tliltocatl

21 ms·

1. 451.▲
   by tliltocatl 2y ago

   You'll have to wait 10 years to see. But on paper it does (we aim for 15) and we have devices in field for some three years. But for the "simple well-designed" - the problem is, the whole thing is a black box for application
2. 452.▲
   by tliltocatl 2y ago

   Offtopic: constantly varying RPM across a resonance point might not be a good idea, it was exactly what blew up Sayano-Shushenskaya Dam.
3. 453.▲
   by tliltocatl 2y ago

   It definitely does, at least in Europe, not sure how things are on the other side of the pond. For the user equipment there is no real advantage over LTE-M, actually is LTE-M better for our case (send a single packet a day and go to sleep).
4. 454.▲
   by tliltocatl 2y ago

   Because worse is better and if you try to be everything you (don't) get OSI. Also because everyone loves serial ports and dialup modems and TCP just emulates a serial port over packet network. And it wasn't supposed to be one-size
5. 455.▲
   by tliltocatl 2y ago

   You are looking for SCTP.
6. 456.▲
   by tliltocatl 2y ago

   Most of TCP woes comes from high-bandwith latency-sensitive stuff like HFT and video, but TCP isn't particularly good for low-bandwidth high-latency networks either (e. g. NB-IoT with 10 seconds worst case RTT): - TCP will waste roundt