South Korea is headed to 1Gb. They have almost universally deployed fiber to support broadband internet services and 5G mobile. Based on a search, South Koreans are charged about $20 USD equivalent for the service.
Actually, moderation is the cruelest form of abridging freedom of speech and limits our constitutional rights. Twitter, Facebook, etc don't explain how they decide that some speech is OK and other speech is not. Who on their staff is doing this? Are the applying their rules equally?
The AT&T promised fiber is a shame. It's not fiber to the home! It's fiber to the neighborhood!!! The balance of the connection to the home is the crappy 50 year old twisted pair. In other words DSL. You are sharing the fiber with your neighbors. AT&T has not upgraded the system in the Central Office.
Find it hard to understand why these idiots keep getting re-elected! On the other hand, it's time to redefine a news source (news paper, radio/TV broadcast station, magazine, fiction & nonfiction literature as having the right to protected speech under our 1st Amendment.
When the Constitution was first created, we only have a few forms of speech: person to person; one person to a crowd; books; opinion leaflets; news papers; news journals; paintings. 220 years later we have (in addition to all of the above): commercial broadcasting regulated by the FCC; cable news and opinion shows; Facebook; Twitter, plus other forms of Twitter; You Tube. It's time to regulate these entities. They don't need protection from lawsuits, but do need to be held responsible for taking away the right to protected speech of others. Especially because they are monopolies.
When other try to offer alternatives, the monopolies work together to control the competition. Most egregious the actions of AWS in taking control of Parler's ability to manage their customer records and database plus other items AWS controls.
Big Tech companies need moderation guidelines. Example: News is news even if it may be false; racial differences should not be moderated - humans have a natural instinct to moderate based on race - it's in our DNA; differences of opinion should not be moderated - viewers can determine if they want to accept or reject an opinion. Moderation should not be left to Twitter's bearded-one, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Jeff Bezos. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that all speech (with a few exception and that doesn't include speech by white or black supremacists) is protected. If you don't like what is being said, don't listen! I don't want elected officials telling what I can read or watch - that's Nazi Germany.
All porn on open platforms which can be viewed without restriction should be moderated; child porn must not be posted on any site.
It's possible that Paler doesn't want to get in the middle of a dispute between AWS and Oracle.
Consider that you were spending thousands of dollars each week with AWS and they decided to give you 48 hours notice that they were shutting you down and wouldn't give you access to your stored data. What would be your reaction?
Interesting article. First you should realize that the President is not able to launch nuclear weapons without corroboration of others. And, the Speaker of the House (3rd in line to be President) may be one of those individuals. However, given Nancy Pelosi's obsession with getting rid of a falsely elected President Trump, it seems to me that Nancy should be impeached. Over the past 4 years she has supported all of the activities by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Justice Department to find a way to "Dump Trump".
Since regaining her seat as Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has allowed the House to make all kinds of false accusations against President Trump and his family. Doing all of this while supporting the torching of major cities and those involved in doing the torching.
With regard to the events of January 6th, President Trump did not encourage his supporters gathered in Washington to "storm the capitol". Instead, he was asking them to make their voices heard by the Congress. Let the Congress know that there are millions of Citizens who believe that there were significant problems with the running of the election. There is actual proof, but the courts refused to hear the evidence. Instead, the refused to listen based on procedural matters. Couldn't even get 5 Justices to agree that Pennsylvania had violated the Constitution by using the local courts, the Governor, Attorney General to make the rules, when they should have been using the Legislature to change election rules. That's what the Constitutions of the US and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania require.
Content Moderation - Just a polite way of saying Censorship. The term is justified by saying community or societal mores are being applied. But how is this different from defacing historical paintings.
The Vietnam War was terrible, and the photographer was simply trying the visualize the horrors for the folks back home and the rest of the world.
A world war 2 veteran was asked by his family what he saw and did. His reply - "General Sherman once said War is Hell, he was right. I survived by the Grace of God. I'm home, and that's all you need to know."
