Some experts don't buy the FBI claim that North Korea hacked Sony - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-these-experts-still-dont-buy-20141221-column.html <comment><USER2> At the moment that I'm writing, not one of the ten highest-ranked comments here addresses _any_ of the technical detail or substance in the counterarguments which white hat experts have raised.

Bruce Schneier is one of these skeptical experts.

[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-best-thing-we-can-do- ab...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-best-thing-we-can-do-about-the- sony-hack-is-calm-down)

The IP address blog post by Dr Krypt3ia makes the FBI look silly beyond words.

[http://krypt3ia.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/fauxtribution/](http://krypt3ia.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/fauxtribution/)

The Marc Rogers post makes a lot of sense to me.

[http://marcrogers.org/2014/12/21/why-i-still-dont-think- its-...](http://marcrogers.org/2014/12/21/why-i-still-dont-think-its-likely- that-north-korea-hacked-sony/)

I remember a time when a discussion like this on Hacker News would have concerned itself with the technical details of the analysis, in an honest attempt to discern the truth of the matter, rather than a bunch of opinionated political rambling, and although that was a very long time ago, I still consider that type of discussion more worth our time here.

<comment><USER3> On the other hand, Hacker News commenters have been complaining about the dropping quality of Hacker News comments since soon after Hacker New started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think denials of state actor hacking is bewildering. Its seem more credulous that a previously unknown hacker group (the GOP? Really?) suddenly take down Sony in such an elaborate fashion, especially when a movie literally protraying the murder of NKorea's leader is about to be released (In June N Korea vowed to "mercilessly destroy" anyone involved with The Interview.) Groups like the Lizard Squad who perform Sony attacks tend to have a history and reputation. This group has no history. That itself should be a huge mark against those who go against the FBI's claim.

Not to mention we have a massive history of NK and Chinese cyberwars against the west. Often both countries working hand in hand, with the NK hacker team reported to be headquartered in a hotel in a Chinese city under the auspices of the Chinese government. Shenzhen I believe.

I think a lot of this "debate" is centered on how people feel about the USG and specifically its foreign policy. I think a lot of black-hat and grey-hats tend to idealize autocratic regimes like Russia, China, N Korea, Syria, Iran, etc because they are "counters" to US foreign policy, so they often will take an anti-US spin on things. This isn't technology or informed commentary. Its just the same lazy outrage politics that has taken over any other type of discourse on the internet. From a rational perspective, this attack obviously points to the NK regime. Its fits their MO, their history, and, if we take the FBI's claims as true, their technology and capabilities.

The same way many anti-US/anti-Western commentators were telling us that those weren't Putin's troops in Crimea or in Eastern Ukraine. They kept saying "more proof" when it was obvious no amount of proof would convince them. They just had an anti-US bone to pick and liked the attention of being contrarian.

I also think its emotionally comforting to pretend there isn't a massive multi-party cyberwar going on, all the time. I think people want to believe its just some bad apples, not nation states and their leadership ordering attacks left and right, with impunity. Its a little scary to think what is possible from a determined attacker and how little of our industry and practices are focused on security.

<comment><USER5> Weapons of mass destruction, Syrian rebels, CIA torture, Snowden is a traitor, the Wikileaks suppression, ...

I think that it's not entirely irrational to believe the opposite of whatever USG says about foreign policy.

<comment><USER6> What about the many correct statements they've made over the years?

Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they're innocently wrong. Sometimes they're right. It _is_ irrational to knee-jerk believe the _opposite_ of what they say just because they're _sometimes_ lying or wrong.

If you don't trust them, fine. I don't trust them either. But that means that you should evaluate for yourself, not simply believe the opposite of what they say.

<comment><USER7> You have to remember though that they're a _political_ party - they say what it is politically advantageous for them to say, or what they can spin it to look like. There is no black and white nor right or wrong in their eyes, only angles, spin and PR. How true they are being at any given time depends only on how they can use it to their advantage. If it is politically advantageous to tell the truth, they will do so, if it is politically advantageous to distract from, cover up or lie about, they they will equally do so. You can't trust them, all you can trust is if their angle currently aligns with your goals.

This is how dishonest bills get piggybacked through while everyone is looking in the wrong direction, this is why political arrests are made, this is why the Government backtracks on Whistleblower protections and they condemn countries that use torture to achieve their ends... until they themselves are caught doing it, only to throw their hands up and say "Hey, it was necessary!" You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Life isn't black and white, it's grey. Nobody is innocent, everyone has capability of good and evil (if you choose to look at it that way). But when you can only trust someone as far as their political agenda, how do you know when to trust them and when not to?

I agree with your point though of not automatically believing or disbelieving in what they have to say, you have to look at whether it is more politically advantageous to be truthful or deceitful... but with more and more information coming out that shows the level of their deceit, you have to wonder if anything they say is true or if it's all spun for political advantage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Although I don't like to believe everything the government says (and I have no idea whether they are correct or not in this situation) please stop turning HN into conspiracy theory central. The last week has seen a few of these 'experts debunk North Korea theory' on the front page every day. Due to the fact the FBI has withheld some of their evidence from the public we won't know. Unless we can see all of the evidence we won't know their reasoning. If the US was threatening war with NK over this I would be much more worried and glad to see these posts but considering the only action they are even considering is putting NK on a 'terrorism list' they probably aren't all that confident in their own evidence never mind the stuff they've made public.

I guess my point is please stop posting this stuff. Whenever anything newsworthy happens the 'experts' (in any field) come out in force debunking stuff when they don't have all the evidence. It drives me nuts. I know this is a community and if people find it interesting it'll end up on the front page - that's fine, it's just getting a little annoying.

<comment><USER8> I don't think they're "debunking" anything as much as asking certain questions that lots of people have.

I think it's worth having that discussion. Nobody is proposing any conspiracies - just due diligence.

<comment> k-mcgrady Of course, but the discussion has taken places several posts per day for the last week. Unless the FBI releases more information or Sony releases more information there's likely nothing new to discover.

<comment><USER9> Haven't those discussions been largely mixes of new people? I think it's fair for the people who didn't get a chance to weigh in the first time to have their own deliberation about it.

<comment><USER10> But you don't understand, once it's been posted it never needs to be discussed ever again. If you didn't read it the first time then tough luck. My theory is the half-life of a subject is ten years before absolutely no one is bothered about it being discussed again.

<comment><USER8> I'm pretty sure this is sarcasm.

<comment><USER9> I didn't consider that. I hope so.

<comment><USER10> It is indeed sarcasm.

This is one of my pet peeves on sites like this, the assumption that if a story was discussed once then everyone for all time can just refer to the appropriate thread and heaven forbid an alternate thread pop up. It's as if having a different discussion at the same time or at some point later by people who have not heard of the story before and most likely have no clue the previous thread exists is a serious problem.

<comment><USER11> Thank you. I know that feel. As for the OP : it's probably Russia, pretending to be Chinese hackers working out of North Korea. Destabilization indeed. North Korea's 1000 IP internet (seriously, their whole country, USA has almost 1billion IPs) was shut down for a long time recently. Things are moving! Speculate! Speculate! Speculate!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The government has no credibility anymore, conspiracy theories aside. This is the real problem. Even if they are telling the truth, nobody believes them.

<comment><USER13> US Government only had credibility in the 40s, when the office of censorship stamped out anti-war propaganda and the DoD spent millions (billions in today's money) on Pro-War propaganda.

The trend continued in the 50s and 60s with McCarthyism being a "soft censor". It wasn't technically illegal to talk about Communism or other governments... but if you did, you'd probably lose your job.

We've got freer speech today compared to back then. So naturally, anti- government claims are going to be louder today than ever before.

<comment><USER14> At least we used to just call it the Department of War.

It was much more honest.

<comment><USER13> Bull __ __.

The 1798 Sedition Act outlawed speech, outlawed prominent authors who were critical to the Adam's administration. Hundreds of dollars in fines and months in prison. (worth a lot in today's money)

The First Amendment was passed in 1791. And only seven years later, the US Government was already censoring its citizens who were critical of the presidency.

The Bill of Rights only has as much power as the people who watch over the government. It was a battle to get the government to recognize our rights in the 1700s, just as much as it is a battle to get them recognized today. Welcome to politics, this sort of thing _never_ changes.

And don't just look at the past with rose-colored lenses. Look at it critically. Politics / government has always been a dirty business.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others"

May I remind you: the Government (and Media) lied about the USS Maine so that we'd get into the Spanish-American war. "Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain". We also lied about a number of facts in WW2, but fortunately history proved that we were in the moral right to do so in that war.

The US Population is far wiser and smarter today. The difference is that we're no longer ignorant to blatant lies from our government. So I'd argue that today's government is more honest than our ancestors / forefathers even.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So let me get this straight. The North Korean government publicly warns that the release of The Interview will cause dire consequences. Shortly before the release of the film, said dire consequences occur. The moment the movie is pulled, all of a sudden the consequences stop. Right, that doesn't sound like NK was involved at all.

The real question is: why are these "experts" \- including some here on HN - taking such extreme and unfounded positions on this? I think it's quite likely that they didn't do the hacking themslves. Perhaps they paid members of Lulzsec to do this on their behalf. But to deny that NK is behind this is absurd and makes the whole security community look crazier than Kim Jong-Un.

<comment><USER16> My understanding is that the movie was not once mentioned by the hacker(s) or the victim (Sony) but rather the first mention of the movie was by a popular American news outlet.

In this context the two narratives of "north korea did it, okay?" and "perhaps one of the 8,000 laid off tech department workers at Sony did it" are easy to understand.

Sony's multiple layoffs of its digital unit workers gave certain employees time to orchestrate this.

And on the cry wolf side, the big 3 American media companies started going down their own rabbit hole of speculation and fear mongering.

Do you remember the last time (if ever) any of these "News Outlets" have rescinded their accusations (especially regarding 'war') after making such strong accusations for so long ?

<comment><USER15> _In this context the two narratives of "north korea did it, okay?" and "perhaps one of the 8,000 laid off tech department workers at Sony did it" are easy to understand._

These two narratives are not mutually exclusive. NK could easily have hired one of these people. I don't know who carried it out but I'm 99% sure I know who is behind it.

<comment><USER17> _I don 't know who carried it out but I'm 99% sure I know who is behind it._

And how confident are you that this isn't the Dunning–Kruger effect in action?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> North Korea said in June that The Interview was a "wanton act of terror" and promised "merciless" retaliation if it was released. Said it was an "act of war" and "is absolutely intolerable"

[http://time.com/2921071/kim-jong-un-seth-rogen-the- interview...](http://time.com/2921071/kim-jong-un-seth-rogen-the-interview- james-franco/)

Edit: In July they made a complaint to the UN about the film, saying: "To allow the production and distribution of such a film on the assassination of an incumbent head of a sovereign state should be regarded as the most undisguised sponsoring of terrorism as well as an act of war," [http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/10/north-korea- un-t...](http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/10/north-korea-un-the- interview-seth-rogen-james-franco)

<sarcasm>I'm sure they had nothing to do with what happened to Sony</s>

<comment><USER19> Great find.

EVERYONE - we found the guilty party; they had motive.

No other parties could possibly also have had motive (and motive===guilt), so we can stop looking now.</s>

<comment><USER18> You seem to be in need of this: [http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/motive](http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/motive)

 _motive: something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act_

There is a difference between a motive and stating you intend to take an action.

North Korea has a motive AND has publicly stated they intend to take action. They should not be surprised if they are the prime suspect when that action occurs.

<comment><USER19> > You seem to be in need of this: [http://www.merriam- > webster.com/](http://www.merriam-webster.com/)

Wow, thanks! Bookmarked.

> There is a difference between a motive and stating you intend to take an > action.

Barely. You've made your motive public and added a threat on top of that.

> North Korea has a motive AND has publicly stated they intend to take action.

NK has a long history of threatening everyone and their mothers with doom and gloom and nuclear boom, and we're all still here (i.e. they rarely follow through).

But even then - let's look into the threat a bit, shall we? I can't actually find the original source, best I could do (I gotta run - apologies) is:

> "If the US administration allows and defends the showing of the film, a > merciless counter-measure will be taken," the spokesman was quoted as > saying. [1]

So, their __merciless counter-measure __, that they vowed to on a world stage, was in fact:

"We'll pay someone to hack Sony, then deny it"

..? Really? (Let alone that the original threat was obviously aimed at the US administration).

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world- asia-28014069](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28014069)

PS: Back in June, Rogen responded on Twitter: "People don't usually wanna kill me for one of my movies until after they've paid 12 bucks for it.". That's exactly what I would do.

<comment><USER18> > Wow, thanks! Bookmarked.

You're welcome (I can tell that's not sarcasm, since it doesn't have any sarcasm tags ;)

> "We'll pay someone to hack Sony, then deny it"

NK doesn't always admit to things they do. They denied kidnapping japanese citizens for 25 years, until they admitted it 2002.

The Cheonan was sunk by an NK torpedo.. NK denies it.. but an international investigation said NK sunk it.. condemned by the UN security council. (later a defector from NK said the crew that sank it were honored as heros.)

Assuming NK to act rational is sometimes asking for too much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> add schneier to the list of skeptics: [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the- best-thing-we-can-do-ab...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-best-thing- we-can-do-about-the-sony-hack-is-calm-down)

</comment><comment><USER21> North Korea could produce evidence definitely proving they had nothing to with it and it would still be dismissed as propaganda. The number of people who believe that north Koreans are all brainwashed, and yet will accept unquestioningly all of this crap made up about NK is astounding.

Do people /honestly/ think that they have to have haircuts "in line with a socialist lifestyle"? Even after their national TV network reported that it was slander?

Regardless of what you think about NK, it's a product of the circumstances that led to its creation, and it's a bit rich for the American government in particular to say these kinds of things about NK.

