I know that many developers, especially on embedded or hand-held systems, are starting to use SQLite these days instead of BDB. SQLite is small enough, and efficient enough, to be used suitably in such environments. It offers SQL support, which BDB does not.
You're missing the point. Putting aside for the moment that we're discussing the Java version of BDB (which would be useless on the types of embedded platforms you're talking about), BDB is a basic database engine. Which means it's the type of software you can use to build a database management system on top of rather than being a DBMS in its own right. SQLite and HSQL are complete DBMS packages that will only meet your needs if an SQL engine is what you want.
For example, if you're looking to build an Object Storage Database, SQLite and HSQL would both be terrible choices. But BDB would fit the bill perfectly.
I'll have to see if they've finally added support for partial record retrivals. It used to be that this feature was only in the native code edition of BDB. It ended up being a showstopper for the Java version last time I tried to use it.
In comparison, ALL the libraries for Java (including the extensions not included in the core distributions) have been submitted through the JCP so that anyone can reimplement the technologies themselves.
These are quibbles -.net is (currently, at any rate) for all intents and purposes an open standard.
Right up until Microsoft drudges up a patent for WinForms or some other technology not covered by ECMA standard. The funny thing about patents is that they don't lose their potency with time or popularity. They can even be submarined for 20 to 30 years before they activate. Given Microsoft's history, is.NET really a gamble you think is wise?
Yes, yes it is. The exact same "residual" issue exists with any source code that isn't in public domain. That includes GPLed code. I could write a module that's extremely similar to GPLed code, and the original author of the GPL code could sue me for failing to observe the licensing restrictions imposed by the GPL.
I hate to break it to people, but merely existing is a legal risk. The only way to mitigate that risk is to attempt to only do business with entities you trust. Now in the entire time that the SCSL code has existed (7 YEARS!), Sun has never lifted a finger against ANY entity over similar code. Nor have they lifted a finger against free Java or J2EE implementations for other licensing restrictions. In fact, they've tried to be helpful. (As helpful as you can expect a large, slow-moving corporation to be.)
Now that Sun has tried to address the concerns levied against them about the SCSL code, they've been demonized for trying to help. Well I'm sorry. I can't help people who are naturally distrustful of those that are trying to help, while simultaneously falling into a trap of the enemy.
For comparison, what's Microsoft's history? Oh yes: use any means necessary to CRUSH each and every threat posed against their dominance. This includes bad licensing, theft, bad-faith negotiations, "aqusitions", misleading advertisements, etc., etc., etc. And the OSS community has just gotten into bed with them.
You can put together a desktop computer with 1,000,000 different hardware configurations. Laptops are actually much less configurable... hardware-wise.
You can, but getting a standardized desktop is a lot easier. An Asus NForce board with a NVidia video card, SATA HDDs, and an IDE DVD Writer will pretty much run anything you throw at it. Part of this is because it's a highly common configuration. The other part of it is that nearly all the hardware uses standardized interfaces that will work with most generic drivers.
Who said there was anything wrong with Mono? I said their was something wrong with all the fragmentation in the OSS community that prevented them from getting their Java legs under them earlier. With de Icaza there was a constant "Not Invented Here" problem he had with Java. So then he goes and copies Microsoft.
Why would open source leaders support a proprietary platform?
Good question. Why are they supporting.NET then?
Sun should work with RMS, his type of software is * gaining * market share.
Java already gained it and owns the industry. I'm not sure what your point is.
If Sun doesn't shape up real soon they will soon become go out of business, leaving proprietary java in a mess, and another popular de-facto java won't have to "catch up" to sun's.
Lots of hyperbole, little substance. Sun is still profitable (even if barely) and has done much better than the other Unix vendors over the years. While their failure to commit to a given path can be incredibly frustrating at times, they have managed to constantly reinvent themselves as the market requires. HP and SGI can't claim the same and IBM's Unix business is mostly propped up by momentum and lots of consultants.
a) The Community is too dense to grasp that Java source code has been available for years, no matter how many times it's explained to them
No, that's just your average Slashdotter. When the last story was posted, I was shocked at the caliber of people who didn't know about Java's source code. The fact that the source has been available for about 7 years makes this incredibly frustrating.
