Telecom put the cap on text messages because in New Zealand they have to pay 8 cents interconnection fee for each text that terminates in rival network Vodafone.
From the copy of the NISC (Network Interconnection Service Contract) I have:
Subject to clauses 4.2 to 4.4, the price of the Text Message Service to be provided under this Agreement, and which the Originating Party agrees to pay, is 14.0 cents for each Chargeable Text Message.
As fast as my computer gets, as broad as my internet connection becomes, it seems I still spend too much time sitting here listening to the sound of spinning discs.
The price of storage has dropped though, as the 1GB RAM chips I bought recently were cheaper than the 32MB chips I bought 5 years or so ago (I can't remember the exact year). I guess I will continue to bide my time.
I think Google pulled themselves into mindshare, due to their efforts. They haven't stood still, and are always attempting to improve on what they do. Kind of unlike a lot of other companies/products that gain market dominance (Microsoft bashers have your say, but there are many companies guilty of this).
My (very) simple take on Google - the main search page is small and light and loads incredibly quickly (even while I'm saturating wor...err, my connection with por...uhh, linux binaries). The page has never really changed that much and is very familiar, but the technology behind the page is constantly being tweaked.
Of course, (fair) competition is almost always a good thing.
Google will always reign supreme, definitely.
I don't think anything is definite - Google has a clear head start, but I don't think even Google are invincible. This will be a very interesting space to watch, indeed...
The Mac platform now has the hardware (ok, we're waiting on 256MB GPUs) and the software to be a happy place. I first started using a Mac during the 10.1 (.2 if I remember correctly) days, and back then it was a 733Mhz PowerMac or a 500MHz Powerbook (again memory being stretched). A couple of years later it's Dual 2GHz G5 and 1.25GHz G4 Powerbook (for me anyway - there's a 1.33GHz available). OS X 10.3 is also light years ahead of 10.1 in stability and features (I'm not sure I could live happily without Expose anymore...F9 and F11 are that useful)
If that's not improvement, then I don't know what is...
Like here in New Zealand? Broadband is still a fairly rare beast, and when it is available, it's 20c per MB thank you very much. Looks like I now not only have to get up and do the 'ad-break' walkaround, I'm going to have to pay for the privilege...
"The only format that loads completely before it is allowed to play, the Full Screen Superstitial is guaranteed to play perfectly for every consumer, every time."
I am sorry - this from an environment where companies involved can't even agree on a format for - well - anything???
Our fastest internet (not counting 100Mbit fibre available in Wellington for exorbitant cost) is 8Mbit ADSL. I live 30 metres away from a DSLAM equipped Fibre Fed Cabinet, and can get 800KB/s maximum. Most people are further away, and hence slower.
The most popular adsl (75% of customers are on it) is limited to 128Kb/s (16KB/s). Why? The price of this is approximately US$30, for 5 or 10GB cap (dependent on ISP). 10GB per month on the full speed is $US450 approximately, and 256Kb/s (32KB/s) is $US25 for 500MB (yes, MB).
So yes, 1Mbit per second here, while not impossible, is hugely expensive, geographically limited, and capped. Not to mention we have an incumbent Network telecomms company who think that 500MB is all customers want, or need.
How that statement is going to hold up in court would be very interesting; it's debatable how much we the people (in the eyes of the court) should know about the internal workings.
It is debatable - perhaps the sooner this debate is held (although in which forum/s, is another matter for debate...) the better it is for the United States as a whole.
That sounds like a number that I'd make up as a kid. "OH YEAH? Well when I grow up I'm going to have 340 billion billion billion billion hundred million thousand dollars!"
I wonder if Bill Gates also said this? He's closer than the rest of us, anyway...
For all those above that surmised the only reason the ISPs are fighting this is due to compliance costs, consider the following...
If the RIAA starts cracking down on file sharers, the demand for lucrative broadband connections is going to be negatively affected. This is what will truly affect their revenue streams. Whether for good or for bad, at present legally tenuous trading is probably the biggest driver for fast internet connections.
I'd also like to think that it's due to the ISPs overwhelming desire to do the right thing and protect customer's privacy, but I'm having trouble reconciling this view completely with the generally held views of corporate entities and their desire to run profitably.
monopoly:
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3. a. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
3. b. A commodity or service so controlled.
