Elon Musk may be a pain, but that doesn't mean his ideas are crazy - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/26/elon-musk-may-be-a-pain-but-that-doesnt-mean-his-ideas-are-crazy <comment><USER2> That idea has been floated since as long as self-driving cars became a realistic prospect.

People love their cars and consider them a private space. I don't see many people agreeing to let any random person do who knows what in them...

<comment><USER3> See [https://www.carnextdoor.com.au](https://www.carnextdoor.com.au) for some evidence that there exist people who are perfectly happy to allow random people do who knows what in their cars.

<comment><USER2> Of course "there exists people who will <replace with anything>". The point is that this is marginal. Dedicated taxis will overwhelmingly dominate.

<comment><USER3> When I first heard this idea, my feeling was that the set of people willing to share their car is small. I know that my car has my stuff in it, and I'd need to take that out and return it every time I used the car, and that'd suck.

But as evidence that the set might be a little larger than I initially thought, I offer an apparently successful business operating today which relies upon people sharing their vehicles.

AirBnB might be a useful data point here though. I don't know what the percentage of dedicated vs shared accommodation is there, but it seems likely to be similar for cars?

<comment><USER2> Well, interestingly if the concept became popular it would bankrupt itself through an oversupply of taxis.

As for AirBnB, it's mostly a platform for dedicated rentals these days...

<comment><USER3> > Well, interestingly if the concept became popular it would > bankrupt itself > through an oversupply of taxis.

I'm not sure that'd be the outcome? If many/most people who own a vehicle make it available for shared use, then I guess there'd be price competition. If willingness to offer your vehicle was (a) motivated by price and (b) varied in its degree, you'd presumably hit a point where some people couldn't be bothered, and would withdraw from the system, reducing supply again.

There's no real downside to the service provider of having more vehicles available, assuming their systems scale with minimal cost.

I guess the question is whether the price point at which people become unwilling to share their vehicles is higher or lower than the cost of capital and maintenance for a dedicated taxi service.

Which seems like it's a sufficiently difficult thing to predict that testing it in the market is probably the right answer :-)

> As for AirBnB, it's mostly a platform for dedicated > rentals these days...

That's my impression too. Which is a data point kinda in favour of the "dedicated" model.

I'm not sure how the "tool sharing" businesses are going -- they might be another useful input?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Could regular car owners farm their cars out as regular taxis? It doesn't seem compelling.

The only value that car owners are providing in this scenario are capital (the cost of the car) and maintenance. The capital for a self-driving taxi is more than a regular taxi, but otherwise it's similar. Both capital and maintenance can be provided more efficiently in bulk than in a cottage industry model.

<comment><USER3> I agree that the economics here are interesting. I think it's useful to consider firstly car sharing, without the autonomous aspect.

I think it's a pretty compelling argument for many car owners whose capital is otherwise tied up in a mostly unproductive asset. Particularly in the case where you end up paying for parking during some of this unproductive time.

For the service provider, I think ultimately you're looking at the cost of supplying a vehicle to transport your customer. Where the car is shared, can that cost be lower than if it's a dedicated vehicle? I think it can, because for car owners willing to share, any income is a bonus. It just has to be enough to overcome any inconvenience to make it worthwhile.

And I think that's the point that your "cottage industry" comment misses: the costs of capital and maintenance are immaterial to the service provider. All they need to pay to overcome is the inconvenience and any psychological "yuck" factor.</comment></comment>


One malloc to rule them all - <AUTHOR> http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/02/20/one-malloc-to-rule-them-all/ <comment><USER2> I'm looking at nedmalloc atm (<http://www.nedprod.com/programs/portable/nedmalloc/>) and I'm really impressed by what I'm seeing there.

Has anyone here had the opportunity to test nedmalloc in real life? What sort of performance benefits did you see? Any problems you ran into?

I'm currently designing embedded systems in C, and am looking to get the most performance out of strained resources as possible...

I'm wondering if this'll compile for AVR or not.....

</comment><comment><USER3> The title is inaccurate. It's a memory allocator specifically design for real- time systems. This is an important and difficult problem, but it in no way makes it an allocator "to rule them all." In particular, I'm thinking about multithreaded allocation, which I think will become increasingly important.

Academic papers: <http://rtportal.upv.es/rtmalloc/node/71>

<comment><USER4> nkurz is right about the intention of the title, but if TLSF is only intended for real-time systems, then why does it claim that it is general-purpose, and not include any caveats of the sort you do? Like all memory allocators I've encountered, none of them say "if you're doing X, you're probably better off using a different allocator." The closest it comes to a caveat is:

> Although TLSF works rather well in many scenarios, it stands out in > applications with hard/soft real-time application which uses explicit memory > allocation with high flexibility requirements due to a high variability of > the data size or adaptability to new situations.

Or paraphrased: "TLSF is great, but is _especially_ great when..."

<comment><USER3> It was designed for real time systems, and evaluated in the context of real time systems. (Check out the academic papers.) "General purpose" just means it implements the malloc/free interface, and can be used in place of the standard on your system.

In the case that most people care about, I think something like TCMalloc (<http://goog-perftools.sourceforge.net/doc/tcmalloc.html>) is more appropriate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Two TA tricks to make people not use malloc: 1) Have them write it 2) Force them to check the return value of all system calls.

Static arrays aplenty will arise

Also) punish them for excessively large static arrays

</comment><comment><USER6> In my experience, the DSA took extensive use of x86 instruction ffs/fls which is fairly slow in several CPU chips (slower than maintain a free-list).

</comment><comment><USER7> It's impossible. Baiting titles are annoying.

<comment><USER8> This article will make you dumber. At least he linked to the jemalloc whitepaper, which he clearly didn't read.

[http://people.freebsd.org/%7Ejasone/jemalloc/bsdcan2006/jema...](http://people.freebsd.org/%7Ejasone/jemalloc/bsdcan2006/jemalloc.pdf)

I especially like the part near the end of the post where it says, "It could be that different implementations excel in different scenarios" as if that wasn't completely obvious for anyone who has thought for more than a few minutes about a malloc implementation.

<comment><USER4> Article author here -- apologies for making you dumber. I would love to hear any data you have about when I should choose one malloc() implementation over another; the theory that malloc implementations have trade-offs is basic enough, but I've never come across a memory allocator that says "here are situations where you _shouldn't_ use this allocator, and should use allocator Y instead."

And since the malloc() that ships with any given libc is going to be used by 100% of applications that do not explicitly override malloc (and I have never come across an application that does), understanding which is the best all- around allocator seems like quite the worthwhile exercise.

I also don't necessarily buy the jemalloc paper's assertion that allocators cannot be benchmarked in isolation. It's true that you can't measure the effects that locality will have on the rest of the application, but you surely can measure locality of allocations.

<comment><USER7> General purpose malloc/free cannot "rule" in all situations due to its limited interface hence any particular understanding of resource management constraints. It's obvious that no malloc/free package can possibly outperform an arena scheme when it makes sense.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bay Area Home Prices by Transit Stop - <AUTHOR> http://www.estately.com/bay-area-home-affordability-transit-stop?largemap=true <comment><USER2> Related somewhat: Atlanta median income down MARTA's Red line (travels North to South) [http://news.wabe.org/post/atlanta-biggest-gap-between- rich-a...](http://news.wabe.org/post/atlanta-biggest-gap-between-rich-and- poor-us)

<comment><USER3> Here's one for New York:

[http://projects.newyorker.com/story/subway/](http://projects.newyorker.com/story/subway/)

And Chicago:

[http://youarehere.cc/j/subway/chicago.html](http://youarehere.cc/j/subway/chicago.html)

<comment><USER4> A very cool sonification of income inequality along the New York subway: [https://datadrivendj.com/tracks/subway](https://datadrivendj.com/tracks/subway)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Since pricing increases based on proximity to downtown SF, my intuition would lead me to think that pricing should also increase based on proximity to a BART station (or existence of a BART station) within a suburban city, since it positively impacts ability to get to downtown SF. But I'm not sure that's true in reality. It also doesn't line up with the stereotypical NIMBY complaint I've always heard (e.g. Marin County) that transit attracts riff-raff and would therefore depress home prices. I suppose there've been studies done on this sort of thing so perhaps I'll have a quick google.

