Do the cables have gold plated connectors? :)
1746 posts • joined 26 May 2011
Do the cables have gold plated connectors? :)
So they have the ability to do it, the motive, evidence seems to point to them (not entirely sure how reliable it is though), and applaud that it was done but would like us believe it was them, honest!
The real baddies for me are the managers who allowed employee information to be stored in such a lax manner so they could collect a bonus for trimming their budgets.
Finally something that could replace the speed boat as Bully's star prize!
True, not surprising they foster that quiet image given how much tax avoidance they pay a part in. And don't ask who the paintings belong to!
They do seem to have a fairly decent political system, or isn't it as good in practice as it seems?
I can understand that beaches may occur if someone is determined enough but isn't that why you also ensure that everything is heavily encrypted so if someone does get in they don't find anything they can easily use, like stuff stored in plain text?
And put in some footpaths for the love of God. Perhaps it's just here but if it isn't in front of a shop there isn't a space to walk. Most residential streets either have no path or a path on one side. Forget walking any distance. Forget footpaths between towns, along roads or otherwise.
More public transit would also help the drunk driving epidemic here.
A small bus.
--Any country that does not feed, educate and look after the health of all its people, good or bad, is a failed state in this day and age. It is no surprise that home grown terrorism or susceptibility to radicalisation is a worry in such a country.
The health system here has many flaws, the per capita spending is roughly 3x that of the UK for not much better treatment (comparing experience of two births, one in each country and various other trips to ER for parent related stuff). The litigious nature of society here will play a part, sadly it's always the doctors fault if you don't make a complete recover and there's always some winnet freshly clipped from satans arse to take your case for you and ensure someone is to blame (for a 40% cut). The drugs angle is interesting, there's no single purchasing organisation here like NICE in the UK and I get the feeling that the USA pays a premium on drugs compared to these other countries as whilst they are sold at a profit on the cost of manufacture I think the R&D costs are largely shouldered by countries with large private insurance systems and no central purchasing.
Health insurance costs are frankly insane, mine, for me alone, runs around $600 a month. I'm perfectly fit and healthy, haven't been ill in probably 15 years now. Don't smoke, don't drink, no obesity, no genetic issues etc, work in the open air on an organic farm, yet my premiums pay for people who are less responsible with their health and have near unlimited access to an incredibly expensive 'take a pill' system. Right now there's loads of commercials for this diabetes drug with staggering list of side effects (I love how they say red coloured urine, not pissing blood) when we have a cure for type 2 diabetes that doesn't use drugs and some promising work on curing type 1. There's no incentive to prevent illness or steer people towards anything other than the latest fad pill and 20 different pills to deal with the side effects.
Copays are also dubious, I understand the concept of using them as a method of controlling use but they get high and frequently cover far more as a percentage of the actual cost than they would have you believe.
I'd be curious to see the difference between the amounts of work done, i.e. does higher gunshot injuries and car crashes significantly increase the total cost of healthcare between the usa and uk?
Given Ajit Pai used to work for Verizon (work are screaming to end NN) and now works for the FCC who couldn't get laid in a brothel, lets go with both?
I assume this is his completely unbiased opinion as an ex Verizon associate general council? Someone needs to nail those revolving doors shut!
Netflix didn't go down the caching route because they wanted 'fast lanes' they did it because it makes sense from a network traffic point of view and also because they responded to the market, it was cheaper due to the way the peering & transit was positioned. What they are doing is technically no different to any other colo customer of a tier 1 network or CDN.
The auction is still going and the highest bid is about 2.2bn USD for the New York 10x10 with Orange County not far behind. To follow check https://auctionbidding.fcc.gov/auction/index.htm?CFID=3845691&CFTOKEN=67382551&jsessionid=g4y8JzDJ48BGYhv9tckSgNbyLXVJQLLnDg6xYJ6NQmpsrNcllGYp!819142837!-1117002762!1416872937974
Apologies for the long link :)
Or we couldn't supply you with those parts because of our exclusive supply contact, but we got something vaguely similar.
Speaking of purple cat 7 I was at a business recently that was using purple cat 5 to link two buildings, via a metal and concrete bridge, without any kind of surge supression. They just put it in, any bets on how long that lasts given the immense number of thunder storms we get here?
Exactly! I already dropped Hulu due to the ads (and because a lot of stuff want on there). How about they take on Hulu with a higher priced service without ads.
