 Uh, no, I'm, I'm, I'm excited. I am too. We're going to talk all the hits. We've got social. We've got encryption. We've got Bitcoin and we've got that neutrality. This is like, this is an hour of controversy. They're all perfectly uncontroversial topics. No one will disagree about everyone's saving their powder, I can tell. If you're, if you're out, you're most interesting before the show starts. It's such a Latin for the, for the listeners. Yeah. And then by the end, you're tired of being interesting. You're like, yeah. That'll problem. I just can't do it anymore. It's been an hour. It's a finite thing. Being interesting. Yeah. Interesting is neither created nor destroyed. There's only so much of it in the world and you tap into it when you can. Yeah. Use too much of it. Got to be boring to recharge the interesting. It's a fallacy, a fixed amount of interesting. Out of pure curiosity, because that's what's on my mind at the moment. Has anyone on here much experience with Freenaz? Freenaz? Not in a while. Because that's what's waiting for me when I'm full around it. Yeah, it's pretty cool. The thing I never really, and it wasn't Freenaz is the fact that you, unless you use a laptop or some other machine that kind of has like built in power management. I mean, if you don't mind just running a, like an old PC and it kind of can be a power hog. Well, and I mean, you got to throw some CPU at that, right? I mean, if you're really, depending on what you want to do. Yeah. If you just want like storage, it's not too much. But if you want to do all the other fancy stuff. Well, I'm hoping a Plex server is where I'm hoping it'll go. I'm actually reviewing a Drobo to see how well that does with it. So let me call. I want to get a QNAS. I need a rate. I just need to. I did a video on Freenaz with Patrick Norton in 2005 for CNET. I stable that experience was on version 11. Yeah, it's been around. It's been around. And it's it's super easy to set up. Like unless you're it literally, if you if you download the ISO and you put it up, you just do all the yes, no, yes, no. And then the drives. Well, right now I have a tower with 10 empty drive bays and a USB stick with the ISO burnt onto it. So I'm hoping by the time I go to bed, I'll have a file server. You should just protect that data. Protect it. Love it. Well, thankfully, it is protected because I had a perfectly working file server running. I think it was sent us or something. And it one of the disks with the OS and it fried. It's like, OK, fine. This is an excuse to rebuild it. But luckily, I have a second one, which has all the data on it too. So. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are ready to roll. Sarah, are you prepared? I am. OK, here we go. Three, two. Daily Tech News Show is powered by you to find out more. Head to dailytechnewshow.com slash support. This is the Daily Tech News Show roundtable for November, Thursday, November 30th, 2017, to be specific from DTNS headquarters in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt. And from Studio Feline, I'm Sarah Lung. And I'm Justin Robert Young from Oakland, California. And from Quaint, Hudson, Ohio, I'm Rich Strafilino. We went Hudson today. I like that. Joining us as well is Bart Buschatz, host and producer of Let's Talk Apple and Let's Talk Photography. And you are in deepest Ireland. Is that correct? I am. And judging by the by my lighting here in darkest Ireland, too. Sorry about that. It's a little later there than it is here. That's totally fine. We are going to talk today about encryption, about Bitcoin, about social media and its future and about net neutrality, because the advisors voted on it. This is our second roundtable show. Now, for those who might not be familiar once a month, we expand the regular show into this full fledged roundtable discussion. And instead of the half hour of Sarah, me and a co-contributor covering the headlines that day, we do a full hour of meaty discussion with Sarah, myself and our other contributors and guests. And while all of our topics cover news of the day, we're going to start right now with a quick look at the top stories. Stores is tell CNBC that Amazon plans to announce an Alexa. Roger, your platform would include new marketplace specifically for the business. Roger, your audio from that web page is playing across Sarah. And I can't hear. Oh, apologies. Apologies. But by the way, the last Jedi is in theaters. Yeah, not sponsored by the last Jedi. Let's just start over, Sarah. All right. Stores is tell CNBC that Amazon plans to announce an Alexa for business platform along with partners who have created business oriented skills for the platform. The new platform will include a new marketplace specifically for new business skills. Ericsson estimates 20 percent of the world will have 5G wireless connections by 2023. South Korea, Japan, China, the U.S. are likely to be the first countries to get 5G deployments. About half of that service is going to end up in Asia. South Korea plans to have some 5G service available for the Winter Olympics coming this February and Verizon announced Wednesday. It plans to have its first service available in Sacramento, California by the end of 2018. Oh, just north. Microsoft has made its version of the edge browser for Android and iOS. Among the features are continuing on the PC, which lets you visit a side in the PC that you're looking at on your mobile edge browser. The U.S. FDA approved the first medical accessory for the Apple Watch. A live course, Cardia Band uses the watch's heart rate sensor and then a special watch band with an additional sensor to provide EKG readings uses a neural network to determine a person's normal heart rate can detect things like abnormal heart rhythm, atrial fibrillation and then sends that information to a doctor. The Cardia Band is one hundred ninety nine dollars and is free to use with the option to pay ninety nine dollars a year for things like cloud storage of history, excuse me, and custom monthly reports. Stanford University also launched an Apple Heart Study app in the U.S. to detect irregularities using the watch's existing technology. Google launched an app called Data. For Android, the tracks data usage by app on a device and can even turn the data on and off per app. Data. Also scans for public Wi-Fi and lets users rate the Wi-Fi access point for other data users in a test in the Philippines over the last several months. Google says users saved about 30 percent of mobile data. Google is experimenting with adding a feature that would give users the opportunity to get data awards for certain activities. The Wall Street Journal reported its sources say Wednesday that Alphabet is considering rolling Nest Labs into Google's hardware division. Reuters reported in June that Alphabet was considering selling Nest, which has been a problem child for them since their acquisition. And that's the top stories. Sarah, let's start off our discussions again. If you don't remember from last time, 15 minutes per discussion tops and Roger will be playing us some nice soft music at the 15 minute mark to let us know when we get there. Yeah, Justin, let's start with your pick, which is the Snapchat redesign, which is really more than just a redesign. At least if you read the op-ed that Evan Spiegel posted in Axios yesterday. Yeah. So Snapchat is kind of at a crossroads by external indicators. They are slowing their growth. They're not receding, but it's not showing the explosive kind of trajectory that it had before. And so with the redesign famously kind of hard to use the UI for Snapchat. Now it's going to be at least a little bit more new user friendly, aka old people friendly. Evan Spiegel took the next step at the through Axios, and I think it was at the Business Insider Conference to say this is a fundamental difference in separating social from media that even drawing direct correlations to Facebook and saying, hey, look, Facebook, the fake news problem that is now drawing attention from the federal government and might have affected the election of 2016 is a systemic problem of us mixing likes and shares with news. And what Snapchat wants to do is separate the social, a.k.a. I want to talk to my friends and family and be connected with the media, which, you know, in this evolving era can maybe become to either social friendly and dilute the content or be out and out susceptible to fraud because that will get the red hot likes and shares. So my question is to everybody, is there a difference between social and media? Or is this just Evan Spiegel trying to give a very important redesign for his company, a news hook and a purpose? I mean, without testing the new design, which doesn't start rolling out to people until Friday, it's hard for me to comment on how different it's going to be. And I mean, part of me is like, it's Snapchat. Like we're putting dog filters on ourselves. Like, let's all take it down a notch. But I respect the fact that there's more to it, at least, you know, the company's rhetoric kind of reminds me a little bit of what PATH said back in the day, where it was like, you know, there's something weird about, you know, that arena sense of being in social media, amassing followers, talking to everybody. And it changes our behavior. So I feel like they, you know, for lack of better words, have their heart in the right place. I just I don't I don't know if I see Snapchat is like some intimate friend