<comment><USER6> There's a sort of "feedback loop inversion" effect in play where transit caters to extremes of poverty and wealth and not the middle. For example, Palo Alto's Caltrain stops are not high-end real estate because transit runs through it - they're high-end because they have become a major destination for tech workers over the course of a few decades. On the other hand, West Oakland BART is within easy reach of many major destinations but it's been heavily resistant to gentrification: major firms do not have a presence there, and it's historically a working-class community, not a wealthy suburb. BART's deployment there is effectively transit as a "handout" policy, a way to make sure low-income workers get to their low-income jobs.

But places that are a bit outlying and don't have a big job market, like much of Marin, sit in a nebulous zone in between: they aren't really "in demand" right now, and that gives the community leverage to stomp out anything that would change that.

<comment><USER7> >BART's deployment there is effectively transit as a "handout" policy

Is that really how it's framed?

<comment><USER6> It's coded. You see "handout" named as such more often when it's low-quality, inefficient service. With a system like BART, the whole thing was motivated by pressure to relieve middle-class downtown commuters specifically, and everyone else by chance(hence a design without redundancy that requires a midnight service shutdown). Geometry forces it to pass through many types of communities, but during construction, the slightly richer, whiter communities had more room to shape their relationship to the system:

 _Prime examples of how public pressures escalated the cost of the system are the Berkeley subway and the Ashby Station. After originally approving a combination aerial and subway line through Berkeley, that city later came to oppose the plan in favor of a subway-only line, which was much more expensive. The new plan necessitated redesign of the Ashby Station from an aerial to a subway facility. Extensive controversy and hearings ensued for the next 2 1 /2 years, finally to be resolved by Berkeley residents voting to tax themselves additionally to finance the changes they wanted. Next, a Berkeley City Councilman filed a successful suit to redesign the Ashby Station, yet a second time, asserting the use of skylights in the original plans was not a true subway design._ [0]

And indeed, the "nicer" stops on BART tend to be underground, while the "inexpensive" ones are mostly aerial alignments adjacent to freeways. (See the history around "freeway revolts" and you get a similar picture of class/race division.)

[0] [http://www.bart.gov/about/history/history2](http://www.bart.gov/about/history/history2)

<comment><USER8> I highly recommend that you check out the book Mass transit and the politics of technology: a study of BART and the San Francisco Bay Area. It's a different, if similarly unflattering, take on the forces that shaped BART's eventual geometry.

[https://www.worldcat.org/title/mass-transit-and-the- politics...](https://www.worldcat.org/title/mass-transit-and-the-politics-of- technology-a-study-of-bart-and-the-san-francisco-bay-area/oclc/800571)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would have thought living near the airport would be the cheapest square footage on that map.

In Toronto they can barely _give away_ apartments located near Pearson Airport due to the incessant noise (and some crime, probably associated with the low purchase price of the apartments).

The prices are ~50% of what they are everywhere else in the city.

<comment><USER10> That is largely true for the east bay—the Coliseum Bart station is the transfer point to the Oakland airport. And the neighborhoods around SFO are not nearly as gentrified as many others nearby on the peninsula.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This really makes me feel like the whole Raiders mess is missing a real opertunity to turn that area into a great mixed use housing/retail/entertainment area.

I mean it's got 3 lines running through it, it's near Alameda's lovely shopping, it's near the freeway, it's quick to both Oakland and SF downtown.

LOTS of housing and options there - even IF there is a new stadium in that area...

</comment><comment><USER12> Why does Millbrae's price change by $6/sq between the BART map and the CalTrain map? (Both services are serviced at the same station.)

<comment><USER13> Might be splitting by some voronoi method so there's no reason to expect the areas represented by each station to be the same

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I can't understand why DC and Colma remain so cheap (comparably). Sure, the area doesn't have as much walking distance locales but a quick Bart ride will get you anywhere you want to go. Are people really that sensitive to small inconvenience?

<comment><USER15> DC and Colma also suffer from some of the worst fog cover through out the year around the area.

<comment><USER16> Yep, Daly City is pretty miserable climate wise. It'll often be covered in fog and cold in the middle of a summer day, while a few miles away it's sunny and warm. You also have to deal with mold and rust issues.

I've looked at apartments there a couple times, and while it's vastly more affordable than SF, the climate + distance outweighs the upsides (for me anyway).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Now chart it for AC Transit transbay buses and weep at how much you've been getting ripped off just because you don't want to take a bus to work

<comment><USER18> The transbay busses are slower because they get stuck on the bridge. 8 minutes for bart to cross the bay vs 1hr for a vehicle on the bay bridge during rush hour. If I'm wrong, I would be pleasantly surprised.

<comment><USER19> I took the transbay NL bus for several months. Never had a ride take anywhere close to an hour, except for once when it was raining really hard, but that's because traffic in SF was so gridlocked, but the bridge was OK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It would seem there's no where on the peninsula can you buy an average 1500sqft house for less than $1million, ~$700/sqft.

<comment><USER21> [https://www.openlistings.com/p/172-sweeny-st-san- francisco-c...](https://www.openlistings.com/p/172-sweeny-st-san-francisco- ca-94134)

<comment><USER22> In the shadow if the 280 / 101 interchange?

<comment><USER21> Sure, just saying stuff pops up in that price range if you're patient. This is better location and has a pool! [https://www.openlistings.com/p/257-justin-dr- san-francisco-c...](https://www.openlistings.com/p/257-justin-dr-san- francisco-ca-94112)

Peninsula sorted by price: [https://www.openlistings.com/z/94134?focus_params_id=172-swe...](https://www.openlistings.com/z/94134?focus_params_id=172-sweeny- st-san-francisco- ca-94134&n=37.831088807314565&s=37.499527841533116&e=-122.30107939990233&w=-122.69384063037108&sort=price- asc&property_types=%5B%22home%22%5D&price_max=999999&bedrooms=2)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm looking at moving to the bay area in the next few months. I've settled on fremont but im looking at renting. Assuming rent linearly correlates with the costs here it does not seem that bad a cost or commute (relatively speaking). Any advice or cautions?

<comment><USER24> Do you have kids of a school going age or will be in school in the next few years? That makes a huge difference as far as SV is concerned. Fremont is one of the better school districts in CA second only to the Cupertino school district. Correspondingly prices in Fremont are quite high.

If schools are not an issue then you have a lot more options in terms of cost.

The next issue is prevalence of crime/safety. Fremont is a very safe place to live, but as you go along the BART corridor there are variations in this factor.

If you don't mind endless daily commutes then you can also look beyond the Pleasanton/Dublin corridor where there are good schools coming up with relatively affordable home prices.

<comment><USER25> The Dublin/Pleasanton school situation is _considerably_ better than in Fremont -- and always have been along with the rest of the 680 corridor bedroom communities.

Fremont schools are a very mixed bag and while they've improved recently thanks to gentrification they're not fantastic historically. There are still quite a few moderately poor schools mixed in the Fremont district.

For your comparison:

[http://www.greatschools.org/california/pleasanton/pleasanton...](http://www.greatschools.org/california/pleasanton/pleasanton- unified-school-district/)

[http://www.greatschools.org/california/fremont/fremont- unifi...](http://www.greatschools.org/california/fremont/fremont-unified/)

<comment><USER26> School and housing is better site than great schools.

[http://www.schoolandhousing.com/mobile/](http://www.schoolandhousing.com/mobile/)

Mission San Jose in Fremont is one of the top 10 public schools in terms of API & SAT in the state of CA.

[http://schools.latimes.com/sat- scores/ranking/page/1/](http://schools.latimes.com/sat-scores/ranking/page/1/)

<comment><USER25> Yes, like I said it's a mixed bag. Mission San Jose has very high scores but others like JFK High aren't great.

Unlike Fremont, all schools in Pleasanton have excellent scores. There is no concern of rolling up into the wrong schools depending on where you live, availability, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> What is Caltrain like for commuting in the South Bay? Would it make sense to rent near a Caltrain station in one of the cheaper cities and commute to the Silicon Valley area?

<comment><USER28> South bay from? My summer gig is in downtown Mountain View and I stay really close to San Jose Diridon station. Looking at the schedule, the train ride can be as short as 15 minutes (SJ to MTV) and the rents here are ~$3K/mo for a 2 bedroom apartment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> They must have major sample bias to rank Orinda below Rockridge.