Mobile networks that offer unlimited data will love it. Those that offer metered data will hate it :)
Mobile networks could massively increase capacity within a year if they wanted to without additional spectrum. Increasing cell tower density, MIMO, simultaneous transmission and reception on the same frequencies (assuming neighboring frequencies wouldn't be affected), increase the number of sectors per site. It's in their interest to ensure they keep supply and demand finely balanced so as to ensure they can offer tiered products and also to keep their capex as low as possible which keeps the shareholders happy.
That will teach me not to proof my posts lol, I meant sexually insecure.
Who or what is a Taylor Swift? I assume nowhere near as talented as the Scorpions?
I'm amazed how securely insecure the Russians are. It amazed me, after moving to the Pacific, just how accepting some cultures (frequently viewed as primitive by others) are of varying sexualities. Even the most macho, ultra Catholic Islands, it's just not a 'thing'. No Stigma, no harassment etc. The Russians think they are big tough men, they should meet a Tongan!
And how many of the mighty jobs' s Iminions were upset that Steve was compared to their barista?
Hopefully they for rid of the people who are responsible for the slow build out of the network vision tech. There's still plenty of places without let where even tmo has it. Sadly they have probably managed to avoid blame and only the decent staff who actually know what they are doing well get the boot.
It varies hugely state to state how tip credits work. There is an underlying scam there for sure but I didn't think housekeepers were in a category that could offset a tip credit against wages. Perhaps their thinking is that if they increase the amount of tipping housekeepers get they can buy a politician to have it declared a tipping job.
Personally I treat housekeepers the same as servers, poor service no tip, mediocre service is a small tip but I do tip well for great service. If the rooms spotless I tip unless the resort forbids it, then I just hand them the money or bitch at the manager until they allow me to tip them.
Couldn't agree more. I don't get how they are fined a tiny amount which will go in some junket fund and the public won't see any benefit and those that were defrauded aren't made while. Perhaps a class action would be in order for this.
Noooooo, corporations are people too! At least that was the line trotted out when they wanted to bribe politicians. Put the entire company in jail, or at least everybody at HOD level and above.
Maybe a little harsh there but I sympathize. This seems pretty harmless as it will be trained pilots within sight and restricted to sets. Personal usage is becoming a huge issue here. I have no issues with people wanting to fly them over public land (or their own land) assuming they can do so safely but sadly some morons think it's ok to fly over private property and film. If I sit in a tree behind your house and took pictures of your kids in the garden I'd likely get arrested for voyeurism or something similar, how is it any different to do it with the camera on a drone? Luckily our HOA have for once managed to do something positive and dealt with the last two drones flying over, I haven't seen the old men so agitated since the great leaky taps disaster of 2011). There's no public land or roads within half a mile yet some nonce wants to film on HD (last one looked like a 5d mk3 with a 16-35 on it) low enough to be within range of a garden hose? I just don't get how people think it's ok.
I think we need some firmer guidelines add to what's ok and what's not. As long as we are sensible we can probably allow more commercial use but the amateurs seriously need some restrictions.
How about banning all tablets from stadiums. Even better remove all rear facing camera from tablets so inconsiderate twonks don't block everyone's view because they just have to record an entire event rather than just watching it.
Yeah there was a lot of fluffing going on with 4g. We do have 100 mbps. A 20x20 MHz FDD LTE deployment exceeds this on paper but that is shared and assumes perfect signal (in theory you might get 140mbps) etc but on a lightly loaded network fils are seeing 80 mbps.
Using LTE A or cat 6 or Rev 9 or whatever name you want to use :) will allow bonding of channels but in all honestly that's marketing fluff for gaining the highest speed tests. Thera not much you need to do with a phone that uses more than 4mbps. The overall capacity isn't increasing with carrier aggregation. It's just you can access multiple carriers at once which is actually not ideal add the lower spectrum carriers should be left for people who can only access those. You would be unimpressed if you were near the edge of a cell, out of range of higher frequency carriers and the lower frequency was crowded with chumps closer to the antenna who are just phallus stroking over the higher aggregate speed.
Mimo is already ruled out and working here, extra capacity and better quality at the edge of the range which is great, that's probably the next thing you'll see along with CA. Some mid 2000-3000MHz will probably come along to boost capacity as well.
I'm very interested in the ability to operate full duplex that they created last year. That blows the Shannon limit out of the water. That had to be on their list of tricks for 5g.
I realize it is country dependant but 100 mbps even when mobile is a reality for quite a few cities here. Even in the sticks I can get 30 mbps here and that'd on a 5x5 carrier.
+1 for Waitrose. I always found their prices to be very close to Asda and Tesco but crucially their vegetables lasted longer. I got sick of stuff like broccoli only lasting a day or two before discolouring from Chavco. Waitrose had an own brand vegetable line that comes from their own farms, I guess it just cuts out some of the process so it's quicker to the shelf.
Some of their stuff is more expensive and if you want to live like Patsy and Eddie then sure it's going to cost you but I managed to feed my family from there for the same money as the other places. My only real indulgence was their fresh dijon mayonnaise :)
Couldn't agree more re healthy eating. Plus that twat Oliver had a lot to answer for. Everything that used to be cheap but decent he featured and the price went stupid. Cod cheeks, scrag of lamb (perfect for a crock pot curry), oxtail etc as soon as he mentions it the price triples.
At least horse carrots are still cheap, only decent thing the EU ever did.
Wow, a post deleted by a moderator. I don't think I've seen that before here, to the sites credit they are very liberal with their moderation. The post in question was literally bonkers.
I'd you want to blame anyone for Israel and similar situations a good place to start would actually be my home country, the UK and also France who let uncivil servants sit down with a map and a ruler and carve up large sections of the world with little regard for the people that lived there, their history, religion, language, or tribe.
TBH I wasn't coming at it from a left or right angle, just an honest observation. The US has been a global police force and military force for quite some time. There are some links between the arms industry and politicians that give cause for concern. What confuses me, perhaps worries is a better word, is that there isn't really a consistency. Take Somalia and Rwanda for example.
I try and believe the motives are genuine, most peoples probably are, but often the implementation is sub-optimal. Perhaps it's worse that other countries are slow to move if they do at all when it comes to international military action?
The USA is hardly shy in using force either.
I have a note 3 with a zero lemon 10k battery which fits fine in most pockets. Just avoid skinny jeans.
Then they would need something akin to DPI to track it, which would be expensive to do with that volume of traffic, it would be cheaper to simply expand capacity. They could simply be targetting IP ranges or hostnames as well, although it's easy enough to switch with a dynamic setup like streaming. Rather than saying they are or aren't doing it, I'm simply trying to suggest ways of narrowing down the variables to find out if they are. I'm discussing the method not the outcome.
DPI tends to work where there is a value added element, such as providing virus scanning for a large network of hosted machines or in a targeted environment, such as with a specific target IP looking for types of traffic. To do it at a backbone level would be expensive. That isn't to say Comcast et al couldn't target netflix traffic, just that the method they would use would likely just be based on rate limiting certain ports or ip's. It would certainly be interesting to find out, but the situation is a little more complicated than simply, its faster via a proxy ergo they are rate limiting.
Actually, yeah let's have free transit! I'll cancel my cable account and get a 1 gbps drop for free please!
This I agree with totally. I would be interested to see how cable companies reacted to Netflix if they weren't also competitors.
Entirely directly rather than directly and indirectly :) these days transit costs are mostly to do with install costs and the cost of maintaining enough capacity. Whilst you do pay per mbps the cost is actually very low. This is also guaranteed capacity, you home connection isn't guaranteed, it's a shared connection. You may have your own link to the dslam or similar but after that is a contended service. It's likely you will get your full speed most of the time but just like the phone system (pots) I'd everyone tried to use it at once it would fall over. If you needed guaranteed phone access you could pay for it but the average consumer didn't get that, nor did they pay the same price. Contended service equals lower cost.
When you buy transit you get guaranteed access to the full capacity or a partial refund. You also get support 24 7, if there's a router dropping packets somewhere you call and a real tech reroutes it while it gets fixed. This is well worth the low fees paid for transit. You can also blend cheaper and more expensive providers to get a more cost effective mix.
Say Skype can me out with a 3rd holographic Web calling service that used 20 mbps connections and it took off. If you didn't use it and just used your connection for say YouTube and downloading iso's how would you feel if the cost of your service went up to pay for additional backbone capacity that want related to what you use the Internet for. Transit fees just help place the cost where is accrued and are very different to charging an extra fee for priority status for traffic already on a network. NN is all about providers wanting to charge extra for data they have already been paid (with either currency or services in kind) to carry via intermediaries.
They aren't using DPI, they would just use ports to identify types of traffic, so an unencrypted proxy wouldn't change anything. A proxy running on the same port Netflix sends video on would be interesting.
So you expect they will just make less money? Seriously you couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. Look at the amount of detailed explanations offered to you and look at what you have offered. You obviously have no experience of how the industry works or the technical aspects at play. You spout opinions dressing them up as fact and you expect to be able to change the industry. I know the industry, you obviously don't.
Good luck with that :)
Google also built a global backbone of their own so they could offload much of their traffic at free public peering exchanges (note not actually totally free, you have to accept data in return and pay port&rack fees fees). I find it interesting that Netflix didn't attempt this as it would have allowed them to differentiate themselves from similar offerings (redbox, amazon prime etc). They obviously have a big market lead and a great product but amazon could do them some damage with prime instant video.
Its also worth considering the amount of money in play here. Transit costs vary wildly based on physical location, commit level and carrier. Having 10mbps hooked up to your cabin in the woods in the middle of nowhere from a tier one provider will cost more per mbps than a 10gbps drop in a carrier hotel \ exchange etc.
Netflix is talking about transit in well served areas and in very large amounts. These days it's not uncommon to pay between $600 and $2000 a month for a 1gbps drop and $4500 to $9000 for a 10gbps (ipv6 is actually starting to affect pricing as well). If you say a person streams at 3mbps for an average of 4 hours per day the actual cost to Netflix is around 30 cents a month, maybe a little more. This is hardly stifling innovation, it's a couple of percent of the monthly charge.
The NN debate started when mobile phone companies started to talk about charging extra for skype etc on their networks, traffic that was already being carried. They were looking at a way of protecting their voice income and also subsidizing lte build outs without having to raise consumer pricing. The fixed line industry wasn't on the radar until Netflix started running up against congestion. Note they didn't get traffic shaped, they simply hit the limits of their bandwidth providers and started to get politiky. Sadly people bought the BS. I love Netflix as a service but the game they are playing is just outright dishonest. You don't hear their story from any other company, they create over 30% of peak time traffic in the entire country, they are just being asked to pay fees that cover the port costs and some of the back end infrastructure to support that, the same as every other company with servers does directly and indirectly and hasn't complained about it for the past 40 years.
If you want to legislate how their business model works you need to do it via a PUC which is fine, I mean it doesn't work as our water and electric companies routinely prove but thats the manner. If you push for legislation over a situation you don't understand you aren't going to get it. If you do, it won't do what you want it to.
I get that it seems nonsensical to pay at both ends, just take a moment to consider the other view. This is not anti NN, this is simply about sharing the costs where they are incurred. Rather than placing the entire cost of the connection on one end it is shared between both. Time Warner et al are simply not just going to accept less revenue if one source is removed. They will just transfer it or use it as an argument that they need to be able to charge for QOS exceptions. The very thing you actually want to avoid. It isn't a simple situation, but all the information is out there, the history with the wireless companies etc.
nice try. So explain, you cut off this source of revenue, do you think ISP's will just make less money or that they will charge end users more? Nobody ever answers this :)
Most educational institutions in Europe pay to connect to an educational network which then connects at peering points. Much of their traffic is internal so free peering is sufficient. They do already pay. There is so much misinformation from people on this, it's sad, if you care about the situation take the time to understand it.
erm that would be an intranet,the internet is a bunch of connected networks. They have two customers, both pay. Yes they make profit but what makes you think they wont just charge end users more if you abolish transit fees? You are missing the point and you are going to end up hurting yourself.
ok one last try :)
Please try and understand, there is a difference between paying (directly or indirectly) for access to a network and paying a premium for priority on a network. (FWIW I am ok with the former but not the latter)
Net Neutrality is about last mile providers charging a premium for priority for data already on their network.It's also interesting to consider how this plays alongside QOS and network management. You naturally want to prioratise time senstive activities like VOIP, Streaming (radio and music), 'Skypeing' etc over say email or downloads. This does improve a customers experience where there is congestion. The issue is if they exclude video from that because its a competing service or if they were to allow priority for a video service that paid a premium. Note paying for transit is not a premium, it's a simple reality of providing something, anything, over the internet.
There is a real issue with Net Neutrality and I understand its easy to misunderstand but if you do support NN then please try and take the time to understand how the system works. Misunderstanding it just allows the anti NN lot to win and the real problem is allowed to occur, which is the paying for a priority. Netflix was never asked to pay for a priority, they were advised that they needed more capacity. None of the ISP's were placing any priority on transit ingress over peering ingress. Netflix sadly seems to be trying to muddy the water.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If transit fees were abolished then monthly sub rates would go up and companies like L3 would disappear which would result in a degradation of service and an increase in costs. L3 et al are more than just aggregators, they also keep pricing down as they can drop a chunk of their traffic via free public peering and via cheaper networks like HE or Cogent (which is probably posh by modern standards) to dilute their costs. This forces tier 1 isps to keep their prices vaguely reasonable. It's worth noting that Netflix is paying less to the tier 1 isps than it did to level 3, oh those mean isps!!
Sadly it would appear the cant think wont think crowd with no concept of the situation have locked onto this. At least its amusing to watch. It's like listening to my cat debate string theory :)
Yes CDN's still exist and buy transit (and use free peering) from last mile networks, so they do exactly what Netflix is having to do. CDN's basically offer an off the shelf alternative to building out your own global network and delivery system, which are two separate things. If you want to build your own servers but not have to negotiate with every major ISP you use an intermediary company who has a backbone connected to major ISP's. They also will have some level of peering and as they aren't a tier 1 ISP they will also be paying for transit from Tier 1 ISP's. Basically they are brokers and aggregators who do some of the delivery for you but then subcontract the rest. The point being with both these models you still pay directly or indirectly to the last mile network as long as their customers.
I do think you misunderstand the financial issue here. You state they don't need to worry about the amount of bandwidth, they do, they pay for it. It's not like they just pay to upload a 1GB file and that's it. They then pay for the number of times it's downloaded which goes to pay the ISP's for the last mile access. Essentially this is what happened. Netflix used an intermediary company to 'remove' their data, this companies links to several ISP's became saturated. The intermediary didn't want to pay for more links, the last mile ISP refused to give it for free so individual connection speeds slowed down.
>The ISP's already charge each and every customer for that bandwidth.
I already explained above, they charge at both ends of each network, they run a last mile network which is paid for by the people accessing it and they run a backbone paid for by companies accessing it. Please read my post before assuming I am wrong.
>But then the ISP(s) started getting greedy. And now they still want their customers to pay them, but they also want the companies that their customers are using to pay them too.
Absolutely false. Charging for transit from companies connecting servers to the internet has been around for decades. It is not something new, the backbones have been funded by transit fees since commercial backbones were released. The cost of operating the networks is shared between customers at both ends based upon usage levels. If you want to pay for a server in your building you pay a one off connection fee and a monthly fee based on the capacity of the pipe you get or 95th percentile billing for people stuck in 1980.
>But then the ISP quietly starts slowing down the data flow for Netflix
Again, completely false. Time Warner etc certainly could have slowed down connections using routing rules \ QOS rules but they did not, they didn't need to. The company Netflix paid (Level 3 were the main one iirc) for its connection to the internet had links to the last mile networks. These links were based on a commercial agreement, either a peered link where you agree to a free transfer of data assuming the ratio one way to the other doesnt exceed X:1 (X is usually between 3 and 5), or transit where they buy a link for $x a month for Y mbps. All that happened was Level 3 sold routes to Netflix at a certain rate, the egress points for their network became congested and this resulted in individual streams having to drop to a lower rate as they were sharing the same finite connection. Level 3 could have expanded their agreement with the last mile isp's and simply paid more. Level 3 were actually charging Netflix more per mbps than TimeWarner wanted for a direct connection.
> Netflix in the end, is forced to approach the big, greedy ISP(s) and offer them money in exchange for what should have been equal treatment by the ISP in the first place since their mutual customer has paid both of them.
Again, you completely misunderstand what happened. Netflix wasn't targeted. If they offered a service that used 1/100th of the bandwidth they wouldn't have had any issues, but given the volume of data they generate they have found themselves needing to directly buy transit rather than indirectly as they previously did. The 'evil' company in this case is level 3, they sold something they couldn't deliver.
I'm not saying net neutrality isn't important, I believe strongly in it, but this isn't a net neutrality issue. Netflix's traffic wasn't artificially limited. They weren't forced to do anything any other company doesn't have to do, they just ran into a limit quicker due to the volume of data they produce. Sadly it is misinformation and not taking the time to understand this situation which hurts net neutrality. Net neutrality isn't about companies paying nothing for transit, it is about prioritizing data based on who you pay.
>That's why Netflix offer a peering arrangement for free
Netflix also offered to generously provide caching servers to large ISP's. If they accepted this arrangement or free peering who pays for the backbone? Caching servers would have been quite sensible but I don't think netflix was prepared to provide them in the numbers required as it wouldn't be one per network, to lessen the load on the backbone it would be one per neighborhood. A consumers monthly charge doesn't reflect the cost of operating a cable network and a backbone. If ISP's offer totally free transit and then pass on that extra cost to the subscribers your monthly bill is going to go up. I'm not sure that is a win for us as consumers. Then anyone with a server gets to connect to the internet as much as they want for free and pass on the cost to us even if we don't use their service.
As I said above, Net Neutrality is about not prioritizing data, not it being free. Companies expect to pay for bandwidth, go and check out large server providers like Softlayer, they pay for their connections to ISP's (without complaint) and their customers pay for it. Bandwidth is fairly cheap, usually cheaper than the power costs or amortization of the hardware unless you are doing something data heavy like sending out millions of 2-4mbps streams. What is at stake is can an ISP charge extra to give priority to data already on its network? That is what we want to avoid.
There is a different between charging a company more for transit because they compete with you and simply charging for transit. If we abolish charging for transit (which may be the only way to prevent abuse) that income will then come directly from consumers pockets rather than indirectly.
Whilst charging for transit is legitimate in principal and had been used fairly in the past I don't trust companies that also sell TV services to act fairly when considering whether to peer or sell transit to the likes of Netflix.
A large isp like time warner effectively operates two networks. A last mile network to you home which joins a second network which is a national backbone. In theory when you buy a cable connection you are paying for your share which is the last mile network. The cost of the backbone comes from companies buying transit to hook up servers to the Internet. Isp's also peer which is basically a free exchange of data, this usually had a maximum ratio to stop it becoming too unbalanced and unfair. Where this gets messy is they also offer peering to important sites, or more accurately free transit. The big question is how ok is it to offer free transit to say amazon.com but then charge Netflix. Then how do we regulate that. I know in advertising one tv station will charge a premium to a competitor, I.e. What sky charges virgin for slots, so is it fair for one industry to charge a competition premium but not another?
It's not a simple cable companies are evil situation, they sure are, but charging for transit is not really evil. Netflix isn't really a net neutrality issue, they aren't being asked to pay extra for priority, they are just being asked to pay for access like many companies have to do. They had exceeded the capacity of the intermediary companies links and had a choice between augmenting those links or just outright buying everything directly. The party at fault was the intermediary company which sold transit they couldn't handle. Personally I'm not sure which way to lean on this as a whole because I think the cable cos would have peered with Netflix if they hadn't been a competitor, but charging for transit is fair.
I would like to see any legal action resulting in the removal of the executives who made the decisions rather than just a fine which will likely result in front line staff (who weren't at fault for the breach) being fired to 'make economies'.
Depending on the stage at which it is added to the bill it can actually remain anonymous, so not only can they do crap like this (or at least something similar) they can do it without being found out.
Do your Thunderbird cables have gold plated connectors?
The kardashian thing is mostly media manufactured. Actual famous people have gotten better at hiding some of not most of their lives and the media have started creating all these pseudo celebrities who are famous just because they act like idiots where they can be witnessed. They are happy for the attention because they are vapid, meaningless dregs incapable of doing anything worthwhile with their lives, the media love them because other vapid plebs pay to watch them and plebs love them because they act like they wished they could act of only they didn't need to have the door widened to leave their house.
It's absolutely sickening but basically it's the great unwashed, can't think won't think crowd driving this. The media print what sells and the scroats get off on this crap.
Sad, but that's the world we live in.
Thank you! Far too often this is overlooked which is ridiculous.
Interesting, did I read it right? They are using 3 separate chips for the PA's. Qualcomm's gobi PA's have 2g, 3g, HSPA and LTE all on one chip. I would have thought that would better suit apples simplicity approach better, perhaps the power use or unit cost was higher? Are the non qualcomm chips GAAS or CMOS?