Tech Talk iconTech Talk


Freeing Gary McKinnon

This week,TechCrunch is asking readers if they should prosecute a hacker caught for allegedly defacing their site. "If enough readers vote yes, there could be another Gary McKinnon type battle as the hacker could be extradited to the US for his trial," TechCrunch posted.

The Gary McKinnon case is one I've been following closely, and it  sheds interesting light on the battles over computer crimes. Here's what happened. A few months after the World Trade Center attacks, a strange message appeared on a U.S. Army computer: "Your security system is crap,” it read. “I am Solo.I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels.” Solo scanned 65,000 government machines, and discovered glaring security flaws on many of them. Between February 2001 and March 2002, Solo broke into almost a hundred PCs within the Army, Navy, Air Force, NASA, and the Department of Defense. He surfed around for months, copying secret files and passwords. At one point, he brought down the US Army’s entire Washington network, over 2000 computers, for 24 hours. It remains, as one U.S. attorney put it, “the biggest military hack of all time.”

But despite his expertise, Solo didn’t cover his tracks well enough. He was soon traced to a small apartment in London.  On March 27th of 2002, the UK National Hi-Tech Crime Unit arrested Gary McKinnon, a quiet 36-year-old Scot with elfin features and Spock-like upswept eyebrows. He’d been a systems administrator, but he didn’t have a job at the moment—he spent his days writing brooding electronic music, and indulging his obsession with UFOs. In fact, he claims that aliens are the reason he was accessing classified computers. “I knew that governments suppressed antigravity, UFO-related technologies, free energy or what they call zero-point energy,” he explained. “This should not be kept hidden from the public when pensioners can't pay their fuel bills.” 

He got caught just as he was downloading a photo from Johnson’s Space Center of what he believed to be a UFO. UK officials told McKinnon he'd probably get off with community service. But the Feds are mortified that this boy-man pulled off the hack of the century, and they’re making him pay. McKinnon faces extradition to the United States under a controversial treaty that could land him in prison for 70 years. Now rock stars, human rights activists, and members of parliament are racing to free Gary. The reason: he has Asperger Syndrome.

Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge (and cousin of Sacha), diagnosed McKinnon with Asperger’s, a mysterious form of autism that's now in the public eye. Baron-Cohen released a report in McKinnon defense, saying “Mr. McKinnon actually poses no harm to society as he was motivated by an altruistic pursuit of the truth,” he wrote. “His emotional age or social intelligence is at the level of a child, even if his intelligence is systemizing at an advanced level. If Gary McKinnon is sent to the U.S. I fear he will kill himself.” 

The so-called "Geek Defense" is spreading. In August, Viachelav Berkovich, a 34-year-old Russian immigrant in the United States diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, received a reduced sentence after being convicted of a hacking into a trucking company in California.  Also last year, a defense witness for Hans Reiser, a computer programmer convicted of brutally murdering his wife, testified that Reiser might have Asperger’s. Defense attorneys also used the Asperger’s defense for Lisa Brown, a 22-year-old convicted of murdering her mother. “Someone with Asperger’s syndrome could still plan an act but, because of deficiencies in their social imagination, might be unable to see what the consequences of those actions might be,” a psychiatrist said of Brown, who received a life sentence regardless. Lawyers for Albert Gonzalez, the hacker convicted in the massive TJX identity theft case, are also now wielding the Asperger's defense.

Forecasting Apple's Intrinsity Acquisition

Now that Apple has officially confirmed that it has purchased the Austin, Tex.-based smartphone CPU redesign firm Intrinsity for an estimated $121 million, tech blogs have been buzzing about what it all means. Despite all the rampant speculation, though, one of the only things known for sure is: The now-Apple-owned Intrinsity designed the iPad's CPU— basing it around Intrinsity's "Hummingbird," a modified ARM Cortex A8.

But will Intrinsity's secret CPU hot-rodding technique (which IEEE Spectrum described in detail in January) be a game changer for the next-generation iPads and iPhones?

Cue industry analysts who will say, essentially, "Maybe. Although... maybe not."

Here's one other thing we do know, though. Before Steve Jobs' borg descended on Intrinsity and put Apple's trademark cone of silence over it, IEEE Spectrum had a lengthy sit-down with the management and engineering team (Sept. 2009) for what was one of the company's final pressers as an entity that could speak on the record.

