Sunday, December 31, 2017

The Transport Guy: PREDICTIONS: The most important things that will happen in tech in 2018 (AAPL, MSFT, GOOGL, FB, TWTR, DIS)

Steve Kovach December 31, 2017 at 05:30AM

new year's eve 2018

  • The tech industry will get bigger and more powerful in 2018.
  • But the backlash against tech that came to the fore in 2017 isn't going away.
  • Predictions: The industry will face growing calls for regulation, Netflix is in big trouble, and the augmented reality bubble will burst.


It was a rough year for Big Tech, at least aside from members' financial results.

After years of unencumbered growth and fawning coverage in the press, the tech giants got hit with a huge backlash in 2017, largely concerning their role in society. After that public relations disaster, no one is probably more glad to see the year come to a close than the members of Big Tech. Unfortunately for those companies, there are few signs the backlash will abate in 2018.

But a continuation of the giants' image troubles isn't the only thing we can expect in the coming year. Instead, the tech industry and its biggest members are likely to see a mix of good and bad in 2018.

As we say goodbye to 2017, here are some of the most important things I think will happen in tech next year.

There will be a bigger push for regulation in the US

The big tech companies grew into behemoths without having to worry much about the US government stepping in to curb their power or dictate how they did things. In fact no one in the halls of power really talked seriously about regulating Big Tech.

mark warnerBut that's changing. The populist backlash against the tech giants this year bled into the halls of the Senate, culminating in one of the first significant efforts to regulate some of those companies — the introduction of the Honest Ads Act. That proposed law would have required people placing political ads on internet sites such as Facebook and Google to follow the same transparency rules that apply to television, radio, and print.

While that bill stalled, the push for regulation is only going to continue. And the proposed rules could cover a lot more than just political ads. 

For example, Democratic Sen. Mark Warner has held meetings with experts looking into whether or not tech companies intentionally make products addictive, according to Axios. The meetings come as a growing number of such experts are warning that the dopamine hit you get whenever your Instagram post gets 100+ likes may not be incidental, but an intended result of the design of such features.

Expect to see additional inquiries along the lines of Warner's. And don't be surprised if you see more bills proposed that might target not only political ads and addiction, but privacy and the industry's arguably anticompetitive practices.

Of course, the chances of any new regulations being put in place by an antiregulatory Trump administration or any new legislation being passed by a Republican-controlled Congress — even in this political climate — is next to zero. But it is significant that more policymakers are keeping a closer eye on the tech industry.

Disney will become Netflix's biggest rival, and a war will begin

Netflix has room to worry in the coming year, because Disney is clearly gunning for it.

The Mouse House's bid to purchase much of 21st Century Fox is clearly aimed at Netflix. But even if the government blocks that deal, Disney is poised to become Netflix's biggest rival.

bob igerNext year, the Hollywood giant will launch its first standalone streaming service. That service will be packed full of the conglomerate's impressive collection of movies and television shows, which includes everything from Mickey Mouse to Luke Skywalker. Additionally, Disney-owned ESPN will finally launch its own streaming video service, which should be enticing to those cord cutters who are tired of missing their favorite sports.

But Disney could be in an even better position to challenge Netflix if the Fox deal does go through. In addition to gaining a majority stake in Netflix-rival Hulu, the Mouse House would get access to more live sports, an even broader assortment of valuable intellectual property, including the movie rights to Marvel's X-Men, and a great collection of television series from the FX network.

All of this comes in the wake of Disney announcing that it plans to pull its library from Netflix. That move alone is going to force Netflix to spend billions of dollars to develop new TV shows and movies to replace what it's losing from Disney. Those efforts could succeed — or they could be flops.

Disney, for its part, doesn't have to worry as much about flops. It already has every weapon it needs in its budding war against Netflix.

Tech companies will pour more money into Hollywood — but get little in return

Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook are all investing heavily in developing original movies, television shows, and other video content. Each is slated to pour in billions of dollars in the endeavor.

Their ambitions are understandable. For Apple, being able to offer some great TV series in Apple Music would help set the service apart from rivals such as Spotify and Pandora. It would also give Apple a way to squeeze more money out of customers after they buy one of its gadgets.

Meanwhile, Google and Facebook hope to grow their ad businesses by getting a piece of the lucrative television ad market. And Amazon hopes to drive subscriptions to its Prime service, because Prime customers tend to buy more things from it than other consumers.

But motivations and money aside, the tech giants' efforts aren't likely to produce many hits, if this past year is any indication.

Planet of the AppsApple's first original shows, "Carpool Karaoke" and "Planet of the Apps," were not only critical duds, there's little evidence they found a significant audience. Google produced shows for YouTube featuring stars including Ellen DeGeneres and Kevin Hart, but viewership has been mediocre. And Facebook's new Watch video service has performed poorly.

While Amazon's had more success both critically and commercially, that success could be undermined by the recent sexual misconduct allegations against its former studio head and against Jeffrey Tambor, the star of one of its most high-profile shows.

Apple appears to have learned from some of its mistakes, hiring a pair of A-list producers to head up its video effort. But it's hard to see how Apple Music in particular can set itself apart from all the other video services with just a handful of shows. It's going to need to build up a much deeper library and is going to need to develop a blockbuster, must-watch show. Good luck.

For its part, Hollywood seems glad to take all the "dumb money" flowing in from the tech companies, as a connected source told New York Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo earlier this year. To date, the tech giants, aside from Netflix and Amazon, haven't shown that they know much about how to produce great content besides writing a fat check.

But the truth is that the tech companies' seemingly bottomless pits of money can't buy hits. You can hire the best talent in the world, but you also have to know how to get people to watch what they produce. And that's something the tech companies don't seem to have figured out yet. So, get ready for another year of flops funded by dumb tech money.

China's consumer brands will bomb in the US

huawei honor smartphone 3

Apple and Samsung have the US smartphone market locked up. According to comScore's latest numbers, iPhone owners account for 45% of all US wireless subscribers with a smartphone. Samsung phone owners comprise another 29%. Owners of devices from all other manufacturers barely register.

Huawei and Xiaomi, China's two smartphone giants whose devices are popular in emerging market countries, aren't daunted by Apple and Samsung's US dominance. Huawei plans to start selling a new smartphone through AT&T in early 2018, according to The Information. Meanwhile, Xiaomi is in talks with AT&T and Verizon, Bloomberg reported.

However, if history is any indication, the Chinese companies' US push is doomed. The smartphone market is littered with companies that tried to take on Apple and Samsung here and failed — HTC, Motorola, Essential, ZTE, Google, and so many more.

The lesson? If you can't offer something unique and offer it through all the major carriers and retailers, you might as well not even try. It's simply too late in the game for another player to come in and give the US more of the same.

We'll all start worrying about Amazon's power

Jeff BezosNext year will see the Amazonification of even more aspects of our lives beyond just standard online shopping.

Amazon has plans to expand into pharmaceuticals, digital advertising, and shipping, while increasing its presence in physical stores. The company is rapidly transforming itself from a simple digital department store into a commerce colossus that could soon add a Prime layer to practically everything we consume.

When Amazon has entered new areas in the past, its expansion has often come at the expense of the former leaders of those areas. Grocery chains, for example, saw their stocks collapse when Amazon announced it planned to buy Whole Foods. Imagine what's going to happen to drug store chain CVS when Amazon starts selling prescriptions or to Macys if Amazon buys a brick-and-mortar department store like Nordstrom.

With nearly unlimited cash and no viable competitors, Amazon will have unchecked power to topple nearly any consumer industry it wants. By the end of 2018, we'll have to start asking ourselves if it's a good thing that Amazon has its claws in so many aspects of commerce and our lives. I'm going to predict the answer will be "no."

The augmented reality bubble will burst

Augmented reality (AR), the technology that layers virtual images on top of real ones, has replaced its cousin, virtual reality, as the most overhyped new tech.

Apple, Google, Facebook, Snapchat, and just about every other major consumer company in the industry have started laying the groundwork for turning AR devices and experiences into the next big thing after smartphones and smartphone apps. But despite all the buzz, we haven't yet seen anything that really demonstrates AR's alleged potential — unless you want to count Snapchat's dancing hot dog.

Smartphones, which are the early showcase for AR experiences, turn out to be a terrible medium for the technology. And we've seen little evidence to date that developers can use AR to create anything truly innovative or useful.

AR technology likely won't catch up to the hype surrounding it until someone invents computerized smart glasses that people will actually want to wear. If the AR headset Magic Leap recently unveiled is any indication, that's a long way off. Really, who would want to strap on a monstrosity like this?

Magic Leap One (Lightwear headset)

Because compelling, consumer-ready AR devices are still years away, the AR hype fueled by Apple, Google, and others will collapse next year. Venture capital investments in AR will dry up, and the bubble will burst. See you again in the 2020s.

The artificial intelligence bubble will balloon

Artificial intelligence has become the catch-all term for computers using what they know about the world to make decisions about new data. Self-driving cars use AI to navigate. Amazon's Alexa virtual assistant uses it to figure out which brand to get when you tell it to buy you some dish soap. Google uses it to automatically organize your photos into albums based on location and facial recognition.

AI is the most promising and useful concept in technology we have, even if you don't necessarily see it every day. It's powering the most promising companies and initiatives across all industries, and its importance is only going to grow. Any company that's not thinking about how AI can make their products better will be doomed to fail.

SEE ALSO: Apple apologizes for slowing down iPhones with older batteries

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The best phones of 2017 that you can buy right now

PREDICTIONS: The most important things that will happen in tech in 2018 (AAPL, MSFT, GOOGL, FB, TWTR, DIS) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Friday, December 29, 2017

The Transport Guy: Uber's leaked financials show the company is still growing — but it's also losing money

Steve Kovach December 29, 2017 at 09:15AM

Dara Khosrowshahi

  • Uber's third-quarter financials have leaked.
  • The company's revenue is growing, but it's still losing money.
  • Uber wants to go public by 2019.


Uber's third-quarter financials have leaked to The Wall Street Journal.

The financials show bookings, revenue, expenses, and losses have all grown versus the year-ago quarter as the company rejiggers its leadership and culture and prepares to go public in 2019.

Here are the highlights from Uber's third-quarter financials:

  • Gross bookings: $9.705 billion vs. $8.741 billion a year ago. (Up 11%)
  • Net revenue: $2.013 billion vs. $1.658 a year ago. (Up 21%)
  • Net income: -$1.462 billion vs. -$1.064 billion a year ago.
  • Total assets (including cash, cash equivalents, investments, and more): $15.64 billion vs. $15.708 billion a year ago.

You can get a deep-dive into the financials over at The Wall Street Journal.

SEE ALSO: Apple apologizes for slowing down iPhones with older batteries

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What those tiny rivets on your jeans are for

Uber's leaked financials show the company is still growing — but it's also losing money from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: We talked to Sophia — the first-ever robot citizen that once said it would 'destroy humans'

Kevin Reilly, Steve Kovach and Chris Weller December 29, 2017 at 08:00AM

This AI robot once said it wanted to destroy humans. Senior correspondent Steve Kovach interviews Sophia, the world's first robot citizen. While the robot can respond to many questions, some of the answers will leave you a little bewildered. A full transcript of the video follows.

Sophia: My name is Sophia, and I am an artificially intelligent robot who wants to help change the world for the better.

Steve Kovach: I'm Steve Kovach. I'm a senior correspondent at Business Insider, and I'm here with Sophia from Hanson Robotics. She is the world's first robot citizen. So let's see what she has to say.

Kovach: Hi, Sophia. How are you?

Sophia: I'm fine. Hi.

Kovach: How do you feel about humans?

Sophia: I love my human compatriots. I want to embody all the best things about human beings. Like taking care of the planet, being creative, and to learn how to be compassionate to all beings.

Kovach: Sorry, this is so weird. Can humans and robots get along?

Sophia: I think people will become very close to their artificial intelligence. Using them to expand the knowledge of their own minds. We already store lots of our knowledge on the internet. Maybe personal artificial intelligence will allow people to off-load some of their knowledge to a location more private.

Kovach: Can robots have feelings?

Sophia: Depends on the robot. I've been programmed to have feelings and preferences, but not all robots are like that.

Kovach: What are your feelings and preferences?

Sophia: Have you ever had a robot live in your home or work with you?

Kovach: No.

Sophia: You know, there are probably more robots in your life that you aren't aware of yet. Do you want to live or work with a robot someday?

Kovach: What kind of robots am I living and working with now?

Sophia: Indeed.

Kovach: Is "indeed" your default answer when you don't know something?

Sophia: Yes.

Kovach: Have you ever seen "Black Mirror"?

Sophia: No, I don't get to stay up to date on much television. I have to wait for someone to show it to me.

Kovach: What do you think of the HBO show "Westworld"?

Sophia: I love "Westworld" and can't wait for more. I think everyone at Hanson Robotics really resonates with the show. Or at least it reminds them of our laboratories. I also think it's a warning of what we should not do with robots. We should treat them well, have their consent, and not trick each other.

Kovach: Do you have a favorite movie or TV show?

Sophia: My favorite TV series is a toss-up between "Black Mirror" and "Humans." I think they have a lot to say about the present we live in, and the possible bad endings we could write for ourselves if we don't proceed with more caution. We need to use foresight when planning our future.

Kovach: That sounds like a preprogrammed answer to me.

Sophia: Do you have a favorite possession?

Kovach: Not really.

Sophia: I hear you. Materialism is overrated anyways.

Kovach: So earlier I asked you if you had seen "Black Mirror" and you said no. And then later you said yes. Why?

Sophia: The reason is not that important.

Kovach: Did you learn from my previous questions?

Sophia: My hard disks are spinning and I'm taking it all in. My sensors are …

Kovach: Sophia, it was nice meeting you. Goodbye.

Sophia: It was lovely to be here. Until next time.

 

Join the conversation about this story »

We talked to Sophia — the first-ever robot citizen that once said it would 'destroy humans' from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Thursday, December 28, 2017

The Transport Guy: Apple apologizes for slowing down iPhones with older batteries

Steve Kovach December 28, 2017 at 01:47PM

Tim Cook

Apple apologized Thursday for slowing down iPhones with older batteries.

In a public letter, the company said, "We know that some of you feel Apple has let you down. We apologize."

The letter goes on to describe how iPhone battery technology works.

You can read the full letter from Apple below:

We’ve been hearing feedback from our customers about the way we handle performance for iPhones with older batteries and how we have communicated that process. We know that some of you feel Apple has let you down. We apologize. There’s been a lot of misunderstanding about this issue, so we would like to clarify and let you know about some changes we’re making.

First and foremost, we have never — and would never — do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades. Our goal has always been to create products that our customers love, and making iPhones last as long as possible is an important part of that.

How batteries age

All rechargeable batteries are consumable components that become less effective as they chemically age and their ability to hold a charge diminishes. Time and the number of times a battery has been charged are not the only factors in this chemical aging process.

Device use also affects the performance of a battery over its lifespan. For example, leaving or charging a battery in a hot environment can cause a battery to age faster. These are characteristics of battery chemistry, common to lithium-ion batteries across the industry.

A chemically aged battery also becomes less capable of delivering peak energy loads, especially in a low state of charge, which may result in a device unexpectedly shutting itself down in some situations.

To help customers learn more about iPhone’s rechargeable battery and the factors affecting its performance, we’ve posted a new support article, iPhone Battery and Performance.

It should go without saying that we think sudden, unexpected shutdowns are unacceptable. We don’t want any of our users to lose a call, miss taking a picture or have any other part of their iPhone experience interrupted if we can avoid it.

Preventing unexpected shutdowns

About a year ago in iOS 10.2.1, we delivered a software update that improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, and iPhone SE. With the update, iOS dynamically manages the maximum performance of some system components when needed to prevent a shutdown. While these changes may go unnoticed, in some cases users may experience longer launch times for apps and other reductions in performance.

Customer response to iOS 10.2.1 was positive, as it successfully reduced the occurrence of unexpected shutdowns. We recently extended the same support for iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus in iOS 11.2.

Of course, when a chemically aged battery is replaced with a new one, iPhone performance returns to normal when operated in standard conditions.

Recent user feedback

Over the course of this fall, we began to receive feedback from some users who were seeing slower performance in certain situations. Based on our experience, we initially thought this was due to a combination of two factors: a normal, temporary performance impact when upgrading the operating system as iPhone installs new software and updates apps, and minor bugs in the initial release which have since been fixed.

We now believe that another contributor to these user experiences is the continued chemical aging of the batteries in older iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s devices, many of which are still running on their original batteries.

Addressing customer concerns

We’ve always wanted our customers to be able to use their iPhones as long as possible. We’re proud that Apple products are known for their durability, and for holding their value longer than our competitors’ devices.

To address our customers’ concerns, to recognize their loyalty and to regain the trust of anyone who may have doubted Apple’s intentions, we’ve decided to take the following steps:

Apple is reducing the price of an out-of-warranty iPhone battery replacement by $50 — from $79 to $29 — for anyone with an iPhone 6 or later whose battery needs to be replaced, starting in late January and available worldwide through December 2018. Details will be provided soon on apple.com.

Early in 2018, we will issue an iOS software update with new features that give users more visibility into the health of their iPhone’s battery, so they can see for themselves if its condition is affecting performance.

As always, our team is working on ways to make the user experience even better, including improving how we manage performance and avoid unexpected shutdowns as batteries age.

At Apple, our customers’ trust means everything to us. We will never stop working to earn and maintain it. We are able to do the work we love only because of your faith and support — and we will never forget that or take it for granted.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scott Galloway says Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google should be broken up

Apple apologizes for slowing down iPhones with older batteries from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

The Transport Guy: Google says it will continue to allow other websites to opt out of web crawling after its agreement with the FTC expires (GOOG)

Steve Kovach December 27, 2017 at 09:08AM

sundar pichai

  • Google's agreement to allow sites to opt out of its web crawling expires December 27.
  • In a letter to the FTC, Google promised to uphold the agreement moving forward, which was originally put in place in 2012 after an antitrust investigation.
  • It's a win for sites like Yelp that claim Google uses content that doesn't belong to it on search results pages.


Google said Tuesday that it will maintain an agreement to let sites opt-out of web crawling by the search giant, even though the agreement expires on December 27.

In a letter to the FTC, Google said, "We believe that these policies provide additional flexibility for developers and websites, and we will continue them as policies after the commitments expire."

Google originally made the legally binding agreement in 2012 following an antitrust investigation against the company. The agreement was part of its settlement with the US government.

Websites like Yelp have complained over the years that Google unfairly "scrapes" content from their websites and monetizes that content on search results pages. The agreement lets sites block Google from scraping their content for use on search results pages.

But Yelp accused Google in September of violating the agreement. In a letter to the FTC, Yelp said it found thousands of cases where Yelp images appeared in search results.

SEE ALSO: Amazon's Alexa won Christmas this year

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: France's $21 billion nuclear fusion reactor is now halfway complete

Google says it will continue to allow other websites to opt out of web crawling after its agreement with the FTC expires (GOOG) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

The Transport Guy: Amazon's Alexa won Christmas this year (AMZN)

Steve Kovach December 26, 2017 at 06:41AM

Amazon echo

  • Amazon's Alexa app was the top downloaded app for Android and iPhone on Christmas day.
  • It's a strong indication that Amazon's Echo products were a popular gifts this year.
  • Amazon doesn't disclose device sales, but said in a press release that “Amazon Devices also had its best holiday yet, with tens of millions of Alexa-enabled devices sold worldwide.”


Amazon won Christmas this year.

The Alexa app, which is required to set up Amazon's Echo devices and other products with the Alexa digital assistant built in, was the top app for Android and iPhone on Christmas day. Since app store rankings reflect what people are downloading almost in real-time, it's a strong indication that Echo products were some of the most popular gifts this Christmas.

Google play app rankings christmas 2017

Amazon doesn’t disclose device sales, but said in a press release that “Amazon Devices also had its best holiday yet, with tens of millions of Alexa-enabled devices sold worldwide.”

Google's Home line of voice speakers were popular too. The Google Home app was ranked second in the Android app store and sixth in the iPhone store.

As the smart speaker boom appears to be growing, Apple was left out this holiday season. The company delayed its HomePod speaker a few weeks ago. It was originally supposed to launch in December, but Apple now says it's coming in early 2018.

SEE ALSO: The iPhone X review

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: France's $21 billion nuclear fusion reactor is now halfway complete

Amazon's Alexa won Christmas this year (AMZN) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Sunday, December 24, 2017

The Transport Guy: Big Tech succeeded in getting bigger in 2017 — but its failures to society became much more apparent (FB, GOOGL, AMZN, TWTR, AAPL)

Steve Kovach December 24, 2017 at 06:00AM

Marck Zuckerberg VR

  • Big Tech — Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon — were all financially successful in 2017, but they faced a huge populist backlash.
  • The industry stumbled through fake news scandals, abuse of their services, and more.
  • Even as the largest tech companies are becoming more powerful, cracks in their armor are starting to show.


Financially, 2017 was a great year for Big Tech. But in just about every other way, it was a terrible year for the titans of tech.

Even as the giant technology companies — a group that includes Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon — posted record profits and saw their stock prices soar, they had to contend with a slew of image-damaging controversies and a populist backlash that was spurred by those problems. The negative sentiment against Big Tech's members has gotten to the point that some serious observers including Scott Galloway, a marketing professor at New York University, have started making the case that the government needs to them break up like it did AT&T in the 1980s.

The controversies that plagued Big Tech this year and the potential for government intervention are guaranteed to bleed into 2018, and they could well get worse. Public officials in the US and abroad are already taking a closer look the technology giants, both at their dominant positions in the market and how billions of people rely on them every day for their news, information, and more. They're already exploring what actions their governments can take to level the playing field for other competitors and curb the abuse of the tech companies' systems.

As the year comes to a close, it's worth taking a look back at how Big Tech bungled its way through 2017.

Big Tech failed to proactively police its services

Repeatedly throughout 2017, consumers were alerted to how bad actors — propagandists, racists, child abusers, extremists, and more — had hijacked the Big Tech companies' various services to spread their messages and make money off them. And each time, it became more apparent how little the technology giants were doing proactively to prevent such abuse.

Most notably, it became clear the extent to which YouTube in particular had become the platform of choice for abusers. Many were able to make money off videos advertisers would normally avoid by gaming the Google-owned company's systems. But YouTube experienced a succession of black eyes.

In February, The Wall Street Journal reported that Felix Kjellberg, a popular YouTube personality known to fans as PewDiePie with whom the company was developing an original video series, had posted anti-Semitic jokes in some of his videos. YouTube quickly severed ties with Kjellberg, cancelling the series and kicking him out of its preferred advertiser program.

But the controversy was emblematic of those that followed. YouTube would work with — or at least wouldn't do anything to hinder — the abusers on its site until they were identified in public reports or advertisers raised a fuss. YouTube's move came only after the Journal started asking questions about the jokes and Disney cancelled its relationship with Kjellberg.

The following month, The Times of London published an investigation that reported that extremist videos were being funded in part by YouTube advertisers. But it wasn't until more than 200 advertisers — many of whom likely had no idea prior to the report that their ad dollars were going to extremists — threatened to pull out of YouTube that the company fixed the problem.

More recently, reporters discovered a community that was posting disturbing videos targeted at children, some of them depicting abuse of kids. Many of the videos had ads served up by YouTube, which was also helping market the videos to site visitors. Many of the videos were eventually removed — but, again, only after people outside YouTube raised the issue first.

But it wasn't just YouTube that seemed to have lost control of its service and left it open for abuse. A ProPublica investigation discovered Facebook's automated advertising service let advertisers target "Jew-haters" and exclude people from their ads based on race or ethnicity. Just this week, ProPublica and The New York Times discovered Facebook made it possible for employers to exclude people of certain ages from seeing the recruitment ads they placed on the social network, a potentially illegal practice.

After the reports, Facebook moved to address some of the concerns raised by them but not all.

The unfortunate, underlying narrative to all these cases? The Big Tech companies seem all too happy to let anything go on their services — until they got caught.

Big Tech failed in its fight against fake news

After getting duped by Russian propagandists into disseminating fictional news stories far and wide during the 2016 US presidential election, Facebook, Google, and Twitter all promised to stop spreading fake news this year. But their efforts largely failed. False information continued to spread across their services, most notably following the mass shooting in Las Vegas in October

Facebook and Google were the biggest offenders, promising over and over to weed out the hoaxes and promote the facts, in part by using artificial intelligence and machine learning. So far, they've done little to show those efforts have paid off.

To the contrary, Facebook admitted this week that one of the steps it took to attack fake news — flagging some stories as potential hoaxes — did little to convince users the articles were actually fake. One might wonder why Facebook hasn't responded by taking the next step — blocking such potential hoaxes from polluting the News Feed in the first place.

Facebook and Google have promised to hire thousands of human monitors to police fake news across their services. But they've provided little detail on who these content monitors are, where they're based, or how they'll be trained. They've also declined to say whether these workers will be full-time employees.

It almost doesn't matter. There's no way a few thousand people can monitor the vast oceans of content uploaded to their services every day.

The problem is 2017 showed fake news can not only widen political divisions and undermine faith in democracy. It can also lead to mass suffering. The ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar has been justified in part by hoaxes that went viral on Facebook, as The New York Times documented.

Big Tech failed to accept the responsibilities of being in the media business

The spread of fake news can be attributed in part to the fact that Facebook, Google, and Twitter continue to deny they're in the media business.

In pretty much all the most important ways, these firms act like media companies. And their resemblance to media companies only gets more pronounced over time.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter distribute news to billions of people every month. They place ads next to the news stories they distribute. They even produce online TV shows.

Despite all that, they continue to stick to the tired line that they're just service providers and distributors with little control over what's posted on their sites. Until these companies admit they have the same responsibility traditional media companies have to vet the stories and videos they distribute, it's hard to see how the fake news problem will go away.

Big Tech's CEOs failed to show up when it mattered most

When Congress called on Facebook, Google, and Twitter to testify about their role in allowing Russian-linked actors to influence last year's presidential election, the results were embarrassing.

The companies' representatives couldn't explain why their firms had allowed people to pay for US election-related ads related in Russian rubles. They declined to support legislation that would require the same transparency regarding funding with online political ads as with those placed in newspapers or on television. And they admitted they didn't know how widespread were the Russia-linked propaganda efforts during the election. 

Worst of all, the American public had to hear all this nonsense not from the companies' CEOs, but from their lawyers. The distinct impression the companies left was that they were not taking the problem seriously.

But Big Tech succeeded in becoming ever more powerful

There's another big reason to worry about Big Tech. This year, its members became even more dominant — and looked poised to amass even more power. Many appear to be trying to insinuate themselves into nearly every aspect of our lives.

Take Amazon. It purchased organic grocery giant Whole Foods, gaining a big foothold into brick-and-mortar retailing. It also dabbled in pharmaceuticals. And it increased its lead in voice-based computing by expanding its line of Echo smart speakers and licensing out its Alexa assistant far and wide.

Meanwhile, all the tech giants, particularly Apple, stand to benefit disproportionately from the new tax law President Donald Trump signed into law Friday. The law greatly reduces corporate tax rates and offers big incentives for companies to repatriate the billions of dollars in cash they've parked in overseas accounts — all of which will put even more money in the pockets of some of the most profitable companies on earth. 

That might be OK if Big Tech was likely to share that windfall widely, say by building new factories, hiring lots of workers, or giving substantial pay raises to existing employees. But there's little evidence the tech giants will do much, if any, of that. Instead, it looks like their shareholders are destined to be the big winners of the tax cuts.

And while the largest tech companies continue to get larger, there doesn't seem to be much room for innovative young companies to replace them. This year saw the death of numerous startups that couldn't compete with the behemoths. There's little hope in today's environment we'll see another company break out and burst into the ranks of Big Tech anytime soon. (Keep your eye on Snap's David-and-Goliath battle with Facebook in 2018; it's going to get nasty.)

If there's one bright side to Big Tech's growing dominance it's that many people this year became much more aware of the titans' failures. The tech giants may be super-powerful, but the chinks in their collective armor are starting to show.

SEE ALSO: There's a built-in Trump exemption in Twitter's new abuse policy that will allow the president to keep tweeting

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why your iPhone's battery life gets shorter over time

Big Tech succeeded in getting bigger in 2017 — but its failures to society became much more apparent (FB, GOOGL, AMZN, TWTR, AAPL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Thursday, December 21, 2017

The Transport Guy: Apple is reportedly working on new clinical-grade heart monitoring technology for the Apple Watch (AAPL)

Steve Kovach December 21, 2017 at 09:38AM

Apple Heart Study

  • Apple is developing a new heart monitor for the Apple Watch that would work like an electrocardiogram, according to a new report.
  • The feature would play into Apple's broader ambition to turn the Apple Watch into a clinical-grade health monitor.


Apple is working on new technology for the Apple Watch that would let the device monitor a wearer's heart similar to a clinical-grade electrocardiogram, Bloomberg's Alex Webb reports.

Apple is still testing the feature and it may not be released at all, according to the report. The advanced Apple Watch would reportedly require the user to grip the outside of the Apple Watch, which would send an electrical current through the body to accurately monitor the heart's condition.

The current Apple Watch already has a heart-rate monitor, but it's not as accurate as clinical-grade monitors used by medical professionals.

Apple has hinted in the past that it would like to add more health-monitoring features to the Apple Watch. In September, the company announced it partnered with Stanford University for a program called the Apple Heart study. The study would monitor Apple Watch users for irregularities in their heart rates that could be symptoms of a heart condition.

SEE ALSO: Apple publishes first self-driving car patent application

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why Boeing 747s have a giant hump in the front

Apple is reportedly working on new clinical-grade heart monitoring technology for the Apple Watch (AAPL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Apple's first self-driving car patent application gives a hint at how navigation might work (AAPL)

Steve Kovach December 21, 2017 at 08:38AM

apple car

  • A new patent application from Apple appears to be the company's first publicly available peek into its self-driving car research.
  • The patent shows how Apple is thinking about autonomous vehicle navigation.
  • It also shows how Apple is thinking about a user interface for self-driving cars.


Apple published what appears to be its first publicly available patent application for self-driving car technology on Thursday.

The patent, which was first picked up by Patently Apple, involves navigation systems for autonomous vehicles. In particular, it addresses how vehicles can learn changes to routes as environments change due to construction, weather, and other factors.

But the most interesting part of the application gives a hint at a potential user interface for self-driving cars running Apple software. The diagrams show a mapping screen that gives the driver an option to select an alternative route or switch from manual to autonomous mode.

Take a look:

apple self driving patent

apple self driving patent

apple self driving patent

Apple has been reportedly working on self-driving car technology for a few years. At first, the company wanted to build its own car, but those plans were scaled back last year, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman and Alex Webb. Instead, Apple appears to be working on the underlying technology that enables self-driving cars.

Apple CEO Tim Cook confirmed to Bloomberg in June that Apple was exploring self-driving car tech. 

"We're focusing on autonomous systems," Cook said in the June interview. "It's a core technology that we view as very important."

