Now that streaming subscriber growth has slowed, we’ve noted repeatedly how the streaming TV sector is falling into all of the bad habits that ultimately doomed traditional cable TV.

That has involved chasing pointless “growth of growth’s sake” megamergers and imposing bottomless price hikes and new annoying restrictions — all while simultaneously cutting corners on product quality and staff in a bid to give Wall Street that sweet, impossible, unlimited, quarterly growth it demands.

Executives are not being particularly sensitive about it despite some hard lessons learned during the cord cutting years. On the heels of yet another recent price hike across Disney’s Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN streaming services (some as high as 25 percent), Disney CFO Hugh Johnston proudly declared that the company had “earned” the right to increasingly saddle consumers with price hikes:

“We do feel like we’ve earned that pricing in the marketplace, and we feel positively about that. With that will come scale benefits. The product improvements also should reduce churn and keep our consumers with us as they’re evaluating their options.”

We literally just went through this cycle to with traditional cable, yet the execs clearly haven’t learned a thing. When pressed during Disney’s earnings call on whether this might annoy subscribers, Disney CEO Bob Iger brushed aside those concerns:

“We’re not concerned. The goal is to grow engagement on the platform. And what I mean by that is obviously offering a wider variety of programming.”

The problem is the price hikes aren’t generally running parallel with service improvements. Prices are not only increasing; but product streaming catalogs are in many instances getting worse (see: both Marvel and Star Wars properties recent sag in quality and critical acclaim).

At the same time, users are facing more technical restrictions than ever in the forms of device restrictions or password sharing crackdowns. Staff are simultaneously being cut or asked to do more, with less.

Wall Street and the traditional business press laud this behavior because executives are simply looking to maximize shareholder value over the short term. The price hikes helped Disney streaming efforts reach slight profitability for the first time ever, helping convince execs that they’re somehow inherently owed massive profits now that they’ve staked out a beachhead in the streaming wars.

Of course nobody is owed anything. And there’s something these folks really don’t want to talk about: namely that, just like a traditional television industry destroyed by this exact same behavior by the extraction class, none of this is sustainable.

Wall Street’s need for improved quarterly returns at any cost inevitably leads to a sort of auto-cannibalization of product quality. You can’t deliver improved returns through subscriber growth anymore, so executives start looking at restrictions (fewer simultaneous streams, more ads, surcharges for streaming in 4K, etc.), layoffs, price hikes, production cuts, customer service cuts, and pointless, massive mergers that misdirect energy and attention away from improving product quality.

Financial deregulation has ensured there’s no real foundational interest (or financial incentive) in building lasting consumer trust, brand loyalty, or product quality. The focus is short term stock jumps and tax breaks, with the latter repercussions being somebody else’s problem (most immediately consumers and labor, but ultimately execs that have to come in later and restructure everything after the ship runs aground).

Customers might not balk at higher streaming prices immediately. For many (especially compared to traditional TV) streaming still provides a decent value proposition, and Iger was quick to insist they’re not seeing much churn yet in response to hikes. But this isn’t a cycle in which Wall Street can ever be truly satisfied. And streaming is on an accelerated timeline to what traditional cable experienced.

As you saw with traditional cable, product and brand degradation and continues until users ultimately flock to competing, more affordable options, which usually includes piracy. Piracy rates are already rising again in response to executive decisions, and executives seem poised and ready to blame everything but themselves for file sharing’s growing resurgence.

There’s been significant progress, but many popular consumer electronics brands are still building hardware that’s often impossible to repair despite a flood in new state “right to repair” laws around the country. That’s at least the conclusion of this new report by the US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG).

PIRG examined 21 different mainstream tech devices subject to New York’s recently passed electronics Right to Repair law, then graded them “based on the quality and accessibility of repair manuals, spare parts, and other critical repair materials.”

They found decidedly mixed results, with nine of the devices earning As or Bs (including all of the smart phones), three products receiving Ds, and six popular mainstream devices earning Fs. The devices that fared poorly, like the HP Spectre Fold foldable laptop, the Canon EOS r100 camera, or the Apple Vision Pro and Meta Quest 3 VR headsets, usually did so because of a lack of spare parts or useful repair manuals.

New York’s Digital Fair Repair Act, passed in 2022, requires that tech manufacturers provide tools, manuals, and parts to ensure affordable, easy repair of consumer electronics. But as we noted at the time, tech industry lobbyists managed to convince NY Governor Kathy Hochul to water the bill down to the point of near-uselessness by including ample loopholes. PIRG says they’d like this addressed:

“The New York Right to Repair Bill has had mixed success. It has gone a long way in pushing companies towards greater repair standards, but it has been surpassed by newer repair bills in other states like the recent passage in Oregon. In order for this bill to remain useful for the people of New York, it should be updated to bring it in line with newer repair standards, as well as provide greater enforcement to move companies towards full compliance in the future.”

PIRG Senior Director Nathan Proctor told me there’s been no enforcement action taken by NY on the law despite numerous companies failing to comply. All told, the report notes that the cellphone sector has made significant strides in terms of repairability and providing easy access to repair manuals and replacement parts. That’s offset greatly by sectors like VR headsets and cameras, where repairability remains mostly a mess.

Oregon recently became the seventh state to pass “right to repair” legislation making it easier, cheaper, and more convenient to repair technology you own. The bill’s passage came on the heels of legislation passed in Massachusetts (in 2012 and 2020), Colorado (in 2022 and 2023), New York, Minnesota, Maine and California. All told, 30 states are considering such bills in 2024.

But such bills are routinely at risk of being watered down by lobbyists keen to exclude the most problematic sectors (like medical equipment, game consoles, or agricultural gear). And the bills are only useful if they’re actually enforced, which isn’t likely to be a top priority in many well-lobbied states.

We’ve mentioned a few times that there are more than $42 billion in broadband subsides about to drop in the laps of state leaders thanks to the 2021 infrastructure bill. Since the bill gives individual states leeway on how this money is spent, a lot of states (like Pennsylvania) are simply throwing the money in the laps of giant telecom monopolies with long histories of subsidy fraud and abuse.

