I have not hatred here. Karl writes some reasonable articles, but often has way too much hatred for the companies themselves. it makes it harder for him to understand their logic and the ways they want to work.
"Modern telcos are not stupid, but neither is the modern FCC. Nobel Econ winner Ronald Coase started to modernize the FCC's thinking to market-based in 1959, and its improved steadily since. The FCC knows that spectrum is a scarce resource, which ultimately belongs to the public."
I agree. But the typical deal is a certain amount of time to start using it, but what will happen is that "technology will move" and it will take much longer than that to roll out anything meaningful. The FCC will continue to monitor but realistically can't constrain companies to roll out services that would be overtaken by technology in a short period of time.
So what you get is the same sort of roll out that LTE had - a little bit, a little more, a little more, and finally a big push to make it nationwide when they were absolutely certain that the technology was stable, wasn't going to get wiped out by something new, and that enough consumers were "device committed" to the new format - all of course while supporting the existing 3G and 2G devices.
In the meantime, the spectrum is locked up, nobody else cna move in, so there is little chance for disruption - just slow and steady progress - that is the way big companies like it.
"Indeed, how could anyone possibly object to a government agency not just running a site hosting child porn but actually making it more efficient, to attain absolutely nothing they didn't already have?
Guess you missed this part in your haste to defend the government's actions in assisting the distribution of child porn on a wider scale:"
In the overall scheme of things, using such an EXISTING site to locate more predator types in the world isn't a bad thing. Without law enforcement action, the site would have gone on forever.
"Had they shut down the site the day they took control of the servers they would have been in the same position as they were after two weeks of running it and facilitating the spread and viewing of child porn."
Short term thinking. Have you considered that, rather than prosecuting those people, they are instead working with law enforcement around the world to look into these people to see what they may be up to? Charging people is the END RESULT of investigation, not the starting point. What they collected in a couple of weeks might take a year or more to work through, and might take even longer than that for different agencies to investigate the people involved.
I wasn't born with the internet already in place, so I guess I have every so slightly more patience than you do.
The Rio games were pretty much FUBAR from the start. A county that couldn't afford the games, a people who didn't want the games, and a bunch of doped out, blood packing althletes will big sponsorship contracts pretty much all adds up to a great big "ho hum" from many people.
NBC may be right, Millennials probably tuned out even more, unhappy with the delivery methods and amount of commercials, and with an attention span honed by the internet, they just never showed.
I can say that for the first time since the Olympics was in my home town, I didn't watch a single thing, not a moment, not a peep. I saw some news stories and read some headlines, but otherwise, the Olympics slid past like that car going 3 mph faster than you on the interstate. Didn't care that they were coming, didn't care while they are here, and certainly not worried now they are gone.
"It continues to be curious to me how representatives and agency officials, when they suspect a policy might get an unfavorable response from the public consider as their first option to continue with the policy, but make it secret."
There are plenty of police programs that the public do not like. If the police force was run as a popularity contest rather than with the goal of keeping the peace / applying the law, then you would have a disaster.
What would go? Radar guns (nobody likes to get a speeding ticket) and parking meters and police writing tickets for that would go too. Police walking the beat? Out, that is like surveillance. Drug raids? Organized crime? Fuggedaboutit. Nobody wants the police arresting their friends (or their dealer!).
So yes, lots of things happen quietly, away from the public's eye. A lot of programs that the public wouldn't like still run and exist. It's the nature of the game. Deep down we know we need police and we need law enforcement, yet we also have a deep desire to "get away with" stuff.
Disagreeable policies that are legal are not an issue, just that you don't like them.
The surveillance offered in this situation appears to be legal (ie, it captures what can be seen from the air, similar to a helicopter or plane). Any concerns for privacy are similar to those of a helicopter with a camera, and the courts have long since held that all of that is acceptable. Disagreeable to certain people, perhaps, but legal.
As for private financing of the equipment, I don't really have an issue with it, provided it is used in an equal and fair handed manner, and the company providing the equipment does not extract benefit from the data collected except for testing purposes. Ptherwise, the police get an extra tool, something that might help us monitor police activities, and it just seems to be a pretty decent idea.
Sorry Karl, once again you fail because you can't seem to see past your hatred of these companies to realize they are being smart.
You seem surprised they are buying up spectrum? Did you even actually read the quote, which suggests it's possible that they won't even want to pay the minimum set forward, which would trigger another auction round?