Most of the OSS "leaders" are well aware of the SCSL and JRL. They don't like the SCSL because of fears of "contamination" by reading the source code. (Sun's lawyers are often terrible at writing licenses. They seem to add in every boiler-plate requirement in existence, even if it isn't the intent of Sun Microsystems Corp.) The JRL license fixed many of these problem with viewing the code, but it doesn't allow for the source to be forked or otherwise redistributed. There's also a lot of handwaving from OSS projects that the JRL might be dangerous even though they can't find anything wrong with it.
What they *do* have a valid complaint about is that Java isn't OSS as in the OSI definition. Which it's not intended to be. It's open source as in the source can be freely read and played with. It's also open as in it's fully standardized by the JSR Committee. Sun has been very reticent to actually "Open Source" (note the caps) Java because of the problems they had with Microsoft. Had Microsoft not abused their contract with Sun all those years ago, Sun might still be releasing only a reference implementation for others to build their own JVMs against.
Given that it was a reference implementation, it would have made sense to make it Open Source by now. Unfortunately, Microsoft did what they did and Sun is now the primary Java distributor rather than the merely the enforcer of the standards.
he's only interested in Java being "free" as in shiny boots.
Dang it. I got confused about my "Free" metaphors. He's only interested in Java being "free" as in the "Declaration of Independence". "Free" as in shiny boots is the other side of "free". Sorry for the mixup.
I think Stallman is missing that there are a lot of commercial interests in Java that are very happy about the ability to bundle Sun's virtual machine. In addition, Sun is now in talks with those same community leaders to see about relaxing the Java licensing further so that it can meet the OSI's requirements for Open Source. (Of course, the forking issue is going to be a major sticking point...)
That being said, his position is equally valid. From his perspective, he's only interested in Java being "free" as in shiny boots. My own frustration with Mr. Stallman, however, is that he doesn't really seem to work with companies like Sun to see if their interests and his own can coincide. So he spends his time on an attempt to replicate a complex system that he lacks the resources to properly follow. (Don't get me wrong, GCJ is nice, but I doubt it will ever "catch up".)
Even more frustrating is that many of the other OSS "leaders" (*cough*de Icaza*cough*) feel it necessary to start brand new projects out of a sense of NIH syndrome rather than help support the platforms that are actually needed by the industry. (i.e. Java) The result is that the OSS community has managed to fragment its efforts and has had a much harder time catching up than it should have.
If Vista doesn't run on laptops, then Microsoft will be cut out more than 50% of all new computer sales.
Vista will run on laptops. But like with most XP machines today, custom drivers will be built to handle all the embedded hardware. The problem here is that Vista is in beta, ergo it has very little driver support. Thus if you want to review a beta (as opposed to doing bug reporting for Microsoft) then you should use a more standardized system. i.e. A Desktop.
Make no mistake. I am making no assertions about Vista's capabilities. I'm sure that it will follow the tradition of Windows just fine (i.e. Some stuff is good, some stuff is bad.) The only assertion I'm making is that the reviewer's strategy is flawed.
WTF? An OS installation from restore CDs? Can you tell me where to get vista restore CDs? (or linux ones for that matter?)
Who said he was supposed to use a restore CD for Vista? I said that laptops have so much custom hardware that it's a Bad Idea to do an OS install from anything but a restore CD. Since there's no install CD for Vista, he probably shouldn't have been trying to install on his laptop. Clear?
The success of a new operating system depends at least in part on how easy it is to install.
Nonsense. The last several iterations of Operating Systems have been handled via machine upgrades. Vista will be no different, especially given its higher system requirements. However, manufacturers should start supporting Vista once it's actually out. Which means that any poor souls who want to, say, upgrade a laptop will be able to after the OS is released.