At the time, of course, the iPad was just one of numerous fanboy pipe dreams of an Apple netbook/tablet that could dominate the market the way the iPhone overtook many other smartphones. 

Intrinsity's CEO Bob Russo told Spectrum that the company was applying its same chip streamlining techniques to ARM's Cortex A9 -- the logical successor to Hummingbird and now speculative candidate for future iPads and iPhones. ("We are engaged in a multicore A9 development. ... I just can't tell you who it's for," Russo said at the time.)

Below are some further excerpts from that confab on a stormy Thursday morning in Austin. Watch out for interesting mentions of Apple’s earlier chips design purchase, PA Semi.

IEEE SPECTRUM: How do you take a pre-existing ARM chip and make it faster?

Bob Russo, Intrinsity CEO: There are two ways to enhance a chip. One, you can take the existing product and enhance that core -- and keep it totally software-compatible for the customer at the end....The other way is to go in and change the entire architecture. That's a bigger undertaking. Companies have done that. Qualcomm's done it, for example, [with their redesigned A8, "Snapdragon."]

SPECTRUM: So "Hummingbird" follows the first of those two models, right?

BR: Yes. That's the model that we like, that we're set up to produce. And we're trying to make it so that we produce 8 or 9 of these a year.

SPECTRUM: Eight or nine chip redesigns?

BR: That's the ultimate goal here. To enhance the cores. You can't do that if you fool around with the [CPU's] architecture. But if you have the right tools, technology, and know-how -- which we do -- you can take on multiple customers who require a higher frequency part than what's available in the standard marketplace.

[Russo describes Samsung's desire to speed the 650 MHz A8 up to 1 GHz.]

There are only two ways to do it. One, you have your own internal team to develop it, like Qualcomm has. And you go for all the work to develop a high-speed part. Or you come to us.

Apple went and bought PA Semi for that very reason. Apple bought PA Semi because they wanted to control more of their have their own team to be able to come out with a part that is faster than is currently available in the marketplace.

Brent Chambers, Intrinsity director of engineering: We're taking Ferrari technology that typically takes Ferrari development time and Ferrari dollars to afford, and we're bringing that to the masses in a much lower cost and much more specific application. It gets you 90 percent of the speed for a fraction of the cost.

BR: We're an order of magnitude less expensive than everyone else who developed this [enhanced A8 core] on their own.

SPECTRUM: And that's because you streamline the CPU, but only in the choke-points, right?

BC: That's what gets us in the power envelope for the mobile space. But the cost is the automation.

SPECTRUM: So the way you automate your streamlining of a CPU is how you can cut your costs.

BR: It's all the patents we have, all the circuit technology we've developed. There's another component here, too. We're a premier shop of talent. We're the last-standing independent, high-end CPU design house in the world. There's no one else left but us. The last one was PA Semi, and they got bought by Apple.

SPECTRUM: So Hummingbird wasn't designed with a netbook in mind, was it? It's more for a smartphone, right?

BR: I would think that's the case. Where it ends up, I believe -- my opinion, I've never been told this -- it's going to end up in more places than just a smartphone. And one of the potential places could be a netbook. Potentially.

Photo: Robert Galbraith/Reuters



Between the iPad and the Kindle, there has been a lot of talk lately about the future of books and magazines online.  As a writer, I’m happy with anything that keeps people reading – especially if it makes reading fun for people who might not otherwise pick up a book.  The only downside?  The coming wave of piracy that will crash the publishing industry just as it hit music and movies before.  But hopefully publishers can learn from the others mistakes.

Just look at how the music labels screwed up.  Labels lost billions each year, with annual drops of more than 25% since 2000.  The blame often falls on piracy. Post Napster, the industry’s strategy was Scared Straight:  sue a 12-year-old for illegally downloading Metallica, and hope his friends get the message.  It didn’t work.  Sales continued to plummet.  Hackers grew more sophisticated.   Then, on the heels of a precedent-setting Supreme Court ruling, the industry switched targets:  the geeks who coded the pirate sites.  Turns out, the three biggest ones are harbored in New York City.  The labels went gunning.  The plan wasn’t just to destroy them.  It was to own them.  They’d sue for an ungodly amount of money, and pressure the sites to settle, in part, by converting to legal services – services which would compensate labels for the downloaded tunes.