<comment><USER22> > _Do people /honestly/ think that they have to have haircuts "in line with a > socialist lifestyle"?_

Yes. [0],[1]

> _Even after their national TV network reported that it was slander?_

Setting aside the implicit credibility you're ascribing to North Korea, I think you may have been confused with another story. [2]

> _Regardless of what you think about NK, it 's a product of the circumstances > that led to its creation, and it's a bit rich for the American government in > particular to say these kinds of things about NK._

I agree, the US clearly does not have the moral standing to sully North Korea's good name with accusations so serious as computer hacking. [3]

\---

[0] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia- pacific/4157121.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4157121.stm)

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_trim_our_hair_in_accord...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_trim_our_hair_in_accordance_with_the_socialist_lifestyle)

[2] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/26...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/26/are- the-men-of-north-korea-really-being-forced-to-get-kim-jong-un-haircuts/)

[3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodok_concentration_camp](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodok_concentration_camp)

<comment><USER21> The US appointed a puppet dictator (Syngman Rhee) who authorised the torture and extermination of people for the crime of being a communist. They also destroyed every single building in the North (not hyperbole, literally every single building). Add to that the continued war games along the border and off the north Korean coast and constant slander.

And I hate to resort to whataboutery, but let's not forget Guantanamo Bay and the recently released reports about the US's torturing of prisoners.

As I said, believe what you want about NK, but their current situation did not develop in a vacuum.

<comment><USER22> Regardless if North Korea's existence is a product of errors in US foreign policy of the era, I fail to see how that warrants defending North Korea, much less arguing that the US is somehow just as bad.

As far as Guantanamo Bay, I don't agree with torture in any form and believe the detention facility there should not exist.

That said, something like Yodok isn't really on the same plane of existence. I would class it as somewhere in between the Nazi concentration camps of WW2 and Unit 731's atrocities. Guantanamo Bay may as well be Club Med compared to that level of sadism and suffering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I love comments about the "anti-hacker community" though the underlying link to marco's blog (as this entire article is just commentary on original source material) [http://marcrogers.org/2014/12/21/why-i-still-dont-think- its-...](http://marcrogers.org/2014/12/21/why-i-still-dont-think-its-likely- that-north-korea-hacked-sony/) gives his entire opinion.

I dont think its news to most of us here that the NK connection to the hack is circumstantial; Sony's security has been penetrated by non-state actors before, and without a lot of effort from what I can tell.

</comment><comment><USER24> I hate to feed conspiracy theories, but with the focus on state sponsored cyber security threats, we completely forget that corporate sponsored threats are equally potent.

Every time there's an attack on intellectual property of Western companies, fingers are raised straight to state sponsored groups in China and Russia. It's bewildering to me that privately sponsored attacks are hardly considered seriously.

With the Sony attack we have been focusing on the movie, while the movie could've been just an excuse for an attack that was aimed to financially dismantle Sony, which it did.

<comment><USER13> Many corporations in China and Russia are state-sponsored. The whole communist / socialist thing blends government and corporations in a way that is alien to the typical US Citizen.

        With the Sony attack we have been focusing on the
        movie, while the movie could've been just an excuse
        for an attack that was aimed to financially dismantle
        Sony, which it did.*

But they didn't attack Sony proper. If they attacked Sony and stole the tech to PS4 something, then it'd probably be China or Russia.

But these guys attacked Sony Pictures Entertainment... not just any part of Sony. The scope of the hack IIRC doesn't go any further out than Sony's Hollywood branch. Frankly, there aren't any corporations in the world who actually care about a (probably) awful movie being made at some studio. And the Chinese corporations that make movies are distinctly not competing against Sony Pictures.

Sony Pictures Entertainment is the parent company of "Columbia Pictures" and "MGM". Tell me, who the hell would attack "Columbia Pictures" ??

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> There is something interesting happening in the media in relation to hackers and I think that is evident by the fact that this article refers to white hats as "anti hackers". To me, that is a deliberate separation that is intended to hide the good that hackers do.

<comment><USER26> Never attribute to malice what can be just as easily attributed to stupidity.

Largely outside of the hacker community, the _true_ definition of hacker is lost. If you only look at popular culture there aren't a lot of in-roads to the correct definition of hacking. Therefore how would the average person know?

<comment><USER25> Interesting take here: "Never attribute to malice what can be just as easily attributed to stupidity."

I think there is much truth to your sentiment. My only qualm would be applying it universally. I am sure there is malice in the world that is masked as stupidity.

<comment><USER26> To apply something universally is idiotic and short sighed at best. No philosophy applies everywhere, and in every case. Only though understanding the events around you can you formulate a correct assessment.

This grew out of Enlightenment thinking in the 18th century. And its why our modern courts have such foundation on understanding the circumstances, evidence, etc. Also why we have "degrees" of murder.

<comment><USER25> I agree that acts attributed to malice, often, are merely manifestations of ignorance. The use of "anti hackers" in this article may in fact be one of these manifestations but I am hesitant to say "Never attribute to malice what can be just as easily attributed to stupidity." as you had initially suggested. It's just the word "never" that does not sit well with me. Your most recent comment seems to share this position, so it appears we agree.

<comment><USER26> We do. I was just using a quote to express my opinion on the matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!"

The US has been seeking a tangible threat in cyberterrorism for years. Anonymous is too ethereal and China is too big of a sleeping dragon for them to poke. Enter a hack loosely tied to a movie about North Korea and BINGO; you have an enemy to fight on the cyberfront.

</comment><comment><USER28> That's nothing checkout this.

[https://www.facebook.com/unknownnewWarstrategies?hc_location...](https://www.facebook.com/unknownnewWarstrategies?hc_location=timeline)

The real Iraq war strategist + known secret strategies and not done strategies.

</comment><comment><USER14> It is much, much more likely that the FBI is pointing the finger at North Korea in the interim while they actually try and figure out who did this. The reasons are many:

* It might make the investigation easier if the culprits think that the FBI is looking at NK and thus are less careful than they might otherwise be.

* NK is an easy scapegoat. If the reality is that the perpetrators cannot be uncovered, the FBI looks more competent by pointing the finger (unprovably) at NK than saying "We have no idea."

* The FBI doesn't care if NK actually did it. If they can merely tangentially prove that NK was involved, it prevents a massive security breach from being an unsolved crime. To have a breach the size of Sony's remain unsolved would bolster every would-be hacker in the world.

</comment><comment><USER28> That's nothing check out this.

[https://www.facebook.com/unknownnewWarstrategies?hc_location...](https://www.facebook.com/unknownnewWarstrategies?hc_location=timeline)

</comment><comment><USER29> The politico-medial complex told you that North Korea was the culprit. Believe it, immediately!

</comment><comment><USER30> I take it that most of the people commenting on the issue in the submitted article, and most of the people commenting on the issue here on Hacker News, have visited the United States. All of us can read and write English. But how many of those people have ever been to north Korea, or even to south Korea? How many can read Korean and regularly follow the Korean-language press from both sides of the demilitarized zone, or regularly have conversations with Korean friends? Applying critical thinking to a complicated issue usually requires domain-specific knowledge. One part of the domain-specific knowledge here is knowledge of methods of unauthorized access to computer networks and computer security measures, which many Hacker News participants have. But another part of the domain-specific knowledge needed to size up the disputed issues in this case is knowledge of Korean internal politics, and I think that very few Hacker News participants have that knowledge or even attempt to gain it.

AFTER EDIT: Someone's silent disagreement with my comment is evidence as I type in this edit. On my part, I'd be glad to hear from people who have _all_ of the relevant forms of information about what happened recently to Sony and about how various governments have responded to that before making up my mind. So please join in the thoughtful discussion here if you have knowledge of the geopolitics involved or of other issues I didn't even bring up above. What's most persuasive in any discussion is actual evidence, and thoughtful discussion of evidence from reliable sources is what I like best about Hacker News.</comment>


JetCAD 3D (2D and 3D CAD/CAM) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/UnfinishedBusiness/JetCAD3D <comment><USER2> Could the license be clarified here? The code says its forked from SolveSpace which indicated GPLv3, but JetCAD seems to have had the Copying.txt file and license wording in the Readme removed?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea, created an issue for it in the repo:

[https://github.com/UnfinishedBusiness/JetCAD3D/issues/1](https://github.com/UnfinishedBusiness/JetCAD3D/issues/1)

<comment><AUTHOR> License file (GPLv3) has been added:

[https://github.com/UnfinishedBusiness/JetCAD3D/blob/master/L...](https://github.com/UnfinishedBusiness/JetCAD3D/blob/master/LICENSE.md)

<comment><USER2> thanks for the clairifying response on that</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Too much time on their hands? - <AUTHOR> http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/11/07/creativity-and-criticism/

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of this: <http://www.brucetutes.com/blog/?p=39>

"I started telling her about the Wikipedia article on Pluto. You may remember that Pluto got kicked out of the planet club a couple of years ago, so all of a sudden there was all of this activity on Wikipedia. The talk pages light up, people are editing the article like mad, and the whole community is in an ruckus–"How should we characterize this change in Pluto's status?" And a little bit at a time they move the article–fighting offstage all the while–from, "Pluto is the ninth planet," to "Pluto is an odd-shaped rock with an odd-shaped orbit at the edge of the solar system."

So I tell her all this stuff, and I think, "Okay, we're going to have a conversation about authority or social construction or whatever." That wasn't her question. She heard this story and she shook her head and said, "Where do people find the time?" That was her question. And I just kind of snapped. And I said, "No one who works in TV gets to ask that question. You know where the time comes from. It comes from the cognitive surplus you've been masking for 50 years.""

</comment><comment><USER3> What are you going to do with your free time?

[http://design-to-last.com/2011/06/free- time-%e2%80%93-what-a...](http://design-to-last.com/2011/06/free- time-%e2%80%93-what-are-you-going-to-do-with-it/)</comment>


Ask HN: How has being overweight impeded your career? - <AUTHOR> A few colleagues mentioned that they felt their weight (one obese, another on the heavy side) was an important reason for their rejection after recent on-site interviews. I was just curious whether this is anecdotal or there is indeed discrimination against overweight people even among the coders (i.e., intellectual labor).
I know that some people forego certain job opportunities if the on-site interview involves long, uncomfortable flights.
Do you think your weight has affected your career adversely? <comment><USER2> Unfortunately, discrimination against overweight people exists and is well- documented; however, as an overweight person, I doubt this type of discrimination is as common as others such as racism... At least I haven't experienced it as often.</comment>


Comcast Acquiring Time Warner Cable In All Stock Deal Worth $45.2 Billion - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579379801986541412 <comment><USER3> If this merger goes thru, (and the AnitTrust people would have to be really asleep at the wheel for that) two things are certain:

1) Americans can expect some of the worst Cable price gouging they have ever seen

2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner"

<comment><USER4> > 2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all > the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner"

I agree with your first point, but your second point doesn't follow. If anything, Comcast will price gouge Netflix out of business, and we'll be back to being stuck watching their awful "On Demand" instead.

They can do this, because Comcast owns the content (NBC), the delivery mechanism for said content (cable TV), and the _only_ delivery mechanism (broadband Internet) for their competitor (Netflix/Amazon Prime).

On the other hand, the (failed) merger attempt between AT&T and T-Mobile was the best thing to happen to consumers in a long time, due to the breakup fee that AT&T had o pay T-Mobile($1+ billion worth of spectrum).

I'm trying to imagine a similar silver lining that could happen here, though I can't think of any.

<comment><USER5> To play devil's advocate, what it means is that Comcast has the better business model. After all, that's why Apple and Samsung dominate the cellular industry. iApps running on iOS running on an iPhone using an Apple A7 offers the ability to optimize the user experience and integrate the layers that vendors doing things piecemeal can't match.

If Netflix et al want to survive, they have to evolve from being mere middlemen, funneling someone else's content through someone else's pipes.

<comment><USER6> Google has threatened to go nuclear over net neutrality and open up their dark fiber network should things get ugly. Google has more fiber than most any one single company in the us and could be a legitimate threat should comwarner try to call their bluff. I have a feeling google would win that fight

<comment><USER7> Citation?

There is no use for Google to participate in long-haul wholesale. There is a lot of supply there. The real issue is last mile, where consumers have no choice.

<comment><USER8> >There is a lot of supply there.

But the rules just changed. It remains to be seen what those guys will do. But I agree that the last-mile competition, or lack of it is far more important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It would be insane to let this go through. They're both effectively monopolists in most markets they serve; allowing them to combine just allows them to exert more political influence to make sure they keep their monopoly and high profit margins. Their core business is very much a low-value-added, rent-seeking concern, which doesn't benefit from economies of scale except for in as much as they can increase their market power by reducing competition - <USER2> fundamentally zero-sum game.

Political influence is a major and underexplored negative externality of monopolies.

<comment><USER5> Building the expensive infrastructure that Silicon Valley depends on to get its cat videos and advertisements to users is a low value add, rent seeking concern that doesn't benefit from economies of scale? Its exactly the opposite.

<comment><USER10> Does economy of scale start to level out above, say, 11 million customers?

<comment><USER5> There's no practical reason why there needs to be say more than one team of cable network architects in the whole country. If an architecture works okay in Philadelphia, it should port pretty easily to Chicago. The stuff that needs boots on the ground, laying cable, doing installations, and servicing them, is already outsourced to local companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does it strike anyone else as curious that the two largest cable/internet providers merge, and it doesn't matter because they already don't compete? It might be a sign that something's odd if the premise is that there's no competition between identical products to harm in the first place.

<comment><USER12> No.

I believe in the concept of a natural monopoly for most utilities though - Building outside plant is horrendously expensive - it to me makes as much sense to have multiple cable providers as it does multiple sets of power/telephone/water/sewer infrastructure.

I'd even like to see a fewer wireless carriers (consider that each for carrier are spending billions of dollars to roll out what amount to essentially identical network infrastructure often even from the same vendors - how on earth does that even begin to make sense? We - the rate payer ends up paying for it in the end thru higher rates - economy of scale is a thing, and it works.

Having been in the industry for about 2 years now, looking at the spectrum, I believe that we have enough for two, possibly three really competitive national wireless carriers - as in a complete nation wide footprint. That means 20x20 LTE even in rural areas, plus whatever 2g (CDMA 1x or GSM) tech you need for circuit switch voice, and whatever legacy 3g you need too (EDGE and HSDPA or EV-DO), with the eventual goal of multiple 20x20 or 40x40 carriers once we can replace all the legacy stuff - but consider the current for a moment, that Sprint in Seattle on 1900 mhz only has 20 mhz duplex, and nothing on 800 at all - this is excluding the acres on 2.5, because of the obvious limitations of use with atmospheric issues.