If you'd read the article, you would know that he did: "I did try installing Vista on two other laptops."
How do you get from "Try it on a Desktop system" to "He tried it on a couple more laptops."
"I tried to install on a laptop, and it didn't work."
Am I the only one who's sitting here and wondering, "What was this guy thinking?!" Laptops have so much custom hardware these days that it's a Bad Idea(TM) to attempt an OS installation from anything but restore CDs. This guy not only tried to install from new media, but he tried to install a cutting-edge operating system that isn't even out of beta!
Desktops are cheap these days. Would it kill him to keep one or two around for "kicking the tires" of new Operating Systems? His install experience probably would have been smoother, and we might have actually been able to hear some real complaints about Windows Vista.;-)
I guess it means we need [Computer] Shop Class? Or do we need [Computer] Driver's Ed? Or we could just stick with the wonderful car analogy (don't you just loooooove car analogies?) and have both!
Good for you. I had to get a Tri-Mode phone back in 2002 because GSM wasn't deployed across the entire network.
That doesn't stop people from using old phones.
Ehh, no. Cingular would not continue supporting the Tri-Mode phone I had. If I wanted to update my plan, I needed to get a new phone.
I have a $20/mo text, data, and picture plan (1500/unlimited/200), mainly for the unlimited data.
Wait. How is that *not* soaking you for extra services? With voice, you're using the network. With data, you're using the network. With voice and data, they're charging you twice for the same service.
If I need to, I can roam all I want on T-Mobile here and Cellular One where needed.
At least in the areas where I roam, Celluar One roaming DOES NOT WORK. I don't know if it's Celluar One's problem (probably) or Cingular. But there's simply no signal where there should be. Even on the Tri-Mode I used to have. (There's a Celluar One sales office across the street, BTW.) Not to mention that many of their towers are still PCS...
T-Mobile is incredibly useless for any sort of coverage. Cingular's network covers everything they do and more.
I haven't been outside of GSM service since 2004. That was for about 15 minutes in rural North Carolina.
Also good for you. I regularly travel into areas they don't cover, but are covered WELL by other carriers. The roaming doesn't work. (As I said, probably Celluar One's problem, but that doesn't help me any.) With my latest phone I've simply given up on Tri-Mode. Surfing carriers doesn't work.
I could sign up for T-Mobile (prepaid or regular) and use my current phone right now.
You could? And not have to pay Cingular for exiting your contract early? Really?
Or do you mean, "I could sign up for T-Mobile after my contract expires, at which point my phone will be a barely supported piece of junk that T-Mobile will urge me to replace with a model that will require another 2-3 year contract?"
Such a change in the carriers' business model wouldn't be acceptable to them.
We're not talking about carriers. We're talking about replacing the carriers with an open Internet pipe.
Skype & the IM services doesn't count; they're way too closed
Skype, Vonage, Net2Phone, and many other companies all compete for your VOIP service today. Closed or not, they'd be happy to configure your WIFI phone to handle their service. If you don't like one, go with another. The service they provide is an abstract connection to the POTS system, so there's no real concern about coverage areas or other carrier nonsense. For WIFI to WIFI calls, you can use direct phone-to-phone connections rather than bothering with a VOIP service.
An open, secure, as P2P as possible system would be ideal.
Which is what I'm getting at. Once there's always-on wireless internet for phones, your phone will only have to maintain its dynamic DNS entry. From there, any other phone could contact your phone directly without any of this proxy nonsense. Which would make phone calls as simple as establishing a TCP/IP socket.
Precisely. 16 digit, alpha-numeric, gobbldey-gook is not what people should be memorizing. DNS (or some sort of more advanced directory service) could provide a name that is easy to remember, and moves with you no matter which device and IP version you're currently using.
Nice. I'll have to keep that in mind. I was looking at building on some rather rural property at one point, but Internet connectivity was a huge concern for me. I was concerned that running a T1 would be too expensive. $230/mo isn't cheap, but it's not too bad either. Especially when you consider that you can use the line both ways without anyone telling you what to do and not to do with it.