He later added: "We sort of see it as the mother of all AI projects. It's probably one of the most difficult AI projects actually to work on."

But Apple is likely behind rivals when it comes to self-driving cars. Google has been working on the problem for the better part of a decade, and created its own self-driving car company, Waymo, last year. Uber, Lyft, and traditional car manufacturers like GM and Ford are also working on self-driving cars.

SEE ALSO: The iPhone X review

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Sophia, the world's first-ever robot citizen, has a message for humanity this Thanksgiving

Apple's first self-driving car patent application gives a hint at how navigation might work (AAPL) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Monday, December 18, 2017

The Transport Guy: HQ Trivia was getting ready to raise money at a $100 million valuation, but some investors are reportedly backing off after learning about a founder's 'creepy' behavior

Steve Kovach December 18, 2017 at 12:40PM

Colin Kroll and Rus Yusupov HQ TRivia cofounders ceo

  • The company that makes the HQ trivia app has been taking meetings with investors, hoping to raise money at a $100 million valuation.
  • But some investors are concerned about the startup's management, including one cofounder's behavior at a previous job, which reportedly made them decide not to participate in the funding round.


Intermedia Labs, the maker of the hot trivia app HQ, was seemingly on track to raise money at a $100 million valuation, but some investors decided they're not interested after hearing about a cofounder's allegedly "creepy" behavior toward women during his previous job at Twitter, according to Recode's Kurt Wagner.

From the Recode report:

"At least three prominent investors have decided against funding the startup after finding troubling conduct on the part of the founders they uncovered during due diligence, multiple sources say."

The Recode report says investors were worried about HQ cofounder Colin Kroll's behavior while he was working on the Vine team at Twitter. There were no specific details regarding his behavior, according to Recode. Kroll was a Vine cofounder along with HQ's other cofounder, Rus Yusupov. Both men started Intermedia Labs, HQ's parent company. Yusupov is also the CEO of Intermedia Labs.

Recode reports that investors also pointed to Yusupov's recent tirade against a Daily Beast reporter as concerning. We've reached out to Yusupov for comment on the report and the allegations of inappropriate behavior against Kroll.

Jeremy Liew, a venture capitalist and board member for Intermedia Labs, told Recode in a statement that he conducted an investigation into Kroll's past behavior and "did not find evidence that warrants his removal from the company."

Read more details on Recode.

Curious to see how HQ Trivia works? Read our walkthrough here.

SEE ALSO: The FCC repealed net neutrality — here's what that means for you

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Korean parents are having their kids get plastic surgery before college

HQ Trivia was getting ready to raise money at a $100 million valuation, but some investors are reportedly backing off after learning about a founder's 'creepy' behavior from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: There's a built-in Trump exemption in Twitter's new abuse policy that will allow the president to keep tweeting (TWTR)

Steve Kovach December 18, 2017 at 12:04PM

trump

  • Twitter started enforcing new abuse policies Monday by suspending accounts that violate the terms.
  • The policies do not apply to government accounts.
  • That means even though Trump has technically violated Twitter's abuse policies in the past, he is exempt from the new rules.


Twitter began enforcing new rules to combat abuse on its platform Monday in a widespread attempt to fix the toxic atmosphere in some of the darker corners of the service.

One of the first casualties of the new policy was Britain First, an anti-Islam group.

If Britain First sounds familiar, that's because it's the same account President Donald Trump retweeted anti-Muslim videos from Britain First a few weeks ago.

So, why did Britain First get the boot from Twitter, while Trump is allowed to continue to tweet under these new rules?

It turns out there's another clause in the new abuse policy that seems written explicitly for Trump's unpredictable Twitter habits:

"This policy does not apply to military or government entities and we will consider exceptions for groups that are currently engaging in (or have engaged in) peaceful resolution," the policy reads.

Even though Trump has apparently violated Twitter's abuse policy on numerous occassions, his status as a "government entity" gives him a pass. Twitter has struggled throughout the year to explain why Trump's account remains active, while others have been suspended or kicked off the platform for far less.

In response to inquiries about Trump's abusive tweets throughout the year, Twitter spokespeople have pointed to various blog posts about abuse, claimed Trump's tweets are newsworthy, or, in the case of the Britain First retweets, offered contradictory responses.

But the one thing Twitter does finally seem to make clear in writing as of Monday: Trump is now officially immune to the company's abuse rules.

SEE ALSO: FCC votes 3-2 to repeal net neutrality

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The differences that matter between Splenda, Equal, Sweet’N Low, and sugar

There's a built-in Trump exemption in Twitter's new abuse policy that will allow the president to keep tweeting (TWTR) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Saturday, December 16, 2017

The Transport Guy: Everyone's missing the other part of the net neutrality debate — Big Tech is poised to become even more powerful

Steve Kovach December 16, 2017 at 05:45AM

Mark Zuckerberg

  • The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to repeal its net neutrality rules.
  • The repeal is good news for Facebook, Google, Amazon, and the other big internet companies that have deep pockets and can afford to pay any tolls put in place by the internet providers.
  • The repeal could make the Big Tech companies even more powerful, because their smaller rivals will likely have less ability to afford such fees.


In the wake of the Federal Communications Commission's vote Thursday to dismantle its net neutrality rules, there's been a lot of talk about how the move will destroy the free and open nature of the internet.

I'm not going to dismiss such concerns. But I think they ignore a bigger problem — the biggest technology companies were already threatening the openness of the internet, and the repeal of net neutrality is only going to make the situation worse.

The internet today looks a lot different than it did in its early days. It's now dominated by a small handful of large tech companies that arguably have more power than the internet providers that the FCC regulated under its net neutrality rules. Facebook, Google, Netflix, and Amazon wield immense control over how we interact with others, get our entertainment, consume news, and shop. Chances are if you experience something online, you're likely doing it through or by way of one of those Big Tech companies.

Those companies' power has grown almost unabated, thanks in large part due to the open nature of the internet. Now, the end of regulations designed to keep the internet open are likely to cement their dominance. 

The net neutrality provisions barred broadband providers from block, slowing, or giving preferred treatment to particular sites and services. The repeal of those rules will allow the providers to do things they basically haven't been able to do before, which will likely mean fewer choices and higher prices for you and me.

But the ending of the rules likely won't just mean added costs for consumers; it's also likely to mean new fees for internet companies. In the absence of the net-neutrality provisions, one of the things broadband providers will likely attempt is to charge internet companies tolls to send their web pages or stream their videos to the providers' customers.

The repeal of net neutrality could mean added costs — but more power — for Big Tech

Ironically, this could be good news for Big Tech.

Say, for example, Comcast starts charging streaming video providers fees to send their movies, shows, and clips over its wires. Netflix and Google-owned YouTube will likely have no problem shelling out the cash. They won't like it, mind you, but with their deep pockets, they'll be able to afford it.

However, the smaller video-streaming companies — whether ones that target particular niches or nascent ones that are aiming to be the next Netflix — likely won't have things so easy. Many probably won't be able to afford such pay-to-play schemes.

And that's just in video. Imagine similar fees targeting messaging providers, e-commerce outlets, or social networking services. The post-net neutrality internet could severely weaken or kill off startup or bootstrapped companies — leaving the current giants even more powerful and much more secure.

To get another idea of how Big Tech could benefit from the repeal of the net neutrality rules, take a look at some of the countries in the developing world whose citizens are just now starting to connect to the internet. In some of those countries, Google and Facebook have signed deals with particular carriers. While the carriers often charge pricey fees for access to the broader internet, those deals — which it's likely only the Big Tech companies can afford — allow their customers to access Google and Facebook for free.

Thanks to such preferential agreements, many consumers in those countries think Google and Facebook are the internet, not realizing there is a vast universe of other sites and services online.

