As far as electric goes, that's a nice thought but the reality is prices will not go down in such a scenario. I'd rather my bill go to subsidizing rural areas than to pure profit. Nevermind there are benefits helpful to rural areas that grid service can provide versus solar+battery.
The "uses others solutions" bit is for satellite alone when it comes to Tusass. They own and run all other types of telecom service in Greenland whether fiber, cellular, microwave, or marine radio.
Of course. People are never genuine in their interest or preference of things. It's always about status, wealth, and their standing among their peers. /s
>If a network theoretically prioritized phone calls
This already exists and is an example of a good use of priority. Cellular networks offer Voice over LTE and this is inherently prioritized over all other network traffic. This is done specifically for E911 but also implements special settings so calls can continue to go through even when coverage is very poor (and where VoIP apps would start to fail).
This is correct. Slicing can offer significant performance gains in certain situations. For example, lower latency when certain users need it while not overburdening the network by having to give that to every user.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths we will go to overcomplicate transportation just so everyone has to continue to buy and maintain their own vehicle.
Is it so that everyone has to buy their own vehicle or so that everyone has control over the space they travel in, who else is in that space and the travel schedule?
I think this is a literal example of a solution searching for a problem. I charge my car at home. Not everyone gets to do that, but solving that issue is a better use of resources. On a road trip the 20 minutes of fast charging is welcomed. I would stop even if I was charging while driving.
Having 16A of charging hanging off light poles and meters on a street in front of an apartment is a better use of resources than wiring the road. Having adequate DC charging is a better use of resources than moving the goal post to “which length of road can I charge on?”
TFA mentions that charging during travel would allow trucks to carry fewer batteries, would would reduce weight and increase range, efficiency, and cargo capacity.
You cannot achieve that by charging your semi at home.
Obviously you didn’t read the article because its talking about freight and trucks, which is how the majority of US shipping economy is run. So many low effort comments on this site recently.
Maybe consider that a car is just an expensive thing to own? Why should costs stop at cost-of-ownership when cars affect the lives of more than just their owners?
Did you read the comment you replied to? There are already a bunch of taxes in place on it, and this is adding another tax. They aren't saying there should be no taxes at all. As far as cost-of-ownership, the trains are actually the thing being subsidized here, not cars.
I hate cars in the city, and I think the argument that cars are a negative externality and that for car owners to pay the true cost requires some taxation, but let's be honest about what we're arguing for.
Gas tax doesn't even begin to cover the externalities of burning that gas. Vehicle taxes go entirely towards the administrative costs of vehicles (i.e. DMV) and also don't cover externalities. Sure the road is already built but it was funded by all tax payers, not all of which drive cars. And roads require maintenance, also tax payer funded. Society at large subsidizes cars and drivers, giving them huge chunks of land while making most cities inhospitable to pedestrians, causing almost as many deaths as guns in the US. A giant, heavy, extremely dangerous machine is just about the worst way to transport people. Maybe we should stop subsidizing it entirely and taxing it to lower use like we did with cigarettes?
> As far as cost-of-ownership, the trains are actually the thing being subsidized here, not cars.
Exactly. In fact, if you try to find a single example of passenger rail that is financially sustainable you will likely fail. The only reason passenger rail exists is because it is massively subsidised. It is inherently flawed as a mode of transport.
Yes this exactly. If I'm not allowed to talk about the health effects of car infrastructure (because apparently that's "feelings") then let's just talk about money.
Cars are horrendously over-subsidized and are FAR more expensive to maintain infrastructure for in exchange for moving way fewer people. Trains might not cover their costs with fare but they move a hell of a lot more people while simultaneously being underinvested in, in the US.
That's not true. Mavenir offers an RCS platform that T-Mobile has been using up until recently. A renewed interest in RCS due to Apple supporting it might end up with their platform being more sellable.
You're proving my point. T-Mobile had to switch to Jibe.
I work at a carrier that deployed a solution provided by WIT. Then around 2019-2020 Google decided they weren't interested in an open and interconnected RCS backend anymore.
It just isn't at all. It's still on-air in the US and much of Europe not to mention huge countries like India (where it is still heavily used) and China plus many African countries.
There are only so many partners for cellular basebands in Android phones realistically. Qualcomm, MediaTek, and Samsung make up the vast majority of that market. Google already cooperates with them for other work I'm sure. No reason they wouldn't want to implement this.
