Not at all. We're confident the Chinese government doesn't have jurisdiction to take away our freedoms. What do I care about China spying on me (other than as a matter of principle) if they can't do anything to me with the information they find out?
1% of 680,000 is still 6,800. You really think even that many citizens could be proved to be terrorists?!
I suspect even 1% is at least an order of magnitude too high (assuming the number of bona-fide terrorists on the list is non-zero, which it might not be).
Not only is the cost non-trivial but there is the issue of where do they go? People don't like cell towers. They whine that they are ugly, they NIMBY about them. Now all in all it isn't a huge problem, you can find enough commercial properties that are happy to lease you space on their building. However if you want to build out past a certain point, you run out of good spots. It becomes harder, or impossible, to find more and more expensive to do so.
You list a bunch of technical or economic concerns, none of which are even slightly relevant to the issue. The issue is that Verizon is acting UNETHICALLY, which should not be tolerated under any circumstances. The technical and economic concerns you mention are Verizon's problem, not its customers'.
How is it the so-called "heavy users'" fault that the "light users" aren't using their fair share? The only difference is that "heavy users" are taking full advantage of our incredible technology and "light users" aren't.
In terms of policy and providing the maximum benefit to society, we should be encouraging what you call "heavy" usage to be "normal!"
You would assume though that they had upgraded their backbone bandwidth at the same rate during those 6 years. If the 2008 3G-backbone ratio was the same as the 2014 4G-backbone ratio then they'd have no trouble serving the same duration at maximum bandwidth.
What's really changed...
LOL! What's really [not] changed is that they simply pocketed the money as profit instead of upgrading their backbone bandwidth.
C forcing you to interrupt the flow of typing by reaching for the shift key on identifiers, whether you use camel case or underscores. Although I still remember the magnificent ADM-3A, where underscore was a gorgeous UNSHIFTED keystroke.
First of all, you don't understand what "basic QoS" is. Second, you're conflating the amount of data usage with the type of data usage. Let's try switching the types of data for the two users, and then see if your example is still reasonable:
This is basic QoS. For a simplified example, let's assume there are only two users (but the network is still congested). One is trying to download a fix amount of data, i.e. [download a certain number of linux-distribution isos] . Let's call her the "limited" user. The other is trying to watch as many YouTube videos as she possibly can. Let's call her the "unlimited" user. (We assume that the carrier can guess which user is which, based in historical bandwidth use.)
If the carrier throttles both users equally - what some would consider the "fair" solution - then the limited user will have to wait [a little longer for her ISOs] (but we will assume that she still [downloads the number of ISOs] that she had decided on). The... unlimited user [will have to wait while her videos buffer (which will cause her to watch fewer Youtube videos in total)].
If the carrier only throttles the unlimited user, then the limited user gets [the same] experience, [and] still [downloads the same number of ISOs], i.e. downloads the same amount of data during the period of the congestion [even though she didn't necessarily care that much when she got the data]. The [number of videos] that the unlimited user can [watch is reduced (along with their quality, due to buffering)], so she [suffers] from the "unfair" throttling.
"Basic QoS" means throttling the ISO download because it's not time-sensitive while not throttling the Youtube stream because it is time-sensitive. The aggregate data usage of the parties in question is completely irrelevant!
Oh, and by the way: QoS happens only when there's congestion, which is different from what Verizon wants to do, which is to punitively throttle customers after they hit their "cap" even if the network has excess unused capacity at the time the throttling occurs!
Maybe they should be forced to advertize link speed * contention ratio (i.e., only the "guaranteed speed") and anything you get above and beyond that is gravy.
Unless you're paying an insane amount or have a very slow connection, the odds are that you can only do this because a lot of users near you don't. ISPs don't have the off-network capacity for everyone to saturate their connections all of the time and they provide a service that's a lot cheaper than a dedicated leased line on the assumption that most won't. This assumption is usually fine, because most of their customers don't come close to it. The 32TB/month that you'd consume if you saturated a 100Mb/s link all of the time is a couple of orders of magnitude more than most users will need, even if they're streaming a couple of hours of video each evening.
