SpaceX Starlink is now its own ASN and present at the Seattle Internet Exchange - <AUTHOR> https://www.peeringdb.com/net/18747 <comment><USER2> They just launched the next batch of Starlink satellites minutes ago: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xBFHjkUvw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xBFHjkUvw). The 60-satellite train should be visible in the sky over the SF bay area around 9:35 tomorrow night: [https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/?special=starlink](https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/?special=starlink)

Random FAQ about Starlink below:

The combination of low latency (20-40ms) and high bandwidth (100+Mbps) has never been available in satellite internet before.

A public beta may start later this year for some users in the northern US, around the 14th launch. Today is the 7th launch of v1 satellites. SpaceX is hoping to do more than two launches per month but haven't reached that pace yet.

The ground stations look like this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/gkkm9c/starli...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/gkkm9c/starlink_base_station_photos_from_the_location_of/) The user antennas can be seen in that picture; they are the smaller circular things on black sticks. They are flat phased array antennas, and don't need to be precisely pointed like satellite dishes do. They are about the size of an extra-large pizza, so you won't be able to get a Starlink phone.

The user antennas are likely to be quite expensive at first (several thousand dollars). Cost reduction of the user antennas is the biggest hurdle Starlink currently faces. Nobody knows yet how much SpaceX will charge for the antenna or service.

Starlink can't support a high density of users, so it will not be an alternative to ISPs in cities. Rural and mobile use are the important applications. The US military is doing trials with it. Cell tower backhaul may also be a possibility.

Starlink V1 doesn't have cross-satellite links, so the satellites can only provide service while over a ground station. There will be hundreds of ground stations in North America; no information about other regions yet. Starlink V2 is planned to have laser links between satellites, which will enable 100% global coverage 24/7, though local regulations are likely to prevent SpaceX from providing service in many places.

Because the speed of light in a vacuum is 30% faster than in optical fiber, the latency of Starlink over long distances has the potential to be lower than any other option once laser links are available.

Each launch of 60 Starlink satellites has nearly as much solar panel area as the International Space Station. Once SpaceX's Starship is operational they should be able to launch several hundred satellites at once instead of just 60.

Starlink's only current competitor, OneWeb, just filed for bankruptcy after only launching a handful of satellites, and is fishing for acquisition offers. Amazon is also planning something called Project Kuiper but not much is known about it.

Starlink V2 will have 30,000 satellites, requiring hundreds of launches. Even once the initial fleet is launched, SpaceX will still need to maintain the constellation with many launches per year indefinitely.

SpaceX's FCC application has many interesting details: [https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=...](https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=2378669)

<comment><USER3> > Because the speed of light in a vacuum is 30% faster than in optical fiber, > the latency of Starlink over long distances has the potential to be lower > than any other option once laser links are available.

Not to mention the dramatic reduction of hops. My route from the USA east coast to the university of Melbourne in Australia[1] is 30 hops reported by traceroute, with at least as many switches in the way. You could make the same link with only a few satellites.

[1]www.ie.unimelb.edu.au

EDIT: 30 is actually just the default max hops in traceroute, its really 32 hops from me to Melbourne.

<comment><USER4> I'm in Switzerland and have 25 hops, which can be broken into:

\- 1-7: Hops within my ISP's in-country network (~4ms total latency)

\- 8-10: Hops within my ISP's in-Europe network (~28ms total latency)

\- 11: London -> New York (~93ms total latency)

\- 12: New York -> Los Angeles (~160ms total latency)

\- 13: Transfer in LA from my ISP to AARNet (about the same latency)

\- 14: LA to somewhere in NSW (guessing Sydney, 305ms total latency)

\- 15-25: Routing within AARNet and Unimelb (319ms total latency)

So most of the latency looks to be attributed to large hops across oceans rather than internal switching. Even if you could narrow it down to London -> NY -> LA -> NSW you'd have 277ms.

<comment><USER5> From my university network in Germany, I seem to get a direct London → Perth link and a total latency of 278ms. I couldn't find any information about a direct fiber between London and Australia, though there is one from London to Singapore, and AARNet seems to have presence in Singapore. My guess would be that there is some switching below the IP layer going on in Singapore as described by dicknuckle in a sibling comment.

         9  cr-fra2-be11.x-win.dfn.de (22.214.171.124)  15.360 ms  15.385 ms dfn.mx1.fra.de.geant.net (188.8.131.52)  15.021 ms
        10  ae7.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (220.127.116.11)  21.806 ms dfn.mx1.fra.de.geant.net (188.8.131.52)  15.244 ms ae7.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (126.96.36.199)  21.707 ms
        11  ae9.mx1.lon.uk.geant.net (18.104.22.168)  29.059 ms ae7.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (18.104.22.168)  21.805 ms ae9.mx1.lon.uk.geant.net (220.127.116.11)  28.933 ms
        12  126.96.36.199 (22.214.171.124)  196.613 ms ae9.mx1.lon.uk.geant.net (22.214.171.124)  29.074 ms  29.156 ms
        13  18.104.22.168 (184.108.40.206)  196.807 ms et-7-3-0.pe1.wmlb.vic.aarnet.net.au (18.104.22.168)  277.463 ms 188.8.131.52 (22.214.171.124)  196.778 ms
        14  22.214.171.124 (22.214.171.124)  277.544 ms et-7-3-0.pe1.wmlb.vic.aarnet.net.au (220.127.116.11)  277.629 ms *

<comment><USER4> I don't think it's Perth, the address has ".vic." in the name, which implies that the router in question is located in Victoria.

My guess is that there's a private network involved.

If you use AARNet's looking glass [0] it shows that its route to GEANT's London router goes through Singapore.

[0]: [https://lg.aarnet.edu.au/cgi-bin/lg](https://lg.aarnet.edu.au/cgi- bin/lg)

<comment><USER5> Yeah you're right, "pe1" shows up in many of their hostnames with different states in the name. And their looking glass shows a bunch of hops within Australia, none of which show up when I do a traceroute.

<comment><USER6> PE means provider edge. CE - customer edge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Could someone explain the technical notability beyond what can be inferred from the Wikipedia page?

> An autonomous system (AS) is a collection of connected Internet Protocol > (IP) routing prefixes under the control of one or more network operators on > behalf of a single administrative entity or domain that presents a common, > clearly defined routing policy to the internet.

> Originally the definition required control by a single entity, typically an > Internet service provider (ISP) or a very large organization with > independent connections to multiple networks.... The newer definition > ...came into use because multiple organizations can run Border Gateway > Protocol (BGP) using private AS numbers to an ISP that connects all those > organizations to the internet. Even though there may be multiple autonomous > systems supported by the ISP, the internet only sees the routing policy of > the ISP. That ISP must have an officially registered autonomous system > number (ASN).

> A unique ASN is allocated to each AS for use in BGP routing. ASNs are > important because the ASN uniquely identifies each network on the Internet.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_(Internet)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_\(Internet\))

<comment><USER8> It's the ISP equivalent of setting up stall at a wholesale market.

To exchange traffic, providers advertise the IP ranges they can route.

The starter pack for this consists of an AS number (which is fundamentally just a nominal integer identifier for your organisation), an interconnect (either to an internet exchange or a transit provider), and some address space to call your own.

The notability is commercial: StarLink is ready, or at least preparing, to negotiate peering with other providers. That's a whole other ball game, c.f [http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Art-Of-Peering-The- Peering...](http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Art-Of-Peering-The-Peering- Playbook.html).

There's also a social angle. I've seen folks wearing their ASN like an agency windcheater. Network engineers are tribal.

<comment><USER9> > The notability is commercial: StarLink is ready, or at least preparing, to > negotiate peering with other providers. That's a whole other ball game, c.f > [http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Art-Of-Peering-The- > Peering...](http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Art-Of-Peering-The- > Peering...).

Can you delve into the possible business models (not military)_ and commercial applications if this remains?

Starlink is seriously this biggest mystery to me about SpaceX's over all trajectory, I find it fascinating but ,my mind doens't conjure up many more thoughts than they'll either be an ISP or work with ISPs to reach a currently unavailable demographic, the nuts and bolts of how are entirely lost on me as I realistically don't understand the Industry.

