Which one of the leaked documents exposed an "unvarnished truth" to the world that wasn't known or at least expected before hand? I've yet to see any major coverup exposed in these documents. Did I miss something or are the docs stilll being sifted through?
I have nothing against the concept of wikileaks or whistleblowing. Some things need to be leaked so the public knows the truth. But I question the largly unfiltered leak of raw data. What's the point?
If the wikileaks folks wanted to be journalists, they would have taken the time to sort through the documents and release only the ones that could expose a coverup. It's unfortunate that the actual news organizations involved didn't at least do that.
That was a National Association of Broadcasters summit, if my research is correct. So you can't exactly argue that they aren't biased, either.
I see their (and your) point, though, after reading through the results. The OTA broadcasters certainly seem to have grand plans to utilize their spectrum to the fullest with the conversion to DTV, to include Mobile DTV.
Still, for a 10 year plan, such as the National Broadband Plan, there's always room for improvement across all services. OTA broadcasters can move to MPEG4 instead of MPEG2 and then they can certainly do more than one HDTV broadcast per 6MHz channel. Why can't they move their entire architecture to a mobile DTV standard in 10 years and use that entirely? Fixed stations will just ignore the mobile aspect of it and then they can move to a cellular architecture, also.
In response to the original article, I agree that the NBP doesn't have a lot of teeth to it. I don't think a 10 year plan should, though. It outlines some lofty goals for all services and opens up the discussions on how to proceed in each area. For a report to Congress, I think this is exactly how it should have been done. Now let the actual FCC rulemaking proceedings figure out the best way to go for each situation.
"Based on analyses of programming and signal throughput, as well as case examples, two stations could each broadcast a primary video stream in HD simultaneously over the same channel without causing material changes in the current consumer viewing experience." (FCC, NBP)
So even in your market where you supposedly get 40 OTA TV channels, you'd only need 20 actual 6MHz channels to provide every one of those to you in HD. Right now there are 44 channels (7 - 51, exclude 37) optimal for DTV.
Just because the plan calls for taking spectrum away from OTA TV, it doesn't mean content will decrease. If you'd actually read the NBP, you'd see the FCC wants to ensure changes to content are overall neutral while making better use of the spectrum.
>> Then why is the original poster criticizing the US >> Government for not providing 100 Mbit/s when >> 10 or 25 is enough?
Quit making shit up. The OP said "However, it is ridiculous that I can't easily get 100Mbs (compared to other countries) in cities like Portland or Seattle."
Where is he criticizing the government? Where does he say he "needs" 100Mb/s? You're jumping on others for their "logical fallacies" - take a look in the mirror.
>> Over-the-air television uses about 1.5% of the usable >> spectrum - that's not a huge amount.
It uses about 4% of the optimal terrestrial spectrum from 300MHz to 3GHz, the rest of which is allocated out to a host of other services.
Look, I got it. You're entitled to your free shit. From the beginning, I've agreed with you that free TV serves a valuable public interest. I think that we need to look at better ways of distributing it, however, rather than OTA high-power broadcasts and reserved spectrum across the entire U.S.
Oh, DTV is certainly a better use of the spectrum as compared to analog broadcasts. I will give you that.
In an area where you can pick up 40 OTA broadcasts like this other guy, the spectrum is being used efficiently. In the rest of the country where 2-3 channels or maybe up to 7 is the norm, all of that other spectrum is wasted as reserved for OTA broadcasts.
The "whitespace" decisions being made by the FCC might go towards eliminating some of that waste. Newcomers into that spectrum are going to have to fight the incumbent OTA broadcasters. Any hint of "interference" (however that's defined and the definition will favor the incumbent) and the newcomers will have to shut down. Who's going to invest/innovate in that field remains to be seen.
Pretty sure that auction dollars as well as any fines levied by the FCC go directly to the U.S. Treasury. The FCC operates off of a budget like any other office.
Well, "the People" have decided to give the FCC jurisdiction over the spectrum via their elected officials representing them in the government. You don't own squat with regards to spectrum.
So you want mandate that the telcos use their revenue to spread DSL everywhere? The cost will just be passed down to the users. There's a limit to how far you can be away from the DSLAM along with the number of lines it can terminate. 3 miles or so from a quick look around, but there may newer stuff out that goes farther. I think you'd need to modify the Telecom Act of '96 in order to use the USF in that manner, too.