First went eDonkey, a global operation ran by two hackers out of an apartment in Hoboken – settled for a whopping $30 million.  The scrappy cofounders, who blasted the industry in congressional testimony, would rather go down with the ship than sell its soul.  Across the river in Manhattan, a site called iMesh was more than eager to cash in.  The start-up, founded in Tel Aviv by a former chief information officier for the Israeli Defense Forces Command, not only converted to a legal site, it hired Sony Music president Robert Summer to be its executive chairman.  Then iMesh became busy striking up deals with labels, and gobbling up (then converting) other peer-to-peer file-sharing sites.  Only one more site remaind in the balance – LimeWire, a site run by Mark Gorton, who runs the file-sharing site out of his capital management firm in Tribeca.  The Recording Industry Association of America sued LimeWire for hundreds of millions, trying to force LimeWire convert to a legal service, like iMesh, or make it die like eDonkey.  Either way, the music industry seemed to win.

And, yet, did they?  In truth, they were pursuing a negative strategy - spending millions to hunt down the pirates, meanwhile Apple makes all the money by creating iTunes.  At the same time, kids around the world are churning out more and more file-sharing sites every day. Do a search for one of my books, and you’ll find free copies to download or print.  Yeah, it takes money out of my pocket.  But if people are going to work that hard to read my book, I’m flattered. And hopefully they’ll tell a friend who will buy the book the new old-fashioned way online. 

Obama Should Take Systems Approach to Clean Energy

The Obama administration is developing a clean energy system as if it were a science project. The focus is on technology and ideas, not systems and strategic goals. The emphasis is on near term solutions with no effort made to envision what the whole system should look like 40 years from now. There are no phases, no disciplined reviews, no milestones. The hope seems to be that somebody will invent something great, solving all our problems in the blink of an eye.

An example of this science approach is a recent report entitled America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation (AEF), by the Committee on America's Energy Future, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Research Council. This was a multi-year study that developed a baseline energy scenario based on “a projection of current economic, technology ... and policy parameters.”  

The AEF baseline scenario is an evolutionary one. That means it looks at what exists today and asks how today’s technologies be improved. Good things come from this approach, including energy efficiencies, the smart grid, and quick returns on investment. One down side, though, is that today’s reality of uncertain rules, regulation, policy, legacy system integration, and rapidly changing technologies are all mixed together. With such confusion, and no easy way to pick out the most important issues or solutions, it is no wonder that the AEF study concluded that there is no “silver bullet,” recommending a “balanced portfolio approach” to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

By contrast, "old school" systems engineering is driven by a purpose, a strategic goal. President Obama has provided an excellent strategic goal: to reduce carbon dioxide emissions below 2005 levels by 83 percent by 2050. This goal is certainly feasible. During the past 40 years France developed a nuclear electric power system that is 78 percent carbon free. There is no technical reason why the US cannot use nuclear to achieve 83 percent reduction in emissions over the next 40 years if the president, Congress, and the American people choose to do so. There is no development risk.

The main barrier to nuclear power, however, is the high cost of capital due to the risk of political obstructions. For this reason, the AEF evolutionary study viewed nuclear power as unattractive. But because disciplined development separates engineering from policy, a purely engineering-based approach such as the recent MIT study on the future of nuclear power comes up with different answers. The MIT study compared the direct cost of different technologies with the same cost of capital as: 6.6/6.2/6.5 ¢/kWh for nuclear, coal, and gas, respectively. Thus, after an objective assessment of the facts, the client—in this case the president, Congress, and the American people—could choose between the negatives of carbon dioxide emissions and the fear of using nuclear power, then create policy based on that balanced, informed choice.

Unlike evolutionary scenarios, strategic scenarios address the ability of a whole system to achieve a goal. For example, wind power looks attractive from an evolutionary point of view because we can certainly build systems that are 10-20 percent wind-powered. But a recent paper entitled Wind Energy Contribution to a Low Carbon Grid shows that wind cannot contribute much to a grid that is substantially carbon free because the wind subsystem is 80 percent dependent on fossil fuel generators for backup.

Both evolutionary and strategic scenarios are concerned with the uncertainty of changing technologies. But as with any long-term program, engineers incorporate risks and uncertainties into the engineering development plan. A clear purpose, the strategic goal, is what simplifies classic engineering development plans. Every approach is continuously tested against its ability to achieve the goal. Further, the suite of strategic scenarios is simplified by separating engineering from policy, ignoring legacy system constraints, and basing plans on technology as we know it today, rather than hoping for grand innovations.

