Samsung loses 'important' patent decision to Apple in Netherlands - Page 2

Yes, very amusing.

That was an estimate I've seen. The low ball one is $1 Trillion, but it's thought to be too low. The problem is that this is a very big country, and requires a vast amount of fiber. So far, we're seeing it done in compact areas. Just wait until they need to do the middle of the country with more cable than people per mile.

I'm not saying it has to be done all at once. Verizon has already spent over ten billion for just a tiny part of the country, here and there, barely more than one percent. Very little fiber is in place, and what is will need to be upgraded a great deal to carry all of the extra bandwidth.

And to say that not everyone needs to be connected that way is elitist. Who decides which people don't need it, you?

And Samsung has also tried. They have the same lawyers, by the way, which is one reason they are using the same tactics.

Not really.

In all likelihood, this sort of move could be one of the reasons for Apple to pile up so much cash. But fiber, or for that matter anything wired, is not the solution to solve last mile. It is way too expensive to lay last mile wire.

The beauty is that you don't need last mile fiber. The speeds that we get in the US are already capable of handling any requirement - including 1080p streaming. The trouble is, our infrastructure is not capable of handling it, if everyone resorts to streaming 1080p!

It is only the backbones that needs to get upgraded. And most of the "upgrade" lies in lighting up fiber that is already laid in the ground. So it is relatively manageable for existing fiber networks to upgrade. Someone laying new fiber, negotiating right of way, etc, will only be buying a bag of hurt.

And then there is the small problem of technology. Did you know, if the US completely stopped terrestrial video transmission (over the air) and moved completely to an Internet delivery model, it would free up so much high quality spectrum - which actually makes wireless Internet possible at much larger scales?

Wireless is the ultimate solution for last mile. And wireless over unlicensed spectrum is also possible. Actually, it is a pity that Sprint Clearwire failed commercially - because as a technology WiMAX is much more capable of scaling up to the levels of providing universal service. It supports Point to Point as well as Point to Multiple modes. So it can be used for remote area backbone as well. It is much cheaper as there is no license to be paid to anyone - unlike LTE which is crazy expensive. But I guess these are the very reasons WiMAX failed - it threatened too many big players! And no one really benefitted big from WiMAX to support it - except the hapless consumer - and you know how those battles go, every time!

Google emptied about half their piggy bank on MotoMo.

Wi-Max. 'Nuff said. No need to do the "final mile" linking to individual homes. Just local networks. Just look beyond our current technology, and it'll get there. Give it a few years.

So the point is valid.

and do you have a source for that figure?... if i recall corretly the audtralia fiber roll-out is expected to cost 36 BILLION. granted they are all close togeher... now lets multiply that number by 50 (representing 50 states) we get 1.8 trillion. the us deficit . now lets double that to include 4G wireless tech to cover those areas that can't be reached by fiber.

so by my estimates, you are 3 times over-stating the amount. ( yes alot of assumptions, but less than yours...)

funny...the US debt is about 15 TRILLION dollars... and there is one BILLION seconds in 32 years... so thats 15000 dollars a second for 32 years... or to use the occupy movement's mantra make the rich 1 percenters pay! so that would work out to 1.5 million workers (approx 150 million workers in the usa) paying 312,500 dollars each year for 32 years!
so according to the wiki, 3.1 million of the usa are millionares in worth... and 36300 people are worth more than 30 million... so i am either proving that fiber rollout is to expensive or that usa has an impossible debt, and the rich can't pay it off, thus tax will increase... i say forget the debt and give me fiber!... that way i can forget that fact that i will be paying, paying, and more paying taxes... and at least i have the worlds best internet (oh, wait am i dreaming... sorry sir, not about the tax part!)

SO! Samsung, then! How, uh how about that Samsung?

Simple. People who live where they can afford it have the option to use it or not.

If you live in the wilds of Alaska, you also have the right to ask for it, but you may not like the billion dollar connection fee.

It's a free market economy (largely). Provider offers a price to connect you and you choose to buy it or not. No one has to decide for anyone else. In practice, though, the people who live in high density areas will get it before those who live in remote areas. How else would you expect it to work?

Almost $10 billion of their 2011 sales is a big percentage of their total sales.

Australia doesn't have to cross their country with fiber. Most of the population lives close to the sea. Most of the interior is unpopulated. Not so with the US, where there are towns, villages and small hamlets everywhere you go.

This makes Australia a much easier, and cheaper country to outfit.

Australia also has a bit over 20 million people, while the US has at least 320 million.

Nothing you said is relevant.

The talk is about getting everyone connected. The way people are connected by telephone. So a very few, in remote places won't get it, but that's a small fraction of one percent, which doesn't affect the figures.