Some states, like California and New York, are, thankfully, doing things a little differently. Hopefully.

California, for example, is spending $3 billion of its funding on a massive open access “middle mile” network that should drive down access costs and boost competition. There’s been some consternation as to how transparently and inclusively California leaders are doing this, but it’s a strong idea.

New York, meanwhile, is directing a lot of its COVID relief and infrastructure bill funding to community owned and operated broadband networks, which saw a massive surge in popularity during the home education broadband headaches during COVID lockdowns. Said lockdowns illustrated that broadband is an essential utility, and that widespread monopolization has clearly led to market failure.

New York just announced that $70 million of a broader $228 million program will be headed to community-owned broadband networks. Like the one being built in Dryden, New York, which is offering locals previously stuck under a Charter cable broadband monopoly symmetrical 400 Mbps, 700 Mbps, and 1 Gbps connections for $45, $75, and $90 a month, respectively.

According to a New York state announcement, many of these areas will be getting affordable fiber broadband for the first time ever:

“These awards through the Municipal Infrastructure Grant Program will connect tens of thousands of homes and businesses across Upstate New York and deliver reliable high-speed internet service to areas of the state that are unserved and underserved while addressing ConnectALL’s mandate to develop a robust, equitable broadband marketplace across New York State.”

A good chunk of the funding is being spent on “open access” fiber networks, which effectively provide multiple providers — municipally owned or private –the low cost ability to provide service. That boosts competition, and in most places where it’s implemented, results in cheaper, better service (I wrote a report on this phenomenon for the Copia Institute last year in case you missed it).

Contrary to what big telecom and its assorted mouthpieces like to claim, community broadband is an organic, grass roots response to monopoly power and market failure, and sees broad, bipartisan support. Which is why telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast tried to have House Republicans impose a national ban in the middle of a national health emergency that was busy highlighting its importance.

Community broadband isn’t magic. It needs to be implemented and funded intelligently. It can take on many forms, from an extension of your local power utility or a cooperative, to a municipally owned network or a hybrid public-private partnership. These creative, popular, local solutions are again a direct result of decades of apathy by regional telecom monopolies that have lobbied many leaders into apathy.

We’ve mentioned a few times that there are more than $42 billion in broadband subsides about to drop in the laps of state leaders thanks to the 2021 infrastructure bill. Since the bill gives individual states leeway on how this money is spent, a lot of states (like Pennsylvania) are simply throwing the money in the laps of giant telecom monopolies with long histories of subsidy fraud and abuse.

Some states, like California and New York, are, thankfully, doing things a little differently. Hopefully.

California, for example, is spending $3 billion of its funding on a massive open access “middle mile” network that should drive down access costs and boost competition. There’s been some consternation as to how transparently and inclusively California leaders are doing this, but it’s a strong idea.

New York, meanwhile, is directing a lot of its COVID relief and infrastructure bill funding to community owned and operated broadband networks, which saw a massive surge in popularity during the home education broadband headaches during COVID lockdowns. Said lockdowns illustrated that broadband is an essential utility, and that widespread monopolization has clearly led to market failure.

New York just announced that $70 million of a broader $228 million program will be headed to community-owned broadband networks. Like the one being built in Dryden, New York, which is offering locals previously stuck under a Charter cable broadband monopoly symmetrical 400 Mbps, 700 Mbps, and 1 Gbps connections for $45, $75, and $90 a month, respectively.

According to a New York state announcement, many of these areas will be getting affordable fiber broadband for the first time ever:

“These awards through the Municipal Infrastructure Grant Program will connect tens of thousands of homes and businesses across Upstate New York and deliver reliable high-speed internet service to areas of the state that are unserved and underserved while addressing ConnectALL’s mandate to develop a robust, equitable broadband marketplace across New York State.”

A good chunk of the funding is being spent on “open access” fiber networks, which effectively provide multiple providers — municipally owned or private –the low cost ability to provide service. That boosts competition, and in most places where it’s implemented, results in cheaper, better service (I wrote a report on this phenomenon for the Copia Institute last year in case you missed it).

Contrary to what big telecom and its assorted mouthpieces like to claim, community broadband is an organic, grass roots response to monopoly power and market failure, and sees broad, bipartisan support. Which is why telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast tried to have House Republicans impose a national ban in the middle of a national health emergency that was busy highlighting its importance.

Community broadband isn’t magic. It needs to be implemented and funded intelligently. It can take on many forms, from an extension of your local power utility or a cooperative, to a municipally owned network or a hybrid public-private partnership. These creative, popular, local solutions are again a direct result of decades of apathy by regional telecom monopolies that have lobbied many leaders into apathy.

Broadband providers poised to receive $42 billion in taxpayer broadband subsidies from the infrastructure bill are ramping up complaints about a small requirement affixed to the massive handout: they have to try to make broadband affordable to poor people.

Earlier this month we noted that the GOP, in lockstep with the telecom industry, had launched an “investigation” into the low-income requirements attached to the Broadband Equity Access And Deployment (BEAD) subsidy program and the agency overseeing it (NTIA).

The requirements are not onerous: the NTIA delegates most authority for how the money is to be spent to the states, which are “strongly encouraged” (according to BEAD program guidelines) to provide a slower, cheaper service tier somewhere between around $30 and $48 per month. And only to families that qualify for existing low-income assistance programs.

But in a new letter to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo (hat tip, Ars Technica), telecom lobbying organizations (most of them directed by AT&T) vaguely threaten that they’ll take their ball and go home if the requirements for a low-cost option aren’t eliminated:

“Without significant and immediate changes of approach toward its implementation, we are concerned the program will fail to advance our collective goal of connectivity for all in America. We and our members sincerely want this program to work, but we believe that your agency’s administration of the low-cost service option requirement in particular risks putting the overall success of BEAD in jeopardy.”

To be clear I’m not sure that federal or state lawmakers are even able to enforce this requirement with any consistency, given the rank corruption and feckless careerism that abounds in telecom regulatory oversight. But just the faintest hint that they might have to make their product affordable greatly upsets regional monopolies, who’ve spent decades working to undermine competition and oversight in a bid to keep U.S. broadband prices artificially inflated.