That said - the only way natural monopolies do not become abusive natural monopolies is thru intense and careful regulation - mostly by setting a fixed rate of return for the infrastructure, and then building rates from that.

<comment><USER13> Conventional economics states that in a natural monopoly the state should be the sole provider.

<comment><USER14> You just nailed it, I think yours is possibly the most important comment on this page. Roads, bridges, education, prisons, electricity, water, managing public lands/other commons, the postal service, and now communication infrastructure are all things that should be owned by the public. Putting control of communication in the hands of a few large oligopolies is undemocratic.

Since the most common objection to this is privacy, I propose that the government provide the infrastructure (fiber, airwaves, satellites, etc) and that the use of that infrastructure have strong privacy guarantees and the protections of the existing unalienable rights in the forth amendment of the constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

ISPs already have strict privacy guidelines, and if anyone thinks that corporations act to insulate users from government surveillance, they are fooling themselves. The protections must start with government itself and require constant vigilance. With regard to the commons, the profit motive should be limited to government contractors in service to the people, not the other way around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Non WSJ Paywall article

[http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner- ca...](http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner- cable-2014-2?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider+\(Silicon+Alley+Insider\))

This is crazy I don't see how this can get past any sort of anti-trust. Particularly with Comcast's stake in NBC. Comcast would own both the content and distribution of too large a chunk of the broadcast industry.

<comment><USER16> To go with non-WSJ paywall article: non-paywall WSJ article!

[https://www.google.com/search?q=http://online.wsj.com/news/a...](https://www.google.com/search?q=http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579379801986541412)

<comment><USER17> Or even better, I setup Chrome to use a referer of "google.com" for all requests to online.wsj.com--no paywall or need to search for headlines. I'm sure there are other ways, but the extension Referer Control makes this easy as can be: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer- control/hn...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer- control/hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin)

<comment><USER18> oh that's beautiful... thanks for posting that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As a TWC customer I've been long certain based on conversations with others that I have the second worst cable company in the country. So my reaction to this announcement is approximately "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK."

<comment><USER20> I can confirm that you do.

Nothing in your life has prepared you for Comcast.

<comment><USER21> We had Comcast in Cali, in Texas TW was a breath of fresh air, about 3 years ago all these weird fees kept showing up. A year ago we were fed up and dropped all but Internet, went digital TV OTA (over the air) plus Roku and Netflix (my brother clued me in that Netflix actually had streaming now). Roku has some interesting channels we never got on any cable.

Now we could be back with ... Comcast? Yuk. Hey as long as they don't mess with our current unlimited plan with TWC, I guess we can deal with them.

<comment><USER22> Have you ever noticed the prices on the TWC site for new subscribers? How they say something like "down from." What does that mean to you? To me, it means the regular price is one thing but that new subscribers get a deal.

As it turns out that is incorrect. The higher price is an arbitrary number, not the retail value of the package.

I asked a TWC representative once where on their website I can find the retail price of their plans and his response was "You won't find them anywhere."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't wait until we finally get around to relegating broadband providers as common carriers.

At the very least, we need a broadband version of Glass-Steagall, which forces ISPs, cable companies, and content providers to be separate entities.

The current situation is laughably awful for consumers. I can't imagine a single informed customer actually supporting the status quo.

<comment><USER23> Not going to happen: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunic...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Association_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services)

Just wait till Aereo gets screwed in their Supreme Court case. Then we really will be.

In fact no matter which way they rule in Aereo's case we are screwed. If they rule in favor of Aereo the content companies (Comcast owns NBC) will just start taking content "cable only".

<comment><USER24> I think the grandparent is saying we need a new law to replace the current one.

The courts having upheld a decision on what the current law says doesn't really preclude the passing of a new law - the only time court decisions trump legislation is when the Constitution comes into play.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I hate TWC with a great and fiery passion. I literally shake when I think about the company. And from my understanding, most Comcast subscribers feel the same way about their service. This sort of thing makes me angry, not because I think the monopoly will be worse than it currently is. But because these mega-companies have so much power and influence that they can make their own laws. A free and open internet simply doesn't stand a chance against that much money. Because all of the protests will happen online. And if I'm ComWarner and I see a site protesting me what am I going to do? I'm going to ban hammer them. And if the public complains about it the I'll slip some judges a few mil each to get them to interpret the law in my favor. And that's the simple fact: America is one of the most corrupt countries. If not the most corrupt. Because our law makers at every level are in the pockets of billionaires.

<comment><USER25> There seems to be a lot of buzz around that technical solutions won't dig us out of this hole; and while I agree that we definitely need some dramatic power shift to happen, I feel like there are technical solutions on the horizon. There are a lot of compelling mesh network/darknet projects going on, fast forward wireless tech a few years, it may be more feasible than ever. Use your anger as motivation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was proud of the DOJ Antitrust division when they objected to the ATT/T-Mobile merger. I can only hope they do the same here.

<comment><USER27> It's a bit different in this situation. Comcast and Time Warner do not currently compete with each other.

<comment><USER28> Isn't that simply because they have a "gentlemans agreement" not to have overlapping coverage, so that (to an individual customer) they are essentially a monopoly?

<comment><USER10> Or cable is just a natural monopoly.

<comment><USER24> The physical network is absolutely a natural monopoly - the cost to run copper out to every house in a region is fixed, and any player in the market would need to do just that in order to compete effectively. From a cost efficiency perspective, the ideal number of such networks is one, just as it is for electricity and water.

What's different is that electricity tends to be heavily regulated, and water is generally a public utility. Cable providers are historically under no such constraint, because we tend to think of them as television content providers first and foremost, and the TV bit of the business is not a natural monopoly. Unfortunately that is where they make their money, and that leads to some really obnoxious behavior, including price gouging people who want their network services but not a TV content subscription.

Probably the best solution would be to go the same route that many other countries do and require network operators to share network bandwidth with anyone who can pay for it. That would allow us to re-instate market competition on top of the bit where it cannot occur naturally, while still allowing them to maintain their regularly scheduled TV industry whatever-ness.

<comment><USER10> Cable TV also seems like a natural monopoly for the same reason as cable Internet — the cost of running the cable itself. Even before cable modems, most places only had one cable company. And my understanding is that cable franchise agreements were written with that assumption. Maybe I don't understand your argument, though.

<comment><USER24> Different layers of the OSI model are different. Everything up to layer 3 on the local network is a natural monopoly. But above there it's not, and outside that local network it's not.

In the US, this fact was pretty clearly demonstrated when the regulatory overhaul of the telephone industry in the 1990s introduced competition by requiring owners of the local copper to share it, and also by how people are able to choose their long distance carrier. The latter would be analogous to being able to choose among any number of ISPs while still using the same copper to handle the last mile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If you're wondering how this could possibly go through, see another WSJ article on the topic: "Comcast, Time Warner Deal to Spark Regulatory Debate, Outcome Uncertain"

[http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304...](http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304703804579380453221890292-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMjExNDIyWj)

Summary: On the one hand, there are the obvious consumer concerns about the impact on pricing and service if the two largest cable companies were to merge. Besides Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission review, Congress will likely seek hearings where they can be seen being involved in such a high profile matter. On the other hand, Comcast successfully practiced completing the 2009 acquisition of NBCUniversal from GE by agreeing to a wide array of commitments with the Justice Department, FCC, and state attorney generals.