I'll have to keep it in mind if I end up in a similar position again. (Which is somewhat likely.) Thanks!:-)
You don't have the issue that you have to replace your phone every few years because the technology, service plans, and network differences have made you obsolete? You don't have the problem that your service provider is soaking you for every little service above and beyond "voice call time"? You don't have the problem that you have to worry about whether your network covers an area instead of Sprint Nextel, Celluar One, or Verizon? (I remember when you used to be able to at least roam! Good luck on getting that to work right these days.)
I don't give a flying monkey that I can buy the phone independent of the carrier. I still have to slave myself to a carrier. While ubiquitous GSM has been slowly making it easier to switch services on a whim, it's far from practicable.
Now imagine that you have a phone that can work anywhere there's a network. It doesn't matter who's it is, as long as it's an Internet network. And not only does your phone work, but it can also do Internet, Instant Messanging, Games Downloading, etc. without all those silly fees that today's carriers charge you. In fact, you never even sign up with a carrier. You just purchase your device, assign it a dynamic DNS name, and turn it on. THAT is freedom, and THAT is what everyone should have. Good luck on getting that from Cingular. (Who I'll agree is the best of of the cell carriers ATM.)
You could probably handle this in software as long as there's a central server available. All you need is a call-token from some sort of central server. As you pass between network clouds, the call would be lost for a few moments while the phone establishes a new connection. Upon connecting with the next tower and obtaining an IP address, the unit could then proceed to contact the central server to update the call token and re-establish communications.
Fraught with a few minor annoyances, perhaps, but it should be practicable.
my combined bill is about $230 for the whole circuit,
Hey, that's not bad. Does that cover your bandwidth usage too, or are they charging you per GBit? I wonder if the phone company would setup a fractional T1 shared with neighbors to lower the costs?
Notice how it constantly refers to the free service. I'm guessing that an option on the pay service will be to disable filtering. I'm not going to comment on the moral implications of the entire thing (especially given that filtering tends to be a fly-with-a-cannon solution; hitting all the wrong targets), but the promise of disabling filtering on a service that people already use could be enough to drive subscriptions to the premium service.
I think uniqutous HiDef over the internet is a long way off.
So's the 95% coverage of a wireless network. This request to the FCC is nothing more than planting a tiny seed at the moment. It will easily take 5-10 years to come to fruition.
The internet bandwidth just isn't there. To get it there, expect to see the bill from your ISP double.
I think you underestimate the economics of the situation. Each year, the companies who make the networking equipment make new breakthroughs in faster telecommunications hardware. That breakthrough means that lots of expensive equipment can be replaced with less equipment at a lower price. That lower price then translates into the ability to add more equipment to produce more bandwidth. Thus there's more bandwidth available at the same price. Ergo, why you're using broadband now instead of a modem, and why DSL and cable providers are able to keep bumping up the speeds on their connections.
In other words, Moores Law—while not actually being a law at all—applies to more than just CPUs. All microelectronics benefit from smaller, faster circuitry and more advanced electronic processing technology.
I wonder if 384/128 is low enough to encourage people to pay for the faster service.
Generally I would tend to agree with you. IMHO, 128/128 would be a better bandwidth point. However, with the rise of Hi-Def media and multimedia over the Internet, it's only a matter of time before Hi-Def over the Internet becomes the standard. When that happens, I imagine that you'll see a lot of users looking for more bandwidth to power their in-SUV televisions/radios, their video-conferencing cellphones, and their on-the-spot videoblog reporting. All these concepts need is a network.
Err, on second thought, that's a rather scary thought.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that many developers, especially on embedded or hand-held systems, are starting to use SQLite these days instead of BDB. SQLite is small enough, and efficient enough, to be used suitably in such environments. It offers SQL support, which BDB does not.
