This so much.

The 1990s "broadband" roll-out was a joke. Now 20+ years later rural telcos aren't even trying... they're just letting rural POTS rot until they can cut people off completely. There really should be some mandate to upgrade ALL POTS lines in some fashion to new broadband.

Another consideration from the 1990s and cellular rollouts was that there were no SLAs in place for emergencies. Those "5 nines" service only applied to POTS and not fiber or cellular. Of Telcos create a "new service" will it have resiliency and uptime for ALL the users, or just the profitable ones?

I watched a short review on YouTube and the reviewer really liked it. The main issue was that even small tree branches could block your only visible satellite and service got choppy.

Ok for residential usage, but I wouldn't want that for Work-from-home. But right now for very rural people it's 1000% better than what they got now.

Iâ(TM)m afraid that business to business contracts donâ(TM)t work that way. Apple in particular signs years-long contracts with up-front payments.

This is why Tim is in charge of Apple. Apple wants the hardest to make parts, they pay large sums of money to get in line first. (Not necessarily highly profitable sums for the manufacturers) Suppliers are obligated to deliver Appleâ(TM)s parts on time first... or on-time delivery bonuses stop. When a company buys 1/2 or 2/3 of your yearly output contract law means the suppliers have to make the parts, they canâ(TM)t filtch out or change the prices... they signed a contract thatâ(TM)s legally enforceable. In fact at the scale of companies like Sony, to not honor the contract can be a âoemonopolisticâ infraction as well.

I work for a company (other manufacturing raw materials) and we have multi-year supply contracts that sometimes get difficult to keep profitable on the second or third year when material prices drastically change. We have to deliver the agreed products or the FTC will bang down our door for not honoring our lawfully offered terms. Some years it works in our favor too, when market prices drop and customers have to pay a higher price until their contract is used up... its how business works.

I haven't had problems even if my iPad 2 is slower than others. I did recently have to "hard reset" the whole thing about 4 months ago and that reinstalled the OS from and all the programs from scratch. After that it ran MUCH better, like brand new.

I've been camping on an iPhone 3GS for 4 years. it's been perfectly serviceable.... the main thing I see is that the 256MB ram limit seems to be the bigger problem with apps swapping in an out way too often now that the minimum supported iOS device is 512MB. There's no point bitching about "withheld features" because that's just how things work.

as long as you don't have disasters, wildlife parks are great place for rocket launches. You want a buffer of several miles between the rockets and the rest of humans... which means 80% of the land is left wild like at Kennedy.

Those huge unbalanced numbers like 15/1 tell the tale of utilization right there. The current ISPs are all leeches from the "Internet" they don't PUT CONTENT on the Internet, so nobody wants to pay for more lanes to the highway.

They also don't want upstream because people on their own network could out-host the regular Internet with services just between ISP subscribers... Like blackmarket prison goods!

That gives them 12 hours for the fires and pitchforks to die down... By morning.... ...look waffles!

no they don't. It means they have to have SEPARATE NETWORKS if they want separate protection. In this case an admin from Redmond clearly has ACCESS to those servers in Dublin. So those emails are "controlled" by the US company. The article is unclear on where the CUSTOMER in this case is coming from. I'm thinking that the CUSTOMER is PAYING Microsoft USA to host their email and those just happened to be in Ireland. Microsoft USA is taking the money, so they need to provide the data to the court.

If you want data in other countries to be protected you cannot ACCESS IT from the USA.

but the way email search warrants are enforced is more like a supeona. They COMPEL the EMPLOYEES IDENTIFIED to turn over emails. While this is handled by system administrators, the LAW is focused on the employee and which chair they sit in. So even if you are using email hosted in Iraq, you ACCESSED those emails from your desk in New York and the government expects you to ACCESS those emails again and provide them to the court. The fact that they are in another country is irrelevant.

Consider if you owed somebody money on a car. Sure you could drive the car to Canada where that company cannot go. But the Legal contract you signed was in the USA so they can just lock you in jail for contempt until you tell somebody to Canada and get the car to fulfill the contract. This is a similar ruling. There's nothing "new" legally here other than you can't hide behind a foreign email server.

it's about who is being investigated. If the government is investigating a case against a manager in California, then going to the Legal department in California and requesting those email for that employee who accessed those emails INSIDE CALIFORNIA is perfectly acceptable. This sounds like the attempt was to say the emails were in a server in Ireland so the US government cannot see those. The judge says the manager/employee still has to provide the emails that they had access to because the court ordered the PERSON to provide the emails, not the company in Ireland.

I can see right off the bat what they are trying to pull here. Imagine all the discovery processes that would be screwed over if somebody like Apple could have just moved their email servers for top managers to another country! I mean they get the email at their office in California, but the SERVICE is in Apple Ireland, so the US DOJ cannot discover those. That sounds like what was going on here.

If you have legal ACCESS to it, the court can compel you to PROVIDE it. Just hiding it on a service in another country is not enough to protect it anymore. Clever play, but the courts didn't fall for it.

i think both of Google's founders were smart enough to understand they were GEEKS and not try to run the business themselves. So they went out and got Eric Schmidt, an experienced industry professional to run things for them. Then they got out of the way and spent 10 years "growing up". This let the company and their employees flourish and avoided all those early mistakes Steve Jobs made because he was young and cocky at 25 with tens of millions of dollars.

Now they are grown up and coming back to their company after learning about BUSINESS and have a plan for what they want to do with it. It's not exciting, but very very smart of those guys.

that's because Amazon want to ruin the business of the publishers that scout new writers, pay ADVANCES, providing editing services, provide cover art, provide marketing services, etc...

supply chains only exist BECAUSE of the 30% markup at each step. In manufacturing business the "rule of thumb" is that items manufactured follow a rule of 3's. If I dig up $10 of iron ore and make it into metal bars then I would expect to sell those for $30. If I have a company that takes the metal bars for $30 and makes widgets I would expect to sell those for $90. Finally somebody would paint the widgets and assemble them into a finished product for $270. That's why Auto parts are so expensive individually versus assembled into a finished car.

That is just about what you see in the retail market. If you go to Home Depot or your local Metal Bar shop and start buying metal bits, you will see the prices marked up the same as if they were included in a retail product so assembling a finished product from Retail parts ends up being almost as much as finished furniture from a furniture store.

Either way you go at it, the world goes around from people that get their 30% moving things from raw materials to your door. Anybody saying something else is trying to monopolize one layer of the chain and take somebody's 30% for themselves.

do you think they get much more than that going thru a publisher for paper books? Most paper media has 50% of retail for the "newsstand" and another large chunk for the printer. My in-laws have worked for the distributors and the markup is crazy.. but so is the amount of returned product that gets pushed thru the shredder and not paid for.

Sure Apple could knock off their 30% fee, but why? They take less than the same item sold in a store, but not so much less that publisher will ABANDON retail channels. Amazon is the one on a mission to wipe out paper publishing entirely an own every damn thing... Apple is plenty happy to coexist with paper publishers and take the same cut as retail channels do.