... a boondoggle. I hope all those VT citizens have a lot of money.
When will people understand that municipalities are inept and couldn't offer a economical triple play if their jobs depended on it. Oh wait, you can't fire government employees for screwing up so I guess there jobs don't depend on it. See the problem here?
You are wrong on many levels... It's getting late so I will just reply in bullets.
Copper cable has a life of 10 to 15 years, that means it has to be replaced. Fiber last longer but also has to be replaced. Even if it lasted forever, this does not account for cuts made by other parties, forced move of cable (for roadwork), storms, etc.
The wireline companies have gone through simialar changes. The moved from mechanical switching, to electronic switching, to packet switching at the central office and have made many changes to their cabling, such as shortening loops for DSL, line conditioning, replacing copper with fiber, etc.
Trillions? Seriously you need to get a better grasp on how much money that is. Anyhow, the FCC keeps track of how much is spent for wireless spectrum in the US, here:
Ok I agree, mostly. The part I don't agree upon is that these IP payments (for the patents) cost more than maintaining a wireline network. The rest I do agree on but, it makes my point. I think you would agree that the ablity to have all 10,000 customers make a call is a benefit. Right?
Now yet again, I pay less montly for a superior quality and capitally less efficient wireline network. Now, why does the inferior quality and capitally efficient wireless network cost more per month?
I think the data goes on one wire back to the central office. This is an efficiency over wireline because you don't have to run a wire to everyone in the wire center. How do you not see the efficiency in that??
Let's look at it this way. Consider a 10 sq mile area with 10,000 customers, in the wireline world this requires building a wired connection to all 10,000 customers from the central office. A very expensive proposition. Now think of the wireless world, you have 10 towers that have 10 connections to the central office serving the same 10000 customers.
Again, I pay $20 monthly to have my wireline phone and pay $60 to have the wireless phone. Yet the wireless network is much more efficient.
There are at least 150 Million wireless subscribers in the united states. Lets say that the top 4 wireless companies spend 20 billion on capital investment per year (they don't). The average revenue per user in the US is $50 (conservatively). The wireless carriers capital expenses are paid in the first 3 months. They have to cover their other expenses the next quarter. Where does the money go?
Why are data/voice rates so high?
Why doesn't the FTC go after these bozo's for collusion? They are obviously avoiding real competition because they are afraid of what happened to the long distance industry.
If I can pay $20 for local telephone service, something that requires burying miles of cabling, why are wireless prices so high???
Sorry for the incoherent babbling but I just paid my wireless bill. Just slightly frustrated.:)
What is going to make Ubanto more than a Linux flavor of the week? The only distribution that seems to have real staying power is Red Hat. Every other distribution comes and goes in popularity like SUSE, Mandrake (Mandriva), Linspire, etc, etc...
IMHO, the problem with Linux for the desktop is users have no loyalty. Once something better comes along they drop thier old distro like a bad habbit. This ultimately makes it impossible for a distro company to be profitable more than a few years.
We shouldn't be depressed about how wireless networks are the poster child of a closed network. We should point out to our congressmen that wireless carriers should have to meet the same common carrier requirements as any other access provider does.
Since we are speculating, why don't we just say there is a bleak future for anti-virus software companies because software patches are released at such a high rate and security is such a high priority for software vendors that the future need for anti-virus software is low.
I know we will probably always need AV software but I thought I would make up some FUD conclusion like symantec did.
Since the OSS community says that they can produce quality software faster than a closed source shop, why don't they trump Microsoft's "Embrace and Extend" tactic by using an "Embrace and Preempt" tactic?
For example, MS announces they are going to incorporate RSS and add feature X in their next release sometime in the next year. The OSS community should just implement MS's idea in 6 months. If OSS developers have the advantage of speed to market then beat MS down with it. They can't extend what has already been extended.
