O wow. I'm having a hard time to decide here. I'm inclined to go for the IANA guy. Blackburn is dumb and all but at least she was talking about vulnerabilities and hard coded passwords are some type of vulnerability (I'm stretching) but Cruz managed to compare apples to platypuses.
The only way they can avoid losing without effectively winning is applying the 1st Amendment to themselves and only deleting speech calling for crimes directly (ie: somebody telling people to kill [insert whoever here]). People can complain all they want about arbitrary decisions but not if they ere based on the most important rights in the country.
Telling the infra-structure players alone must 'do something' is naive at best. The real culprits here are a mix of IoT and other hardware manufacturers that couldn't care less about security. They need to be hurt for their lack of care where it hurts the most: their pockets.
So yes, the infra-structure portion can help mitigate the problem but unless we start taking security very seriously it won't matter.
Of course, one must not forget the perpetrators should also be severely punished and if it's a state actor maybe even cut it entirely from the network to preserve its health.
And while those that falsely believe telecom is a free market and all regulation is inherently bad may applaud that outcome, the resulting regulatory capture AT&T would enjoy would be almost total, resulting in higher prices, worse service, and potentially more anti-consumer behavior than ever before.
Sometimes the cure for a problem is to make it so bad that people start actively working to solve it. I think this will be the case at least in the telecom market and possibly elsewhere as the FTC notes. Let them do as they please, pass legislation to firmly put them in monopolistic positions, make all laws more draconian than ever. People will either start ignoring the law (as many already do with copyright for instance) or will actively protest against the practices turning them toxic and making push back initiatives benefit the politicians. Chaos I tell you.
So basically I can release some snake oil claiming it prevents HIV from developing AIDS on humans as long as I include in the fine print that you must use it in conjunction with current medicine for the results to show. Awesome. Now we must read the fine print not to be fooled. Transparency in all its glory.
I'm quite amused by these pieces declaring nobody needs gigabit connections. Who are they to decide what I need? Do they know my daily needs? Do they know if I want to have tons of spare bw for the times I actually need it or just to use it without any limitations? What if I'm interested in the amount of simultaneous connections and not for the bw itself? What if I want to keep my latency very low even if all my 5 relatives are watching netflix at super high def and browsing, downloading stuff at the same time?
No, seriously, when you have the opportunity just tell these morons to shut up and let us choose. I would certainly get such speed. Because I need it? No. Because it's awesome and I want it? Certainly.
One mayor here was heavily criticized for building a bus station that was over twice the size needed for the time. This was 30 years ago. Today it's running above it's full capacity and in need of expansion. So, yeah.