Article concludes that the acquisition may well go through: " _This is the first major merger review under new FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who once served as the cable industry 's top lobbyist. Mr. Wheeler suggested in 2011 the Commission should have allowed AT&T to buy T-Mobile in exchange for agreeing to a new slate of regulations. Lawyers and analysts in Washington believe Comcast could similarly secure the Commission's approval by expanding its existing regulatory commitments._"

<comment><USER30> That's why the cable industry put this guy into that job, to make deals like this easy as pie. Soon we will have The Cable Company and The Phone Company. Or maybe just The Company.

<comment><USER31> Competition Theory does suggest every market tends towards a Monopoly position. As companies get bigger and bigger, they acquire one another, until eventually there's only one huge 'Company' left. Of course, that's one reason why the free market is regulated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Who benefits from large corporate mergers like this? What does an all stock deal mean at that kind of magnitude?

It certainly feels like little else than a handshake deal to create a monopoly.

<comment><USER33> Bigger scale, lower combined costs, more negotiating clout with TV channel operators, etc.

<comment><USER32> So monopoly

<comment><USER33> Well, they're still competing with your local telco (AT&T / Verizon), DirecTV, Dish Network, and Google Fiber and/or others in some areas. (Though granted some of those are TV-only, not Internet.)

Not really much different than how Comcast and TWC are individually competing right now (as their service areas don't overlap). Though I'm not suggesting either one is a shining paragon of customer service or fair pricing (I don't have any first-hand experience to speak of there; I'm in Canada).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Classic peak of the market bozo move. Comcast is massively overpaying for a dying business that will be valued at 1/3 this price in three to five years. I'd mark this equivalent to the HP / Compaq deal, and the AOL / Time Warner deal (in which Time Warner allowed a soon-to-implode dial-up player to eat them).

TWC has a mere $1b in cash, and negative $22.8b in net tangible assets. Comcast shareholders just bought a massive black hole.

</comment><comment><USER35> With this announcement we as a community REALLY need to get behind Net Neutrality as much as we did w/ SOPA -- Companies like Google, Netflix, et al - should block all access to their sites from D.C. IP addresses as a protest to show them what 'Throttling' feels like.

<comment><USER36> Netflix and other services can throttle their subscribers, too. :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The point is not to merge. The point is to use this as a negotiating point with the FTC. Ask for the sun, and end up with the moon.

<comment><USER38> So you get one part in 10 million (by mass)? Seems an expensive approach...

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is yet another reminder to check out your local DSL options, like Sonic.net and Megapath. Hopefully the ones in your area haven't gone out of business yet from everyone getting duped into "faster" cable.

</comment><comment><USER40> Will this really matter in the long run? I mean don't most cable companies have a local monopoly anyway? I don't think there are many Comcast subscribers who can switch to TWC. I know there's still a diversity of offerings across the market that will change, but that seems a minor thing compared to the fact that most broadband users don't have a choice who they get their broadband from anyway.

<comment><USER41> People get up in arms about them being monopolies and their solution is to grant them monopolies. It's stupid.

How about this? No monopolies at all. If I want to run cable and I get the easements, I should be able to...

<comment><USER42> Suppose there weren't any official monopoly grant from way-back-whenever to your existing local telco and cable companies. There would still be a de-facto monopoly or duopoly: The easement permitting process, currently entirely blocked due to the monopoly grants, would exist, but as a sham... with the (mono|duo)polies coercing city politicians not to let upstarts dig up roads or string new cables. I've lived in a city with lots of fiber being put in. It's a nuisance, and without vocal public support it's easy for entrenched ISPs to argue that the nuisance isn't worth the increased choice, particularly in markets where there is already "competition" between one [horrible] "cable" provider and one [horrible] "telco" provider.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> One thing I find stupid is franchise. In NYC Comcast, TWC, Verzion and RCN get franchises. Sometimes living a block away from where one used to live means a different provider and you are locked. TWC isn't so badly in the last 2-3 years after the major pool expanison and relatively stable, but in the end, why the hell is FiOS still not available to me when they promised they would have it complete by now?

<comment><USER44> As far as I know the Verizon FiOS buildout is complete and there are no plans to expand availability. Last time I read about FiOS expansion, Verizon's official position was something like this:

Customers in areas not currently served by FiOS may be able to get 4G from Verizon Wireless, which is up to four times faster than Verizon High Speed Internet (DSL).

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Interesting timing, considering Charter's been preparing a hostile takeover attempt and was trying to push for a shakeup on TWC's board:

[http://www.fiercecable.com/story/charter-recruits-time- warne...](http://www.fiercecable.com/story/charter-recruits-time-warner-cable- adelphia-veterans-hostile-takeover- attem/2014-02-11?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss)

</comment><comment><USER46> They need a login to read the post? That's ridiculous.

<comment><USER47> Run it through Google News.

[https://news.google.com/news/search?q=Comcast+Acquiring+Time...](https://news.google.com/news/search?q=Comcast+Acquiring+Time+Warner+Cable)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I don't have access to Time Warner or Comcast. I currently have Cox and I have never had Time Warner or Comcast my entire life. I have only read online from sites like Hacker News or Ars Technica in the comments about how bad it is.

Could someone enlighten us with some points of how this possibly could benefit consumers?

Will they have more capital to build out fiber networks like Google has been doing to compete with that? If this goes through how much control can be put in place by the regulators to make sure pricing is not increased, they don't throttle or block out certain content providers such as Netflix?

Even though they server different markets it seems insane that this gets approved from the knowledge I have.

</comment><comment><USER49> In the past, I haven't seen much about how the "last feet" problem will be addressed in dense metropolitan areas. In multi-unit dwellings, often the wiring is still owned by the provider. So, even if you were to run fiber (municipal or otherwise) right up to the doorstep of a building, you wouldn't be able to cheaply run drops to every unit. In my previous readings, the laws in my area at least allow for provider "abandonment" or a buyout of the wiring, but I doubt those would help very much. I'd be interested in hearing if folks have seen otherwise, however.

</comment><comment><USER50> Man, Comcast and TWC were already go to examples of the problems of monopolies.

</comment><comment><USER51> "All Amazon hosted websites have been blacked out from Comcast Warner Cable while we undergo contract negotiations. Thanks for your patience, here's a free Video on Demand for the inconvenience"

</comment><comment><USER52> Google please buy Verizon FIOs and all other fiber ISPs! Building out your own ISP is going to take decades.

A national Google Fiber is needed more then ever with this potential merger and Net Neutrality being struck down.

</comment><comment><USER53> I think I'm seeing some people here upset with the possibly deal because service already sucks (for both companies).

If that's how you feel, then this deal is good. One large company can be taken down much easier than two large companies. Just one less competitor Google Fiber (and other up-and-comers) have to deal with.

The part that irks me is that Comcast will own everything from the content, network all the way down to the subscribers. It just doesn't feel right that one company has that much power.

