"It doesn't mean they are going to do much of anything with it today, tomorrow, or the next day."
Listen, I'll give you full points for your "Moreover" paragraph, and understanding the perverse incentives for spectrum rights buyers, but then you drop the ball.
You seem unaware that, in just about every nation, the regulators REQUIRE build-out and use from the spectrum auction winners, in a deliberate effort to block the kind of property speculation you describe.
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. So any licensee of that spectrum is required to build-out service on it for the stated purpose, and thus offer consumer surplus to the citizens in the form of a communication or media service. Spectrum licenses are "use it or lose it".
This blurb talks about the problem you think still exists unfettered, the "hold up problem". It's not completely solved, but it is highly constrained by regs.
Yeah, but you're kinda mixing up the ends and the means.
Google has not stopped moving towards its end goals: 1) Offer gigabit broadband to people as a trial business 2) Use competition and awareness of Google ISP service to push other ISPs in the direction of faster Internet, which behooves Google.
Fiber was the means to that end, but has high costs per home passed. So, as wireless offers better and better performance, Google will look to it more and more. Don't forget, they've already looked at Muni Wi-Fi, Balloons, drones, fiber, fixed wireless, and probably lots of other stuff as means to the end.
Sometimes, they can actually take their fake predictions and make them reality to prove a point. They are not unwilling to burn bridges, salt fields, and toss the baby out with the bathwater.
Your argument = "We made wacky, complicated, non-enforceable, messed up contracts with some partners, and all our paying end customers need to abide by them."
Don't you get the part about how your argument would also make the VCR illegal...even though it isn't?
"copyright law is predicated on the theory that creators are incentivized to create new works by the prospect of reaping the economic fruits of their creative labor, which in turn benefits the public by increasing the number of creative works available for their enjoyment"
The objective is not so that the works are "available for our enjoyment", but rather that such works will eventually be fully ours, aka, Public Domain.
They act like the mid-state is the end game. It is not.
But with time, better wireless technologies have emerged. 5G is nothing like the old Wifi 802.11b. Neither is millimeter wave. There are different pros and cons now, but a lot more on the pro side.
Just like the dunking machine at my high school fundraiser.
Sooner or later, the Principal gets soaked. It just takes one hit.
That's what's so evil about Thiel's crusade. If resources are unlimited, and no quarter is offered, then eventually, Gawker will lose, guilty or not.
Similarly, if a billionaire offered everyone in the country to support their lawsuit against you, for any claim...sooner or later you would lose one. And you'd be bankrupted by legal claims soon enough anyways.
True, Techdirt has called out most dumb security lapses. But I don't think the entire sector was considered stupid because of the lapses.
Take HTTPS web servers. Mike harped on that for years waiting for websites to figure out they should secure the connection. But at no point did anyone suggest the web was stupid, useless, or silly as a result.
Re: Once again: 'Everyone else is doing it' is not a valid excuse
There is a big difference between:
saying "Your article's should cover things I care about: starvation, jaywalking, etc"
and saying "You are consistently writing about one particular topic in a way that suggests a chip on your shoulder more than a fair evaluation."
"Exactly what is your objection to articles like this pointing out lousy security practices" My objection is not calling out the security. It is the content (article and comments) that are summarized as: "The IoT is dumb because it currently is insecure."
Read the article. That insinuation is in there. For example, 16 locks were tested. An abysmal 12 were hackable. OK, so was the conclusion that the other 4 are better products, and we should look to them? No, there is no reward for being one of the better-made locks. Instead, the entire sector is painted with one brush: "the dysfunction onion".
What is the objective? To push for better security, or to kill IoT with FUD? I think it's the former, and I think even Karl might agree -- but the article does the latter.
I know that there are bluetooth adapters that can extend the life of your $300 Bose headphones, but that's inconvenient for many users.
There are also a host of non-headphone devices that will be made obsolete. Many companies took advantage of the headphone jack as a de facto I/O port. Their solutions will need to be upgraded, and will be more expensive now, and will require bluetooth, and worse: batteries and charging.
- Square or Paypal credit card readers - Microphones - Synchronized flash systems - Selfie Stick remote shutter buttons - Add-a-custom-buttons like Pressly
The floppy had universally better options, and was bad at its only purpose. Not so for the headphone port. I have a number of bluetooth headsets that are my primary way of connecting to the phone for media, but I STILL have plug-in headphones for hands-free voice calls. I use them for the pure simplicity and reliability of it.
"whether or not it had infringed on someone's copyright in "Stairway to Heaven"
Is our most excellent system really wasting time debating who owns materials released in 1971?