<comment><USER8> There's a tongue-in-cheek view that Elon Musk is a lonely alien just trying to get home. His Sub-Etha Sens-O-Matic is on the blink, so creating a privately- operated interplanetary transportation programme from first principles was the next best plan.

Alternatively, view these interests (grid-scale batteries, solar panels, underground excavation, autonomous vehicles (cars, rockets, spacecraft), hyperloops, benevolent AGI, low-latency satellite internet &c &c) as essential infrastructure technologies for derisking survival on Mars and even beyond, thereby increasing the likelihood that the humans will survive even the gross mismanagement of their current planet, or a passing Vogon Constructor Fleet, by metastasising across Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha.

Which is to say, that:

> SpaceX's overall trajectory

is a Hohmann transfer orbit, or a nice hot cup of tea.

<comment><USER10> >>"There's a tongue-in-cheek view that Elon Musk is a lonely alien just trying to get home. "

That's exactly the plot of this movie: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Fell_to_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Fell_to_Earth)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Registered on 5 Sep 2018 (21 months old)

From this: [https://bgp.tools/as/14593#asinfo](https://bgp.tools/as/14593#asinfo)

Is the new part here that they are advertising prefixes?

<comment><USER12> Perhaps. Some interesting peers as well:

* [https://bgpview.io/asn/14593#peers-v4](https://bgpview.io/asn/14593#peers-v4)

Singapore? Any netengs here that can interpret the chicken entrails?

<comment><USER13> They have an open peering policy so anybody can peer with them [https://www.peeringdb.com/net/18747](https://www.peeringdb.com/net/18747)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've reached some geostationary and orbiting weather satellites with Software- Defined Radio (SDR) in the past. I'd love to try and snag some signals from these... Anyone know of a more formal scientific write-up on these to find the frequency/modulation?

<comment><USER14> It seems that all the frequencies are 10GHz+ which is way past the range of most readily-available SDR dongles... Probably not feasible ATM.

<comment><USER15> You can semi-easily get transverters for those frequencies.

<comment><USER16> Also 10 GHz is possible with some knowledge and effort. See the hams on Youtube reaching QO-100.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> ASN has one /24 (IPv4) [https://bgp.he.net/AS14593#_prefixes](https://bgp.he.net/AS14593#_prefixes)

<comment><USER11> /24 has 7 addresses that return pings from nmap -sn, all have about the same ping as the previous hop on the traceroute so my ping probably isn't reaching space.

<comment><USER18> They probably only publicly route the ground stations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For those of us unfamiliar with BGP and/or peering protocols, does this mean there are routable starlink networks? Are these routes being advertised?

<comment><USER20> It means that they are interconnected with the Internet. Whether that's six laptops and a server closet or a ground-to-space link is up to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Connectivity (upstreams and peers) per bgp.tools: [https://bgp.tools/as/14593#connectivity](https://bgp.tools/as/14593#connectivity)

Nothing too fancy for now. Two tiny, I assume test, prefixes (one v4, one v6) that aren't even verified by IRR/RPKI. Happy to see, however, that they peer openly (at least for now).

</comment><comment><USER22> Something bothers me for a long time, how can Starlink be allowed be China or other countries with high internet censorship ?

<comment><USER23> I don't think they are currently planning to provide services in such countries.

<comment><USER24> Wouldn't it be possible for someone to fake their location and sign up anyways? Or does starlink require the knowledge of your exact location to operate?

<comment><USER25> In order to access Starlink you'll need a phased-array antenna, so yes, they will know exactly where you are.

<comment><USER26> A flat box decorated to blend with the shingles it's resting on might be invisible for a long time.

<comment><USER25> I meant that you are directly communicating with moving satellites, so they can fairly trivially triangulate anyone using the service.

But yes, they will also have your shipping address, as they are producing the ground antennas in-house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This isn't the first route leading straight to satellites. I forget the name of the provider, but there is at least one big allocation where whatever you're sending to it is basically coming straight back down as radio.

<comment><AUTHOR> All of the major geostationary telecom satellite owners (intelsat, eutelsat, SES, etc) operate their own ASes and IP networks. Nothing quite leads "straight" to a satellite, but you can definitely look at the prefixes announced by a company like Intelsat and try to make intelligent guesses as to which earth station it correlates with.

for instance: [https://bgp.he.net/AS12684](https://bgp.he.net/AS12684)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> SpaceX also has a /20 announced by Google. Looking at the RDNS it's for SEA, LAX, SJC, ORD, LGA [https://bgp.he.net/search?search%5Bsearch%5D=spacex&commit=S...](https://bgp.he.net/search?search%5Bsearch%5D=spacex&commit=Search)

</comment><comment><USER13> Looking at their RDNS it looks like they will be using CGNAT. But that makes sense, it seems like a tough time to get IPv4 in bulk required for an ISP

<comment><USER28> Aren't most cellular networks CGNAT? I know my T-Mobile phone is (for IPv4), with native IPv6. I'd like to see more consumer internet be IPv6 first, with a weaker IPv4 to help speed along adoption of v6.

<comment><USER13> Yeah most cell carriers are, but from where I'm at most ISP aren't yet

<comment><USER29> Usually the encumbent/older ISPs still have IPs from the age where they being handed more freely, so they have more than enough to give every customer their own public IP while the challengers have fewer IPs and have to resort to carrier grade NAT. Smartphone plans usually get carrier grade NAT even at the older ISPs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Kudos to SpaceX for potential lower latency internet service.

But I'm concerned about the light pollution caused by Starlink satellites at night: [https://www.unilad.co.uk/science/spacex-to-test-starlink- sun...](https://www.unilad.co.uk/science/spacex-to-test-starlink-sun-visor-to- reduce-brightness-of-satellite/). If they don't fix it, it would look awful for people who prefer a clean sky. And an average people wouldn't have a mean to mitigate that - it's not like a drone flying on top of your roof and you can shoot it down, it's a set of satellites thousands miles away.

And if the parts of those satellites broke down, I wonder how much SpaceX itself could do to fix them. If the broken satellites end up a space garbage, that reminds me of the film scene in Gravity. This is a problem we already have today, contributed by all aerospace institutions. I guess people are treating it just like any other garbage around us: if it doesn't show in my eye, it's not my problem.

But it's a harder problem than things like metal garbage on the ground, the latter you could recycle, but I don't know if people really recycle a satellite.

<comment><USER31> Regarding light pollution: It's not as bad as it seems, since the satellites really only show up while they are raising their orbits, and usually only during dusk and dawn. Once they're in their final orbit you can't really see them. Also, SpaceX are working on the problem. They are testing a sun screen that will block light from reflecting towards Earth while being far enough away from the satellite to prevent overheating.

Regarding space junk: These satellites are in low orbits, so if the satellite breaks it will just re-enter the atmosphere and get burned up within a few months or so. I believe they also have a deployable drag device to intentionally de-orbit the satellites at their end of life, or if there's a problem with the satellite.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Geographic scope: North America

Is "global" not appropriate here?

<comment><USER33> IIRC they are offering service only to northern parts of North America to begin. The network is sparse right now and I think the plan is to start with Canada.

<comment><USER34> its increasingly feeling like we won't make it...cross-satellite link is out, so we're basically back to Iridium (read: DSL) speeds, meanwhile the company burns cash like crazy and needs to fundraise every 8 months. hearing it needs to be spun off to get funded separately

but then again I've been hearing that for awhile. Push come to shove moment seemed to be when the FCC said to stop bs'ing about theoratical network speeds in applications for rural broadband grants, I still don't understand how that got submitted..lawyers...

FCC smacking us (article is more than a little generous towards us, thank Ajit Pai's reputation I guess): [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/elon- musks-promi...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/elon-musks- promise-of-low-latency-broadband-meets-skepticism-at-fcc/)

Gwynne saying we might spin it off: [https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21126540/spacex- starlink-i...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21126540/spacex-starlink- internet-space-mega-constellation-ipo-spinoff-gwynne-shotwell)

<comment><USER35> > _FCC smacking us (article is more than a little generous towards us, thank > Ajit Pai 's reputation I guess)_

This is the FCC protecting incumbent service providers on the basis that Starlink isn't already widely deployed. They are not claiming that they have any kind of technical analysis that Starlink will not in fact be low-latency (the threshold is a full 100ms, so not incredibly strict). They are claiming that simply because they do not _already offer the service_ they will get lumped in with the high latency geo-stationary sat link providers;

 _" In the absence of a real world example of a non-geostationary orbit satellite network offering mass market fixed service to residential consumers that is able to meet our 100ms round trip latency requirements, Commission staff could not conclude that such an applicant is reasonably capable of meeting the Commission's low latency requirements, and so we foreclose such applications."_

Frankly it's very sad, because the $16 billion in rural broadband grants are the _perfect_ application for Starlink.

