computer at home via remote connection, remote play of games from my console, etc.). Smart home security systems that use more data than just "did an alarm get triggered". Telepresence.
How does CableCARD work for video on demand or for less popular channels that have been moved to switched video?
On demand service will not work with a CableCard, however some providers (Comcast) offer an IP based on demand service that integrates with TiVo. I use TWC and I just have a Roku with the TWCTV app that lets me use on demand, so I don't miss it.
As for switched digital video, there are SDV adapters that cable companies are required by law to give customers who have a CableCard when they offer SDV in the area. Excepting a few occasional hiccups, the SDV adapters work quite well with my TiVos (a 2 Tuner Premiere and 4 Tuner Roamio, both upgraded with 2TB HDDs).
Minimum basic cable price (if I don't want to sell my entire soul to the cableco) where I am is $39.48 + $3.99 for a converter box
They blatantly lie and claim that the box is "necessary" "because digital", but it isn't. The real reason they want you to use the box is because of their unilateral insistence on encrypting even the signals that you'd otherwise be able to get unencrypted from an antenna anyway, so that they can charge you a rental fee. But even then, it still isn't necessary because you can get a CableCard instead.
When I had cable TV (only because the TV + internet bundle was cheaper than internet-only that year), I refused the box (and refused to be charged for the box) as a matter of principle.
They are prohibited by FCC mandate from encrypting over the air channels, those must be broadcast "in the clear", and with the copy protect flag set to "copy freely". You just need a tuner capable of grabbing Clear QAM signals to view it (some TVs but not all). If you see a violation of this you can report it to the FCC and they'll get in big trouble.
As for the rest of the channels, Time Warner Cable is objectively the worst cable provider, in that they encrypt ALL channels (excluding the Discovery Channel) that they aren't required to decrypt by law. They also set the copy protect flag to "copy once" on all channels except those they are required not to by law. Comcast is a better TV provider than Time Warner Cable, and that's saying something. Comcast uses the copy protect flag more sparingly, and offers more Clear QAM channels. If the merger goes through the only silver lining is that my TV will get better (while my Internet gets far worse... fucking data caps should not exist on wired broadband).
Don't forget the FCC. Time Warner got their act together very quickly once I complained to the FCC about their cable card fuckery.
We'll see if the FCC gets Verizon Wireless into shape for their violations of the C Block auction rules I just complained about.
The "chance" to make a difference has long since past. The general election is just a formality. If you want to have a true impact on who gets elected and what kind of platform they run on, you need to vote in the PRIMARIES. Since so few people do, we end up with these mostly-unelectable assholes who manage to get elected anyway.
What we need (in addition to stronger 3rd parties) are more participation in the primaries.
Probably. When can we expect this free market you speak of? I only see a duopoly where I live for wired service, and a 4 player oligopoly for wireless.
I bought one of these boards with the PowerVR crap, but I knew what I was getting into when I did. It makes a handy headless server, but aside from that it's a paperweight.
I'm a bit disappointed that the Nexus Player has an Atom with a PowerVR graphics core; otherwise it would have made not only a compelling purchase on its own merits, but an awesome device that could easily be extended with different media capabilities. With the PowerVR chip it's pretty much Android or nothing.
I suspect it's the Z3560. If I were you I'd be less worried about the bitedness and more worried about the graphics drivers if you wanted to run Linux on this thing. Intel chips with PowerVR graphics have had a terrible track record (compared to Intel chips with in-house graphics).
For best performance they need to be on the same breaker switch and not share the breaker with any electric motors or fluorescent lights. If they have noisy devices on their circuit, or are on a different breaker they'll run slower. If they have noisy devices and are on a different phase they may not work at all.
A lot of the newer ones should be able to handle a gigabit connection. The problem is (unfortunately) is that it relies on hardware based NAT acceleration which sadly doesn't work with most 3rd party firmwares. I grabbed a Asus RT-AC68U which should get close enough to a gigabit to be okay for my needs; the advantage is it is one of the very few routers that has a 3rd party firmware (AsusWRT Merlin) that maintains NAT acceleration while adding to the factory firmware.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear the data overages suck too.
The problem is, we could have the same problem from the FCC controlling & censoring the Internet.
How? They don't control or censor the content of my phone calls, which are regulated as a Title II Telecommunications service.
This is not the danger, it will be killed quickly. The danger is when she attaches this to the an infrastructure bill, maybe the defense appropriations bill or some other essential but completely unrelated bill.
That's why it's up to us to repeatedly tell our congressmen what's up. I email mine almost weekly (Kenny Marchant) and while he does a great many things I despise I do have yet to see him sign on as a cosponsor to one of these internet restriction acts. If our congressmen begin to believe they will have to pay a political price, they'll won't want to be the first one to come out in favor of an internet restriction act. If everyone is afraid to be first, then no one will be.
No, not really. Individuals and businesses typically own the property, but the zoning of said property created "easements" which allow utilities access to certain parts of your land. Other than streets, parks and city property the utilities run on private property in my neighborhood. I'd gladly welcome someone digging up my land if it meant I would have a choice other than AT&T or Time Warner Cable, though.
I wonder if this will be open to all handsets, or just exclusive to Android devices? I was thinking about doing some carrier hopping and would be interested to try them, provided something makes them stand apart from all other MVNOs.
Won't the market solve this problem? ISPs with smaller limits will be at a disadvantage?
What market?