Telecom giants like AT&T have grown fat and comfortable ripping off captive local subscribers and effectively telling regulators what to do. They’re so comfortable, in fact, that the barest bone efforts asking them nicely to provide a less expensive option to poor people is being treated like some kind of draconian, radical and illegal effort at unchecked “rate regulation.”

This wouldn’t be quite such a contentious issue if most of these companies didn’t have a 40 year track record of gobbling up taxpayer dollars for broadband deployments they never quite seem to finish. Or if they hadn’t made U.S. broadband so patchy and expensive due to relentless efforts at anti-competitive regional monopolization.

BEAD money is poised to start flowing to the states this fall, but big telecoms, if they wanted, could throw a wrench in the process over these modest requirements (AT&T’s already apparently doing this in Virginia). At which point, telecom giants (and the politicians bribed into a near-mindless fealty to them) will absolutely blame government for the entirely avoidable delay.

Last December I wrote a feature for The Verge exploring the FCC’s long overdue effort to stop race and class discrimination in broadband deployment. For decades, big telecoms have not only refused to evenly upgrade broadband in low income and poor areas (despite billions in subsidies for this exact purpose), they’ve provably charged poor and minority neighborhoods significantly more money for worse service.

To be clear the FCC’s plan doesn’t actually stop such discrimination. Regulators didn’t even have the moral courage to call out big telecoms with a history of such practices (see: AT&T’s “digital redlining” in cities like Cleveland and Detroit). The FCC simply acknowledged that this discrimination clearly exists and imposed some loophole-filled rules stating that big ISPs shouldn’t discriminate moving forward.

As with the FCC’s restored net neutrality rules, I highly suspect the historically feckless and captured FCC ever actually enforces the guidelines with any zeal. But the effort to acknowledge that such discrimination exists (as it has been documented in both electrical utility deployments and highway location selection) was viewed as progress by civil rights groups. And also enough to send the GOP into a multi-month tizzy.

Last February, 65 US House Republications submitted a resolution of disapproval claiming, falsely, that the Biden administration was using the pretense of “equity” to “expand the federal government’s control of all Internet services and infrastructure.” And last week, the Federalist Society hosted a function at which GOP officials (including Trump appointed FCC Commission Nathan Simington) gathered to make up claims the rules were already having a “chilling effect across the broadband industry“:

“Out of fear of running afoul of the rules, companies will certainly avoid otherwise planned investments,” said Erin Boone, chief of staff and wireless advisor for Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington.”

As you might recall, this was the same claim Republicans made about some modest net neutrality rules. For a decade the GOP proclaimed that modest and largely unenforced FCC net neutrality rules would have a devastating impact on broadband investment. But if you looked at earnings reports, public data, and even CEO statements, it was patently obvious the claim was absolute bullshit.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also positively flummoxed that a telecom regulator acknowledged that digital broadband discrimination exists, penning a lengthy missive falsely stating that the FCC’s half-assed effort would most assuredly harm poor Americans:

“These rules undermine public and private sector efforts to build modern broadband networks—jeopardizing connectivity for all Americans.”

This is the perpetual doom cycle U.S. telecom policy has inhabited for 30 odd years.

Democrats weakly propose long overdue but meekly enforced rules to address a problem they’ve ignored for the better part of thirty years. Republicans pop up to proclaim these bare-minimum efforts are somehow a “radical socialist takeover of the internet” (or some variant), which “both sides” news outlets parrot without much in the way of skepticism, giving the GOP unearned credibility on telecom policy.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s broadband privacy, net neutrality, racial discrimination, or even very basic efforts to stop your cable company from ripping you off with bullshit fees. It doesn’t matter how basic the proposal is or if it ever even sees enforcement.

The pretense is always the same: that the government doing the absolute bare minimum is, in reality, a “radical government running amok” and “chilling all investment in the broadband industry.”

It makes me wonder how the AT&T earlobe-nibbling politicians of today would respond to a Democratic party and regulators with an actual antitrust enforcement backbone. In lock step with GOP whining, major telecom policy and lobbying groups have also sued to block the modest digital discrimination rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, claiming falsely it’s akin to “rate regulation.”

The goal of most Republicans (and a not insubstantial number of Democrats) is a market in which regional, highly consolidated monopolies like AT&T and Comcast are allowed to freely run amok, taking bottomless advantage of the one-two punch of feckless oversight and limited competition while being slathered with subsidies. All dressed up as some kind of noble defense of free markets and the little guy.

I’ve been seeing some variation of this for the better part of 25 years of covering the broadband industry, and it’s utterly remarkable how utterly impervious the whole corruption-fueled dynamic is to both reason and meaningful change.

I’ve noted more than a few times that the primary problem with U.S. journalism is the fact that most major media outlets are owned by out of touch billionaire brunchlords who genuinely don’t understand the modern media environment, can’t see their own gender, race, or class biases, and often have absolutely no earthly fucking idea what they’re actually doing.

You can see this very clearly at places like Politico, where political coverage often takes a feckless “both sides” approach to factual reality. This “view from nowhere,” as NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen dubbed it, presents everything from fascist insurrection to climate changes as a perfect symmetrical debate between two valid sides.

It’s a timidity and aversion to the actual truth, born from a fear of upsetting sources, advertisers, event sponsors, and those in power. And, because this kind of journalism is incapable of clearly calling out fascism and bigotry, it’s being broadly abused and exploited by authoritarians.

Current Politico owner Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no idea this broken media paradigm even exists, much less any inkling on how to fix it. The same appears to go for former Politico owner Robert Allbritton, who recently started a new journalism finishing school profiled last week in the Washington Post.

The underlying organization is called the Allbritton Journalism Institute. AJI in turn runs what they’re calling a “teaching hospital for journalism” dubbed NOTUS, or News of the United States. Journalists I know tell me NOTUS is doing some good work, though WAPO kind of buries a claim that the nonprofit may have been launched as a way for Allbritton to get back into media without violating his noncompete.