You're missing the point. Putting aside for the moment that we're discussing the Java version of BDB (which would be useless on the types of embedded platforms you're talking about), BDB is a basic database engine. Which means it's the type of software you can use to build a database management system on top of rather than being a DBMS in its own right. SQLite and HSQL are complete DBMS packages that will only meet your needs if an SQL engine is what you want.
For example, if you're looking to build an Object Storage Database, SQLite and HSQL would both be terrible choices. But BDB would fit the bill perfectly.
I'll have to see if they've finally added support for partial record retrivals. It used to be that this feature was only in the native code edition of BDB. It ended up being a showstopper for the Java version last time I tried to use it.
In comparison, ALL the libraries for Java (including the extensions not included in the core distributions) have been submitted through the JCP so that anyone can reimplement the technologies themselves.
.net is (currently, at any rate) for all intents and purposes an open standard.
.NET really a gamble you think is wise?
These are quibbles -
Right up until Microsoft drudges up a patent for WinForms or some other technology not covered by ECMA standard. The funny thing about patents is that they don't lose their potency with time or popularity. They can even be submarined for 20 to 30 years before they activate. Given Microsoft's history, is
IBM legal counsel is not handwaving
Yes, yes it is. The exact same "residual" issue exists with any source code that isn't in public domain. That includes GPLed code. I could write a module that's extremely similar to GPLed code, and the original author of the GPL code could sue me for failing to observe the licensing restrictions imposed by the GPL.
I hate to break it to people, but merely existing is a legal risk. The only way to mitigate that risk is to attempt to only do business with entities you trust. Now in the entire time that the SCSL code has existed (7 YEARS!), Sun has never lifted a finger against ANY entity over similar code. Nor have they lifted a finger against free Java or J2EE implementations for other licensing restrictions. In fact, they've tried to be helpful. (As helpful as you can expect a large, slow-moving corporation to be.)
Now that Sun has tried to address the concerns levied against them about the SCSL code, they've been demonized for trying to help. Well I'm sorry. I can't help people who are naturally distrustful of those that are trying to help, while simultaneously falling into a trap of the enemy.
For comparison, what's Microsoft's history? Oh yes: use any means necessary to CRUSH each and every threat posed against their dominance. This includes bad licensing, theft, bad-faith negotiations, "aqusitions", misleading advertisements, etc., etc., etc. And the OSS community has just gotten into bed with them.
because it's not a proprietary standard
Neither is Java.
http://www.jcp.org/en/home/index
Like it or not, the JCP is a REAL standards committee with thousands of members whos only goal is to standardize Java and Java-based technologies.
You can put together a desktop computer with 1,000,000 different hardware configurations. Laptops are actually much less configurable ... hardware-wise.
You can, but getting a standardized desktop is a lot easier. An Asus NForce board with a NVidia video card, SATA HDDs, and an IDE DVD Writer will pretty much run anything you throw at it. Part of this is because it's a highly common configuration. The other part of it is that nearly all the hardware uses standardized interfaces that will work with most generic drivers.
Who said there was anything wrong with Mono? I said their was something wrong with all the fragmentation in the OSS community that prevented them from getting their Java legs under them earlier. With de Icaza there was a constant "Not Invented Here" problem he had with Java. So then he goes and copies Microsoft.
Am I the only one who finds his logic suspect?
Why would open source leaders support a proprietary platform?
.NET then?
Good question. Why are they supporting
Sun should work with RMS, his type of software is * gaining * market share.
Java already gained it and owns the industry. I'm not sure what your point is.
If Sun doesn't shape up real soon they will soon become go out of business, leaving proprietary java in a mess, and another popular de-facto java won't have to "catch up" to sun's.
Lots of hyperbole, little substance. Sun is still profitable (even if barely) and has done much better than the other Unix vendors over the years. While their failure to commit to a given path can be incredibly frustrating at times, they have managed to constantly reinvent themselves as the market requires. HP and SGI can't claim the same and IBM's Unix business is mostly propped up by momentum and lots of consultants.
a) The Community is too dense to grasp that Java source code has been available for years, no matter how many times it's explained to them
No, that's just your average Slashdotter. When the last story was posted, I was shocked at the caliber of people who didn't know about Java's source code. The fact that the source has been available for about 7 years makes this incredibly frustrating.