You seriously think that they will let Verizon and Sprint-Nextel merge? That company would have a total market cap of $135 billion dollars! Instantly making it #5 on the fortune list. I will eat my shoe if this were to happen. And for sake of reference, SBC + AT&T would be #11. I have reservations even in this administration that SBC + AT&T will pass FTC muster.
Can you say disgruntled? For all the doom and gloom focused in Sprint's direction you would think that they would be gone by now. I guess their management has an uncanny ability to come out on top. You would think that they knew what they were doing.
I am not an engineer but would it be possible to create an open source JTAG/Debugger? I know this is not a quick solution to the camera problem but it would open up embedded divices, no? Am I way off base?
How to know whether they are providing the best service for the price they charge? That doesn't really matter. The name of the game is maximizing job security. If a slightly lower service letter allows them to do nothing they will do it and loose customers with little consequence. But, if the customers feel sufficiently abused to demand an alternative, then nothing can be done.
By lazy, I mean lazy. When the whining reaches a certain level, they (government) should have realized that the demand service was falling and that if they didn't respond to it, there would be no change. In the case of a government, the taxpayer will just pick up the bill.
This is most likely to happen in areas where the provider decides not to do business because they don't anticipate enough customers to justify laying the fiber or whatever big expensive fixed cost thing they must do to enter that market.
>I like to call it sound logic
Some people foresaw that broadband would make their communities more desirable to businesses and people making relocation decisions and decided to do what the private corporation did not because it did not project far enough into the future when making its business decision.
>Really you live where the best broadband is? I usually move because I need to make a living. So mom and pop store really needs broadband? Why so there employees can surf the net? Medium to large companies get high speed data service for (relatively) cheep anyway anywhere they are
This proceeds to the ongoing discussions elsewhere of shortsighted corporate accounting methods and how they affect management and shareholder decisions.
> And government is the pinnacle of accounting fortitude, governments never was money.
The money goes to an American that work hard, have good jobs and enjoy decent pay. And in turn these good Americans pay taxes. The rate is not exorbitant if you consider the cost of providing service. Most telecom rates have to go through government bodies for approval. Verizon doesn't willy-nilly set prices at the maximum people are willing to pay.
You fail to understand that Verizon does have employees working in that town. That do eat at Sally's Diner. In any case, both the municipality and Verizon would contract the actual building of the network, so there are no jobs that stay after the initial build out. I highly doubt that this rural community has hoards of individuals with the knowledge to build a city wide network.
Is your point that governent should give money back to the townspeople? Try cutting taxes its much easier! Again not everyone wants broadband service, don' make them pay for your urge to play Doom III over a phat connection. Some people need money to do important things like eat and go to the doctor!
In your world, the consultant that sold them the idea will be doing cocaine and telling his buddies he just duped the poor folks in Bumble#$% out of $100 million, plus a 10% stake in $40/month for network service! Can you say Monorail http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?id=67605 All you have done is shift the money around. Regardless of the exorbitant pay most executives make, none of them sit around smoking cigars.
Slashdot Mirror
So are they taking H.264 out of Android? Isn't this a half hearted effort if they don't?
Also, what are the hundreds of millions of existing devices that only support h.264 supposed to do with WebM?
So which OS treats Java as a first class citizen?
I will determine if a app is purchase worthy based on its function not on someones conjecture that it is a "Good Buy".
Call me when Apple takes root access away. Until then don't get your tinfoil panties in a bunch.
Then Oracle should get right on that if they want to truly be a common platform for all OS.
... a boondoggle. I hope all those VT citizens have a lot of money.
When will people understand that municipalities are inept and couldn't offer a economical triple play if their jobs depended on it. Oh wait, you can't fire government employees for screwing up so I guess there jobs don't depend on it. See the problem here?
You should watch these. (thanks andrewg for links)
For anyone who has not seen the ZFS demonstration videos by Bill Moore you must watch the link.
High Bandwidth versions - http://www.sun.com/software/media/real/zfs_learningcenter/high_band...