<comment><USER30> We're using price per square foot. We are a member of the MLS, so we have every home and condo for sale.

You know what looks crazy? Not factoring in size. We did it and it looked really goofy.

(I'm the founder of Estately)

<comment><USER31> Price per square foot is .. not always a great metric.

Price per square foot tends to goes down as square footage goes up.

(For example, a 1700 sq ft home in mountain view will cost you 2 mil. A 3400sq ft one in the same place will cost ~3 mil, not 4 mil).

<comment><USER30> Agreed. It's an imperfect measure.

I lobbied to put both on here, but then you end up with an unreadable map.

<comment><USER29> You do have to pick something and run with it, I understand that. But price per square foot is pretty bogus because one cannot buy housing by the square foot. You have to buy it per _house_. I think you could make a fair comparison if you went with median 2-bedroom sale price instead.

<comment><USER30> Sure, but there are areas where there really aren't many 2 bedroom houses or they aren't really representative of the local real estate.

<comment><USER32> Maybe just an average price per bedroom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I stayed by 19th and Mission on Funston for a while. I didn't realize that real estate was so expensive there. I would have thought the Embercadero, Marina etc would be more expensive.

<comment><USER34> The Mission is up and coming, it's now one of the hot real estate areas. I'm pretty sure Marina is more expensive, though it's not listed on the map.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The average travel times by BART don't seem all that bad, most large metropolitan cities need an hour by transit anyways. Do people in SF-region really not commute to work from afar?

<comment><USER36> This article[1] claims that the "national average commute time is 24.4 minutes" and that "the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont region is also No. 1 for commute distance" in the country.

[1] [http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/05/san-francisco-bay- area-n...](http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/05/san-francisco-bay-area-nations- capital-for-megacommuting)

<comment><USER37> 30 minutes doesn't seem that bad. If you commute to Manhattan, you're looking at least 45 minutes door to door from most directions.

Not to worry, within another 30 years technology will solve the problem and mass transit will achieve great speeds, like 100 mph. The average commuter train/subway now has to be less than 50 mph.

Get on a train in Mountain View and arrive in San Francisco in 15 minutes.

<comment><USER38> It is the frequent/nearby stops that make the mass transit slow today. Nowadays all trains/bus engines can drive cars to 80mph already.

<comment><USER37> No, do the math. The express trains and subways aren't that fast either. Some are much slower because of frequent stops but that's not the only problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> 19th St Oakland is more expensive than Dublin/Pleasanton? Something is surely amiss.

Also, Rockridge more expensive than Orinda??

<comment><USER11> 19th St Oakland is in the middle of Uptown - it was expensive 5 years ago, let alone today. Not sure where you think it is but it's right in the middle of one of the most vibrant downtown areas in Oakland...

Rockridge is likely more expensive PER SQUARE FOOT because Orinda has more space so places are much larger but at the same price or only marginally higher. I mean Stephen Curry just bought a 3.5 million place out there that's pretty darn massive but a small 2 story home in Rockridge starts at like... 800k and not for a nice one either.

Makes sense overall.

<comment><USER40> I've been in Rockford for a year and a half, and just sabot the entire block has been sold in that time. It's a pretty popular neighborhood... And closer to everything than Orinda.

<comment><USER11> Rockford? You mean Rockridge? Ditto - I moved here in late 2014 and it's by far the most popular for new construction and old buildings being sold.

<comment><USER40> Yes, rockridge. Mobile typing ftw.

<comment><USER11> Been there. Howdy neighbor!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Capsule - <AUTHOR> https://capsule.ai <comment><USER2> I like your design. Where did you get your inspiration from?</comment>


The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/26/heres-the-fccs-plan-to-undo-its-own-net-neutrality-rules <comment><USER3> ""Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake," Pai said. "It's basic economics: The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you're likely to get."

Just reading this makes me angry. Has he ever heard of monopolies / oligopolies, or simply the place of government in regulating public utilities.

Apply his quote to water supplies and see what happens.

<comment><USER4> Demand for water isn't growing at nearly the rate of demand for bits. If communities expected their regulated water utilities to deliver twice as much water every 18-36 months, they'd be in for some tough times.

<comment><USER3> That's irrelevant, if anything in your example you should compare growth in productivity for bits and for water independently and see if they manage to meet their demands Also water is a much more finite supply.

The point of my example was that as you leave government out of the tap water market and instead of getting more of it, you get less, more expensive and of lesser quality. Economics teach that in some industries, the government and a certain amount of regulation is healthy and good for the market; leaving actors to themselves just makes them tend naturally towards monopolies which then trifle innovation. Communications is one of those markets.

<comment><USER5> The difference in demand is highly relevant: U.S. water utilities can't even attract enough investment to replace century-old lead pipes and sewers; similarly tepid investment in internet infrastructure would have left us all with dial-up still.

The U.K. and France have both privatized their water systems and it has worked fine. Conversely, U.S. water systems, which are mostly still publicly owned, are a total disaster: [http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/epa_1_trillion_n...](http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/epa_1_trillion_needed_for_us_p.html).

Economics certainly teaches that some markets are susceptible to natural monopolies and government regulation is appropriate there. But it also teaches that making a kind of business less profitable will drive investment away from that business. The question is _how do you regulate_ to balance those competing concerns. You have to protect consumers, but you also have to figure out how to get sufficient investment into the industry.

The U.K. does a good job balancing the interests. There is a single, regulated monopoly that owns most of the last mile (BT Openreach), but the regulations are designed so that the monopoly is actually very profitable. Most state and local governments do a terrible job balancing those interests with regards to utility companies. Regulated rates keep water and sewer bills low, but dramatically limit the profitability of water utilities. As a result our water infrastructure is hundreds of billions of dollars in the red.

<comment><USER3> Regarding the example of France the trend you're pointing out is out of date. After years of water privatization which drove costs up for municipalities and quality down, there's a reversal towards public management of the water supply. Privatization and deregulation pushed the market to an oligopoly of three main actors, Veolia, Suez and SAUR which eliminated competition and pushed costs up for consumers for a worse quality of water. That trend that was before celebrated (and embraced in the US, with Veolia and Suez heavily active there), is now being full on reversed, with measurable benefits for consumers and municipalities.

The US is still lagging behind on that realization and it's a common mistake to think that privatizing water supplies holds benefits for towns and consumers. Most often in these cases, deregulation brings benefits in the short term as private actors compete heavily to win public markets, but not in the long term when the market tends to an oligopoly / monopoly and private actors don't have any more incentive to push on innovation or investments.

The issue of lack of investment isn't a problem of too much regulation, on the contrary. These are markets with very high costs of entry where you need a strong regulatory framework to mandate a couple actors to a large enough market for those investments to be viable. You quote the example of communications, in France by law France Telecom had to expand its network to reach any citizen, whether 10km away from the grid or 10m at no cost for the consumer. This led to a great coverage of the territory and very high access to broadband for most of the population.

Take the example of the US, where internet access costs easily $100 a month, has just a couple actors sharing the market in each city, in a proper position of cartel, and where government regulation is nearly non-existent; and oppose this to most european countries where a 100mb symmetrical connection will cost you 30 EUR.... On the counter, what really disrupted the French Telecom market was the arrival of Free, which offered costs so low Telecoms had to find ways to match their prices.

It's a fallacy to think that these markets don't need regulation, but it's another one to think government can do everything ;)

Sources: [http://in.reuters.com/article/water-utilities-paris- idINL6N0...](http://in.reuters.com/article/water-utilities-paris- idINL6N0PE57220140708) [http://thewip.net/2009/01/28/local-water-renaissance- in-fran...](http://thewip.net/2009/01/28/local-water-renaissance-in-france- ends-century-long-privatization-monopoly/)

<comment><USER5> For context, the recent move in Paris ends over a century of water privatization. The city seems to have managed fine during that time frame. The focus on consumer prices is emblematic of the problem with public water management. Water/sewer services _shouldn 't be cheap._ Prices should be high enough to adequately maintain infrastructure. Water rates in the U.S. are less than half of what they are in France,[1] and as a result, our water infrastructure is in terrible shape.[2]

> You quote the example of communications, in France by law France Telecom had > to expand its network to reach any citizen, whether 10km away from the grid > or 10m at no cost for the consumer. This led to a great coverage of the > territory and very high access to broadband for most of the population.

There is no free lunch. More money spent covering more people means less money invested in improving infrastructure in urban areas.

France is not a great counterpoint to the U.S. model of regulating ISPs. According to 2016 OECD data, France does have higher overall broadband deployment (40 per 100 inhabitants versus ~33 per 100 in the US).[3] But the vast majority of it is DSL rather than much faster cable. According to Akamai's latest broadband speed report,[4] France ranks 52nd in the world in average speed (page 32). The U.S. ranks 14th (page 24). The U.S. has 42% of connections above 15mbps, versus just 16% in France (pages 25, 34).

[https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state- of-t...](https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the- internet/q4-2016-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf).

> Take the example of the US, where internet access costs easily $100 a month, > has just a couple actors sharing the market in each city, in a proper > position of cartel, and where government regulation is nearly non-existent; > and oppose this to most european countries where a 100mb symmetrical > connection will cost you 30 EUR

The fact that you can get 100mb symmetrical connections cheaply in some places doesn't reflect "most of Europe." Fiber is available in almost every U.S. city I've ever lived or worked in (Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Washington, Annapolis--all except Baltimore and Wilmington, but even those have fiber in the surrounding suburbs). But that's not necessarily representative of the U.S.--you need to look at aggregate, not anecdotal data.

Almost 2/3 of the EU lives in: Germany, France, the U.K., Italy, or Spain. According to Akamai's data, those countries all have slower average internet speeds than the U.S. That is consistent with the OECD data, which shows that three of the five lag the U.S. in fiber deployment (counting the U.K.'s FTTN as fiber rather than DSL) and rely predominantly on slower DSL rather than faster cable technologies.

[1] [http://everylittledrop.com.au/knowledge-center/the-cost- of-w...](http://everylittledrop.com.au/knowledge-center/the-cost-of-water/)

[2] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-water- safety_us_56bcf...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-water- safety_us_56bcf122e4b0b40245c5d388).

[3] [http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1_2-OECD- WiredWirelessBB-2...](http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1_2-OECD- WiredWirelessBB-2016-06.xls)

[4] [https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state- of-t...](https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the- internet/q4-2016-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf)

<comment><USER3> > For context, the recent move in Paris ends over a century of water > privatization. The city seems to have managed fine during that time frame. > The focus on consumer prices is emblematic of the problem with public water > management. Water/sewer services shouldn't be cheap. Prices should be high > enough to adequately maintain infrastructure. Water rates in the U.S. are > less than half of what they are in France,[1] and as a result, our water > infrastructure is in terrible shape.[2]

No, that happened in 1984. ([https://research.ncl.ac.uk/media/sites/researchwebsites/goba...](https://research.ncl.ac.uk/media/sites/researchwebsites/gobacit/Anne%20Le%20Strat.pdf) slide 11 or [http://www.eaudeparis.fr/lespace- culture/patrimoine/](http://www.eaudeparis.fr/lespace-culture/patrimoine/)).

> You quote the example of communications, in France by law France Telecom had > to expand its network to reach any citizen, whether 10km away from the grid > or 10m at no cost for the consumer. This led to a great coverage of the > territory and very high access to broadband for most of the population.

>> There is no free lunch. More money spent covering more people means less money invested in improving infrastructure in urban areas.

The point here is that the regulatory authority creates a legal framework which favors investement in the grid, resolving one of the inefficiencies of the market (no interest in paying 2MM euros to connect a person who's distant in the country side), makes investments happen which would never take place under a fully deregulated environment. This addresses issues of digital inequalities which would push actors on investing only on people or products which can yield the higher profits. At term it hurts society.

I'll take your points on the OCED and Akamai rankings, and yes I provided anecdotal evidence, not a lot of time for research :) But my sense is that if you compare speeds delivered to prices paid, consumers are still much better off in Europe. The other point which might be hard to quantify is the little choice US consumers have when choosing their ISP. It's often one or two actors who offer the same speed, price points and whose situation of oligopoly allows them to forgo proper consumer support alltogether (TWC). That is the result of no regulation and I don't see how more of that will benefit consumers.

More sources on water remunicipalisation: [https://www.tni.org/en/article/180-cities-take-back- public-c...](https://www.tni.org/en/article/180-cities-take-back-public- control-of-water-showing-remunicipalisation-is-here-to-stay)

[https://www.tni.org/en/publication/here-to-stay-water- remuni...](https://www.tni.org/en/publication/here-to-stay-water- remunicipalisation-as-a-global-trend)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on > their broadband networks

How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? It's just so frustrating that these guys no longer even bother to pretend that their arguments make any logical sense at all. "We'll protect user privacy by eliminating these rules that protect user privacy!" "We'll boost competition and choice, by giving the existing entrenched players more control and power!"

This is just such a naked demonstration of regulatory capture. It boggles my mind.

<comment><USER7> > How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network > incentivize those ISPs to expand that network?

The fundamental idea is that the amount of investment done in a venture is directly proportional to the profitability of that venture. If govt makes a regulation saying that Google can provide Hangouts service, but it cannot charge more for Enterprise Hangouts features, then Google has no additional incentive to expand the hangouts service than what it gets by having the business of consumer market.

If Uber/Lyft is previously not allowed to provide priority Corporate service to corporate clients (and let's just say they do it by letting the corporate Uber cars bypass the consumer Uber cars using their Map service) then Uber/Lyft are allowed to do that, then their increased profit margins will allow them to fund their autonomous car other operations to build the network faster.

You may disagree with the ethic of overnight delivery services of UPS, but at least not pretend that if UPS is allowed to charge more and deliver packets overnight then this allows them invest more into their infrastructure.

<comment><USER6> Eliminating net neutrality incentivizes ISPs to build auxiliary services that they can artificially support by throttling the bandwidth of competing products. It incentivizes them to seek profit by favoring some net traffic over other net traffic.

It does not in any way incentivize them to build larger or better networks. It does not incentivize them to invest in their infrastructure. All it does is let them make more profit off what they already have.

I mean seriously, if the whole argument is that they're not making enough money as it is: if a 97%[1] profit margin isn't enough money for them to build out their networks, just how much more do they need?

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner- cab...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner- cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html)

<comment><USER7> Business Model 1:

Build your own services and throttle everyone else's services unless they pay a premium (in which case your own services would be cheaper, but the profit they get from their own services must be higher than the profit they get from NOT selling the bandwidth their premium service uses, to third parties).

Let's put it this way, if a hotel builds a Jacuzzi, you're argument is that the hotel owner will only let their own family and friends use the Jacuzzi whereas they will charge anyone else more money to use it. But the time their buddies are using the Jacuzzi could be sold for a fee to the third party, so in order for them to rationally do this, they must gain enough favors that it justifies them to NOT make the extra profit.

In case of the ISP scenario, the Verizon Music better offer them higher profitability than letting it be used by actual Spotify and charging them. If they charge Spotify's $5 per month per user, then Verizon Music better bring them same or higher revenue or else running Verizon Music isn't worth it.

Business Model 2:

Invest in infrastructure and try to take over bigger market.

You're claiming "There is no way they will go for business model 2, they will go for business model 1". But you have no presented any reason why they would do that? We have reasons to believe that even when companies are very good at doing something internally, the parent company sells them off because it's a more profitable model.

<comment><USER8> > You're claiming "There is no way they will go for business model 2, they > will go for business model 1". But you have no presented any reason why they > would do that?

There are two reasons they would do that.

The first is price discrimination. Suppose Spotify makes $2/month worth of profit but uses $0.05/month in bandwidth. Now Verizon can charge them $2/month for that amount of bandwidth and take their entire margin. Even if Spotify nominally continues to exist, they now have no margins to reinvest or use to attract new private investment, so they're walking dead. Which harms customers because now Spotify can never improve their service. And if Verizon does have a competing service (see also: TV and phone) then Verizon's service gets an insurmountable competitive advantage.

Which leads to the second reason, which is to extract monopoly rents. Suppose Spotify charges $10/month because they have competitors, so they can't charge more without losing business. But if they had no competitors then they could charge $25/month. Which means that _Verizon_ can charge $25/month if they can get rid of all the competitors, which they can do by just charging them all unsustainably high data prices.