Indeed, it's fine... until the average customer starts using more capacity than Verizon can provide on average.
At that point, however, it does NOT mean that Verizon is somehow justified in throttling their "unlimited" connections, it means they are obligated to either increase the capacity of the network or stop advertising their service as unlimited.
Given that they've accumulated billions of dollars of public subsidies over the years (for the purpose of improving the network), I think it's reasonable for them to improve the network!
Or perhaps it doesn't know what you actually do want to see, so it's showing you the "least unlikely" things (i.e., the "most likely" but with low confidence). It's kind of like how if you've never used Amazon.com before and you view and/or buy one item, then all of the "recommended for you" things are other permutations of similar items.
It could also be that 15% refers to sales marketshare (i.e., new users) instead of subscriber marketshare (i.e., existing userbase). It's completely conceivable that maybe 41% of smartphones being used by people today are iPhones, but 15% of new phones sold are iPhones. (If that were the case, it would imply that lots of people were trading in their iPhones for Androids.)
It won't help people on pay-as-you-go plans and whatnot, because that breaks the whole pricing model
Why wouldn't it? You can do per-megabyte pricing just as well as per-minute pricing, I think.
Besides, monthly no-contract plans are good and cheap enough anyway: my veritable-firehose-of-data (5GB of 4G, then unlimited 3G) is $30/month from T-Mobile, and I hear you can get even better deals from companies like Republic Wireless or FreedomPop (I need to evaluate these and see about switching).
Yeah, I think I implicitly assumed the antenna would be hooked to some device to receive the signal. (I also glossed over the whole "cell phone" part, and was thinking of my HDHomeRun.)
As you know, if it were all just IP, then you'd just have one IP-based connection to worry about.
I must be living in the future, because my cellphone already uses VoIP over WiFi at home (and VoIP over 3G/4G when I'm out -- it's nice that cheap (almost)-data-only plans finally exist). : )
Can't you just stick an antenna on the roof (or in the attic, if you didn't include the attic cavity in the faraday cage)?
It seems like a stucco (metal lath) house with a standing-seam metal roof and metallic-tinted windows, with those things electrically connected together, would work... is there anything else that would need to be done? (In particular, is it important to stop signals from leaking out the bottom? And what about grounding?)
As soon as you say 'encryption' in the defense world you open a can of worms that can set your project back as much as 2 years.
Two years might be excessive, but to a certain extent that makes sense, since you have a lot of other concerns (key management, etc.) that go with it. Encryption is not a 'plug and play' kind of feature.
If you customized your phone and made it worse, clearly the issue is that you suck at customizing. This time, try rooting the phone, removing the bloat, voice search, and excessive app permissions, and then don't add any other crap back.
Although I don't do it on my current HTPC, if I got one of these I'd be interested in removing commercials and/or transcoding to MPEG4 (or Theora, etc.). I would hope and expect that something so embarrassingly-parallel yet not implemented in hardware would be faster on one of these AMDs.
Are you doing any transcoding or commercial detection/removal? That's the sort of multi-threaded and/or GPGPU workload I'd expect AMD's chip to be better for.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all. We're confident the Chinese government doesn't have jurisdiction to take away our freedoms. What do I care about China spying on me (other than as a matter of principle) if they can't do anything to me with the information they find out?
Normally when that happens to people, the cops get charged with "18 U.S. Code S. 241 - Conspiracy against rights." However, that law does appear to only apply to "persons," not dogs or corporations.
1% of 680,000 is still 6,800. You really think even that many citizens could be proved to be terrorists?!
I suspect even 1% is at least an order of magnitude too high (assuming the number of bona-fide terrorists on the list is non-zero, which it might not be).
You list a bunch of technical or economic concerns, none of which are even slightly relevant to the issue. The issue is that Verizon is acting UNETHICALLY, which should not be tolerated under any circumstances. The technical and economic concerns you mention are Verizon's problem, not its customers'.
How is it the so-called "heavy users'" fault that the "light users" aren't using their fair share? The only difference is that "heavy users" are taking full advantage of our incredible technology and "light users" aren't.
In terms of policy and providing the maximum benefit to society, we should be encouraging what you call "heavy" usage to be "normal!"