But the Washington Post report on the project raises a few red flags, beginning with a claim by Allbritton that he created the project because there apparently just aren’t any good journalists out there to hire:

“Allbritton believes there’s a dearth of good reporter candidates out there, and a need for the real-world training once provided by places like Politico, which he sold in 2021.

“Talking to a ton of senior-to-mid-level execs in media, the constant refrain is: ‘I can’t find great people,’” he said in an interview. “It’s really hard to hire good people.”

There’s actually an over-abundance of quality journalists out there thanks to record layoffs caused, in large part, due to rampant misspending and incompetence among the brunchlord set (see the Vice and The Messenger shitshows as just the latest examples). I’ve lost track of the number of phenomenally talented editors and journalists I know who have been shitcanned in recent years.

Later in the article, Allbritton starts to explain in detail precisely what he thinks is wrong with most modern journalists, and while he couches his language a bit, it starts to become pretty clear that his primary concern is all the damn wokeness:

“There was definitely a kind of a woke kind of shift that took place within newsrooms,” he said. “I wouldn’t say it’s radical. It’s not. But there’s some social-warrior believers in there. I’m not sure they use their voices, but definitely believers. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s good to have an opinion. But it does make it a little harder to get to the truth if you’re coming in there with either a liberal bias or a conservative bias.”

There’s some nice tap dancing there, but the use of “woke” and “social-warrior believers” (SJWs) as pejoratives indicates that the real thing Allbritton doesn’t like about modern journalism is all the damn class, gender, and race awareness. Albritton claims he wants a journalism finishing school that reflects “a variety of political ideologies,” and yet here’s the kind of folks WAPO says are getting fellowships:

“This year’s cohort of fellows is diverse and includes students from backgrounds that are underrepresented in the news industry, including a fellow who attended a Christian college and one who served as an artillery officer in the U.S. Army for seven years.”

Yes Christianity and the military, two woefully underrepresented segments of American society.

So, look, any money being doled into journalism is good. And I’m sure the NOTUS fellows are doing some decent work. I hope they’re being paid a living wage with high-end luxuries like health care and time off, and I also hope that this entire effort isn’t shuttered in six months after it’s revealed that Allbritton blew the entire budget on outsized compensation and lavish brand parties a la Sports Illustrated.

Here’s the thing that annoys me.

There’s an ocean of problems with journalism, but the idea that there’s just too damn much woke progressivism is utter delusion. U.S. journalism generally tilts center right on the political spectrum. It’s generally corporatist and pro-business to a comical degree. Often it’s too feckless to meaningfully critique wealth and power. Routinely it traffics in engagement-chasing distraction, not knowledge.

The tech press, in particular, operates basically as an extension of tech company marketing departments. There certainly is occasionally good journalism (ProPublica’s exploration of the Supreme Court, Reuters’ investigations into Tesla), but by and large the folks in charge of major U.S. media institutions are building a badly automated ad-engagement ouroboros for which the truth is a pretty distant fucking afterthought.

This all directly reflects the bias and interests of an out of touch billionaire extraction class that’s either blind to its own biases, or desperate to pretend they don’t exist. In the wake of Black Lives Matter and COVID there was some fleeting recommendations to the ivy league establishment media that we could perhaps take a slightly more well-rounded, inclusive approach to journalism.

In response, the trust fund lords in charge of these establishment outlets lost their fucking minds, started crying incessantly about young journalists “needing safe spaces,” and decided to double down on all their worst impulses, having learned less than nothing along the way. Reading Allbritton’s lamentations about the wokes you don’t really get the sense he learned much of anything from the voyage either.

There’s a reason U.S. journalism is falling apart. There’s a reason journalists are increasingly crafting their own newsletters or building smaller, journalist-owned news outlets. And (unless you’re a Matt Taibbi type looking to exploit the modern right’s bottomless victimization complex) it has very little to do with diabolical wokeism, or the handful of progressive voices begging for journalism that doesn’t suck.

We’ve noted repeatedly how the primary problem with U.S. media and journalism often isn’t the actual journalists, or even the sloppy automation being used to cut corners; it’s the terrible, trust fund brunchlords that fail upwards into positions of power. The kind of owners and managers who, through malice or sheer incompetence, turn the outlets they oversee into either outright propaganda mills (Newsweek), or money-burning, purposeless mush (Vice, Buzzfeed, The Messenger, etc., etc.)

Very often these collapses are framed with the narrative that doing journalism online somehow simply can’t be profitable; something quickly disproven every time a group of journalists go off to start their own media venture without a useless executive getting outsized compensation and setting money on fire (see: 404 Media and countless other successful worker-owned journalistic ventures).

Of course these kinds of real journalistic outlets still have to scrap and fight for every nickel. At the same time, there’s just an unlimited amount of money available if you want to participate in the right wing grievance propaganda engagement economy, telling white young males that all of their very worst instincts are correct (see: Rogan, Taibbi, Rufo, Greenwald, Tracey, Tate, Peterson, etc. etc. etc. etc.).

One key player in this far right delusion farm, failed Presidential opportunist Vivek Ramaswamy, recently tried to ramp up his own make believe efforts to “fix journalism.” He did so by purchasing an 8 percent stake in what’s left of Buzzfeed after it basically gave up on trying to do journalism last year.

Ramaswamy’s demands are silly toddler gibberish, demanding that the outlet pivot to video, and hire such intellectual heavyweights as Tucker Carlson and Aaron Rodgers:

“Mr. Ramaswamy is pushing BuzzFeed to add three new members to its board of directors, to hone its focus on audio and video content and to embrace “greater diversity of thought,” according to a copy of his letter shared with The New York Times.”

By “greater diversity of thought,” he means pushing facts-optional right wing grievance porn and propaganda pretending to be journalism, in a bid to further distract the public from issues of substance, and fill American heads with pudding.

But it sounds like Ramaswamy couldn’t even do that successfully. For one thing, Buzzfeed simply isn’t relevant as a news company any longer. Gone is the real journalism peppered between cutesy listicles, replaced mostly with mindless engagement bullshit. For another, Buzzfeed CEO Jonah Peretti (and affiliates) still hold 96 percent of the Class B stock, giving them 50 times voting rights of Ramaswamy.