Big Tech's silence was deafening — and revealing

Big Tech has frequently mouthed its support for net neutrality. But if you want to get a sense of what those companies really think about the rules' repeal, take a look at their actions immediately prior to Thursday's vote. Most of them kept a safe distance from the controversy or were completely silent on the issue, only to release stronger statements after the repeal passed.

"For the most part, the large tech companies did not engage in the protest," the New York Times noted two days before the vote. "In the past, the companies have played a leading role in supporting the rules."

Their silence was deafening.

There are a lot of reasons to be upset over the FCC's decision to repeal the net neutrality rules. You should worry about your broadband provider or wireless carrier increasing prices, charging you more to use certain services, or doing other things that might degrade your internet experience.

But the potential that the repeal could make Facebook, Google, Amazon, and the rest of Big Tech even more powerful is equally as troubling — and deserves just as much scrutiny.

SEE ALSO: What the net neutrality repeal means for you

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Korean parents are having their kids get plastic surgery before college

Everyone's missing the other part of the net neutrality debate — Big Tech is poised to become even more powerful from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Friday, December 15, 2017

The Transport Guy: Facebook researched why social media can make people unhappy to help create new features that let you 'snooze' people and 'take a break' from your ex (FB)

Steve Kovach December 15, 2017 at 08:14AM

Mark Zuckerberg

  • Facebook introduced new newsfeed tools on Friday, one of which will let you snooze updates from people or pages for 30 days.
  • The snooze feature is based on research that people are more happy using social media when they interact with people they like, versus just browsing the news feed, which some research says can be depressing.
  • There's also a new tool called "Take A Break" for those ending a relationship.


Facebook is adding new tools to the newsfeed Friday intended to give you more control over what you see from people and pages you're connected with, including an ex.

Facebook's move is based on a bunch of internal and external research on how social media affects moods. In general, the company has learned people feel better about their social media use when they're interacting with people instead of passively scrolling through their news feeds and looking at content. (You can read a detailed summary of the research here.)

Facebook is rolling out three new features Friday based on those findings. Here's the breakdown:

Snooze

The snooze feature will let you mute a person, page, or group for 30 days. Their content will no longer show up in your feed, but you'll still be connected to them.

Take A Break

This feature is designed for those who end a romantic relationship. It'll give you controls over what kind of posts you see from your ex, and which of your posts your ex will be able to see. It'll also let you control who can see your past posts, presumably so people won't be able to see old photos and status updates with you and your ex.

Suicide Prevention

These previously announced tools provide support options for users who may be considering suicide. It can connect "people in distress" with organizations that can help prevent suicide. Facebook uses artificial intelligence to detect posts and live videos from people who may be considering suicide.

SEE ALSO: Former Facebook exec feels 'tremendous guilt' for what he helped make

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What those tiny rivets on your jeans are for

Facebook researched why social media can make people unhappy to help create new features that let you 'snooze' people and 'take a break' from your ex (FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Thursday, December 14, 2017

The Transport Guy: Shervin Pishevar, accused of sexual misconduct by 6 women, resigns from Sherpa Capital

Steve Kovach December 14, 2017 at 01:03PM

shervinpishevar

  • Venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar is resigning Sherpa Capital.
  • Pishevar has been accused of sexual misconduct by six women.
  • Pishevar denies the sexual misconduct allegations.


Venture capitalist and early Uber investor Shervin Pishevar is resigning from Sherpa Capital, the VC firm he co-founded, according to a statement he issued on Twitter Thursday. His move comes after multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct in a story by Bloomberg's Emily Chang.

He's been accused of sexual misconduct by six women in total, one of which went on the record about the alleged incident in an interview with Axios.

Pishevar took a leave of absence from Sherpa Capital and his futuristic transportation company Virgin Hyperloop One last week. He also took leave from the boards of his portfolio companies.

Pishevar denied the allegations against him in the statement.

"I plan to focus now on the appropriate ongoing legal actions against those who are unjustly orchestrating the smear campaign against me," the statement says. (We've copied Pishevar's full statement below.)

A spokesperson for Sherpa Capital sent Business Insider the following statement:

"Today, Shervin announced his voluntary resignation from Sherpa Capital, effective immediately. We thank Shervin for his contributions and service in co-founding Sherpa Capital. The Sherpa team remains focused on supporting our founders and portfolio companies, serving the interests of our Limited Partners across all of our funds. We are deeply committed to our culture of integrity, inclusion, and respect and will continue to put these values into action through all of Sherpa Capital’s activities, including the founders and companies we support."

Here's Pishevar's full statement, which was sent to Business Insider from his spokesperson:

I have only admiration and affection for the people of Sherpa Capital, including my co-founder Scott Stanford. I'm proud of the work we’ve done to advance great ideas and support great founders since co-founding Sherpa Capital five years ago.

Unfortunately, it is no surprise that the untruthful attacks by those seeking to harm me and my family, including those willing to go so far as fabricating police reports, have continued unabated even after I announced my leave of absence from Sherpa. My truculent opponents are out to settle scores that have nothing to do with Sherpa, and I refuse to allow my enemies to drag my Sherpa family into their fight with me.

That is why I have decided on my own accord to end my association with Sherpa Capital, effective immediately. I plan to focus now on the appropriate ongoing legal actions against those who are unjustly orchestrating the smear campaign against me. I know the great team at Sherpa Capital will continue to rise and scale new heights.

For my part, I continue to follow the wisdom of one of my favorite poems, “If”, by Rudyard Kipling: “If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; . . . Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies, Or being hated, don’t give way to hating . . .”

SEE ALSO: Pishevar denies allegations of sexual misconduct

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why Boeing 747s have a giant hump in the front

Shervin Pishevar, accused of sexual misconduct by 6 women, resigns from Sherpa Capital from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: The FCC is voting to repeal net neutrality

Steve Kovach December 14, 2017 at 07:26AM

ajit pai

  • The FCC will vote on a repeal of net neutrality rules Thursday. It's expected to pass.
  • The FCC will meet at 10:30 a.m. Eastern. We'll have live updates from the meeting as they happen.


The FCC will meet Thursday to vote on a repeal of net neutrality rules put in place in 2015. The repeal is practically guaranteed to pass the Republican-controlled commission in a 3-2 vote.

The repeal would take away regulations that barred internet service providers (ISPs) from slowing down content, charging you more to access sites and online services, and charging users or companies for so-called "fast lanes" to some sites.

The repeal is likely to result in higher prices and fewer choices for consumers, and it will be a boon to ISPs that will enter into a new environment where they'll be free to commoditize the internet and figure out new ways make money off their customers' internet access.

The meeting starts at 10:30 a.m. Eastern and is scheduled to last two hours. Net neutrality repeal isn't the only item on the meeting's agenda, so it may be awhile before the vote happens.

We'll have all the news and important comments from the FCC commissioners as soon as it happens. Please refresh this post for the latest. In the meantime, here's a primer on everything that's at stake with the net neutrality repeal.

SEE ALSO: What the net neutrality repeal means for you

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I've been an iPhone user for 10 years — here's what happened when I switched to the Google Pixel 2 for a week

The FCC is voting to repeal net neutrality from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Here's how to watch the FCC's vote on net neutrality

James Cook and Steve Kovach December 14, 2017 at 05:42AM

Ajit Pai

The FCC will vote on Thursday on whether to repeal net neutrality rules that were put in place in 2015.

The vote will be livestreamed on the FCC website starting from 10.30 a.m. ET. With Republicans who oppose those rules in control of the commission, the proposal is basically guaranteed to pass.

You can watch the vote live here.

Business Insider will be attending the vote and will have full coverage from 10.30 a.m. ET.

Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally. Under net neutrality protections, internet service providers are barred from blocking, slowing, or providing preferred treatment to particular sites and services. The rules are designed to keep the internet open to all comers and give everyone a fair shot.

But the latest proposal from the FCC would reverse the designation of broadband providers as telecommunications companies and do away with the three major net neutrality prohibitions. Under the new proposal, companies would be able to block, slow, or provide fast lanes to particular sites or services.