It seems clear that the big challenge in clean energy development is not technology; it is the sheer number and diversity of stakeholders. Energy affects everyone, and everyone has an opinion. In my next post, I will show how disciplined engineering simplifies the politics and management of stakeholder interests.

Alex Pavlak is a PhD Professional Engineer with experience in systems architecture and the economics of wind power systems. He has had various management responsibilities in the development of large military systems. He has spent 15 years in alternate energy and holds several patents pending on wind turbines and static solar concentrators.

Cooling Off Chips With a Nice Warm Drink

It’s a hot summer day. You’ve been working hard and you’re burning up. You decide to take a break, so you wipe your brow and head inside to quench your thirst. What do you reach for? Whether your beverage of choice is lemonade or a, um, wheat-and-hop smoothie, you want it cold and you want it right now.

It’s that same thinking that has informed the way supercomputer makers have used water to keep the chips inside their number-crunching behemoths from succumbing to their own brand of heat stroke. Many liquid-cooled machines come equipped with electric chillers that keep the fluid that flows through them at a relatively brisk 15 degrees Celsius.

But a team of researchers at IBM Research in Zurich, Switzerland, reported in the 16 April issue of Science their discovery that warm water is just as effective as cold water at ensuring that chips stay within their rated temperature range. They proved it with a supercomputer they built called Aquasar. The 10-teraflop machine has 60-degree water flowing through its network of copper pipes. The researchers say these viaducts draw away enough heat to keep the microprocessors’ temperature from exceeding 75 degrees Celsius—well below their rated limit of 85 degrees, where they begin to malfunction.

Though chilled chips run faster and have a longer lifespan, there is a good reason to let the warm water flow. The IBM team says that getting rid of the chillers lets Aquasar operate using half the energy that would be consumed by a similar model that is treated to a cold drink. IBM says it hopes to narrow the performance gap by making warm-water heat removal even more efficient. Within five years, the company says, the tubes that now carry the water around the chips will run right through them.


Hacking Ticketmaster

At 10 a.m. on December 15, 2007, Springsteen fans pounded anxiously at their computers.  The Boss had just announced three concerts at Giant Stadium in New Jersey, and they were desperately trying to score prime seats.

Good luck, right?  With more than 40% of concert tickets now being sold online, it seems impossible to get good seats at face value anymore.  The best ones go in seconds.  Fans are then left to go to ticket resellers like Stubhub to pay a premium for what used to be their basic right.  And sure enough, in a flash that December, the 12,000 front seats for the Springsteen tour were gone.   The fans complained – sparking a federal investigation.  Now we’ve learned where the tickets really went:   to the Wiseguys.

On March 1,  four guys behind a Nevada-based start-up, Wiseguy Tickets, were indicted in New Jersey on 43 counts for fraudulently buying and selling over 1.5 million tickets online - including concerts (AC/DC to Barbra Streisand), Broadway shows (Wicked, The Producers), and sports (Yankees, Rangers).  They made $25 million.  According to the feds, the Wiseguys became “the leading source of the best tickets for the most popular events.”  The Wiseguys' innovation:  “To achieve this goal, Wiseguys deployed a nationwide computer network that opened thousands of simultaneous Internet connections from across the United States; impersonated thousands of individual ticket buyers; and defeated online ticket vendors’ security mechanisms. When online ticket vendors tried to stop Wiseguys from engaging in this conduct, Wiseguys adapted its methods and continued."

This story exposes the underworld of ticket hackers, and the feeble battle the multibillion dollar industry is waging against them.  The battle is over bots. Hackers code and deploy automated programs to log on to online vendors and buy tickets as soon as they go on sale.  Ticket vendors try to prevent this by using programs such as CAPTCHA, which supposedly requires an actual human being to read and retype a distorted image of a word.  The Wiseguys found an ingenious way around this in an elaborate three year operation.  Among other things, they hired geeks in Bulgaria to engineer bots that beat the CAPTCHA filters.  They then made hundreds of bogus websites and emails where they had the tickets sent.

While the Wiseguys face 20 years in prison, the problem is far from over.  Companies are racing to keep bots off their sites, and fans are still getting stiffed.  But lawyers are arguing that no crimes have been broken.  According to the Star-Ledger, one defendant's lawyer "has compared Wiseguy’s business model to a large-scale modern-day version of paying someone to camp outside a box office to buy premium seats for a big show."

