That's simply not true, I'm sorry that you seem to have had really shitty experiences but _good_ experienced programmers aren't really good candidates for outsourcing.
I am, and have been, in management (Product Owner, CTO, etc) for nearly 20 years and I can't hire enough good developers because they simply aren't looking to move. Good organizations hold on them and treasure them.
That's inaccurate, at least in the larger scale of things. While it's true that there is no federal law compelling them to log and so they can't be forced to hand over what they don't have. A CALEA (and several other types) of warrant will compel them to start logging and hand off a copy of all traffic (in unencrypted form) to and from a specific IP or set of IP addresses.
The problem for service providers is that increasing capacity costs money and their business models didn't catch up with the reality of increasing average usage. I agree that monthly data caps are a very poor method of controlling usage, but the problem is that the "better" methods cost more and are more complex both to implement and explain to consumers.
It's relatively easy to explain to customers that they have a limited amount of total transfer per month or billing cycle. Trying to explain to customers that they have the right X amount of high priority transfer or Y amount of peak usage transfer (peak usage varying either by time of day or actual measure usage) is much more difficult. One of the "best" methods for actually controlling peak traffic is based on actual measurements of usage for the service group (DOCSIS) or OLT or splitter (PON) and giving everyone in the group equal priority for that bandwidth. The problem is that these physically based objects aren't split evenly inside of an ISP's customer base nor is it practical to expose the total port/service group/AP/splitter capacity to all the customers being served by that element. While the average/. reader could probably understand a usage meter that displayed that that same level of understanding is impossible for the vast majority of customers.
Of course not, the problem is that capacity is consumed while the packets are in transit. Transfers are not (and cannot be) instantaneous. That transit times are short, to human perceptions, doesn't change the fact that it's limited and while you're downloading a file no one else can use capacity that you're consuming. If transfers we're (could be) instantaneous then you'd be correct, but they're not and will never be. In fact, as we increase the number of devices in the home network the problems get to be more severe since in addition to the bit rate limits there are also various physical limitations, like time slots in DOCSIS, that also limit the capacity in the network.
Now, that doesn't mean that Mediacom is correct, they're using a very poor analogy IMO, but again the argument that nothing is consumed in transit is also fallacious, just because the capacity is restored once a transfer is complete.
The cookie analogy fails, on several levels, but so do the criticisms. ".. since transmitting data over a network doesn't actually consume anything," This is fallacious, as capacity is consumed and is a limited capacity. Take every criticism the article levels and apply it to seats on an airplane, which is a far better proxy for explaining the limits of network capacity, and you can see they're just as flawed as the original argument.
That's completely wrong on LTE-U. Part of the problem with the standard is that while the data channel is over the unlicensed bands the control channel is over licensed spectrum. Only companies who have licensed spectrum could have ever used LTE-U. I'm still looking at how LAA works, but LTE-U is a technology that only cell phone companies could use. Perhaps you are thinking about one of the other potential standards like MuLTEfire.
"Wrong. The "TFA" is wrong. That's why that article is doing such a disservice to its readers. The CSAT algorithm in LTE-U small cells first begins by listening for other Wi-Fi access points transmitting in its vicinity. It is in fact able to listen not just to "energy" being transmitted on a given frequency - it is in fact able to receive and decode Wi-Fi beacons. If it find a channel with no existing occupants, it'll just use it. But if it has to share, it listens to determine the number of existing occupants. Then it transmits for only its portions of the time. And during its "off" cycle, it listens again to determine if there are new Wi-Fi access points that came online, and automatically reduces its share of the air time the next time around. So not only does it check initially, it checks continually for other occupants, to keep things fair."
This was not the case the CableLabs study which did indeed use a commercial implementation. Further, listen before talk in LTE-U is only now being a proposed as part of the standard. There are vendor specific implementations that already have this, but the standard does not and did not when the tests were done.
LTE-U does NOT use listen before talk unless there's been a recent change in the protocol. It, just like normal LTE, is centrally scheduled. There are some vendor specific and non-standardized version of LTE that can do listen before talk, but that's not the standard.
