Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Cost of Infrastructure? (Score 1) 225

I wonder if Amazon will pass along any savings to customers?

Amazon? No, they won't. Plus, they will drive the other carriers into higher costs which will discourage other competitors to Amazon by raising their shipping costs. It's a win win for Amazon, which is a loose loose for customers.

Comment Re:USPS (Score 5, Insightful) 225

Seriously, loosing the USPS won't be a good thing in the long run.

It's easy to overlook all the good things the USPS does for this country and it's economic system because we have all grown up with the mail arriving 6 days a week, rain or shine, for nearly nothing. First class postage is still under $1 for a letter picked up and delivered door to door, usually in a few days. It's a huge bargain if you ask me. Priority Mail goes for $4 and gets there in less than 3 days. This kind of service keeps this economy going. I understand that the USPS isn't as necessary as it once was, and that's part of it's financial problems, but I believe it's still a necessary function.

What's UPS going to charge you for a letter? $10? $5? And then they just drop the letter off at the local post office for delivery to your door usually. Same with FedEx. DHL (back from bankruptcy I suppose) doesn't deliver to residential customers and I haven't seen their prices. USPS delivery is a bargain and throwing out all that will only hurt us all.

Perhaps we could scale back delivery days and save labor costs. Say three days a week to the door and only weekday delivery to P.O. boxes? That would drop about half their labor costs, keep service levels high for those who need it, and perhaps allow the USPS to get back to even instead of loosing money all the time.

Comment Re:Blocking is illegal, but this isn't... (Score 1) 164

Gee, I will stick to my perspective while you keep changing yours...

First they where selling licenses, but that didn't work with the facts so you dropped that. Now they where denying access to part of the spectrum, which isn't true either...

They where NOT preventing anybody from operating on any spectrum they wished, you could walk outside of the venue and crank up your WiFi hotspot anytime you wished. Private property owners have the right to allow or deny any activity on their property they choose, including restricting if, when and where you may operate your cell phone with the wireless option turned on. Heck, they can even do things like refusing to allow you to enter carrying a firearm, a camera or recording device, carrying candy, drinks or food into the venue. They can enforce a dress code, make you wear shoes and a shirt, make you buy a ticket and/or enter into a contract which governs what you will and won't be allowed to do. How's saying "You can bring that cell phone in, but you cannot set up a private hotspot" not allowed? They could just ban them outright along with cell phones and any other devices they didn't want inside the venue if they wanted after all.

If we don't have such property rights in this country, then why do we call it "private property"?

Comment Re:There's plenty of space (Score 1) 164

Hofstra could have handled this better, or the Debate Commission could have. The method they chose is subject to some criticism, isn't it?

I think not. What they did was reasonable and it wasn't like all the reporters didn't know what the deal was. Not to mention Hofstra was only following the contracted agreements they had with the Presidential Debate commission....

My guess is somebody got a bee in their bonnet about something and thought they'd get their 5 min of fame out of it. After all, it was pretty likely all the reporters who had to pay the $200 where a bit miffed at the cost, not knowing how much this kind of thing actually costs to set up, and would love to be in the news themselves by reporting on this. Journalistic standards have sunk that low... If you cannot find a story, just make one.

Comment Re:Blocking is illegal, but this isn't... (Score 1) 164

Oh sure it is.. Private property owners are given great latitude in controlling who may access their property and under what terms they allow access. For instance the venue owner may make the following rule:

You may bring in your phone, but you must declare it and it must remain in airplane mode at all times on the premises. (which is actually MORE restrictive than what happened here)

Then the owners can legally enforce that rule by searching people entering, refusing to allow anybody who doesn't agree to these terms and further remove anybody (along with their device) should they violate the rule. There is nothing illegal about this as long as they don't start jamming using RF emitting devices...

Comment Re:Blocking is illegal, but this isn't... (Score 2) 164

No licenses where being sold, and the $200 was for access to the WiFi network, paying for the service. Apart from violating the TOS I have with my provider, I can sell wifi service to you....

You guys are conflating is two separate things.... The "selling" of WiFi service (which is 100% legal), and the desire of the venue to coordinate the use of both licensed and part 15 intentional emitters within the confines of the venue which is legal too.

But hey, don't let me get in your way of a good story line...

Comment Re:Like it would have mattered (Score 1) 164

Which takes time and $$ to do. So what's in it for the Cell company? Not much, unless the venue offers to pay for the increased service, which, if I could venture a guess, isn't high on the "need to spend money on this" list, given that this was a one time thing. Plus, it can be a *real* headache to try and add coverage for a few thousand handsets without making trouble for yourself by putting the cells to close together where they overlap too much and cause a bunch of thrashing as phones keep switching cells to be attached too.

I've been to large and not so large venues that had horrible cell service when full of people but where fine when empty, usually it didn't matter because being on the phone wasn't the point of being there. Where I'm sure the cell companies would LOVE to collect some fees and provide better service to the venue, usually the venues don't care because the customers don't care, if the entertainment is good.

Comment Re:Like it would have mattered (Score 1) 164

You don't think a system at a university university with over 10k students streaming video over youtube, Facebook, netflix, etc, could handle a bunch of tweeting reporters?

No, I don't think the CELL system would have handled the increased load unless the venue was used often at this capacity...

Plus, doing WiFi for 3,000 in a small building is a lit more complex than it seems to the casual user...

But that's not what we are really talking about in this article. I get the feeling they are mixing up a couple of things that don't really go together.

Comment Blocking is illegal, but this isn't... (Score 2) 164

The "blocking" that was illegal uses RF to kill a rouge access point, intentionally interfering with a licensed use of the spectrum the FCC is tasked to regulate..... This is squarely in the wheel house of the FCC, who's job includes protecting the licensed users of spectrum from interference.

What was done here is put a requirement in a contract that required you to turn off your RF emitters carried into the facility unless the facility engineer approved it's use. This is 100% legal and the FCC doesn't have anything authority to regulate this. In fact, this is commonly referred to as "frequency coordination" and given the large number of possible devices showing up, makes perfect sense to me. You don't want some rouge RF device getting turned on and interfering with Lester's Wireless microphone in the middle of a question. So, you make it part of your contract that ALL RF emitting devices are subject to inspection and approval before they are allowed into the venue and turned on.

So the two cases are not the same and the venue operator has broken no laws.

Comment Re:There's plenty of space (Score 1) 164

Which frequencies are you suggesting they use?

Spectrum is expensive and a finite resource for practical purposes and you have to coordinate who's using which ones where and when to avoid interfering with each other. You cannot just decide, say to use the frequencies dedicated to GPS use for high speed long distance data transmission, without creating an issue for the existing spectrum users.

By and large, this is exactly why the FCC and the ITU exist, to manage the spectrum space..

Comment Like it would have mattered (Score 2) 164

When you have a large group of people sucking data on their cell phones in an area where they don't usually congregate, it's likely NOBODY will get ANY data to start with. Cell phone networks are usually provisioned for "just enough" capacity under normal circumstances and where they sometimes build in extra capacity in places where large crowds tend to gather regularly, they usually dump the bandwidth available to data into carrying voice as the crowd grows.

So... Even if you had turned on your cell data, it's unlikely to have been very useful once the crowd started to show up and post on their facebook and twitter feeds.

So, pay up if you want WiFi that's going to work you fools.

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.