• 0 Posts
  • 225 Comments
Joined 3 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年7月20日

help-circle



  • Kind of. GSM (which all but Verizon and formerly Sprint used) let most any phone on the network. CDMA let carriers pick and choose compatible devices. In the early 2010s when Verizon was attempting to buy more spectrum for its 4G network, Google put themselves as a potential buyer, but they wanted the FCC to set a rule for the spectrum that said any phone compatible had to be allowed onto the network. Verizon won that auction and since then Verizon’s been way more open on what they allow.

    And with Sprint being purchased by T-Mobile, it would make more sense at this point to have a phone certified for AT&T and T-Mobile and Verizon would just have to let it on the network. These days, a phone being “certified” is Moore just a carrier making the statement of “we’ve tested the phone and we do know it works on the network.“ it doesn’t mean an uncertified phone will never work, it just means that this one should work by all metrics they’re able to tell.








  • ClusterfcktoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldRevisiting Rule #3
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 个月前

    My guess is a lot of that rule was created to cut down on the “is this a good server?” Questions. Which I could see becoming a problem.

    Maybe a rule specifically calling that out and a weekly “Hardware guidance” post that people can comment and ask those kinds of questions?




  • You cannot just buy any SFP module and have it work. Most ISPs deploy a “special” (at least compared to normal point to point fiber links) that lets them serve multiple customers out of one port in their office. This is called a Passive Optical Network and requires specialized modules on both ends. There are ways to make a specific SFP work as an ONT and by cloning certain identifiers from the ONT to make the ISP think their box is still there.

    This is a lot of effort and from my research, could stop working randomly in some cases.


  • Synology was my gateway to self-hosting. I agree that now, with the knowledge I’ve gained, they are overpriced, but for a “NAS with training wheels” I can’t think of much better for people with the money to spend.

    I think there’s a place for Synology and I’d like to imagine with such a resounding amount of feedback, they’re going to avoid the proprietary crap for a while at least. I’m not saying they’re a good company or that they deserve praise for backtracking on a stupid idea, but at least I’m not as reluctant to recommend them as I was.