No, you cannot. Part 15 has some very specific language about intentional interference. You might want to read the regulations before pointing a dish at someone else's tower without having another dish to receive it on the other side. I'd further say that using a dish is about the worst way to do this, since the signal would be highly concentrated at the ranges you can legally push 2.4 GHz (~60 dBm) it will be very obvious that you're intentionally interfering with someone else's signal.
The central problem is that WiFi is a "listen first" protocol while LTE is centrally scheduled. That means at full duty cycles, this was the worst case assumption the CableLabs study worked off of, that LTE-U absolutely degrades WiFi performance substantially. The counter claims were that LTE is seldom at full duty cycles is true, but only on towers that are lightly loaded. A busy tower will have a full or nearly full duty cycle in its licensed bands and there's no reason to imagine that the same won't be true for the unlicensed bands.
That's false, I've seen the tests, ie I've been there in person and while there are some worst case assumptions the testing that CableLabs did is completely valid and accurate. The notion that LTE isn't commonly running at full duty cycles is simply false for many/most urban and suburban towers.
You need to remember that the power from your AP is irrelevant since your mobile devices will out put a max of about 250 mW and the average laptop and gaming console registers less than 1 watt.
That's only true of the over the air rate, which matters a lot when you're talking about one hop, but isn't worth anything when you have to repeat the signal. The kind of network proposed would be several orders of magnitude worse than what we have at present because each radio repeater would increase latency more than the total injected in the much longer fiber runs.
Sysadmins know almost nothing about MSO operations, unless you've worked for an operator. Just because you've worked on a low end Cisco router and a few nix boxes doesn't give you any insight into how DOCSIS cable systems works. I know, I had to go through that learning curve myself when DOCSIS 1.0 came out and I looked at the modem and thought, "It's just a bridge, how complicated can it be..."
Considering all of the KGB documents that have recently been made available which reveal how successful they were at infiltrating US institutions, I'm surprised people still hold the opinion they do of McCarthyism.
It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.
It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.
So you've done a cost analysis on the comparative costs of life line subsidizes cost on wireline versus wireless systems then? Do you even know why we subsidize lifeline phone service? Here's a hint, because its cheaper than not doing it. Also, (since you've done your research) you know its funded by Universal Service Funds and not from taxation or the general appropriations fund. Since you know all of this I'll provide these links for the less informed following the conversation.
We should keep throwing away money because: - it's more than 10 years old? - it was started under Ronald Reagan? - it's not officially called ObamaPhone by government officials who tell us what we can and can't call things?
How about if we stop wasting money on this program regardless of when it started and regardless of what it might be called? How about if we don't hire the government to take our neighbors' money to provide for free mobile phones?
This is a specific example, only offered because a specific example was requested. There are lots of possible examples. This is one of them.
How about you do some fucking research and find out WHY the program was created in the first place, which is its LESS expensive than the other subsidized life line programs.
Actually, they are already compatible or at least playable via the home streaming feature. "In-home Streaming You can play all your Windows and Mac games on your SteamOS machine, too. Just turn on your existing computer and run Steam as you always have - then your SteamOS machine can stream those games over your home network straight to your TV!"
How good that experience will be remains to be seen:)
I think your figures are looking at metro areas, not cities -- Wikipedia says NY population density is 27,550/sq mi (10,640/km2),
Those vast areas of nothingness don't really matter if you're rolling out fiber to a city, you don't have to roll out fiber to Kansas if you are rolling it out in New York City.
Except, the metro areas ARE important, in fact much more important that the city boundaries. Your position that the cities matter is simply incorrect since that's not how telco territories are mapped or operated in large metropolitan areas. Cable franchises are often by the city, but all of the major operators group their franchises together and will only start operations where they can get large chunks of contiguous territory, ie metropolitan areas.
We don't charge per app, so for us its more which platform generates the most logins is the "best" for us. In our case its Android by a slim margin, mainly because a lot more of the companies we work with (we're a B2B shop) have deployed Android phones to their employees than deployed iPhones. Having we will be supporting both platforms for the foreseeable future and will add Blackberry once the QNX based phones come out.