Low Bandwidth versions - http://www.sun.com/software/media/real/zfs_learningcenter/low_bandw...
Also general info here:
- http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/ds/zfs.jsp
- http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/zfs_learning_center.jsp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT5AQIlmM0I
Oh. Peace? Shut up!
You are wrong on many levels... It's getting late so I will just reply in bullets.
a uctions_all
Copper cable has a life of 10 to 15 years, that means it has to be replaced. Fiber last longer but also has to be replaced. Even if it lasted forever, this does not account for cuts made by other parties, forced move of cable (for roadwork), storms, etc.
The wireline companies have gone through simialar changes. The moved from mechanical switching, to electronic switching, to packet switching at the central office and have made many changes to their cabling, such as shortening loops for DSL, line conditioning, replacing copper with fiber, etc.
Trillions? Seriously you need to get a better grasp on how much money that is. Anyhow, the FCC keeps track of how much is spent for wireless spectrum in the US, here:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=
This is tens of billions at best. Keep in mind this list has other services other than wireless telephone in them.
Your last point is dead on. Lets hope that public spectrum wireless like WiMax will be the meteor that destroys these dinosaurs.
Ok I agree, mostly. The part I don't agree upon is that these IP payments (for the patents) cost more than maintaining a wireline network. The rest I do agree on but, it makes my point. I think you would agree that the ablity to have all 10,000 customers make a call is a benefit. Right?
Now yet again, I pay less montly for a superior quality and capitally less efficient wireline network. Now, why does the inferior quality and capitally efficient wireless network cost more per month?
I think the data goes on one wire back to the central office. This is an efficiency over wireline because you don't have to run a wire to everyone in the wire center. How do you not see the efficiency in that??
Let's look at it this way. Consider a 10 sq mile area with 10,000 customers, in the wireline world this requires building a wired connection to all 10,000 customers from the central office. A very expensive proposition. Now think of the wireless world, you have 10 towers that have 10 connections to the central office serving the same 10000 customers.
Again, I pay $20 monthly to have my wireline phone and pay $60 to have the wireless phone. Yet the wireless network is much more efficient.
You think.
We need to demand lower prices!
There are at least 150 Million wireless subscribers in the united states. Lets say that the top 4 wireless companies spend 20 billion on capital investment per year (they don't). The average revenue per user in the US is $50 (conservatively). The wireless carriers capital expenses are paid in the first 3 months. They have to cover their other expenses the next quarter. Where does the money go?
:)
Why are data/voice rates so high?
Why doesn't the FTC go after these bozo's for collusion? They are obviously avoiding real competition because they are afraid of what happened to the long distance industry.
If I can pay $20 for local telephone service, something that requires burying miles of cabling, why are wireless prices so high???
Sorry for the incoherent babbling but I just paid my wireless bill. Just slightly frustrated.
What is going to make Ubanto more than a Linux flavor of the week? The only distribution that seems to have real staying power is Red Hat. Every other distribution comes and goes in popularity like SUSE, Mandrake (Mandriva), Linspire, etc, etc...
IMHO, the problem with Linux for the desktop is users have no loyalty. Once something better comes along they drop thier old distro like a bad habbit. This ultimately makes it impossible for a distro company to be profitable more than a few years.
We shouldn't be depressed about how wireless networks are the poster child of a closed network. We should point out to our congressmen that wireless carriers should have to meet the same common carrier requirements as any other access provider does.
Free the airwaves!!!!!!
Since we are speculating, why don't we just say there is a bleak future for anti-virus software companies because software patches are released at such a high rate and security is such a high priority for software vendors that the future need for anti-virus software is low.
I know we will probably always need AV software but I thought I would make up some FUD conclusion like symantec did.
Since the OSS community says that they can produce quality software faster than a closed source shop, why don't they trump Microsoft's "Embrace and Extend" tactic by using an "Embrace and Preempt" tactic?