No matter how that is resolved, the actual natural (non-legal) truth is: that material has been stolen from the public domain. It should have been our property decades ago.
"Not a week now goes by without the Internet of Things revealing a new layer in the dysfunction onion."
Right.
And not a week goes by without every other thing also being hacked through some security lapse. PCs, Browsers, phones, banks, stores, credit cards, DNC, and on and on. They all get hacked.
IoT, like any other connected devices, is attacked, often with success. Like the others, they should be more secure. But I still don't understand why Karl is so singularly pissed off at IoT, out of proportion with all else.
Here's news today on Volkswagen's keyless system that can be hacked. Is IoT really so specially bad?
The point is that startups and inventors start with a vision, and then work through each problem and barrier as it presents itself. They have dozens of such problems, thus are rather focused on what is stopping them from the goal. They are not focused on the problems that WILL present themselves AFTER they reach the goal of building the working invention.
Once again. Not the right decision, but very common, and not limited to IoT.
Once security is a problem with IoT (around the current time frame), then security will be the problem that people work to solve. Then it will be adequately addressed (because security cannot be fully solved).
On the post: Billionaire Backer Of Palantir & Facebook Insists He's Bankrupting Journalists To Protect Your Privacy
Re: Re: Re:
But do know that the Hulk Hogan was by no means the first, nor only Thiel-backed lawsuit against Gawker or its writers.
On the post: One More Time With Feeling: Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment In The Slightest
I See Someone Who Doesn't Know Spectrum Policy
Listen, I'll give you full points for your "Moreover" paragraph, and understanding the perverse incentives for spectrum rights buyers, but then you drop the ball.
You seem unaware that, in just about every nation, the regulators REQUIRE build-out and use from the spectrum auction winners, in a deliberate effort to block the kind of property speculation you describe.
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. So any licensee of that spectrum is required to build-out service on it for the stated purpose, and thus offer consumer surplus to the citizens in the form of a communication or media service. Spectrum licenses are "use it or lose it".
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-236
This blurb talks about the problem you think still exists unfettered, the "hold up problem". It's not completely solved, but it is highly constrained by regs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_management#Spectrum_property_rights_model
On the post: One More Time With Feeling: Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment In The Slightest
Re:
Google has not stopped moving towards its end goals:
1) Offer gigabit broadband to people as a trial business
2) Use competition and awareness of Google ISP service to push other ISPs in the direction of faster Internet, which behooves Google.
Fiber was the means to that end, but has high costs per home passed. So, as wireless offers better and better performance, Google will look to it more and more. Don't forget, they've already looked at Muni Wi-Fi, Balloons, drones, fiber, fixed wireless, and probably lots of other stuff as means to the end.
On the post: One More Time With Feeling: Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment In The Slightest
Re:
And this question is fairly easily answered by modeling and comparing the US market to markets with greater competition and stronger NN.
On the post: One More Time With Feeling: Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment In The Slightest
Re:
Economics is good, useful, relatively consistent and reliable, informative, and predictive.
Economists? Meh.
On the post: One More Time With Feeling: Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment In The Slightest
Re:
Sometimes, they can actually take their fake predictions and make them reality to prove a point. They are not unwilling to burn bridges, salt fields, and toss the baby out with the bathwater.
On the post: Copyright Group, In Arguing Against FCC's Set Top Box Proposal, Appears To Argue That VCRs & DVRs Are Also Illegal
Re:
Don't you get the part about how your argument would also make the VCR illegal...even though it isn't?
On the post: Copyright Group, In Arguing Against FCC's Set Top Box Proposal, Appears To Argue That VCRs & DVRs Are Also Illegal
Re:
or if you meant "moot", as in, up for debate, or mostly irrelevant.
I guess I just like to tute my own horn.
On the post: Copyright Group, In Arguing Against FCC's Set Top Box Proposal, Appears To Argue That VCRs & DVRs Are Also Illegal
Incorrect
The objective is not so that the works are "available for our enjoyment", but rather that such works will eventually be fully ours, aka, Public Domain.
They act like the mid-state is the end game. It is not.
On the post: Google Fiber Hasn't Hit A 'Snag,' It's Just Evolving
True Dat
True dat! I mean, they've considered, experimented, and deployed:
- Muni Wi-Fi
- Balloons with Project Loon
- Fiber TTH
- Core network fiber
- Millimeter wave wireless
Basically, they'll try anything reasonable, and double down on the ideas that work- a.k.a. healthy competition.