Hotels can't do this because hotels have real competition.

<comment><USER9> What happens when Spotify emails its customers saying "sorry we can't provide service to Verizon customers anymore, they charge us too much"

Some may stay and downgrade their service as they don't require as much bandwidth and some may leave Verizon entirely. It's not all roses for them.

Then Comcast, AT&T, Google or anyone else frankly begins offering "True unlimited full access internet" and eats Verizon's breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Meanwhile someone creates a VPN service to get around the blockade.

<comment><USER10> > Then Comcast, AT&T, Google or anyone else frankly begins offering "True > unlimited full access internet" and eats Verizon's breakfast, lunch and > dinner.

You seem to be intentionally forgetting that these ISPs have segregated themselves such that they do not have to compete with one another. In most of the US, you get one choice of fast internet (Verizon or Comcast or Time Warner) and one choice of slow internet (whatever DSL you can find) - you may not even get satellite or dial up anymore.

So, when Verizon says "Screw you Google and Netflix and Spotify", their customers don't go "hey Comcast/AT&T/Google, c'mere", they say "how much do I have to pay you to make the pain stop... for now..." (The customers of all of these horrible ISPs have been screaming the "hey [other ISP] come to my area" line for literally decades, but the ISPs don't listen because they have either agreed explicitly or implicitly not to push into one another's turf to maximize everyone's profits.)

This is why we _need_ net neutrality. If the market was competitive, it'd be a different story altogether. But it is provably not (hell, they've used the fact the markets are not competitive to try to convince the FTC to allow them to merge with other ISPs because "it would not reduce overall competition, since they do not compete in such-and-such markets"), and despite the government drowning AT&T and its many children with hundreds of billions of dollars over the past few decades to build high speed networks for everyone, they _still_ organized their networks in such a way to maintain monopoly powers (albeit in smaller, more fragmented markets).

ISPs in America do as little as possible, collecting the biggest check as possible, and use the massive profits to squeeze competitors out (like they have successfully done with Google giving up the ghost of expanding _even in Mountain View California where they are headquartered_ and as they are scaling up to do to municipalities creating their own networks like Chattanooga). They're consistently rated as the worst businesses in America, but they are _infrastructure_ , so we pay them anyway. And now they're learning that more profits exist in content than it does in carrying the content fairly, so they want to be the source of the content too. And that means killing net neutrality to making themselves the sole arbiters of the market.

<comment><USER9> I have Verizon(fiber), Comcast(coax) and AT&T(copper) where I live. Not to mention satellite and 4G internet options.

<comment><USER11> Congratulations! You're an outlier.

<comment><USER9> Then use a VPN? Or is the idea they will charge high rates for all traffic (already legal by the way) thus preventing access to the majority of the internet?

<comment><USER11> The idea is that, in the majority of markets where a single ISP has an effective monopoly, that ISP can do what it damn well please within the limit of enforceable law and regulation, and there's not a whole lot that can be done to prevent it.

The idea is further that, not only does it make pragmatic sense for so favorably positioned an ISP to act aggressively in defense of that position, but such ISPs have been observed to do so, as for example with AT&T's successful defeat of the recent municipal broadband expansion bill in Tennessee. AT&T's position is that taxpayer money should not be used to fund competition with private industry, which all sounds very fine and upstanding, except that the private industry has already stifled any possibility of competition by means of the sort of monopolistic activity which US governments spent much of the early 20th century working to restrict, in order to prevent the unsavory outcomes that such activity has been observed to produce in direct proportion to the degree in which it's successfully pursued.

So, sure, they can charge high rates for traffic if they want, in addition to charging more or less whatever rates they please simply to provision backhaul in the first place. They can impose a $20/month, or higher, charge for reliable access to video streamed from services other than those they themselves run. They can do whatever they're able to get away with - and in an environment of permissive and favorable legislation and no effective private competition, they get away with a hell of a lot.

In case it matters, I'm really not progressive, and I understand business reasonably well - I've been in private industry my entire career, with no one doing me any favors, and if I didn't have at least a generally accurate idea of how things work, I wouldn't be able to support myself. In particular, I find the current attitude held by the federal, and many state, governments, toward small business enterprises, absurd and execrable - and I've seen the onerous burden such an attitude inflicts on people who go into business for themselves. But the current attitude toward _large_ business is a whole 'nother matter entirely, and I see nothing of value to our polity as a whole in the results of such gross permissiveness. Expanding such permissiveness still further strikes me as very much the wrong thing to do.

<comment><USER9> The thing is everyone has mobile phones for the most part. If a local ISP makes cost of doing business for Netflix so high that Netflix no longer offers that service at a reasonable price. Many consumers will either scale back their connection or cancel it entirely.

"What's the point of paying $100 a month for Facebook and Instagram? I get that on my phone anyway! I don't want Verizon's $100 a month TV plan, I want house of cards."

As the ISP mostly has sunk costs and slim margins if even 5% of its user base leaves in a certain market that will render them insolvent or force them to raise prices, causing more departures, and higher prices still...

The point is while they don't always have direct competition they do have a decent amount of elasticity of demand.

<comment><USER11> Everyone has mobile phones, but not that many people have unlimited data _and_ a high enough data rate to handle household streaming demands - usually you only get one or the other, and even "unlimited" usually hits a cap after a while. I don't think the elastic is as stretchy as you seem to be suggesting it is.

<comment><USER9> I understand they don't have unlimited data, but if they can't stream Netflix (insert your preferred service here) anyway what's the point of keeping the wireline internet service? Five gigs a month is a lot of Facebook/Snapchat and Instagram. Either way they won't have access to the content they want. Why not save a few dollars or move those dollars towards mobile data? Sure they can go to the ISP's media service but those are priced at the cable model for the most part and not really competitive, I don't know anyone under 40 that has cable service anymore. If you used to pay $15 for 4K high quality original content and now you are offered $60 a month for often low quality content with commercials would you take that deal? I'd pass.

A big cost for ISP's is customer acquisition, even if they change back their policies it will be years, maybe decades to recover. I think if an ISP did this on any large scale it would be suicide.

<comment><USER11> Under a lot of data plans, it'd still be cheaper for a moderate to heavy streaming video user to pay Comcast the vig it wants, than to pay wireless data rates for the same bandwidth.

I guarantee you Comcast has made the same calculation, too, down to the fractional cent. Whatever vig they charge, if they do, will be scaled accordingly.

<comment><USER9> The customer isn't paying the "vig" it's the distributor, If Netflix isn't profitable on Comcast's network Netflix will simply stop offering service to Comcast customers. They will have no other option, thus might opt out entirely as they go from moderate or heavy streaming users to not streaming at all.

Also keep in mind they would still be subject to anti-trust regulation, they really can only take it so far before getting broken up again.

<comment><USER11> And Netflix raises subscription rates to make up for the added cost. The customer still pays the vig.

<comment><USER9> To: AllComcastCustomers

From: firstname.lastname@example.com

Subject: Comcast is increasing the monthly cost of Nextflix

"Dear Valued Customer,

Here at Netflix we endeavor to offer the highest value for your entertainment dollar, it is with that in mind we regret to inform you that due to sweeping and punitive fee increases brought on at the sole discretion of Comcast we will be forced to raise our prices 425% next billing cycle. Customers of other ISP's will enjoy the same low price that we have always offered, in fact we are offering our service at our cost to Comcast customers at this new rate. Please contact Comcast customer service at 1-800-Comcast if you would like this issue resolved as it is out of our hands.

Have a great day"

<comment><USER11> At which point Comcast probably sues Netflix for anticompetitive practices.

<comment><USER9> "It was the shortest civil defence in the history of law. No experts. No witnesses. He simply stood up and proclaimed 'Pot, kettle, black, the defense rests.' ""

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Pai's proposal is set for a vote at the FCC's May 18 open meeting. If it is > approved, Pai will begin seeking public feedback on the plan, which calls > for regulating ISPs more lightly and asks Americans for ways to preserve the > core principles of net neutrality, such as the idea that blocking or slowing > traffic should be off-limits.

Well, the obvious way to "preserve the core principles of net neutrality, such as the idea that blocking or slowing traffic should be off-limits" is to not get rid of the regulation that prohibits blocking or slowing traffic.