So as Elizabeth Lopatto at The Verge notes, Ramaswamy is either trying to goose and then sell his stock, or is engaging in a hollow and performative PR exercise where he can pretend that he’s “fixing liberal media.” Or both. The entire venture is utterly purposeless and meaningless:

“You’ve picked Buzzfeed because the shares are cheap, and because you have a grudge against a historically liberal outlet. It doesn’t matter that Buzzfeed News no longer exists — you’re still mad that it famously published the Steele dossier and you want to replace a once-respected, Pulitzer-winning brand with a half-assed “creators” plan starring Tucker Carlson and Aaron Rodgers. Really piss on your enemies’ graves, right, babe?”

While Ramaswamy’s bid is purely decorative, it, of course, was treated as a very serious effort to “fix journalism” by other pseudo-news outlets like the NY Post, The Hill, and Fox Business. It’s part of the broader right wing delusion that the real problem with U.S. journalism isn’t that it’s improperly financed and broadly mismanaged by raging incompetents, but that it’s not dedicated enough to coddling wealth and power. Or telling terrible, ignorant people exactly what they want to hear.

Of course none of this is any dumber than what happens in the U.S. media sector every day, as the Vice bankruptcy or the $50 million dollar Messenger implosion so aptly illustrated. U.S. journalism isn’t just dying, the corpses of what remains are being abused by terrible, wealthy puppeteers with no ideas and nothing of substance to contribute (see the postmortem abuse of Newsweek or Sports Illustrated), and in that sense Vivek fits right in.

For decades now, U.S. wireless carriers have sold consumers “unlimited data” plans that actually have all manner of sometimes hidden throttling, caps, and restrictions. And every few years a regulator comes out with a wrist slap against wireless carriers for misleading consumers, for whatever good it does.

Back in 2007, for example, then NY AG Andrew Cuomo fined Verizon a tiny $150,000 for selling “unlimited” plans that were very limited (Verizon kept doing it anyway). In 2019, the FTC fined AT&T $60 million for selling “unlimited” plans that were very limited, then repeatedly lying to consumers about it (impacted consumers saw refunds of around $22 each).

Similar state and federal fines and lawsuits have also been levied against these companies prepaid wireless brands over the years. This never-ending game of patty cake over the term “unlimited” also happens in Canada fairly routinely.

Last week, NY AG Leticia James that T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T will pay a combined $10.2 million settlement for — you guessed it — selling “unlimited” plans that were very limited:

“A multistate investigation found that the companies made false claims in advertisements in New York and across the nation, including misrepresentations about “unlimited” data plans that were in fact limited and had reduced quality and speed after a certain limit was reached by the user. The companies will pay $520,000 to New York and are required to change their advertising to ensure that wireless service plans are accurately and fairly explained.”

Will wireless carriers actually change their marketing tactics? Probably not! Will consumers see refunds? Probably not! Do the carriers have to admit any legal wrongdoing? Nope! Are the penalties stiff enough to deter future abuses? No way.

In this case, the settlement — which involved every U.S. state but DeSantistan Florida — was built on an investigation that started nine years ago but was effectively slow walked by industry lawyers. The investigation found that not only do wireless carriers (and their prepaid subsidiaries) routinely sell “unlimited” data plans with limits, but they also promote “free” phones that aren’t free.

If telecom industry history is any indication, the $10.2 million in fines will likely be watered down after another year or two of legal wrangling. And you’ll probably be right back here a few years from now reading about another wrist slap levied against an industry seemingly obsessed with abusing consumer trust — and the dictionary definition of very basic terminology.

By now it’s been made fairly clear that the bedazzling wonderment that is “AI” doesn’t come cheap. Story after story have highlighted how the technology consumes massive amounts of electricity and water, and we’re not really adapting to keep pace. This is also occurring alongside a destabilizing climate crisis that’s already putting a capacity and financial strain on aging electrical infrastructure.

A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that the 460 terawatt-hours (TWh) consumed by data centers in 2022 represented 2% of all global electricity usage, mostly driven by data centers and data center cooling. AI and crypto mining is expected to double that consumption by 2026.

Marc Ganzi, CEO of data center company DigitalBridge, isn’t really being subtle about his warnings. He claims that data centers are going to start running out of power within the next 18-24 months:

“We started talking about this over two years ago at the Berlin Infrastructure Conference when I told the investor world, we’re running out of power in five years. Well, I was wrong about that. We’re kind of running out of power in the next 18 to 24 months.”

Of course when these guys say “we” are going to run out of power, they really mean you (the plebs) will be running out of power. They’ll find solutions to address their need for unlimited power, and the strain will likely be shifted to areas, companies, and residents with far less robust lobbying budgets.

Data centers can move operations closer to natural gas, hydropower sources, or nuclear plants. Some are even using decommissioned Navy ships to exploit liquid cooling. But a report by the financial analysts at TD Cowen says there’s now a 3+ year lead time on bringing new power connections to data centers. It’s a 7 year wait in Silicon Valley; 8 years in markets like Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris and Dublin.

Network engineers have seen this problem coming for years. Yet crypto and AI power consumption, combined with the strain of climate dysregulation, still isn’t really a problem the sector is prepared for. And when the blame comes, the VC hype bros who got out over their skis, or utilities that failed to modernize for modern demand and climate stability issues won’t blame themselves, but regulation:

“[Cisco VP Denise] Lee said that, now, two major trends are getting ready to crash into each other: Cutting-edge AI is supercharging demand for power-hungry data center processing, while slow-moving power utilities are struggling to keep up with demand amid outdated technologies and voluminous regulations.”

While I’m sure utilities and data centers certainly face some annoying regulations, the real problem rests on the back of technology hype cycles that don’t really care about the real-world impact of their hyper-scaled profit seeking. As always, the real-world impact of the relentless pursuit of unlimited wealth and impossible scale is somebody else’s problem to figure out later, likely at significant taxpayer cost.