Moreover, did you consider WHY they are buying spectrum? It's in no small part because it's a limited resource, and something they can control and profit from. It would be the same as buying empty lots in real estate. All the lots around it are built up, the lots are right in the best locations, and there won't be any more of it. That is a recipe for long term profits. It doesn't mean they are going to do much of anything with it today, tomorrow, or the next day.
Buying up empty lots doesn't give you 1 iota more service, and doesn't innovate anything. Rather, they are buying the space and keeping others people out.
Net neutrality has spurred plenty of innovation and investment - on in house, zero rated services and walled gardens of "doesn't count against bandwidth bills" services. It's driving a wedge between in house services and the web at large, and there is absolutely nothing the FCC can do about what companies do on their internal networks.
More like Electronic Fear Foundation these days... but as others have said, proof that Karl ain't a top shelf Techdirt writer!
I was going to add that I think that this is a case like #hillaryhealth. No matter how much Microsoft says the data is made anonymous or pooled in a manner that doesn't allow for individual data to be matched to user, there will always be those screaming "spying!". It's pretty unavoidable.
EFF's entire spiel here seems to be based on (at best) second hand knowledge.
Techdirt hates it when law enforcement actually does something that results in criminal prosecutions.
I wish the site was still up identifying those who seek child porn. They need to tie a can to the tail of those fuckers and make sure everyone knows who they are. If "entrapment" (what the rest of us would call a "sting" operation) is what gets it done, then entrap away!
In favorite Techdirt-ism, the ends justify the means.
It's one of the ongoing issues of media and politics. Media has the ability to shape people's opinion, and the owners of media have rarely been shy to try.
The biggest difference is that in the past, you might see editorials or op-eds in support of a given candidate. In more recent years. we have seen the media becoming more and more mouth pieces for their chosen party. I think of it as the Fox News Effect. Online sites like Breibart don't even attempt to get the facts right, pouring lies and misdirection into the political debate (see #hillaryhealth for more of that crap).
The total lack of fact in news reporting these days is pretty scary.
I think perhaps you have a bit of a problem between "bullshit" and "I don't like your answer". The press are calling out Trump because his stuff is over the top bullshit, with absolutely no space for doubt. The press can call it out, because it's clear and not subject of opinion or debate.
It's rare that things are so clear cut. Most of the time, there are at least two possible interpretations of someone's statements, or enough provable truth in the lies that it's hard to split them out. The media still do a pretty good job (many news organizations run fact check stories) but the generally don't call someone and out and out liar, often pointing to shreds of truth that salt the lies.
In an election year, politicians always seem to slink away from anything that might be a problem. Support for the TTP in pretty big in the Republican world (big business) but not as popular with the individual voters. So during the election cycle, they back away, and come January, they are back with their full support knowing full well that the public will have likely forgotten the whole thing by the next time the critter are up for re-election.
A couple of things: First, a congrats to Karl for apparently buying out Techdirt, as the site for the moment is almost exclusively your posts on pages 1.
As for the story, well...
First and foremost, if I understand this correctly, the network is going to be built by industry not using government money, and they will in face be paying the government for the privilege. So the estimated cost, in many senses, is not a direct expense.
Second, one of the things you have to remember about a system like this is the concept that the coverage is nationwide without gaps. An emergency happens, and fire and rescue from various jurisdictions can work together on the ground with a common communication system. That's pretty powerful concept.
Anyway, I end up a little confused, the price is going up but it's private industry paying, and that 47 billion will net them more than 100 billion. Seems like a fair return - and even if they costs akmost double again (say 80 billion) it would still be a good deal for them overall.
Trying to figure out where the outrage is aimed, exactly.
Actually, the big five (as you call them) make their money by NOT throwing cash down every technology black hole they trip over. Most of them have been wisely replacing copper with fiber for most of their existing backbone network, doing fiber to the node setups not only for internet but also for phone and other services. Unlike Google, they have long since figured out that there is no way to easily recoup the money involved in re-cabling people's homes when the existing copper will do internet speed well beyond what most people need.
They make their money the old fashioned way: By not burning through it like play money.
Yup. However, that still leaves Google ISP with a big problem, because they still have to get within 1000 feet of the consumer, and they have to offer enough bandwidth to meet the needs of all of the consumers in that space.
