In my experience, most people don't have/use them, and most people rely on the battery in their phone. It's not clear where your claim comes from - do most people you know have them?
Uh, no. Those things are inefficient. They have to convert the voltage of their own battery to 5V, output to USB, then the phone has to convert that to the battery charging voltage. So, for the same increase in functional capacity, the battery in them has to be much bigger. Plus, they add more than "just a few mm" in thickness, there's even more casing surrounding a separate battery. Then there's the USB plug getting in the way. Plus dealing with disconnecting/removing all that before you can use a proper car dock.
(I assume you're talking about the ones for phones without replaceable batteries, since that's the basis for this thread)
I bought a battery for my S4 for $12 shipped. Every bit as good as the OEM. I carry the charged original in my backpack as a spare, no need to find a power source for an immediate "recharge." When the one in use stops holding a full charge, I'll buy another $12 replacement. I could have bought insurance from Verizon if I wanted - but I take care of my phones and over 25 years have never broken or lost one, so I'm still ahead even if I have to buy one at full retail someday in the future.
It looks like AppleCare+ is $99, and only covers out to 2 years (and another $79 if the phone is replaced due to damage). Are iPhones really so unreliable that that presents value?
$12 battery shipped to my home which I can easily replace in less than a minute myself, or $99 and a trip to the store. I'd say I have a better level of service than you - less expensive, too.
So, how many connections will feed into this CoLo you mention? And, do you have a study which compares the cost of running all those home runs to simply aggregating traffic on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis?
"Neither of those professions require specialized drivers licenses"
No, they don't spend "just as many hours on the road." Both involve trips ancillary to the principal occupation, so the amount of driving is less. Neither of them involve the carriage of strangers for money.
Would you suggest that other forms of commercial driver's license are also unnecessary, such as those required for driving a passenger bus or hauling hazardous materials?
I think Dr. Suess has a claim to that style of invention:
Say! I like green eggs and ham! I do! I like them, Sam-I-am! And I would eat them in a boat! And I would eat them with a goat... And I will eat them in the rain. And in the dark. And on a train. And in a car. And in a tree. They are so goodm so goodm you see!
So I will eat them in a box. And I will eat them with a fox. And I will eat them in a house. And I will eat them with a mouse. And I will eat them here and there. Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE!
You made a claim which you're unable to support. As others have pointed out, its demonstrably false. Continuing to defend it makes you a liar. Continuing to hurl insults doesn't change that a bit.
I believe there's room for more nuance in net neutrality rules. As long as a transport provider isn't interfering with any content which is within the contracted bandwidth/allowance, there should be room to offer premium transport above and beyond.
One example might be a customer who only desires a low level of Internet access for email and light web browsing, but also wants a video streaming service. They should have the opportunity to contract for a low cost basic service, and have the streaming service pay for bandwidth above that basic service (they would pay for it indirectly via the streaming provider). Or, there might be a desire for preferred QoS treatment to support VoIP or other latency/jitter sensitive streams.
The problem is how then to ensure that ISPs don't simply skew the market with pricing - $10/mo to the customer for 64 kbps of basic service (+ provider paid bursting), but $300/mo if a customer wants 100 Mbps service as a means to push costs onto content providers which compete with the ISPs own offerings.
A bona-fide separation of content and transport providers might be a solution, where the traffic is tariffed to prevent an ISP from giving preferential pricing to a closely affiliated content provider.
But, as a first cut, requiring all traffic to be treated equally is a good start. And I think I agree that TMo should be forced to count streaming data toward the customer's allowance. But, what then happens with VoLTE, where everything is data and calls should also count in the allowance? Why should TMo be able to offer free calls, when the customer pays more for Skype or SIP ones? No more "nationwide free calling?" I don't see consumers accepting that change.
Part of the problem comes from how transport is billed - consumers basically pay for received data, and ISPs want to charge content providers for sent data, double dipping for the same traffic.
(also, Karmashock was quite wrong in claiming that the rules would forbid TMo from delivering streaming music, and that was the basis for the rest of his argument)
I'm merely offering you the opportunity to show that you're not the liar which you have so far demonstrated yourself to be. If you choose to leave your provably false statement uncorrected, you have only yourself to blame.
