P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Peer to Peer
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-07-20, 06:36 AM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 4th, ’20

Since 2002































July 4th, 2020




Rotating Streaming Services Trend Pushes Back Against Rising Costs
Brittany A. Roston

The streaming industry has grown seemingly exponentially over the past couple of years, with a huge variety of major and minor services launching across the already fragmented landscape. Companies are competing to earn subscribers by releasing original shows exclusive to their own platforms, ultimately fueling the biggest complaint from consumers: the costs have gotten too high. A growing trend pushes back against this industry reality, and it involves rotating services.

The streaming industry now has several major players, the most recent being Apple TV+, Disney+, and HBO Max. When added alongside staples like Netflix, Prime Video, and Hulu, as well as more minor offerings like CBS All Access and Peacock, plus live OTT offerings like Sling TV and Philo — well, things can get very expensive very quickly.

Consumers are complaining that cord-cutting has become just as expensive as traditional cable and satellite plans, with some deciding to give up altogether and return to their old cable provider. Others, however, are increasingly embracing a trend that gives consumers access to the wide swath of exclusive streaming originals without the ample cost, and it’s called streaming service rotation.

As its name suggests, the trend involves signing up for one or two streaming services, watching all of the content you’re interested in — the latest season of a couple of Netflix Originals, for example — then ‘pausing’ the subscriptions and signing up for different services. By doing this, consumers say they’re able to watch the originals they’re interested in without the high costs of paying for every service monthly.

There are some downsides to this practice, of course. Some streaming services take steps to prevent this by releasing original show episodes weekly rather than in season-long batches like Netflix. In this case, you’ll have to wait a few months for the season to completely ‘air’ before you can binge-watch it in a month — and this, as you probably expect, can result in seeing spoilers online before you can watch the content.

As well, this makes it harder to casually watch shows you may have already seen, but that would be a nice way to pass the time. We’ve seen popular classics like Friends and Seinfeld move to various services, making it harder for streamers to casually tune in for an amusing rerun or two. By rotating services monthly, the overall amount of content you’ll have access to will be reduced compared to paying for them all monthly or returning to traditional pay-TV.

We’ve seen cases where streaming services appear to address this rotation trend by offering subscribers various incentives to pay for multiple months at once. Disney Plus, for example, offers a discounted rate for customers who pay for an entire year up front ($69.99/year compared to $6.99/month). Sling TV recently promised to ‘freeze’ the cost of its service for a full year for new customers, giving them a reason to stick around for a while.

While streaming service rotation works for some consumers, others have found it too burdensome and have instead turned to various alternatives — some people have decided to switch back to pay-TV, certain providers of which are now offering a hybrid service that includes the ability to stream DVR content while away from home. Other consumers are simply sticking with a couple of major services and then pirating everything else.

The fragmentation of the streaming market is likely the cause of a notable increase in BitTorrent traffic, highlighting the new issue of splitting content up across several different streaming platforms. For many, free home entertainment server software Plex has become an appealing alternative, with consumers referring to it as a way to create your own personal — and free — ‘Netflix’ service based on piracy.

The return to piracy is a big problem for the streaming industry, which is largely responsible for consumer gravitation back to these unauthorized, free alternatives. Whether the negative impacts of streaming service fragmentation will ultimately motivate these companies to figure out a new solution for their digital content is yet to be seen — it seems very likely, though, that it will be years before we see a decent alternative to rotating subscriptions, leaving consumers with few appealing options in the meantime.
https://www.slashgear.com/rotating-s...osts-03627627/





When Hollywood Finally Noticed the Web: What it Got Right and Oh So Wrong

The Net. Hackers. Johnny Mnemonic. Twenty-five years ago, cinema met cyberspace in a riot of funky fashion, cool music and surveillance paranoia.
Richard Trenholm

In 1995, the year CNET was born and Microsoft launched Internet Explorer, Bill Gates decreed the internet "a tidal wave." That same year, Hollywood unleashed its own tidal wave of movies tackling cyberspace and the dawning information age.

It began in May 1995 with the release of Johnny Mnemonic, a delirious sci-fi action dystopia matching Keanu Reeves with seminal cyberpunk author William Gibson. In July, Sandra Bullock had her identity erased in conspiracy thriller The Net. In August, Denzel Washington pursued Russell Crowe's computer-generated serial killer in Virtuosity, and in September Angelina Jolie found her breakthrough role in anarchic adventure Hackers. In October, Kathryn Bigelow served up dystopian thriller Strange Days.

It's hard to know what's most dated about these mid-'90s curios: the primitive-looking effects, the funky fashions or the clunky technology depicted on screen. But now, 25 years later, they've proved prescient in their concerns about surveillance, corporate power and the corruption of what seemed to be an excitingly democratic new age.

The new rock 'n' roll

Hollywood was slow to catch on to the rise of the personal computer. Apart from scary sci-fi supercomputers like HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey, we'd only really had WarGames in 1983 and Sneakers in 1992 -- both written by the same guy, Lawrence C. Lasker. In 1992 we also met The Lawnmower Man, which involved a virtual reality cyber-Jesus (yes, really).

By then Tim Berners-Lee had already invented the World Wide Web, linking early adopters, forward-thinking academics, opportunistic business types and a thriving community of eccentric cybergeeks. In the early years, there was an influx of new users every September, because one of the only ways to get online was via university computers, but in 1993 AOL gave its customers access to Usenet and suddenly new users were logging on every day. This was the "eternal September," and the web was well on its way.

Movie studios were keen to get in on the hype. "It was a hot topic and we felt part of a race to get into that subject," recalls Ralph Winter, one of the producers of Hackers. "Actually, we felt late."

Hackers writer Raphael Moreau came up with the idea after meeting Emmanuel Goldstein -- real name Eric Corley -- the publisher of a magazine called 2600: The Hacker Quarterly. Moreau's script found its way to British film director Iain Softley, who had just made Backbeat about the early days of the Beatles. Softley was grabbed by the parallels with the young hackers he saw as outlaws and revolutionaries. "It wasn't so much a technological film for me, it was a popular cultural film," Softley tells me on the phone from lockdown in London. "It was a turning point, a cusp of something, like an equivalent to rock 'n' roll."

One of those outlaws was Nicholas Jarecki, who was recruited as the film's technical advisor. He's a filmmaker now, just finishing his latest film -- crime thriller Dreamland starring Armie Hammer and Gary Oldman -- just before COVID-19 shut down the industry. But his introduction to show business came when he was 15 years old back in the early 1990s, hanging out with Goldstein and other hackers the first Friday of every month in the lobby of New York's CityCorp Center. "So I'm at one of the meetings," Jarecki remembers, "and in walks Iain Softley, Jonny Lee Miller and Angelina Jolie. It was like the circus walked into town. I thought they were the coolest people on the planet."

Hack the planet

Hackers is notorious for its neon fashion, directional hairstyles and cutting-edge electronic soundtrack, featuring acts like The Prodigy, Leftfield, Orbital and Underworld (plus an uncredited appearance from Pink Floyd's David Gilmour). "I didn't quite realize how out-there we were going to be in terms of the costumes and the music," says Softley, who drew on earlier LSD-soaked psychedelic culture for both the trippy color palette and the idea of a parallel underground culture. "I wanted the film to be what we called a cyberdelic -- a technological hallucination."

That was certainly true of the film's dizzying visualization of the internet, which swooped through garishly colored 3D towers of data like a virtual cityscape built of bits and bytes. Perhaps surprisingly, these cyberspace effects were created with traditional models, animation and rotoscoping techniques rather than computer-generated imagery. Hackers was a few years (or a few dollars) shy of 1990s CGI breakthroughs like Toy Story, Titanic and the Star Wars prequels.

Happily, the movie studio backing the film, United Artists, gave Softley free rein to realize his vision. "I didn't realize at the time how bold they were being," he says. "It's never happened since!"

Meanwhile a rival production in Canada was having the opposite experience. Visual artist and music video director Robert Longo dreamed of a black-and-white arthouse film based on William Gibson's short story Johnny Mnemonic, about a courier who uploads digital files into an implant in his brain. Gibson wrote the script, but despite his success as bestselling author of cyberpunk novels like Neuromancer -- in which he coined the term "cyberspace" -- it proved difficult to raise the $1 million they needed. "You're not asking for enough money," Gibson told Longo, and eventually Sony's Tristar studio financed a bigger production with Val Kilmer in the lead role. Keanu Reeves took over after Kilmer dropped out, but when Speed made him an action superstar Tristar's expectations ballooned for what they saw as a popcorn summer blockbuster.

The suits imposed reshoots, complaining the action wasn't being taken seriously and the footage was too dark. Longo also had to employ guerrilla filmmaking tactics on his own set, moving the camera himself when the crew was at lunch so he could get the shot he wanted. Speaking on the phone from New York, Longo's memories are peppered with entertaining asides about who was "evil," "a dick," "an idiot" or "a fucking idiot."

"I had a lot of great people working with me, don't get me wrong," says Longo. He fondly recalls executive producer Staffan Ahrenberg, who helped get the movie rolling, and production designer Nilo Rodis-Jamero, who developed the film's riotously imaginative aesthetic. But the movie was ultimately taken out of Longo's hands and re-edited to compete at the summer box office against Braveheart, Die Hard with a Vengeance and Batman Forever (the one with Val Kilmer).

"I would say maybe 55% of the film I'm happy with," sighs Longo.

It might be a mess, but you can't say Johnny Mnemonic is short on ideas. The eclectic cast includes rapper Ice-T; punk rocker Henry Rollins; Japanese icon Takeshi Kitano in a rare (mostly) English-language role; Dolph Lundgren dressed like Jesus; and an ex-military dolphin that reads minds. Gibson drew from across his books ands stories to posit a nightmarish near-future of "terminal capitalism," plagued by cut-throat corporations and unregulated body modifications.

One of the film's themes is addiction to technology. Longo compares Johnny Mnemonic's "parasitic" brain implants to today's smartphones and devices that feel to us like a phantom limb. As Henry Rollins' character says in the film: "Electronics around you poisoning the airwaves... But we still have all this shit, because we can't live without it."

Most tellingly, Johnny Mnemonic and the other tech-focused films of 1995 all express fears around the misuse of surveillance in a connected world. The Net updates the paranoia of '70s thrillers The Conversation and The Anderson Tapes, and each movie features an unholy alliance of avaricious corporate bad guys and authoritarian law enforcement. Or as Matthew Lillard's character puts it in Hackers, "Orwell is here and livin' large!"

But the whistleblowing heroes of Hackers, The Net and Johnny Mnemonic use their skills to subvert and unpick the establishment's grip on technology. Hackers in particular radiates an infectious idealism as the diverse crew of anarchic youngsters rollerblade rings around the greedy suits and clueless cops, "snooping onto them as they snoop onto us". The movie highlights technology's potential to be a tool for wrongdoing and a democratic, open medium where you can be who you want to be.

"For all its exaggerations," says Nicholas Jarecki, "it does a decent job of showing the hacker spirit -- those kids were tinkerers, experimenting, reveling in their ability to figure something out. It's a celebration of human ingenuity."

Sadly, 1995's wave of technology-themed movies have one other thing in common. They all bombed.

Hollywood's net loss

As the whole world logged on in the new millennium, it seemed Hollywood didn't have the password. Piracy sent the movie and music industries spiraling, while online distractions siphoned audiences away from theaters onto ever smaller screens. The Net spawned a short-lived TV series and Hackers became a cult classic -- look out for a 25th anniversary vinyl release of the soundtrack later this year -- but filmmakers just couldn't get to grips with the internet as a subject.

Aside from the odd hit like 1998's email-based romantic comedy You've Got Mail or David Fincher's Oscar-winning The Social Network, movies about the internet had mixed success. There's a bunch of horror flicks with titles like Feardotcom, Chatroom and Cam, and there's even a subgenre of thrillers that look through computer and phone screens, including Unfriended, Open Windows and Searching. No modern action movie is complete without someone frowning at a screen as they hack the mainframe in thrillers like Swordfish, Die Hard 4.0 or the Mission: Impossible series, but nobody wants judgey movies about social media addiction like Disconnect or Men Women and Children.

The last word for cinematic cyberspace came from Keanu Reeves' other 90s cyberpunk action movie: 1999 hit The Matrix. Cities of data looked goofy by then -- just look at painfully belated sequel Tron: Legacy -- as we realized we wouldn't be swooping around in neon virtual reality dreamscapes after all.

Yet Hackers, The Net and Johnny Mnemonic are still worth a watch. Look past the dated tech and outfits for a flawed but fun snapshot of the moment the internet took over the world. Today's tech experts were inspired and influenced by the films, and Iain Softley still screens and discusses Hackers at technology events around the world. "It gave them permission to see [technology] as something cool," he says. "It was irreverent, bold, provocative and energetic -- sort of a fun cyber fairy tale."
https://www.cnet.com/news/when-holly...d-oh-so-wrong/





Watching Movies in 'Fortnite' Is More Fun Than a Theater

'Inception' is better when you can use a grappling hook, throw tomatoes at the screen, and mute the audience.
Matthew Gault

The last movie I saw in a theater was Cats. There weren’t many of us in the darkened room, but it still managed to be chaotic. Two middle aged women sang throughout the entire film and then picked a fight with another group they thought were being too loud. This morning I watched Inception inside Fortnite along with other players and, when I logged in, heard the rambling monologue of a younger player. I muted them, something I could never do in a real-life theater.

Fortnite, a mega-popular free-to-play battle royale video game, has recently begun to host events in-game, including concerts with Travis Scott, EDM artist Marshmello, and Star Wars tie-ins. This weekend, Fortnite is screening Christopher Nolan movies—sort of like a drive-in, but with more grappling hooks. Depending on where you live, you can watch The Prestige, Inception, or Batman Begins. It's partly hype-building for Nolan's upcoming film Tenet, and partly to test the concept of Fortnite as a venue for theaters.

When I watched Inception, the screen was clear, the stream never stutterd, and the audio never gave out. The crowd was rowdy at first, but calmed down as the movie progressed. It was shockingly like attending the opening night of a Marvel movie, a trip into Fortnite’s budding metaverse that proved a video game can replicate the communal experience of going to the movies online.

Concerts and films in Fortnite happen in a separate game mode. Players can’t shoot each other and the sound effects dull as they approach the screen. Vending machines filled with tomatoes, grappling hooks, launch pads, and other toys surround the theater. As Inception began, people tossed tomatoes at the screen. Strange avatars used grappling hooks to climb on top of the projection. Occasionally, someone would fly across the frame.

I thought I’d hate all this chaos, but it was fun. I threw tomatoes at the screen and launched myself into the air with the grappling hook, trying to come down on top of the screen as Leonardo DiCaprio droned on about dreams.

Watching Inception in Fortnite felt like going to a drive-in theater with a group of barely controlled teens. They tossed tomatoes when the movie got boring, quieted down as action blared across the screen, and flickered in and out of existence as their attention waxed and waned. It was a communal experience of a kind I hadn’t had before, but it felt good.

I love going to the movies. A crowded theater on opening night fills me with a kind of energy I don’t get anywhere else. When the lights go down and the music swells, I’m filled with a reverence and awe comparable to what the religious tell me they feel in church. I feel this spiritual jolt even if the movie is mediocre or outright bad. For me, the story on the screen is often just a vehicle for this feeling. With the coronavirus pandemic seemingly raging with new life in the U.S., I don’t know when, or if, I’ll get to feel that again.

The idea of braving Covid to watch Wonder Woman 1984 or Tenet seems foolish, especially here in South Carolina, which is experiencing a horrifying spike in cases thanks to mismanagement at the state and local level. I used to live in Texas and the theater I frequented there went viral on Twitter when Cinemark published a video of an employee disinfecting its seats. The tweet was meant to assure the public that theaters are safe. For me, it had the opposite effect. I’ll be watching movies at home for the foreseeable future.

Here, Fortnite might just be a life-saver. Developer Epic Games’ push to make its game a space for people to experience live music and watch movies is working. It’s a compelling option in a world where going to a movie theater means risking infection of a horrible disease.

Tenet, Nolan’s new film, was slated to come out on July 17 but it’s been pushed back several times. Just yesterday, Warner Brothers pushed the release date back another two weeks to August 12. Nolan is a devotee of the theater experience. He wants his movies viewed on a big screen, with the sound booming over a crowd of like-minded folks all experiencing the same story together as a community. I respect that desire, but it’s just not possible right now for the majority of the country. I suspect many Americans won’t gamble with their health to sit through a Hollywood fantasy. I definitely won’t risk infection to see Nolan’s latest.

But I would log into Fortnite to watch it. The crowd of weird avatars, rowdy tomato throwers, ATV driving cat-men, and prattling 12 year olds replicated the communal experience of going to the movies in a way I did not think was possible when I logged into the game this morning. The screen was there, somehow feeling bigger than life on my monitor, and I was experiencing the story with other people.

The lights off in my office, my position in the rocks above Fortnite’s digital shore secured, I watched Nolan’s story of a heist inside a dream. I threw tomatoes during the boring bits, something I could never do in real life. It ruled.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/x...than-a-theater





400 TB Storage Drives In Our Future: Fujifilm
Dr. Ian Cutress

One of the two leading manufacturers of tape cartridge storage, FujiFilm, claims that they have a technology roadmap through to 2030 which builds on the current magnetic tape paradigm to enable 400 TB per tape.

As reported by Chris Mellor of Blocks and Files, Fujifilm points to using Strontium Ferrite grains in order to enable an areal data density on tape of 224 Gbit-per-square-inch, which would enable 400 TB drives. IBM and Sony have already demonstrated 201 Gbit-per-square-inch technology in 2017, with a potential release of the technology for high volume production in 2026. Current drives are over an order of magnitude smaller, at 8 Gbit-per-square-inch, however the delay between research and mass production is quite significant.

Strontium Ferrite would replace Barium Ferrite in current LTO cartridges. Strontium sits on a row above Barium in the periodic table, indicating a much smaller atom. This enables for much smaller particles to be placed into tracks, and thankfully according to Fujifilm, Strontium Ferrite exhibits properties along the same lines as Barium Ferrite, but moreso, enabling higher performance while simultaneously increasing particle density.

In standard LTO nomenclature, we are currently on LTO-8 where the drives have 12 TB raw capacity. Recent generational increases in LTO tend to double the capacity, so we’re looking at LTO-13 for 384 TB drives. Mellor indicates that there seems to be an average 2.5 years between commercialization of successive LTO drive standards, which leads to the following table:

LTO Generation Progression

AnandTech Standard Retail Length Raw
Cap. Speed
MB/s Time
to fill Material
LTO-1 2000 609 m 0.1 TB 20 1h23 MP
LTO-2 2003 609 m 0.2 TB 40 1h23 MP
LTO-3 2005 680 m 0.4 TB 80 1h23 MP
LTO-4 2007 820 m 0.8 TB 120 1h51 MP
LTO-5 2010 846 m 1.6 TB 140 3h10 MP
LTO-6 2012 846 m 2.5 TB 160 4h20 MP/BaFe
LTO-7 2010 2015 960 m 6.0 TB 300 5h33 BaFe
LTO-8 2010 2017 960 m 12.0 TB 360 9h16 BaFe
LTO-9 2014 2020 24.0 TB *708 *9h25 BaFe
LTO-10 2014 *2022 48 TB *1100 *12h07 Ba/Sr Fe
LTO-11 2017 *2025 96 TB *1800 *14h49 SrFe
LTO-12 2017 *2027 192 TB *2400 *22h13 SrFe
LTO-13 *2021 *2030 *384 TB SrFe?
LTO-14 *2021 *768 TB

*Unconfirmed/estimated

Current generation LTO-8 cartridges take at least 9h16 to fill, with predicted speeds on future drives increasing that even further. Current LTO specifications go up to LTO-12, and so 400 TB would thus come in the LTO-13 generation.

Fujifilm states that 400 TB is the limit of Strontium Ferrite, indicating that new materials would be needed to go beyond. That said, we are talking about only 224 Gbit-per-square-inch for storage, which compared to mechanical hard disks going beyhind 1000 Gbit-per-square-inch today, there would appear to be plenty of room at the top if the technologies could converge.

Prices for current LTO-8 tape are the lowest out of all storage media. Depending on volume, prices around 0.8-1 cent per gigabyte is fairly common. Currently only Sony and Fujifilm are licencees to create LTO-8 media, however other companies such as HPE and IBM resell models under their own brand.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15888...uture-fujifilm





Data Caps on AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile Will Return June 30

AT&T, Comcast Xfinity, Mediacom and T-Mobile are scheduled to return to normal service on June 30, as the benefits granted by ISPs during the quarantine expire. Late fees will be back, too.
Mark Hachman

Major Internet service providers are scheduled to end their quarantine benefits soon, once again subjecting Americans to data caps and removing protections if they are unable to pay their bills.

The FCC’s Keep Americans Connected Pledge is set to expire on June 30. Companies initially agreed to the pledge and rushed to add benefits. ISPs like CenturyLink, T-Mobile, Verizon, and many others said they would not discontinue service or charge late fees for those unable to pay because of the coronavirus. They also agreed to open their Wi-Fi access points for free. So far, the FCC has not publicly said that it would extend the pledge.

In some ways, ISPs face the same decision as governors in Florida and Texas: end their benefits, which encouraged users to stay home, or continue them for an indeterminate period of time. This could be the last weekend of unlimited data for Comcast Xfinity subscribers and other major ISPs. For many of those who are out of work, ISPs could begin demanding payment for outstanding broadband bills on June 30.
[ Further reading: Best NAS boxes for media streaming and backup ]

Consumers who have been riding out the quarantine by streaming may also find that their unlimited data expires June 30. On that day AT&T, Comcast Xfinity, Mediacom, and T-Mobile are scheduled to resume normal service, and once again impose data caps. Some ISPs, like Cox, have already terminated some benefits, as its temporary unlimited data program expired in May.

When asked whether Comcast would extend its unlimited data offer, a Comcast spokesman demurred. “Nothing to announce yet,” he said via email. “We’ll keep you posted.”

Editor’s Note: The information below has been adapted from our earlier story, “Which Internet providers are lifting data caps during the coronavirus, and which aren’t.”

AT&T

All AT&T consumer home Internet customers, as well as Fixed Wireless Internet, can use unlimited data through June 30.

An automatic 10GB of data per month was temporarily added to customers’ capped phone plans, though that appears to have expired on June 24. Mobile hotspot data was increased by 15GB per month for those on unlimited cellular plans, through June 30. Navy personnel on select ships may make free calls to military bases, also through June 30.

AT&T pledged not to terminate the service of any customer who can’t pay their bill, and will waive the fees associated with late payments. (Waivers can be applied for here.) That expires on June 30. The company will continue to waive domestic postpaid wireless plan overage charges for data, voice or text for residential or small business wireless customers. AT&T will also keep its public Wi-Fi hotspots open to everyone, and has automatically increased hotspot data by 15GB per month per line.

New AT&T TV/DirectTV customers will receive a free year of HBO. An AT&T “Summer Camp” collection of content has been added, along with a number of free channels to those customers who didn’t already have them.

CenturyLink

Until June 30, CenturyLink said it has committed to waive late fees and to not terminate a residential or small business customer’s service due to financial circumstances associated with COVID-19. The company is also suspending data usage limits for consumer customers during this time period. It committed to the FCC’s Keeping Americans Connected Pledge.

Consolidated Communications

Consolidated joined the Keep Americans Connected Pledge, although its support page doesn’t list an expiration date. Consolidated already does not have data caps, the company said.

Comcast

On March 13, Comcast said it would pause enforcement of its data caps for 60 days, essentially giving all of its customers unlimited data for that period. (Comcast normally gives its Xfinity customers two “grace” months for every 12, allowing them to exceed their data cap without penalty.)

New subscribers to Comcast’s $9.95/month Internet Essentials plan initially received two months free, and speeds were increased to 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up. Comcast said on June 19 that the “two months free” introductory offer for Internet Essentials will be extended through the rest of the year.

Comcast is also making its Xfinity WiFi service free for everyone, regardless of whether you’re a Comcast subscriber. (Here’s a map of Xfinity WiFi hotspots.) Comcast pledged not to to disconnect a customer if they can’t pay their bill, and has waived late fees.

Cox

Cox eliminated data usage overages starting March 16 for 60 days. Customers with a 500GB or existing Unlimited plan will receive credits. New subscribers to the Cox Starter Internet plan will be able to sign up without an annual contract and receive 50Mbps download speeds.

Cox previously said that it would not terminate service for any residential or small business customers, and would open its Cox WiFi hotspot network to keep the public connected. That will be extended through June 30.

Cox is offering free support calls and the first month free to its low-cost Internet service, Connect2Compete. (It will be free through July 15, Cox added.) Customers on its Essential plan will see their speeds increased from 30Mbps to 50Mbps, and Starter, StraightUp Internet and Connect2Compete packages will be automatically upgraded to speeds of 50 Mbps as well.

Charter (Spectrum)

Charter Communications’ Spectrum services do not have data caps, and will not terminate service for home or small business users who can’t pay because of the coronavirus pandemic, through June 30. Charter initially said it would offer free Spectrum broadband and Wi-Fi for 60 days if that household has K-12 students or college students who do not already have a Spectrum broadband subscription. (That offer was extended until June 30.) Charter also said it will open its Wi-Fi hotspots for public use.

All of Charter’s existing HBO subscribers, including subscribers in its Spectrum Silver and Gold video packages, have automatically been given access to HBO Max for no additional charge.

Earthlink

Earthlink is participating in the Keep Americans Connected Pledge, and pledged (as of March 16, 2020) for the next 60 days not to terminate the service of any residential or small business customer because of their inability to pay their bill due to disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic, as well as not to charge late payment fees a residential or small business customer may incur because of economic hardship related to the coronavirus pandemic.

Earthlink does not offer data caps on its residential service.

Frontier Communications

Frontier does not have data caps, and this will continue through the COVID-19 pandemic, the company said. It also plans to increase its capacity.

Google

“Google Fi has joined the Keep Americans Connected Pledge,” according to a company spokesman, who has not said how long its pledge will be effective. Google Fi temporarily increased its limits for full-speed data to 30GB per user, for both Flexible and Unlimited Plans, as of April 1. After the 30GB limit is reached, a user can pay $10/GB to return to full-speed data for the remainder of the billing cycle.

Google is also extending its billing grace period to 60 days beyond the billing date. All of these measures are effective as of June 24, Google said.

Mediacom Communications

New customers who sign up for Mediacom’s Access Internet 60 broadband service can do so for $19.99/mo for 12 months, rather than $29.99/mo. Mediacom’s Connect2Compete service raised its speeds from 10Mbps down/1Mbps up to 25Mbps down/3Mbps up, and made it free for the first 60 days. It also made its Wi-Fi hotspot network publicly accessible, for free. Mediacom has paused monthly data allowances across all broadband service tiers, the company said on June 23. All of these initiatives now extend through August, Mediacom said.

Beginning with the September billing cycle and continuing through the end of 2020, Mediacom will provide up to 100 gigabytes of additional data to any broadband customer that exceeds their monthly data allowance for free, the company said.

Sparklight (formerly Cable One)

Sparklight said on March 13 that it would make unlimited data available on all Internet plans for 30 days. Sparklight extended unlimited data through May 12.

On March 16, the company said it would make its hotspots, accessible in its office parking lots, available for free public use, and added a a 15Mbps internet plan for $10 per month for the next 60 days. On April 28, the company said that it would extend this through June 30, and it pledged not to disconnect users if they can’t pay their bills. Late fees are also waived, as per the Federal Communications Commission’s Keep Americans Connected Pledge.

Sprint

(As of April 1, Sprint has completed its merger with T-Mobile.)

Sprint said on March 13 that it extended its network to include T-Mobile’s network for the next 60 days. Sprint signed the Keep Americans Connected Pledge and committed to waiving fees and not terminating services if customers were unable to pay because of the coronavirus for the next 60 days. Customers with metered data plans received unlimited data for 60 days and 20GB of hotspot data for the same period.

Customers will be able to place free international calls to CDC-designated Level 3 countries.

Starry

Wireless broadband ISP Starry made Starry Connect, a broadband program for public and affordable housing owners, free through May. Normally, the program, which provides 30Mbps symmetrical speeds, is $15 per month. Starry agreed to suspend cancellation of service due to nonpayment due to the coronavirus. It already does not charge additional fees or late fees. Starry’s service does not include data caps, either.

TDS

TDS said on March 16 that it would provide free broadband access to customer households with K-12 or college students. (Proof will be required.) TDS also its Wi-Fi hotspots to the public, for free. Other than that, TDS is adhering to the FCC’s “Keep Americans Connected” pledge only by agreeing not to disconnect customers who can’t pay their bills through June 30.

T-Mobile

All current T-Mobile plans with data have been granted free unlimited data through June 30, excluding roaming. T-Mobile and Metro by T-Mobile customers will be given an additional 20GB of mobile hotspot and tethering services through June 30 as well. Lifeline customers will be given an extra 5GB of data per month for the next two months.

“We do not have an offer available for 60 days of free service and encourage consumers to be cautious of social media posts that may include fraudulent numbers,” T-Mobile added. The company has also posted resources to help protect customers from scammers.

T-Mobile extended its commitment to the FCC pledge through June 30, continuing to offer support for postpaid wireless, residential and small business customers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Verizon

Verizon will waive late fees and keep residential and small business customers connected if negatively impacted by the global crisis, the company said on March 13. Verizon now says on a new, consolidated COVID-19 response page that that its waiver plan will run until June 30, it added.

Verizon upgraded the data plan on its Verizon Innovative Learning program for Title 1 middle schools from 10GB/month to 30GB/month for two months, effective March 16. There are no data caps on Verizon home Internet subscribers, a company representative said.

On March 23, Verizon updated its coronavirus relief plans, noting that it will waive overage charges, upgrade fees and activation fees. Verizon has also pledged to not terminate service and waive late fees. Verizon is also adding 15GB of 4G LTE data to consumer and small business plans for free, and adding some free overseas calls to some countries. Verizon waiveed the next two months of billing cycles on its Lifeline plan. On April 3, Verizon will launch a new broadband discount program; customers may select any Verizon Fios speed in its Mix & Match plans and receive a $20 discount per month.

Windstream (Kinetic)

Windstream has not announced any relief for customers affected by the coronavirus. The service does not implement data caps, however.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3564...n-june-30.html





Charter Seeks FCC OK to Impose Data Caps and Charge Fees to Video Services

Charter wants TWC merger conditions to expire in May 2021, two years early.
Jon Brodkin

Charter Communications has asked federal regulators for permission to impose data caps on broadband users and to seek interconnection payments from large online video providers, starting next year.

Charter, unlike other ISPs, isn't allowed to impose data caps and faces limits on charges for interconnection payments because of conditions applied to its 2016 purchase of Time Warner Cable. The conditions were imposed by the Federal Communications Commission for seven years and are scheduled to elapse in May 2023. Last week, Charter submitted a petition asking the FCC to let the conditions run out on May 18, 2021 instead. The FCC is seeking public comment on the petition.

Charter, which offers Internet, TV, and phone service under the Spectrum brand name, has frequently pointed to its lack of data caps as an example of a customer-friendly policy. When it sought FCC permission for the merger, it told the FCC that it provides service "without any data caps, usage-based pricing, or modem fees" and that it "has been involved in no notable disputes over traffic management and has long practiced network neutrality."

When contacted by Ars yesterday, Charter said it doesn't "currently" plan to impose data caps or change its interconnection policy, but it wants the option to do so:

Once the conditions expire, Charter will weigh the options as we would any business decision, but is currently not even considering implementing data caps or charging for interconnection and has no plan to do so. What Charter seeks is a level playing field so that we can continue to grow and provide superior service to our customers across the country.

Charter argued in its FCC petition that the conditions are no longer necessary to promote competition between online streaming video and cable TV because online video providers have flourished over the past four years.

Charter's statement to Ars pointed to the company's gigabit speeds, network investments, and deployment of broadband in rural areas. "Charter's top priority is delivering a superior product to our customers and this result [the FCC approving Charter's petition] will give us the flexibility to do just that in an ever-changing market," Charter said.

FCC Republicans opposed conditions

Charter's petition is likely to see a favorable response from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's 3-2 Republican majority. Pai voted against the conditions when they were imposed under then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, an Obama nominee. Pai, who called the merger conditions an attempt to "micromanage the Internet economy," was promoted from commissioner to chairman by President Trump in January 2017. Republican Michael O'Rielly, who is also still on the FCC, approved the merger order in part but objected to the data-cap and interconnection conditions.

Despite imposing the conditions for seven years, the Wheeler FCC's 2016 merger order said Charter could petition for the conditions to be lifted after five years. That's why Charter's request is pegged to May 2021.

"Recognizing that the market was changing rapidly and in ways that could render the conditions unnecessary, the commission provided a mechanism for these conditions to be in place for five instead of seven years," Charter's petition said. "The market has, in fact, changed quickly and dramatically since the conditions were imposed."

Instead of trying to harm online video providers, Charter said it is "actively working to increase its subscribers' access to online video services." Eliminating the conditions "will therefore advance, rather than thwart the competitive gains that have been made, giving Charter the flexibility it needs to best meet the data usage needs of all of its subscribers and to configure its network to deliver data in the most efficient way possible," the company said.

Consumer-advocacy groups are certain to urge the FCC to reject Charter's petition. "Charter's suggestion that it should get time off for mediocre behavior speaks volumes about the company's intent and the sincerity of its claims—both at the time of the merger and today," Free Press VP of Policy and General Counsel Matt Wood told Ars. Wood also said that "unjustified data caps are clearly a competitive advantage for a cable company that wants to keep its legacy TV customers from cutting the cord, or at the very least wants to make sure its Internet customers pay extra if they have the audacity to actually use their broadband connections for streaming content."

The conditions

Charter's purchase of the giant Time Warner Cable and the smaller Bright House Networks made Charter the second largest cable company in the US, after Comcast. The FCC conditions were aimed at preventing Charter from hindering online video providers that compete against Charter's cable TV service.

The seven-year ban on data caps lets Charter customers use Netflix and other online video services without the possibility of huge overage fees. The ban on certain interconnection payments prevents Charter from imposing a big cost on video providers that connect directly to Charter's broadband network. Time Warner Cable had previously demanded fees from Netflix for interconnection.

The merger condition isn't a complete ban on interconnection payments. Instead, the condition requires Charter to provide free interconnection to companies that deliver a certain amount of data traffic to Charter customers.

Charter: Data caps ensure “efficient allocation of resources”

Charter's petition said that "the online video distribution marketplace is almost unrecognizable compared to what existed in 2016," and that "the reason for imposing the [data-cap] condition no longer exists."

"Today, video consumers reign supreme, demonstrating seemingly insatiable interest in video options, mixing, matching, and switching content and providers and platforms, to curate a video experience tailored to their individual needs," Charter said. Other large ISPs such as Comcast, AT&T, Cox, and Altice "have incorporated data caps or some form of data usage policy in their offerings" in order "to ensure an efficient allocation of resources to accommodate the explosive growth in broadband usage," Charter said.

"Yet the use of data caps by these companies has not stifled the growth of OVD [online video distribution] services," Charter wrote. "In fact, the opposite is true: OVD services are thriving and growing at an unprecedented rate. In other words, the market is working."

Charter made the same argument on interconnection. "The flourishing OVD marketplace also justifies allowing the interconnection condition to sunset in 2021," Charter wrote. "With no such interconnection condition imposed upon them, broadband providers other than Charter have voluntarily entered into interconnection agreements with OVDs in ways that have not inhibited OVD growth in any way; quite the opposite."

Interconnection disputes that caused poor video quality for consumers contributed to the Wheeler FCC's decision to impose net neutrality rules in 2015. The rules didn't prohibit interconnection payments but allowed companies to file complaints against ISPs to determine whether they were making unreasonable demands and harming consumers by not upgrading infrastructure. The threat of the complaint process pushed ISPs to strike more favorable deals and thus helped solve the interconnection-dispute problem, but the FCC under Pai eliminated the net neutrality rules entirely.

Charter's petition argued that the free-interconnection merger condition "impedes Charter from operating its network efficiently," "results in the burdensome and inefficient allocation of resources, and is thus contrary to the public interest." This isn't just because of the restriction on payments, Charter wrote:

The interconnection condition imposes requirements untied to engineering or economic realities. For instance, the condition requires Charter to maintain ten points of presence regardless of changes in traffic patterns or demand. But rigid requirements such as these are not necessary as Charter has a natural incentive to maintain optimal network architecture and capacity—including interconnect capacity—in order to deliver competitive quality of service to its customers. Consequently, these network requirements and restrictions interfere with Charter's efficient management of its evolving broadband network without providing any benefit.

Charter's petition also touts investments it made in its network since the merger was approved. "Over the last five years, Charter invested nearly $40 billion in new technology, training, tools, trucks, new call centers, network upgrades, buildings, labs, product development, set-top boxes, Wi-Fi routers, and modems," the company said.

But Charter missed broadband-deployment deadlines on buildout conditions imposed on the merger by state regulators in New York. In that case, Charter agreed to pay $12 million toward new broadband deployments in a deal that gave Charter an extra year to comply with the original requirements. In April this year, Charter asked the FCC to block rural-broadband funding for ISPs that want to build networks in parts of New York where Charter is required to offer broadband. Charter lowered its cable capital expenditures from $8.9 billion in 2018 to $6.8 billion in 2019.

FCC already dropped one merger condition

We contacted the FCC commissioners' offices about Charter's petition yesterday. Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said the petition "doesn't look good" but did not provide further comment, a spokesperson told us. Democratic Commissioner Geoffrey Starks didn't provide a comment, as he "is still reviewing the Charter proposal," a spokesperson said. We haven't heard back from spokespeople for Republican Commissioners O'Rielly and Brendan Carr.

In April 2017, Pai's Republican majority voted to eliminate a merger requirement that would have forced Charter to expand its network into the territory of other high-speed broadband providers. Charter was still required to deploy broadband to at least two million residential and small business locations, but Pai's decision allowed Charter to do that entirely in unserved areas and avoid competition. The Wheeler FCC's ruling, if it hadn't been overturned by Pai, would have required Charter to do at least half of the new deployments in areas served by at least one other high-speed provider.

“A terrible precedent”

Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer told Ars that "it would be terrible precedent for the FCC to eliminate existing merger conditions. When a merger is granted subject to conditions, the premise is that without those conditions, the merger would harm consumers. Companies should not get a merger do-over any time they think a more receptive set of officials is in power."

Bergmayer also said that "data caps don't serve a network management purpose, so if Charter wants to institute them, that means it's looking to charge its customers more. Of course, companies raising their prices after a merger is exactly what merger critics warn will happen."

If Charter charges interconnection fees to online streaming providers, it would be "charg[ing] a toll to edge services to reach its customer base," Bergmayer said. "This is a complete repudiation of net neutrality—Charter's customers are already paying it for an Internet connection, and Charter should have no right to double dip and try to extract fees from the thriving online video marketplace to make up for declining cable TV revenue. It should try competing, instead of rent-seeking."

Wood similarly called interconnection fees an example of "double charging."

"The economics and the technical aspects of interconnection can be made to sound complicated sometimes, but here's what they boil down to: Cable companies have long lamented that if some other big company is making money on the Internet, then the cable company ought to get a cut of that too," Wood told Ars. "What that conveniently ignores is that these broadband providers already have a license to print money, thanks to the essential nature of Internet service and the minimal competition that broadband providers face. So Charter and other ISPs already charge their customers handsomely and make a terrific return, and in exchange those paying customers ought to be able to use their Internet connections for whatever content they like."

The fact that the streaming video market has grown "does nothing to justify the claim that these companies ought to pay again, simply so that Charter will transmit the content that its own broadband customers have already paid Charter to access," Wood continued. "And it does nothing to address the fact that smaller edge providers won't have the same ability to pay ISPs' new tolls, or that all of these fee increases eventually come home to roost with the same customer base of people paying ISPs for their Internet connections and paying streaming video providers for their monthly services, too."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ideo-services/





'We've Bought the Wrong Satellites': UK Tech Gamble Baffles Experts

Bid for 20% of OneWeb to replace Galileo after Brexit ‘looks like nationalism trumping industrial policy’
Alex Hern

The UK government’s plan to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in a satellite broadband company has been described as “nonsensical” by experts, who say the company doesn’t even make the right type of satellite the country needs after Brexit.

The investment in OneWeb, first reported on Thursday night, is intended to mitigate the UK’s loss of access to the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system.

But OneWeb – in which the UK will own a 20% stake following the investment – currently operates a completely different type of satellite network from that typically used to run such navigation systems.

“The fundamental starting point is, yes, we’ve bought the wrong satellites,” said Dr Bleddyn Bowen, a space policy expert at the University of Leicester. “OneWeb is working on basically the same idea as Elon Musk’s Starlink: a mega-constellation of satellites in low Earth orbit, which are used to connect people on the ground to the internet.

“What’s happened is that the very talented lobbyists at OneWeb have convinced the government that we can completely redesign some of the satellites to piggyback a navigation payload on it. It’s bolting an unproven technology on to a mega-constellation that’s designed to do something else. It’s a tech and business gamble.”

Giles Thorne, a research analyst at Jeffries, agreed. “This situation is nonsensical to me,” he said. “This situation looks like nationalism trumping solid industrial policy.”

Every major positioning system currently in use – America’s GPS, Russia’s Glonass, China’s BeiDou, and Galileo, the EU project that the UK helped design before losing access to due to Brexit – is in a medium Earth orbit, Thorne said, approximately 20,000km from Earth. OneWeb’s satellites, 74 of which have already been launched, are in a low Earth orbit, just 1,200km up.

Bowen said: “If you want to replace GPS for military-grade systems, where you need encrypted, secure signals that are precise to centimetres, I’m not sure you can do that on satellites as small as OneWeb’s.”

Rather than being selected for the quality of the offering, Thorne suggested the investment was made to suit “a nationalist agenda”. OneWeb is nominally a UK business, with a UK HQ and spectrum rights registered in the UK through Ofcom.

“Let’s give the government the benefit of the doubt: if the output the government wants is a UK-branded positioning system, a projection of UK power around the world and supporting the UK satellite industry base, then it is probably quicker and cheaper to smash the square peg of OneWeb into the round hole of a Galileo replacement than it is to do it from scratch,” said Thorne.

On Friday evening a government spokesperson said: “We have made clear our ambitions for space and are developing a new national space strategy to bring long-term strategic and commercial benefits to the UK. We are in regular discussions with the space industry as part of this work.”

OneWeb filed for bankruptcy in March in the US, where most of its operations are located, after failing to secure new funding.

Previously, the UK aimed to build its own global navigation satellite system, which independent experts estimatedwould cost £3bn-£4bn.

In December 2018, Theresa May, the then prime minister, said the UK expected to work with the US and other “Five Eyes” partners – a term for the multilateral intelligence agreement – to do so. But in May this year that project was put on hold, just weeks before a feasibility study into the scheme was due to be published, as its estimated cost ballooned to £5bn.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...galileo-brexit





Newsonomics: The Next 48 Hours could Determine the Fate of Two of America’s Largest Newspaper Chains

Tribune and McClatchy are both approaching critical deadlines that could lead to mergers, divisions — or even the first big nonprofit newspaper chain in the United States.
Ken Doctor

The next 48 hours may decide the fate of two of America’s largest newspaper chains that collectively serve almost a fifth of all American local newspaper readers.

And what happens in those hours could prompt a wave of other moves across the rest of the industry.

The dates June 30 and July 1 have called out from the calendar for a while now. On Tuesday, Tribune Publishing will reach the end of two “standstill” periods. Tribune’s two major shareholders — Alden Global Capital, with 33 percent of the company’s shares, and Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, with 25 percent — had promised not to actively buy or sell any shares until June 30.

When that restriction ends, you can expect Tribune’s uneasy status quo to come to an end quickly. After a chaotic decade, the chain had been briefly semi-stable after Michael Ferro’s departure from management. But then Alden bought up those shares in November, and since then Tribune has given Alden two board seats, imposed Alden-style cuts, and created Alden-style management chaos.

Then, on Wednesday, final bids for McClatchy’s 30 newspapers are due, as the country’s second-largest chain prepares to wind toward some exit from bankruptcy.

This is the mid-year witching hour for the U.S. daily press, another stirring of the consolidation pot, and another stage in the transformation of newspapers from civic assets to financial instruments. These two big — and potentially interconnected — dramas will determine the futures of the No. 2 and No. 3 local publishers in the country.

The possible combinations and recombinations are numerous. What we know, from a variety of sources, is still piecemeal, with the future of McClatchy’s 30 titles the most uncertain piece.

Here’s one big new possibility to look for: a new potential buyer of McClatchy intent on pulling its newspapers from the clutches of hedge funds and setting up the country’s first major nonprofit newspaper chain. More on that below.

Part of the uncertainty is that the options that seemed possible in December are markedly different now. The one-word reason: coronavirus.

The months of COVID-19 shutdown have only deepened the business issues afflicting the daily newspaper business. Plans that felt like climbable mountains in December now look positively Himalayan. Everyone’s forecasts and valuations have gotten big haircuts. (And some look like they were done in quarantine, with clippers and a mirror.)

With a new wave of infections rampaging across the country, newspaper CEOs now look at another six to 12 months of potential downturn. Small businesses’ struggles will likely leave ad revenues down 35 to 40 percent in 2020, according to Ken Harding, head of FTI Consulting’s respected media practice.

The biggest data point from FTI’s June 1 update: “We project an unrecovered advertising revenue loss between 17 percent and 28 percent as a result of COVID-19 by Q4 2021.”

Those numbers — that projection of extended revenue pain — are driving everyone’s estimations of newspaper company value, which drive their plans for bids and M&A.

The McClatchy drama

Think of this week’s McClatchy action as the beginning of what may become a two-act drama.

Those “final bids” are due on Wednesday. Then one week later, on July 8, a winner will be announced by the McClatchy board. On July 24, bankruptcy judge Michael E. Wiles will review the decision, and either approve it or not. His legal task: resolving the company’s debts as fairly as possible among those owed money.

Finally, they’ll be a formal Department of Justice antitrust review, which should be resolved before year’s end.

In bankruptcy court, wild cards can enter, and one did last week. McClatchy’s unsecured creditors publicly charged what others had been saying a bit more quietly. They alleged that McClatchy’s major 2018 debt refinancing with Chatham Asset Management was “fraudulent.” That refinancing gave Chatham a favorable lien position in bankruptcy; that means Chatham is more likely to be made whole (or more whole) than McClatchy’s unsecured creditors, including pension claimants, who would likely receive pennies on the dollar. While a lawsuit is possible — and could take years, as did some in the Sam Zell/Tribune five-year bankruptcy from hell — it’s more likely there’ll be a settlement that removes that obstacle from finalizing a sale.

Why might July’s drama be only Act I? Because whoever buys McClatchy could then turn around and merge it with another company — or sell off individual McClatchy newspapers, or groups of them. That’s Act II.

Who’s playing in each act?

The one known bidder is Chatham — currently both McClatchy’s lead investor and its largest debt holder. Chatham has already put in a stalking-horse bid of around $300 million.

Auctions like these draw all sorts of lookie-loos. Contemplating a bid can be a great opportunity to examine the innards of a company, to compare benchmarks and metrics — even if the looker has no intention to buy.

This auction has been no different. As the bidding hour approaches, no one expects more than a handful of bids. Likely one, two, or three — maybe, at the outside, four.

Let’s categorize the likeliest bidders:

• The Insider
• The Savior
• The Financial Engineer
• The Roller-Upper

Chatham is The Insider here. It knows McClatchy’s books and operations inside out, and it’s already bid. Its attorneys have said it wouldn’t mind being outbid, and that makes sense: As a hedge fund, it’s in McClatchy for a financial return, not long-term investment or community service. If someone else thinks McClatchy is worth more than they do, they’ll happily take their money.

Most intriguing is The Savior.

Many in the news business have looked aghast at the vultures and financial players who increasingly dominate ownership. They’ve wrung their hands. They’ve offered a vision of new, nonprofit-led future for local news, just as hundreds of smaller sites have set up a shop over the last decade. But nearly all of those startups still pale in size, if not dedication, next to even shrunken local dailies.

The McClatchy bankruptcy has hatched a new idea, one that’s been talked about for at least a couple of years, but mostly hypothetically: Why not buy one of these big struggling chains — and take it nonprofit?

That’s what on the table today. Leaders in the field of nonprofit journalism are deciding over these 48 hours whether or not to make a bid for all of McClatchy, sources tell me. They say they can raise the needed cash of $300 million-plus.

The big question: What then? How would a civic-minded nonprofit approach the tough transformations still ahead for local news, which is still highly dependent on print revenues smack in the middle of the COVID age? In this growing civic-good journalism world, there are many good people with the right motives — but very uneven skills to transform beleaguered companies.

Sources say there’s a newish player in the mix that is strongly considering a bid to be The Financial Engineer, sources say. And it’s not one of the usual suspects — Fortress Investment Group (Gannett’s manager), Apollo Global Management (Gannett’s lender), Alden Global Capital (MNG’s owner, major investor in Tribune and Lee). Those financial giants have each done their share of damage via unending cuts and only murky business transformation.

Then, there are at least two candidates to be The Roller-Upper. No one is putting down a big bet on one of them placing a bid — but no one’s betting against the possibility either.

First, consider the last big roll-up: New Gannett. The combination of Old Gannett and GateHouse, finalized in November, created the most dominant daily publisher in U.S. history, serving about a quarter of daily newspaper readers.

Gannett is highly encumbered by debt. The $1.8 billion loan from Apollo it took to do the deal now feels even more uncomfortable given 2020’s virus-driven ad decline. It just let go its second-in-command CEO Paul Bascobert, who’d been put inside New Gannett by Old Gannett — a scheme that simply didn’t work. It’s also announced an end to at least some of its COVID-related furloughs.

Gannett — and, importantly, Apollo — could make the case to themselves that further roll-up — more scale, more synergies, more cuts — would make the company’s position more secure over the next few years. Gannett + GateHouse + McClatchy is a combination that would reach about a third of American newspaper households. By the standards of old accounting, that’s huge scale. But what is it worth — what’s its value as a bid in bankruptcy court?

The big question for Gannett’s Mike Reed and Apollo’s Leon Black: Will they stay on the sidelines or get in this game?

Then there’s Heath Freeman, the head of Alden. He’s come out of the shadows a bit lately, even giving an interview here and there. His cash-flow-first strategy has worked — for him — with MNG (f.k.a. MediaNews Group and Digital First Media) and he plainly wants to apply it to as much of the industry as he can.

Of course, Freeman may have his hands full with the week’s other big deadline. On Tuesday, his standstill agreement expires with Tribune. While Alden and Tribune have managed to keep their plans very close to the vest, the wide expectation is that Tribune and MNG will move toward formal merger soon — perhaps very soon.

That combination would create a cash-driven newspaper company reaching more than 15 percent of U.S. newspaper readers.

Follow-on civic buyers?

That’s just this week’s potential action. How about Act II?

Whoever buys McClatchy whole may move to either merge it with another player (see The Roller-Uppers above) or sell off some of all of its pieces — whatever’s the best way to maximize its investment. One data point: Apollo’s and Chatham’s leaders have a good working relationship, say sources.

Here we could also see the emergence of more civic buyers. The mayors of both Miami (home of McClatchy’s Herald) and Sacramento (home of McClatchy’s flagship Bee) have publicly raised calls to support community-oriented buyers. We’ve heard such civic calls for several years, in many cities — but the question comes down to, as most do, funding.

There the intrigue is beginning to mount. If McClatchy’s West Coast properties come loose, sources say, philanthropic sources could be tapped for about $20 million within a year, in California (where McClatchy has five titles) and in the state of Washington, where it owns four). There’s also at least one other civically oriented private buyer waiting in the wings if individual properties come into the marketplace.
https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/06/ne...spaper-chains/





Minecraft is Now Home to a Virtual Library of Censored Journalism

Using Minecraft as the platform means even users from countries with strict censorship should be able to access the contents.
Tom Maxwell

Free press advocates have created a virtual library in Minecraft that bypasses censorship in oppressive countries to house censored journals and articles. The virtual space was created as a collaboration between the freedom-of-the-press organization, Reporters Without Borders, and a Minecraft design company, BlockWorks. Because Minecraft isn't blocked in many places — at least, not yet — it's an ingenious way to ensure access even for those living under repressive regimes.

The Uncensored Library, as it's called, houses information on all 180 countries in the press freedom index, as well as exhibition halls on countries notorious for their press censorship, like Russia and Vietnam. BlockWorks says that journalists across five countries who've seen their works banned were able to republish their articles in the exhibition halls for their respective countries, giving them a chance to inform the world about the situation on the ground.

There are also areas in the exhibition halls honoring journalists who have been silenced, including Nguyen Van Dai, Yulia Beerezovskaia, and Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist who was brutally murdered, allegedly at the behest of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince, Mohammad Bin Salman.

The library has been placed on a virtual island and is surrounded by topiary ferns and lush gardens befitting such an important landmark with so grave a task. Fittingly, it's designed in the Neoclassical style, consists of 12.5 million blocks arranged by 24 builders from 16 countries, and currently houses more than 200 books. That makes it as cosmopolitan as its ambitions. It's like a Library of Alexandria for the 21st century, except less likely to accidentally go up in flames.

Hard to block by design – The Uncensored Library is fundamentally about access. So it's structured in a way that makes it hard for governments to (ahem) block. The contents of the space aren't indexed online, so they cannot be easily filtered out of local search results, for instance. Though, once a regime gets word of this project, they can — and likely, will — block the servers it's hosted on.

Users can always get access via virtual private networks (VPNs), however, or can download the map and explore the library offline. Users who've downloaded the map can also spread it online. And even if Minecraft is banned, it can always be pirated from a torrent site. Because almost nothing good on the internet ever really dies as long as there's still someone out there willing to host and share it.
https://www.inputmag.com/culture/min...ithout-borders





Privacy Isn’t a Right You Can Click Away

Senator Sherrod Brown wants to drastically scale back the permitted uses of your personal data—and ban facial recognition outright.

Be honest—have you ever read a privacy disclosure? Even once?

Facebook’s data privacy policy is more than 4,000 words. It contains dozens of links to hundreds of pages of complex terms and agreements. Even if you had the time to read it, you’d need a law degree and a data science background to understand which rights you’re signing away and what frightening experiments Facebook is cooking up with your private life as raw material.

Sherrod Brown is Ohio’s senior US senator and ranking member of the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

And even if you do have handfuls of advanced degrees and a superhuman ability to read the hundreds of privacy policies you agree to every year, clicking No isn’t a realistic option when you depend on the service. So most of us click Yes and agree to sign away our information, because our credit cards, mortgages, car loans, bank accounts, health apps, smart phones, and email accounts all require us to. It’s simply the price of admission.

Privacy is a civil right. But corporations force you to sign it away every day.

There’s a reason these privacy and data agreements are impossible to understand and to avoid: They were never meant to protect you—they are meant to protect Big Tech.

We don’t expect citizens to be aeronautical engineers, making sure they understand all the risks of flying, and then sign a form giving away their right to sue if the plane goes down. In the same way, we can’t expect everyone to be a privacy expert just so they can protect their families from corporations that want to exploit their data.

To reclaim our privacy we need to limit the amount of personal information that’s out there.

That’s why I wrote a bill that takes the burden off of consumers and puts it where it should be: on Big Tech. My plan separates innovative and helpful uses of data from the abusive and invasive practices that have become commonplace. It creates an agency to monitor companies that collect data and gives everyday Americans powerful legal tools to hold those companies accountable. It also bans facial recognition, an immature and dangerous technology, outright.

My bill would drastically scale back the permitted uses of your personal data, banning companies from collecting any data that isn’t strictly necessary to provide you with the service you asked for. For example, signing up for a credit card online won’t give the bank the right to use your data for anything else—not marketing, and certainly not to use that data to sign you up for five more accounts you didn’t ask for (we’re looking at you, Wells Fargo).

It’s not only the specific companies you sign away your data to that profit off it—they sell it to other companies you’ve never heard of, without your knowledge. And all of that data flowing through online stores and social media sites can be harvested by the government too. There’s no check box to opt out of that. When you sign away your privacy rights to a corporation, you’ve basically given the government permission to sift through your secrets as well.

Recently, a company called Clearview AI scoured the internet to train facial-recognition technology that it sold to law enforcement around the country. Facial recognition is reportedly being used by police in Minneapolis and other places, to target Black Lives Matter protesters exercising their First Amendment rights. And this dangerous and powerful technology was responsible for the wrongful arrest of a man in Michigan. Do you know anyone who consented to that?

This plan would put a stop to Big Tech mining your data and selling it to abusive corporations or the government. The right to privacy or the right to peacefully protest isn’t something we should lose by clicking "I agree." Under my plan, you could rest easy knowing that regardless of the 4,000-word privacy policy shoved in your face, it’s illegal for your data to be bought and sold, or sent to law enforcement.

You might hear arguments from tech companies that my proposal would stifle innovation and interrupt their business model. My answer to that is, yes, if your business model is built on exploiting people, we want to stop it. Silicon Valley should respond by doing what it has always done best: innovating. The reason Big Tech hasn’t come up with a business model that doesn’t rely on spying on people isn’t because they can’t, it’s because they haven’t tried. Americans have been getting free media in exchange for listening to or reading advertisements for decades, and it never required an invasion of privacy.

I am confident that if we raise the bar, smart engineers and others will meet it. They have before.

I will never forget the year the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, where I live, caught fire. It was 1969, and at the time, there were almost no environmental standards—cities were covered in smog, and waterways were so polluted they burned. After that fire made national headlines, Americans began to wake up, and in 1970 Congress passed the Clean Air Act. Shortly after that, the Environmental Protection Agency set a bold goal: drastically reduce vehicle emissions.

Auto manufacturers went berserk. It was impossible, they said. Automobile assembly lines would have to be shut down. The few cars that could be manufactured to meet the tough new standards would be too expensive for most American families.

It never fails to amaze me how corporate executives underestimate American ingenuity and American workers.

Just a few years later, the industry invented and mass-produced the catalytic converter that we all have on our cars today, reducing smog and other air pollution, like lead, across the country. American industries were innovative enough in the ’70s to tackle big social problems, and I think they’re just as innovative today. But just like 50 years ago, we need to challenge them if we want results.
https://www.wired.com/story/privacy-...an-click-away/





California Police Are Using Copyright to Hide Surveillance Documents

California police are refusing to release documents about the surveillance technology it uses, despite a new law that requires their release.
Edward Ongweso Jr

California police are refusing to release documents about the surveillance technology it uses, despite a new law that requires their release. On January 1, SB 978 went into effect, which requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (PO

California police are refusing to release documents about the surveillance technology it uses, despite a new law that requires their release.

On January 1, SB 978 went into effect, which requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to "conspicuously" publish all law enforcement agency training materials. The agency has said that it will not comply on copyright grounds.
Any attempt to download training materials concerning facial recognition technology or automated license plate readers (ALPRs), as well as materials relating to courses on the use of force, lead to a Word document that reads "The course presented has claimed copyright for the expanded course online."

This is not the first time California has blocked access to records made public by transparency laws. When SB 241—a landmark transparency law that made decades of police internal affairs public—went into effect last year, law enforcement organizations responded by ignoring court orders to hand over documents, charging high fees to access them, and in some cases burning or shredding them. Police unions have been especially vocal in the fight against transparency,

On Thursday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation sent a letter to the POST outlining why this copyright claim was unlawful and unacceptable, pointing out that the California Public Records Act (CPRA) allows copyrighted material to be made available to the public.

“The public has the right to know how peace officers are trained—and for good reason. Officers’ use of force causes bodily harm and, in some cases, death,” the letter reads. “ALPR and facial recognition technology amass vast amounts of data about California residents. Both technologies have triggered legislative action on the state and local level, and it is important for the public to examine whether the training reflects new and evolving law.”

In 2020, an auditor raised several concerns about the use of ALPRs by multiple agencies that included "fundamental problems with police ALPR policies, failure to conduct audits, and the risk of ALPR data being abused to surveil political rallies or target immigrant populations." Facial recognition technology has been widely condemned by experts as racist, so much so that employees at major technology companies like Google are demanding their employer no longer sell the technology to police departments.

The growing push to combine policing with technology has only led to a flood of negative outcomes, namely more police bias and more overreach resulting in more, not less, police violence. Laws like SB 978 and SB 241 are important laws that will make it easier to rein in the police, but still they suffer the fate of every other policing reform over the past one hundred years. The organized (and effective) resistance to these transparency reforms by law enforcement agencies is just another reminder that defunding and abolishing the police, not reforming them, is how we’ll eliminate the violence and corruption they perpetuate—and visit upon the rest of society.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5...ance-documents





California Begins Enforcing Digital Privacy Law, Despite Calls for Delay

Measure took effect in January, with a six-month grace period
Rachel Lerman

California’s privacy law, often called the broadest law for digital privacy in the United States, can finally be enforced starting Wednesday. And despite industry calls for the state to hold off because of the novel coronavirus pandemic, Attorney General Xavier Becerra is forging ahead.

“For sure we will start enforcing on July 1,” Becerra said in an interview.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 after a winding and sometimes surprising route through a voter ballot process, the state legislature and a contentious amendment period culminating in a final version last fall. It gives consumers in the state — and many outside California — broad ability to be able to request that companies tell them what personal data they hold on each person and to ask companies to stop selling their personal data to third-party advertisers or others. The law gave companies six months after it took effect before enforcement began, though Becerra noted that companies had to begin complying in January.

But that all hinges on people actually using the law, which puts the onus on consumers to initiate the process with companies. Becerra said his office has received some complaints about how companies are responding. He urged people to make it a habit to read the required disclosures on companies’ homepages every time they visit a new website.

Don’t sell my data! We finally have a law for that

Starting Wednesday, Becerra’s office is able to start sending businesses warnings that they might be in violation of the law and give them 30 days to fix the issues before facing possible fines or lawsuits.

More than two dozen trade associations and business groups asked the state in March to delay enforcement because of business disruptions caused by the pandemic. The letter, which was signed by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, the Internet Coalition and the California U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pointed out that the state-issued regulations for the law haven’t been finalized.

Becerra acknowledged the requests but noted that the law went into effect six months ago.

So far, under California’s new privacy law, firms are disclosing too little data — or far too much

“It’d be very awkward to continue another six months as some companies were requesting where people would have rights, companies would have obligations, but no one would be there to make sure those rights are being complied with,” he said.

Becerra declined to say whether the state will start issuing warning notices on Wednesday or which companies those might go to. The privacy law, known as CCPA, will probably receive another round of scrutiny later this year. During the November election, voters will consider a ballot measure from the same creator of CCPA, designed to follow up on the existing law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...nt-california/


































Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

June 27th, June 20th, June 13th, June 6th

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."
- Hugo Black
__________________
Thanks For Sharing
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 30th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 27-07-11 06:58 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 16th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-07-11 06:43 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 9th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 06-07-11 05:36 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 30th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 27-01-10 07:49 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 5th, '09 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 02-12-09 08:32 AM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)