This story is playing out to a backdrop of a total breakdown of federal regulatory guidance. Bickering state partisans are struggling to coordinate vastly different and often incompatible visions of our energy future. While at the same time a corrupt Supreme Court prepares several pro-corporate rulings designed to dismantle what’s left of coherent federal regulatory independence.

I would suspect the crypto and AI-hyping VCs (and the data centers that profit off of the relentless demand for unlimited computational power and energy) will be fine. Not so sure about everybody else, though.

By now it’s been made fairly clear that the bedazzling wonderment that is “AI” doesn’t come cheap. Story after story have highlighted how the technology consumes massive amounts of electricity and water, and we’re not really adapting to keep pace. This is also occurring alongside a destabilizing climate crisis that’s already putting a capacity and financial strain on aging electrical infrastructure.

A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that the 460 terawatt-hours (TWh) consumed by data centers in 2022 represented 2% of all global electricity usage, mostly driven by data centers and data center cooling. AI and crypto mining is expected to double that consumption by 2026.

Marc Ganzi, CEO of data center company DigitalBridge, isn’t really being subtle about his warnings. He claims that data centers are going to start running out of power within the next 18-24 months:

“We started talking about this over two years ago at the Berlin Infrastructure Conference when I told the investor world, we’re running out of power in five years. Well, I was wrong about that. We’re kind of running out of power in the next 18 to 24 months.”

Of course when these guys say “we” are going to run out of power, they really mean you (the plebs) will be running out of power. They’ll find solutions to address their need for unlimited power, and the strain will likely be shifted to areas, companies, and residents with far less robust lobbying budgets.

Data centers can move operations closer to natural gas, hydropower sources, or nuclear plants. Some are even using decommissioned Navy ships to exploit liquid cooling. But a report by the financial analysts at TD Cowen says there’s now a 3+ year lead time on bringing new power connections to data centers. It’s a 7 year wait in Silicon Valley; 8 years in markets like Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris and Dublin.

Network engineers have seen this problem coming for years. Yet crypto and AI power consumption, combined with the strain of climate dysregulation, still isn’t really a problem the sector is prepared for. And when the blame comes, the VC hype bros who got out over their skis, or utilities that failed to modernize for modern demand and climate stability issues won’t blame themselves, but regulation:

“[Cisco VP Denise] Lee said that, now, two major trends are getting ready to crash into each other: Cutting-edge AI is supercharging demand for power-hungry data center processing, while slow-moving power utilities are struggling to keep up with demand amid outdated technologies and voluminous regulations.”

While I’m sure utilities and data centers certainly face some annoying regulations, the real problem rests on the back of technology hype cycles that don’t really care about the real-world impact of their hyper-scaled profit seeking. As always, the real-world impact of the relentless pursuit of unlimited wealth and impossible scale is somebody else’s problem to figure out later, likely at significant taxpayer cost.

This story is playing out to a backdrop of a total breakdown of federal regulatory guidance. Bickering state partisans are struggling to coordinate vastly different and often incompatible visions of our energy future. While at the same time a corrupt Supreme Court prepares several pro-corporate rulings designed to dismantle what’s left of coherent federal regulatory independence.

I would suspect the crypto and AI-hyping VCs (and the data centers that profit off of the relentless demand for unlimited computational power and energy) will be fine. Not so sure about everybody else, though.

By now it’s been made fairly clear that the bedazzling wonderment that is “AI” doesn’t come cheap. Story after story have highlighted how the technology consumes massive amounts of electricity and water, and we’re not really adapting to keep pace. This is also occurring alongside a destabilizing climate crisis that’s already putting a capacity and financial strain on aging electrical infrastructure.

A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that the 460 terawatt-hours (TWh) consumed by data centers in 2022 represented 2% of all global electricity usage, mostly driven by data centers and data center cooling. AI and crypto mining is expected to double that consumption by 2026.

Marc Ganzi, CEO of data center company DigitalBridge, isn’t really being subtle about his warnings. He claims that data centers are going to start running out of power within the next 18-24 months:

“We started talking about this over two years ago at the Berlin Infrastructure Conference when I told the investor world, we’re running out of power in five years. Well, I was wrong about that. We’re kind of running out of power in the next 18 to 24 months.”

Of course when these guys say “we” are going to run out of power, they really mean you (the plebs) will be running out of power. They’ll find solutions to address their need for unlimited power, and the strain will likely be shifted to areas, companies, and residents with far less robust lobbying budgets.

Data centers can move operations closer to natural gas, hydropower sources, or nuclear plants. Some are even using decommissioned Navy ships to exploit liquid cooling. But a report by the financial analysts at TD Cowen says there’s now a 3+ year lead time on bringing new power connections to data centers. It’s a 7 year wait in Silicon Valley; 8 years in markets like Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris and Dublin.

Network engineers have seen this problem coming for years. Yet crypto and AI power consumption, combined with the strain of climate dysregulation, still isn’t really a problem the sector is prepared for. And when the blame comes, the VC hype bros who got out over their skis, or utilities that failed to modernize for modern demand and climate stability issues won’t blame themselves, but regulation:

“[Cisco VP Denise] Lee said that, now, two major trends are getting ready to crash into each other: Cutting-edge AI is supercharging demand for power-hungry data center processing, while slow-moving power utilities are struggling to keep up with demand amid outdated technologies and voluminous regulations.”

While I’m sure utilities and data centers certainly face some annoying regulations, the real problem rests on the back of technology hype cycles that don’t really care about the real-world impact of their hyper-scaled profit seeking. As always, the real-world impact of the relentless pursuit of unlimited wealth and impossible scale is somebody else’s problem to figure out later, likely at significant taxpayer cost.

This story is playing out to a backdrop of a total breakdown of federal regulatory guidance. Bickering state partisans are struggling to coordinate vastly different and often incompatible visions of our energy future. While at the same time a corrupt Supreme Court prepares several pro-corporate rulings designed to dismantle what’s left of coherent federal regulatory independence.

I would suspect the crypto and AI-hyping VCs (and the data centers that profit off of the relentless demand for unlimited computational power and energy) will be fine. Not so sure about everybody else, though.

When the Trump administration killed net neutrality, telecom industry giants convinced them to push their luck and declared that not only would federal regulators no longer try to meaningfully oversee telecom giants like Comcast and AT&T, but that states couldn’t either. They got greedy.

The courts didn’t like that much, repeatedly ruling that the FCC can’t abdicate its authority over broadband consumer protection, then turn around tell states what they can or can’t do.

The courts took that stance again last week, with a new ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit restoring a New York State law (the Affordable Broadband Act) requiring that ISPs provide low-income state residents $15 broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps. The law was blocked in June of 2021 by a US District Judge who claimed that the state law was preempted by the federal net neutrality repeal.

Giant ISPs, and the Trump administration officials who love them, desperately tried to insist that states were magically barred from regulating broadband because the Trump administration said so. But the appeals court ruled, once again, those efforts aren’t supported by logic or the law:

“the ABA is not conflict-preempted by the Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 order classifying broadband as an information service. That order stripped the agency of its authority to regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet, and a federal agency cannot exclude states from regulating in an area where the agency itself lacks regulatory authority. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and VACATE the permanent injunction.”

This ruling is once again good news for future fights over net neutrality and broadband consumer protection, Stanford Law Professor and net neutrality expert Barbara van Schewick notes in a statement:

“Today’s decision means that if a future FCC again decided to abdicate its oversight over broadband like it did in 2017, the states have strong legal precedent, across circuits, to institute their own protections or re-activate dormant ones.”

Telecom lobbyists have spent years lobbying to ensure federal broadband oversight is as captured and feckless as possible. And, with the occasional exception, they’ve largely succeeded. Big telecom had really hoped they could extend that winning streak even further and bar states from standing up to them as well, but so far that really hasn’t gone as planned.

One of the things that absolutely terrifies telecom monopoly lobbyists is the idea of rate regulation, or that government would ever stop them from ripping off captive customers stuck in uncompetitive markets. It’s never been a serious threat on the federal level due to regulatory capture and lobbying, even though it’s thrown around a lot by monopoly apologists as a terrifying bogeyman akin to leprosy.

Here you not only have a state retaining its authority to protect consumers from monopoly harm, but dictating to them that they must provide poor people with 25 Mbps broadband (which really costs ISPs at Comcast’s scale virtually nothing to provide in the gigabit era). Still, it’s the kind of ruling that’s going to give AT&T and Comcast lobbyists (and consultants and think tank proxies) cold sweats for years.

Last year Mozilla released a report showcasing how the auto industry has some of the worst privacy practices of any tech industry in America (no small feat). Massive amounts of driver behavior is collected by your car, and even more is hoovered up from your smartphone every time you connect. This data isn’t secured, often isn’t encrypted, and is sold to a long list of dodgy, unregulated middlemen.

Last March the New York Times revealed that automakers like GM routinely sell access to driver behavior data to insurance companies, which then use that data to justify jacking up your rates. The practice isn’t clearly disclosed to consumers, and has resulted in 11 federal lawsuits in less than a month.

Now Ron Wyden’s office is back with the results of their preliminary investigation into the auto industry, finding that it routinely provides customer data to law enforcement without a warrant without informing consumers. The auto industry, unsurprisingly, couldn’t even be bothered to adhere to a performative, voluntary pledge the whole sector made in 2014 to not do precisely this sort of thing:

“Automakers have not only kept consumers in the dark regarding their actual practices, but multiple companies misled consumers for over a decade by failing to honor the industry’s own voluntary privacy principles. To that end, we urge the FTC to investigate these auto manufacturers’ deceptive claims as well as their harmful data retention practices.”

The auto industry can get away with this because the U.S. remains too corrupt to pass even a baseline privacy law for the internet era. The FTC, which has been left under-staffed, under-funded, and boxed in by decades of relentless lobbying and mindless deregulation, lacks the resources to pursue these kinds of violations at any consistent scale; precisely as corporations like it.

Maybe the FTC will act, maybe it won’t. If it does, it will take two years to get the case together, the financial penalties will be a tiny pittance in relation to the total amount of revenues gleaned from privacy abuses, and the final ruling will be bogged down in another five years of legal wrangling.

This wholesale violation of user privacy has dire, real-world consequences. Wyden’s office has also been taking aim at data brokers who sell abortion clinic visitor location data to right wing activists, who then have turned around to target vulnerable women with health care disinformation. Wireless carrier location data has also been abused by everyone from stalkers to people pretending to be law enforcement.

The cavalier treatment of your auto data poses those same risks, Wyden’s office notes:

“Vehicle location data can reveal intimate details of a person’s life, including for those who seek care across state lines, attend protests, visit mental or behavioral health professionals or seek treatment for substance use disorder.”

Keep in mind this is the same auto industry currently trying to scuttle right to repair reforms under the pretense that they’re just trying to protect consumer privacy (spoiler: they aren’t).

This same story is playing out across a litany of industries. Again, it’s just a matter of time until there’s a privacy scandal so massive and ugly that even our corrupt Congress is shaken from its corrupt apathy, though you’d hate to think what it will have to look like.

We’ve noted repeatedly that while “AI” (language learning models) hold a lot of potential, the rushed implementation of half-assed early variants are causing no shortage of headaches across journalism, media, health care, and other sectors. In part because the kind of terrible brunchlord managers in charge of many institutions primarily see AI as a way to cut corners and attack labor.

It’s been a particular problem in healthcare, where broken “AI” is being layered on top of already broken systems. Like in insurance, where error-prone automation, programmed from the ground up to prioritize money over health, is incorrectly denying essential insurance coverage to the elderly.

Last week, hundreds of nurses protested the implementation of sloppy AI into hospital systems in front of Kaiser Permanente. Their primary concern: that systems incapable of empathy are being integrated into an already dysfunctional sector without much thought toward patient care:

“No computer, no AI can replace a human touch,” said Amy Grewal, a registered nurse. “It cannot hold your loved one’s hand. You cannot teach a computer how to have empathy.”