Most of the OSS "leaders" are well aware of the SCSL and JRL. They don't like the SCSL because of fears of "contamination" by reading the source code. (Sun's lawyers are often terrible at writing licenses. They seem to add in every boiler-plate requirement in existence, even if it isn't the intent of Sun Microsystems Corp.) The JRL license fixed many of these problem with viewing the code, but it doesn't allow for the source to be forked or otherwise redistributed. There's also a lot of handwaving from OSS projects that the JRL might be dangerous even though they can't find anything wrong with it.
What they *do* have a valid complaint about is that Java isn't OSS as in the OSI definition. Which it's not intended to be. It's open source as in the source can be freely read and played with. It's also open as in it's fully standardized by the JSR Committee. Sun has been very reticent to actually "Open Source" (note the caps) Java because of the problems they had with Microsoft. Had Microsoft not abused their contract with Sun all those years ago, Sun might still be releasing only a reference implementation for others to build their own JVMs against.
Given that it was a reference implementation, it would have made sense to make it Open Source by now. Unfortunately, Microsoft did what they did and Sun is now the primary Java distributor rather than the merely the enforcer of the standards.
he's only interested in Java being "free" as in shiny boots.
Dang it. I got confused about my "Free" metaphors. He's only interested in Java being "free" as in the "Declaration of Independence". "Free" as in shiny boots is the other side of "free". Sorry for the mixup.
I think Stallman is missing that there are a lot of commercial interests in Java that are very happy about the ability to bundle Sun's virtual machine. In addition, Sun is now in talks with those same community leaders to see about relaxing the Java licensing further so that it can meet the OSI's requirements for Open Source. (Of course, the forking issue is going to be a major sticking point...)
That being said, his position is equally valid. From his perspective, he's only interested in Java being "free" as in shiny boots. My own frustration with Mr. Stallman, however, is that he doesn't really seem to work with companies like Sun to see if their interests and his own can coincide. So he spends his time on an attempt to replicate a complex system that he lacks the resources to properly follow. (Don't get me wrong, GCJ is nice, but I doubt it will ever "catch up".)
Even more frustrating is that many of the other OSS "leaders" (*cough*de Icaza*cough*) feel it necessary to start brand new projects out of a sense of NIH syndrome rather than help support the platforms that are actually needed by the industry. (i.e. Java) The result is that the OSS community has managed to fragment its efforts and has had a much harder time catching up than it should have.
If Vista doesn't run on laptops, then Microsoft will be cut out more than 50% of all new computer sales.
Vista will run on laptops. But like with most XP machines today, custom drivers will be built to handle all the embedded hardware. The problem here is that Vista is in beta, ergo it has very little driver support. Thus if you want to review a beta (as opposed to doing bug reporting for Microsoft) then you should use a more standardized system. i.e. A Desktop.
Make no mistake. I am making no assertions about Vista's capabilities. I'm sure that it will follow the tradition of Windows just fine (i.e. Some stuff is good, some stuff is bad.) The only assertion I'm making is that the reviewer's strategy is flawed.
Um, what in the world are you talking about?
WTF? An OS installation from restore CDs? Can you tell me where to get vista restore CDs? (or linux ones for that matter?)
Who said he was supposed to use a restore CD for Vista? I said that laptops have so much custom hardware that it's a Bad Idea to do an OS install from anything but a restore CD. Since there's no install CD for Vista, he probably shouldn't have been trying to install on his laptop. Clear?
The success of a new operating system depends at least in part on how easy it is to install.
Nonsense. The last several iterations of Operating Systems have been handled via machine upgrades. Vista will be no different, especially given its higher system requirements. However, manufacturers should start supporting Vista once it's actually out. Which means that any poor souls who want to, say, upgrade a laptop will be able to after the OS is released.
If you'd read the article, you would know that he did: "I did try installing Vista on two other laptops."