In low density areas, the last 1000 feet isn't the cost, it's the miles and miles between and the poles and the installation that costs so much and cannot be easily passed on to consumers. So getting to a pole or a spot 1000 feet away from someone's farm house is still expensive, using fiber or using some kind of mesh network to get there. Each node costs, and has to be maintained.
Also, the rooftop "reasonable" antenna exemption is for non-commercial use, generally not for commercial users. The exemption is a home owners personal use exemption, and not a way out of the FCC rules. There are a few small groups trying to set these things up and the FCC is watching closely.
It would explain why Google is so much into mesh networking. But it would fly into the face of FCC regulation and there is a strong possibility that they would find it to be an unreasonable commercial use of the public airwaves. There is no free lunch!
So if you consider Google setting up commercial nodes (with appropriate licensing) and then trying to maintain them and get users to use their radios and receiving equipment, you start seeing that it could end up being even more expensive than running fiber. Google is already proving that FTTH style service is way more expensive than anyone wants to admit.
Always good to see you missing the point and piling up the personal insults. It's almost hard to know where to start because your posts are sort of like buckshot - high in dispersion, but not much kill power.
"Like everything you state"
Incorrect. All of the numbers come from the current Alphabet reports. So there is no guessing. Further, if you took time to read the attached link, you would realize that they too have drawn very similar conclusions. The new CFO seems to be clamping down hard, bringing the adult supervision back to the company.
As for "it's a guess", it means that I am expressing an opinion based on the facts. It's sort of the same things that Mike Masnick does in many of his stories: Lining up facts, and filling in the gaps between.
"which is why Google are not rolling out in "most of the country" but concentrating on underserved populated metropolitan areas"
Portland is populated and metropolitan, but they are not longer pulling the trigger there. Why? Some people draw the conclusion that there isn't any money to be made, so they aren't going to do it.
"You not only spew crap for paragraphs, your conclusion actually agrees with the people you're trying to attack. Does that mean you're a shill too?"
My conclusion is that the concept of the story (that all is fine on the good ship Google Fiber) is just plain wrong. In fact, a "pivot" at this point away from fiber is a good indication that the ship ran into a storm and has turned back. Looking at alternate ways to reach consumers is a good idea, but it shows that after all the huff and puff about incumbent ISPs being lazy and fat, we see perhaps that they are smart enough not to throw money down a hole. Google fiber has, at very least, proven that we are probably at least one iteration away from that model being useful in anything other than the highest density situations.
That's not just a guess - it's backed up with facts and figures. Your post? Backed up with vemon and hatred. You really should stop making yourself look foolish.
Karl, I think you have blown your cover as a bit of a shill. This story is pure Iraqi Information Minister material.
The Alpahbet reality (not Google, that is only one of their busineses) is that they have a pile of what they consider "moonshot" or "other bets" type businesses. This is everything from space exporation and self driving cars all the way to things like Google Fiber. That group last quarter cost the company nearly 900 million and took in only 185 million total (and burned through more than 3.5 BILLION dollars in 2015). (source: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/08/15/alphabet-ceo-larry-page-needs-adult-supervision.html )
Quite simply, Google Fiber is a big, big, huge money loser. As a little experiment to show what is possible, it was a nice idea. Kansas City was a cool concept. The reality however is that it does not appear to make enough income to justify it's existence. It's actually bad enough that it appears to be a form of dumping (intentionally losing a lot of money to gain market and drive others out). This only works out for Alphabet because other business (specifically Google ads) are bring in tons of free cash.
As a stand alone business, Google Fiber should already be out of business.
So, evolving? Nope. What is sounds much more like is "stop throwing money into the pit". It's a solid pivot to try to leverage out some of the other expensive moonshots (buying lots of radio bandwidth) into something more profitable. It's pretty clear that Google has figured out that fiber to the home, as a stand alone concept, it just way to expensive to run.
It's a guess, but I am suspecting that they have also figured out with a big enough sample that giving people access in this manner doesn't drive enough incremental ad views to pay for it all. These people would have seen Google ads anyway (a little slower on their existing ISPs), so Google's benefit is slight, and thus doesn't generate enough extra income for Alphabet.
So now Google Fiber will slink off quietly and top being top news, and sooner or later they will announce that the Beta is over and that they have sold the network to Comcast or something like that.
Google Fiber is a great idea, but it's just to expensive to do in the US, your population density in most areas is too low to cover the true expenses of the project.