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.

This.

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?

You are 100% right, antisemitism is a very real and very awful thing, but so is Israeli apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy).

A few Israeli soldiers are refusing to serve and can get away with saying everything that needs to be said. (Well they can get away without being called antisemitic, but they are going to jail for it): http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I have the luxury of being friends with people who believe in different religions (including Islam and Judaism), and there is nothing about the religions or the people that prevent peaceful coexistence and friendship. When religious beliefs seem to be a factor in this conflict, I think they are being manipulated for political ends.

The thing that commenters over at Ars haven't picked up on - this patent is only infringed if the customer wears the headphones without playing music. Noise cancellation with added music - OK, there's prior art for that. Turn the music off - it becomes patentable technology.

The claim states that Bose is on the hook because their documentation states that you can use the headphones without music for noise cancellation only, which induces their customers to infringe Bose's patents.

How is that legit? How can not adding music create a patentable technology?

Not at all!

But as it currently stands, Comcast's customers are paying Comcast to delver the data from Netflix at up to the speed the customer is paying for. For Comcast to help fund Netflix' expansion so that they could better support Comcast's customers' demands might, just "might," be reasonable. For Comcast to hold Netflix to ransom is certainly not.

Hrmmm...choose the business model that makes them money or the one that bankrupts them? That isn't a choice so yes they are in fact barred from doing it. Just because you and I want it doesn't mean they can afford to do it. So your use of banned vs barred financially is a red herring. Sorry you don't like the truth and you think you can change the truth by choosing a different word to describe it but it doesn't in fact change anything. Disney, Viacom, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon, et al are all cartels with too much power but in this argument Disney has more power than Comcast and Comcast has to pay the piper to keep the power they have. I hope this changes soon but I'm sure as hell not holding my breath.

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 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?

If you build it and it costs less than 6 figures USD, you will drown in customers. It would not be used primarily for multicast at first, it would be used to get BGP working better, but every major ISP would want your router.

Correctly done P2P sends traffic through the best route, typically from someone on the same ISP as the recipient and preferably from the same neighbourhood. That lowers total load a lot. Most current P2P networks do not particularly worry about optimal routing; they are much more constrained by traffic shaping or (often artificially) limited last-mile upstream capacity. It would be fairly easy to give priority to low-latency peers.

Besides, P2P can solve the problem of subscribers not watching at exactly the same time. Multicast breaks as soon as someone presses pause.

What they should be doing is being honest and not calling it unlimited, and charging a reasonable amount for overage (not $10/gb!).

Solution: Don't lie and call it unlimited. The point is that customers are paying for something Verizon calls "unlimited" which is not actually unlimited. The customers contracts are up so they can put those customers on other plans, the problem is when they still call the altered plan "unlimited."

So then Verizon turns to their customers and says "oh you want the Netflix package? Thats $20 more per month than our basic service"

Werent you guys just arguing that ISP's shouldn't be allowed to do that? But now you are arguing that they should be forced to do it?

You win at failed reading comprehension...