How do you get from "Try it on a Desktop system" to "He tried it on a couple more laptops."
Did you read a single word I wrote?
"I tried to install on a laptop, and it didn't work."
;-)
Am I the only one who's sitting here and wondering, "What was this guy thinking?!" Laptops have so much custom hardware these days that it's a Bad Idea(TM) to attempt an OS installation from anything but restore CDs. This guy not only tried to install from new media, but he tried to install a cutting-edge operating system that isn't even out of beta!
Desktops are cheap these days. Would it kill him to keep one or two around for "kicking the tires" of new Operating Systems? His install experience probably would have been smoother, and we might have actually been able to hear some real complaints about Windows Vista.
What does this sort of literacy entail?
I guess it means we need [Computer] Shop Class? Or do we need [Computer] Driver's Ed? Or we could just stick with the wonderful car analogy (don't you just loooooove car analogies?) and have both!
Surprisingly, that may actually make sense.
Cingular and AT&T have used GSM here since 2002.
Good for you. I had to get a Tri-Mode phone back in 2002 because GSM wasn't deployed across the entire network.
That doesn't stop people from using old phones.
Ehh, no. Cingular would not continue supporting the Tri-Mode phone I had. If I wanted to update my plan, I needed to get a new phone.
I have a $20/mo text, data, and picture plan (1500/unlimited/200), mainly for the unlimited data.
Wait. How is that *not* soaking you for extra services? With voice, you're using the network. With data, you're using the network. With voice and data, they're charging you twice for the same service.
If I need to, I can roam all I want on T-Mobile here and Cellular One where needed.
At least in the areas where I roam, Celluar One roaming DOES NOT WORK. I don't know if it's Celluar One's problem (probably) or Cingular. But there's simply no signal where there should be. Even on the Tri-Mode I used to have. (There's a Celluar One sales office across the street, BTW.) Not to mention that many of their towers are still PCS...
T-Mobile is incredibly useless for any sort of coverage. Cingular's network covers everything they do and more.
I haven't been outside of GSM service since 2004. That was for about 15 minutes in rural North Carolina.
Also good for you. I regularly travel into areas they don't cover, but are covered WELL by other carriers. The roaming doesn't work. (As I said, probably Celluar One's problem, but that doesn't help me any.) With my latest phone I've simply given up on Tri-Mode. Surfing carriers doesn't work.
I could sign up for T-Mobile (prepaid or regular) and use my current phone right now.
You could? And not have to pay Cingular for exiting your contract early? Really?
Or do you mean, "I could sign up for T-Mobile after my contract expires, at which point my phone will be a barely supported piece of junk that T-Mobile will urge me to replace with a model that will require another 2-3 year contract?"
Such a change in the carriers' business model wouldn't be acceptable to them.
We're not talking about carriers. We're talking about replacing the carriers with an open Internet pipe.
Skype & the IM services doesn't count; they're way too closed
Skype, Vonage, Net2Phone, and many other companies all compete for your VOIP service today. Closed or not, they'd be happy to configure your WIFI phone to handle their service. If you don't like one, go with another. The service they provide is an abstract connection to the POTS system, so there's no real concern about coverage areas or other carrier nonsense. For WIFI to WIFI calls, you can use direct phone-to-phone connections rather than bothering with a VOIP service.
An open, secure, as P2P as possible system would be ideal.
Which is what I'm getting at. Once there's always-on wireless internet for phones, your phone will only have to maintain its dynamic DNS entry. From there, any other phone could contact your phone directly without any of this proxy nonsense. Which would make phone calls as simple as establishing a TCP/IP socket.
Precisely. 16 digit, alpha-numeric, gobbldey-gook is not what people should be memorizing. DNS (or some sort of more advanced directory service) could provide a name that is easy to remember, and moves with you no matter which device and IP version you're currently using.
We've already got 10-digit phone numbers, what's two more for a proper full IP address?.
IP Addresses change. Not to mention that making static IP addresses mobile would really screw with internet routing.