thing. It's more of like a silly thing. Yeah, I know it can be used a lot of different ways, but I think most people don't really use it as like the, you know, mode of communication with their loved ones. And that's kind of the spin that I'm getting from them. Teens do. Teens use it like to check in with all their friends and make sure their friends have checked in with them. Yeah, that's true. That's true. I just I think I think, you know, Evan Spiegel is making great points when he's saying, you know, social media changes our behavior and that's sometimes dangerous, you know, and points to a lot of examples of that. I just don't know how separating things with a swipe changes Snapchat all that much. Isn't this kind of a weird distinction to be made from a camera company after all? Right. That's what it says. Yeah, you know, to me, this this seems kind of a very cynical move to me. I mean, obviously, they need to do something to disrupt. I'm going to borrow a Justin Robert Young phrase, change their narrative within the popular landscape messaging, super hot, you know, social networks kind of the competing in the social network space means you're obviously going to be always constantly compared to Facebook. And while there are giant, huge incumbents in the messaging space as well, I think that seems a less insurmountable you know, vertical to kind of combat what they already have some success there. I mean, my problem is I feel like that does really well to play to their their current audience, the younger audience, the people that are already comfortable using, you know, a mass messaging app that they check in with their friends, like you were saying, maybe put some silly filters on there. I don't see how this does anything, though, to stem the loss of or the slowing of growth. And it certainly it basically it almost seems to me like a concession to the tide of Instagram stories that that's your social network. And, you know, it seems like everyone's really comfortable making that, you know, using that as a social network. Well, let me let me broaden it out beyond Snapchat a little bit. Is there a difference between social and media? As we are all kind of evolving on these platforms, will we see these things diverge again? Because there's no reason why there they have to necessarily be in the same place. It just was the way that we all connected initially. Like we've seen that the trend has been don't make a new live trivia thing on Facebook, make a new live trivia thing as its own app that is separate in its own ecosystem. Are we going to see more of that driven by the idea that, yeah, you want to know one just because my uncle and his three friends like it doesn't mean that it needs to be what would theoretically be the top story in the newspaper of my life. I think he may have hit upon a natural division in social media that is only becoming apparent now that social media is so pervasive in the early days of Twitter. You just talked to whoever was there and it was mostly people you knew. And then as Twitter got bigger and bigger and bigger, it became brands. It became randos. It became eggs. It became all kinds of things. And I have often thought I wish there was a better way besides lists and blocking and stuff to have a Twitter for just like 2007 era Twitter, where I talked to the people I really want to talk to. And then there was a broadcast Twitter where I could say, hey, this one's open for the rest of the world to have a conversation. So, oh, G Twitter only noobs go home. I think it was no, it's more like the way I use Facebook has been to say, I'm only really friends with people I know. And sometimes I even wish I was only friends with close relatives and friends because there's occasionally times I'd like to talk about something and I'm like, yeah, but I don't want to talk to everybody about that. And there really isn't a space that's nicely defined for you to do that. Yeah, I guess this comes down to needing to see what exactly the redesign is going to do to see if Snapchat can kind of meet that need. I mean, obviously the other big barrier then is like if I tell my mom to sign up for Snapchat, I mean, there are more impossible things I could ask her to do, but not many. So, again, to me, it's about the question of whether you can separate social and media. It's tough for me to argue against convergence after a certain point. And I just don't think Snapchat is certainly nothing. I don't think their position to be the company to do that. Snapchat also, I mean, the way that they talk about the service is as if this is a very intimate experience. I mean, when I send a snap, anybody who's following me can see it because I kind of use it like Twitter. So, if I was sending Tom or Justin or any of you like very curated things that weren't for everybody, that would be one thing. But I just don't think a lot of people use it that way. Well, old people don't. Young people do. Like, that's the thing. And I'm old. I mean, like, when I say old, I mean over 16, like, because- You are not. Kid, tell me another one. I know. I know. I know. These luscious locks. Certainly, my gray streaks in my hair is all the rage for homecoming. But listen, it is the reason why I think they've seen their growth slow. Because for me, if we're going to get back to Snapchat as a specific platform, they miss the moment for them to pivot from we are the fun, edgy, dangerous app that might be for sexting, but also is for messaging, but also is where all the cool celebrities are to, hey, no, we're a part of your life that you want to keep on your phone even after you stop talking to your high school friends. And that is what I think they're trying to do now is grow up in a hurry. They're taking out those big spacers out of their ears and trying to buy long sleeve shirts to cover up the tattoos because it's time to go apply for jobs. This, to me, Evan Spiegel writing an op-ed in a place like Axios, which is read by a certain class of people, it is dad media. That is him saying, hey, look, Snapchat is here for the old people. And we're even going to talk about the 2016 election. Kids don't want to talk about that, but their parents sure as hell do. That hurts because I think of Axios as kind of a young up and coming up. I think is what Justin was saying. Yeah, no, and that's a point well taken. Bart, I'm curious what your take is on all this. Do you even dabble at any of this? Well, I see I'm a bit of a curmudgeon. I guess I must be really old because I don't do Facebook and I don't do Snapchat and I don't do WhatsApp. So I feel slightly lost in this conversation, but I will say one thing strikes me. It's been a long time now on the history of the Internet where companies have been striving to intentionally mix the stuff you want with other stuff. And this is the first time I've seen a company intentionally unmix those two things. Swipe left for one, swipe right for the other. And I wish more companies would do that. I would like Twitter to remove all the cruft from my fee that I didn't ask to be put there. I would like Google to take their ads and take them out of my search results and put them separately. So as a concept, I don't think it's a bad idea, whether it'll work or not, whether people like it. I haven't the faintest idea because I don't use these services. But I do like the concept of it being clearer what's what. I think that has to be a good thing, surely. Yeah, I hadn't even thought about the fact that it is a change. It is a watershed moment for social media and the Internet in general to say, you know what you need actually is more separation. What you need is less integration, less of putting everything into everything. I think that might itself be an important growing up moment for the Internet right there. Well, you know, in Evan, Mr. Spiegel, he did say, listen, this is what we're going to do. We're going to act more like Netflix. You know, when Netflix suggests a new movie or TV show for you, it's because of your past history. It's not because of what your friend's like, because it's about you. And I mean, everybody uses Netflix as an example of something that works. But I get that. I get why that is healthier, at least part of the time, if you're going to be on all these apps anyway. My question is, where does this take them in terms of monetization, right? Because I mean, they're still going to be serving ads in between snaps if you're just using the person. So then to me, the differentiation between media and ads are just another form of media. So yeah, you're getting away from maybe... Then you're just taking away from me the choice of media. You're still serving me ads that I don't have control over. And to me, I don't know. Then it just seems like it's just a simple UI chain. It doesn't seem as big of a deal to me. Obviously, it leads to growth. It's something, but... Well, and they also choose the media that's on there, right? I think any media can have an account, but they choose what goes into the special paddock of approved media sources that you're going to swipe for. So unless you're following the media, I guess that would be the other question. Is are they now going to ban you from following brands as their own Snapchat accounts? I don't know. The Snapchat has always been an interesting property because they have been very antiviral in an age when virality is all that matters. When we do a backflip because a kid gets a bunch of chicken