Why can't the iPhone have a ATSC chip inside it?

Standard ATSC (8VSB) actually doesn't perform very well when the receiver is in motion. Multipath is bearable for static receivers, but the addition of motion and doppler shift hammers the resulting signal strength.

There's actually an ATSC addendum to deal with this - ATSC-M/H - but to the best of my knowledge it has never been widely implemented. Of course even if it was, I'm not sure if Apple would want to spend the space on the receiver and the antenna (UHF is fine, VHF is not).

No this is Google favoring new standards before some browsers are quite ready for it.

Just to add to this, 60fps works fine in Internet Explorer 11 and in Safari as well. In fact both have supported it for some time. Of the major browsers, at this point Firefox is the odd man out.

It's like that because of the artificial restrictions placed on upload speeds by the DOCSIS and ADSL protocols.

Huh? There's nothing artificial about it in the case of DOCSIS. Cable was originally designed to multicast video using a shared medium. Putting Internet on top of that is a very clever hack, but it doesn't get around some of the fundamental assumptions and designs of the system.

To download data from the node to the user you merely need to put it on one (or more) 6MHz channels, and the user's modem picks up packets destined for it while rejecting the rest. It's functionally no different from cable television; if you can get a clean TV signal on any given channel, then you can receive packets.

However uploading data is an entirely different beast. The cable infrastructure was not initially designed for 2 way communication, as it was optimized for one strong node/head-end talking to many clients. The importance of that being only one device had to do the talking, and that it could do so loudly to make up for signal degredation. However once you're talking about clients uploading, you now have to deal with signal and scheduling issues. Long story short, the only practical way to do that from a signal integrity standpoint is to use a lower bandwidth, more error tolerant encoding scheme (QAM64 up vs. QAM256 down), and furthermore you have to do it in the lowest frequencies because higher frequencies attenuate too much.

The net result is that while you potentially have 100 downstream channels, you only have around a dozen upstream channels. Which operate at a lower bandwidth and have to be shared among many clients. Consequently you simply cannot do a symmetrical network over cable due to the benefits and drawbacks of the shared medium. The laws of physics get the final say here.

Okay, I'll bite on the clickbait subject. How again is this News For Nerds?

Barrier? I think the word you're looking for is "threshold" or even "mark."

It's not a barrier unless there's some property that allows you to hit 999GHz but not 1THz, which in turn requires extraordinary effort to surmount.

Just because you have achieved something new does not mean you have broken a barrier. At best you have broken the English language..

There is debate as to how much money the broadcasters will get in compensation, but there clearly isn't anyone looking out for the OTA viewer. I like some broadband too but this is the new titan fighting the old titan...

The problem is that both OTA TV and mobile communications are good - but not great - uses of limited wireless spectrum, so you have to weigh the pros and cons of each rather than having one or another that's an obvious better use.

OTA is a one-to-many transmission, making efficient use of the spectrum, but the transmitters and receivers are basically fixed devices. Mobile communication on the other hand is truly mobile, but it's one-to-one transmission. Neither is the ideal use case - one-to-many mobile - so you have to pick between one-to-many or mobile.

But the fact of the matter is that because TVs are fixed device wired is a perfectly viable alternative for them. Whereas a wired cell phone wouldn't be nearly as useful. So you won't find much support for OTA given the fact that most people find mobile communications more useful than OTA television.

Yawn.

No, that is an anarchist society: no cops, no courts, no laws. If you have any of those, you have government employees. If you don't have government employees, you have none of those. Capitalism does not imply anarchy.

I won't even read the rest of your comment; an anonymous coward getting this fundamentally obvious thing so clearly wrong doesn't deserve more of a response.

Yes, my view of things is that we should rely on reason and evidence. Yours is that we should rely on fallacies and innuendo.

I see. You think the number of prosecutions of the executive branch, BY the executive branch, is a reasonable measurement between administrations of which is more corrupt.

That's so cute. And it's so stupid that it physically hurts.

The rest of your comment was nothing more than lies and ad hominems. Literally, there was nothing else in that comment that didn't fall into that category. Especially your claim that speaking to my assumed "culture, ancestry, location of birth" in your argument is not an ad hominem. That's fucking textbook ad hominem.

Since you didn't say how the examples "suck," the examples therefore still stand, and therefore your assertion that they are "just like the rest" -- which ignores the examples of how they are not -- is baseless, and ignored.

Much moreso than Republicans, as the examples -- which remain undisputed -- demonstrate.

Ad hominem.

Non sequitur.

What's that got to do with whether "people who 'donate' to political campaigns ... expect a return on their investments?"

And you did tell me that I am "full of shit" ... but you've not backed it up. Still waiting.

a. He is not my idol
b. You're lying that Regan's is "[o]n official record as the most corrupt administration ever"

Didn't you used to better at this? Maybe I am misremembering.

I didn't mention donating to campaigns, unless you're referring to collective bargaining leading to politicians giving handouts to employees in exchange for donations and votes ... which is obviously true, which is one of many reasons I say Democrats are more anti-capitalist.

But I don't think you're talking about that, so I don't have any idea what you think I said here, but it seems to me that I didn't say it.

Yes, he accepts donations, like all politicians do.

What's wrong with that? This isn't an argument, it's just an attempt to imply something negative, without actually saying anything that is actually negative.

I gave specific examples. Do you have any counterexamples? If not, then you're not actually making an argument here, either.

False.

You're correct on the first point, and incorrect on the second point. There would be far fewer government employees, but no, they would still exist.

But I didn't say these are the correct capitalist positions. I said they are "much more pro-capitalist" than the Democrats. Clearly, if there should be no minimum wage under capitalism -- which I agree is clearly true -- then being against its increase is more pro-capitalist than being in favor of its increase. Further, the one person I mentioned -- Scott Walker -- said just recently that he thinks the minimum wage serves no purpose.

Yes, the GOP -- as a whole -- does pay off its cronies. But there are a significant number of prominent Republicans in office who oppose these practices (e.g., Scott Walker). There is not a significant number of Dems who oppose these practices. Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).

So ... no, the GOP is significantly more pro-capitalist than the Dems. Very clearly and easily. They are not, however, as pro-capitalist as I am, or Scott Walker is, etc.

Just out of curiosity, what is it you can't find? I agree that finding stuff within Steam is hard, but I've yet to have Google fail me. Is it a really common word, or something along those lines?