Even if the rules say the T-Mobile service must count toward data allowances, that would not prevent them from offering a music service on competitive terms. His claim, which was clearly made from whole cloth and therefore unsupportable, was that the rules would forbid T-Mobile and others from streaming music.
Ah, so you not only don't understand normative citations, but you can't provide one. Not surprising for someone who feels a need to switch to insults when they're shown to be wrong.
The distinction is not particularly subtle. It is the difference between content (the Internet) and transport (the network). The FCC is regulating the transport, so that providers which offer both transport and content do not receive an unfair advantage over those who provide only content.
"The internet has been largely unregulated and that has been a really good thing. Most of the growth and innovation we've seen has happened there."
This is not regulation of the Internet, but regulation of the means by which the Internet is accessed.
There are more than a few comparable regulatory actions which helped create the growth of the Internet. Significantly, there was the Carterphone action, which allowed modems to be connected to the Bell network, against their wishes. There was also state regulation of the Bells, which prevented them from charging exorbitant rates for those modem connections. There are the common carrier regulations, by which telco providers receive free or very low cost access to public rights-of-way, avoiding the costs of negotiating and renting land wherever they run their lines. Similarly with cable - they're given access to public rights of way and a monopoly position in exchange for being subject to regulation.
If any of them want to build out services entirely in the free market without making use of public resources, negotiating and paying for all access rights, then I'll support that service being unregulated.
Slashdot Mirror
"Counterfeit" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Need vs. want. The OP said he'd trade a bit more thickness for more battery life. Nothing you've said is an argument against that.
"But they are efficient enough for most people."
In my experience, most people don't have/use them, and most people rely on the battery in their phone. It's not clear where your claim comes from - do most people you know have them?
"battery booster packs."
Uh, no. Those things are inefficient. They have to convert the voltage of their own battery to 5V, output to USB, then the phone has to convert that to the battery charging voltage. So, for the same increase in functional capacity, the battery in them has to be much bigger. Plus, they add more than "just a few mm" in thickness, there's even more casing surrounding a separate battery. Then there's the USB plug getting in the way. Plus dealing with disconnecting/removing all that before you can use a proper car dock.
(I assume you're talking about the ones for phones without replaceable batteries, since that's the basis for this thread)
I bought a battery for my S4 for $12 shipped. Every bit as good as the OEM. I carry the charged original in my backpack as a spare, no need to find a power source for an immediate "recharge." When the one in use stops holding a full charge, I'll buy another $12 replacement. I could have bought insurance from Verizon if I wanted - but I take care of my phones and over 25 years have never broken or lost one, so I'm still ahead even if I have to buy one at full retail someday in the future.
It looks like AppleCare+ is $99, and only covers out to 2 years (and another $79 if the phone is replaced due to damage). Are iPhones really so unreliable that that presents value?
$12 battery shipped to my home which I can easily replace in less than a minute myself, or $99 and a trip to the store. I'd say I have a better level of service than you - less expensive, too.
So, how many connections will feed into this CoLo you mention? And, do you have a study which compares the cost of running all those home runs to simply aggregating traffic on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis?
"Neither of those professions require specialized drivers licenses"
No, they don't spend "just as many hours on the road." Both involve trips ancillary to the principal occupation, so the amount of driving is less. Neither of them involve the carriage of strangers for money.
Would you suggest that other forms of commercial driver's license are also unnecessary, such as those required for driving a passenger bus or hauling hazardous materials?
The Internet is the content (data/message/letter). The network is the transport (medium/postal service).
Someday, you may understand the difference.
And, there's a difference between "internet" and "Internet."
Medium vs. message. Seems like a pretty clear distinction.
Is there a reason this can't extend down to HF?
Bets on how long until an NSA apologist like Mike Rogers or Peter King issues a "blame the messenger" (Snowden) statement?
I think Dr. Suess has a claim to that style of invention:
Say!
I like green eggs and ham!
I do! I like them, Sam-I-am!
And I would eat them in a boat!
And I would eat them with a goat...
And I will eat them in the rain.