The funds are distributed by "multi-round, descending clock auction where bidders will indicate in each round whether they will bid to provide service to an area at a given performance tier and latency. The auction will end after the aggregate support amount of all bids is less than or equal to the total budget and there is no longer competition for support in any area." [1]

I think if Starlink was allowed to bid as both a "low-latency" and "high performance" tiers, then at the pricing level they would likely have come in under, they would have wiped the floor with the competition and won a lion's share of that funding. So the FCC appears to be trying to keep them out of the most lucrative tiers to protect the incumbent approach of extremely expensive rural fiber deployments.

IMO a much smarter approach would have been to require some sort of _performance bond_ from every applicant that they will successfully achieve the service levels they are bidding on. It's not like Comcast or Verizon haven't won massive subsidies in the past and then failed to deliver. The approach the FCC is taking (not surprisingly) just limits innovation and wastes taxpayer dollars. Actually in this case the dollars come from customer service fees, but they are effectively taxes.

[1] - [https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-364457A1.pdf](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-364457A1.pdf)

<comment><USER36> I agree a performance bond would be best, with enough teeth that the worst case forces SpaceX to give every cent back or go bankrupt. Same with Comcast et al.

But you're unnecessarily ascribing malice. SpaceX has made some big promises, and if it delivers it deserves to hoover up basically all of that money.

But until the network is real, customers can sign up, and it's just a matter of scaling, a rational actor attempting to genuinely forward the interests of the country may well decide it poses too much risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Looking at their prefix right now I see them behind Hurricane Electric prepended 3 times. They ought to filter/sever that out give HEs "we treat peers as customers" offensive routing policy. Unless that's what they want :/

<comment><USER38> What do you mean by "we treat peers as customers"?

<comment><USER29> That they don't offer peering for free but charge for it. The idea of peering is that both sides gain from it as they reduce the traffic routed through middlemen like level3. So you both go to internet exchanges like DE-CIX, and pay a basic fee that you may participate in the exchange but you get all the connectivity to other ISPs from that exchange. But some ISPs don't do that and require you to peer in one of their own datacenters, requiring you to pay _them_ money. You are now their customer instead of a partner. A big German partially government owned ISP did this for a while until they finally gave up a few years ago.

<comment><USER39> HE doesn't charge for peering though. The complaint was that HE was leaking peer routes to other peers per default, which is normally only done if you are a customer (which can be nice if you want this, but can lead to sub-optimal routing if you don't want this).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Does anyone know the next most prolific/frequent commercial launcher after SpaceX and what their annual average is? The frequency of their launches seem completely nuts.

<comment><USER41> Its one if those things where you could probably game the metrics to justify half a dozen different answers. For example ISRO doesn't have many launches, but they do a lot of rideshares so I wouldn't be surprised if they're #1 or #2 in terms of individual satellites launched last year.

It also depends a lot on what you consider a commercial launcher. In recent history, the Chinese Long March rockets have been dominating the numbers game (around 25 launches last year, vs around 20 Soyuz and 15 Falcon 9s). But the Long March family is a lot more diverse than most rocket families, so they're probably not #1 if you're comparing specific configurations. You also probably don't want to count rockets that missed space and ended up in the middle of a village, which hurts China's totals.

<comment><USER42> Or we admit that they have more launches

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Ok I have a naive question I think someone here can answer: how long do these satellites stay in orbit? Don't they need a boost every now and then to maintain the momentum? Is that boost built in?

<comment><USER44> Yes. They have built-in thrusters to maintain their orbit. If they stop working or get retired their orbit decays and they burn up in the atmosphere. See the 'ion propulsion systems' graphics at starlink.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> They're only announcing a single /24 currently: [https://ipinfo.io/AS14593](https://ipinfo.io/AS14593)

</comment><comment><USER46> Excellent report. I'm wondering the tech used in Google's Loon balloon internet service and this Starlink is different? Does both are using a similar tech?

<comment><USER47> No, different frequencies and antennas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> One IPv4 and one IPv6 prefix - no RPKI ROAs signed :(

</comment><comment><USER48> "Last Updated: 2019-02-21"

what's new ?

</comment><comment><USER49> if a human from just 300 years ago would see this post - he would def think we are aliens.

<comment><USER50> You could probably convince humans from 100 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Little bit off topic question

Is there a public API or a database ASN ownership? Contact information would be nice also...

<comment><USER52> Please don't. Yes there is a database of contacts, but the people on the other end only want to hear from you if you also run an ASN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> We have a GeoIP challenge up ahead :-) [https://xkcd.com/713/](https://xkcd.com/713/)

</comment><comment><USER54> Is this Interplanetary File System (IPFS)? /Sarcasm 50%

<comment><USER55> No, you're thinking of Marslink. Starlink is just for Earth.

<comment><USER56> It's a shame EarthLink was already taken.

<comment><USER57> Better to pick a name with room for growth. Especially if Elon actually achieves the goals he's set out.

<comment><USER58> Galaxyclusterlink - even more room for growth!

<comment><USER59> Or something short and sweet, like Synapse. Fully uniting the global village.

<comment><USER60> Which globe?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> We didn't fix the pollution of the ocean now we have to worry about the pollution of the space.

<comment><USER62> These satellites have de-orbit plans after they've served their lifetime use.

<comment><USER41> If even 1% of Starlink satellites crap out before their planned EOL, there could be hundreds or thousands of them left in orbit for hundreds of years after the constellation is inactive

<comment><USER63> It's not correct. They orbit low enough that unresponsive Starlink satellite will fall out within a coupe of years.

<comment><USER41> No way. Orbital decay times increase more or less exponentially, and once you get above the thermopause (which moves around from 500-1000km based upon terrestrial and space weather conditions), atmospheric drag becomes practically 0.

SpaceX is upfront about this in their FCC filings:

"The natural orbital decay of a satellite at 1,150 km requires hundreds of years to enter the Earth's atmosphere"

<comment><USER64> All current satellites are in 550 km orbits. They had plans to also launch in 1150 km orbits but they made some FCC filings requesting to reduce the altitude.

<comment><USER41> That's great news, I hadn't heard that they requested to lower everything to 550km (fcc filing here for the curious: [https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT- MOD-20200417-00037/2274315](https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT- MOD-20200417-00037/2274315))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Really hope Elon charges by the GB, I don't want to subsidize all the Netflix watchers.

<comment><USER66> The "cells" (which move) are relatively small, so you won't be sharing with many people at any point in time.

<comment><USER67> > you won't be sharing with many people at any point in time.

That depends of the density of subscribers. Starlink is only feasible (at least with stable, high performance...) for low density areas. The stated market for Starlink is "the 3% to 4% of the hardest to reach customers for telcos." Almost no one reading this is part of that market.

<comment><USER68> How about China or North Korean will they be able to operate there and sidestep the firewalls?

<comment><USER67> SpaceX has good reasons to be compliant with the policies of sovereign nations; Starlink relies on shared spectrum and orbits a shared planet. I expect SpaceX will diligently observe the disparate policies of all nations. Note that the purpose of Starlink is to fund major SpaceX initiatives, particularly the Mars mission. It isn't an egalitarian exercise and squabbles with China or its client states are not a source of revenue.

There is no opportunity for clandestine use either; the ground station is a transceiver. Transceivers are relatively easy to detect when they transmit.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Grocery store apologises to rude customer using 'phone - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23158579

<comment><USER2> "It isn't our policy to not serve customers who are using a mobile."