Sorry, but either you don't have a clue or you haven't had to actually publish on the App Store. The documentation requirements are extensive and if it I had permission to do so I could share the dozens of emails that went back and forth.
We publish on both iOS and Android and I can say without a doubt its a MUCH bigger pain in the ass to publish with Apple. Their processes for vetting applications, even updates, takes several days and they certainly don't work on weekends. It also took significantly (over a month) longer to get setup with an Apple developer account and the requirements in terms of legal documents are significant, to the point that my company had to go to the office of our Secretary of State to get some documents filed that we hadn't needed in more than 20 years of existence. In short, I can't see anyone who does freemimum or truly free apps preferring Apple and its certainly NOT a friendly environment for start ups. Interestingly the Amazon market is kind of a middle ground between the almost too open Android market and Apple's too closed (IMO) approach.
"With the exception of some products by D-Link and Apple's AirPort Express and AirPort Extreme, none of today's CPE can operate using IPv6 well enough for a field test trial, Bulk says."
Also, even the high points of Apple and D-Link have gaps in their best models and many models that are still very broken. IIRC, only one of the D-Link (the newest one) includes a stateful firewall and older models probably won't ever because of memory limitations.
The economics aren't that simple nor is the environmental impact. Many people tend to mix suburbs with rural and they're not the same thing. Until we get to the point where its cost effective to raise all of the food needed by city inhabitants within city limits we're going to need rural areas. Its certainly possible to raise that much food but I don't believe you could do it without dramatically changing the American diet. I don't see Americans saying good bye to hamburgers (made from beef) any time soon. If don't think we should subsidize rural broadband then you might think we should stop subsidizing electricity (which is were all of these subsidizes originated in the US). In that case everyone in the US whether that person lives in a rural, suburban, or urban area, will pay a lot more for for food.
Slashdot Mirror
That's simply not true, I'm sorry that you seem to have had really shitty experiences but _good_ experienced programmers aren't really good candidates for outsourcing.
I am, and have been, in management (Product Owner, CTO, etc) for nearly 20 years and I can't hire enough good developers because they simply aren't looking to move. Good organizations hold on them and treasure them.
That's inaccurate, at least in the larger scale of things. While it's true that there is no federal law compelling them to log and so they can't be forced to hand over what they don't have. A CALEA (and several other types) of warrant will compel them to start logging and hand off a copy of all traffic (in unencrypted form) to and from a specific IP or set of IP addresses.
The problem for service providers is that increasing capacity costs money and their business models didn't catch up with the reality of increasing average usage. I agree that monthly data caps are a very poor method of controlling usage, but the problem is that the "better" methods cost more and are more complex both to implement and explain to consumers.
It's relatively easy to explain to customers that they have a limited amount of total transfer per month or billing cycle. Trying to explain to customers that they have the right X amount of high priority transfer or Y amount of peak usage transfer (peak usage varying either by time of day or actual measure usage) is much more difficult. One of the "best" methods for actually controlling peak traffic is based on actual measurements of usage for the service group (DOCSIS) or OLT or splitter (PON) and giving everyone in the group equal priority for that bandwidth. The problem is that these physically based objects aren't split evenly inside of an ISP's customer base nor is it practical to expose the total port/service group/AP/splitter capacity to all the customers being served by that element. While the average /. reader could probably understand a usage meter that displayed that that same level of understanding is impossible for the vast majority of customers.
Of course not, the problem is that capacity is consumed while the packets are in transit. Transfers are not (and cannot be) instantaneous. That transit times are short, to human perceptions, doesn't change the fact that it's limited and while you're downloading a file no one else can use capacity that you're consuming. If transfers we're (could be) instantaneous then you'd be correct, but they're not and will never be. In fact, as we increase the number of devices in the home network the problems get to be more severe since in addition to the bit rate limits there are also various physical limitations, like time slots in DOCSIS, that also limit the capacity in the network.
Now, that doesn't mean that Mediacom is correct, they're using a very poor analogy IMO, but again the argument that nothing is consumed in transit is also fallacious, just because the capacity is restored once a transfer is complete.
The cookie analogy fails, on several levels, but so do the criticisms.
".. since transmitting data over a network doesn't actually consume anything," This is fallacious, as capacity is consumed and is a limited capacity. Take every criticism the article levels and apply it to seats on an airplane, which is a far better proxy for explaining the limits of network capacity, and you can see they're just as flawed as the original argument.
That's completely wrong on LTE-U. Part of the problem with the standard is that while the data channel is over the unlicensed bands the control channel is over licensed spectrum. Only companies who have licensed spectrum could have ever used LTE-U. I'm still looking at how LAA works, but LTE-U is a technology that only cell phone companies could use. Perhaps you are thinking about one of the other potential standards like MuLTEfire.
"Wrong. The "TFA" is wrong. That's why that article is doing such a disservice to its readers. The CSAT algorithm in LTE-U small cells first begins by listening for other Wi-Fi access points transmitting in its vicinity. It is in fact able to listen not just to "energy" being transmitted on a given frequency - it is in fact able to receive and decode Wi-Fi beacons. If it find a channel with no existing occupants, it'll just use it. But if it has to share, it listens to determine the number of existing occupants. Then it transmits for only its portions of the time. And during its "off" cycle, it listens again to determine if there are new Wi-Fi access points that came online, and automatically reduces its share of the air time the next time around. So not only does it check initially, it checks continually for other occupants, to keep things fair."
This was not the case the CableLabs study which did indeed use a commercial implementation. Further, listen before talk in LTE-U is only now being a proposed as part of the standard. There are vendor specific implementations that already have this, but the standard does not and did not when the tests were done.
http://www.lteuforum.org/uploa...
LTE-U does NOT use listen before talk unless there's been a recent change in the protocol. It, just like normal LTE, is centrally scheduled. There are some vendor specific and non-standardized version of LTE that can do listen before talk, but that's not the standard.
No, you cannot. Part 15 has some very specific language about intentional interference. You might want to read the regulations before pointing a dish at someone else's tower without having another dish to receive it on the other side. I'd further say that using a dish is about the worst way to do this, since the signal would be highly concentrated at the ranges you can legally push 2.4 GHz (~60 dBm) it will be very obvious that you're intentionally interfering with someone else's signal.
The central problem is that WiFi is a "listen first" protocol while LTE is centrally scheduled. That means at full duty cycles, this was the worst case assumption the CableLabs study worked off of, that LTE-U absolutely degrades WiFi performance substantially. The counter claims were that LTE is seldom at full duty cycles is true, but only on towers that are lightly loaded. A busy tower will have a full or nearly full duty cycle in its licensed bands and there's no reason to imagine that the same won't be true for the unlicensed bands.
That's false, I've seen the tests, ie I've been there in person and while there are some worst case assumptions the testing that CableLabs did is completely valid and accurate. The notion that LTE isn't commonly running at full duty cycles is simply false for many/most urban and suburban towers.
You need to remember that the power from your AP is irrelevant since your mobile devices will out put a max of about 250 mW and the average laptop and gaming console registers less than 1 watt.
http://www.wired.com/2012/08/f...
Microwave is faster than fiber.
That's only true of the over the air rate, which matters a lot when you're talking about one hop, but isn't worth anything when you have to repeat the signal. The kind of network proposed would be several orders of magnitude worse than what we have at present because each radio repeater would increase latency more than the total injected in the much longer fiber runs.
Sysadmins know almost nothing about MSO operations, unless you've worked for an operator. Just because you've worked on a low end Cisco router and a few nix boxes doesn't give you any insight into how DOCSIS cable systems works. I know, I had to go through that learning curve myself when DOCSIS 1.0 came out and I looked at the modem and thought, "It's just a bridge, how complicated can it be..."
Considering all of the KGB documents that have recently been made available which reveal how successful they were at infiltrating US institutions, I'm surprised people still hold the opinion they do of McCarthyism.
Then you're a fucking moron.
Exactly, the movie tried to convey the opposite message that the book did.
It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.
It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.