nugget retweets, or again, more and more sinisterly, we have hoaxes grow immediately when the natural confusion of a disaster becomes something that algorithmically is at the top of your Google page or Facebook page. Snapchat has kind of always been, hey, look, we want to not let you easily be able to share stuff because we want you to post the stuff there. And again, this is from their more real, racy origins. The initial idea was I want to post drunk videos. And I don't want my... They go away. Don't live on forever on the internet and keep me from getting a job later. Exactly. I mean, that was in their initial business model. So this is something that they now have to figure out. All right. Well, there was obviously something there, and yet people aren't necessarily finding much of a use for it when they aren't getting drunk with their friends that they want to share videos with as much. Or tastes are changing a little bit. How do we adjust to it? And is antivirality an element of it? I think that it could be. Ultimately, I think Sarah nailed it initially, that like whether or not these are good ideas, the idea that Snapchat is the guardian to emplace in this bad is a little silly. Snapchat is going to save humanity. Get us all back to acting like we all did before social media ruined everything. I mean, it's kind of silly. And that's our cue to move on to our next discussion. Bart Buschatz, you have this one. I asked you particularly when we did our episode last week about encryption to listen in, because I know you work with this in your day job quite a lot. And let me know what you thought we did right in our discussion. And what are some interesting points that we may have missed, because it's a vast topic, and in 30 minutes you don't have enough time to cover everything. It sounded like you thought we did a pretty decent job with what we did, but you pointed out some really interesting parts of encryption that we didn't cover, starting with hardware encryption. Yeah, so I mean, you laid out really well why the concept of a global backdoor is just fundamentally flawed in a terrible idea. I think you guys covered that superbly. But the problem is there's niches where the government can make reasonable cases that are technically feasible. All of the non-technical arguments still stand, but the technical arguments are much harder. So two examples that came to mind as we were having our conversation, and the first of those was the hardware encryption on your iPhone. So at the point your iPhone, and I'm assuming it's the same with other platforms, but I just know the iPhone, so let's stick there. At the point that's made in the factory, there is a public-private key pair generated at the point of manufacture, and it is inside the secure enclave on your phone, and it can never come out. And that is mixed into all of the security on your iPhone. That is ultimately what is protecting everything on your iPhone. Now, there is no reason in theory that Apple couldn't be ordered by a court to keep a copy. So one copy gets burned into your iPhone forever, and Apple keep a copy, and they just keep it on file, match to the serial number. And when a judge says, Dear Apple, I order you to hand over the private key for serial number A4234 that Apple have to hand it over to the relevant law enforcement. That is technically entirely feasible. It's not a backdoor for anyone, because Apple still have the keys. The only danger would be that if someone were to hack Apple and get the database of all keys, well, oh, dear God, because there's no way to put a fresh key into these iPhones, right? So you're saying it doesn't suffer the live software-based attacks that we talked about last week. Yeah. And in fact, even though law enforcement prefers that these things be available quickly, having it at all would be quicker than not having it. And they might agree to it having it stored offline, which would be more secure than having it stored online. It's still, to me, though, suffers the same vulnerability of if you lose that key, it's lost. It's not necessarily the same backdoor where it's a universal key for everything, though. I see what you're saying. Yeah. So it's not the same, and it sounds much more reasonable, and you can make a much better technical argument for it. But at the end of the day, you're still left with the really gaping problem. What works for a democratic government works for a totalitarian government. Sure. And no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on, you say a government you like, and I'll say when you do the test. You know? And if Apple does it for one, they're going to end up having to do it for the other. Or leave the country. No, or not sell a single device or service in that country ever again. And Apple can't go around not selling to half the planet through a corporation. That's literally they have a fiduciary duty, not to do that. Yeah. Well, and their sales in Europe, the U.S. and China pretty much float the company. I mean, they do sell iPhones at other parts of the world, and they're working really hard to bring up sales in India next. But those three markets are the markets they have to be in. I mean, look, they removed Skype from the App Store, not because they wanted to or not, because I think that's a good idea, because if they didn't, they'd be out of China. Yeah. In China, they removed it from the App Store. Don't worry if... Oh, yeah, sorry. Or don't celebrate. If you... Yeah. Either way, no matter what you think. Yeah, 50-50 on that one. So, okay, so I think there that's a theoretical issue that we're probably not going to see a company like Apple do. And I haven't heard anyone pressuring for that particular solution yet. It's been this broader backdoor that we talked about last time. What's the other example, the other niche example? Well, the other niche example is one that's probably more realistic, is instant messaging. So again, I'm going to use iMessage as the example, because Apple give white papers on how their encryption works, whereas other companies don't give out the white papers. So Apple aren't giving out the source code, but they are giving out the design, so that lets us know a lot more of what's going on. So let's say iMessage and you and iMessage, and you have five Apple devices, because, well, that's just... We're nerds, we do that. I would actually be encrypting that message five times, once for each of your devices, because I would have been given the public key that matches the private key that's stuck in your device and never comes out. But we're not managing those keys ourselves. If you're using Signal, you are managing the keys yourself, and then you know for sure what's being encrypted and how it's all going. But when you use iMessage, it's all public private key crypto, but the keys are being managed on your behalf by Apple. So they can just add an extra key. And so if the government have a private key, they just add that into your public key set, and then everybody messages you is also messaging the government. So that's like a wiretap. Now it can't go back in time, but it is entirely feasible to give Apple an order to say, right now, today, you add this extra key to BART, and we have the matching private key. Apple wouldn't even have the matching private key, because we don't hear out this public key. And again, not a backdoor, because it's not implemented for everyone, it's implemented on an individual user basis. Yeah, exactly. So basically there is a key chain that Apple manages on my behalf that lists for everyone who wants to message me all of my public keys. And Apple would simply lie for want of a better word and inject an extra key. And then we have our conversations and the other person's listening in. I'm almost 98% certain I'm missing something, but that almost sounds reasonable if it's got safeguards on it, like court warrants and all of that, because like you say, it does sound like wiretapping. It does. It sounds much more reasonable than the concept of let's have an escrow backdoor and all encryption ever. I mean, this is a way more reasonable thing. And it is implementable, but of course it does mean that Apple will have to admit that they managed the keys. Because Apple, like you say, oh, no, we can't possibly get in the middle because it's end-to-end encrypted. Asterix, we control the keys. Right. Now, when they say they control the keys, that doesn't mean that they get at the keys. That means that they're kept on their servers. Not even necessarily that, because they never get our private keys, but they're managing the distribution of our public keys. Gotcha. And so they can distribute a key that's not our public key as if it was our public key. Almost like a man in the middle attack is what you're suggesting. Kind of, yeah. So they stick an extra key into the key chain that they hand off. Yeah. So, I mean, what do you think of all of this? Even with these extra exceptions here, do you think there is a way that governments could get access to encrypted material that doesn't break encryption for everybody else? Well, generally speaking, a device is not an island. So looking at it from where we must break the encryption on the device is looking at it completely backwards, because you're going to be interacting with things and places and companies and services. And you should look at it from that side, not trying to break the encryption, particularly not the