Nice. I'll have to keep that in mind. I was looking at building on some rather rural property at one point, but Internet connectivity was a huge concern for me. I was concerned that running a T1 would be too expensive. $230/mo isn't cheap, but it's not too bad either. Especially when you consider that you can use the line both ways without anyone telling you what to do and not to do with it.
:-)
I'll have to keep it in mind if I end up in a similar position again. (Which is somewhat likely.) Thanks!
You sir, are missing the point. *whack*
I use Cingular
So do I.
don't have these problems.
You don't have the issue that you have to replace your phone every few years because the technology, service plans, and network differences have made you obsolete? You don't have the problem that your service provider is soaking you for every little service above and beyond "voice call time"? You don't have the problem that you have to worry about whether your network covers an area instead of Sprint Nextel, Celluar One, or Verizon? (I remember when you used to be able to at least roam! Good luck on getting that to work right these days.)
I don't give a flying monkey that I can buy the phone independent of the carrier. I still have to slave myself to a carrier. While ubiquitous GSM has been slowly making it easier to switch services on a whim, it's far from practicable.
Now imagine that you have a phone that can work anywhere there's a network. It doesn't matter who's it is, as long as it's an Internet network. And not only does your phone work, but it can also do Internet, Instant Messanging, Games Downloading, etc. without all those silly fees that today's carriers charge you. In fact, you never even sign up with a carrier. You just purchase your device, assign it a dynamic DNS name, and turn it on. THAT is freedom, and THAT is what everyone should have. Good luck on getting that from Cingular. (Who I'll agree is the best of of the cell carriers ATM.)
You could probably handle this in software as long as there's a central server available. All you need is a call-token from some sort of central server. As you pass between network clouds, the call would be lost for a few moments while the phone establishes a new connection. Upon connecting with the next tower and obtaining an IP address, the unit could then proceed to contact the central server to update the call token and re-establish communications.
Fraught with a few minor annoyances, perhaps, but it should be practicable.
my combined bill is about $230 for the whole circuit,
Hey, that's not bad. Does that cover your bandwidth usage too, or are they charging you per GBit? I wonder if the phone company would setup a fractional T1 shared with neighbors to lower the costs?
Notice how it constantly refers to the free service. I'm guessing that an option on the pay service will be to disable filtering. I'm not going to comment on the moral implications of the entire thing (especially given that filtering tends to be a fly-with-a-cannon solution; hitting all the wrong targets), but the promise of disabling filtering on a service that people already use could be enough to drive subscriptions to the premium service.
I think uniqutous HiDef over the internet is a long way off.
So's the 95% coverage of a wireless network. This request to the FCC is nothing more than planting a tiny seed at the moment. It will easily take 5-10 years to come to fruition.
The internet bandwidth just isn't there. To get it there, expect to see the bill from your ISP double.
I think you underestimate the economics of the situation. Each year, the companies who make the networking equipment make new breakthroughs in faster telecommunications hardware. That breakthrough means that lots of expensive equipment can be replaced with less equipment at a lower price. That lower price then translates into the ability to add more equipment to produce more bandwidth. Thus there's more bandwidth available at the same price. Ergo, why you're using broadband now instead of a modem, and why DSL and cable providers are able to keep bumping up the speeds on their connections.
In other words, Moores Law—while not actually being a law at all—applies to more than just CPUs. All microelectronics benefit from smaller, faster circuitry and more advanced electronic processing technology.
I wonder if 384/128 is low enough to encourage people to pay for the faster service.
Generally I would tend to agree with you. IMHO, 128/128 would be a better bandwidth point. However, with the rise of Hi-Def media and multimedia over the Internet, it's only a matter of time before Hi-Def over the Internet becomes the standard. When that happens, I imagine that you'll see a lot of users looking for more bandwidth to power their in-SUV televisions/radios, their video-conferencing cellphones, and their on-the-spot videoblog reporting. All these concepts need is a network.
Err, on second thought, that's a rather scary thought.