<comment><USER13> > Well, the obvious way to "preserve the core principles of net neutrality, > such as the idea that blocking or slowing traffic should be off-limits" is > to not get rid of the regulation that prohibits blocking or slowing traffic.

Yeah, and hopefully as much energy (and more) as was mobilized against the previous FCC for not being as vigorous as some wanted in the last round of Open Internet rulemaking will be directed into the public comments for the FCC actually reversing direction. But I don't expect it will matter as much; with Wheeler's FCC, the goals were clearly for neutrality and the debate was over the means; with Pai's FCC, despite lip service to the principles of neutrality, the real overwhelming goal seems to be to free ISPs to do what they want, so I'm not sure any contrary comment will have much weight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here is the EFF link [0] that provides additional information and also provides methods of contacting your local government officials to take action. Please send this along!

[0] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/fcc-wants-eliminate- ne...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/fcc-wants-eliminate-net- neutrality-protections-we-cant-let-happen)

<comment><USER15> This whole battle has felt like the consumers versus the ISP's. Is there economic advantages to consumers if Net Neutrality is eliminated?

<comment><USER16> Sure - you'll get video streaming from content providers who are able to pay large sums of money without hitting against the artificial caps currently in place.

Of course, that also means it'll kill any competitors not willing or able to pay the same extortion, so in the end you'll have less choice, but at least you'll have saved money. Except you won't really save money because once the current administration allows further consolidation in the wireless sector, prices will rise with authority.

<comment><USER17> > Of course, that also means it'll kill any competitors not willing or able to > pay the same extortion, so in the end you'll have less choice, but at least > you'll have saved money.

You might save a few bucks in the short run, but lack of competition doesn't tend to be good for markets - especially ones which can rapidly change like online services. Less choice generally means you're paying more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here is the "fact sheet" that Ajit Pai distributed at the event at the Newseum today: [https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/85728851922775655...](https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/857288519227756554)

Also of note, YC, TechStars and Engine Advocacy released their "Startups for Net Neutrality" letter to Pai this morning: [http://www.engine.is/startups- for-net-neutrality](http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality)

<comment><USER18> It's factually incorrect though.

> Two years ago, the FCC suddenly changed course – even though there was no > problem that the agency needed to solve.

There was a problem. The FCC enacted the Open Internet Order establishing Net Neutrality in 2010, Verizon sued the FCC in 2014 and the court said the FCC could only enact the order if Verizon was a Title II common carrier. The FCC reclassified so that they could enforce the Open Internet Order, like the court said it must.

You could argue that there was no problem that the Open Internet Order addressed but that happened in 2010, 6 years ago, not two.

<comment><USER19> Also doesn't seem to be on the fact sheet but Pai asserted that the interwebs worked just fine under Clinton and Bush without ISPs being Title II common carriers… except DSL ISPs were moved to Title I at the start of GWB II...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wouldn't it be fun if Netflix, Hulu, HBO, and a few other streamers all decided to throttle the Washington DC area down to, say, 10% of normal outbound bandwidth for a long weekend?

Maybe it wouldn't touch Pai, but if it pissed off a huge block of his neighbors maybe he'd start to understand the idea.

<comment><USER21> Hah! The federal government doesn't care whatsoever about DC residents. We don't even have a Senator to complain to. What exactly do you expect his pissed off neighbors to do?

<comment><USER20> Okay, then wherever most of these public officials stay overnight and weekends. Alexandria? McLean?

Congressmen would be tougher, since they're always flying around. The idea is to bring the pain to people that surround Pai on a daily basis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I just setup monthly donations to the EFF (I'm ashamed I didn't do so a long time ago), and you should too. Also don't forget to check if your employer will match your donations.

[https://supporters.eff.org/donate/](https://supporters.eff.org/donate/)

<comment><USER23> You can also choose them through the Amazon Smile program:

[https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/homepage/ref=smi_se_ssr_src...](https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/homepage/ref=smi_se_ssr_srch_stsr?q=electronic+frontier+foundation&orig=%2F)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I suggested a decade ago that Net Neutrality rules could be foregone, but one important caveat is needed, that no charges to consumers or producers be levied in respect to violating net neutrality i.e. a producer can't pay to have their packets move faster/slower. That's the only way to prevent abuses which are essentially extortion.

Without that rule, the ISPs will invest money into new networks...but it will have negative consumer value and a lot of rent-seeking or pure extortion value for the ISPs.

Packet-based systems are so efficient that some sort of QoS packet routing makes no sense technically in respect to the overhead of brand new networking schemes. Unbiased packet routing is doing just great streaming HD videos on Netflix to 100 million people worldwide, and will continue to do great. The more fundamental problem is that the bottlenecks are at the last mile and there is NO WAY that Verizon is going to lay two cables to your home, one fast lane for important traffic, and another slow lane!! Without last mile investment, there can not be any meaningful technical gains from violating net neutrality.

ISPs want to get rid of net neutrality in order to extort money from Google, Facebook, Netflix and others. Netflix is already paying an extortion fee to Verizon who threatened them with slower speeds if they didn't pay up.

The government's job is to insure that markets are fair and that effective monopolies don't abuse their power, through simple regulations. ISPs and Telco.s have regularly demonstrated for over a hundred years that they HAVE TO BE REGULATED...we would not have an internet or an inter-operable phone network if governments all over the world did force these companies to talk to other networks! The breakup of AT&T just over two decades ago (seems much longer!) was tremendous in spurring on lower costs and competitors in telecommunications.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm paying 30% more each month to use a local ISP that's dedicated to Net Neutrality and online privacy (sonic.net) instead of Comcast/xfinity, because Comcast, along with the other large telecom companies, are actively undermining competitive markets, consumer freedom, and in a sense, our democracy.

An extra $20-30/month is a small price to pay to keep what little competition they have alive. I'd encourage everyone else to examine their choices here if they have any (which I realize for many is 'bad' or 'bad').

<comment><USER26> I am a Sonic subscriber myself, but they just resell AT&T so I am not sure how much a difference it really makes.

<comment><USER27> Sonic actually provides it's own fiber to the home to some areas (FTTH). Their Fiber to the Node (FTTN) is resold AT&T.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I live in a rural area in the mid-atlantic US. My choices for internet are 10mbit DSL from CenturyLink or LTE (with bandwidth caps). I've only lived here for a year but my previous two homes have had at least two options for 100mbit+ internet, FiOS and Comcast, and LTE.

Comcast serves across the street from my house and told me it would be $76k out of my pocket to get service here. For < 1mi run of fiber.

I'm 100% in favor of making ISPs common carriers and making it unlawful for them to track their customers' habits. I've worked for two ISPs in my career. They should be happy with the business of providing internet to customers and compete on delivering better, faster, and more reliable service not on selling their customers' information or eyeballs to the highest bidder.

</comment><comment><USER29> So, I'm just going to ask outright; what would it take to get a politician like Pai investigated? I'd find it very hard to believe at this point that he doesn't have his hands stuck in exactly the sort of pies (no pun intended) that could get him in trouble.

<comment><USER30> Well, first, you'd need even a single person in his party not to be in it with him, and to be willing to cross party lines to do what's right. That's obviously not going to happen.

Second, you'd need corruption to be illegal. Since the people who benefit from it are the ones writing the laws, it's not, at least not in the particular ways they generally do it.

<comment><USER29> Maybe this is a stupid question, but why would it have to be someone of the same party? Why couldn't it just be some unhappy members of the FCC staff? Considering the jarring change from Wheeler to Pai, there's got to be a few people with a good look at his schedule that don't approve of it.

<comment><USER30> Because the Republicans control all three branches of the government, and they're extremely well bought^H^H^H^H^H^H organized. In the rare case that a non-Republican has the power to do anything, they'll be removed with or without cause if they try (see: Sally Yates).

<comment><USER29> Let's say for the purposes of arguing though, that Trump or members of the Trump administration are removed by way of the Russia investigation. I guess it all works on a case by case basis, but generally speaking, how would that affect the FCC chair's standing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I just feel hopeless. I don't think there's anything we can do at this point

<comment><USER32> It's OK to feel hopeless. You might want to focus on things that you do have an effect on in your daily life and try not to dwell on the current news. Changes aren't meant to be quick and drastic, our government is designed deliberately so that it was slow.

also read into what the EFF does.