encryption while the thing is in flight. That's particularly nefarious. It's, you know, your cell phone company knows so much about you. It's, this whole going dark thing is just complete nonsense, because what's happening is things are reverting back to how they were only a decade or two ago. I mean, it's not going dark. It's just there was a brief flash of light and the flash is fading. That's it. It's, you know, it's looking at it wrong and pretending that somehow it's normal to be able to see everything. That's not normal. That has never been normal. That's completely new. Bad encryption or no encryption. It was a lot easier to tell what people were saying to each other, because they were saying it to each other over this big internet, rather than privately in the back alley where you had to have a person spying on them to know what they said. Yeah. And so we had a brief blip where everything was in public on the internet. And then we realized that was a terrible idea. And now we're going back to normality. And to pretend that going back to normality is some sort of calamity catastrophe that law enforcement could never survive is nuts. Rich, what do you think about this room? Because you covered things from the enterprise side. And enterprise has their own issues with this because trade secrets and security is hard enough as it is in the enterprise. It's really interesting, actually, because talking about, you know, the encrypted messaging systems and that being very similar to a wiretap, there are whole companies that the big term that's popular now is to go along with security when you're not quite a security company but you're a networking company that wants to get into security or something like that. The term is visibility. That's a huge term right now and a lot of companies getting into that. And basically what a lot of companies do are essentially not be government mandated or not be, you know, the Apple mandated, you know, Apple lying about monitoring the public or the public keys. Excuse me. They are basically doing authorized man in the middle attacks to monitor traffic. There are a number of, like I said, there are a number of companies that is their business model. You will see their slide decks and the top of the slide deck says, you know, man in the middle, here's how we do it. And the reason is on an enterprise level, obviously, encryption is kind of problematic when you want to control everything that's on your, you know, the network that's coming into your business, the increase to, you know, of HTTPS traffic and general encryption does cause some problem. It's actually quite remarkable about only 20% of malware is actually currently encrypted and that's still causing huge amounts of problems. And that's why these companies are cropping up is because that number is obviously going to be increasing over time. But yeah, you know, on an enterprise level, this is a business model for a lot of companies. Being the man in the middle who attacks things for good. Yeah, you're not in the middle though, you're on the edge or anything. It's not quite a man in the middle. It's a man at the edge of your enterprise. It's a security guard at your own front door. I mean, it's not quite a man in the middle. Well, but there are breaking encryption. I mean, there are spoofing certificates looking at what your Dropbox traffic is. And again, it's because, you know, but you also tacitly make that agreement when that, you know, when you're on that enterprise network and you're looking, you know, at your Dropbox folder or whatnot, you know, there is a business argument that says, you know, at a certain point you check your privacy at the door or don't use their network and use your phone on LTE or whatever. But I wouldn't even say, breaking is actually the wrong word. It's terminating the encryption and re-encrypting. And they can only do so because you're on their network therefore you've accepted their certificates because you're part of their active directory domain or whatever and they've pushed those certificates down to your machine. So you're terminating the encryption at the border, you're examining the traffic and then re-encrypting for the last mile back to the desktop. I mean, breaking isn't quite the right word. I mean, it's... Well, it's breaking from the perspective of anyone who's not part of the company. Well, if they're not part of the company then they can't work because they won't have the certificate, they won't be able to validly re-sign. No, I know. So it'll just say insecure connection and you'll go, oh, best walk away from here. It's hard to wrap your head around it because the idea that a company would ever let someone under their network without a certificate these days is ridiculous, but that's the only reason that it breaks, quote, unquote. Yeah. Let's take the temperature of the room here, Justin. Listen to all this. Do you feel safer, less safe, or just as confused as ever? I would make the argument that there's a reason why a lot of these security breaches happen on all levels because it's obviously not a very simple process, nor do we really understand how all the pieces move. To talk about the iMessage thing, that sure, things are end-to-end encrypted, but in the words of Rowdy, Rowdy Piper, was, as soon as you know the answers, they can change the questions. Yeah, well, and that's literally what Bart was just describing, was Apple being able to change the question about which key decrypts the thing. I mean, it's the Rowdy, Rowdy, Piper attack of the United States. But to do bear in mind, though, that anyone who wants the encryption, if you use Signal, then you take on ownership for the key management and then you have mathematically sound encryption when you're in control of the keys. So the technology is there. It's just human beings, ordinary users, don't want to manage keys. Like we just want simplicity, so we're prepared to sacrifice a bit of security. I just trust Apple to manage the keys for us. Yeah. Or Facebook or whoever. And honestly, for a lot of things, you know, people, I know some security purists get upset at this notion, but for a lot of things, that's fine. I don't, I did not mind that Google's Allo did not really have end-to-end encryption as long as I knew that about it. I'm like, yeah, I'll still have conversations on Allo. I mean, I don't because nobody uses it, but that's not the problem that I'm describing here. I would still have conversations on Allo. I just would know like, okay, these conversations are not 100% secure. They're partially secure. So I know if I'm really worried about something, this is not what I'm going to use. I'm going to use Signal for that. I don't think every single thing needs to be encrypted all the way, but I think we have aired so far in the other direction for so long that you kind of, it's kind of dangerous to express that notion because it gives people an excuse to continue with the sloppy encryption practices that have prevailed up till now. Yeah, it's probably better to encrypt by default. Just don't think about it. I'm bringing up a new web service or whatever, just encrypt it. Well, and Allo encrypts, it just doesn't encrypt all the way to the end. Exactly, and that's fine. It's good enough for that. And again, as long as I know that, and I can make that decision when I use this. Sarah, do you stay up at night worrying about encryption or? Not all that often. I think when I listen to this conversation, it's like, if you take Apple as an example, because we've been talking about Apple a lot, as a company that's for profit, and you mentioned India and the fact that Apple wants to grow in India, and they've had to make some concessions with the Indian government, which wants some access to stuff that Apple initially pushed back on and then probably thought about it again, it's complicated because it's like, you're trying to build your business in regional markets that have different ways of thinking. So yes, I mean, at face value, everything should be encrypted and it should work, but that's not really the way the world works. Well, and that goes back to Bart's point about, we need to make sure that precedents we set in any country, US, UK, China, anywhere, aren't the kind of precedents that require us or the companies that are implementing them to have to do them in places that would be less comfortable for them to do so. And with that, Sarah, we move on to our next topic. We do, I'm excited about this one because it's something that I have a very loose understanding of and that is background browser-based crypto mining. It's a real thing. Yeah. Did you know about it? Rich, tell us, what is this? It is really fascinating. So you may have heard in the news the past couple of months, particularly about a company called or organization, I don't know how they're organized, called CoinHive. And basically what they do is offer a JavaScript-based crypto miner. They mine Monero currency while you're on a web page. This can be done a number of ways. They can have a little counter. You click a play button and it starts doing the complicated maths. You can set the number of threads and you can see exactly how many hashes you're getting per second or whatnot. But where it's made the news and it's kind of made a bad name for CoinHive and this may have just been some naivete on their part or perhaps some nefariousness we're not sure is that companies, I think it was Showtime