So the satellite was rebroadcasting the signal at a frequency where it could interfere with GSM? Does the satellite just rebroadcast whatever it receives, verbatim?
Block up-converter (BUC) at uplink site (in this case, likely part of a VSAT terminal or Satellite Internet "antenna") takes L-Band (950-1525mhz) input via cable, converts it to C-band uplink (5850-6425mhz) frequency, and transmits to satellite. Satellite then rebroadcasts verbatim at C-band downlink frequency (3400-4200mhz). Except that one of the inputs didn't have a cable or filter attached so it picked up a GSM signal at 936-960mhz. This caused interference on the satellite.
For further context, the reason for this slightly convoluted setup is that normal coaxial cables are really lossy at the high frequencies used to communicate with satellites, so most systems use lower frequency bands on the cable runs and convert the signals by a fixed frequency offset at the actual antenna. It just so happens that the block of frequencies used on the cable runs is similar to common mobile phone frequencies.
That would be all well and good if they didn't collude with the local authorities against competition and collect "universal service" funds from the government in exchange for, at most, the barest minimum effort. Either be a benevolent monopoly (no such thing IMHO) or compete in a free market.
That's a separate issue though, and something I am quite strongly against. The article was about "discriminating" specifically against the poor, and unless you'd like to argue that their collusion is willfully and knowingly done specifically to discriminate against poor people, I don't think it applies.
I agree that we shouldn't be too quick to label every potentially unfair situation as discrimination. But part of the original intent (Ajit Pai notwithstanding) of the USF was to bring quality service to rural and low income areas, so AT&T should be careful to fulfill their obligation and, ideally, the government should hold them to it.
Whatever money AT&T receives from the USF almost certainly doesn't compensate for the revenue loss caused by putting an 18% extra tax on AT&T's products (which is how the USF is funded--an excise tax on the telecom industry).
How about all the other subsidies we've given to telecoms companies over the past few decades in return for unfulfilled promises that the money would be used to expand and upgrade networks?
The standard connectors have a horrible tendency to break through mechanical wear after a few years. On the laptop side, not the charger side.
They also take the laptop with them then pulled by a kid or fell over on.
If there's a problem with the MagSafe, it's that the cable itself breaks after 12-18 months due to lack of stress relief, requiring an expensive replacement and inspiring people to buy $15 euro fire starters.
Complain about Apple being too cheap to hire some proper engineers to build the cable, not the brilliantly designed connector.
I've repaired dozens of laptops and the one thing the broken power connectors had in common was being soldered directly to the motherboard instead of using a separate assembly.
