Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The issue is not title 2 (Score 1) 115 115

The problem is the last mile is a natural monopoly of sorts. If you have been to other countries you will often see telephone poles thick with wires from many companies. Abandoned wires from defunct companies, companies "accidently" damaging other cables, and generally a giant mess. That is the effect of a completely deregulated last mile.

A single fiber plant is that middle ground. For it to be fair everybody has to pay the same per wavelength and those proceeds have to go solely to maintaining/paying for the plant. Plenty of ways to structure that so it's not a potential hidden tax or discriminatory to a specific provider. An all optical plant means any company can put pretty much whatever tech they want, the last mile plant has nothing smart hell nothing that even needs power. Fiber from the 70's would serve just as well as fiber from today with no breakthroughs that look to change that basic fact. 80gbps is today's cheap bandwidth on a given pair (8x 10gbps) and 2.4tbps (24x 100gbps) with purely passive optics in the last mile.

A pipe per provider is self limiting as for each provider you need yet another pipe. A tunnel might fit the bill with similar issues to poles and is massively expensive up front. A single plant reduced the friction of a new provider to servicing the area. More providers means more competition. It also lends itself to meta providers to provide the rest of the infrastructure and backhaul (similar to today's DSL resellers just hopefully less broken).

Comment Re:The issue is not title 2 (Score 1) 115 115

You're missing the point one pair to the CO per residence/office/building should suffice now and long into the future. Having the muni own the last mile let's providers enter a market without a massive build out. That increases competition which is good for the consumers.

Companies wasting space happens, it's an issue now in shared settings. You have at least a short term advantage to consume everything available so that your competitor has a longer build out time etc etc.

Comment Re:The issue is not title 2 (Score 1) 115 115

Why ipe in the ground fiberoptics from the 70's will carry that same 80+ gbps as what you install today. Not quite as far but no real matter.

Pipe have problems they get full, companies will relay the same infrastructure but in gear on poles to make it cheaper and less reliable. It starts to be a competitive advantage to have them full so the next guy can not put his own in place or have to wait. The last mile needs to be unified and firmly under muni control. Once you get to the CO it's trivial to throw a big bundle to your own space and not have to live by the CO rules and have the muni cross patch you in the CO. Now nothing says the muni can not outsource the maintenance etc of the fiber plant either. It simply needs to maintain a even and fair connection to any that care to provide services.

Oh sure companies will complain say they will not serve the market etc etc.

Comment Re:The issue is not title 2 (Score 2) 115 115

Only 10gbps get a dark fiber run and you can cost effectively get to 80gbps via a cwdm passive mux.

We should be decoupling provider services and the last mile with an all passive all optical last mile. Providers can meet at the CO (or backhaul or pay others to backhaul) and hand off a CDWM channel to the muni. Macsec encryption can keep the muni from sniffing anything. If the muni is smart it rolls out muni access. Throw in IPv6 and it become easy to have a single router send things across the muni next vs their transit provider since using the closest match is a basic ipv6 function. So the muni gets a /32 or whatever thats 4 billion subnets and we can give out 4 billion of those. Now everybody has basic access to public services schools etc. Businesses pay a couple of line fee's to get a leased line in town well less than 100 a month for a 10ge to an expansion office or provider.

Comment Re:Does this work for any phone? (Score 1) 88 88

Open dots it's not wireless rather a contact layout.

http://www.eetimes.com/documen... it pretty clear at this point the only one with any market penetration is Qi.

VL-Bus predated PCI to market being the way to connect vid cards in the 486 days, PCI come out with the pentiums. SCSI was better and still is better, servers are still using SAS and most SATA devices use the SCSI protocol over the SATA bus. I can not think of a case where parallel ports vs usb was a choice maybe later generation zip drives.

In any event I do not see a whole lot of public wireless charging ports. Starbucks being the big one but they are using the powermat devices.

Comment Re:...actually that's kinda cool. (Score 1) 88 88

Still want a VoIP desk phone with a Qi charger, bluetooth cellphone and headset connectivity. Something where I could charge my phone, use the better handset/speakerphone of my VoIP phone and a bluetooth headset. A perfect world would also allow multiple phone ringing for inbound calls, some contact sync, and possibly calendar/task sync as well.

Comment Re:Does this work for any phone? (Score 4, Informative) 88 88

It is Qi so most will work it's pretty much the winner. It's only 1080P (ish since it uses AMD's sync protocol). It's a PLS panel so none of the IPS goodness.

Pretty much is a fairly meh monitor with a qi charging puck shoved into the base they are literally a few bucks added to the BOM.

Plenty of people have modded bases, keyboard, desks etc etc etc to add qi charging this is just a cheap gimmick to try and make a meh monitor look cool.

Comment Re:Free speech isn't the only right in play here (Score 1) 298 298

The restriction was prior restraint of a particular speaker. Insuring you have adequate security, cleanup insurance etc is fine.

Oh I would say the event people intended to have the cops stop it for the PR value rather than going to the courts in the first place.

Comment Re:Under what authority? (Score 0) 298 298

Why should the state be allowed to put such restrictions on permits??? If the fugitive showed up they should arrest him possibly some of the event team for aiding and abetting (though that is a broken law). This is the state restricting speech on public property.

Comment How about those backdoors (Score 1) 80 80

Exploits that were watermarked to the client that your sold them to.

These are not tools that should ever be in police hands. Requiring that outside firms do this sort of thing and thus need to keep the paper trail of warrants that allowed each and every event. Require that they be audited and a special prosecutor look into any apparent/potential breaches of law and prosecute them to the full extent (no plea deals). Require that all security vulnerabilities be disclosed to the public in 30-90 days. Tighten up these warrants in the first place and full public disclosure of the same after a reasonable investigatory period say 90 days.

The NSA etc should have these tools and a very big firewall between them and law enforcement.

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored power tools.

Working...