that had it on their website for a while. A couple of others have come through and people were installing the JavaScript miner in the background and you could set that up so that you wouldn't know that you were mining that, all of a sudden your CPUs percentage spikes up a little bit and you're mining crypto and you don't even know it. Now that's what's made the news and makes people malware defenders have started blacklisting. They're JavaScript miners so if you have malware bytes installed you're not going to be able to use CoinHive or at least have it used in the background on any web pages you visit even if you want to. Obviously you can whitelist it if you really want to but most people aren't that involved with it. But my question is, to me fundamentally it's a very interesting question of monetization. We pay for content in a variety of ways. If content is behind a paywall maybe you just directly exchange currency. Maybe you exchange your privacy with something like content on Facebook to a large degree. That's how you're paying for a lot of social networking. Maybe you're paying for it with your attention through advertising. Maybe you're paying for it through kind of crowd equity or goodwill something like Patreon although that doesn't have direct currency exchange. But I don't think it's fundamentally a bad idea to say, hey, a web page maybe takes up 20% of my CPU at any given moment unless there's 90 autoplay ads going in the background. Why not use a little bit of that? Use that as a monetization strategy. And I was curious what people's thoughts were if it's handled with the right degree of transparency. So if I understand this correctly I could be mining towards a Bitcoin that I don't get at the end of it. I'm just helping mine it. So yeah, the company would That doesn't sound that good to me. They would set up their wallet on their web page. So the example actually CoinHive has a number of examples of how to monetize this. So the idea would be if you're a video creator and you have videos set up on your website and people go there and they park there for 20 minutes at a time to watch your videos or something like that instead of running a lower third ad running sidebar ads having autoplay video going on they'd be mining Bitcoin as or not Bitcoin, excuse me Bitcoin doesn't work in the scheme because your CPU is far too terrible at it for it to make any kind of economic sense. They use a cryptocurrency called Monero which is it's an open source currency and at this point consumer CPUs can still get pretty decent hashes on it and that's why they're using it. That raises a whole other issue but the idea would be any place you're parked reading or watching content for a little while instead of being served an ad which is also going to impact your performance on your machine it's going to take more memory it's going to take more CPU why not directly provide a more direct monetization form in the form of mining cryptocurrency Just seems like something that almost like Amazon referral codes if you disclose it I might not have a problem with it I would have a problem if I didn't know it was happening Yeah and I think that's why they've gotten a lot of bad press to date I do think there are a number of issues that this may run into obviously again Coin have has kind of I think is maybe a dead concern at this point only because they just have such a bad reputation they're blacklisted on a number you know through a number of different categorizes malware basically and but the other question is more technical like you know as you continue to mine the Monero blockchain it's going to get more difficult and CPUs aren't getting you know aren't getting dramatically better in terms of performance year to year so the monetization itself will slow so unless you get more and more people choosing to do that it's going to get less and less effective and then that has become more complex and it's you know an argument whether that's worth it you know and then there's also it's is it desirable for users and so you know that was kind of my question to the panel is would you know is this fundamentally objectionable a good idea or you know just kind of fuzzy in the middle well I think what's interesting about this is the way the ever changing way in which we understand that creators can get paid we are in a market where I think the LA Weekly I believe yesterday I decided to shutter we are in a rapidly shifting media environment once untouchable you know conglomerates are now showing gigantic signs of cracking I mean how Tom you've been doing court killers for how long four years yeah four years and then frame rate before that you guys are hashtag old enough to remember when Disney was releasing earnings reports that ESPN was the most profitable part of their company and now it is a gigantic Albatross in a very short period of time so as we look at all that and we think about okay well advertising has been you know eroding display advertising has been eroding since AdWords it's just shifting shifting it's just a different way of doing it you know they go for less people have there's a reason why people have pivoted to video because video ads get a higher CPM the idea of looking at a thing and clicking on it is less desirable or looking at it just on a television screen or in a magazine is far less desirable than it used to be my point is with pay when patreon came around there's a reason why it was sticky now that we're looking now that cryptocurrency has become more and more of a you know the the stories we read about you know of bitcoin now are in the financial pages not in the tech pages not in the curiosity we'll look at what these this scheme is I wonder when this Ponzi scheme is going to fall apart it's a serious concern so this idea obviously coin hive has made some missteps and maybe they're the first one through the door that gets shot but look at forms like let's say for example long form audio while you know we don't have maybe PC processing isn't what it was certainly mobile phone processing is considered as as advanced as as it's gone forward if cryptocurrency is something that continues to be a way that people that is taken more and more seriously then the idea that you could mine a blockchain on a phone and ton at the beginning of this podcast you could say you are contributing to this show literally by listening to it and doing nothing else help us reach one bitcoin listen to the show again it's like look but we already understand that the most valuable commodity in this new media environment is attention and what if you could monetize it directly based on the processor that you are using to pay attention to media that to me is an extraordinarily interesting idea well and and Justin I think this is the key to this is what you were saying with Patreon because there were schemes to crowdfund things for as long as the internet has existed right I mean everyone you know hey click on the donate to my PayPal page the the beauty of Patreon and its competitors out there is that it one it formalizes it it makes it one place to go you integrate all the rewards into the same platform you turn it into a weird social network at the same time that's what like this kind of crypto mining as monetization needs and I think there is actually a model out there that does like that could you know serve as a good framework for it and that was the brave browser which is already it's not doing the mining but what it's doing is allowing you to you know buy some crypto tokens and contribute those to creators that you like based on the attention that you you know by the amount of time that you're spending on their sites and that kind of stuff and so if you know again if you had a browser that could maybe have even deeper hooks into your system and you could very fine-tuned control hey never take more than 20% of my idle CPU usage you never take more of 10% of my memory or something like that or you know hey I'm not using my GPU maybe use 10% of that and really you know turbo charge it integrate that into you know have leaderboards be able to you know kind of publicly brag hey look I contributed you know .001 bitcoins to daily tech news show I think that could be a way forward but yeah right now it's just a messy piece of code that people don't know is being exploited on their machine and that's what it is exploitation at this point well and I credit you with seeing beyond coin hives darker side to the idea behind them that may end up getting traction potentially which is you know you shouldn't do this on the sly without telling people that's a recipe for disaster and that's what coin hives dealing with right now but let's say Washington Post or Patreon or you know the weekly standard all team up all three of them to say hey we're going to standardize on this blockchain platform and we're going to give you the opportunity when you show up at our sites to say either I would like to see ads or I would like to subscribe or I would like to have a crypto coin mind while I'm while I'm reading this article and then it's no more nagging of like hey please turn off your ad blocker it's no more paywall of like well if you don't pay us you don't get the article it's it's a choice like you'll get the article anyway how do you want it to do that I think that would be amazing because what the potential of this is is I think what Justin was saying turning your attention into the