The use of 5.9 spectrum has nothing to do with how you modify your vehicles. The Federal government has some basic requirements for safety and emissions, and states control the rest.
Sorry... I misread your statement. The frequencies used by Federal agencies (DoD, FBI, Treasury, etc.) are detailed by the FCC and managed by a special office within the FCC. These frequencies are not part of the public record.
Yes... If you bother to read the Code of Federal Regulations for the FCC where this is regulated, you will see that the DSRC spectrum is provided on a secondary basis to military bases which use it for their ground base radar systems.
"Ownership" in the original Radio Act of 1927 says that the people "own" the radio spectrum. Some of the radio spectrum is allocated for use by the military.
Even the Cell companies which pay big bucks for the spectrum they use don't own their frequencies. They only have the right to use the radio spectrum.
The mobile units (OBU) can talk to each other, but can't go through the infrastructure without connecting to a fixed unit (RSU) which is operated by a municipality, or a county, or state.
The government agencies are not passing any data collected from the vehicles past their own servers.
The data collected by the intersection devices (RSU) is simply location, direction and speed, plus time of day. There is no other information collected - THE AUTO MANUFACTURERS DON'T SEND THE VEHICLE DATA TO THE DSRC INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY VIEW THE VEHICLE FUNCTIONAL AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION AS PROPRIETARY.
The vehicle performance data can be collected by using another wireless system, not the spectrum reserved for safety. Typically, this would be Cellular. That why the auto industry is hoping that 5G will provide the support requiured. The other way to collect the data is by a physical connection to the CAN bus or the OBDII port.
IT TOOK 16 YEARS BECAUSE THE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY IS COMPOSED OF CIVIL AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERS WHO DON'T HAVE THE BACKGROUND FOR DEVELOPING A NEW RADIO SERVICE FROM SCRATCH!!!!!! IT TOOK MORE THAN 10 YEARS FOR THE IEEE STANDARDS COMMITTEE TO AGREE ON THE TRANSMISSION AND DATA STANDARDS. ANOTHER 3 YEARS FOR POTENTIAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE RADIO SYSTEMS TO DEVELOP PRODUCT.
The actual 75 MHz of bandwidth was set aside military radar which was being used at various locations around the U.S. It was never part of the ISM (instrument, scientific, medical) band. YOU CAN'T TAKE SOMETHING BACK THAT YOU NEVER HAD.
The mobile units (OBU) can talk to each other, but can't go through the infrastructure without connecting to a fixed unit (RSU) which is operated by a municipality, or a county, or state.
The government agencies are not passing any data collected from the vehicles past their own servers.
The data collected by the intersection devices (RSU) is simply location, direction and speed, plus time of day. There is no other information collected - THE AUTO MANUFACTURERS DON'T SEND THE VEHICLE DATA TO THE DSRC INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY VIEW THE VEHICLE FUNCTIONAL AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION AS PROPRIETARY.
The vehicle performance data can be collected by using another wireless system, not the spectrum reserved for safety. Typically, this would be Cellular. That why the auto industry is hoping that 5G will provide the support requiured. The other way to collect the data is by a physical connection to the CAN bus or the OBDII port.
IT TOOK 16 YEARS BECAUSE THE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY IS COMPOSED OF CIVIL AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERS WHO DON'T HAVE THE BACKGROUND FOR DEVELOPING A NEW RADIO SERVICE FROM SCRATCH!!!!!! IT TOOK MORE THAN 10 YEARS FOR THE IEEE STANDARDS COMMITTEE TO AGREE ON THE TRANSMISSION AND DATA STANDARDS. ANOTHER 3 YEARS FOR POTENTIAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE RADIO SYSTEMS TO DEVELOP PRODUCT.
The actual 75 MHz of bandwidth was set aside military radar which was being used at various locations around the U.S. It was never part of the ISM (instrument, scientific, medical) band. YOU CAN'T TAKE SOMETHING BACK THAT YOU NEVER HAD.