So you've done a cost analysis on the comparative costs of life line subsidizes cost on wireline versus wireless systems then? Do you even know why we subsidize lifeline phone service? Here's a hint, because its cheaper than not doing it. Also, (since you've done your research) you know its funded by Universal Service Funds and not from taxation or the general appropriations fund. Since you know all of this I'll provide these links for the less informed following the conversation.
http://www.usac.org/li/
http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
The specific savings report of wireless over wireline:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/lifeline-year-end-savings-report-2012-savings-target-exceeded
That's what people call it.
We should keep throwing away money because:
- it's more than 10 years old?
- it was started under Ronald Reagan?
- it's not officially called ObamaPhone by government officials who tell us what we can and can't call things?
How about if we stop wasting money on this program regardless of when it started and regardless of what it might be called? How about if we don't hire the government to take our neighbors' money to provide for free mobile phones?
This is a specific example, only offered because a specific example was requested. There are lots of possible examples. This is one of them.
How about you do some fucking research and find out WHY the program was created in the first place, which is its LESS expensive than the other subsidized life line programs.
Odds are they don't make your games... so no.
Actually, they are already compatible or at least playable via the home streaming feature. "In-home Streaming
You can play all your Windows and Mac games on your SteamOS machine, too. Just turn on your existing computer and run Steam as you always have - then your SteamOS machine can stream those games over your home network straight to your TV!"
How good that experience will be remains to be seen :)
I think your figures are looking at metro areas, not cities -- Wikipedia says NY population density is 27,550/sq mi (10,640/km2),
Those vast areas of nothingness don't really matter if you're rolling out fiber to a city, you don't have to roll out fiber to Kansas if you are rolling it out in New York City.
Except, the metro areas ARE important, in fact much more important that the city boundaries. Your position that the cities matter is simply incorrect since that's not how telco territories are mapped or operated in large metropolitan areas. Cable franchises are often by the city, but all of the major operators group their franchises together and will only start operations where they can get large chunks of contiguous territory, ie metropolitan areas.
We don't charge per app, so for us its more which platform generates the most logins is the "best" for us. In our case its Android by a slim margin, mainly because a lot more of the companies we work with (we're a B2B shop) have deployed Android phones to their employees than deployed iPhones. Having we will be supporting both platforms for the foreseeable future and will add Blackberry once the QNX based phones come out.
Sorry, but either you don't have a clue or you haven't had to actually publish on the App Store. The documentation requirements are extensive and if it I had permission to do so I could share the dozens of emails that went back and forth.
We publish on both iOS and Android and I can say without a doubt its a MUCH bigger pain in the ass to publish with Apple. Their processes for vetting applications, even updates, takes several days and they certainly don't work on weekends. It also took significantly (over a month) longer to get setup with an Apple developer account and the requirements in terms of legal documents are significant, to the point that my company had to go to the office of our Secretary of State to get some documents filed that we hadn't needed in more than 20 years of existence. In short, I can't see anyone who does freemimum or truly free apps preferring Apple and its certainly NOT a friendly environment for start ups. Interestingly the Amazon market is kind of a middle ground between the almost too open Android market and Apple's too closed (IMO) approach.
Didn't read past the first page, I guess:
"With the exception of some products by D-Link and Apple's AirPort Express and AirPort Extreme, none of today's CPE can operate using IPv6 well enough for a field test trial, Bulk says."
Also, even the high points of Apple and D-Link have gaps in their best models and many models that are still very broken. IIRC, only one of the D-Link (the newest one) includes a stateful firewall and older models probably won't ever because of memory limitations.
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE
The economics aren't that simple nor is the environmental impact. Many people tend to mix suburbs with rural and they're not the same thing. Until we get to the point where its cost effective to raise all of the food needed by city inhabitants within city limits we're going to need rural areas. Its certainly possible to raise that much food but I don't believe you could do it without dramatically changing the American diet. I don't see Americans saying good bye to hamburgers (made from beef) any time soon. If don't think we should subsidize rural broadband then you might think we should stop subsidizing electricity (which is were all of these subsidizes originated in the US). In that case everyone in the US whether that person lives in a rural, suburban, or urban area, will pay a lot more for for food.