transaction everything else we're talking about subscriptions advertising etc that's all a middleman even the brave browser is a middleman to say we'll turn your attention into this other thing which then turns it into money and having it actually mined just by looking or playing in Justin's example is very attractive but you hit upon the problem rich which is the more valuable and the more used a crypto coin gets the harder it is to mine and so the value of the attention gets smaller and smaller over time and that that's a problem yeah the technical limitations you know would be a concern then that becomes are you swapping from cryptocurrency to cryptocurrency that seems really sloppy and and as an organization you know if you know maybe if it's your personal blog and you know once a year you end up with you know a hundredth of a bitcoin or a you know a Monero whatever the Monero coin is XMR I think is the abbreviation you know you end up with a little Monero at the end of the year hey that's great all right it's a bonus maybe I can you know pay to get my domain name back but if you know you're the verge or your you know YouTube or something like that you can't you know one cryptocurrency is is relative is so volatile right now that obviously you you couldn't depend on if you're a major publisher but two then if you're changing currencies that leads into like a whole morass too so you know good idea I'm not sure if the you know practically that's why you would almost need deeper hardware hooks than a simple JavaScript miner at that point by the way a Monero coin currently trades for 175 dollars and 25 cents and that's up like 70 dollars I think I think it was like 90 just a few months ago or I could be wrong I mean what strikes me is this is still kind of a middle man right I mean if you really wanted to monetize your viewers you could imagine setting up something like I don't know highly distributed cloud systems were like like Amazon EC2 you sell people's CPU and then you literally your machine could be doing anyone's workload for anything I mean that could be actually and that wouldn't devalue over time folding proteins or setting at home or just dealing with people's storage that's where mesh becomes really interesting right yeah well oh sorry I was gonna say you know it doesn't have to be crypto mining with this terrible variation over time and uncertainty CPUs are valuable so if you're gonna start taking people's CPU A be honest about it and B well you know just take their CPU for something else yeah I love choice you know if it's like hey do you want an autoplay add no what about some background crypto mining maybe that you know who knows it's a personal choice but I think like there is something to the idea of saying listen you're gonna pay some way you know for this content that you're consuming of ours but we want you to be happy as possible so here are your choices you're gonna be the product one way or the other give us your time and your sweet CPU well Bart I think you solved it though it's somebody needs to come up with a system that says if you'll if you'll choose you can have ads you can subscribe or you can donate your PC cycles yeah we'll take care of what they're doing on our end don't you worry about that it could be crypto mining it could be web services who knows but and it would have to have auditing and make sure that it's secure and it's not invading your machine with with stuff but that's no different than than things like folding at home yeah and JavaScript is inherently containerized anyway so arguably the web is a pretty darn good platform for that because you're constantly running code handed to you by other people in such a way that it can't dick around on your own machine I would in theory I think there's there are a lot of things that we are we are looking at a technical problem that you know just have one random server in Cambodia where you're creating things that are really really bad and all of a sudden that one thing would affect you well folks we're going to finish up with a with a lighthearted topic one that I don't think gets anyone upset in lighter not controversial yeah net neutrality and the isp last mile problem was one of the topics suggested in our open thread for people at the advisor level on our patreon at the beginning of the month and then we took suggestions from that open thread put them in a poll for our advisors at the end of the month and net neutrality was the one they chose one of the things that I was asked to talk about particularly in our slack was Comcast changing their net neutrality pledge on the day that the FCC first proposed these new open internet guidelines which by the way aren't in place yet they are voted upon December 14th even after they get voted upon they don't go into a place right away they have to get published in the congressional record and all of that but but on April 26th I think if I have that right Comcast changed what they said and people were like what do you think of this and it's a big deal you see a lot of people getting very upset about this John Brogdon has done yeoman's work highlighting the changes in the statements I'm not going to go through all the statements because there's some that have to do with a low income support system that just went away that's kind of its own topic but particularly regarding blocking, throttling and paid prioritization before April Comcast said Comcast won't block access to lawful content Comcast won't throttle back the speed at which content comes at you and Comcast doesn't prioritize internet traffic or create paid fast lanes that's the one that people are focusing on because the new statement simply says we do not block slow down or discriminate against lawful content now Comcast is trying to argue is just better editing we just made this wordy three-part statement into one sentence we don't block is the same as Comcast won't block access to lawful content we don't slow down Comcast won't throttle back the speed that's the same thing we don't discriminate Comcast doesn't prioritize internet traffic or create paid fast lanes but if it doesn't mean something different why change it well there's because it found it awful the way they said it before it sounds great there yeah it well it is it is a tighter way of writing it certainly but also we don't discriminate is different than we don't prioritize paid prioritization in certain cases might be non-discriminatory particularly in cases of zero rating which by the way was allowed under the current internet guidelines but with a potential review the only difference for zero rating is there won't be any review zero rating is just free and open zero rating is not discriminating right but it can be argued to be a sort of prioritization because you're saying well if we have a data cap we don't count that service over there and if you're making them pay for that that's arguably a paid prioritization so reading the tea leaves I kind of feel like that's what Comcast talking about I mean you guys feel like that's Comcast saying they're going to violate net neutrality and go hog wild no listen they are getting slaughtered in a PR war and I'm not here to say that they shouldn't be slaughtered in a PR war but they are trying to fight back on it to be totally honest I mean this is not a legal thing right this is a publicly stated pledge they're not in a court of law they're not being ordered by the government to not do it and then the agreement that they've made with some other law enforcement body has been changed I don't trust it because I don't particularly trust Comcast I didn't trust it the first time I don't really trust it now you know if if they wanted to say well yeah well you want to know one we got to keep the lights on here at old Comcast the small business headquarters so we're gonna have to offer fast lanes they do it and they would have no moral compunction about it this is them at least gamely trying to fight what is gigantic and well-deserved public opinion that they are a company that does not have users rights at heart I think oh I think you just you just nailed it Justin it doesn't matter what they say on their web page it just doesn't oh it can make you feel justified or angry or happy but it doesn't matter what matters is what does Comcast actually do and having written anything on their page for years is not gonna matter if they never do any of these things it's also not gonna matter if they do you're not gonna be able to take them to court and say but they said they wouldn't do this because this is not illegally binding this is not in their terms of service yeah I I sure it'll it'll get tried in court right after everybody is who sues google for being evil I mean maybe you could get them in front of the FTC for you know say oh they said they were gonna do this and they didn't you know so it does set a few very fuzzy boundaries but this isn't your best way to go about them it's it's gonna be more about consumer harm and to me that issue comes down to competition and that's the last mile problem you will hear Comcast and others really try to make the Netflix battles sound like they are part of net neutrality to make the peering battles sound like they are part of net neutrality they are not that is a separate issue what net neutrality what these open internet guidelines pertain to particularly is whether they can charge people to reach their customers and if they are