Bloody should be. And people who open things before they've paid for them.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't imagine how discouraging mobile phones at checkouts could damage business. It's damn rude and kow-towing to idiots like this just encourages their sense of entitlement. Bah humbug!</comment></comment>


Smart safe proves easy to crack open - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-42634501/ces-2018-ikeyp-smart-safe-proves-easy-to-crack-open <comment><AUTHOR> I hate to think how much this must have cost to get this far. Juicero level silly this.</comment>


Ask HN: Thoughts on GWT? - <AUTHOR>

I've been a little dismissive of GWT as a tool for creating complex front-end logic and interfaces mostly because I prefer writing JS code. But I am curious: where do other developers stand on JS vs GWT? Is anyone other than Google building major apps with it?<p>EDIT: left out "logic and interfaces" <comment><USER2> My current point of view: If you have a large base of Java developers who don't or can't switch to JavaScript, GWT is a good choice. BTW you will also need a framework for your "complex front-end logic" JavaScript code. If you don't go for GWT you should look for good MVC JavaScript framework: Ext.JS, Cappuccino, Sproutcore, Sammy.JS ...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for responding :-)

It turned out nobody else had much to say here, but I posted at /r/javascript ... if you're curious, here's what's going on there:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/dppwu/ask_rjavas...](http://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/dppwu/ask_rjavascript_thoughts_on_gwt/)</comment></comment>


I need to know what is the future of mobile app development? - <AUTHOR>

I am planning to switch from php side to mobile app development side. I need to know what is the scope of android and ios app development. <comment><USER2> Its pretty huge right now. The realities are the space is evolving, I suspect that in 5 years your going to see a "front end" vs "back end" split in mobile development. Its the way that everything else has ended up, why would mobile be any different?

</comment><comment><USER3> React Native is pretty interesting, and I could see it becoming very popular over the next five years.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think go with IOS development, learn swift.

</comment><comment><USER5> go for it. definite shortage</comment>


Red Hat Universal Base Image - <AUTHOR> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/introducing-red-hat-universal-base-image <comment><USER2> It is bit surprising that they do not offer Java UBI image, considering that RH is one of the biggest Java vendors. Instead they are offering dotnet images of all things.

<comment><USER3> Unless you consider ancillary information like, IBM owns Redhat and hates Oracle, and Oracle has decided to extract money for anything Java + Enterprise, and UBI is targeted for Enterprise customers.

When you consider that you realize that adding a Java UBI image would just set them up for a fight with Oracle and delay their ability to get moving with UBI.

<comment><USER4> IBM does not yet own RedHat, the deal will close in another couple of months. IBM cannot influence anything RedHat does yet.

<comment><USER3> I actually see this as another reason to stay below the 'lawsuit radar.' A quick search doesn't seem to turn up anything that looks like a showstopper for the acquisition so presumably while it isn't "done" it is likely to complete, would you agree?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> X-Istence There's no Python 3.6 UBI 8 image... at least looking at the charts in the blog post.

Why would they do a UBI 7 with Python 3.6 but not UBI 8?

<comment><USER5> Because Red Hat 8 by default ships without an explicit default python version.

See the discussion for the Red Hat 8 release a few days back. It was extensively debated and covered there:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19848965](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19848965)

<comment><USER6> This doesn't have anything to do with the discussion of Python application streams. The linked blog post contains a table of UBI 7 images that includes python-27 and python-36, and a table of UBI 8 images that only includes python-27.

I think the table is misleadingly presented as comprehensive ("the set of container images"). If you follow the "RHEL 8 How To" link at the bottom of the page, you'll find a larger table that indeed includes python-36. It doesn't seem to be usable out of the box, but I was able to pull it with Docker:

            $ docker pull registry.access.redhat.com/ubi8/python-36

Now I need to read up on S2I and podman.

Edit: not sure what I did wrong the first time, but it does work fine in Docker:

            $ docker run --rm -it registry.access.redhat.com/ubi8/python-36 python
            Python 3.6.8 (default, Apr  3 2019, 17:26:03)
            [GCC 8.2.1 20180905 (Red Hat 8.2.1-3)] on linux
            Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
            >>>

<comment><USER7> The exclusion of python36 from the UBI8 table is a mistake. I am working on getting it updated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What are the differences between this and the previous rhel and rhel-minimal images? Distribution terms (and some subset of packages with different licensing) only? That's no small thing, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something.

<comment><USER7> That's pretty much dead on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What a sham. Very few packages are available in the yum repos from the UBI unless one is a RH customer. This will be a nonstarter unless anyone can install any package from the RHEL collection by default.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I think they'll struggle with adoption over the existing docker ecosystem and they should not be introducing such barriers just yet.

<comment><USER11> Red Hat doesn't necessarily care about adoption unless it leads to subscription revenue. It's easy enough to switch between CentOS and Red Hat. At some point I care enough about enterprise support and Red Hat's add-ons to make that switch and pay for it. And if I don't, Red Hat doesn't care. I really don't understand this pressure for companies to just literally give stuff away. It's hard enough convincing corporate leadership that free-as-in- libre software is a good thing. If people just complain when it's also not free-as-in-gratis, the community is shooting itself in the foot.

<comment><USER7> TallGuyShort1, you are awesome :-) Thank you for the defense. We will evaluate adding packages to UBI as necessary, but you are right, we can't give all of RHEL away for free...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I tried to read this from my iPhone.

I had to fight some sort of pop-up multiple times till I gave up.

I did get to some page that were full of corporate speak.

I got the sense that there is an interesting concept in there but can't be bothered fighting to find it.

<comment><USER13> Download Firefox Focus from the AppStore and enable it as an ad blocker for Safari. Works perfectly for me</comment></comment>


Tinkering spaces and why you will love it - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/d25292bf828e

<comment><USER2> This is my first @ Devthon, It was a great place to be at hackspace. Hacking Raspberry Pi was my hobby and I wanted to do something intresting with my Raspberry Pi. So tinkerred with Raspberry Pi, and setup Google Coder. I worked on to create a HTML5 famous game Space Rocks. We did run as media server to play music for the Devthon.

Being @ Devthon was great, met good people to connect to and share ideas. And would love to come again & again.

</comment><comment><USER3> Mapping of interiors of spaces using D3 sounds cool. Opensource the code, will have a look at it :)</comment>


Googley as Heck – My journey to becoming a Google engineer - <AUTHOR> https://googleyasheck.com/ <comment><USER2> Looked around the blog and there are some interesting posts to be found there. What I did not immediatly find was "Why Google?" Why not Microsoft, Facebook, or another big company?</comment>


New GameStop Program Leads Employees to Lie to Customers - <AUTHOR> http://kotaku.com/new-gamestop-program-leads-employees-to-lie-to-customer-1791874332 <comment><USER2> How is gamestop lying to people news?

They have been doing shady things with pre-orders for years. They have had inconsistent accuracy with their stock for years. They are only slightly less shady than a local pawn shop where you might find goods with the serial number scratched off.

(For what its worth, I have nothing against used video sales, I am just unaware of any company doing it with integrity.)</comment>


Google Chrome: A Masterstroke or a Blunder? - <AUTHOR> http://anand.typepad.com/datawocky/2008/09/google-chrome-a-masterstroke-or-a-blunder.html

<comment><USER2> _If Microsoft integrates MSN search or other services tightly into IE, it will be harder for Google to cry foul_

I say let Microsoft try. They've grown so large and ossified to such an extent, such an attempt would end up a move in Google's favor. If Microsoft wants to create their own controlled, sanitized version of the Internet, let them. They'll fail to respond to the market, and the market will move past them. AOL's already been done, and its time is past. Kids now grow up with the Internet, and shepherding by marketers is just seen as an annoyance.

<comment><USER3> Yeah. Among the young especially, Microsoft has a terrible name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> as many others have said, until the internet is as reliable and secure as my desktop, it will not replace my desktop, only augment it. the security challenge can be met. the reliability challenge will be around for a while.</comment>


Cue is Shutting Down - <AUTHOR> http://cueup.com/ <comment><USER2> Formerly Greplin. For those that don't know what it/they did:

[http://www.crunchbase.com/company/cue](http://www.crunchbase.com/company/cue)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/technology/apps-that- know-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/technology/apps-that-know-what- you-want-before-you-do.html) (July 2013)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for this - I has no idea it was the same team. It's a shame, but that smart of a team is probably doing it for the right reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There were Cue job postings here on HN close to a month ago. :/

<comment><USER5> And these were really attractive.