But then again, as a business owner, controlling your own destiny is your utopia.

</comment><comment><USER54> It's not like you ever have any choice with a cable provider anyway, the way it works is a cable company gets in bed with the local government and that's who gets to provide you with cable service.

I must be one of the lucky ones because I've had Comcast for over 10 years and the quality of service (customer service and cable/internet) has always been great. Pricing could be better but if you call they're always willing to give me promotional pricing deals, and there's always satellite TV and/or internet, DSL, or cellular.

</comment><comment><USER55> This might be an opportunity for the antitrust agencies, to force Comcast to open up their network to the competition like Netflix. I would not be so pessimistic about the deal.

<comment><USER56> Will net neutrality be a regulatory condition of the merger?

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> This merg will be the worst thing that could happen, 1) Prices of the packages will go up what will that do with the people who already have a package with TWC. Will it make there prices go up? 2) Who would trust comcast will all the talk of them throttling internet. Its will casue full chaos and they would end up losing more money then they would gain from the merg.

</comment><comment><USER58> The Obama Administration had better prod some serious anti-trust consideration on this -- not to mention Congress.

The NBC deal a couple of years ago, and now this?

Meantime, my Crapcast service contains consistently more crap (as opposed to quality), for consistently more money.

Step by step, this country is flushing itself down the tubes. Ha... bit of an unintended pun, there. Fitting.

</comment><comment><USER59> Dear HN: I'm not too familiar with the situation over there, and have what might be a dumb question.

Are there any companies that will benefit from this because they're already on their way to roll out their own lines? I'm thinking about things like Google Fiber, companies that are providing their own network to deliver internet over.

</comment><comment><USER60> Is this a PR move? Do they like paying lawyers? Leverage against the FTC? I mean, this is never going to happen.... right?

</comment><comment><USER61> Cable and Internet suck in American The Land of Free. I have TV Box from comcast which I have not switched on for year because it is absolute shit. It plays may be 10-15 channels and for any good channel I need to shell in so much money.

I am 100% sure that someone like Google will shark behind these people and drive them out of business.

<comment><USER62> If you don't turn on your TV you should make sure you return your Comcast cable box because you're probably being charged at least $3/mo for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I really, really want the regulators to stop this, but most people only have the choice of a single cable provider anyway. Where in the US do Comcast and Time Warner compete head-to-head? It feels as though they have divided up the country similarly to how the baby bells were after AT&T was broken up in 1984.

</comment><comment><USER64> Is anyone here familiar with the costs (regulatory and financial) associated with direct backbone fiber access?

<comment><USER65> Verizon spent an average of $817 per household to deploy FIOS. Though that may not be the stat your asking for! :) Source: [http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/...](http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/The_Cost_of_Connectivity.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Can we get a god damn amendment to the constitution that enforced net neutrality and prohibits ISPs from doing anything but being ISPs, already?! The net is part of the infrastructure of our country and needs to be neutral! Anyone who fucks with that should be charged with terrorism.

</comment><comment><USER67> Damn! I finally got an acceptable deal from Oceanic Time Warner @ $60 a month for "up to 30 Mbit/sec" with no data cap. (I often see speeds over 50 Mbit/sec)

I hope this deal doesn't throw a wrench in my net connection. I live in a rural area with few options.

</comment><comment><USER68> Since Time Warner was rumored to be the partner of AppleTV TV content, ponders how this deal affects that. Was it a plan to stop that Apple deal to happen or will they benefit from that?

Ponders if this will pass the antitrust authorithy

</comment><comment><USER69> This is either good news or bad news for municipal ISPs. Good news in that you could hardly ask for a better catalyst. Bad news in that Comcast will have even more motivation to murder the entire concept in its sleep.

</comment><comment><USER70> Now, instead of spitting on TWC vans, I'll get to spit on Comcast vans.

</comment><comment><USER71> Please don't let this happen. I hate Comcast and I hate it even more that it's really the only cable option where I live. I'd hate for that to be the case for everyone everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER72> Well, if you thought internet plans and prices suck now... Stay Tuned.

</comment><comment><USER73> I might be mistaken, but I don't think that Comcast and Time-Warner compete in the same market, so the anti-trust people can't complain.

I feel bad for those poor Time-Warner customers, though.

</comment><comment><USER74> This really stinks. Just suffered through a transition to TWc from insightbb. Haven't been happy with the way twc operates. I can't imagine one mega cable company.

</comment><comment><USER75> Less competition, higher prices and worse service for those who will be unlucky enough to be in the area where there is no choice but to use these cable ISPs...

</comment><comment><USER76> I must talk to all my libertarian friends now. I need to get explanation what free market means when right now my only options for network would be one ISP.

<comment><USER77> This has nothing to do with the free market. Both companies are government granted "natural" monopolies.

<comment><USER78> Huh? How is it something that the government granted?

<comment><USER77> No other company can legally lay cable in the same areas as these companies. Same "natural monopoly" deal that governs the electric, phone, and water utilities.

<comment><USER78> Interesting.. That's indeed rather limiting.

That being said, I don't think that's true in Germany (where the balance in your bank account is pretty much the only limiting factor for getting some cables into the ground) and still the ISP market is not to doing too well. Regional ISPs are pretty much the only ones capable of delivering a decent service (if you are lucky enough to live close to one).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> I would welcome this merger. Give them 3 months, and let them demonstrate why the telecom monopoly is bad for business, consumers, and America.

<comment><USER80> And then what?

You think Standard Oil is going to be repeated?

Not a chance. The Republican Party/side of the country would probably be more likely to rebel at the idea of such "government interference in the private sector", especially on such a grand scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> who submits wsj articles no one can read...

</comment><comment><USER82> Still waiting for google fiber that is under construction 5 miles from my house. "Supposedly".

</comment><comment><USER83> Americans sure love their monopolies.

</comment><comment><USER84> Wow, comcast is a monopoly in this current state, after this it would be a super monopoly.

<comment><USER85> Ma bell of internet (TV's just about dead, and they depend on partnering with Verizon for mobile)

In other areas, AT&T dominates horizontally and vertically.

<comment><USER86> "Just about dead" is quite the overstatement. They did $32B+ last year in advertising revenue. I hope they do die a quick death, but it's going to be a while before most people cut the cord.

<comment><USER85> You're dead wrong. U.S. TV ad revenue is shrinking fast > 3% year on year and _totals_ only $67 Billion USD for the entire industry. Also, you're looking at the wrong attribute as a proxy for relevance. The quality of the eyeballs (monetization worth, net worth) and sustained interest are far better on the web and in mobile games. Only a few rare people that don't have computers or smartphones are UHWNIs. So I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to figure out what kind of customers watch TV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> The resulting Comcast would have 75% of the US cable market, if this goes through.

<comment><USER88> Sounds really bad to me! I hope DOJ can stop this deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> Aren't there antitrust laws to protect against this exact sort of thing?

<comment><USER33> It doesn't violate anti-trust laws to buy another company you do not compete with. And there are very few, if any, territories where Comcast and TWC directly compete at present – depending on where you live, you can subscribe to one or the other (or some other cable company), but not both.

<comment><USER89> but... they only don't compete because of govt sanctioned monopoly status in the first place, no?

