Ya but if you did that you'de burn in the enitre screen, not only removing burned image but also bringing down the entire brightness of the display.
Re:On the death of video games...
on
Electronic Life
·
· Score: 0
Intellivision was not made Intel. It was developed andd Manufcatured by Mattel. The name Intellivison had nothing to do with company Intel. Intellivision = Intelligent Television.
My understanding is that yes the FCC does want to reallocate the spectrum used currently by analog TV. The question is what are they going to do with it. I know for a fact that chunks of it will be used for high speed public safty, IE Police, fire, FBI, etc etc high speed public wireless networks.
Most likly the consumer will not see any benifit from the re-allocation of frequencies once all analog broadcasts stop. Especially not giga-bit wireless, as someone else also mentioned the band is way too narrow.
The real question is will it work. VoiceStream has been offering GPRS data service for over a year and it never worked. I have a color hand held device with a GPRS modem that was on VoiceStreams GPRS network about three months ago in Chicago. It worked only about 90% of the time if that. It was absolutly terrible and completly use less. VoiceStream them selves even admitted that it was their system and there was nothing they could do. The data rates were OK when it worked about 1.5k per sec. In the three months I had service for testing at work I think I was on their system for no more than 15 minutes total. My point being that anyone clam anything but does it work.
All this has already been thought off and will not present a problem.
1st of all these networks all support QOS. All users will be allocated a certain amount of bandwith dynamically depending on conditions. Nextel already does this.
As for paying by the kilo-byte. This will most likly be the case. All 3G systems have what's genericly called "Billing Acumulators" which can be used to bill users for anything. For example. They can if they wanted charge a differnet amount for HTTP download than FTP, Or a different amount for MPEG streams. This is all possible.
Not true. Voice is not charged as data. Although voice is data it is not billed as so, voice packets weather proprietary or VOIP are diferentiated. One other thing, Voice always has priority over data.
What they didn't tell you......Don't always belive
on
2.4 Megabit Cellular Modem
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
The article was very poor. The article was obviously written based on marketing information only. I did notice at the end of the article that they had looked at some techinial documents but I don' think they were completly digested.
WHAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU.
1. The 2.4 Mega Bits per second they mentioned is raw channel throughput. That means raw data, not necesarily your data. Some of this throughput is consumed by the Radio Data Link Access Protocol, retires on the network, other control protocols. You get what's left over, then on top that you might have TCP retries.
2. The 2.4 Mega bits that are mentioned are the maximum per channell. In real life no one user will be given an entire channel. So if there are ten concurent users on the chanell which is very probable divide whatever your max throughput is and dividr it by ten.
3. On top of this most likly the carriers will carry both voice and data on their networks. Even though there is almost no distinction between voice and data anymore voice will be carried by either voIP or another propriatery method and will always be given priority over data.
My point, it's fast but don't think your going to be getting 2.4 megs bits per-second.
In the end your real throughput will be much much less that 2.4 Mega Bits per second.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya but if you did that you'de burn in the enitre screen, not only removing burned image but also bringing down the entire brightness of the display.
Intellivision was not made Intel. It was developed andd Manufcatured by Mattel. The name Intellivison had nothing to do with company Intel. Intellivision = Intelligent Television.
My understanding is that yes the FCC does want to reallocate the spectrum used currently by analog TV. The question is what are they going to do with it. I know for a fact that chunks of it will be used for high speed public safty, IE Police, fire, FBI, etc etc high speed public wireless networks.
Most likly the consumer will not see any benifit from the re-allocation of frequencies once all analog broadcasts stop. Especially not giga-bit wireless, as someone else also mentioned the band is way too narrow.
It will benifit everyone but the consumer.
The real question is will it work. VoiceStream has been offering GPRS data service for over a year and it never worked. I have a color hand held device with a GPRS modem that was on VoiceStreams GPRS network about three months ago in Chicago. It worked only about 90% of the time if that. It was absolutly terrible and completly use less. VoiceStream them selves even admitted that it was their system and there was nothing they could do. The data rates were OK when it worked about 1.5k per sec. In the three months I had service for testing at work I think I was on their system for no more than 15 minutes total. My point being that anyone clam anything but does it work.
Your right. The remote it comes with is and RF remote not an IR remote.
I would have to agree. I just purchased the card on-line for 150 and Love it. Works perfect under 2000 and XP. Definitly worth the 150$.
All this has already been thought off and will not present a problem. 1st of all these networks all support QOS. All users will be allocated a certain amount of bandwith dynamically depending on conditions. Nextel already does this. As for paying by the kilo-byte. This will most likly be the case. All 3G systems have what's genericly called "Billing Acumulators" which can be used to bill users for anything. For example. They can if they wanted charge a differnet amount for HTTP download than FTP, Or a different amount for MPEG streams. This is all possible.
Not true. Voice is not charged as data. Although voice is data it is not billed as so, voice packets weather proprietary or VOIP are diferentiated. One other thing, Voice always has priority over data.
The article was very poor. The article was obviously written based on marketing information only. I did notice at the end of the article that they had looked at some techinial documents but I don' think they were completly digested. WHAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU. 1. The 2.4 Mega Bits per second they mentioned is raw channel throughput. That means raw data, not necesarily your data. Some of this throughput is consumed by the Radio Data Link Access Protocol, retires on the network, other control protocols. You get what's left over, then on top that you might have TCP retries. 2. The 2.4 Mega bits that are mentioned are the maximum per channell. In real life no one user will be given an entire channel. So if there are ten concurent users on the chanell which is very probable divide whatever your max throughput is and dividr it by ten. 3. On top of this most likly the carriers will carry both voice and data on their networks. Even though there is almost no distinction between voice and data anymore voice will be carried by either voIP or another propriatery method and will always be given priority over data. My point, it's fast but don't think your going to be getting 2.4 megs bits per-second. In the end your real throughput will be much much less that 2.4 Mega Bits per second.