Google's early Wi-Fi experiments failed, because that technology was not suited for the job of blanket muni coverage and capacity
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20070421/002138.shtml
But with time, better wireless technologies have emerged. 5G is nothing like the old Wifi 802.11b. Neither is millimeter wave. There are different pros and cons now, but a lot more on the pro side.
On the post: Billionaire Backer Of Palantir & Facebook Insists He's Bankrupting Journalists To Protect Your Privacy
Re: Strange approach
On the post: Billionaire Backer Of Palantir & Facebook Insists He's Bankrupting Journalists To Protect Your Privacy
Re:
Sooner or later, the Principal gets soaked. It just takes one hit.
That's what's so evil about Thiel's crusade. If resources are unlimited, and no quarter is offered, then eventually, Gawker will lose, guilty or not.
Similarly, if a billionaire offered everyone in the country to support their lawsuit against you, for any claim...sooner or later you would lose one. And you'd be bankrupted by legal claims soon enough anyways.
It's abuse of the system.
On the post: Like The Rest Of The Internet Of Things, Most 'Smart' Locks Are Easily Hacked
Re: Re: Still, Why the Rage Pointed Just at IoT?
Take HTTPS web servers. Mike harped on that for years waiting for websites to figure out they should secure the connection. But at no point did anyone suggest the web was stupid, useless, or silly as a result.
On the post: Like The Rest Of The Internet Of Things, Most 'Smart' Locks Are Easily Hacked
Re: Once again: 'Everyone else is doing it' is not a valid excuse
saying "Your article's should cover things I care about: starvation, jaywalking, etc"
and saying "You are consistently writing about one particular topic in a way that suggests a chip on your shoulder more than a fair evaluation."
"Exactly what is your objection to articles like this pointing out lousy security practices"
My objection is not calling out the security. It is the content (article and comments) that are summarized as: "The IoT is dumb because it currently is insecure."
Read the article. That insinuation is in there. For example, 16 locks were tested. An abysmal 12 were hackable. OK, so was the conclusion that the other 4 are better products, and we should look to them? No, there is no reward for being one of the better-made locks. Instead, the entire sector is painted with one brush: "the dysfunction onion".
What is the objective? To push for better security, or to kill IoT with FUD? I think it's the former, and I think even Karl might agree -- but the article does the latter.
On the post: Why Apple Removing The Audio Jack From The iPhone Would Be A Very, Very, Very, Bad Move
Re: Re: Other Devices
On the post: Why Apple Removing The Audio Jack From The iPhone Would Be A Very, Very, Very, Bad Move
Other Devices
There are also a host of non-headphone devices that will be made obsolete. Many companies took advantage of the headphone jack as a de facto I/O port. Their solutions will need to be upgraded, and will be more expensive now, and will require bluetooth, and worse: batteries and charging.
- Square or Paypal credit card readers
- Microphones
- Synchronized flash systems
- Selfie Stick remote shutter buttons
- Add-a-custom-buttons like Pressly
The floppy had universally better options, and was bad at its only purpose. Not so for the headphone port. I have a number of bluetooth headsets that are my primary way of connecting to the phone for media, but I STILL have plug-in headphones for hands-free voice calls. I use them for the pure simplicity and reliability of it.
On the post: No Inspiration Without Payment: Ed Sheeran Sued For Two Songs Sounding Too Similar To Old Songs
Is our most excellent system really wasting time debating who owns materials released in 1971?
No matter how that is resolved, the actual natural (non-legal) truth is: that material has been stolen from the public domain. It should have been our property decades ago.
On the post: Like The Rest Of The Internet Of Things, Most 'Smart' Locks Are Easily Hacked
Still, Why the Rage Pointed Just at IoT?
Right.
And not a week goes by without every other thing also being hacked through some security lapse. PCs, Browsers, phones, banks, stores, credit cards, DNC, and on and on. They all get hacked.
IoT, like any other connected devices, is attacked, often with success. Like the others, they should be more secure. But I still don't understand why Karl is so singularly pissed off at IoT, out of proportion with all else.
Here's news today on Volkswagen's keyless system that can be hacked. Is IoT really so specially bad?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/keyless-systems-older-vw-group-cars-hacked-researchers-140603841--fin ance.html?ref=gs
On the post: Your 'Smart' Thermostat Is Now Vulnerable To Ransomware
Re: Opinion
It just say that she likes learning, and reading English articles like this in her spare time.
On the post: Your 'Smart' Thermostat Is Now Vulnerable To Ransomware
Re: Re: Not On Board 100%
Once again. Not the right decision, but very common, and not limited to IoT.
Once security is a problem with IoT (around the current time frame), then security will be the problem that people work to solve. Then it will be adequately addressed (because security cannot be fully solved).
Next >>