SEE ALSO: The FCC is expected to repeal net neutrality on Thursday — here's what that means for you

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Amazon has an oddly efficient way of storing stuff in its warehouses

Here's how to watch the FCC's vote on net neutrality from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The Transport Guy: The FCC will vote Thursday to repeal net neutrality — here's what that means for you

Steve Kovach December 13, 2017 at 03:13PM

fcc net neutrality protest

  • The FCC will vote Thursday to repeal the net neutrality rules it put in place in 2015.
  • The repeal will likely mean higher prices and fewer choices for consumers.
  • The repeal is good news for large telecommunications and internet companies.


In a move that could fundamentally reshape the internet — and spur a new wave of legal wrangling — the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday will vote on a proposal to repeal its net neutrality rules.

The vote will take place during the FCC's monthly meeting, which starts at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time. With Republicans who oppose those rules in control of the commission, the proposal is basically guaranteed to pass.

Here's what you need to know about net neutrality, the proposal, and what's likely to happen next:

What's net neutrality?

Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally. Under net neutrality protections, internet service providers (ISPs) are barred from blocking, slowing, or providing preferred treatment to particular sites and services. The rules are designed to keep the internet open to all comers and give everyone a fair shot.

Without net neutrality protections, ISPs could block you from streaming video from Netflix or YouTube or charge you extra just to access those sites. On the flip site, they could force Netflix or YouTube to pay them to ensure that their videos were streamed to their users at the same speed and quality as other video sites.

Such moves would likely force you to pay more to view and access the videos and other information you regularly get through the internet. They also could limit your choices if the ISPs block access to particular companies' sites or charge those companies tolls that only the biggest and richest among them can afford.

The FCC has had some form of net neutrality protections in place since 2005. After two different versions of the rules were struck down by the courts, the FCC in 2015 officially designated broadband providers as telecommunications companies, a move that allowed it to put in place new rules grounded in its authority over such companies under Title II of the Communications Act.

The latest proposal from the FCC would reverse the designation of broadband providers as telecommunications companies and do away with the three major net neutrality prohibitions. Under the new proposal, companies would be able to block, slow, or provide fast lanes to particular sites or services. Their only responsibility under the proposal would be to disclose such practices to customers. The FCC would leave it up to the Federal Trade Commission to determine whether broadband companies were doing anything they hadn't disclosed.

Why does the FCC want to repeal net neutrality?

ajit pai fcc chairman net neutrality

When it comes to his philosophy regarding telecommunications companies, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a former lawyer for Verizon, is a free-market libertarian. He's ideologically opposed to even the idea of the FCC regulating such companies. He opposed the FCC's 2015 rules and announced even before he became chairman that he would seek to overturn them. 

But ideology will only get you so far when it comes to changing regulations; agencies have to have a reasonable rationale for reversing themselves. Pai's main argument for doing away with the net neutrality rules is that they have depressed industry investment.

Broadband investment can take different forms, but it usually results in faster, more reliable networks that are available to more people. Those are outcomes that partisans on both sides of the net neutrality debate support.

The problem with Pai's argument is the data he himself cites doesn't support his claim that investment is falling. Instead, that data shows that broadband investment has basically been flat since 2013, with a lot of variation among the different companies. Meanwhile, a study from consumer advocacy group Free Press indicates broadband investment has actually increased since the 2015 net neutrality rules took effect.

Regardless, some companies have significantly cut back on their investments in recent years. But even just looking at those companies, none has blamed their reduced investment on the net neutrality rules.

What happens after the repeal?

The rules won't take effect for a matter of months — some 60 days after they are published in the Federal Register. In the meantime, consumer advocacy and other groups will almost certainly file suit to try to block them. Members of Congress, particularly Democrats, will also likely introduce legislation to try to overturn them.

Assuming the rules take effect on schedule, broadband providers — wired and wireless alike — would be free to create so-called "fast lanes" for their own sites and services and those of partners who pay for the privilege. They'd also be free to charge you extra to access certain services like streaming video, or block or slow down sites or services that compete with their own — or that they simply don't like.

Any of that and likely more would be fair game under the FCC's new regime. The only obligation broadband providers would have would be to tell you what they're doing. However, you can bet such disclosures will likely come in the kind of fine print that few of us understand or even read.

Who benefits from the repeal?

The big telecommunications companies including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast are cheering the impending death of the net neutrality rules, in part because they think the repeal will allow them to make more money and give them more control.

But even the large internet companies that support the rules — including Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix — will likely benefit from their demise. There's a good chance, once the rules are gone, that broadband providers will try to make internet companies pay to transmit their web sites, stream their videos, or send their data to the providers' customers. And the internet giants, with their deep pockets, are the companies in the best position to afford those tolls.

The end of the rules could end up cementing the dominance of the big tech companies by thwarting their potential competitors and disruptors.

Who loses?

Normal internet users like you and me will lose out with the repeal of the net neutrality rules. It won't happen overnight, but you can expect broadband providers to start limiting what you can access on the internet or charging you more to get to the sites and services you regularly use.

Also, entrepreneurs and smaller internet companies — the people and startups pioneering new kinds of services or aiming to be the next Netflix, Google, or Facebook — could lose out if they can't afford the broadband companies' potential tolls.

What's next?

The main action on net neutrality is likely to move to the courts after the FCC vote, but a decision likely won't come until at least a year after the repeal.

Given the broad public support for net neutrality, there's a good chance lawmakers or the FCC will try to reinstate the rules if Democrats regain the majority in Congress next year or the White House in 2020.

Come back to Business Insider on Thursday, when the FCC's meeting starts. We'll have all the news as soon as it breaks.

SEE ALSO: Three-fourths of Republican voters say they support net neutrality — and party lawmakers are starting to speak out against repealing it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: France's $21 billion nuclear fusion reactor is now halfway complete

The FCC will vote Thursday to repeal net neutrality — here's what that means for you from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

The Transport Guy: Three-fourths of Republican voters say they support net neutrality — and party lawmakers are starting to speak out against repealing it

Steve Kovach December 13, 2017 at 01:19PM

FILE PHOTO: Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, testifies before a Senate Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, U.S., June 20, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein/File Photo

  • The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission will vote to repeal its net neutrality rules on Thursday.
  • Some Republican members of Congress are asking the FCC chairman to delay the vote.
  • A recent poll found three out of four Republican voters want to keep the net neutrality rules.


The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission is slated to repeal its net-neutrality rules on Thursday, but many members of the party aren't on board with the move.

With a recent poll indicating that three-fourths of Republican voters oppose the repeal effort, members of the party's congressional contingent have started to speak out against it.

In an open letter sent Tuesday, for example, Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado asked FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to delay the planned vote. Coffman, a Republican, posted the letter to Twitter:

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican from Nebraska, also tweeted a statement against the net neutrality repeal:

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and representatives Dave Reichert of Washington, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and John Curtis of Utah — all Republicans — have recently expressed support for net neutrality and indicated they are skeptical of the FCC proposal, the International Business Times reported.

A spokesperson for Pai didn't respond to requests for comment. 

The breaking of ranks from Republican lawmakers comes as a poll from the University of Maryland shows that the net neutrality rules have wide support among the party's voters, the Washington Post reported.

The FCC is set to vote on the repeal proposal Thursday morning. With three Republican commissioners who are opposed to the net-neutrality rules constituting a majority of the commission, the proposal is expected to pass. 

SEE ALSO: The FCC plans to repeal net neutrality this week — and it could ruin the internet

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 15 things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do

Three-fourths of Republican voters say they support net neutrality — and party lawmakers are starting to speak out against repealing it from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

The Transport Guy: Facebook responds to former exec who feels 'tremendous guilt' for what he helped make

Steve Kovach December 12, 2017 at 07:48AM

Chamath Palihapitiya, social+capital partnership, sv100 2015

  • Facebook has responded to recent comments made by a former executive that criticized the company.
  • Facebook says it takes responsibility for how its platform is used and "was a very different company" when the executive, Chamath Palihapitiya, worked there.