<comment><USER6> I applied to one... their Jam Room looked amazing.

<comment><USER5> So they've actually been acquired. I guess they didn't _just_ look amazing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> TechCrunch posted this update: We are hearing from additional sources that they did raise that extra funding, so this is looking like a product pivot or a sale rather than a full shutdown of the company.

Source: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/02/cue- greplin/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/02/cue-greplin/)

</comment><comment><USER8> Their initial product was impressive and useful. Hope we get more information about what went wrong, and that the team lands somewhere good.

<comment><USER9> Agree, would love to see a post-mortem blog post. I would also be interesting in finding out what they will do with the technology they created, it would be great if they open sourced it!

<comment><USER10> here you go. [https://github.com/Cue](https://github.com/Cue)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's sad, I remember greplin had a lot of things going for them.

In general re: shutdowns:

If the economics aren't red ink or a white elephant, why not find a buyer or merge with a frenemy instead of throwing away value and customers?

Most shutdowns appear to me like putting 30 packs of $100 bills on a table, pouring gasoline over them and throwing a lit match while rationalizing "Everybody does it, so it's okay. Look at 'em go!"

For apps, building things that cost basically nothing[0] to run and letting them have sufficient time to grow on their own. Rinse. Lather. Repeat faster.

[0] auto-scaling & revenue covering costs.

\--

"A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds." \- Sir F. Bacon

<comment><USER12> Then again, it has been reported that Apple bought them.

<comment><USER13> Yup: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/03/cue-acquired-for- over-40m-l...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/03/cue-acquired-for- over-40m-likely-by-apple-to-compete-with-google-now/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Much sadness. Greplin was an amazing idea, but the execution was a little off for them to reach mass adoption (although I think it was ideal for a niche group of people). I think they tried to change that with their pivot to Cue, but obviously it was not successful.

I'll certainly remember their programming adventure challenge fondly. I hope they at least open source that, if they can't open source other parts of their software for whatever reason.

</comment><comment><USER15> Is this the company that had that cool terminal adventure programming challenge?

<comment><USER16> Yes they were, and yes it was cool. Seems to be down now though -- part of the rather sudden Cue-shaped hole in the Internet.

</comment></comment><comment> user-id Wow, I really thought their initial value proposition (originally as Greplin) was of great utility.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, I was kicking myself for not have thought of it when I first heard of them. Sad to see the company go out like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd be very interested in learning why Cue is calling it quits -- I really loved the concept behind their service. Has anyone managed to find their contact information?

</comment><comment><USER19> Cue (shutdown), Don.na (pivoted), Tempo, Sunrise, Google Now, others. Fascinating space with a lot of competition. But has any of these products gotten close to a revenue model?

<comment><USER20> Throw in some of the mail clients and other apps like Sparrow, Mailbox, and Fantastical and from the outside, it seems more like acqui-hires to absorb the product and team into a bigger company is the way to go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Quite unfortunate.

I liked Greplin and it really helped me several times to find 'missing' tweets and FB posts. When they pivoted and changed the name, the search part became below par. So I stopped using it entirely.

I do not know why they changed the previously good generic name and the original focus. I am sure they probably had more info than I do.

As we create more content scattered all over, personal search is becoming more useful. I hope something good comes again.

Best of luck to the team on what ever they do next.

</comment><comment><USER22> Maybe they got an NSL - sudden shutdown, all data deleted...

<comment><USER23> NSL?

<comment><USER24> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think this is definitely a pivot, judging by the founder's YC experience ([http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2011/03/05/greplin- founde...](http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2011/03/05/greplin-founder- daniel-gross-on-his-amazing-story-behind-building-the-company-interview/)).

They're very smart, I'm sure whatever they build next will be even better.

</comment><comment><USER26> Is this the same Cue that Apple bought?

[http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/03/why-did-apple-buy-cue- becau...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/03/why-did-apple-buy-cue-because- google-now-eats-siris-lunch/)

<comment><USER27> Yes, I believe so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It would be nice when a company is shuttered or acquired for it to briefly state what it did in the announcement. I saw one business last night that had been acquired by Google with no mention of its purpose.

</comment><comment><USER29> I used Greplin quite a few times to find where I had heard something or seen a link. It was useful in that respect. But not useful enough to pay for. I never saw much of a monetization model going for them.

</comment><comment><USER30> Why?

They were in my top 5 favorite startups. Were they killed by Siri and Google Now?

</comment><comment><USER31> This is a real bummer - our company's first office was right next to Greplin and they were amazingly smart and quite nice. Good luck to the team.

</comment><comment><USER32> I find it weird that this company would be shutting down just as everyone is raving about Shel and Roberts book: Age Of Context. I might reach out to the guys at cue and see what they noticed that is leading them to shutdown/pivot to a new business.

</comment><comment><USER33> Was sad to see what happened to Cue. It's another example of a great idea with terrible timing. How do you compete when the biggest players in the game join the race?

Cheers guys, there was obvious talent on your team! Interested to see what comes next...

</comment><comment><USER34> Sad to hear, as I had discovered them recently and was interested in the problems they were tackling. I guess this isn't a complete surprise, with their Twitter account looking inactive as of late.

<comment><USER34> Wow, not such a sad ending after all. It looks like they got acquired by Apple for between $40 million and $60 million; no wonder their shut down message on their website didn't state that they ran out of money or something. [http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/03/cue-acquired-for- over-40m-l...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/03/cue-acquired-for- over-40m-likely-by-apple-to-compete-with-google-now/)

</comment></comment><comment> vingt-2 Cuedown.com you mean ?

</comment><comment><USER35> From what I can tell, and what I've heard from friends of the company, they shut down Cue the product, not the company.

The team is likely working on a new product.

<comment><USER7> They would have done a pivot if they were indeed working on a new product. Like they did with Greplin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Did Cue every receive any buyout / exit options?

</comment><comment><USER37> Wow, sad to hear this. They had an outstanding service.

Until I read the message on their homepage, I never realized they had a premium service!

</comment><comment><USER38> That's a shame, very cool concept. I wish them all the best. What was their actual business model though? Anyone know?

<comment><USER39> Freemium. You could get basic functionality for free, but certain tasks would cost money. I seem to remember thinking that the balance between what was free and what was paid was a bit off.

<comment><USER38> I see now. So they were trying to go off of in app purchases? That's not a bad way to do it. I think the problem is monetizing a service like that WITH competitors like google now is just a hard problem in general. I could see where it would be a good idea if they had some good lockin. It was definitely worth an attempt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Why can't they open source their code?

<comment><USER41> [https://github.com/Cue](https://github.com/Cue)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> ah, how unfortunate! as a user, would love to see some / all of their stuff become open sourced, if possible.

</comment><comment><USER43> I was using their product, I paid for their product and they shut it down without notice ? Classy move !

</comment><comment><USER44> We have essentially the same functionality coming out soon. Register at ark.com

<comment><USER45> Interested to know what you think about them shutting down then. Seems like they were quite far along... Any insight on what changed their mind or what you will do differently?

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Why?

</comment><comment><USER47> For those of you that will miss Cue and Greplin, there is hope. We are about to release our cloud search feature at StartHQ.

Here's a screencast - search is towards the end: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/04rrwxuuvkzpyrp/starthq.mp4](https://www.dropbox.com/s/04rrwxuuvkzpyrp/starthq.mp4)

You can sign up here: [https://starthq.com](https://starthq.com)

Please use the Feedback form to let us know which services you'd like us to support and we will prioritize them for launch.

PS. For a bit of background on us, here's a blog post that was on the front page of HN on Monday [http://www.arcticstartup.com/2013/09/30/starthq- capitalizes-...](http://www.arcticstartup.com/2013/09/30/starthq-capitalizes- on-googles-change-of-the-new-tab-page)

PPS. Sad to see Greplin go, loved the service but was too afraid to give access to my data at all times, so ended up building our federated search which doesn't require that. Would be very interested to know more about what happened.

<comment><USER30> This has nothing to do with Cue/Greplin.

<comment><USER47> Did you watch the screencast to the end? i ran a search and got personalized results from all my web apps like Gmail and AngelList. How is this not like Greplin?

