>I am not sure what is different, either new viruses, or american cows are different, or certain people did not develop immunity to certain bacteria in their childhood.
It's H5N1 Avian Influenza[0], which has been linked to[1]:
Globally, as of March 28, there have been 888 cases of H5N1 reported in
humans in 23 countries. Of those 888 cases, 463 were fatal. That represents a
52 percent fatality rate;
I imagine that live H5N1 virus will make raw milk extra tasty and, assuming you're not one of the 52% who will die from contracting the virus, Bob's your uncle, eh?
I imagine that live H5N1 virus will make raw milk extra tasty and, assuming you're not one of the 52% who will die from contracting the virus, Bob's your uncle, eh?
Come to the US and drink all the raw milk you like. Note that we don't have universal health care here, so bring lots of cash.
>Yeah that's what I was thinking of when paying at the supermarket. Try explaining contactless payments to someone from 18th century.
I don't think folks, at least not the well-off, would have a hard time understanding any of the varied payment methods we use today, since they'd been doing conceptually similar stuff[0] for centuries by the mid-eighteenth century.
I imagine that live H5N1 virus will make raw milk extra tasty and, assuming you're not one of the 52% who will die from contracting the virus, Bob's your uncle, eh?
Come to the US and drink all the raw milk you like. Note that we don't have universal health care here, so bring lots of cash.
>Sounds good! I might go even further and just use a custom address for each service, i.e. paypal@example.com or something.
Which is exactly what I do. As soon as I see spam sent to any particular email address, I know who it is that leaked the address and I can block it without issue.
>But self-hosting email is an adventure I'm nervous to embark on.
Why are you nervous about it? I've been doing so for decades and haven't had many issues at all. There are a bunch of all-in-one solutions like mailinabox[0] (I roll my own, but as I said, I've been doing this for decades) and others which would likely make things simpler for you. Go for it! You won't be disappointed.
>> Except that I have more choices for power providers than I do for internet
>I've lived in over 15 different places in the US, and I have never, ever had more than 1 option for power provider.
In NYC, Con Edison[0] delivers power to customers. It also generates power, but other power generation companies share their delivery infrastructure in NYC.
As such, there are at least half a dozen folks I can buy my power from. But all of it is delivered by Con Edison -- which, by the way, charges more for delivery than it does for the power itself.
This may well be different from other places in the US/world, but that's how it is here.
N.B.: I too, have only two choices (spectrum and RCN) for broadband where I live, but (as I mentioned) at least half a dozen power providers.
In SF I have two power generation options and one delivery option. It’s stupid because one of the generation options is both cheaper and greener (I don’t know of any reason to prefer the other), and delivery is literally 3x the generation cost so it doesn’t matter much either way.
A combination of some napkin math and 2020 Census data suggests that ~35% of the US population lives in a state that the above article declares to be "fully deregulated".
In bay area I can choose between PG&E and Silicon Valley Clean Energy for power. PG&E even handles the billing for SVCE.
In Finland there was local monopoly for delivery and power could be bought from numerous companies. I just checked offers for my old place and I could choose between 250 different products, some from same companies (e.g. fixed term/permanent, guaranteed wind power, market rate). In there you would get separate bill from your power company rather than it being handled by the local delivery company.
US Law often requires power generators to operate separately from distributors. Even when it's the same company, they have to operate as two separate businesses, and it's illegal for them to even mention certain information to each other as it's considered anti-competitive. The purpose is to allow the market to provide competition. This is not specific to NYC.
>But you can't just look at final price with a lower price being good. If some municipal service costs half the price but it costs taxpayers the other half, is that better?
Where, exactly, is that happening?
As I understand it, the vast majority of taxpayer monies for broadband doesn't go to municipally owned networks, but rather to private ISPs. And that's been the case for decades.
And those monies are given with a pinky-swear that this time, we'll actually spend the money on expanding broadband to under-served areas, with a similar likelihood that will happen as the last four or five times taxpayer monies were given to those folks.
Meanwhile, actual municipal broadband[0][1] pays for itself by charging multiple ISPs to access their last mile -- paying for the infrastructure and introducing (often for the first time) competition into the market.
What's more, nearly a third of states have laws[2] blocking/hindering municipal broadband. Most of which are related to model legislation promulgated by groups like ALEC[3]. Many of the artificial roadblocks put up by such laws make municipal broadband (both implicitly and explicitly[4]) more expensive than private broadband
>Talk to me when they pass Medicare For All, the Green New Deal, campaign finance reform, and a border/immigration bill that finally puts that issue to rest. Until then, it's just another round of avoiding addressing the issues that are easiest to run on if they haven't been fixed in a prior term.