3. c. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
3. d. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
1. Maybe if SCO get's their way...
2. Maybe if Microsoft have their way...
3. Err, see above...
While I don't use Linux at present (although I have experimented with it on both x86 and PPC hardware) I favour OS X. Of Windows, OS X, and Linux, the three OS's are different in so many ways due to creation and control factors of all aspects of the product. A very small amount of research will highlight these differences, and who does exert control of development and code. When I read something like this and imagine the time and effort (and maybe cash, who knows) put into and this comes out, it really makes me wonder does sanity prevail: does the majority rule, or are all the idiots just on the same side?
Slashdot Mirror
Following is a link to an article in New Zealand's major daily on the company itself - may they rot in hell. Anti-competitive personified.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID =3570468
From the copy of the NISC (Network Interconnection Service Contract) I have:
Subject to clauses 4.2 to 4.4, the price of the Text Message Service to be provided under this Agreement, and which the Originating Party agrees to pay, is 14.0 cents for each Chargeable Text Message.
From the Voice NISC:
Chargeable Call Rate: Peak - 2.9c Off Peak 0.9c.
Go figure...
While not there by default, there are third party solutions to this: ipod.itunes.
we haven't finished talking about the OS X security hole. Damn MS always has to get market dominance in everything they do...
As fast as my computer gets, as broad as my internet connection becomes, it seems I still spend too much time sitting here listening to the sound of spinning discs.
The price of storage has dropped though, as the 1GB RAM chips I bought recently were cheaper than the 32MB chips I bought 5 years or so ago (I can't remember the exact year). I guess I will continue to bide my time.
Is it just me, or is the wait for solid state storage a long one?
My (very) simple take on Google - the main search page is small and light and loads incredibly quickly (even while I'm saturating wor...err, my connection with por...uhh, linux binaries). The page has never really changed that much and is very familiar, but the technology behind the page is constantly being tweaked. Of course, (fair) competition is almost always a good thing.
Google will always reign supreme, definitely.
I don't think anything is definite - Google has a clear head start, but I don't think even Google are invincible. This will be a very interesting space to watch, indeed...
To simplify it for you - you've just hired the new Managing Director.
Some creative company wants to find, and market this 'untouched natural' water?
Pretty Please?
If that's not improvement, then I don't know what is...
What about for our sake?
I am sorry - this from an environment where companies involved can't even agree on a format for - well - anything???
The most popular adsl (75% of customers are on it) is limited to 128Kb/s (16KB/s). Why? The price of this is approximately US$30, for 5 or 10GB cap (dependent on ISP). 10GB per month on the full speed is $US450 approximately, and 256Kb/s (32KB/s) is $US25 for 500MB (yes, MB).
So yes, 1Mbit per second here, while not impossible, is hugely expensive, geographically limited, and capped. Not to mention we have an incumbent Network telecomms company who think that 500MB is all customers want, or need.
It is debatable - perhaps the sooner this debate is held (although in which forum/s, is another matter for debate...) the better it is for the United States as a whole.
Follow on conclusion: You won't...
I wonder if Bill Gates also said this? He's closer than the rest of us, anyway...
As were the first spammers.
As would have been the inventors of anthrax.
Being first doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing however...
Disclaimer: This being /. the above is more with regard to cameras external HDDs, and other hardware which would benefit from the higher speed.
If the RIAA starts cracking down on file sharers, the demand for lucrative broadband connections is going to be negatively affected. This is what will truly affect their revenue streams. Whether for good or for bad, at present legally tenuous trading is probably the biggest driver for fast internet connections.
I'd also like to think that it's due to the ISPs overwhelming desire to do the right thing and protect customer's privacy, but I'm having trouble reconciling this view completely with the generally held views of corporate entities and their desire to run profitably.
Just my 2 cents worth.
I'll leave you to ponder this for a while....
On the topic at hand: Linux is a monopoly"???
A bit of research (Although, they're running linux, so it may be a conspiracy) :
monopoly:
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3. a. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
3. b. A commodity or service so controlled.
3. c. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
3. d. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
1. Maybe if SCO get's their way...
2. Maybe if Microsoft have their way...
3. Err, see above...
While I don't use Linux at present (although I have experimented with it on both x86 and PPC hardware) I favour OS X. Of Windows, OS X, and Linux, the three OS's are different in so many ways due to creation and control factors of all aspects of the product. A very small amount of research will highlight these differences, and who does exert control of development and code. When I read something like this and imagine the time and effort (and maybe cash, who knows) put into and this comes out, it really makes me wonder does sanity prevail: does the majority rule, or are all the idiots just on the same side?
Slashdot and your blog are your social life? In that case I think maybe blackouts are the least of your worries...