You're right, but also somewhat wrong.

"Raw capacity" is indeed quite expensive. However, the increased speeds of flash have made it possible to provide in-line data reduction services. Data reduction is a widely used term for two techniques: de-duplication and compression. This works on a block level. When the host writes a block, the system will look in its table to see if that block has already been written. If so, it will simply write a pointer. If not, it will be forwarded to the compression engine and stored. In the storage industry, a data reduction ratio of 1:6 is accepted as generally achievable, with higher rates possible on large virtualization clusters. This means that the effect cost per GB is reduced dramatically and even reaches the price of high-end disks. So your 80TB raw capacity array will store ~300TB of data, depending on the data reduction ratio.

On top of that, since flash performs so well, other features such as continuous data protection by (a)synchronous replication are possible with very little performance degradation.

If you still doubt this technology, go have a look at the technological advances in hard drives, versus the technological advances of flash in the last 5 years. Hard drive vendors have very little to innovate while flash/rram are at the lower end of a hockey stick figure when it comes to innovation and price reduction. Within the next 5 years, flash/rram will replace disk, both in the enterprise as well as the consumer market.

I'd love to see your all-disk array do 2M IOPS, something that all flash arrays are capable of today. Again, at the price that (with dedupe and compression) comes darn close to your disks. Even legacy storage vendors are increasingly investing in solid state technology. Investing in disk is equal to investing in Greek government bonds.

I'm not sure either but if so then I sure hope that the developers of the Blackphone took precautions against that. I do agree with you that it could be a potential exploitable hole: very bad indeed!

Why not just go full SSD? Spinning disks are an aging and soon-to-be obsolete technology. Especially with 3D NAND and RRAM coming up, and SSD prices coming down.

It looks like that what you're quoting concerns spyware on the SIM card, not the underlying OS on the phone/tablet.

In this discussion, the software running on the SIM card would be similar to the firmware on your cable modem. It no longer matters that your neighbors can see your traffic as long as everything you transmit is properly secured and encrypted.

Doesn't matter. The SIM card works on the network level. The data (voice or data) is encrypted prior to transmission onto the network layer so a compromised SIM card is no problem.

Facebook for Google employees :)

Very fair points.

I think what we need to do is to create a public last-mile infrastructure, and let the rest up to the market. This works great in Europe, why wouldn't it work fine in the U.S.?

Yes. Totally agree there. And that shouldn't be a problem either: on the last mile there is no oversubscription or other type of bandwidth issue.

In some European countries, this is happening. The incumbent telcos have to allow competitor ISPs to colocate DSLAMs in their street cabinets against reasonable fees. The small ISP will then be able to use the copper wire connecting the CPE equipment directly to their own DSLAM.

I wish this was possible in my community here. I'd be the first one to start an ISP.

How a network was a acquired, is irrelevant. If I own a network, it is mine to do whatever I choose to do with it. If I want to throw everything on a big pile and burn it, that is my right (well, apart from the environmental consequences).

My network, my rules. And if you don't agree, don't get on my network.

Having that said, you should read my comment again. The whole point of my comment is that the FCC should make it easier for YOU to make that choice. YOU should be able to have a choice to switch to a competitor of mine who has rules that favor you instead of another company. The FCC is making it extremely difficult for me to start an ISP. I would love to quit my job and start an ISP that focuses on providing the best customer experience for a reasonable price, but it is virtually impossible to do so.

Net Neutrality rules are nothing more than forcing you to go to McDonalds every day, but at least they tell McDonalds that they can't take payment from Pepsico to make it impossible for you to have a Coke Zero with your meal.

I don't need the government for any of that.

You have a very distorted sense of reality. I don't need anything from the government. I am saying that the government should stop taking something away, that is the right of me choosing in whatever way I wish to operate my own goddamn network. The government has no business in telling me what to do on my network.

Oh really? I believe that Net Neutrality rules specifically tell an operator how to configure their networks. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain QoS configurations. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain policing/metering configurations. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use influence the routing of traffic within their network.

The government has no business telling me how to run my network.

I am not. I am pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro pot legalization and against religious influences on the government. But I am an expert in the field of networking.

They provide internet access. The fact that it isn't fast enough for you doesn't mean they don't.

The whole point of my argument is that the FCC should not be regulating an operator's network operations, but to enable a competitive playing field so that YOU can vote with your money and take your business elsewhere. That is what the FCC should do.

Net neutrality is nothing but a bandage on a bullet wound.

This is the real problem.

So-called "Net Neutrality" is a nothing but a bandage on a bullet wound, for two main reasons.

First of all, most internet users in the US of A have little choice between carriers. It's either cable, dsl or satellite. The cable market will be given to company A, and if lucky, company B for dsl. It is virtually impossible to start a new ISP under current regulations. This means that there is little to no incentive for incumbent operators to upgrade their networks.

In an ideal world, networks and subscriber access have sufficient bandwidth to accommodate all users. Yes, consumer cable/DSL will be oversubscribed a bit, but that will leave plenty of bandwidth for regular services, assuming a decent operator network. This is the real problem of the U.S. internet access market.

The second reason why I'm strongly against these regulations is that the government should keep its busy nose out of private companies' networks. If build a network, it is up to me to operate it the way I want to. If a subscriber does not like the way I operate my network, they are (should be) free to go elsewhere. Which is the part that is broken in the U.S.

So, what the FCC should really focus on is not so much the whining of Netflix regarding available ports on public peering exchanges, but to open up the broadband market to more competition. Works in Europe, works in Asia, works in Canada. Does not work in Mother Russia, for obvious reasons (in Russia, KGB^H^H^H internet connects to you).

In short, because the FCC is so defunct that they're unable to regulate a healthy competitive market, they force their big fat butt on the seat of the CEOs of current companies and tell them how to operate their networks.

No, not entirely. At some point you'll have to land the aircraft. And if the operator fails, the aircraft will land itself. Potentially on my head. Potentially with propellers spinning at 3000+ RPM. Crabbing is relevant, and so are RPM and weight.