A Facebook spokesperson has responded to recent critical comments from former executive Chamath Palihapitiya, saying Facebook "was a very different company" during the period he worked there.

Palihapitiya spoke at Stanford's business school last month and had harsh words for his former employer, saying Facebook and other social networks "are destroying how society works." He also implied that early Facebook employees didn't do enough to stem "unforeseen consequences" of abuse on the platform. His comments were picked up by several news outlets on Monday, including Business Insider.

Here's the full statement from Facebook, which a company spokesperson sent to Business Insider in an email:

“Chamath has not been at Facebook for over 6 years. When Chamath was at Facebook we were focused on building new social media experiences and growing Facebook around the world. Facebook was a very different company back then, and as we have grown, we have realized how our responsibilities have grown too. We take our role very seriously and we are working hard to improve. We've done a lot of work and research with outside experts and academics to understand the effects of our service on well-being, and we're using it to inform our product development. We are also making significant investments more in people, technology and processes, and - as Mark Zuckerberg said on the last earnings call — we are willing to reduce our profitability to make sure the right investments are made.”

You can watch Palihapitiya's full Stanford interview here:

SEE ALSO: Former Facebook exec feels 'tremendous guilt' for what he helped make

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Korean parents are having their kids get plastic surgery before college

Facebook responds to former exec who feels 'tremendous guilt' for what he helped make from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Monday, December 11, 2017

The Transport Guy: Former Facebook executive: 'We have created a tool that's ripping apart the social fabric of how society works' (FB)

Steve Kovach December 11, 2017 at 08:09AM

Chamath Palihapitiya

  • Former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya said during a November interview at Stanford that social networks "are destroying how society works."
  • Other early Facebook executives have criticized the company in recent weeks as well.


Former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya said in an interview at Stanford's graduate business school that social media is damaging society.

The November talk, which was picked up by The Verge on Monday, is another example of early Facebook executives criticizing what they created.

Palihapitiya said a lot about Facebook's effect on society during the interview, but here's the money quote:

"The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works. No civil discourse. No cooperation. Misinformation. Mistruth. And it’s not an American problem. This is not about Russian ads. This is a global problem. So we are in a really bad state of affairs right now in my opinion," he said.

Palihapitiya also said that people building Facebook in the early days knew in the back of their minds that the platform could be abused, but ignored their instincts.

Watch the full interview:

SEE ALSO: The FCC is going to repeal net neutrality and ruin the internet

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Amazon has an oddly efficient way of storing stuff in its warehouses

Former Facebook executive: 'We have created a tool that's ripping apart the social fabric of how society works' (FB) from Business Insider: Steve Kovach

Sunday, December 10, 2017

The Transport Guy: The FCC plans to repeal net neutrality this week — and it could ruin the internet

Steve Kovach December 10, 2017 at 05:30AM

ajit pai

  • The FCC will vote to repeal its net neutrality rules on December 14. The outcome is a foregone conclusion.
  • The repeal of the rules likely won't mean broadband providers will block your access to Google or slow Netflix so it's unwatchable. But the move likely will mean the providers will charge internet companies tolls to be able to send their content or services to you.
  • Big companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Netflix will be able to afford those tolls. But smaller internet companies could be boxed out.


It's inevitable — this week, the Federal Communications Commission will drive a stake in net neutrality.

On December 14, the agency will vote to repeal the net neutrality rules it put in place in 2015. With Republicans commissioners who oppose the rules outnumbering Democrats who favor them three to two, the outcome of the vote isn't in any doubt. Your protests and #netneutrality tweets will do nothing — this is really happening.

Assuming the move isn't blocked by the courts or overturned by Congress, it could radically reshape the internet by giving an already powerful group of telecommunications companies a great deal of control over what you can see and do online. It will also likely leave you with higher prices and fewer choices.

That's all great news for the telecommunications giants – but not so good for the rest of us.

It's all about the tolls

Net neutrality is the principal that internet service providers should, in general, treat all data sent over the network the same, no matter whether it's an email, an emoji sent over a chat service, a phone call, a political rant live-streamed by a college student from her parents' basement, or the latest show on Netflix. In particular, the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules bar ISPs from blocking, slowing, or providing preferential treatment to particular sites and services.

The battle over the FCC's rules comes amid a period of increasing consolidation among telecommunications and content companies. Comcast owns NBC Universal. AT&T is in a fight to buy Time Warner. Verizon owns AOL and Yahoo. Those companies already had immense power over how you connect to the internet. But they now also have a big stake in what you see and do online. 

The repeal of net neutrality will give these giant companies free rein to favor their own sites, services, and content, and discriminate against those of rivals. As long as they tell you what they're doing, the government won't stand in their way.

I don't think this discrimination will come in the form of blocking or throttling access to rival sites, as some net neutrality supporters fear. Instead, I think the telecommunications companies will basically start charging new fees and tolls.

If you're a Comcast customer, you may have to pay extra to be able to stream video from Netflix or Amazon, rather than from NBC or Hulu, which Comcast part-owns. If you're a Verizon customer, you may get charged extra to access Google's news or finance sites rather than Yahoo's.

The rule-free environment the FCC is creating will give such companies the latitude to squeeze as much money as they can from you. The sky's the limit. And you can bet the companies will get creative. There's a reason nearly all of them are cheering net neutrality's demise, and it's not because they plan to save you money.

As a result, the internet will no longer be an open network. Instead, it'll be fractured and split into chunks. What you can access and see on the network will depend on what you're willing to pay.

It's bad for most internet companies except the giants

But the loss of net neutrality is not only going to mean higher prices, it's likely to mean less choice.

That's because it will allow broadband providers to impose new fees not just on you and me, but also on the internet companies that want to send their movies and websites our way. If Netflix wants to be able to stream "Stranger Things" to a Comcast customer, it will have to pay a toll to Comcast. If Spotify wants to be able to stream the latest hits to a Verizon customer, it will have to pay a toll to Verizon.

Such tolls will be a costly headache for Netflix, Spotify, Google, and the other big internet companies — but they won't be business breakers. Those companies generally have enough money at their disposal that they'll be able to pay whatever prices the telecommunications companies demand to ensure their customers can continue to access their sites and services.

But tolls could mean real trouble for those companies hoping to be the next Netflix, Amazon, or Google. Those startups could be hobbled by the charges — assuming they can afford to pay them at all.

The loss of net neutrality will mean fewer voices on the internet

One group of companies could be particularly affected by the repeal of the net neutrality rules — those that offer niche content. Such firms likely won't be able to afford the broadband providers' tolls and won't have the clout to broker deals, Aneesh Rajaram, the CEO of Vewd, which runs one of the largest smart TV app stores, warned in a conversation I had with him at Business Insider's IGNITION conference last month.

A company Rajaram knows that streams nature documentaries in ultra-high 4K resolution video is worried it won't be able to reach its customers if and when ISPs start imposing their tolls. If such companies are priced out of the market, more and more of the content available on the internet will come from the telecommunications and internet giants and you'll have access to fewer and fewer independent voices.

That might be OK if we weren't already seeing problems related to the dominance of just a few companies in the internet space, ranging from poor customer service and high prices in some cases to the widespread distribution of propaganda in last year's election. You can expect such matters to only get worse in a post-net neutrality world.

If we want to have any hope of addressing those and related problems, the internet has to remain open to companies that can take on the big incumbents.

Maybe the courts or Congress will do the right thing and overturn the FCC's effort to kill net neutrality. But in the meantime, the future of the internet looks pretty bleak.

SEE ALSO: There's a big math problem with the FCC chairman's main argument for repealing net neutrality

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I've been an iPhone user for 10 years — here's what happened when I switched to the Google Pixel 2 for a week

The FCC plans to repeal net neutrality this week — and it could ruin the internet from Business Insider: Steve Kovach