You do realize that half (and maybe a little more than that) of the elected folks in Congress do not support such things. That those folks represent less than half of the electorate is a different discussion -- but until you have clear majorities that support those initiatives (I and those I voted for certainly do), clamoring for everything all at once is a waste of time.
The idea that "I'm not getting everything I want right now means that government is irreparably broken," is ridiculous on its face.
That's not to say we shouldn't have better governance and more focus on making the world a better place rather than maintaining power. We definitely should. But asserting that unless all our elected representatives support our own beliefs/policy ideas and pass them post-haste is both unhelpful and not very realistic.
>The idea that "I'm not getting everything I want right now means that government is irreparably broken," is ridiculous on its face.
It's weird that you would put those words in my mouth when the actual reason for the dysfunction
>That those folks represent less than half of the electorate
is readily apparent to you.
The point is that Congress is terminally dysfunctional. Avoiding shutdowns and passing grift doesn't change that. I don't want to hear all the reasons why things can't be done (perhaps the most unhelpful thing to do). I just want them done. And I have every right to be pissed abot the state of things until that happens.
Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave.
>Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave.
No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document.
Or are you unable to read past the first line of the first page?
Regarding the last line of your post, you may want to spend some time reading the HN commenting guidelines[0] and edit if you feel it's the right thing to do.
I did read a very thorough sample of the document. When I'm trying to find an actual "order" / "rule" / whatever, I'd be drawn to something like
> V. "REPORT AND ORDER: OPEN INTERNET RULES"
on page 264 and figure that might be the order. But all throughout that section it constantly has paragraphs that just contain language that obviously isn't an order / ruling / regulation, like on page 265:
> The Internet serves as a cornerstone for free expression, fostering a diverse and inclusive digital space where individuals can share ideas, opinions, and information without undue influence or interference. It promotes the exchange of diverse perspectives, ultimately enriching society by exposing individuals to a wide range of thoughts and experiences. As the Supreme Court noted in 1997, the Internet enables any person to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”
That's not a rule, that's just talking about stuff in general. When I read the FTC document about non-compete, it has hundred of pages like this, but then at the end of the document it has a clear section of legalese that contains the actual technical content of the rule. This document from the FCC does not have any section like that -- every section is mostly non-binding descriptive language, and I'm having trouble figuring out what, precisely, this ruling / order enacts, because this document spends most of its time justifying the action rather than actually enacting.
FWIW, virtually the whole document is "the Order" (in draft form--the final order has not been released yet). The FCC is a little unusual in that it regards the entirety of their written orders as legally binding (the normative parts, at least).
> When I read the FTC document about non-compete, it has hundred of pages like this, but then at the end of the document it has a clear section of legalese that contains the actual technical content of the rule.
You're probably looking for the "Final Rules" text. That's in Appendix A which starts on page 397. Again, though, the FCC would take the position that the whole final order is binding (once it's released and published in the federal register)--not just those formal rules. Yes, this does make it very challenging to understand the FCC's rules!
> No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document.
You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well.
Only the last two pages before the appendix is "the rule-making document", and the 4 pages of appendix A - just six pages in total. The rest is a dialogue on why the rules are needed and provide context to understand the intent of the rules. The rule starts at "X. ORDERING CLAUSES" on page 394 and is less than 2 pages long in total. It will also be necessary to fill in references made to "Appendix A" which is an additional 4 pages (397-401).
It's not surprising to me that both you and the other poster couldn't figure this out -- it's very easy to miss a section so small when it's titled similarly to sections like "IV. ORDER: FORBEARANCE FOR BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES" which are mostly discussion. That contains language like:
> Petitioners ask that the Commission reverse, vacate, or withdraw the RIF Remand Order, and request that the Commission initiate a new rulemaking to reclassify BIAS as a Title II service and reinstate the open Internet conduct rules. Collectively, petitioners make several procedural arguments for why the Commission should reconsider the RIF Remand Order. Common Cause et al. and Public Knowledge each assert that procedural deficiencies in the process the Commission used to adopt the RIF Remand Order are cause for reconsideration. Common Cause et al. argue that because the Commission failed to open the record to receive comment on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it failed to adequately consider harms of reclassifying BIAS as a Title I service on public safety, pole attachments, and the Lifeline program.
Which is clearly not an order - it is a discussion with a goal towards justifying parts of the order.
There are also only 434 pages. Not anywhere close to "693". It would be very rude of me to point out that you might be "unable to read past the table of contents". To the contrary, I understand that it's easy to misinterpret the indexing of the table of contents as pages rather than sections, and I have empathy for someone making that mistake, even if it does demonstrate that someone probably hasn't tried to use the table of contents to actually read the document.
>You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well.
Yep. That's me. I smell bad and like jazz too.
The order is reclassifying ISPs (or as named in the document, Broadband Internet Access Services -- BIAS) under Title II of the FCC Act of 1934 (as amended repeatedly over the past 90 years). I believe the below is the pointy end of the stick and the first sentence (set apart for specific folks -- see below) is, in fact, the order.
Since I'm already rude, obnoxious and wrong, I'll wonder aloud at folks' reading comprehension skills as well.
Part III (section 25) states:
We reinstate the telecommunications service
classification of BIAS under Title II of the
Act.
Reclassification will enhance the Commission’s
ability to ensure Internet openness, defend national
security, promote cybersecurity, safeguard public safety,
monitor network resiliency and reliability,
protect consumer privacy and data security, support
consumer access to BIAS, and improve disability
access. We find that classification of BIAS as a
telecommunications service represents the best reading
of the text of the Act in light of how the service is
offered and perceived today, as well as the factual and
technical realities of how BIAS functions. Classifying
BIAS as a telecommunications service also accords with
Commission and court precedent and is fully and
sufficiently justified under the Commission’s
longstanding authority and responsibility to classify
services subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, as
necessary. We also ensure that consumers receive the same
protections when using fixed and mobile BIAS by
reclassifying mobile BIAS as a commercial mobile service.
Yes that section tells the audience what their new rules are doing, why they are doing it, and justification for how they’re allowed to do it. From your own quote choice:
> Classifying BIAS as a telecommunications service also accords with Commission and court precedent and is fully and sufficiently justified under the Commission’s longstanding authority and responsibility to classify services subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, as necessary.
This is clearly discussion about the rules in the section X and Appendix A. It’s clearly not an actual rule itself.
The actual rule relevant to your quote is the new Section 8.3 that they are adding to Part 20 of Title 47.
The new part 20 is given on page 398 of the document that you linked. This new section 8.3 is the actual action they take to specifically classify BIAS as a Title II telecommunications service.
> the first sentence is, in fact, the order.
No, it's a more-easily accessible description of the order in something approaching plain English. The new Section 8.3 in Appendix A is the "pointy end of the stick" of the Title II order, to use your terminology. The rest of the document is describing these changes (section X and Appendix A) in more plain English.
The actual order for what you quoted is on page 394:
> 693. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 201, 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 230, 251, 254, 256, 257, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332, 403, 501, 503, and 602 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 152, 153, 154(i)-(j), 160, 163, 201, 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 230, 251, 254, 256, 257, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332, 403, 501, 503, 522, and 1302, that this Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration IS ADOPTED and that Parts 8 and 20 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR Parts 8, 20, ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A.
Specifically, the last little part:
> that Parts 8 and 20 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR Parts 8, 20, ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A.
That is the new rule. It is an actual change to Title 47. The rule is not what you quoted. What you quoted is not part of of any CFR. What you quoted is not federal code. Only Section X and Appendix A make actual changes to the "Code of Federal Regulations".
This is a reasonable supposition, but it's not true. The FCC can and has created a whole raft of specific rules that implement the m much broader Title II requirements as they apply to ISPs, including decisions not to impose certain Title II requirements (which is a power that the statute itself gives them).
If, say, you were an ISP, reading Title I and Title II would tell you very little about what you have to do to comply with the FCC's rules. You would have to read the actual FCC rules and the order to actually understand your legal obligations.
(Maybe you have in mind a quibble about what "rules" are. By "rules" I mean the U.S. government publications that tell you what you have to do in order to not be fined or punished in some other way by the U.S. government, and specifically the FCC.)
> The change being that ISPs are now regulated under Title II rather than Title I.
That is a description of the change. The changes made to Title 47 are how ISP's are actually being regulated under Title II. A translation of what they are saying in the changes to section 8.3 is:
"Because Title II gives us the authority to do so, we choose to regulate them using that authority from Title II by making these specific changes to Title 47."
Again, what you quoted is not part of any CFR. What you quoted is not federal code.
What I quoted is an actual change to federal code which is what actually regulates ISP's "under" the authority given by title II. The actual federal code being changed is: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B... which has a note that "Title 47 was last amended 4/22/2024." but does not yet show the changes. The most recent version currently available is from changes enacted 12/06/2023. Within the next week or so it will show the changes made by Section X and Appendix A to CFR Title 47 "under" the authority granted by CFR Title II.
That is what it actually means "that ISPs are now regulated under Title II" (as you wrote). Saying "ISPs are now regulated under Title II" is just saying it. Changing Title 47 is actually doing it.
I'm not experiencing that.
AFAICT, these two links[0][1] are identical.
Perhaps there's a geo-block wherever you might be?
[0] https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/05/15/1092535/a-wave-o...
[1] https://archive.ph/chDs9
reply