redraider11

rob53 said:

ihatescreennames said:

I don’t know much about how cellular connectivity works, but on it’s face 2 gigabits seems like huge overkill.  In the US I normally get around 50 megabits per second download times on AT&T.  Occasionally I’ll see higher speeds than that but nowhere near even 500 megabits per second.

Is there something non-obvious about a 2 gigabits per second modem that would show immediate benefit when that chip becomes available?

wood1208 said:

Modem speed is as good as connected to Cellular network bandwidth. Living in suburban area, many time I even don't get LTE signal so having LTE 2GB speed is worthless. First make LTE network bandwidth consistent and signal available before keep increasing modem speed. And 5G is on it's way.

2Gbps cellular, whether it's LTE or 5G, means nothing if the cellular network isn't designed to handle it. This is like a car being able to go 200 mph. The only legal places to go this fast are on a few race tracks so why design a car that can go that fast? On Verizon, with anything above an iPhone 6, I've seen speeds above 100Mbps but the conditions have to be perfect. From what I've read in order to get 5G speeds, you have to be very close to the cellular tower. For the vast majority of us, that means we'll never see speeds anywhere near the advertised threshold. Unless cellular providers are willing to provide some kind of mesh network with more antennas, I doubt we'll see these speeds any time soon.

BTW: @wood1208 it's 2Gbps as in bits not bytes, a big difference in the amount of data being moved.

--
Just used Speedtest over Verizon LTE on my iPhone 8 Plus, 4 bars, not in a large city. Surprised I got 59.6 down and 47.2 up. We might have one tower in the area and it's actually as fast as the Comcast connection currently running in this house. When I had 250Mbps Blast Pro! I would easily get the 250 down but only about 13 up. Of course it's early in the morning so the cellular network isn't being hammered. 

tjwolf said:

...wonder how long before that white home/apps-switcher bar gets burned in....

genovelle said:

Soli said:

alandail said:

Soli said:

vukasika said:

Q: Is encryption legal?
A: Yes.
End of discussion.

True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.

if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design.  Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.

That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.

Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.

Soli said:

alandail said:

Soli said:

vukasika said:

Q: Is encryption legal?
A: Yes.
End of discussion.

True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.

if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design.  Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.

That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.

Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.

Soli said:

alandail said:

Soli said:

vukasika said:

Q: Is encryption legal?
A: Yes.
End of discussion.

True, but this isn't that discussion. Apple has been served a warrant so they'll hand over all data they can access, in accordance with the warrant.

if it's encrypted, Apple can't provide without the keys, which they can't access by design.  Making the keys accessible defeats the purpose of encrypting the files in the first place.

That's the device encryption. If they can't can't access it then they just have to make that an official statement to them, but this is also about his iCloud account, which may not have unbreakable account encryption on their servers as this is inherently different from iDevice HW encryption. Even if it is unbreakable, they just need to state that and explain why. It's a warrant, so I'm not sure why you're focused on the legality of encryption but ignoring the legally of warrants.

Also note that Apple tried to assist them right away, so there's no reason to suspect that Apple will not try to assist them now. If his iCloud account was accessible I'm sure they already have the data waiting for them.

The warrant makes no sense. It has been well documented and I’m sure Apple told them they can’t access the phone, so why even make such a legal request when it is moot. The only possible reason is deflection.