given how so many members of Congress are in the pockets of the telecom industry, i'm not surprised at this news but i would hope that it would at least get some questions asked considering those main telecom companies are doing diddly squat to improve or even implement any meaningful fibre broadband!
and as this info has now come to light, what is the FCC going to do about/with it? is it going to go to Congress or, as so many of the members Entertainment Industry collaborators, think it's going to be a waste of time? even if that is the case, armed with this shit storm info, can the FCC try again to sort out the set top box issue?
She added that the change “is 100% optional–if users do not opt-in to these changes, their Google experience will remain unchanged.”
To opt-out of Google’s identified tracking, visit the Activity controls on Google’s My Account page, and uncheck the box next to “Include Chrome browsing history and activity from websites and apps that use Google services."
Wait, so is this opt-in or opt-out? That's kind of a huge difference...
I used to think Google could stand up to anyone. That they were *the* company for hackers and those for hacker culture back in the 1990's and early 2000's
Now it's 2016 and they can't stand up to a company less than a third of its size who cultural values are diametrically opposed to much of hacker culture and many of the subcultures its spawned.
No wonder they can't do a damn thing about the NSA. They're so pathetic and ineffective they can't even stand up to a company 1/3rd of its size, let alone the vanguard of the dehumanizing surveillance state.
Talk about a letdown. Maybe it was folly for 14-year-old me to trust Google. It was certainly folly to maintain trust for a decade-and-a-half following.
I hate that I placed so much of my trust in them growing up. I truly do.
The problem with the public is that they speak with many voices, and hold differing opinions. Meanwhile the content industry speaks with one voice, supporting just one idea. Therefore listening to the public involves work in working out the best options, while listening to the industry gives per-packaged solutions.
Wireless is not the best option for high density urban areas, and especially not for delivering multiple HD or $K video streams to a building such as an apartment block. That said using wireless and cable (as in TV) is the best way that combined ISP and content providers have for manipulating the market to their benefit.
Aereo has absolutely nothing to do with THIS issue. You're attempting an irrelevant deflection because you have absolutely NO grounds to your argument. Nice try, shill. But, as always, you're full of BS.
I don't think the real problem is the legal abuses on their own. This is also something many other countries are dealing with. The future of internet is thought to be wireless. Today there is a shared standard for wireless internet and if they can get that to work with somewhat acceptable incumbent deals, USA avoids most of the expensive every infrastructure by itself and can start to provide more competition.
Don't get me wrong, the owner of the physical infrastructure will still hold a monopoly that needs FTC-awareness, but at least they will start to get pressured on the service-level.
This doesn't surprise me, but it's still bittersweet news. Laying miles and miles of fiber was an expensive proposition, and not likely the future of broadband infrastructure. Wireless does seem to be the future, though I wonder what direction will choose to go.
5G (and beyond) seems to be the likely choice, though I am still very intrigued by Chet Kanojia's new project, Starry (he being of Aero fame). The concept seems out there, but based on what he delivered with Aero I have little reason to doubt it technically works. Perhaps an acquisition by Alphabet is just what the two companies need to finally unseat traditional telco's from their throne.