Yes, but the FCC can't really do that even if they want to, not by themselves. Raising the definition of 'broadband' (heh heh) is something they can do, hilariously enough.
They can use their authority under the 1934 and 1996 telecommunications acts to reclassify ISPs as Title II, then mandate line sharing. They have the authority today to do this, and they should.
you lost me at powervr.
Quoted for truth. I love the flexibility of Intel's in-house graphics, in that they support Linux and Windows both quite well. Using PowerVR takes a lot of flexibility off the table. I suppose if your plan is to always run the manufacturer operating system and do nothing else with the tablet, this is fine. But that's never my plan when it comes to the hardware I buy.
You'd have a valid argument if that's not exactly the system the cable companies operated under until 2002, and the phone companies operated under until 2005. For your logic to hold, there would have been little investment by the cable companies in data service until after 2002 and by the phone companies until after 2005. But that isn't the case; since 2005 infrastructure spending by telcos and cable companies has gone DOWN.
Off site backup. Out of home access to home resources (streaming off of the DVR, using my computer at home via remote connection, remote play of games from my console, etc.). Smart home security systems that use more data than just "did an alarm get triggered". Telepresence.
It looks like the rules were changed last year, so what I said should be considered wrong. And boy does that suck.
How does CableCARD work for video on demand or for less popular channels that have been moved to switched video?
On demand service will not work with a CableCard, however some providers (Comcast) offer an IP based on demand service that integrates with TiVo. I use TWC and I just have a Roku with the TWCTV app that lets me use on demand, so I don't miss it. As for switched digital video, there are SDV adapters that cable companies are required by law to give customers who have a CableCard when they offer SDV in the area. Excepting a few occasional hiccups, the SDV adapters work quite well with my TiVos (a 2 Tuner Premiere and 4 Tuner Roamio, both upgraded with 2TB HDDs).
They blatantly lie and claim that the box is "necessary" "because digital", but it isn't. The real reason they want you to use the box is because of their unilateral insistence on encrypting even the signals that you'd otherwise be able to get unencrypted from an antenna anyway, so that they can charge you a rental fee. But even then, it still isn't necessary because you can get a CableCard instead.
When I had cable TV (only because the TV + internet bundle was cheaper than internet-only that year), I refused the box (and refused to be charged for the box) as a matter of principle.
They are prohibited by FCC mandate from encrypting over the air channels, those must be broadcast "in the clear", and with the copy protect flag set to "copy freely". You just need a tuner capable of grabbing Clear QAM signals to view it (some TVs but not all). If you see a violation of this you can report it to the FCC and they'll get in big trouble. As for the rest of the channels, Time Warner Cable is objectively the worst cable provider, in that they encrypt ALL channels (excluding the Discovery Channel) that they aren't required to decrypt by law. They also set the copy protect flag to "copy once" on all channels except those they are required not to by law. Comcast is a better TV provider than Time Warner Cable, and that's saying something. Comcast uses the copy protect flag more sparingly, and offers more Clear QAM channels. If the merger goes through the only silver lining is that my TV will get better (while my Internet gets far worse... fucking data caps should not exist on wired broadband).
Wouldn't the square root of -1^2 be -1(i)? Wouldn't it be fair to say 1 = -1(i)?
Don't forget the FCC. Time Warner got their act together very quickly once I complained to the FCC about their cable card fuckery. We'll see if the FCC gets Verizon Wireless into shape for their violations of the C Block auction rules I just complained about.
The "chance" to make a difference has long since past. The general election is just a formality. If you want to have a true impact on who gets elected and what kind of platform they run on, you need to vote in the PRIMARIES. Since so few people do, we end up with these mostly-unelectable assholes who manage to get elected anyway. What we need (in addition to stronger 3rd parties) are more participation in the primaries.
Probably. When can we expect this free market you speak of? I only see a duopoly where I live for wired service, and a 4 player oligopoly for wireless.
Bay Trail uses Intel's own HD graphics. Bay Trail is good stuff. It's the Pine Trail that you want to avoid.
Instead of paying interest, money should have an expiration date. Use it or lose it.
You mean like inflation?
I bought one of these boards with the PowerVR crap, but I knew what I was getting into when I did. It makes a handy headless server, but aside from that it's a paperweight. I'm a bit disappointed that the Nexus Player has an Atom with a PowerVR graphics core; otherwise it would have made not only a compelling purchase on its own merits, but an awesome device that could easily be extended with different media capabilities. With the PowerVR chip it's pretty much Android or nothing.
I suspect it's the Z3560. If I were you I'd be less worried about the bitedness and more worried about the graphics drivers if you wanted to run Linux on this thing. Intel chips with PowerVR graphics have had a terrible track record (compared to Intel chips with in-house graphics).
I would argue that thanks to Edward Snowden, we now know a lot of things we thought were unlikely aren't.
Cloud backups?
For best performance they need to be on the same breaker switch and not share the breaker with any electric motors or fluorescent lights. If they have noisy devices on their circuit, or are on a different breaker they'll run slower. If they have noisy devices and are on a different phase they may not work at all.
A lot of the newer ones should be able to handle a gigabit connection. The problem is (unfortunately) is that it relies on hardware based NAT acceleration which sadly doesn't work with most 3rd party firmwares. I grabbed a Asus RT-AC68U which should get close enough to a gigabit to be okay for my needs; the advantage is it is one of the very few routers that has a 3rd party firmware (AsusWRT Merlin) that maintains NAT acceleration while adding to the factory firmware.