I don't recognize your name Mr. Field, but I can assure you that the Auto industry had nothing to do with convincing the FCC that spectrum was required to support safety applications. The TRB (Transportation Research Board) had a committee on communications which in 1994 began a research project to develop the requirements to provide for communications services for transportation. I was a member of that committee. I don't recall any individual from the Auto industry on that committee. The committee did reach out to GM, Ford and Chrysler for information. You may recall that GM - at that time - was promoting a new product - ON Star - which used Cellular services for communication. GM did not want any competition.
In 1996, I became Chair of the ITS America Telecommunications Committee. The members were volunteers. We hired an Attorney specializing in FCC matters, and an engineering firm specializing in RF systems to support our approach to the FCC. IEEE formed the 802.11p committee to develop the standards.
It took nearly 10 years to develop standards and use cases before the Transportation community could begin deployment. The infrastructure is being developed by local and state government. There is no proprietary auto data being transported over the public infrastructure. The manufacturers must use other wireless means to collect their data. Other companies that want the automotive data must provide their own applications and can't use the DSRC spectrum.
Please do a better job of investigating before making ungrounded claims.
On the post: Senators Push FCC To Finally Update Our Pathetic Definition Of Broadband
Crappy Broadband Definition
South Korea is headed to 1Gb. They have almost universally deployed fiber to support broadband internet services and 5G mobile. Based on a search, South Koreans are charged about $20 USD equivalent for the service.
On the post: North Dakota's New Anti-230 Bill Would Let Nazis Sue You For Reporting Their Content To Twitter
Section 230
Actually, moderation is the cruelest form of abridging freedom of speech and limits our constitutional rights. Twitter, Facebook, etc don't explain how they decide that some speech is OK and other speech is not. Who on their staff is doing this? Are the applying their rules equally?
On the post: A 90 Year Old Shouldn't Have To Buy A $10,000 Ad Just To Get AT&T To Upgrade His Shitty DSL Line
$10,000 WSJ AD
The AT&T promised fiber is a shame. It's not fiber to the home! It's fiber to the neighborhood!!! The balance of the connection to the home is the crappy 50 year old twisted pair. In other words DSL. You are sharing the fiber with your neighbors. AT&T has not upgraded the system in the Central Office.
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Senators Demand End of Internet Economy
Find it hard to understand why these idiots keep getting re-elected! On the other hand, it's time to redefine a news source (news paper, radio/TV broadcast station, magazine, fiction & nonfiction literature as having the right to protected speech under our 1st Amendment.
When the Constitution was first created, we only have a few forms of speech: person to person; one person to a crowd; books; opinion leaflets; news papers; news journals; paintings. 220 years later we have (in addition to all of the above): commercial broadcasting regulated by the FCC; cable news and opinion shows; Facebook; Twitter, plus other forms of Twitter; You Tube. It's time to regulate these entities. They don't need protection from lawsuits, but do need to be held responsible for taking away the right to protected speech of others. Especially because they are monopolies.
When other try to offer alternatives, the monopolies work together to control the competition. Most egregious the actions of AWS in taking control of Parler's ability to manage their customer records and database plus other items AWS controls.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Big Tech companies need moderation guidelines. Example: News is news even if it may be false; racial differences should not be moderated - humans have a natural instinct to moderate based on race - it's in our DNA; differences of opinion should not be moderated - viewers can determine if they want to accept or reject an opinion. Moderation should not be left to Twitter's bearded-one, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Jeff Bezos. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that all speech (with a few exception and that doesn't include speech by white or black supremacists) is protected. If you don't like what is being said, don't listen! I don't want elected officials telling what I can read or watch - that's Nazi Germany.
All porn on open platforms which can be viewed without restriction should be moderated; child porn must not be posted on any site.
I think you get the picture.
On the post: Georgia Towns Sue Netflix In Flimsy Bid To Nab A Slice Of The Pie
Franchise Fees
Let's be clear about who is paying these fees. It's the subscriber!!! Every cable bill I receive from Comcast has a Franchise Fee as part of the bill.
The residents of the municipalities suing Netflix, Hulu, etc. should tell their elected officials - "Hell No... We Won't Pay"!!!!
On the post: In Departing Statement, FCC Boss Ajit Pai Pretends He 'Served The People'
How much did he make by serving the people a pile of shit?
On the post: Trump's Support Of Cops Pays Off: Multiple Police Officers Under Investigation For Illegal Invasion Of The Capitol Building
This is a terrible article. I hope there are no police officers around when you really need one.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
It's possible that Paler doesn't want to get in the middle of a dispute between AWS and Oracle.
Consider that you were spending thousands of dollars each week with AWS and they decided to give you 48 hours notice that they were shutting you down and wouldn't give you access to your stored data. What would be your reaction?
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Twitter & Trump
Interesting article. First you should realize that the President is not able to launch nuclear weapons without corroboration of others. And, the Speaker of the House (3rd in line to be President) may be one of those individuals. However, given Nancy Pelosi's obsession with getting rid of a falsely elected President Trump, it seems to me that Nancy should be impeached. Over the past 4 years she has supported all of the activities by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Justice Department to find a way to "Dump Trump".
Since regaining her seat as Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has allowed the House to make all kinds of false accusations against President Trump and his family. Doing all of this while supporting the torching of major cities and those involved in doing the torching.
With regard to the events of January 6th, President Trump did not encourage his supporters gathered in Washington to "storm the capitol". Instead, he was asking them to make their voices heard by the Congress. Let the Congress know that there are millions of Citizens who believe that there were significant problems with the running of the election. There is actual proof, but the courts refused to hear the evidence. Instead, the refused to listen based on procedural matters. Couldn't even get 5 Justices to agree that Pennsylvania had violated the Constitution by using the local courts, the Governor, Attorney General to make the rules, when they should have been using the Legislature to change election rules. That's what the Constitutions of the US and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania require.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook Attracts International Attention When It Removes A Historic Vietnam War Photo Posted By The Editor-in-Chief Of Norway's Biggest Newspaper (2016)
Re: Re: You are kind of late - about 4 years and 6 weeks ...
First time I had seen this.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook Attracts International Attention When It Removes A Historic Vietnam War Photo Posted By The Editor-in-Chief Of Norway's Biggest Newspaper (2016)
Content Moderation
Content Moderation - Just a polite way of saying Censorship. The term is justified by saying community or societal mores are being applied. But how is this different from defacing historical paintings.
The Vietnam War was terrible, and the photographer was simply trying the visualize the horrors for the folks back home and the rest of the world.
A world war 2 veteran was asked by his family what he saw and did. His reply - "General Sherman once said War is Hell, he was right. I survived by the Grace of God. I'm home, and that's all you need to know."
On the post: More Evidence FCC Claims That Killing Net Neutrality Would Boost Broadband Investment Were Bullshit
Ajit Pai certainly has a lot to get out of his system. He must spend alot of money on toilet paper.
On the post: Safety in Name, Commercial in Fact: The Auto Industry Spectrum Squatting Campaign on 5.9 GHz Widens the Digital Divide
Re:
The use of 5.9 spectrum has nothing to do with how you modify your vehicles. The Federal government has some basic requirements for safety and emissions, and states control the rest.
On the post: Safety in Name, Commercial in Fact: The Auto Industry Spectrum Squatting Campaign on 5.9 GHz Widens the Digital Divide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 5.9 Automotive
Sorry... I misread your statement. The frequencies used by Federal agencies (DoD, FBI, Treasury, etc.) are detailed by the FCC and managed by a special office within the FCC. These frequencies are not part of the public record.
On the post: Safety in Name, Commercial in Fact: The Auto Industry Spectrum Squatting Campaign on 5.9 GHz Widens the Digital Divide
Re: Re: Re: Re: 5.9 Automotive
I'm shouting because the reply comments are being made by individuals who have not bothered to do a little research before commenting.
