I think the journalist may be mistaken. Another story I read on this said the design came from Cadence, which makes a lot more sense. Cadence sells a core that customers can further customize (using Cadence's software of course). It then can be fabbed by a place like TSMC.
Well personally I've been quite happy with a number of the new features. Also security isn't irrelevant to me, given that I do work to keep my device secure by updating it, by running security software, and be screening what I install and only installing things I need.
I am talking about MY interest in something and ya, having new versions of software is something that I consider. If I'm getting a new device that is something I want.
But only if they'd start releasing OS updates for their older hardware. Given that Samsung drops support after just 18 months, I don't think I'd want to buy a refurb since it is going to get updates for, at most 6 more months. If I am going to get something with no updates, I'd want it for actual used market prices, which is to say really cheap.
No, that's not the approach you take. If you think it is, well you need to grow up. You don't cause massive compatibility problems and huge disruptions just for the fun of it. Instead, you do things as smoothly as possible. There is no need to rush out IPv6, it isn't like the world will blow up. IPv4 works, and will continue to work.
You thinking that implementing something like this on a worldwide scale being cheap, easy or quick just shows a massive lack of experience and perspective.
I can't speak authoritatively to Comcast, not having it, but everything I see says they have dual-stack on their entire residential network. Have you tried it? You have to set up DHCP-PD on your router (that is how most ISPs are doing it) and they should give you a prefix that your devices can use.
What do you mean we've done nothing to move people to IPv6? Do you think it is magic? Do you think we just wave a wand and people are on v6? No, what it takes is rolling out support on the OS, router, ISP, and so on. That has been happening, lots. Have a look at Google's IPv6 chart: https://www.google.com/intl/en... what you see is exponential growth happening. This is actual IPv6 connections as well, Google is counting the percentage of people hitting their site with v6, which means an end-to-end connection.
Oh and ISPs have indeed been making IPv6 available to home users, wouldn't see that graph otherwise. For US cable providers Comcast is dual stack on their whole network, Time Warner is on about 90% of it, and Cox is on all of it. That's a whole lot of the US population. This isn't theoretical support either or "Oh call us and maybe we'll turn it on," it is live, on the network, and working now. On my Cox connection all I had to do was tell my router to get itself a prefix and go. My connections to Google, Netflix, and anyone else who supports v6 go out over it.
You don't "move" people to v6 as in force them on to it and turn off v4. Rather you make it available, and chosen by default, which is precisely is what is going on. When the device supports it (Linux including Android and Windows are both dual stack and prefer v6, not sure about OS-X), the router supports it, and the network supports it you are good to go.
What kind of vulnerabilities do you think would exist in IPv6, but not IPv4?
Cox is dual-stack on their entire network. Comcast is likewise. Time Warner is about 90% done with IPv6 on their network. That most of the US's cable providers right there, with Charter being the only major that doesn't have IPv6 yet and they are working on it actively.
Not every ISP has it, of course, when you count DSL CLECs, dial up, and so on there are literally thousands of ISPs in the US. However it seems that most of the major cable providers do, and combined those guys serve a massive part of the US population.
In fact, have a look at Google's IPv6 adoption map: https://www.google.com/intl/en.... Looks like the US is doing pretty good. Not only is adoption high compared to most countries, but it works well.
Also remember that IPv6 adoption is more than just ISPs getting it. It needs end-to-end support in that users have to get IPv6 capable routers and devices, and have it enabled.
Used to be that way in the US for all carriers. If they'd even let you BYOD, which was only sometimes, you still paid the full amount on your monthly bill so you were just getting screwed. Only ones that didn't were prepaid carriers, which tend to be niche (usually regional and targeting lower income customers).
However T-Mobile changed that, their big, and highly successful, marketing push was to do away with contracts which also meant doing away with subsidies. To respond to people complaining about upfront price they then did the 24 month financing.
Some of the others have followed suit now, since it was a successful campaign, but not all.
The Athlon was very competitive with the P3, which was an exceedingly solid processor. So it wasn't just that Intel screwed up, but AMD had a well performing product to start with.
But then ya, they really slowed down and stopped improving. They kept rehashing the same architecture over and over. They introduced new features, like 64-bit, but the computational architecture was fundamentally the same. Meanwhile Intel was hard at work making the Core series and just continually improving.
Also AMD had a real problem in that while the Athlon was a good performer, the motherboard chipsets for it were fucking garbage. So the experience of owning an Athlon was a real mixed one and turned some people off. I got burned really badly by the original Athlon and compatibility issues with their motherboards and was turned off to AMD for some time because of it.
T-Mobile doesn't subsidize phones. You pay the full price. You can pay it up front or over 24 months (interest free) but it is full retail. So it makes no difference if you get it from them or someone else.
Also means their plans tend to be cheaper than competing plans, since there's no subsidy rolled in to the monthly charge.
Ya this very much seems to be a case of providing a safety net for someone who doesn't have one or who has run through theirs. I can see why that would help. Unless you are super rich, you can get hit with expenses just beyond your ability to deal with. Even if you have a few million, there are still edge cases that can happen that can deplete your resources. Of course the less you have, the easier it is to get them depleted.
Well when that happens, it can snowball real bad and you lose everything, it gets in a positive feedback loop. So some financial assistance can stop that, it can break the feedback loop. You pay off the debt, which prevents interest from accumulating, which would necessitate more debt, which leads to a unsustainable level and so on.
Makes a lot of sense to me that this would have a positive effect and be a good idea, but within the listed constraints. Just giving people money rarely helps.
I've seen both in my family. I've seen a couple family members bailed out by others when they had a crisis, and they are doing well today. I also have a family member who is ALWAYS broke ALWAYS having money problems and no amount of money will help her because she causes her own problems.
A lot of Americans live in urban areas, but often very much urban sprawl. Particularly the residential areas are often composed of single family homes, with yards and so spread out, not large apartment buildings. Look at Phoenix, or LA, or the like. The Phoenix metro area has like 4.5 million people in it, but that is spread out over 23,500 square km. Ya it isn't rural, but there's a LOT of land area to over if you want to blanket it with wireless of some kind, and it gets really problematic if said wireless is short range.
Now that is not to discount cities like New York (though a lot of people there also live in suburban sprawl) just noting that many of the big urban centers in the US are also big land-area wise. Those are more difficult and costly to cover.
The issue then is one of percentage of the population you can cover vs cost and if it is worth it. So suppose you determine you can cover a place like New York, or the downtown commercial districts of some other large cities, economically but not the residential areas of many places like Phoenix. Is it worth it? Is it worth getting new towers just for those places, and new phone technology that most of the nation has no use for?
Cost vs benefit always has to be considered.
Did you know that for the price of a 280-Z you can buy two Z-80's? -- P.J. Plauger