LOL! What's really [not] changed is that they simply pocketed the money as profit instead of upgrading their backbone bandwidth.
Congratulations, that's the least-bad analogy I've read in this thread so far.
That's your keyboard's fault, not C's.
First of all, you don't understand what "basic QoS" is. Second, you're conflating the amount of data usage with the type of data usage. Let's try switching the types of data for the two users, and then see if your example is still reasonable:
"Basic QoS" means throttling the ISO download because it's not time-sensitive while not throttling the Youtube stream because it is time-sensitive. The aggregate data usage of the parties in question is completely irrelevant!
Oh, and by the way: QoS happens only when there's congestion, which is different from what Verizon wants to do, which is to punitively throttle customers after they hit their "cap" even if the network has excess unused capacity at the time the throttling occurs!
Maybe they should be forced to advertize link speed * contention ratio (i.e., only the "guaranteed speed") and anything you get above and beyond that is gravy.
Indeed, it's fine... until the average customer starts using more capacity than Verizon can provide on average.
At that point, however, it does NOT mean that Verizon is somehow justified in throttling their "unlimited" connections, it means they are obligated to either increase the capacity of the network or stop advertising their service as unlimited.
Given that they've accumulated billions of dollars of public subsidies over the years (for the purpose of improving the network), I think it's reasonable for them to improve the network!
Indeed. I might have been inclined to believe it... until Morgan Stanley said it!
Or perhaps it doesn't know what you actually do want to see, so it's showing you the "least unlikely" things (i.e., the "most likely" but with low confidence). It's kind of like how if you've never used Amazon.com before and you view and/or buy one item, then all of the "recommended for you" things are other permutations of similar items.
It could also be that 15% refers to sales marketshare (i.e., new users) instead of subscriber marketshare (i.e., existing userbase). It's completely conceivable that maybe 41% of smartphones being used by people today are iPhones, but 15% of new phones sold are iPhones. (If that were the case, it would imply that lots of people were trading in their iPhones for Androids.)
Quick! Somebody patent it and force them to stop!
Why wouldn't it? You can do per-megabyte pricing just as well as per-minute pricing, I think.
Besides, monthly no-contract plans are good and cheap enough anyway: my veritable-firehose-of-data (5GB of 4G, then unlimited 3G) is $30/month from T-Mobile, and I hear you can get even better deals from companies like Republic Wireless or FreedomPop (I need to evaluate these and see about switching).
Yeah, I think I implicitly assumed the antenna would be hooked to some device to receive the signal. (I also glossed over the whole "cell phone" part, and was thinking of my HDHomeRun.)
I must be living in the future, because my cellphone already uses VoIP over WiFi at home (and VoIP over 3G/4G when I'm out -- it's nice that cheap (almost)-data-only plans finally exist). : )
Can't you just stick an antenna on the roof (or in the attic, if you didn't include the attic cavity in the faraday cage)?
It seems like a stucco (metal lath) house with a standing-seam metal roof and metallic-tinted windows, with those things electrically connected together, would work... is there anything else that would need to be done? (In particular, is it important to stop signals from leaking out the bottom? And what about grounding?)
For the love of $DIETY, enforce that trademark so no real company uses that catch phrase!
Two years might be excessive, but to a certain extent that makes sense, since you have a lot of other concerns (key management, etc.) that go with it. Encryption is not a 'plug and play' kind of feature.
If you customized your phone and made it worse, clearly the issue is that you suck at customizing. This time, try rooting the phone, removing the bloat, voice search, and excessive app permissions, and then don't add any other crap back.
Because it sees the corner coming or because it detects you turning the steering wheel?
Although I don't do it on my current HTPC, if I got one of these I'd be interested in removing commercials and/or transcoding to MPEG4 (or Theora, etc.). I would hope and expect that something so embarrassingly-parallel yet not implemented in hardware would be faster on one of these AMDs.
I bet it was ghostwritten by Abbot and Costello.
Are you doing any transcoding or commercial detection/removal? That's the sort of multi-threaded and/or GPGPU workload I'd expect AMD's chip to be better for.