the only ones who offer service they have all the customers which is the only way a an ISP can get enough leverage to even make a netflix or a peering agreement be debatable and that's because they have no competition I feel like if chairman pie really wanted to return as he has said to a market-based approach he wouldn't be changing categorizations from telecommunications back to information services he would be trying to do something to foster competition among ISPs which he is not doing neither did Tom Wheeler nobody's addressing the actual problem here according to the FCC's own last internet access service report from April of this year 42% of developed areas in America had two ISPs or fewer that offered 25 megabits per second or faster broadband speeds 21% had none had none of those so oh my god you guys they're supposed to be an advanced country that is astonishing half the country really can't choose because and even when you have two to choose from that often settles into a very comfortable duopoly what you need is what you have in Austin, Texas and yeah I got and I argue with my friend Brian Brushwood one time he's like what are you talking about we got lots of choice but like you have lots of choice because Google came into your market and forced people to up their speeds and yeah now you've got four providers and when you've got four providers people can't get sloppy they can't come in with abusive practices that push people up to the edge but not quite over because they have nowhere else to go yeah look we need competition and that that brief beautiful moment when when Google was just charging into major markets and offering insanely competitive and crazy speeds for at a reasonable price for consumers at tremendous expense so much so that they had to knock it off and stop doing it it was amazing because it really showed how fast everybody could get up to speed if there was actual true competition to me and and yeah it's always it tends to be a reductive argument that nobody really wants to hear but the anti-competitive nature of these companies and how far in bed they have gotten with local governments to prevent competition to me has led to the shameful state of the internet in this country there is no reason why you know I'm I'm literally minutes away walking distance from some of the biggest technology companies that are reshaping every element of our society and every two months I check to see whether or not I can get another ISP other than Comcast that can shoulder the load reliably for me to live stream and podcast and upload this is not heavy work I'm not mining a bitcoin right like I'm not doing anything that I need a tremendous throughput for and yet every time there is nothing except now apparently I just did it while we were talking AT&T Fiber might be in my neighborhood so go ahead Tom I'm going to see if I can get rid of you're about you're up to two that's great that's great right there's two ways consumers cannot get you know screwed over either you have healthy competition or you have strict regulation you can't have neither because then you're going to have a disaster and that's going to see where you're going we have strict regulation by the way Bart our strict regulation in the US is no one else can use the poles we'll make it very difficult to dig up the streets to lay new fiber we're going to regulate the hell out of starting an ISP but we're going to ease the regulations for the existing people yeah I mean they've got the worst of both worlds there haven't you like the theory here is you're heading for a free market system except the market is there is no market so you're setting your regulation on the assumption there's a free market that doesn't exist so that seems like a failure before it starts yeah it's it's not a free market it's an existing market where the existing people are free to do whatever they want but no one else can get in there and change it yeah and don't forget that you know municipal broadband is constantly trying to be you know taken out through lobbying as well well yeah and there's yeah there's another option right is maybe the city comes together the citizens decide you know what we consider this a utility we're going to roll our own and then the state comes in in some cases and says no you can't you cannot as the citizenry go into competition with private companies even though no one else can afford to go into competition with the private companies either but that's an anathema to a free market system I mean a cooperative should be able to to compete with a corporate entity I mean what that's nonsense yeah it's it's and this is my problem my problem is not with information service versus telecommunication services these these definitions are old they don't apply and I'll be honest I don't think these change in regulations are going to change that much because what really keeps these isps in check is public opinion and market groups and consumer rights organizations that put pressure on it's easier for those groups to do their job now the way the right guidelines are written then it will be after just the December 14th vote happens and those guidelines are put into place but it won't ruin the internet it won't it it won't help the internet either this is not doing you know you see Ajit Pai saying like ah the internet was fine before these guidelines came into place and it'll be fine now well okay but it's still broken like this is the market is broken and it limps along just good enough and if we're good enough being you know in the middle of the pack as far as internet service goes in the world then I guess that's fine but if we wanted to be better if we wanted to be up at the top if we want to be like South Korea if we want to be like Japan as far as internet service then we would need to do better what Ajit Pai is saying to me my interpretation is you know we don't really want to be better we just want to keep things as they are they're good enough trundling along with 25 megabit per second or less because here's another stat 100 megabits per second that's something where you don't need to worry about anything you'll have all the bandwidth you need at the current moment right you can do all the uploading that Justin's talking about you can handle your internet of things devices you're fine there's gigabit fiber going in in lots of places so this 100 megabits should be the minimum less than 3% of the country has access to more than to three or more providers of 100 megabit per second internet 51% of the country half of the United States has no providers that give you 100 megabit per second that's the problem false alarm false alarm no AT&T fiber in my building I'm sorry to hear that when you say false alarm you mean false adorn yeah I mean it just it's one of the most shameful things about and otherwise technologically advanced country is that the lack of competition and again look there are elements of of what Adjipai says that I'm I'm encouraged by as sacrilege as that might be here on the free and open internet because I do think look again look at what happened in all those markets that Google came crashing in on everybody got their act together almost immediately Time Warner AT&T Comcast all the people that we understand to be bad actors all of us like oh wow it turns out it's really easy to offer fiber and you know the super high speed DSL oh man it's crazy wow it turns out oh we just we didn't get that far in the book oops now we will so it is possible but to me it is a tail of corruption and graft that we don't we don't have it and be it on federal state and local level it is an absolute national shame well who knows maybe I'm wrong maybe Adjipai's secret plan was I'll throw this bone to the incumbents and then use that as leverage to get them to stop resisting competitors coming into the market right if I'm going to put a happy happy face on that that's that's what could happen to to make my anger not justified I don't think that's going to happen you know if you if you want my depressing prediction for 2018 it's you know this to me this this Comcast change again while not you know enforceable actionable really in any meaningful way one way or the other you know definitely I mean it's certainly a trial balloon and net neutrality is one of those concepts where you know at first it was you know it's a very simple thing so people share around that slide of like you know oh your social networks five dollars a month and you know you know YouTube and stuff like that five dollars a month but it's going to get to a point where we're going to be talking increasingly more about technical problems with net neutrality and I think that the danger there is losing consumer interest all right folks if you want to know more about this go to our patreon patreon.com slash dtns anybody at the associate producer level and up gets my monthly column and I have more to say about net neutrality and that laying out some of the arguments we talked about today let's thank our panel is starting with you Bart Bouchard thank you so much for joining us where can people find more of what you do hey you can find me at BartB.ie and my podcast at let's-talk.ie and Rich Struffalino what about you yeah you can find me and my writing at gestalt.it gestalt.it.com we have all sorts of cool stuff there we have podcasts to the on-premise IT roundtable going up every other Tuesday we do a live news rundown it's