Stay strong and hang in there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The sneakiest thing just happened to me on that Washington Post site. There was an overlay ad, no big deal, with an X to close it in the upper right of the screen. I moved my mouse up there to click the X and the site shifted slightly so what I actually clicked was "Subscribe"!

<comment><USER34> This is why I disable javascript on my laptop and block ads on my iphone. I shouldn't have to chase around advert-closing buttons that's jinking like a high-performance fighter aircraft.

<comment><USER35> If you run Firefox on Android, you can use the NoScript extension there as well.

Sadly, Firefox for iOS is just a wrapper around WebKit, so Firefox extensions do not work there.

<comment><USER36> Firefox Reader view has been my savior both on laptops and on my mobile phone. It doesn't work on every page, but where it does, it removes the styling and JavaScript and I get to concentrate on the content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Like many other republican policies it's going to hurt the poor more than others. I would probably be fine paying extra to access "all of internet" but for a low income person it's going to be devastating. They will lose access to many useful resources due to this policy.

</comment><comment><USER38> The power and influence of monopolies are a direct threat to democracy. This is just another example.

</comment><comment><USER39> How, specifically, is this helpful to the consumer or to the internet in general?

<comment><USER40> It's not.

Not to get too political but there are two groups: "the people" and "business". Watch every decision the current administration makes. It's helpful for "business" and hurts "the people". This is the opposite of what most people think it should be.

<comment><USER41> > Watch every decision the current administration makes.

Just the current administration, or democracies around the world? It's a fact that capital rules economy and by extension our lives. Why do you think it would be any different under Obama, Hillary, Lincoln, Thatcher, Blair, Castro, Kim Jong Un or Abe? The kind of democracy we have is bourgeois democracy - <USER2> place to protect the intersts of those owners of private property, thereby to assure functioning also protecting to some extent those interests of the people, to afford them the freedom necessary under capitalism, but no more.

It's not an issue of people v business, it's an issue of capital, which rules every country. It's not even businesses, it's capital itself.

<comment><USER42> Narrowing your focus to the particular issue at stake in this thread, there's an obvious and clear difference between how the Democrat-controlled FCC behaved and how the Republican-controlled FCC is behaving. Both parties are not the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks, speeding the spread of high-speed Internet across the country. He also claimed it would create new jobs and help protect Internet users' privacy by returning some authority to the Federal Trade Commission to sue companies that violate their own privacy policies."

So, "create new jobs" is the new "think of the children" in politics. If you want to get anything done in the current political climate you just have to utter that magical phrase and everything is OK. Based on this, I'm going to view any policy that claims to create jobs with the same sceptical eye as I used with the children fear mongers.

</comment><comment><USER44> With the destruction of net neutrality the ISPs control the internet basically free to do as they wish. Block ISPs for good with VPN such as PureVPN [https://www.purevpn.com/](https://www.purevpn.com/)

</comment><comment><USER45> This is what happens when bureaucrats in the administrative state determine rules rather than congress.

<comment><USER30> You can't seriously think that the current Congress would do better?

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Hacker News'ers, why did you vote for republicans knowing they'd do something like this?

</comment><comment><USER47> would be really interrsting to do a deep dive on Pai's personal finances. He's not even trying to hide how much he's in the bag for the telecom/ISPs.

<comment><USER29> Isn't this exactly the sort of thing the government accountability office is for? I'm seriously asking - someone this transparently corrupt deserves an investigation big time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> We're all getting very tired. If this doesn't pass today, it will pass tomorrow. The slow entrenchment of government over our freedoms and rights as international sovereign beings seems relentless. If we cannot push for high- order legislation outlining very clear rules for our digital rights soon, we won't have any rights left to claim. And then we can only take them by force. I would prefer to avoid that.</comment>


Ask HN: Who do you bank with?  - <AUTHOR>

Please include personal and business banking choice. For business, I'm particularly interested in responses from scalable startup folks, so please indicate so if you fall into this category and why. Thanks <comment><USER3> BOA - Great online interface, late night atm deposits credit immediately (big deal for me), and access to my stocks directly in my online console (can transfer money in the same interface.)

I'm going to have to switch if they implement a $5 debit card fee though. Dunno where :P

<comment><USER4> I just left BOA after 20 years (started at Fleet bank). I've moved to The Bank of Maine (<http://thebankofmaine.com>) basically because it will cost me less and offers higher interest rates. The jump was a no-brainer that I should have done a long time ago but, honestly, was just too lazy.

The recent news about BOA and their apparent arrogance in addition to the threat of new fees was the final nail.

Edit: I should add The Bank of Maine is local for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Check out Schawb Online Checking Account - No fees, reimbursement for any ATM usage in the world, iPhone app for check deposits, and you earn interest on your balance

<comment><USER6> I second this. In addition to this, I've never had a problem with them, and their customer service is great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I do all of my personal and business banking at a local credit union. I like the fact that the shareholders of the credit union are the same as the customers. For investments, Vanguard also uses the same approach. This doesn't guarantee that it can't be poorly run, but at least then there is no conflict of interest as far as doing what is best for the business against doing what is best for the customer.

In general, the best advice that I have heard and read all points to going with a local bank or credit union. Unless you have millions of dollars, you're just a number to a large bank. With a local institution, you can develop relationships with the people in charge.

<comment><USER8> Tried that advice a few months ago, but the local credit union here (and there's only one in this entire province sadly), offered no better interest to my savings account, and wanted to charge me 3-5% more interest for any existing loans and credit cards that I wanted to more over. Guess they weren't hurting for customers too badly.

As for what bank, it's one of the five in Canada. Doesnt' matter much as to the name, they're all the same here really for anyone that isn't a millionaire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Personal banking: Fidelity Investments

Assuming you don't care about (or can work around) the relatively few services that require going to an actual bank branch (e.g. free notary public, cashiers' checks, ...) their "Cash Management" accounts are wonderful. A monthly allowance for ATM fee reimbursements, direct deposit (of course) and image-based check deposit, free transfers in and out, alternative investment choices for your cash balance (e.g. municipals), and (almost) no fees.

</comment><comment><USER10> Personal - First Direct

Business - <USER2>

Bitcoins - <http://strongcoin.com>

</comment><comment><USER11> I bank with First Republic, because they offer outstanding service and have good products, particularly if you're traveling overseas a lot; and with a local credit union, because they _are_ a credit union and not a goddamned bank. I got a much better rate on an auto loan from the credit union than any local bank was offering.

<comment><USER12> +1 for First Republic (SF). They are truly superb and I can't recommend them highly enough.

You get access to a personal banker that you can contact directly via phone, email or in person, and who can do all sorts of helpful things for you.

Mine has been extremely awesome on several occasions, handling things like wire transfers, direct debits, account openings/closings due to stolen personal information, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It wouldn't hurt to post your location, country at the very least. This is an international site, most banks aren't.

<comment><AUTHOR> My apologies, my aim was US base folks, should have clarified.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sacramento Credit Union, because when I asked about Mint.com integration they let me talk to one of the higher ups right away, and a week later they had it.

Obviously, if you're not in Sacramento that's a little impractical, but credit union employees and management are more accesible in general.

</comment><comment><USER15> Fist Republic. They rock.

Far better than any other bank I've ever used.</comment>


Realtime Traffic chart for KhanAcademy - <AUTHOR> http://chartbeat.com/dashboard2/?url=khanacademy.org&k=032eb5f1ea0b68a948634d6af8a6ee8e# <comment><AUTHOR> I thought some of you guys might this interesting. KA is going through a lot of changes recently (and even before the big donation from Google.

Here is peek at how the new design might look like: info.khanacademy.org

<comment><USER2> Definitely a welcome change. The video list was getting pretty unruly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is it still hosted on App Engine?</comment>


Ask HN: Video feed of startup school 2010 talks? - <AUTHOR>

Most YC events are now live streamed on Justin.TV. I think this leads to extremely low quality video feeds and incomprehensible audio. (Please see the last year's video archive). Given that a large number of people who apply for the startup school are not selected to attend it I hope that there is some way that YC could provide a higher quality video feed. <comment><USER2> And while you're at it, can Y Combinator put live streaming in nearby classrooms at stanford for those who didn't get accepted to this year's startup school?