<comment><USER48> I know you're just trying to promote your company, but it feels a little like handing out business cards at a funeral. Sure, you can do it, but it seems little tacky. This post is still in the mourning phase. It will probably move on to the post-mortem, what is a replacement for it phase tomorrow or Friday.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't Blame Big Cable. It's Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ <comment><USER6> The fundamental problem here is that in most places we've arbitrarily decided that certain things like:

        - <USER2>
        - Water/Trash/Sewer
        - Police/Fire service

Are a part of municipal government, whereas:

        - <USER3>
        - <USER4>
        - Cable TV

Are frequently not, but are regulated. Frequently, one of these last 3 will own the poles (usually the Electrical company, but sometimes the municipality) and the Phone/Cable companies lease the poles to put up their lines.

So, what do you do? Make the Electric company put up New Companies A-Z's lines for free? That doesn't work and would quickly lead to companies covering the lucrative part of town (read: "rich") and widening the digital divide.

It comes back to the bad decision that didn't force Cable to be a common carrier. Had that happened, we'd end up with a situation like DSL where there are multiple vendors, except the lines would have the same speed capabilities as Cable.

So, in short, it comes back to a bad FCC decision. Requiring a bunch of new physical infrastructure isn't needed when the existing could just be broken up and leased out as dumb pipes.

<comment><USER7> The problem is that eliminates the incentive for companies to build faster, better internet. We'd be stuck with what we have now for a very long time.

I do think it's fair to blame municipalities. Look at something that is much easier to build out: wireless networks. Cell coverage has dramatically improved over the past 10 years. In part, that's because multiple carriers are competing for customers and municipalities have largely stayed out of their way.

One could even argue that we're reliant on cable providers because there were no incentives for the highly regulated phone line providers to improve their networks.

<comment><USER8> Nope.

Regional competition for services which require expensive infrastructure is non-existent once the first player has entered the market.

Any competitor trying to enter would need to build out the expensive infrastructure, only to be undercut in the following price war and lose because of recent costs. It's textbook game theory.

This lack of competition leads to a deterioration of quality of the service as the sole market holder doesn't need to continue to invest in infrastructure. Instead they can invest in lobbying which helps further cement their hold on their market, or invest in advertising to take customers away from shittier service alternatives, like DSL.

Quality is the exact reason why something like transportation is handled by local governments, as opposed to letting private toll roads dominate the market, which have no incentive to patch pot holes when it's the only option available.

<comment><USER9> _> Regional competition for services which require expensive infrastructure is non-existent once the first player has entered the market._

This is just as true when the first player is a local (or State) government as when it's a private company.

 _> Quality is the exact reason why something like transportation is handled by local governments, as opposed to letting private toll roads dominate the market, which have no incentive to patch pot holes when it's the only option available._

Local governments often don't do a good job of patching potholes either. (Nor do State governments, which often own major highways.)

<comment><USER8> Not so. Public sector monopolies are not aligned with profit-hungry shareholders, board of investors, executives looking for bonuses, etc. Instead public sector monopolies are aligned with quality, and making enough revenue to break even.

And don't cherry pick some individual poorer counties for road performance, even though on a whole they are better. I could cherry pick Somalia as an example of privately maintained transportation monopolies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Municipally owned/maintained FTTH with ISP access from an analog to a CO is a good thing IMO and something that the incumbents have used the courts to shut down in the past[1]. The Wired piece makes a seemingly legitimate argument (franchise agreements increase the cost for new entrants) while ignoring the actual alternative (which would dramatically decrease the cost for new entrants) that those outside of the industry may not even be aware of and in that regard is a bit dishonest.

Why is this coming up now? One of the interesting tidbits I picked up from industry coverage[2] of the current round of FCC rule making is "Wheeler intends to nullify state laws that prevent local governments from establishing broadband service". Which is something I don't think the industry wants to happen. So, yeah open access is great but giving cities the "If you don't provide acceptable internet service we will" stick is valuable as well.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/07/telco-wont- inst...](http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/07/telco-wont-install- fiber-sues-to-keep-city-from-doing-it/) [2] [http://www.cedmagazine.com/blogs/2014/05/fcc-four-more- month...](http://www.cedmagazine.com/blogs/2014/05/fcc-four-more-months-of- bickering-about-net-neut)

<comment><USER11> Hopefully, they are successful. Municipal governments aren't equipped to make these decisions.

In my city (Albany, NY), the city signed a 10 year franchise agreeing giving Time Warner a monopoly on tv services, which makes the city much less attractive for FIOS, which is available in most surrounding communities.

Why did they do this? Some idiot activists got the city to demand that TWC provide a public access channel (hello, 1982) and to build a "TV studio" in the local high school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So the cable companies aren't aggressively lobbying municipal governments to keep out competition? Where do you think these costs came from?

And god forbid the municipality try to build out its own network. That will just inspire the incumbent cable company to take them to court until the project gets scrapped.

No, I think we can pretty easily blame Big Cable for this one.

<comment><USER13> Governments create and enforce laws, so they must be held accountable for them. If the government didn't have such discretionary power, lobbying would not be a thing at all.

I don't blame the big cable companies for doing it, since they'd be at a competitive disadvantage otherwise.

Remember that humans operate companies and governments alike. Except governments use force and companies are subject to it.

<comment><USER14> It astounds me how people will happily let companies off the hook for causing negative externalities, while simultaneously blaming the government for failing to regulate them effectively and decrying the regulation in the first place.

"Remember that humans operate companies and governments alike. Except governments use force and companies are subject to it."

What utter drivel.

<comment><USER15> He who wields the weapon is responsible for the results. Government wields the power of coercion, thus the results of coercion is their responsibility - <USER5> the shared responsibility of those that consent to such government. Yes, the lobbyists who abuse the coercive power of government share the blame - but so do you, if you support the existence of this coercive power and their ability to abuse it. If somebody tricks you into shooting yourself in the foot by claiming your foot is a space alien intending to eat you - he is to blame for tricking you, and you are to blame for being an idiot. You can say we should get the world rid of the people who are willing to trick idiots for their own profit, but I say it may be much more practical to try and be idiots less frequently. Because the former is not very likely to happen anytime soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I work for a major wireless carrier - we see this all the time with permitting - many of our rural sites dont even require a permit - we can just go out and swap the equipment on the pad, hand the new stuff on the tower. Our urban sites, some of them are just now getting permits that were applied for in 2011, not to mention the couple hundred bucks in fees (or more) to get said permits - all to simply change a bit of hardware bolted to a concrete pad - and on top, often costs for reinspection once were done bolting the new stuff on.

</comment><comment><USER17> Bullshit.

When local governments (i.e counties) attempt to roll out their own broadband, big cable (i.e comcast) sue to prevent it from happening.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think it is absolutely key to look past all the rhetoric and see what Google is actually asking for in return for building fiber.

> In Kansas City and Austin, local governments wanted Google Fiber more than > they wanted kickbacks. So they expedited the permitting process, gave Google > rights-of-way access for little to no cost, and allowed Google to build-out > selectively — i.e., in neighborhoods where consumers actually expressed > demand.

Kansas City agreed to get the permits done in 5 days. Provo sold Google for $1 a fiber network they had spent over $30 million constructing. Most if not all of the cities declined to impose build-out requirements: enough users had to sign up in each "Fiberhood" to justify Google deploying there.

This stands in stark contrast to what happens when companies try to deploy fiber or cable in other places.

Read Comcast's franchise agreement for Wilmington, DE, a small, poor, city of about 70,000 people: [http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf](http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf).

In addition to the hefty franchise fee, paid out of gross, the city extracts a couple of million dollars in funding for government programs, and imposes a built-out requirement that requires Comcast to build out to every neighborhood above a certain (low) density, even if enough customers don't sign up to make it profitable. Similar build-out requirements killed FIOS deployment in the city: [http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/verizon-defends-honor- wil...](http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/verizon-defends-honor-wilmington- fios-talks/2008-12-08).

In short, I can't have FIOS because Verizon wasn't willing to build it out to all the neighborhoods in the city that have 30-50% of its residents living under the poverty line.