called the Gestalt IT rundown creatively enough which I do with another Tom Tom Hollingsworth aka the networking nerd and we do that every Wednesday live at 12 30 p.m. Eastern on YouTube and then we have an interview series called IT Origins that I put together where we interview the most interesting people in IT and find out how they got started what their first computer was how they stay productive all that good stuff and you can follow me on Twitter as well at Mr. Anthropology MR Anthropology Justin Robert Young what are you up to these days you can find me angrily looking at this AT&T fiber map until it magically tells me that my apartment will have it you can also find me on Twitter Justin R. Young if you like some of the politics talk you can follow me at my political podcast politics politics politics well Sarah this was fun wouldn't it be great if we did this like a couple of times a month I'd love to but Tom how would that be possible well our next milestone at patreon.com so this DTNS is if we get just $2,000 more just one of you has to give $2,000 a month or you know you could split it up we will do two roundtable episodes a month just like this one so join in on the fun up your pledge get some cool perks like extended shows exclusive columns and more at patreon.com slash DTNS our email address is feedback at dailytechnewshow.com we are live Monday through Friday at 4 30 p.m. Eastern 21 30 UTC at alphakigradio.com and diamondclub.tv at our website of course is dailytechnewshow.com back tomorrow with Jason Howell talk to you then show is part of the frog pants network get more at frogpants.com Diamond Club hopes you have enjoyed this program wow that was a packed roundtable but it was great thank you guys wonderful show everybody I think we solved everything the world is fixed now totally done we nailed it everybody's talking about it no need to thank us world yeah you're welcome this one thing I do wish we had a gotten in there but those slides are the greatest pack of lies those slides are all advertising zero rating in Portuguese they're not advertising access to the bloody sites makes me so angry no but people shared it on instagram so it must be true yeah it must be exactly what they meant but again I mean to me that that gets down to you know again we're getting into more technical and technical discussions about net neutrality I mean right now like you know it's very easy to say like hey don't touch my internet when you're talking about like pairing agreements and you know Netflix putting stuff in ISPs data centers and stuff like that right now we can get people to care I just I'm very cynical that you know public interest will be able to be sustained although you know it's been for you know 10 plus years or whatnot so yeah I could be wrong maybe we're of course just getting something does anybody block something and a paid prioritization actually happens we'll we'll see a sopa pipa type reaction I guarantee oh my god everyone will just it'll be a poop show everyone will poop and they'll show it to everybody like it'll be ridiculous by the way hey you want to know what these SOBs at AT&T did they literally wired up one building in Oakland they don't even cover your map like oh it's available for you in this region if you go into their fiber network locator it shows you building by building where they've wired up your fiber and there is one building in Chinatown that has AT&T fiber is it a residential building I was at the AT&T building oh Roger you're gonna have to disconnect and come back you're all you're all garbled oh my gosh robot it's about uh one two three four five blocks from the Lake Merritt BART station it's uh is it my house my old house I bet you it's the AT&T building am I still garbledy no you're back no you're good it's at the other side of the lake by Chinatown it's it's so and these dirty well you know what AT&T gets to do now is they get to count Oakland as a city where they have laid it we've laid out hundreds of cities I'm like oh fiber available and so you just literally go there they get you in the door with fiber and then they're like oh you're an AT&T wireless subscriber well guess what would you like to buy dog ass from us no I wouldn't I came here from fiber well would you like me to rain on your parade even more Justin because I just found out I actually do get fiber to my house for me what they did not offer this last year when I moved down it was not available are you getting this available as soon as we're done and I'm just like hey is there like a petition like is there like a process I can go through like do I have to get like 15 signatures for my people that we all agree that we're gonna switch to fiber like Justin if you want to move to lovely Cleveland we have all sorts of AT&T fiber rolled out to your residential area of choice Rich that's a neat little song I will do anything for love but I won't I'll make it feel slightly better just and I am a couple of years ago I was waiting and waiting for cable internet to become available I had a lot of DSL choices with no cable yeah I've been wanting a particular company to come in because they're the best and they paid someone to ring my doorbell and offer to sell it to me only then to discover it wasn't available after they rang my doorbell to sell it to me yeah and look it's not like I have bad internet now it's like I'm doing a speed test and we're at you know anywhere between 70 and 100 you were a little garbled in the last statement probably because I'm running a speed test now yeah yeah yeah that's funny it's 62 down and 62 plus the Skype call so it's probably quite a bit more than 62 yeah plus yeah plus that so I mean look and then 10 up whatever it's just it's just such it's it's such garbage it's just it's just the the worst and and these these companies you know they they want them like that's why everybody's taken seriously like it's like it's Comcast putting their hand on the Bible and saying oh here we we swear we won't do it's like who cares what they say it's sort of like you know like when beer companies like run happy holidays for my god this is great please be responsible and you're like you're a Budweiser I can get a gigabit for 80 bucks a month that's what I got Roger it's great that's the AT&T fiber deal right yeah yeah that's what I got I got lured in I'm okay this is here's the best part here's the best part for me I can't get that I'm in a neighborhood that's had fiber for a long time but because Verizon sold the fiber to Frontier they don't even offer that a gigabit fiber yet even though they've got fiber well I was trying to sort of to try and make I was sort of tempted to make this feel about by counting the amount of possible ISPs I have to choose from here and but I honestly lost count after I got to above 10 so I figured I wouldn't waste my time why am I not moved to Ireland it has everything I wanted to discuss it it cuts off the two cables that connects the eye the eye on the internet no actually we have really good interconnectivity because we're basically Europe's Silicon Valley here I mean all the American companies are all here because we speak English are in the Euro one and not idiots Brexiting oh yeah we have good tax yeah and all the money is is there all the all the money it's upstairs in an attic in some pub and Dublin the best quite as well as Jersey or Guernsey or those guys yeah yeah all right guys Sarah I have to go all right thank you Rich bye Rich thank you bye Rich fun great job and I'm going to look into this I'm still on my 35 dollars a month this that's it we're we're not moving to Ireland we're moving to to the Burbank Glendale area as a matter of interest I'm paying 50 euros a month for my for my internet which I think is 100 megabits I'm wondering what sort of prices people are paying in the well that's really comparable to what I pay 300 megabit per second fiber from Frontier cost 300 dollars a month I pay Time Warner spectrum now I think it's 60 bucks a month just for internet service I don't have any cable stuff bundled in which is like I don't know compared to a internet cable bundle that I've done in the past seems really cheap but that's my only choice that's literally the only company I could sign up with when I moved into this house I have I'm in this strange situation where I have I'm paying for phone on internet because it's cheaper than just internet which is also like what hike that's backwards world so I don't I don't plug the phone in but I have technically anyway sorry sorry Roger no no there's a really good company out here called Giggle Fiber it's an independent fiber company but they're in a very very restricted location like out by Arcadia and stuff but you can get like 500 megabits for like 60 bucks a month that's pretty sweet oh hey Roger we didn't have Len listed is he in tomorrow or out he should be in we just had Jason down there oh you know let me see let me see and how much I think no I think I is Len okay I mean I feel like he's in I feel like he's I I the reason why I'm questioning is because I remember he he pinged me about this and you have them on the calendar still huh you have them on the calendar still all right you know I might be mixing up months all right it's hard we have a lot of stuff going on at weird times yeah yeah I'm out of here I'm gonna go I'm out of here too you wrap I love you thanks everybody bye thanks everybody or good afternoon or good morning