61–70 of 184 posts
This tastes a little like "pull the ladder up behind you". WiFi operates on unlicensed spectrum, and Google et al greatly benefit from it. Now someone else wants to use the spectrum, and they shouldn't be allowed to? It's just funny to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That said, don't ever use an ISP provided access point. Because the hardware is often inferior to what you can pick up for ~$200 at a tech store, not to mention the lack of control you get with an ISP AP.
Regarding "inferior": It's fast enough and it doesn't crash (at least for me). That's probably "good enough" for most people to not care if there's a better solution. "lack of control": The Comcast provided hardware gives me an IP via DHCP and I'm able to disable all those useless firewall features. So which features am I missing and why should I care about them?
I can't use an AP that does not allow me to fine-tune QoS and just tinker in general if packets are not flowing in the way that I desire.
One would think Verizon had enough spectrum already. Sprint, sure, but Verizon?
Verizon has huge chucks of spectrum licenses already to work with: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Wireless#Radio_frequen...)
Oh no, the unregulated spectrum is unregulated. Not sure which side I am on. I don't like Verizon, but I don't really support heavy regulation.
I'll tell you! (It's clear to me what side you're on.) You do really support heavy regulation, and you don't think some guy with a cheap and crappy device in the vicinity should be able to disrupt your cell phone reception, FM radio, the GPS wherever you are trying to figure out your location, or, yes, wifi. Likewise you don't want to have to drive from California to Boston because it's too dangerous to get in an airplane with all the unregulated recreational drones in the airspace. You want the radio spectrum, class A airspace, vehicle and factory emissions, and a bunch of other stuff to be heavily regulated. (What these things have in common I'll leave as an exercise.)
EDIT: this is at -1 but it's true. I'm leaving it. I guarantee that the guy is for heavy regulation and doesn't want me disrupting his cell phone, GPS, or wifi due to crappy devices that do not even give me any benefit but just ignore regulation / or there isn't any. he enjoys the benefits and is for them. I guarantee it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding "inferior": It's fast enough and it doesn't crash (at least for me). That's probably "good enough" for most people to not care if there's a better solution. "lack of control": The Comcast provided hardware gives me an IP via DHCP and I'm able to disable all those useless firewall features. So which features am I missing and why should I care about them?
The average home user, sure, the ISP AP may be fine. But for the average reader of HN I suspect it would not be. I can't use an AP that does not allow me to fine-tune QoS and just tinker in general if packets are not flowing in the way that I desire.
(not that my internet connection is always great - it isn't - but that lies with my internet provider, who I have no choice over, so...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because physics doesn't like startups I guess... Or to phase that another way: There is a lot of spectrum. But very little spectrum that is suitable for mobile phone usage. When a resource is finite and valuable, it gets expensive. If you want a "real" solution that would allow startups to play in the ballpit? Pass new national laws which split the cellular companies into two organisations, one that offers consumer s…
One infrastructure company wouldn't work so well. You'd need at least two, preferably 3, with the ability for the resellers to quickly and easily switch. Here in New Zealand we have three providers, but we have national number portability. This means I can switch networks with no fees (unless I have a contract with a termination clause) and no number downtime. It helps competition a lot.
Number portability is already possible here in the US, and so long as I am not on a contract I can switch without fees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding "inferior": It's fast enough and it doesn't crash (at least for me). That's probably "good enough" for most people to not care if there's a better solution. "lack of control": The Comcast provided hardware gives me an IP via DHCP and I'm able to disable all those useless firewall features. So which features am I missing and why should I care about them?
The average home user, sure, the ISP AP may be fine. But for the average reader of HN I suspect it would not be. I can't use an AP that does not allow me to fine-tune QoS and just tinker in general if packets are not flowing in the way that I desire.
But times have changed: On my old ADSL line QoS made a huge difference due to congestion (and the large buffer sizes). SSH was nearly unusable while uploading a file. My current Comcast line is so fast that I don't experience any issues due to congestion - so how would I benefit from QoS?
Another difference is that in the past consumer-level hardware was just unreliable: I remember an old Netgear router that just crashed if there were too many concurrent TCP connections, as its NAT table would overflow. I haven't seen those issues in a long time now.