Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Wow. (Score 1) 170

"Wrong. The "TFA" is wrong. That's why that article is doing such a disservice to its readers. The CSAT algorithm in LTE-U small cells first begins by listening for other Wi-Fi access points transmitting in its vicinity. It is in fact able to listen not just to "energy" being transmitted on a given frequency - it is in fact able to receive and decode Wi-Fi beacons. If it find a channel with no existing occupants, it'll just use it. But if it has to share, it listens to determine the number of existing occupants. Then it transmits for only its portions of the time. And during its "off" cycle, it listens again to determine if there are new Wi-Fi access points that came online, and automatically reduces its share of the air time the next time around. So not only does it check initially, it checks continually for other occupants, to keep things fair."

This was not the case the CableLabs study which did indeed use a commercial implementation. Further, listen before talk in LTE-U is only now being a proposed as part of the standard. There are vendor specific implementations that already have this, but the standard does not and did not when the tests were done.

Comment Re:WTF Are you on about? (Score 2) 170

No, you cannot. Part 15 has some very specific language about intentional interference. You might want to read the regulations before pointing a dish at someone else's tower without having another dish to receive it on the other side. I'd further say that using a dish is about the worst way to do this, since the signal would be highly concentrated at the ranges you can legally push 2.4 GHz (~60 dBm) it will be very obvious that you're intentionally interfering with someone else's signal.

Comment Re:Cable company propaganda (Score 1) 170

The central problem is that WiFi is a "listen first" protocol while LTE is centrally scheduled. That means at full duty cycles, this was the worst case assumption the CableLabs study worked off of, that LTE-U absolutely degrades WiFi performance substantially. The counter claims were that LTE is seldom at full duty cycles is true, but only on towers that are lightly loaded. A busy tower will have a full or nearly full duty cycle in its licensed bands and there's no reason to imagine that the same won't be true for the unlicensed bands.

Comment Re:Idiots (Score 1) 221

Microwave is faster than fiber.

That's only true of the over the air rate, which matters a lot when you're talking about one hop, but isn't worth anything when you have to repeat the signal. The kind of network proposed would be several orders of magnitude worse than what we have at present because each radio repeater would increase latency more than the total injected in the much longer fiber runs.

Comment Re:Infrastructure yes, service no (Score 1) 536

Sysadmins know almost nothing about MSO operations, unless you've worked for an operator. Just because you've worked on a low end Cisco router and a few nix boxes doesn't give you any insight into how DOCSIS cable systems works. I know, I had to go through that learning curve myself when DOCSIS 1.0 came out and I looked at the modem and thought, "It's just a bridge, how complicated can it be..."

Comment Re:actual "platform" (Score 2) 668

It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.

It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.

So you've done a cost analysis on the comparative costs of life line subsidizes cost on wireline versus wireless systems then? Do you even know why we subsidize lifeline phone service? Here's a hint, because its cheaper than not doing it. Also, (since you've done your research) you know its funded by Universal Service Funds and not from taxation or the general appropriations fund. Since you know all of this I'll provide these links for the less informed following the conversation.

The specific savings report of wireless over wireline:

Comment Re:actual "platform" (Score 1) 668

That's what people call it.

We should keep throwing away money because:
- it's more than 10 years old?
- it was started under Ronald Reagan?
- it's not officially called ObamaPhone by government officials who tell us what we can and can't call things?

How about if we stop wasting money on this program regardless of when it started and regardless of what it might be called? How about if we don't hire the government to take our neighbors' money to provide for free mobile phones?

This is a specific example, only offered because a specific example was requested. There are lots of possible examples. This is one of them.

How about you do some fucking research and find out WHY the program was created in the first place, which is its LESS expensive than the other subsidized life line programs.

Comment Re:Compatibility (Score 4, Informative) 510

Odds are they don't make your games... so no.

Actually, they are already compatible or at least playable via the home streaming feature. "In-home Streaming
You can play all your Windows and Mac games on your SteamOS machine, too. Just turn on your existing computer and run Steam as you always have - then your SteamOS machine can stream those games over your home network straight to your TV!"

How good that experience will be remains to be seen :)

Comment Re:And it's in Japan (Score 1) 268

I think your figures are looking at metro areas, not cities -- Wikipedia says NY population density is 27,550/sq mi (10,640/km2),

Those vast areas of nothingness don't really matter if you're rolling out fiber to a city, you don't have to roll out fiber to Kansas if you are rolling it out in New York City.

Except, the metro areas ARE important, in fact much more important that the city boundaries. Your position that the cities matter is simply incorrect since that's not how telco territories are mapped or operated in large metropolitan areas. Cable franchises are often by the city, but all of the major operators group their franchises together and will only start operations where they can get large chunks of contiguous territory, ie metropolitan areas.

The two most common things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison