 cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501
1 recommendation |
cramer
Premium Member
2024-Jun-26 7:40 am
RIAA suesRight. Because they were so successful in suing millions of MP3 sharing fools.
They'll file loads of cases to scare people. They'll win a few, lose a few, and ultimately drop 99% of them. That cat is out of the bag, it's fur is f'ing everywhere, there is no possibility to stop it. | |
|
 | | |
Re: RIAA suesExcept the nature of AI means it could be a clearer case of copyright violation. | |
|
| |
3 recommendations |
Re: RIAA suessaid by Ostracus:Except the nature of AI means it could be a clearer case of copyright violation. If Blurred Lines was a problem, this is a problem. | |
|
|  r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
-1 recommendation |
to cramer
They are going to win these cases right now since copyright laws were written to the speed of humans and not computers that can assimilate thousands of songs per hour when a human could assimilate maybe 10 songs an hour. They will put human limitations on fair use at a minimum.
But the other issues is these computers are not actually AI, they are just formulas and random generators to make mashups of songs. The programmers are going to have to testify.
The RIAA will play copies of the AI songs at trial and play some originals so a jury can see they are not materially different and the RIAA wins.
It will be a cat a mouse game for a while, but eventually people will figure out a path to use computers that stay within the bounds of fair use. Also, there are countries where none of these laws apply and you can have servers in space. Then you can break fair use but still result with a song that is unique enough to not be in violation of copyright laws that you can sell in the US and EU.
RIAA is just buying time. | |
|
-1 recommendation |
Scientists Warn Starlink Could Screw Up the Ozone LayerThe Musk Derangement Syndrome is messing people's minds up. I can't believe anyone wrote that garbage. | |
|
|
6 recommendations |
Re: Scientists Warn Starlink Could Screw Up the Ozone LayerMaybe it was sponsored by Hughes and viasat | |
|
| |
2 recommendations |
Re: Scientists Warn Starlink Could Screw Up the Ozone LayerHmm, good point. Here I thought maybe somewhere, Greta Thunberg's name was going to pop up. | |
|
|  SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
7 recommendations |
to david0858
said by david0858:The Musk Derangement Syndrome is messing people's minds up. I can't believe anyone wrote that garbage. Well, Musk is Deranged.. | |
|
| |
1 edit
-2 recommendations |
Re: Scientists Warn Starlink Could Screw Up the Ozone LayerSo was Ben Franklin, Michelangelo, James Watson, Winston Churchill, and a few others, and look at what they produced (did for the world). Maybe deranged isn't the word/label we are looking for. If not Musk, then who? It was bound to happen someday.  | |
|
| | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
3 recommendations |
Re: Scientists Warn Starlink Could Screw Up the Ozone Layersaid by tc1uscg:So was Ben Franklin, Michelangelo, James Watson, Winston Churchill, and a few others, and look at what they produced (did for the world). Maybe deranged isn't the word/label we are looking for. If not Musk, then who? It was bound to happen someday. Anyone could have. Musk isn't the one who designed Starlink. He came up with the idea. Musk is no better than Jobs, with an ego to match. | |
|
| | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Scientists Warn Starlink Could Screw Up the Ozone LayerMoney. You forgot money. Doesn't matter how wacko you are, if you have to cash, doesn't matter what others think. Look at Bill Gates (made me think of him when you mentioned Jobs). But like those others I mentioned. All it takes is something that someone else couldn't produce and BAM. Look at Amazon, TikTok, Instagram, Farcebook, Twitter (before Musk). | |
|
| | | | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
1 recommendation |
Re: Scientists Warn Starlink Could Screw Up the Ozone Layersaid by tc1uscg:Money. You forgot money. Doesn't matter how wacko you are, if you have to cash, doesn't matter what others think. Look at Bill Gates (made me think of him when you mentioned Jobs). But like those others I mentioned. All it takes is something that someone else couldn't produce and BAM. Look at Amazon, TikTok, Instagram, Farcebook, Twitter (before Musk). I don't think Microsoft nor Apple would've survived if Xerox would've ran with the Alto and/or decided to license the technology out. | |
|
| |
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501
7 recommendations |
cramer
Premium Member
2024-Jun-26 7:53 am
"Enhanced" D3.1So, AT&T's "5Ge"... aka 4G with a buzzword name. (I laughed for hours when I saw that on an iPhone 8! driving through KY)
We don't have "enhanced" D3.0. We have D3.0 with more than THE MINIMUM 4x4 channels. DOCSIS 3.1 specifies a f***ing MINIMUM!!!!!!! of 2x2. There is nothing in the entire history of the universe stopping anyone from making a modem with MORE THAN THE MINIMUM channels. Holy Shit! do I hate marketing.
Enumerate the carriers using even one full 192MHz channel, much less, two of any size. | |
|
|
4 recommendations |
Re: "Enhanced" D3.1It's just more can-kicking. I'm beating a dead horse here but...DIE CABLELABS, DIE! | |
|
| r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
4 recommendations |
to cramer
They are saying if the company has a decent 1.2ghz plant and newer CMTS line cards then they can use the extra channels with new modems. Pretty much the existing 3.1 modems were not made to use extra channels as the CMTS did not support it anyways. Why have faster processors and capabilities in your modems when your CMTS card processors cant handle faster speeds? The processors were spec'd for what they felt could easily be stable bandwidth over their existing plants and existing in house cables.
I really hope these companies stop upgrading coax and install fiber. The next step above 1.2 ghz pretty much requires replacing everything on the network and bypassing in house splitters to achieve a stable connection at the faster DOCSIS 4.0 speeds. Even with using extra channels on 1.2 ghz may require bypassing in house cabling.
Now if they eliminate QAM tv video then they can free up 200 mhz more of spectrum on their coax bandwidth to use for internet without any added expense.
One day when large ISPs like comcast break up from their media companies then they can focus on being an ISP and not a TV company. | |
|
| | cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501
1 edit
4 recommendations |
cramer
Premium Member
2024-Jun-26 10:06 am
Re: "Enhanced" D3.1ALL D3.1 modems support 1.2GHz. What they don't have is the hardware to tune more than 2 channels. That extra sauce is easy enough to add. (just don't do it the Puma 6 way.) Most chassis base CMTS's support more than 2 channels, but may not have the brains to bond more than 2 per service group.
While there certainly are legacy regions with 500-600MHz gear, it's pretty safe to assume a modern network is built with hardware designed and tested for 860MHz. Some of that will function beyond that (1002MHz), but the signal falls off pretty fast at those frequencies. 1218MHz would be even worse. But of course, many operators aren't even pushing channels to the 860 ceiling. At any rate, downstream isn't their problem. Upstream is, and high-split isn't much of a fix for that. (a decade ago, sure. today, nope... just wasting money.)
(Most ("all") consumer modems are only certified for mid-split - 85MHz. There's only two HS approved by CL, and only one of those (netgear CM3000) has ever reached the market. [Correction: the CM2500 now shows available.]) | |
|
| | | r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
2 edits
-3 recommendations |
r81984
Premium Member
2024-Jun-26 11:01 am
Re: "Enhanced" D3.1They did not spec them with enough processing power to handle the bandwidth as they did not expect to use it all. It was the same at both ends, the CTMS and in house modems.
Trolls will ignore "They are saying if the company has a decent 1.2ghz plant and newer CMTS line cards then they can use the extra channels with new modems."
They forget that docsis 3.1 was released in 2013 and many CTMS cards won't be able to handle more bandwidth and would need to be swapped out. It all depends when the ISP upgraded to 3.1 for if they need new CTMS cards or not. | |
|
| | | |  DocDrewHow can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900
4 edits
6 recommendations |
DocDrew
Premium Member
2024-Jun-26 11:08 am
Re: "Enhanced" D3.1said by r81984:They did not spec them with enough processing power to handle the bandwidth as they did not expect to use it all. It was the same at both ends, the CTMS and in house modems. The CMTS side can handle it with a software update on the correct hardware version of downstream cards, which have been out for several years. That has been explained several times in this latest article and in multiple previous articles on the subject. said by Lightreading :Support for DOCSIS 3.1E, including DOCSIS 4.0 modems running in DOCSIS 3.1 mode, was one of several new features that CommScope is baking into software release 13 for the E6000.
The company said the new software release, when paired with "Gen 2" E6000s, also supports DAA remote PHY deployments, and Low Latency DOCSIS (LLD), a capability that Comcast is testing ahead of expected commercial deployments later this year. CommScope said the updated software also supports IPTV, enabling operators to transition from their legacy QAM-based video delivery architectures.