<comment><USER33> Originally (and perhaps still in some specific areas), yes. Most regions have deregulated though, which is why FiOS, U-Verse and Google Fiber TV are able to exist.

But the infrastructure costs for Comcast to build out a brand new network in TWC territories (or vice-versa) on a mass scale would be pretty high.

For the sake of comparison (Google Fiber): [http://news- beta.slashdot.org/story/12/12/08/1810244/nationw...](http://news- beta.slashdot.org/story/12/12/08/1810244/nationwide-google-fiber-deployment- would-cost-140-billion)

<comment><USER89> "pretty high" but they've got $45b to 'invest' in buying out competition, instead of spending a fraction of that to compete head to head in specific markets, then eventually more markets?

If it's deregulated, then they can enter the market and compete on service and price, not buy up the competition so there's _no_ chance of anyone else ever being able to enter. TWC has been pretty active in trying to prevent municipal fiber in NC, and I suspect with even more money/muscle/lobby power behind them, it will be easier to squash any semblance of competition in any form.

<comment><USER33> It's an all-stock deal though. Comcast isn't actually paying any money (in fact I believe they still have a significant amount of debt from buying NBC), instead they're proposing giving TWC shareholders the equivalent of $45B in new Comcast shares in exchange for giving up their collective ownership of TWC.

But yeah, Comcast and TWC's recent lobbying efforts in general sound pretty suspect. Not defending that aspect by any means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> How could this not be considered a monopoly over the majority of the US?

<comment><USER81> timewarner by its own is a monopoly. i dont think anything will change. I already pay 55 bucks for crappy 15 up 1 down speed.

<comment><USER91> Do you mean 15 down 1 up?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> Great news for internet access quality in the US! /s

</comment><comment><USER93> There is absolutely no way the FTC will allow this.

</comment><comment><USER9> I can't believe no one has yet even trolled the possibility that allowing this merger would be payoff for both companies' loyal service to the NSA.

</comment><comment><USER94> Well now we wait for things to get worse!

</comment><comment><USER47> Oh, boy. Charter wanted them, badly.

</comment><comment><USER95> This is bad

</comment><comment><USER96> Wow, the new AT&T.

</comment><comment><USER97> How is this legal?

</comment><comment><USER98> please google isp, destroy this new super-fool

</comment><comment><USER99> Prepare the Vaselin.

</comment><comment><USER100> We should be taking these guy's monopolies away. Competition is the key to not only good value (i.e. low price/value) but also economic fairness.

Ever notice how many of the biggest fortunes were built on top of government granted monopolies of some form, such as exclusive licenses, highly regulated industries, copyrights, trademarks and/or patents? Just look at the list of the world richest people:

1\. Carlos Slim - telecom monopolies

2\. Bill Gates - software copyrights

3\. Amancio Ortega - clothing trademarks (brands)

4\. Warren Buffet - highly regulated businesses

5\. Larry Ellison - software copyrights

6 and 7 - Kock Brothers - highly regulated businesses

...</comment>


Build HTTP APIs Quickly with Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sdwolfe32/slimhttp <comment><USER2> I only looked at it briefly on my phone but I don't really see a huge difference to something like [https://github.com/go- chi/chi/blob/master/README.md](https://github.com/go- chi/chi/blob/master/README.md) here that also comes with a middle ware to do all the error handling is you need that. It's also as simple as it gets.</comment>


Would adapting readmytweets.com to use ads encourage more web surfers to read ads? - <AUTHOR>

* do you think many people (including savvy web surfers) would read ads using this service?<p>* this is sort of like reddit but where self-promotion is the norm and ad scoring is based on the effort of the submitter rather than the quality of the linked page/site.<p>* which services (if any) have tried an approach like this including the reading comprehension check?<p>* would I be able to use adsense on the same page or is that against the terms of service? <comment><USER2> would resubmitting the same question encourage more HN users to reply?

<comment><AUTHOR> A view count would help me know how many of them saw it last time.</comment></comment>


Anyone know thecoderdude? - <AUTHOR> We have been trying to reach him for several months. A lot of the authors on his website has not been paid. We do not know how to reach him. Can someone please help? <comment><AUTHOR> [https://twitter.com/thecoderdude?lang=en](https://twitter.com/thecoderdude?lang=en)</comment>


Hotmail rolls out POP3 - <AUTHOR> http://windowslivewire.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2F7EB29B42641D59!32413.entry <comment><USER2> I wonder what's the current usage breakup of 3 major webmail providers - Yahoo, GMail and Hotmail! But having used all 3, Hotmail is the crappiest of all. And this news about POP3 doesn't belong to this century. If they made this announcement in late 90's it would have made sense. Hotmail survival is the same story as IE being the most popular browser - the MS factor! Success of both proves that the smart people are way outnumbered by stupid people on earth!</comment>


Getting your foot (back) in the door - <AUTHOR>

Hey Guys,
I'm looking for some advice for my wife from the HN point of view.
My wife is an accomplished Journalist with a degree in communications and business from a good university. After taking a 5 year sabbatical to care for our daughter she wants to reenter the workforce but this time in the technology field. Unfortunately, she is meeting much resistance attempting to get her foot into the door as a Tester, Writer or Jr. Analyst. The main problem being that there are rarely ever entry level opportunities posted in our area (Dallas, TX).
Do you guys have any leads or suggestions on one could best positions themselves for this type of career re-entry?
I would also add that if anyone requires any copy writing or technical writing for projects she is available to help you out in order to gain some marketable experience. <comment><USER2> She should start blogging about what she's interested in.

She could write about the local tech scene; write about technical hiring; write about technical documentation. Try and balance it between posts on her own blog, and (free) guest posts in other publications.

Then she will have a portfolio of writing to point to, a bunch of new connections, and be known within your tech community. She might be able to bypass a fulltime job and just jump straight to consulting/freelancing.</comment>


Universities Are Becoming Billion Dollar Hedge Funds with Schools Attached - <AUTHOR> http://www.thenation.com/article/universities-are-becoming-billion-dollar-hedge-funds-with-schools-attached/ <comment><USER2> And thus the furthering the splay of both income and knowledge inequality.</comment>


A Swift binding framework - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/SwiftBond/Bond

<comment><USER2> I'm using this for a greenfields project and, while we haven't shipped yet, so far, I'm quite impressed by this framework. It's also one of the few (only?) moderately mature Swift-native binding frameworks available right now, based on my research. (Others are available, but most are in a decidedly beta state and often lacking full documentation.)

On a related note, designing an iOS app in an MVVM fashion (which is a common theme among binding framework users) is quite the treat.

<comment><USER3> To be honest, it does too much. It tries to solve every possible corner case so your project will be really tied to this library and you will not be able to switch if it is needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can someone give me a quick overview of how something like this works? I have experience with swift and Obj-C but there is a lot of dynamic stuff happening. For ex what's "objc_setAssociatedObject", is this needed, no 'clean' way to do it?

<comment><USER3> It wraps a value into box and whenever you modify box it triggers events and you chain these boxes together so whenever there is a change in one box, it passes the value to other box. Because one box can hold the other and vice versa.

Everything is resolved at compile time, there isn't any dynamism involved and neither associated objects.</comment></comment>