Doesn't negate the fact that high BW television broadcasts are a waste of terrestrial spectrum. So much more could be done with the spectrum for public safety and consumer devices. I don't really care how free TV is done, but moving all of that spectrum to a commons approach and letting dynamic spectrum access devices be commercially deployed will better utilize the spectrum. Then you can keep your free OTA TV (with a new receiver) from local transmitters but the rest of the spectrum won't be wasted across the U.S. as reserved for TV. AND, when you're not watching TV, everyone around you gets faster network access!
Yeah, that'd suck to go from 40 free things to 6-7 free things. I mean, you're entitled that the number of things that you're doing or paying absolutely nothing for shouldn't decrease. We should continue to waste spectrum so your number of free things doesn't change.
The basic (but not free) tier on Comcast has 100 channels @ $360/yr, btw.
I think that there's a public interest goal that's met with free TV and radio and that should be maintained. I don't think we need to use the vast amounts of spectrum to maintain it, though.
>> And for some users it's not just worth it to step up >> technology so they may just consider the fact that it >> may be worth it to just skip the TV and broadband
I sincerely doubt people making this decision are giving any consideration to the technology involved. They're looking at cost only. And you're right. If the cost is too much, then it won't be worth it for them to "upgrade" to whatever.
I think there will always be access to free "broadcast" TV, regardless of however that broadcast is technically carried out. Well, in an ideal world, at least. Public good would win out over corporate and political greed.
Eliminating free OTA TV doesn't mean that free services will be eliminated entirely. It could be FCC policy that the new owners of the spectrum subsidize cable or satellite services to offer an entirely free very basic tier. I'd bet that very few of those free OTA TV watchers don't have access to cable or satellite (if they wanted it).
You have valid points that just need to be taken into consideration in the event of a complete broadcast TV removal. There's no need to waste valuable terrestrial spectrum when your points can be handled through other means, though.
>> you just cant use something to compile and app from >> one language (say, flash) to Obj-C and then submit it.
I don't understand the reasoning for this, though. Other than being anti-competitive against companies that want to develop wrappers that take X language and convert it into another that's suitable for the platform.
If my tool, which takes Ruby and converts it into Obj-C, creates shitty code for the iPhone platform, then deny the application for that reason. Same as you would if I just wrote shitty Obj-C code to start with. Assuming Apple goes that deep into the applications; I don't know.
Who says the market has to address phones at all? I'd say the fore-market is applications for smartphones and the after-market is the development tools/procedures. Apple is using their monopoly power in the application market to control the development market (for example).
Not saying I buy any of that, it's just an example.:)
-John
Re:Buying ARM for a leg?
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Vertical integration is not illegal. Using vertical integration to eliminate or frustrate competition is illegal, though.
Hopefully that's what you were saying, too, and this just further clarifies.;)
AT&T has the highest market share at 28% according to a presentation I saw the other day. Where is the majority share you're talking about and who has it? Limited competition? There are several national carriers you can turn to as well as smaller rural services, depending on where you live. Or pay-as-you-go. Where's the limited competition?
Maybe you could prove collusion amongst the carriers to fix text message prices... Good luck with that.
As someone else said, shifting just sends a signal to the transmission. You're not directly controlling any gears. The transmission won't go into neutral or reverse at a high speed probably because of safety protocols in the software. The people that testified said they tried exactly this and it didn't stop the acceleration.
So you could argue that the software should allow this and let the engine rev and let whatever happen.
No, I hadn't looked into Buzz that much. It does sound closer to violating the patent, though, if it also matches all of the other claims. I'm sure they (Google/Buzz) can get by saying they don't match one or two of them.
>> What if I started publishing a list that my program generated >> telling you of all the activities of a group of people?
If your list included a link that allowed people to also participate in said activity, you'd be close to violating the patent. You'd also have to implement a method for storing said activities in a database, a relation system for views and people in your group, a security system to ensure only authorized or related people can view the list, etc.
There's more to the patent than just generating a list of activities. Not much more, mind you, and not anything novel, imo, but that's what it is.
The key to the patent is that news items are generated automatically based on the activities of other users (your friends) and the news items have a link in them so that you can participate in the same activity. Add in security for who sees the news, ordering, database, etc, and you've got the patent.
I don't see how this relates to an RSS feed at all.
Not saying this is particularly novel, either, but that's what it is. It's not a patent on a "news feed". Typical slashdot summary.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a link to the documents that expose this?
Which one of the leaked documents exposed an "unvarnished truth" to the world that wasn't known or at least expected before hand? I've yet to see any major coverup exposed in these documents. Did I miss something or are the docs stilll being sifted through?
