He failed to argue that point.
He failed to argue that point.
Quite a few North American carriers use 2600 MHz (2.6 GHz) spectrum, although that doesn't change your point that much.
My mobile phone in 2001 was a TDMA (digital) phone. And that was 14 years ago.
And every aisle too. Not just on islands.
I think the problem here is that yes, you don't want to waste the time, but you (and few others) are willing to pay what it would really cost to offer fast airborne bandwidth.
A few Mbps are really quite adequate for 99% of the users that *need* in-air connectivity (or simply want it to prevent being bored, like me with IRC and web browsing). If people want to do heavy VNC work or video streaming on board aircraft, they're going to have to pay more than $20 for it. It's that simple.
It does 3G, just not North American 3G, based on the original article's assertations. I did some googling and found nothing to go against this.
Its 3G is 900 and 2100 MHz - neither band is used in North America (excepting isolated areas like St. Pierre and Miquelon).
This phone simply doesn't support the North American 3G/"4G" bands. The phone would need different radio hardware to support North American 3G.
This Ubuntu phone will work on AT&T and T-Mobile's 2G GPRS/EDGE networks, but not their 3G/"4G" UMTS/HSPA networks and not their LTE networks. In other words... it will work, but data will be very slow.
But if I recall correctly, using the Metro from Charles de Gaulle airport isn't a very simple matter either.
London, on the other hand, has a really simple trip out from Heathrow on the Piccadilly line.
Domestic and Canada. I've flown to Toronto from LaGuardia.
The largest Canadian airports have US preclearance, so you clear before you leave Canada. Smaller Canadian airports with US service still have passengers clear customs and immigration at the American airport where they land.
Some Caribbean, Irish, and Middle Eastern airports have US preclearance too but as far as I know, none of these airlines serve LaGuardia.
That's a shame. That would likely have been a Western Electric 302, and they're highly collectible now.
I doubt most Americans know this. (Some do, for sure.)
In the cool and dark, colour film will last a long time - my earliest colour photos were taken in the 1970s and 1980s and are still doing well. It's a pity we lost Kodachrome; it's probably good for a century. But we did lose it.
That having been said, separate black and white rolls each shot with a different colour channel would be very archival. If correctly processed and kept dry and cool, they are probably good for 100-200 years minimum.
1965? Paper. Analog LPs. Reel-to-reel tape (if you can find a tape player; they're around but hard to find). Some really old audio Compact Cassettes (for which players are still easy to find). But most importantly... motion picture film and still photos on film and photographic paper.
Even if you didn't have a projector, you could look at a movie film and see what it was about. You could fashion a projector, or scan the images and assemble them digitally. Film is pretty cool that way.
Egotist: A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me. -- Ambrose Bierce