When taken together, the updated software could extend the life of CommScope's widely deployed E6000 chassis. Commscope anouncement of Gen2 E6000 module deployements in 2018: » www.commscope.com/press- ··· modules/Data sheet for the example downstream card mentioned in the articles: » www.commscope.com/global ··· cam2.pdfThe plant doesn't need to be 1.2Ghz capable to handle more than 2 OFDM channels, they just can't be deployed below 108Mhz. Most QAM based video gear can't use channels above 860Mhz anyway, so it's virtually unused if DOCSIS channels aren't deployed there. Also, many cable operators are on their 3rd generation of D3.1 upgrades at their sites, especially if they deployed it early when is came out in 2013. There was a paper from CableLabs: "Leveraging DOCSIS® 4.0 CM Backward Compatibility on DOCSIS 3.1 Networks" released back at the 2023 SCTE Expo, showing 25x 6Mhz wide QAM video channels, 32x 6MHz wide QAM channels plus 3x 192MHz wide OFDM downstream channels for DOCSIS would fit in 108Mhz-1Ghz of spectrum with mid-split upstream enabled. A 4th OFDM could be added if the distribution plant supported up to 1.2Ghz: » www.nctatechnicalpapers. ··· 53_paper | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
to r81984
Re: "Enhanced" D3.1Correct me if wrong but aren't most cable plants in the US between 550Mhz to 860Mhz. The only plants that are above 1Ghz is newer green builds which are being down with fiber. This seems like a standard that is not going to be used. | |
|
| | | DocDrewHow can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900
1 recommendation |
DocDrew
Premium Member
2024-Jun-28 2:25 pm
Re: "Enhanced" D3.1said by toolman1990:Correct me if wrong but aren't most cable plants in the US between 550Mhz to 860Mhz. The only plants that are above 1Ghz is newer green builds which are being down with fiber. This seems like a standard that is not going to be used. Any plant rebuild/replacement activity in the last 15 years has installed at least 1Ghz equipment because that is what has been available from the vendors. Whether the frequencies are used or not really depends on the operator putting channels in that space. Since video gear often didn't handle channels above 860Mhz, it's been mostly filled with DOCSIS channels, when used. Looking at screen shots from modems of downstream channels used the last 10 years, most providers haven't used space above 860Mhz until the last 2-3 years. | |
|
| | | cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501
1 recommendation |
to toolman1990
Re: "Enhanced" D3.1For the most part, yes. But there are still 550/650/750 systems, and more importantly, components still out there. Not that people don't "over drive" them to higher frequencies. The only thing one has to worry about is the return path; some older hardware simply can't do it. And the attenuation beyond "spec" will be high. That's part of the unexpected time and expense in split upgrades... all the old crap they're finding has to be replaced. | |
|
|
1 edit
4 recommendations |
to cramer
said by cramer:There is nothing in the entire history of the universe stopping anyone from making a modem with MORE THAN THE MINIMUM channels. Holy Shit! do I hate marketing. "3.1 enhanced" arose from mixing 3.1 and 4.0 hardware. The name was first used long before Broadcom announced a new 3.1 chipset. A 3.1 enhanced modem powered by Maxlinear will be using a 4.0 chip (no new 3.1 chipset has been announced). A 3.1 plant with more than two OFDM channels and 4.0 modems is also known as "3.1 enhanced". | |
|
| | cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501
|
cramer
Premium Member
2024-Jun-27 4:41 am
Re: "Enhanced" D3.1Nothing about the these D3.1e modems is anything more than D3.1 with more channels. They don't do FDX, and they don't support ESD (1.8GHz.) The MaxLinear "enhanced" chip is their D4.0 ESD chip, MINUS EVERYTHING THAT MAKES IT ESD. (i.e. the PGA - programmable gain amplifier) It's still, entirely, marketing bullshit. | |
|
| | |
3 recommendations |
fm
Member
2024-Jun-27 4:45 am
Re: "Enhanced" D3.1Call it what you want, but there is a story behind the bullshit. | |
|
| |
Scientists Warn SPACE JUNK WILL Screw Up the Ozone LayerHeadline fixed.  Tiny tentative surgical mitigation tweaks bulldozed. Looks like within 5 years we'll all be hiding from UV and "wearing protection" while out and about. That bodes ominous for ALL Life on Earth. "Oopsie! Oh, well … how's my bunker project doing?" | |
|
Reticent
4 recommendations |
US Carries enable RCS for iPhone For a moment, I thought this was about military ships … | |
|
3 recommendations |
Anonbe305
Anon
2024-Jun-26 2:17 pm
Cable ops are lab-testing 'enhanced' DOCSIS 3.1Yes, it's really cool what they are trying to do here with their 29 year old coax (this neighborhood) but what bothers me with cable are the upstream speeds. You have to take a more expensive subscription with download speeds you do not really need just to have decent upload speeds. | |
|
|
|