And in the dark. And on a train.
And in a car. And in a tree.
They are so goodm so goodm you see!
So I will eat them in a box.
And I will eat them with a fox.
And I will eat them in a house.
And I will eat them with a mouse.
And I will eat them here and there.
Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE!
Prior art, right here. I've got the idea of a "mobile 3D printing drone."
You made a claim which you're unable to support. As others have pointed out, its demonstrably false. Continuing to defend it makes you a liar. Continuing to hurl insults doesn't change that a bit.
If I had TMo, could I sign up my own Subsonic streaming service, and access it for free?
I believe there's room for more nuance in net neutrality rules. As long as a transport provider isn't interfering with any content which is within the contracted bandwidth/allowance, there should be room to offer premium transport above and beyond.
One example might be a customer who only desires a low level of Internet access for email and light web browsing, but also wants a video streaming service. They should have the opportunity to contract for a low cost basic service, and have the streaming service pay for bandwidth above that basic service (they would pay for it indirectly via the streaming provider). Or, there might be a desire for preferred QoS treatment to support VoIP or other latency/jitter sensitive streams.
The problem is how then to ensure that ISPs don't simply skew the market with pricing - $10/mo to the customer for 64 kbps of basic service (+ provider paid bursting), but $300/mo if a customer wants 100 Mbps service as a means to push costs onto content providers which compete with the ISPs own offerings.
A bona-fide separation of content and transport providers might be a solution, where the traffic is tariffed to prevent an ISP from giving preferential pricing to a closely affiliated content provider.
But, as a first cut, requiring all traffic to be treated equally is a good start. And I think I agree that TMo should be forced to count streaming data toward the customer's allowance. But, what then happens with VoLTE, where everything is data and calls should also count in the allowance? Why should TMo be able to offer free calls, when the customer pays more for Skype or SIP ones? No more "nationwide free calling?" I don't see consumers accepting that change.
Part of the problem comes from how transport is billed - consumers basically pay for received data, and ISPs want to charge content providers for sent data, double dipping for the same traffic.
(also, Karmashock was quite wrong in claiming that the rules would forbid TMo from delivering streaming music, and that was the basis for the rest of his argument)
I'm merely offering you the opportunity to show that you're not the liar which you have so far demonstrated yourself to be. If you choose to leave your provably false statement uncorrected, you have only yourself to blame.
Even if the rules say the T-Mobile service must count toward data allowances, that would not prevent them from offering a music service on competitive terms. His claim, which was clearly made from whole cloth and therefore unsupportable, was that the rules would forbid T-Mobile and others from streaming music.
Ah, so you not only don't understand normative citations, but you can't provide one. Not surprising for someone who feels a need to switch to insults when they're shown to be wrong.
The distinction is not particularly subtle. It is the difference between content (the Internet) and transport (the network). The FCC is regulating the transport, so that providers which offer both transport and content do not receive an unfair advantage over those who provide only content.
"Actually the current FCC regulations that are to be passed include sections forbidding T Mobile amongst others from streaming music to cell phones."
Normative citations (since you claimed "sections"), or it's made up.
Think about AT&T providing tapping of Internet trunks. What makes you think you can trust a private company to do things right without oversight?
A "republican" holds a political ideology. A "Republican" is associated with the party.
Which service provider do you work for?
"The internet has been largely unregulated and that has been a really good thing. Most of the growth and innovation we've seen has happened there."
This is not regulation of the Internet, but regulation of the means by which the Internet is accessed.
There are more than a few comparable regulatory actions which helped create the growth of the Internet. Significantly, there was the Carterphone action, which allowed modems to be connected to the Bell network, against their wishes. There was also state regulation of the Bells, which prevented them from charging exorbitant rates for those modem connections. There are the common carrier regulations, by which telco providers receive free or very low cost access to public rights-of-way, avoiding the costs of negotiating and renting land wherever they run their lines. Similarly with cable - they're given access to public rights of way and a monopoly position in exchange for being subject to regulation.
If any of them want to build out services entirely in the free market without making use of public resources, negotiating and paying for all access rights, then I'll support that service being unregulated.