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be great if YCs video library were available as an RSS/ Podcast stream so you can watch it in iTunes, or on your Zune like TED videos are available.</comment>


RIP PS Vita: Sony Officially Ends Production - <AUTHOR> https://www.polygon.com/2019/3/2/18246372/playstation-vita-canceled-discontinued-production-ended-ps-vita-sony <comment><USER2> What are my options for playing console quality games mobile? Games like God of War Chains of Olympus or Gran Turismo on PSP do not seem to exist for mobile. Even willing to spend the money my most played game on the go is Puzzle Chess.

Yes streaming games is always in the news, but that seems to be stuck waiting for proper network coverage and still there is no device to play them on.

<comment> m-p-3 Other than the Nintendo Switch, not many options out there.

</comment></comment><comment> m-p-3 IMO if they didn't get greedy and use SD as the external memory format instead of the overpriced MemoryStick format, it might have fared a little better.</comment>


Facebook's Randi Zuckerberg: Anonymity Online 'Has To Go Away' - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/randi-zuckerberg-anonymity-online_n_910892.html

<comment><USER2> If this statement were directed at particular parts of the Internet where there are known problems, it would make a lot more sense. But as a blanket statement about the entire online world, it's nothing more than exactly what you'd expect a Facebook person to say; they are obviously in a business that benefits from this, but no one else really does.

We have insecure protocols (e.g. E-mail is wide open), and there are places where it _would_ help to be very sure that something came from a particular person. There have been solutions, but none of them is sufficiently widespread. Is Facebook ponying up some money or resources to help solve _that_? Probably not.

</comment><comment><USER3> For a truly excellent counterargument: [https://plus.google.com/115423900555666892711/posts/aT2qvouG...](https://plus.google.com/115423900555666892711/posts/aT2qvouGqnZ)

</comment><comment><USER4> the only interests proposing the demise of anonymity are those who would profit from it

</comment><comment><USER5> Hopefully this sheds some light as to why fb is being valued so highly.</comment>


CIA "Accidently" Leaves Explosive Material on School Bus - <AUTHOR> http://abcnews.go.com/US/cia-accidentally-left-explosive-training-material-school-bus/story?id=38079658 <comment><USER2> If it somehow blew up would the CIA have taken full responsibility or would they have conveniently blamed terrorism or ISIS?</comment>


This week in press freedoms and privacy rights - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/20/press-freedoms-manning-risen

<comment><USER2> > the most serious charge against the 25-year-old Army Private, one that > carries a term of life in prison: "aiding and abetting the enemy". The > government's theory is that because the documents Manning leaked were > interesting to Osama bin Laden, he aided the enemy by disclosing them. > Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler explained in the New Republic in March > why this theory poses such a profound threat to basic press freedoms as it > essentially converts all leaks, no matter the intent, into a form of > treason.

That this is considered his main crime for which he could spend his life in jail should be extremely scary to all of us.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why can't charges be specific and limited to the actual crime of 'unauthorized disclosure of classified information'. As a coder, this bothers me. Intuitively this reeks of slippery slope.

<comment><USER4> It's as if there was some sort of problem with prosecutorial overreach or something.</comment></comment>


DiscussHN: The Alexa rankings of Forbes and Wired after adblock detection - <AUTHOR> Forbes - http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/forbes.com Wired - http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wired.com
I thought this looked interesting. Both are trending downward. Could it be because of their adblock detection scripts?
If it is, wouldn't it imply that there are similar effects to websites not allowing people with an adblocker, as there are to mistreating the "tech" person of a family or a large social group? [That is, just as the techie boycotts your products, the adblocker user will not link to your website on their social feeds, which might have allowed a non-adblock user to click] <comment><USER2> Maybe. But as a single data point (me) I used to read both those sites regularly, but now every time I go there I'm like 'oh yeah.. (back button)'

Funny thing is though, the site 'The Atlantic' had a banner next to an article I was reading saying something along the lines of "Hey, we notice you are using an ad blocker, would you mind turning it off, or signing up for a subscription to support us?" But i was still able to read the article.

After reading I turned the ad blocker off for their site for good.

Maybe something about 'forcing' me to turn off my blocker annoys me, but I find that a site which asks nicely, let's me still read and whose content I enjoy, I am more than happy to turn off the blocker.

</comment><comment><USER3> Forbes is so lame.

I disabled Adblock for forbes.com and for their welcome page, and still got the lockout message.

Then I paused Adblock entirely, and still got the lockout message.

With Adblock paused, I emptied the cache and did a hard reload, and still got the lockout message.

F 'em. I'm over it. They must have hired a UX designer from one of the major airlines.

</comment><comment><USER4> wired.com as well. They are only hurting themselves. Can't they find a way to monetize other than forcing people to look at their ads?</comment>


Particle Physics Resurrects Alexander Graham Bell's Voice - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/dawn-of-electronics/particle-physics-resurrects-alexander-graham-bells-voice <comment><USER2> I recall a documentary I watched a while ago, and had almost forgotten, about an African tribe in which the presenter plays a 100 year old old voice recording of the natives' ancestors made by an earlier explorer . You could see the astonishment and joy in their faces when they heard the voices and names of tribe members they had heard about but never even seen. (If anyone else has seen the documentary please remind me of its title)

We tend to place great emphasis on pictures and video, but audio recordings I believe, capture the past like none other. There is a connection here that is unique.

Great work by the creators of IRENE. Much praise also to Bell and his team, and all the other uncredited contributors to the development of the telephone.

I'm sure to start making audio recordings to store up for future generations.

<comment><USER3> You don't think they would have been even more excited to both see and hear their ancestors?

<comment><USER2> I don't know for sure, we have old reels aplenty yet we are still moved by scratchy barely audible voice recordings.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps a matter of focus. Audio recordings are more often conversational, video tends to be more hyperactive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> your-nanny It's gray-ham bell, in his own voice. Can't in good conscience use the short vowel a any longer

<comment><USER4> Not surprising as he grew up in Scotland, and that's how Britons today still pronounce Graham. Perhaps Graham was widely pronounced that way in Canada and the USA at the time too? I don't know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The recovered recordings are on [http://americanhistory.si.edu/documentsgallery/exhibitions/h...](http://americanhistory.si.edu/documentsgallery/exhibitions/hear- my-voice/6.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> > Bell knew there was a distinct possibility of a patent fight with Edison, so > on three occasions he had papers and experimental products sealed in tin > boxes and deposited at the Smithsonian Institution for safekeeping.

You can (or _could_ ) do that?

</comment><comment><USER7> Discussed at the time, in 2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5611288](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5611288)

</comment><comment><USER8> For some reason this reminded me of the Narmer Palette, (one of?) the oldest artifacts naming a king and his works.

</comment><comment><USER9> Where's the particle physics?

<comment><USER10> The same technology used to align the silicon detectors for ATLAS (one of the detectors on the LHC) was used to recover the audio. (article mentions optical metrology)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> damn, retro scifiesque

</comment><comment><USER12> It doesn't seem right that a man who fought so hard to prevent deaf people from being taught sign language now gets to be heard forever.

Bell was a despicable monster whose work led to forced sterilizations in the US and to the holocaust in Germany.

If it had been me, I would have smashed the disk.

</comment><comment><USER13> the IEEE is turning into an advertisement network?

I just hope the next floating point format does not do:

2E3 CocaCola + 3E4 BigMac =3.2E4 McMenu</comment>


Federal court rules that FBI can hack into a computer without a warrant - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/article/3088354/security/us-court-rules-that-fbi-can-hack-into-a-computer-without-a-warrant.html <comment><USER2> Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11973022](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11973022)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The judge, Henry Morgan: "hacking is much more prevalent now than it was even nine years ago. Now, it seems unreasonable to think that a computer connected to the Web is immune from invasion."</comment>


OpenBSD 6.7 - <AUTHOR> https://www.openbsd.org/67.html <comment><AUTHOR> This was my first upgrade. I just ran "sysupgrade" & then "sysmerge" & "syspatch". For some reason "sysmerge" accidently emptied /etc/login.conf file so I had to restore it from single-user mode. I might have pressed something wrong in sysmerge prompt.

After this, I ran "pkg_add -u" to upgrade my packages & everything was running again.</comment>