Anonymous Coward wrote:
Since Cellular is the only way I can get Internet at home
That can be changed. Consensus from the last story is that you need to set up Internet service as a condition of the purchase of a house.
There is no technical reason why password length should be restricted
Other than that a user has to finish accurately typing the passphrase on a mobile device's on-screen keyboard before the CSRF key for the login form times out.
someone who physically possesses the token has three guesses of my unlocking passphrase before the token locks itself forever and zeroes out the stored keyfile
If fat-fingering your passphrase thrice will make your data permanently inaccessible, then you better have damn good backups and a damn good data plan with which to restore them when and where you need your data.
Except for pages accessed via SSL
Which means that once your favorite sites adopt HSTS, Data Saver becomes useless.
Then the problems are that 1. too many offenses are arrestable, and 2. too many people arrested for whistleblowing are given prison terms.
Just not over RF broadcasts.
Then all the bad guys have to do to deny you freedom of speech is deny you wired Internet. This means you have to transmit your Internet connection over RF.
That depends on whether the Crichton estate or Amblin/Universal decides to "accidentally" this project.
Sat if you just need data.
Exede.com says satellite caps are similar to those of LTE.
I mean, what kind of cool inventions have come out of Australia lately?
An anonymous comment mentioned Wi-Fi. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is responsible for at least a dozen other inventions.
Is it still an "oral contract" if you recorded the call, including the notice that it may be recorded for quality assurance purposes? Under federal law, 17 USC 101, a sound recording is considered "fixed in a tangible medium".
In order to get the same level of service that Comcast provides in those areas that Comcast serves, an LTE provider would charge $1,500 per month. That's 300 GB per month, the cap that Comcast applies to home customers in at least some areas, times $5 per GB.
Comcast does indeed have competitors
Whose offerings are cost prohibitive. AT&T and Verizon are wireless ISPs, and wireless ISPs in the United States charge $5 per GB or more.
You elected the lawmakers.
Someone who just turned 18 didn't. Someone who voted for a candidate that lost didn't.
Internet over 4G really isn't that expensive
In what way is $5 per GB not "that expensive"?
And if you want to play with one, isn't there one in the school library?
Good luck getting home from school if you use the computer in the school library after school. And good luck getting anything done on a day when school is not in session.
The article is an ad for a subscription VPN. Is a subscription VPN going to be an expected recurring fee for all web users in the near future? And how do you make sure your VPN operator isn't teeing all your data to the NSA?
It is not every question that deserves an answer. -- Publilius Syrus