This sort of article typifies the local response: [http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023420101_b...](http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023420101_briercolumn21xml.html).

("Once cities provide these handouts, they don't have much leverage. They'll end up bowing and scraping and hoping that Uncle Google throws a bit more fiber their way, someday. The experience in Kansas City — where suburbs are stuck waiting for Google to extend its fiberhoods — suggests that cities in a region targeted by Google Fiber should work together on setting expectations and deadlines. Yes, a provider like Google may abandon a city that doesn't play along. But is that such a loss if the company ends up cherry-picking and making the market less attractive to other providers — including public utilities — that might come and provide fast broadband for everyone?")

In other words, they want to subject fiber deployment to the typical class warfare that characterizes municipal politics. It's better for nobody to have fiber than for wealthier areas to get it while communities that can't afford it don't. In New York City, the mayor has turned Verizon's FIOS deployment into an economic justice issue and hired a civil rights lawyer: [http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140...](http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140219845/mayor- pushes-verizon-to-discount-fios-for-poor).

Who do you blame for not having fiber? How many cities would already have competitors deploying fiber if they had adopted the kind of regulatory regimes Google is demanding as a pre-condition for launching fiber?

<comment><USER19> Ensuring universal service is something that governments try to do for things considered "essential": electricity, water, postal service, and broadband Internet.

The reason that Verizon signs contracts to serve all of a city like Wilmington, DE is that there are enough households who can afford it to make it worth their while. If Google comes and picks off the highest-value customers, the mix of remaining customers may not be worth serving from Verizon's perspective, and they may exit the market. (And even if Google is blocked by municipal governments, alternatives like WiMAX and its successors are much harder to block).

I don't think there's an easy solution to this problem. If you just let the market do its thing, then fewer people will have access to Internet overall. The tradeoff isn't easy.

<comment><USER20> There is an easy econ 101 answer response. If you're really trying to help the poor at the (presumably managable) expense of everyone else, then subsidize the subscriptions of the poor households by explicitly taxing. This dramatically reduces market distortions and makes clear exactly what's happening. Putting up rules that require the rich to indirectly subsidize the poor in the way being described (making the tax invisible) predictably leads to an awful situation.

People often reply "this isn't politically feasible", but that's giving up the game. If the opaque, inefficient, and difficult-to-measure strategy is politically feasible but the transparent one is not, that's a good sign it's a bad choice.

<comment><USER21> > If you're really trying to help the poor at the (presumably managable) > expense of everyone else, then subsidize the subscriptions of the poor > households by explicitly taxing.

Isn't this exactly what local governments are doing? It's just that the tax falls on the (shareholders of) broadband companies, who are presumably not, for the most part, local residents. The reason this is more politically feasible is not that it isn't a tax, but that the tax is not being levied on voters. Or does the name matter that much?

<comment><USER22> The problem is that taxing entrants into the cable market creates a very high barrier to entry. The tax is not being levied _directly_ on voters, but indirectly, by creating a monopoly that provides poor service, when they could instead have competition providing great service.

<comment><USER21> > The tax is not being levied directly on voters, but indirectly, by creating > a monopoly that provides poor service, when they could instead have > competition providing great service.

But isn't the point here precisely that without the tax or other barriers to entry, "they" would _not_ have great service? Some might -- but it seems likely that far fewer would get it than with build-out requirements and so on in place. I think the government has an obligation to avoid leaving those people behind in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Where I live Comcast is barred from offering me Internet access due to the small city I live in offering another cable company a long term monopoly.

So I pay $75 for 15 mbps. I could be paying $25 less and getting twice the speed if I lived 10 minutes another direction.

Local governments are at least half the problem, but it's clearly a public + private collusion problem, in which both parties work together to establish monopolies. And the solution is simple (but will never happen): all telecom monopoly contracts should be voided nationally, immediately.

<comment><USER18> The 1992 Cable Act made it illegal to grant exclusive cable franchises. Since the franchises were generally renewed every 10-12 years, very few places (I don't know of any) still have legal monopolies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> If I'm reading Wikipedia correctly, Wired is owned by Conde Nast, which is owned by Advance Publications, which also has a large stake in the Discovery network.

Hooray for an independent press!

</comment><comment><USER25> Blame both. The cable companies asked for the local monopoly in the first place...

</comment><comment><USER26> We seem to be in as bad a situation now, as we were in when the telephone company had a monopoly running right up to the jacks in your house. (And most likely sold you the phone that plugged into that jac on top of it!)

<comment><USER27> Oh, it was worse than that. You used to not even own your phone, only rent it from the telephone company; a lot of elderly couples are still getting charged for that phone they rented, and threw out, decades ago [1]. Thankfully, most customers are now at least allowed the tiny luxury of their own cable modem.

[http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/2009/03/25/is- grandmom...](http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/2009/03/25/is-grandmom- still-renting-her-old-telephone/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Who would want an ISP to innovate? Latency, bandwidth and cost are the only things that matter. ISPs should be prohibited from offering anything else than internet access. No phone, no video, no toilet cover delivery.

<comment><USER29> Doesn't it require innovation to improve latency, bandwidth, and cost?

<comment><USER30> Not by the ISP. All their equipment is made by other companies (like Cisco, Juniper, etc.) who do that kind of innovation. They're just buying the pieces and snapping them together.

<comment><USER29> Fair enough, but AT&T does spend ~1 billion in R&D. Verizon doesn't report their number but supposedly it is less. Innovation isn't just hardware development, and even if they are relying on other companies, they are pushing innovation by paying Cisco/Juniper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Can I blame both?

<comment><USER32> yes please

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Wow, it can _double_ the cost?

Well, then we should have seen $150 billion in delivered broadband, since we have given $300 billion in tax subsidies to broadband providers, in exchange for broadband development.

We have not seen $150 billion in delivered broadband value.

Ergo, this argument is wrong. I do blame Big Cable.

<comment><USER29> Do you have a primary source for the $300 billion tax subsidy claim (which would be an indictment of the telcos if true). Something besides a link to a link to a link to something Bruce Kushnick has claimed?

I've read his reports, and while there seems to be a kernel of truth, the numbers are not, IMO, substantiated. He gets big numbers by claiming the telcos are making undeserved profits, which even if true, is not a subsidy.

<comment><USER34> You can easily get to $200B from the spectrum value alone.

In 2008, as part of the digital transition, 52 MHz in the 700-band were auctioned off for $19B. The telcos were gifted 295mhz of spectrum for the digital expansion when they agreed to invest in broadband. Even if it's only half as valuable as that 52 MHz allotment, simple math indicates a value of over $400B.

LA Times article from the era making the same point (valuing the spectrum at $70B at the time) -- [http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/07/local/me-51464](http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/07/local/me-51464)

<comment><USER35> The article you linked to does not say anything about broadcasters agreeing to invest in broadband.

and I have no idea what TV broadcasters and fiberoptic broadband have to do with eachother... they're entirely different industries. Comcast and Time Warner don't use TV airways--that's why they call it "cable".

<comment><USER34> Apologies if my earlier post was unclear, I deleted a few sections in favor of brevity but it was left confusing.

The spectrum giveaway to broadcasters was predicated on 'Universal Service' being supplied by telecom companies.[1] That digital TV spectrum would be immensely valuable for wireless communication today, so it should absolutely be considered a subsidy as a result of the Telecom Act.

The more direct subsidies come from many other places. A good place to start is the Universal Service Fund[2]. Every landline bill, every cable bill, every mobile phone bill has a line item for "Universal Service" on it. These funds are collected from consumers then 'disbursed' to companies for them to provide service extensions. This has been happening since 1997. They've disbursed over $80B back to telecom companies as part of the telecom act, the GAO isn't too impressed with how it was being spent.[3] Besides the direct subsidies, they got favorable depreciation schedules, and tax relief.

The oddly interesting Robert Cringely did a special for PBS on the mess, which is probably the origin of the $200B number[4]:

        Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited
        from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation
        on their networks, and direct tax credits an average of $2,000 per
        subscriber for which the companies delivered precisely nothing in terms
        of service to customers. That's $200 billion with nothing to be shown for it.

