Re: 'No foxes in this hen-house, just us chickens'
"what moron, years or decades back, first thought that internal investigations were a good idea?"
Always internal folks. And it IS a good idea. For them.
An internal investigation is pretty much ALWAYS a response to the risk of an external investigation. It is done in the hopes that the line "No need for that. There already has been an investigation." would give enough political cover to stave off a pending external investigation. It is the FUD of investigations.
The biased investigation is then put in pretty folders and cover pages, and presented by politicians "friendly" to the cause. They use words to describe it, such as "rigorous, detailed, no stone left unturned, thorough, unbiased, aggressive", avoiding the word "internal". Sometimes (well, often) that is enough confusion and uncertainty about whether a legit investigation has been done to quash any legit investigation. It's a version of false equivalence, like how 1% of scientists can say there is no AGW, thus "the debate is still ongoing". It doesn't take much doubt to create the veil of a 50/50 "he said, she said" debate.
The beauty of it for the internal crew is that it can usually be considered billable hours, and charged back to someone. Sure, it doesn't work every time, but that's a bet worth taking every time.
We are now reaping the rewards of two decades of people watching the #1 news station. The "new Rupert reality" has been created, and it matters little if it matches up with reality, people still believe it on faith.
Even if, occasionally, these peeps are forced to see a deviation from their beliefs in reality, they discount those facts as "a glitch in the matrix". Cognitive dissonance be damned. Let's go find some better facts elsewhere. Yay confirmation bias!
Hate to keep making it about that news station. But I truly believe that's where a large part of the problem is. I'm not going to Godwin this, but there have been other cases where long-term propaganda can shift perceptions, and cause great harm.
For example, a local golf store would love to know if people's Internet searches identify them as golfers, so that they can buy ad placements on that user's screen. They can bid at auction for search terms such as "golf, clubs, country club, lame sport" etc.
Why not let GHCQ bid for terms like "ammonia, bomb, jihad" etc. Then they can place fake ads for the would-be terrorists, and lure them in with cut-rate trinitrotoluene.
No free lunch, Cameron. You've gotta bid for the keywords versus Dow, Union Carbide, and other agricultural ammonia sellers.
Hmmm. What would click-bait "news" sites look like for these ads?
Re: Re: Re: Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
Fenderson's right.
Also, a cable to your home can be a dedicated wire JUST FOR YOU, such as a telco twisted pair for DSL. It can also be a coax broadband pipe shared among a hundred or fewer neighbors, such as cable. In those cases, you share the full radio spectrum the wire can carry among a small group of subscribers, and can get better speeds.
With satellite, the satellite transponder is aimed at a part of the country, say the West, and you share it's bandwidth with the entire region. That means if you're near Seattle and I'm near San Francisco, and you request a website, my dish also receives the transmission of the website you requested (and ignores it). Also, the satellite ISP does not have the full RF spectrum, only very narrow licensed bands. That is a lot less bandwidth shared among a lot more users, hence the lower speeds, and lower usage caps from satellite ISPs.
Fenderson is right that "Satellite is never a viable alternative. It's a last-ditch thing, what you do if you can't get a real internet connection."
Not a good enough analogy. In your story, the water is being consumed, and is not there for anybody else to use. In the case of TV signals, aereo used up none of a finite resource. They merely helped the broadcasters reach a wider audience by extending the range of the signals on a public airwave.
Instead, for an analogy, try: running a performance venue, and having a large sculpture water fountain in front of it for art. Then saying "anybody who drives down the public street must pay me if they look at my water fountain".
Ha. Yeah. That's like your electrician wiring your light directly to the fuse box. Then installing a switch on your wall with no wires at all connected to it.
"Sure, you've got an on/off switch right there. You use it to indicate your wishes as to whether the light should be on or off."
It's not impossible to dance around the truth, speak in nebulous terms, and obfuscate the issue. That's what he's paid to do, but instead his article is just the idiot's version of NN Cliff's Notes.
How bout this, if he were more shrewd:
"Network Neutrality, as enacted by the government, would just be a further regulatory extension and Washington power grab. It would be subject to the biases and bungling of beltway politicians, and set up our country with concrete regulations that are unable to flex and change at the speed of Internet innovation. That would cripple our country's ability to stay nimble, and provide the worlds most important tech advances. What's more, we run the risk of moneyed interests gaining too much influence at the regulatory level, and biasing the rules against the citizens of this great nation."
Then he should probably add the following for good measure,
"Thus, we must fight against NN. At least to protect the children. USA #1. Obama sux."
That pile of BS would give him enough cover to vote what his funders want, and have some confusing cover. Nobody would be talking about it.
This is too bad. As a guy who works with and advises many telcos, one of the key threats to their business these days is, obviously, Over The Top services.
