"why haven't cellular data providers figured out a way to offer more than 5 GB per month at a reasonable price in the past decade".
They have. The FCC has. They need much more of the spectrum to do it which means shutting off broadcast TV which no one uses.
Funny. The way NTT solved the problem a quarter of a century ago was to increase cell density to decrease per cell load. They don't need more spectrum.
With cell towers your individual bandwidth is a function of how many people are using that tower. If you aren't getting enough you add towers, simple as that. It just costs money and the cell companies find it's more profitable to throttle than upgrade their network. Throttling your internet/cellphone is free, so long as everyone does it to prevent competition.
This.
Your gigabit network is nice and all, but this conversation is about phones.
The only imitation on phone is data rate.
Bandwidth is trivially addressed by cell density. NTT happily addressed this in Japan Circa 1998 or so by increasing cell density. For each increase in cell density, the radius containing devices an existing cell has to service is reduced. For something lice a femto-cell, or business femto cells, such as those on they ceilings of the conference rooms, offices, and hallways at Google and Apple, the effective load for a given cell is a couple of devices each, at most.
Is this because you can't multiple 60 x 60 and get 3600, and then divide it by 10 to get 360, and don't understand that the factor 10 should be used instead of the factor 8 due to the way CSMA/CD transports encode 8 bits?
Or are you just bad at math?
that takes 5 GB per month?
do you HAVE to stream entire movies and music to it?
why not copy stuff to its storage and maybe save some wireless bandwidth?
Maybe Verizon FIOS is his hem provider, and either way, he hits a dumb ass Verizon data cap because they've gotten state laws passed to prevent cities from building their own infrastructure?
I think $10/GB would be reasonable considering that they charge $30 for 3GB.
I think $10/GB is ridiculous; in South Korea, you can buy 1Gbit/s for $20/month - which would take you about 10 seconds to hit $10.
Given that there are 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in an hour, that's about $360/hour, or $8,460/day, or to put it another way, a quarter of a million dollars for February, and more than that for other months with more days in them.
Tell me again why they are selling other people's packets as if they were metering water, as opposed to renting us pipes for those packets based on pipe diameter, and getting the hell out of the way otherwise?
Netflix is perhaps the most ruthless corporation to have ever existed. They will stop at absolutely nothing to dominate the economy. In a year or two stopping them will be impossible. We must act now, otherwise it will be too late.
Why? Does their player mine Bitcoins for the Winklevii in the background while playing movies?
Reminds me of the stories of panhandlers begging at intersections
who get picked up by their chauffeurs at the end of the day to go back
to their mansions.
You mean complete imaginary bullshit made up by and propagated by greedy
sociopaths eager to rationalize their abandonment of their fellow man?
Especially these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
So the channel itself... has the diffraction, scattering, and beam spread of an unchanneled beam.
The beams making the channel are channeled by themselves, they create filaments that self-focus the beam. Self-focusing beams in air have been pretty well established at this point and will go quite far if you have enough power because of the attenuation involved.
So, what you just said is that the beams self-channel anyway.
So, if beams self-channel, this innovation does nothing, right? It's a complicated system of multiple beams to make the beam channel, which is to say, self-focus. But you just told me "self-focusing beams in air have been pretty well established at this point."
air is not transparent
To the extent that air is not transparent, this doesn't work.
and does cause beam scattering.
This does not address beam scattering. If the air is scattering the laser beam, it still scatters the beam.
by creating a refractive channel like this they absolutely will reduce beam dispersion.
It would reduce beam spread... except that the beams that create the channel are not themselves channeled.
obviously it doesn't eliminate beam spread
on this we agree
but even a fiber channel perfectly designed for a single mode will have some diffusion so whats your point?
My point is that from a surface-level analysis, it doesn't do anything useful.
they may be able to increase snr by 10^4 over current technologies at 100 m. that's a serious improvement that shouldn't simply be dismissed so thoughtlessly.
Let me repeat. The beams that create the channel are not themselves channeled. So the channel itself... has the diffraction, scattering, and beam spread of an unchanneled beam. The net result can't be better than an unchanneled beam, because it is made out of an unchanneled beam.
Predicted the 1960's (Kerr-induced self-focusing: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab... ), and it was a big part of SDI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... and was again applied to space-to-ground weapons systems in 2009: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab...
It was ale demonstrated at LLNL in 2009: http://www.researchgate.net/pu... and 2010: http://www.researchgate.net/pu...
What's new about this one is that they've renamed the tunnel as the desired artifact, rather than describing it in beams going down the tunnel.
I'm puzzled as to what this does or what it's good for, exactly.
... they have turned thin air into an "optical fiber" that can transmit and amplify light signals without the need for any cables.
1. Air already transmits light signals. It's transparent.
2. They haven't mentioned anything about amplifying light signals. This would be hard.
So, they are creating a "pipe" that can transmit light... but it doesn't stop beam spread (since the beams that make up the "pipe" still have diffraction-limited beam spread), and it can't bend light around corners. So, they now have a pipe that will funnel a laser beam along the path made by other laser beams, which take it exactly the same path that the beam would go without the pipe...
Specifically, states like California are now trying to reclassify temporary employees as permanent in order to collect additional tax revenue. This happened with Apple before, and they also now have a 6 month rule. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Microsoft is particularly sensitive to the issue, given that it was a lawsuit against them that triggered the whole idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
So this has nothing to do with the laid off employees (unless they are laying off contractors first, which is pretty common, if they can).
This is unconstitutional under the fourth amendment.
There is no difference between this type of search and a Writ of Assistance, which is precisely one of the reasons that the U.S. Constitutions Fourth Amendment was written.
"...vindication of Gov. Jerry Brown's..."
Great reason right there to not pick California.
How's that high speed rail construction project that was voted down by Californians 3 times with a large enough margin that it's a pretty clear shout of "Hell No!" each of the times it was vote on, that Jerry Brown is going ahead with anyway, working out?
Is it still taking place in a corridor where land is cheap because there's no place to get on or off the damn thing that has any significant population that would constitute the target ridership?
Is it still taking place in an era with no water to support future development potential, because all that water is being shipped down to Los Angeles, which is too lazy to build actual catchement, and just runs all their water off into the ocean, and is too lazy/cheap to build desalination plants powered by the waste heat from Diablo Canyon (which they'd prefer to have shut down, even though it's a zero carbon emission power plant)?
The man is a freaking public policy nightmare spendthrift, not to mention that Texas has no income tax; what moron would build a factory in California? Elon was just being nice when he didn't categorically rule it out when asked.
We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission
