Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Benefits of LTE-U? (Score 1) 156

There's a difference of perspective between two groups of people. On one side you have user's of Wi-Fi for Internet access, as well as amateur radio operators. Then you have corporate interests, particularly the cellular carriers. The former are given over to the belief that the unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4 and 5GHz band were set aside for their use while the latter having fat wallets can "buy their own damn spectrum". After all they wouldn't share their's even if asked "pretty please." Then you have the latter group for whom think they can take advantage of whatever law and regulation allow.

I personally fall into the former camp, as does probably a large majority of people here. When we hear of such things as LTE-U the first things that comes to mind, tend to follow along the line of "hell no" and "greedy {expletive}s are trying to steal from us again." Given the prices we pay for cellular service, it's a bit of a sore point. Quite frankly I think deservedly so. It's also hard to not be skeptical that this would only be deployed at convention centers, malls, and the like and that it would be kept to the power levels allowed to unlicensed operators. We hear all the time the desire to switch to micro-cells. Further whose to say these guys wouldn't find a way to get an amateur operator license while they're at it and use amplifiers.

Comment Re:It's not what Google wants.... (Score 1) 326

You're missing it. Apple's product requires third-party implementations to make up the difference. Google's product has it built in. As far as I can tell, my Q50's electronics for instance are a cobbled together mess of a few different OEMs, with an Infiniti badged facade wrapped around them. Android Auto, eliminates the bug prone piecemeal approach in favor of a common and inclusive platform. This makes it easier to maintain and secure, provides user's a broader eco-system of on board apps, and allows the car manufacturers to focus on what they know and do best.

Comment Re:It's not what Google wants.... (Score 1) 326

That's funny and all, however this information does provide benefit to a variety of stakeholders, including the vehicle occupants. For Google's side, among I'm sure others, is real world data sets pertaining to how people drive their cars. This information is rather handy in developing safer autopilot capable cars. In exchange users are given services--as is Google's business model--that provide customer benefits. Vehicle diagnostics, personalized route planning, infotainment, teen/valet driver nannies, etc..

Comment Re:Benefits of LTE-U? (Score 1) 156

In the contexts for which I am familiar there is a bit of a difference. They are offering communication services wherein little to no contention exists. Take the local coffee shop for instance. Their Wi-Fi hotspot--which are usually free anyway--is the only available means of getting on the Internet unless you have a cellular modem and a supporting data plan. The same goes for airports, airplanes, city buses, commuter trains, etc. even if they charge a fee to connect it is a wholly fair use. Moreover, they rely upon the same communication technology/protocols, i.e. 802.11{x}

LTE-U on the other hand--a restricted access, data plan consuming, aggressive protocol--would occupy areas already being used by personal, even commercial (coffee house) Wi-Fi. In the cases such as hotels that attempted to restrict the functioning of mobile hot spots you better believe people were crying foul. LTE-U has the makings of being the same wolf with a different sheepskin. It steals public park land for the country club. If the roles were reversed and the blue collar folks tried to "jump the fence" there would be huge fines and probably jail time.

Comment Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA (Score 2) 156

Ok, I'll bite. Regardless of duty cycling, and/or other forms of "mitigation" I fail to see how occupying the same frequencies as our Wi-Fi routers can do anything other than steal capacity. Further it is reported that LTE-U is more aggressive than Wi-Fi at grabbing open air time--shorter backoff period--meaning that where there is contention, it won't even play fair. In locations with already high-contention--like apartments, this sounds like a very unpalatable cocktail, enough to make Wi-Fi so slow as to be unusable. What are we missing?

Comment Re:VW Diesel's do have low polluting exhaust ... (Score 1) 203

For a certain technology it "can only go so far." If we want cleaner systems, and what is being offered isn't able to meet the challenge that doesn't mean the standard needs to be weakened. It means the system being employed needs to be evolved/replaced. In short we throw the requirements at the engineers and they come up with a new solution.

Comment Re:You're Very Wrong (Score 1) 381

You are incorrect. You will increasingly be incorrect. Geo-location services based upon IP are available. However, they are not always accurate. For instance, ISPs hand out IPs as assigned to their network operations center. Your proper location is lost at the first NAT you encounter. For a time I lived in the back of beyond rural Wisconsin. My only choice for internet was a satellite link via Hughes. Their NOC was located in Atlanta IIRC and the IP address I was assigned cause me to have content tailored for that geographic area. In the present there exists an increasing lack of IPv4 addresses that I suspect will force a redistribution of unused addresses in non-traditional ways as well as increasing layers of NATs.

"The urge to destroy is also a creative urge." -- Bakunin [ed. note - I would say: The urge to destroy may sometimes be a creative urge.]