One of the key defenses we advise them they have is...trust. Yes, trust. It turns out many people dislike their carrier, but still trust them. Doubt me? Consider this: How many people give telcos their credit card for their monthly bills? So this is demonstrated proof of a certain level of trust.
As Apple has shown with the iTunes store, then the App Store; Or has Amazon has shown with OneClick: A credit card on file, plus some trust can pay off in lower friction sales, and more revenue.
But here they are, eroding consumer trust at every opportunity. It saddens me, both because we are being ripped off, but also because I see companies frittering away one of their few remaining competitive advantages.
If continued, the trust they enjoy will only be at the level of "the devil you know"...which is just a notch above Nigerian 419 scammers.
You should have included just one pointer to the best article you have seen on Gamergate.
That way, if anyone was drawn here by that link-bait aspect, you could promptly send them to where they need to go.
Like me. I don't have a fn clue what you're not talking about. So I gotta go Google it now. I'll have to read a couple of shitty link-bait articles before I find out why I should not care about Gamergate. And I'm serious about the above. Ugh. Off I go.
Hey, anybody make the dirty bomb joke yet? No? Here it is:
Good for DHS for taking this threat to third base. Getting inside the underwear caper shows the kind of persistence we normally only expect from frat boys.
Godspeed, good DHS agents. If you keep inspecting underwear, sooner or later, you're going to find that dirty bomb.
Hey, anybody make the obvious joke yet? No? Here it is:
Good for DHS for taking this threat to third base. Getting inside the underwear caper shows the kind of persistence we normally only expect from frat boys.
Godspeed, good DHS agents. If you keep inspecting underwear, sooner or later, you're going to find that dirty bomb.
According to federal law and FCC regs, it is illegal to deliberately jam wifi in the unlicensed bands. But it is unlikely the Hyatt was doing this, because it would also interfere with their own $1000 wifi.
More likely, the Hyatt was jamming the cellular signal to people's phones and Mifis, which is a big federal no-no, cuz big biz interests like Verizon and ATT lose their sheet when that happens.
If the Hyatt were jamming instead the cellular signals that powered the Mifis, then it is absolutely illegal to even transmit any unauthorized signal on spectrum licensed to some wireless carrier, let alone use a jammer.
"Should ISPs be required to obtain, maintain, and pay for significantly more interconnection to support certain business models?"
As a consumer who uses Netflix, I am not advocating for what you wrote above at all. Instead, I am advocating that my ISP delivers to me, their customer, what they said they would deliver:
fast, unfettered access to the Internet, anywhere I want to go, and at the speed and caps to which I agreed.
If that means the ISP needs to spend more money interconnecting with Netflix, why should the subscriber care so long as I stay below my caps? And what's more, it's immaterial to the ISP: Would it be less of a burden to them if, instead, I generated an equal amount of traffic spread over 100 different sites?
When I go to an "all you can eat" buffet with pasta and salad, should the restaurant try to stop me if I choose to eat all salad? No. That's kinda part of the buffet, isn't it.
Seems the ISPs sold me a buffet, and are now angry that they have to deliver it. Yet they are still on TV and radio pushing ads to sell more of the same to others. Seems schizophrenic. Do they want to sell their ISP services or not?
You are correct. Mike is wrong when he writes that we're being asked to "pay twice". He's very wrong. But then, so are you. We're being asked to pay thrice.
1. Consumer pays for connection to Internet services.
2. Google (Youtube, or Netflix) pays for their bandwidth...as well as buying up their own fiber, running their own networks, and peering. They pay for CDNs, edge storage, redundancy, etc. So do many other fat content providers. I'm not sure how anyone thinks AT&T pays Google's Internet bills??!
3. Whitacre et al want Youtube to pay yet again to connect 'reliably' all the way to the ISPs subscriber.
Seems pretty clear that the big ISPs want to be paid three times. I see getting paid twice as fair, but thrice as a shakedown.
On the post: Conflicts Of Interest, Lack Of Transparency Mar Our Attempt To Build A Nationwide Emergency Wireless Network
Re: 'No foxes in this hen-house, just us chickens'
Always internal folks. And it IS a good idea. For them.
An internal investigation is pretty much ALWAYS a response to the risk of an external investigation. It is done in the hopes that the line "No need for that. There already has been an investigation." would give enough political cover to stave off a pending external investigation. It is the FUD of investigations.
The biased investigation is then put in pretty folders and cover pages, and presented by politicians "friendly" to the cause. They use words to describe it, such as "rigorous, detailed, no stone left unturned, thorough, unbiased, aggressive", avoiding the word "internal". Sometimes (well, often) that is enough confusion and uncertainty about whether a legit investigation has been done to quash any legit investigation. It's a version of false equivalence, like how 1% of scientists can say there is no AGW, thus "the debate is still ongoing". It doesn't take much doubt to create the veil of a 50/50 "he said, she said" debate.
