Lol! You're telling me that better than listening to someone in person I should record them & put it through a filter?
Sure. If there is background noise, I get it. Two people talking in a quiet room? No way.
If you set the VoIP to low bandwidth requirements (sometimes erroneously marked as low quality), it'll be almost exactly like a POTS line -low latency and low fidelity.
Don't confuse VoIP over the Internet with VoIP over a managed network. You can run G.722 and have high fidelity, and run with 10ms packets and have low latency.
This is voice , not music, so you don't want hi-fi. A restricted frequency range actually makes voice much MORE intelligible because 95% of the intelligibility is in a narrow frequency range. The high and low frequencies are where the unwanted noise is.
Incorrect. High bandwidth audio makes many parts of speech more intelligible. For example, over quality VoIP, I can clearly hear the difference between M and N, where over POTS it can be much harder.
Plus, using the POTS range means your only hearing the harmonics of the real voice. I can't get where you think this would be better than hearing the full voice.
the government shouldn't be giving any money to any corporate interests
*IF* this bill actually did what you say here, I doubt many would be outraged. Yes, it would interfere with some Internet services, but it would also mean that the incumbents must start paying the city back for all right of way they are using at market rates.
It would also mean no more city or state money for the NFL stadiums, tax abatements for any business, etc.
I'm pretty sure most here could get on board with that.
There is no way the gov. authorities could have prevented the problem
Try again:
http://www.wunderground.com/ne...
All they had to do was cancel school that day.
Your point is complete correct & I was aware & agree with you.
However, my point was to the GP who was saying that nothing is obsolete. Hopefully, between the two of us, he will apologize for being so wrong.
Why replace something that is still as functional as the day it was made?
Because it makes the devices I bought yesterday far slower than they are designed to be.
If I have a 802.11b print server on my network, it might work fine. However, when I get home with my new 802.11n laptop & want to get on the web at 50mbit, that obsolete device can slow down my Netflix streaming because it hogs the channel for longer while someone prints to it.
More to the point, a single user in a public Wifi area (stadium, coffee house, etc) with 802.11b would cause EVERYONE to have a slower connection. Their device is now obsolete and should not be permitted on the network.
I think the point is that Cisco would like to ship their products with the slower stuff off, but if they do, they are no longer "Wi-Fi" compliant.
They're asking for a second "Wi-Fi" standard created so they can give the user a faster access point right out of the box & still be compliant with a standard.
I use Cisco wireless at work and Ubiquity at home. I have to say that there is still value for the Cisco products in larger companies.
The Ubnt stuff works OK at home, but there is no way I'd deploy a factory full of them using that java "controller" compared to Cisco's WLCs.
If you're a small business, sure, Ubnt is fine. If you have 300 sites to manage, you want something that can allow a single person to manage all of those networks from one console. The lower headcount can buy a LOT of expensive hardware.
"Below zero" is a turn of phrase that means freezing to 96% of the world's population. It is used in the United States to mean below 0F.
FTFY
So, I'm not following you on Slashdot, but this is the second time I've seen your link to Sue's page.
I have to say, I love the way you continue to tell the world what a special woman she was.
Have you considered using DHCP reservations?
Ever heard of the physics phenomenon where radiation decreases by the square of distance?
Yes, I'm fully aware of the inverse square law.
Wireless power needs to be within a few inches of the power source to work properly.
Well, good for wireless power, but that has absolutely nothing to do with 802.3at, which is a form of power over ethernet.
Ever heard of the 802.3 and how it is different from 802.11? Not every IEEE 802 standard has to do with wireless.
My point is that almost every laptop has an ethernet port. Use that port for both ethernet and power, which reduces the number of ports required and takes advantage of an existing worldwide DC power distribution standard: PoE.
I deploy PoE switches every week.
If you're using a proper switch & power supplies, there is no issue with running PoE+ on every port of the switch.
If you're using some bargain SOHO switch, yes, you might only be able to power 1/3 of the ports a full PoE+ or 1/2 of them at PoE.
An unladen honeybee is about 80mg.
Is that an African or European honeybee?
Seriously, we can do 25.5W on 802.at-2009 NOW. Some vendors are doing 51W by using all 4 pairs.
Yes, I know many of you have laptops that draw almost 200 watts, but most of us don't need over 50W most of the time. If properly designed, the laptop can just "tread water" by slowing or stopping battery drain while drawing 51W during a work session, and then recharge while you're eating lunch or surfing Slashdot.
Imagine hooking your laptop up to power and ethernet at the same time! Single connection, less real estate used up on the exterior.
Just configure the laptop to draw power over the ethernet port, and not only do you not have to worry about a AC to DC brick, but you can travel the world and not have to worry about all the forms of AC power.
You're using a keyboard! How quaint!