It's the sort of question that is playing in other bot battles - are online bots breaking the law?  In online poker, for example, some gamers deploy auto-playing bots.  It's a perpetual cat-and-mouse game, with the sites development countermeasures to sniff out the programs.  I can't imagine that this meta-game will ever end.  

How To Solve the World's Greatest Technology Problems

grand challenges engineering nae

Uh, sorry, I don't have the answer here. But I know who might.

Next week, some of the brightest tech thinkers will gather near Boston to brainstorm solutions to the world's toughest and most important problems in areas like energy, environment, health, security, and learning.

The summit, to take place on Wednesday, 21 April, at Wellesley College, in Wellesley, Mass., is part of the Grand Challenges for Engineering, a program of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE).

A few years ago, NAE convened an international group of technologists -- including inventor Dean Kamen, Google's Larry Page, MIT's Robert Langer, and others -- to identify the world's most pressing engineering challenges. The result was a list of 14 formidable tech problems.

Now it's time to find the solutions.

NAE and other organizations, with input from the public and a host of experts, are organizing summits to discuss the challenges and ideas on how to tackle them.

Next week's event, organized by Babson College, Olin College of Engineering, and Wellesley College, is a regional event. You can see the whole program and lineup of speakers at

A national summit will take place in October at the University of Southern California.

Below is the list of 14 tech challenges. You can find accompanying explanations, essays, videos, and discussion forums at the Grand Challenges for Engineering web site.

tech challenges engineering nae

The challenges:

* Make solar energy economical
* Provide energy from fusion
* Develop carbon sequestration methods
* Manage the nitrogen cycle
* Provide access to clean water
* Restore and improve urban infrastructure
* Advance health informatics
* Engineer better medicines
* Reverse-engineer the brain
* Prevent nuclear terror
* Secure cyberspace
* Enhance virtual reality
* Advance personalized learning
* Engineer the tools of scientific discovery

Obama Finally Explains His Plan for Human Spaceflight

President Obama spoke yesterday at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), in Florida, to explain his vision for space and to defend his proposed FY 2011 budget. This breaks a long-held silence that has frustrated space enthusiasts and professionals alike since the budget was announced in February.

Addressing an audience at the Operations and Checkout Building at KSC, Obama called for finalizing plans for a heavy-lift rocket by 2015, which would then be built to ship astronauts beyond Earth orbit. He also called for landing humans on an asteroid as a step along the way to developing technologies to orbit and land on Mars. By the mid-2030s, he said, humans would orbit Mars and return safely to Earth.

Those words didn’t have quite the same ring as “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth” by the end of this decade, but as the president pointed out, today’s challenges are different from those of the 1960s. Mars is harder than the moon. It will take more time. But when humans do land on the red planet, Obama said, “I expect to be around to see it.”

The president faces criticism for his proposed budget, which would increase NASA’s cash flow by about $6 billion but sets most of that amount aside for commercial space transportation projects, instead of building new space taxis in-house. Congress and NASA employees are also concerned that cutting the Constellation program, which was being designed to send humans back to the moon, will put thousands of people out of work, particularly in states like Texas and Florida.

But Obama countered by saying that his plan would add 2500 more jobs along the space coast than the Constellation program would have, and that it would generate over 10 000 jobs nationwide in the next few years. He also proposed a $40 million initiative for “regional growth and development” in the Florida area, to reach his desk by 15 August. The plan would help prepare a skilled work force for “new opportunities in the space industry and beyond.”

On an odder note, Obama said that the Orion capsule, which would have served as the lunar lander in the Constellation program, will remain on the table as the basis for a rescue capsule to be sent to the International Space Station (ISS), where it would be ready to carry astronauts back to Earth in case of an emergency. Of course, that will also keep Orion’s contractor Lockheed-Martin happy, and it will employ a few hundred more NASA people.

Some detractors of the Obama plan worry that relying on commercial companies to build space transportation vehicles after the space shuttle’s tour of duty ends this year would leave US astronauts at the mercy of Russia’s space agency, which operates the Soyuz space capsule, for an extended period of time.

However, in remarks after the president’s speech, Norman Augustine, who led the independent panel on human spaceflight that came up with many of the goals Obama’s plan endorses, nipped that worry in the bud: do we really have less faith in our commercial sector than in the Russians, he asked? Because it would have taken several more years for Constellation to get off the ground than it will for commercial transportation, he argued, the old plan would have left America dependent on Russia for even longer.

The president's proposed plan, Augustine said, if adequately funded and with timely decisions made, “does give us a way to have a human spaceflight program worthy of a great nation, and to transform us from transportation to exploration.”

Marty Hauser, a vice president of the Space Foundation, which this week hosted the 26th annual National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, says the remarks were mostly well received by space professionals in government and private industry, who watched the speech via live streaming at the conference and then discussed it in a panel afterwards. "The whole space community has been waiting to see what [the budget] will mean, beyond just canceling Constellation," Hauser says. "Now there's some flesh on the bones."

Hauser adds that the president’s speech gave attendees at the symposium the sense that "there is some thought going into planning” after all. "It's nice to have a better idea of where we're headed, and the rationale behind it," he says.

So now that Obama has put his mouth where his money is, the space industry—and the public—will be watching closely to see if his plan actually comes to fruition, paving the way for spaceflight's next small steps and giant leaps. I, for one, hope it does.

Photos courtesy of NASA.

Microsoft Engineer Shows Off His Automated Home

Ramaprasanna Chellamuthu, a Microsoft developer in Bangalore, lives alone at home but he never feels lonely. That's because, as he puts it in this entertaining video, "My home is my buddy." As a hobby, Chellamuthu set out to equip his house with a variety of robotics, augmented reality, and speech and image recognition devices. He called the project "buddyHome."

The house wakes him up in the morning and shows his calendar on a computer and projects a TV news show on the wall. An automated stirrer cooks his instant noodles on the stove. When he smiles while watching a cricket game on TV, the house offers to buy tickets, saying: "Can I have your credit card, please?" The house watches him even when he's eating: "You are eating a high fat diet!!" the house says when he's eating pizza. And when he can't get out of bed after the alarm clock goes off, a device holding a cup of water -- you knew this was coming -- pours it on his face.

If Bill Gates ever has problems with his smart home, he knows who to call.


Court Ruling Could Allow ISPs to Restrict Customers' Internet Usage

A new ruling by a federal appeals court on Tuesday may signal an end to ‘net neutrality’ as we know it, and open the door for ISPs to block or slow popular sites and services like YouTube, HULU and BitTorrent.

The court decision sided with Comcast, who argued that the FCC did not have the authority to insist all traffic across a broadband connection be treated equally. This means that legally your broadband ISP can monitor your Internet usage and block or slow any transactions that they want.

This regulation battle began when Comcast blocked BitTorrent access to some customers without warning in 2007. Comcast has since revised its rules and does not restrict BitTorrent, but can we trust them in the future?

Here’s a statement by Comcast from a New York Times article published 6 April 2010:

“Comcast remains committed to the F.C.C.’s existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this F.C.C. as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet.”

When I hear statements like this, I usually append ‘as long as it does not affect our bottom line or our ability to control as much of the market as possible’ to the end of them.

Before they were caught, Comcast was happy to restrict its customers’ Internet usage. Only after an embarrassing public shaming did the company adopt a commitment to “open Internet principles.”

The story of Robb Topolski, a software engineer and barbershop quartet enthusiast whose attempt to share recordings of civil war era songs eventually led to an investigation of Comcast by the FCC, is chronicled in a great Wired article.

At my current residence I have no choice as to which cable company supplies my broadband connection. If my broadband ISP decides that it is losing ad-revenues to HULU or NetFlix when I stream movies and TV shows, what is to stop them from setting my download limit to a level that makes streaming impossible or such low quality that I give up? There are no free market controls on this provider because have no option to switch to a competitor.

Can you imagine if you were blocked or charged an extra fee to make phone calls to certain businesses? What about members of certain political parties or religions? Would we stand for radio manufacturers that blocked stations that did not pay the licensing fees/technology usage fees/kickbacks that the manufacturers demanded? Of course not.

As it turns out, the FCC may have made some decisions that limit their power to regulate broadband, but the agency was created to protect the public. Just because we communicate over a new medium does not mean that the FCC should be scrapped. We need regulations to keep the Internet “open and vibrant.”

Comcast has already tried to restrict Internet usage once. I’ll be interested to see if they stick with their commitment to “open Internet principles” without a law that forces them to do so.

Photo Credit: FCC


Tech Talk

IEEE Spectrum’s general technology blog, featuring news, analysis, and opinions about engineering, consumer electronics, and technology and society, from the editorial staff and freelance contributors.

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for the Tech Alert newsletter and receive ground-breaking technology and science news from IEEE Spectrum every Thursday.

Load More