The beauty of it for the internal crew is that it can usually be considered billable hours, and charged back to someone. Sure, it doesn't work every time, but that's a bet worth taking every time.
On the post: Washington Post Shrugs Off Torture Because, You Know, It Polls Well
Re:
We are now reaping the rewards of two decades of people watching the #1 news station. The "new Rupert reality" has been created, and it matters little if it matches up with reality, people still believe it on faith.
Even if, occasionally, these peeps are forced to see a deviation from their beliefs in reality, they discount those facts as "a glitch in the matrix". Cognitive dissonance be damned. Let's go find some better facts elsewhere. Yay confirmation bias!
Hate to keep making it about that news station. But I truly believe that's where a large part of the problem is. I'm not going to Godwin this, but there have been other cases where long-term propaganda can shift perceptions, and cause great harm.
On the post: Search Something, Say Something: David Cameron Asks Google, Yahoo To Be 'Good Citizens' And Report Users Searching For 'Terrorist' Subject Matter
Treat It Like Advertising
For example, a local golf store would love to know if people's Internet searches identify them as golfers, so that they can buy ad placements on that user's screen. They can bid at auction for search terms such as "golf, clubs, country club, lame sport" etc.
Why not let GHCQ bid for terms like "ammonia, bomb, jihad" etc. Then they can place fake ads for the would-be terrorists, and lure them in with cut-rate trinitrotoluene.
No free lunch, Cameron. You've gotta bid for the keywords versus Dow, Union Carbide, and other agricultural ammonia sellers.
Hmmm. What would click-bait "news" sites look like for these ads?
On the post: AT&T's Regulatory Hypocrisy On Proud Display In Kansas, Where It's Fighting To Keep The State A Broadband Backwater
Re: Re: Re: Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
Also, a cable to your home can be a dedicated wire JUST FOR YOU, such as a telco twisted pair for DSL. It can also be a coax broadband pipe shared among a hundred or fewer neighbors, such as cable. In those cases, you share the full radio spectrum the wire can carry among a small group of subscribers, and can get better speeds.
With satellite, the satellite transponder is aimed at a part of the country, say the West, and you share it's bandwidth with the entire region. That means if you're near Seattle and I'm near San Francisco, and you request a website, my dish also receives the transmission of the website you requested (and ignores it). Also, the satellite ISP does not have the full RF spectrum, only very narrow licensed bands. That is a lot less bandwidth shared among a lot more users, hence the lower speeds, and lower usage caps from satellite ISPs.
Fenderson is right that "Satellite is never a viable alternative. It's a last-ditch thing, what you do if you can't get a real internet connection."
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re: Flattr
"No. But why would that matter?"
Guess it's true that flattry will get you nowhere.
On the post: Bludgeoned And Bleeding, Aereo Finally Files For Bankruptcy
Re:
Instead, for an analogy, try: running a performance venue, and having a large sculpture water fountain in front of it for art. Then saying "anybody who drives down the public street must pay me if they look at my water fountain".
On the post: AT&T Quietly Backs Away From Its Use of Sneaky Super Cookies
Re: Better than Verizon
"Sure, you've got an on/off switch right there. You use it to indicate your wishes as to whether the light should be on or off."
On the post: FISA Judge To Yahoo: If US Citizens Don't Know They're Being Surveilled, There's No Harm
A Nation Of Shoppers
Is anyone else concerned that he is substituting the word "citizen" with the word "consumer"?
On the post: Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Misunderstanding The Internet & Net Neutrality, As Republican Engineers Call Him Out For Ignorance
Re: Re:
It's not impossible to dance around the truth, speak in nebulous terms, and obfuscate the issue. That's what he's paid to do, but instead his article is just the idiot's version of NN Cliff's Notes.
How bout this, if he were more shrewd:
"Network Neutrality, as enacted by the government, would just be a further regulatory extension and Washington power grab. It would be subject to the biases and bungling of beltway politicians, and set up our country with concrete regulations that are unable to flex and change at the speed of Internet innovation. That would cripple our country's ability to stay nimble, and provide the worlds most important tech advances. What's more, we run the risk of moneyed interests gaining too much influence at the regulatory level, and biasing the rules against the citizens of this great nation."
Then he should probably add the following for good measure,
"Thus, we must fight against NN. At least to protect the children. USA #1. Obama sux."
That pile of BS would give him enough cover to vote what his funders want, and have some confusing cover. Nobody would be talking about it.
On the post: Both Comcast And Verizon Agree To Pay Millions To Settle Overbilling Claims
Bad Faith. Bad Business
One of the key defenses we advise them they have is...trust. Yes, trust. It turns out many people dislike their carrier, but still trust them. Doubt me? Consider this: How many people give telcos their credit card for their monthly bills? So this is demonstrated proof of a certain level of trust.
As Apple has shown with the iTunes store, then the App Store; Or has Amazon has shown with OneClick: A credit card on file, plus some trust can pay off in lower friction sales, and more revenue.
But here they are, eroding consumer trust at every opportunity. It saddens me, both because we are being ripped off, but also because I see companies frittering away one of their few remaining competitive advantages.
If continued, the trust they enjoy will only be at the level of "the devil you know"...which is just a notch above Nigerian 419 scammers.
On the post: California Cops Passed Around Explicit Photos Harvested From Arrestees' Phones
Re:
Nude photos! Ha. Cops can shoot an innocent kid and not get charged.
On the post: This Post Is Not About GamerGate
Should Have Included A Link
You should have included just one pointer to the best article you have seen on Gamergate.
That way, if anyone was drawn here by that link-bait aspect, you could promptly send them to where they need to go.
Like me. I don't have a fn clue what you're not talking about. So I gotta go Google it now. I'll have to read a couple of shitty link-bait articles before I find out why I should not care about Gamergate. And I'm serious about the above. Ugh. Off I go.
On the post: DHS Agents Raid Lingerie Shop, Save America From Unlicensed Underwear
That Obvious Joke
Good for DHS for taking this threat to third base. Getting inside the underwear caper shows the kind of persistence we normally only expect from frat boys.
Godspeed, good DHS agents. If you keep inspecting underwear, sooner or later, you're going to find that dirty bomb.
On the post: America, The Defensive: Wars, Terrorism And Thirty Years Of Perpetual 'States Of Emergencies'
Re: The Obvious Joke?
On the post: America, The Defensive: Wars, Terrorism And Thirty Years Of Perpetual 'States Of Emergencies'
The Obvious Joke?
Good for DHS for taking this threat to third base. Getting inside the underwear caper shows the kind of persistence we normally only expect from frat boys.
Godspeed, good DHS agents. If you keep inspecting underwear, sooner or later, you're going to find that dirty bomb.
On the post: DHS Agents Raid Lingerie Shop, Save America From Unlicensed Underwear
Max Headroom
Wait. I didn't know we were using stage names.
On the post: FCC Fines Marriott For Jamming Customers' WiFi Hotspots To Push Them Onto Hotel's $1,000 Per Device WiFi
Re: Re:
More likely, the Hyatt was jamming the cellular signal to people's phones and Mifis, which is a big federal no-no, cuz big biz interests like Verizon and ATT lose their sheet when that happens.
If the Hyatt were jamming instead the cellular signals that powered the Mifis, then it is absolutely illegal to even transmit any unauthorized signal on spectrum licensed to some wireless carrier, let alone use a jammer.
On the post: Everything You've Wanted To Know About Net Neutrality But Were Afraid To Ask
Re:
As a consumer who uses Netflix, I am not advocating for what you wrote above at all. Instead, I am advocating that my ISP delivers to me, their customer, what they said they would deliver:
fast, unfettered access to the Internet, anywhere I want to go, and at the speed and caps to which I agreed.
If that means the ISP needs to spend more money interconnecting with Netflix, why should the subscriber care so long as I stay below my caps? And what's more, it's immaterial to the ISP: Would it be less of a burden to them if, instead, I generated an equal amount of traffic spread over 100 different sites?
When I go to an "all you can eat" buffet with pasta and salad, should the restaurant try to stop me if I choose to eat all salad? No. That's kinda part of the buffet, isn't it.
Seems the ISPs sold me a buffet, and are now angry that they have to deliver it. Yet they are still on TV and radio pushing ads to sell more of the same to others. Seems schizophrenic. Do they want to sell their ISP services or not?
On the post: Everything You've Wanted To Know About Net Neutrality But Were Afraid To Ask
Re: Lotsa blah, blah apologizing for GOOG
1. Consumer pays for connection to Internet services.
2. Google (Youtube, or Netflix) pays for their bandwidth...as well as buying up their own fiber, running their own networks, and peering. They pay for CDNs, edge storage, redundancy, etc. So do many other fat content providers. I'm not sure how anyone thinks AT&T pays Google's Internet bills??!
3. Whitacre et al want Youtube to pay yet again to connect 'reliably' all the way to the ISPs subscriber.
Seems pretty clear that the big ISPs want to be paid three times. I see getting paid twice as fair, but thrice as a shakedown.
On the post: Specially-Designated 'FOIA Denial Officers' Are Handling The Dept. Of Education's Rejected Requests
Wait, Is This Terry Gilliam?
Next >>