I have nothing against the concept of wikileaks or whistleblowing. Some things need to be leaked so the public knows the truth. But I question the largly unfiltered leak of raw data. What's the point?
If the wikileaks folks wanted to be journalists, they would have taken the time to sort through the documents and release only the ones that could expose a coverup. It's unfortunate that the actual news organizations involved didn't at least do that.
Maybe I'm missing something. Please enlighten me.
That was a National Association of Broadcasters summit, if my research is correct. So you can't exactly argue that they aren't biased, either.
I see their (and your) point, though, after reading through the results. The OTA broadcasters certainly seem to have grand plans to utilize their spectrum to the fullest with the conversion to DTV, to include Mobile DTV.
Still, for a 10 year plan, such as the National Broadband Plan, there's always room for improvement across all services. OTA broadcasters can move to MPEG4 instead of MPEG2 and then they can certainly do more than one HDTV broadcast per 6MHz channel. Why can't they move their entire architecture to a mobile DTV standard in 10 years and use that entirely? Fixed stations will just ignore the mobile aspect of it and then they can move to a cellular architecture, also.
In response to the original article, I agree that the NBP doesn't have a lot of teeth to it. I don't think a 10 year plan should, though. It outlines some lofty goals for all services and opens up the discussions on how to proceed in each area. For a report to Congress, I think this is exactly how it should have been done. Now let the actual FCC rulemaking proceedings figure out the best way to go for each situation.
-John
>> So I say we should just mimic what Japan did.
How do you propose we make everyone's phone lines short enough to support 100Mbps? I want technical details.
-John
"Based on analyses of programming and signal throughput, as well as case examples, two stations could each broadcast a primary video stream in HD simultaneously over the same channel without causing material changes in the current consumer viewing experience." (FCC, NBP)
So even in your market where you supposedly get 40 OTA TV channels, you'd only need 20 actual 6MHz channels to provide every one of those to you in HD. Right now there are 44 channels (7 - 51, exclude 37) optimal for DTV.
Just because the plan calls for taking spectrum away from OTA TV, it doesn't mean content will decrease. If you'd actually read the NBP, you'd see the FCC wants to ensure changes to content are overall neutral while making better use of the spectrum.
-John
>> as you open your 50 year old scotch that you bought at 30
Scotch doesn't age in the bottle. ;)
>> Free TV streams 6000 gigabytes per month per channel.
What's your upstream rate on that, since we're comparing apples to oranges?
>> Then why is the original poster criticizing the US
>> Government for not providing 100 Mbit/s when
>> 10 or 25 is enough?
Quit making shit up. The OP said "However, it is ridiculous that I can't easily get 100Mbs (compared to other countries) in cities like Portland or Seattle."
Where is he criticizing the government? Where does he say he "needs" 100Mb/s? You're jumping on others for their "logical fallacies" - take a look in the mirror.
-John
>> Over-the-air television uses about 1.5% of the usable
>> spectrum - that's not a huge amount.
It uses about 4% of the optimal terrestrial spectrum from 300MHz to 3GHz, the rest of which is allocated out to a host of other services.
Look, I got it. You're entitled to your free shit. From the beginning, I've agreed with you that free TV serves a valuable public interest. I think that we need to look at better ways of distributing it, however, rather than OTA high-power broadcasts and reserved spectrum across the entire U.S.
-John
Oh, DTV is certainly a better use of the spectrum as compared to analog broadcasts. I will give you that.
In an area where you can pick up 40 OTA broadcasts like this other guy, the spectrum is being used efficiently. In the rest of the country where 2-3 channels or maybe up to 7 is the norm, all of that other spectrum is wasted as reserved for OTA broadcasts.
The "whitespace" decisions being made by the FCC might go towards eliminating some of that waste. Newcomers into that spectrum are going to have to fight the incumbent OTA broadcasters. Any hint of "interference" (however that's defined and the definition will favor the incumbent) and the newcomers will have to shut down. Who's going to invest/innovate in that field remains to be seen.
-John
Pretty sure that auction dollars as well as any fines levied by the FCC go directly to the U.S. Treasury. The FCC operates off of a budget like any other office.
Well, "the People" have decided to give the FCC jurisdiction over the spectrum via their elected officials representing them in the government. You don't own squat with regards to spectrum.
So you want mandate that the telcos use their revenue to spread DSL everywhere? The cost will just be passed down to the users. There's a limit to how far you can be away from the DSLAM along with the number of lines it can terminate. 3 miles or so from a quick look around, but there may newer stuff out that goes farther. I think you'd need to modify the Telecom Act of '96 in order to use the USF in that manner, too.
Doesn't negate the fact that high BW television broadcasts are a waste of terrestrial spectrum. So much more could be done with the spectrum for public safety and consumer devices. I don't really care how free TV is done, but moving all of that spectrum to a commons approach and letting dynamic spectrum access devices be commercially deployed will better utilize the spectrum. Then you can keep your free OTA TV (with a new receiver) from local transmitters but the rest of the spectrum won't be wasted across the U.S. as reserved for TV. AND, when you're not watching TV, everyone around you gets faster network access!
-John
Yeah, that'd suck to go from 40 free things to 6-7 free things. I mean, you're entitled that the number of things that you're doing or paying absolutely nothing for shouldn't decrease. We should continue to waste spectrum so your number of free things doesn't change.
The basic (but not free) tier on Comcast has 100 channels @ $360/yr, btw.
I think that there's a public interest goal that's met with free TV and radio and that should be maintained. I don't think we need to use the vast amounts of spectrum to maintain it, though.
-John
>> And for some users it's not just worth it to step up
>> technology so they may just consider the fact that it
>> may be worth it to just skip the TV and broadband
I sincerely doubt people making this decision are giving any consideration to the technology involved. They're looking at cost only. And you're right. If the cost is too much, then it won't be worth it for them to "upgrade" to whatever.
I think there will always be access to free "broadcast" TV, regardless of however that broadcast is technically carried out. Well, in an ideal world, at least. Public good would win out over corporate and political greed.
stop laughing...
-John
Eliminating free OTA TV doesn't mean that free services will be eliminated entirely. It could be FCC policy that the new owners of the spectrum subsidize cable or satellite services to offer an entirely free very basic tier. I'd bet that very few of those free OTA TV watchers don't have access to cable or satellite (if they wanted it).
You have valid points that just need to be taken into consideration in the event of a complete broadcast TV removal. There's no need to waste valuable terrestrial spectrum when your points can be handled through other means, though.
-John
>> you just cant use something to compile and app from
>> one language (say, flash) to Obj-C and then submit it.
I don't understand the reasoning for this, though. Other than being anti-competitive against companies that want to develop wrappers that take X language and convert it into another that's suitable for the platform.
If my tool, which takes Ruby and converts it into Obj-C, creates shitty code for the iPhone platform, then deny the application for that reason. Same as you would if I just wrote shitty Obj-C code to start with. Assuming Apple goes that deep into the applications; I don't know.
-John
The markets are applications (that run on smartphones) and development tools/languages, not smartphones.
Who says the market has to address phones at all? I'd say the fore-market is applications for smartphones and the after-market is the development tools/procedures. Apple is using their monopoly power in the application market to control the development market (for example).
Not saying I buy any of that, it's just an example. :)
-John
Vertical integration is not illegal. Using vertical integration to eliminate or frustrate competition is illegal, though.
Hopefully that's what you were saying, too, and this just further clarifies. ;)
John
AT&T has the highest market share at 28% according to a presentation I saw the other day. Where is the majority share you're talking about and who has it? Limited competition? There are several national carriers you can turn to as well as smaller rural services, depending on where you live. Or pay-as-you-go. Where's the limited competition?
Maybe you could prove collusion amongst the carriers to fix text message prices... Good luck with that.
John
As someone else said, shifting just sends a signal to the transmission. You're not directly controlling any gears. The transmission won't go into neutral or reverse at a high speed probably because of safety protocols in the software. The people that testified said they tried exactly this and it didn't stop the acceleration.
So you could argue that the software should allow this and let the engine rev and let whatever happen.
-John
No, I hadn't looked into Buzz that much. It does sound closer to violating the patent, though, if it also matches all of the other claims. I'm sure they (Google/Buzz) can get by saying they don't match one or two of them.
-John
>> What if I started publishing a list that my program generated
>> telling you of all the activities of a group of people?
If your list included a link that allowed people to also participate in said activity, you'd be close to violating the patent. You'd also have to implement a method for storing said activities in a database, a relation system for views and people in your group, a security system to ensure only authorized or related people can view the list, etc.
There's more to the patent than just generating a list of activities. Not much more, mind you, and not anything novel, imo, but that's what it is.
-John
The key to the patent is that news items are generated automatically based on the activities of other users (your friends) and the news items have a link in them so that you can participate in the same activity. Add in security for who sees the news, ordering, database, etc, and you've got the patent.
I don't see how this relates to an RSS feed at all.
Not saying this is particularly novel, either, but that's what it is. It's not a patent on a "news feed". Typical slashdot summary.
-John