On the post: Safety in Name, Commercial in Fact: The Auto Industry Spectrum Squatting Campaign on 5.9 GHz Widens the Digital Divide
Re: Re: Re: Re: 5.9 Automotive
Yes... If you bother to read the Code of Federal Regulations for the FCC where this is regulated, you will see that the DSRC spectrum is provided on a secondary basis to military bases which use it for their ground base radar systems.
"Ownership" in the original Radio Act of 1927 says that the people "own" the radio spectrum. Some of the radio spectrum is allocated for use by the military.
Even the Cell companies which pay big bucks for the spectrum they use don't own their frequencies. They only have the right to use the radio spectrum.
On the post: Safety in Name, Commercial in Fact: The Auto Industry Spectrum Squatting Campaign on 5.9 GHz Widens the Digital Divide
Re: Data Grab
The mobile units (OBU) can talk to each other, but can't go through the infrastructure without connecting to a fixed unit (RSU) which is operated by a municipality, or a county, or state.
The government agencies are not passing any data collected from the vehicles past their own servers.
The data collected by the intersection devices (RSU) is simply location, direction and speed, plus time of day. There is no other information collected - THE AUTO MANUFACTURERS DON'T SEND THE VEHICLE DATA TO THE DSRC INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY VIEW THE VEHICLE FUNCTIONAL AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION AS PROPRIETARY.
The vehicle performance data can be collected by using another wireless system, not the spectrum reserved for safety. Typically, this would be Cellular. That why the auto industry is hoping that 5G will provide the support requiured. The other way to collect the data is by a physical connection to the CAN bus or the OBDII port.
IT TOOK 16 YEARS BECAUSE THE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY IS COMPOSED OF CIVIL AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERS WHO DON'T HAVE THE BACKGROUND FOR DEVELOPING A NEW RADIO SERVICE FROM SCRATCH!!!!!! IT TOOK MORE THAN 10 YEARS FOR THE IEEE STANDARDS COMMITTEE TO AGREE ON THE TRANSMISSION AND DATA STANDARDS. ANOTHER 3 YEARS FOR POTENTIAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE RADIO SYSTEMS TO DEVELOP PRODUCT.
The actual 75 MHz of bandwidth was set aside military radar which was being used at various locations around the U.S. It was never part of the ISM (instrument, scientific, medical) band. YOU CAN'T TAKE SOMETHING BACK THAT YOU NEVER HAD.
On the post: Safety in Name, Commercial in Fact: The Auto Industry Spectrum Squatting Campaign on 5.9 GHz Widens the Digital Divide
Re: Re: 5.9 Automotive
On the post: Safety in Name, Commercial in Fact: The Auto Industry Spectrum Squatting Campaign on 5.9 GHz Widens the Digital Divide
5.9 Automotive
I don't recognize your name Mr. Field, but I can assure you that the Auto industry had nothing to do with convincing the FCC that spectrum was required to support safety applications. The TRB (Transportation Research Board) had a committee on communications which in 1994 began a research project to develop the requirements to provide for communications services for transportation. I was a member of that committee. I don't recall any individual from the Auto industry on that committee. The committee did reach out to GM, Ford and Chrysler for information. You may recall that GM - at that time - was promoting a new product - ON Star - which used Cellular services for communication. GM did not want any competition.
In 1996, I became Chair of the ITS America Telecommunications Committee. The members were volunteers. We hired an Attorney specializing in FCC matters, and an engineering firm specializing in RF systems to support our approach to the FCC. IEEE formed the 802.11p committee to develop the standards.
It took nearly 10 years to develop standards and use cases before the Transportation community could begin deployment. The infrastructure is being developed by local and state government. There is no proprietary auto data being transported over the public infrastructure. The manufacturers must use other wireless means to collect their data. Other companies that want the automotive data must provide their own applications and can't use the DSRC spectrum.
Please do a better job of investigating before making ungrounded claims.
Next >>