For example, MS announces they are going to incorporate RSS and add feature X in their next release sometime in the next year. The OSS community should just implement MS's idea in 6 months. If OSS developers have the advantage of speed to market then beat MS down with it. They can't extend what has already been extended.
Get my point???
What are the maximum password lengths for other operating systems. i.e. OS X, Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc...
You seriously think that they will let Verizon and Sprint-Nextel merge? That company would have a total market cap of $135 billion dollars! Instantly making it #5 on the fortune list. I will eat my shoe if this were to happen. And for sake of reference, SBC + AT&T would be #11. I have reservations even in this administration that SBC + AT&T will pass FTC muster.
Can you say disgruntled? For all the doom and gloom focused in Sprint's direction you would think that they would be gone by now. I guess their management has an uncanny ability to come out on top. You would think that they knew what they were doing.
"And I heard AT&T is known for having a pretty strong Unix heritage too..."
That's like saying Adam and Eve had a strong heritage of being human.
"... as well as being known for developing some hardware that uses it."
I give up! I hope you are being sarcastic.
I am not an engineer but would it be possible to create an open source JTAG/Debugger? I know this is not a quick solution to the camera problem but it would open up embedded divices, no? Am I way off base?
Ford is trying to take market share from GM!!
Of course Creative wants to take market share from Apple. Why is this news??? Are nerds oblivious to simple economics?
Man, this must really be a slow news day.
Corporations loath vendor lock-in as much as you or I. Why haven't open source ERP packages, like compiere (http://www.compiere.org/), taken off???
How to know whether they are providing the best service for the price they charge? That doesn't really matter. The name of the game is maximizing job security. If a slightly lower service letter allows them to do nothing they will do it and loose customers with little consequence. But, if the customers feel sufficiently abused to demand an alternative, then nothing can be done.
By lazy, I mean lazy. When the whining reaches a certain level, they (government) should have realized that the demand service was falling and that if they didn't respond to it, there would be no change. In the case of a government, the taxpayer will just pick up the bill.
This is most likely to happen in areas where the provider decides not to do business because they don't anticipate enough customers to justify laying the fiber or whatever big expensive fixed cost thing they must do to enter that market.
>I like to call it sound logic
Some people foresaw that broadband would make their communities more desirable to businesses and people making relocation decisions and decided to do what the private corporation did not because it did not project far enough into the future when making its business decision.
>Really you live where the best broadband is? I usually move because I need to make a living. So mom and pop store really needs broadband? Why so there employees can surf the net? Medium to large companies get high speed data service for (relatively) cheep anyway anywhere they are
This proceeds to the ongoing discussions elsewhere of shortsighted corporate accounting methods and how they affect management and shareholder decisions.
> And government is the pinnacle of accounting fortitude, governments never was money.
The money goes to an American that work hard, have good jobs and enjoy decent pay. And in turn these good Americans pay taxes. The rate is not exorbitant if you consider the cost of providing service. Most telecom rates have to go through government bodies for approval. Verizon doesn't willy-nilly set prices at the maximum people are willing to pay.
You fail to understand that Verizon does have employees working in that town. That do eat at Sally's Diner. In any case, both the municipality and Verizon would contract the actual building of the network, so there are no jobs that stay after the initial build out. I highly doubt that this rural community has hoards of individuals with the knowledge to build a city wide network.
Is your point that governent should give money back to the townspeople? Try cutting taxes its much easier! Again not everyone wants broadband service, don' make them pay for your urge to play Doom III over a phat connection. Some people need money to do important things like eat and go to the doctor!
In your world, the consultant that sold them the idea will be doing cocaine and telling his buddies he just duped the poor folks in Bumble#$% out of $100 million, plus a 10% stake in $40/month for network service! Can you say Monorail http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?id=67605 All you have done is shift the money around. Regardless of the exorbitant pay most executives make, none of them sit around smoking cigars.