[1] - [http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/ca...](http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato- handbook-policymakers/2003/9/hb108-41.pdf)

[2] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund)

[3] - [http://www.gao.gov/modules/ereport/handler.php?1=1&path=/ere...](http://www.gao.gov/modules/ereport/handler.php?1=1&path=/ereport/GAO-11-318SP/data_center_savings/Economic_development/Improved_design_and_management_of_the_universal_service_fund_as_it_expands_to_support_broadband_could_help_avoid_cost_increases_for_consumers)

[4] - [http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...](http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> no blame both big cable AND local governments ... its always a distraction to polarize the argument ...

</comment><comment><USER36> So, say that every town/city in the country streamlined the process for handling "right of way" and reduced the asking price for access.

Would this actually lead to an increase in competition or would it just lead to greater profits for the incumbents?

<comment><USER27> There are a number of cities in the San Francisco Bay area that do offer such agreements, and competition has sprung up. When I used to live in Daly City, there was a choice between Comcast and Astound, and from what I could see by reviews, both services seemed to be better than the neighboring cities because of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Every local government in America?

<comment><USER16> No, but the places that HN commentators are likely to live, yes. The bigger the city, the more likely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'd say blame the people that don't want more then 10 Mbit. And think that everyone who has 10+ Mbit only use it for "illegal activities".

</comment><comment><USER39> Many local governments have given exclusive rights to a single private company. I wish that opinion editorial had some data to backup it's assertions.

</comment><comment><USER40> Seattle and SF

</comment><comment><USER41> Wow, really? It's the local govt fault that our internet connectivity sxxxxs?

<comment><USER42> Yes - were it not for municipalities' ability to enforce monopoly rights we would often have multiple landline, cable, garbage, electric and other providers competing on quality and cost. Some say these are "natural monopolies" but there are cities around the world where consumers have a choice of providers for these services. True natural monopolies are very, very rare but are almost always created by government action. Patents are another example.

<comment><USER43> > Yes - were it not for municipalities' ability to enforce monopoly rights we > would often have multiple landline, cable, garbage, electric and other > providers competing on quality and cost.

You are conflating different types of problems.

Things which are natural monopolies are phone, cable, internet, electricity, water, etc. It is needlessly expensive to lay in multiple cables/pipes to a house solely in order to provide competition. Oddly, cable/internet is one of the few places where this actually isn't completely true since pulling a single fiber is almost as expensive as pulling multiple fibers.

I don't know why you cite garbage collection, though. Garbage collection is completely different. I know many towns that have multiple garbage collection services. You don't have to lay in an infrastructure in order to collect garbage.</comment></comment></comment>


Alan Turing's Little-Known Contributions to Biology - <AUTHOR> https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/03/01/alan-turing-morphogenesis-diagrams <comment><USER2> The research findings aren't "little-known"; I recall learning about them in grad school.

But this is the first I've seen his notebook sketches, which, if you don't mind me saying... make my spine tingle, a little bit.</comment>


Dolgopolsky list - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolgopolsky_list

<comment><USER2> More commonly linguists talk about Swadesh lists. For the most complete modern collection of Swadesh-like lists and a program/algorithm for automatically generating a language family tree from them see: [http://asjp.clld.org](http://asjp.clld.org)

<comment> ar-jan While ASJP is used to explore potential relationships, it should be noted that it cannot reliably determine language relatedness by itself. The gold standard for that is still the comparative method. [1]

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method_%28linguist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method_%28linguistics%29)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Boy, that put me on a Wikipedia hike trail on subjects I had little to no knowlegde of. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER4> Already the third one was replaced in english not that long ago: you replaced thou

<comment><USER5> From what I understand, "you" was you-formal, and "thou" was you-familiar. (They weren't completely the same word)

However, IANAL (linguist)

<comment><USER6> "You" was plural and/or formal, "thou" was the singular/informal form and so, per the list, "thou" was item #3 of the list of "words least likely to be replaced as the language evolves".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Related: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health- science/lingui...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health- science/linguists-identify-15000-year-old-ultraconserved- words/2013/05/06/a02e3a14-b427-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html)

<comment> ar-jan The research behind that article is extremely problematic. See e.g. [1] and [2]. The WP article adds its own overinterpretations to it, such as as the nonsensical "But if you went back 15,000 years and spoke these words to hunter-gatherers in Asia in any one of hundreds of modern languages, there is a chance they would understand at least some of what you were saying."

1: [http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4612](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4612)

2: [http://languagesoftheworld.info/bad- linguistics/ultraconserv...](http://languagesoftheworld.info/bad- linguistics/ultraconserved-words-reveal-linguistic-macro-families.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> most words seem to be rather fundamental concepts except: nit? I wonder why would that be so timeless a word.

<comment><USER9> That's easy - until very, very recent human history, the louse/lice/nit has been a constant (and really annoying) companion of much of humanity. Not surprising the word stabilized in populations that used it all the time.

What's interesting - is you could could probably use "semantic stability" to track preponderance of various pests, diseases, etc... in various populations/locations.

See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louse)

This would also suggest that the word might destabilize in societies/civilizations which have managed to reduce the louse impact.

<comment><USER10> But more consistent part of life than "day" and "night" and "light"?

<comment><USER9> Might have been more consistently _used_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was looking for such a thing for ages and never came even near that list.</comment>


CiteUlike is just amazing - <AUTHOR> http://www.citeulike.org/ <comment><USER2> The title headers are the same size as the category words... makes for a hard read... do you just get used to it?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just rediscovering my love for citeulike upon going back to PhD work after a week of startups :). Plus its had a reskinning - check out the "digg for academic papers" part.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not too bad.</comment>


Lighthouse Design Ltd - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_Design <comment><AUTHOR> ```But even as the purchase of Lighthouse was going through, Sun was already turning their attention from DOE/NEO on the back-end and OpenStep on the front-end to "Java everywhere". Java was seen as a better solution to infiltrating Sun into the applications market, as it ran on all platforms, not just those supported by OpenStep. Lighthouse was soon moved into the JavaSoft division, becoming the Java Applications Group.'''

<comment><AUTHOR> ```The only problem with this move was that any attempt to port Lighthouse's OpenStep applications written in Objective-C to Java would be almost impossible. Additionally, Sun was worried that releasing their own suite would make third party developers less interested in the platform (see Claris) as they would have to compete with Sun directly in the office application space. Some attempts were made: LightPlan was ported to Java and released as JavaPlan (and also switched from OMT to UML). Sun eventually gave up on the idea, if it ever entertained it seriously in the first place, abandoning the office application market for many years.'''

Sic transit gloria mundi.</comment></comment>


Firefox Developer Edition vs. Chrome - <AUTHOR> I'm stuck with chrome and planning to move to FDE. But something keeps me pulling back to Chrome. What do you guys use and why? And why did you ditch the other option?
P.S. Please mention the OS you develop on as well.
 I know some people use different browsers for normal browsing and development. Keep web development in mind. For normal browsing, I would love to switch to Safari :)
* Basically, convince me why I should switch to FDE ( Chrome's a battery sucker on my macbook ) <comment><USER2> Neutral. FDE if I want to do some front-end work that's effective on most browsers (usually Chrome's tools can render radically different than others) plus Mozilla's constantly adding more features that I'd find more useful now, over future proofing(web console, 3d layering, audio analysis). Also both Windows and OSX give similar experiences. Finally not a memory hog. If you're truly concerned about battery performance use safari. FDE is slightly better in performance.

<comment><AUTHOR> Got it. After reading about all three on the web I found out that Chrome's a memory hog and sucks up the battery. So FDE stands between Safari and Chrome on the battery/memory line?

"FDE is slightly better in performance" \- than Chrome? Haven't tried it on Mac, but on Windows Chrome seemed snappier than Firefox / Firefox Dev Edition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is there such a thing as "moving" to another browser for development purposes? You will have to use both at some point, at least for some sanity check.

If you're developing something with React, Chrome will provide a better experience since React dev tools plugin is only available for Chrome. I'm not aware of some tool that is exclusive to Firefox, so I don't have a reason to favor it.

<comment><AUTHOR> For most of the backend, I try to stick to one browser. Right now Chrome gives me all the request details and other things I need. But I want to see where FDE stands on this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really love the developer command line in recent versions of Firefox. Shift + f2 brings it up.</comment>