There are certainly roles automation can play in easing strain on a sector full of burnout after COVID, particularly when it comes to administrative tasks. The concern, as with other industries dominated by executives with poor judgement, is that this is being used as a justification by for-profit hospital systems to cut corners further. From a National Nurses United blog post (spotted by 404 Media):

“Nurses are not against scientific or technological advancement, but we will not accept algorithms replacing the expertise, experience, holistic, and hands-on approach we bring to patient care,” they added.

Kaiser Permanente, for its part, insists it’s simply leveraging “state-of-the-art tools and technologies that support our mission of providing high-quality, affordable health care to best meet our members’ and patients’ needs.” The company claims its “Advance Alert” AI monitoring system — which algorithmically analyzes patient data every hour — has the potential to save upwards of 500 lives a year.

The problem is that healthcare giants’ primary obligation no longer appears to reside with patients, but with their financial results. And, that’s even true in non-profit healthcare providers. That is seen in the form of cut corners, worse service, and an assault on already over-taxed labor via lower pay and higher workload (curiously, it never seems to impact outsized high-level executive compensation).

AI provides companies the perfect justification for making life worse on employees under the pretense of progress. Which wouldn’t be quite as terrible if the implementation of AI in health care hadn’t been such a preposterous mess, ranging from mental health chatbots doling out dangerously inaccurate advice, to AI health insurance bots that make error-prone judgements a good 90 percent of the time.

AI has great potential in imaging analysis. But while it can help streamline analysis and solve some errors, it may introduce entirely new ones if not adopted with caution. Concern on this front can often be misrepresented as being anti-technology or anti-innovation by health care hardware technology companies again prioritizing quarterly returns over the safety of patients.

Implementing this kind of transformative but error-prone tech in an industry where lives are on the line requires patience, intelligent planning, broad consultation with every level of employee, and competent regulatory guidance, none of which are American strong suits of late.

I’ve mentioned more than a few times how the singular hyperventilation about TikTok is kind of silly distraction from the fact that the United States is too corrupt to pass a modern privacy law, resulting in no limit of dodgy behavior, abuse, and scandal. We have no real standards thanks to corruption, and most people have no real idea of the scale of the dysfunction.

Case in point: a new study out of the University of Pennsylvania (hat tip to The Register) analyzed a nationally representative sample of 100 U.S. hospitals, and found that 96 percent of them were doling out sensitive user visitor data to Google, Meta, and a vast coalition of dodgy data brokers.

Hospitals, it should be clear, aren’t legally required to publish website privacy policies that clearly detail how and with whom they share visitor data. Again, because we’re too corrupt as a country to require and enforce such requirements. The FTC does have some jurisdiction, but it’s too short staffed and under-funded (quite intentionally) to tackle the real scope of U.S. online privacy violations.

So the study found that a chunk of these hospital websites didn’t even have a privacy policy. And of the ones that did, about half the time the over-verbose pile of ambiguous and intentionally confusing legalese didn’t really inform visitors that their data was being transferred to a long list of third parties. Or, for that matter, who those third-parties even are:

“…we found that although 96.0% of hospital websites exposed users to third-party tracking, only 71.0% of websites had an available website privacy policy…Only 56.3% of policies (and only 40 hospitals overall) identified specific third-party recipients.”

Data in this instance can involve everything including email and IP addresses, to what you clicked on, what you researched, demographic info, and location. This was all a slight improvement from a study they did a year earlier showing that 98 percent of hospital websites shared sensitive data with third parties. The professors clearly knew what to expect, but were still disgusted in comments to The Register:

“It’s shocking, and really kind of incomprehensible,” said Dr Ari Friedman, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. “People have cared about health privacy for a really, really, really long time.” It’s very fundamental to human nature. Even if it’s information that you would have shared with people, there’s still a loss, just an intrinsic loss, when you don’t even have control over who you share that information with.”

If this data is getting into the hands of dodgy international and unregulated data brokers, there’s no limit of places it can end up. Brokers collect a huge array of demographic, behavioral, and location data, use it to create detailed profiles of individuals, then sell access in a million different ways to a long line of additional third parties, including the U.S. government and foreign intelligence agencies.

There should be hard requirements about transparent, clear, and concise notifications of exactly what data is being collected and sold and to whom. There should be hard requirements that users have the ability to opt out (or, preferably in the cases of sensitive info, opt in). There should be hard punishment for companies and executives that play fast and loose with consumer data.

And we have none of that because our lawmakers decided, repeatedly, that making money was more important than market health, consumer welfare, and public safety. The result has been a parade of scandals that skirt ever closer to people being killed, at scale.

So again, the kind of people that whine about the singular privacy threat that is TikTok (like say FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, or Senator Marsha Blackburn) — but have nothing to say about the much broader dysfunction created by rampant corruption — are advertising they either don’t know what they’re talking about, or aren’t addressing the full scope of the problem in good faith.

Last month Oregon state lawmakers passed a new “right to repair” law making it easier and cheaper to repair your electronics. The law requires that manufacturers that do business in the state provide users with easy and affordable access to tools, manuals, and parts. It also cracks down on practices like “parts pairing,” which often uses software locks to block use of third-party parts and assemblages.

It’s arguably the toughest state right to repair law yet. And it almost didn’t pass thanks to Apple, which (as it has in other states) lobbied to kill the bill, falsely claiming it was a threat to user safety and security.

Last week, The Washington Post proudly declared that Apple was slightly reversing some long-standing restrictions on repair and accessibility:

“Apple told The Washington Post it is easing a key restriction on iPhone repairs. Starting this fall, owners of an iPhone 15 or newer will be able to get their broken devices fixed with used parts — including screens, batteries and cameras — without any change in functionality.”

Notice this isn’t a full reversal of Apple’s restrictions, which (despite what it often claims) are designed to monopolize repair and accelerate the sales of new phones. And it takes the Washington Post until the seventeenth paragraph to inform readers that the changes are thanks in large part to Oregon’s new law.

And again, the Post never really informs the reader clearly that Apple lobbied to have the law killed. Or really properly frames the impact Apple’s restrictions have long had on the environment, consumer rights and costs, or the small independent repair shops Apple has a history of bullying. But it does let Apple falsely claim, without correction, that the law is a threat to consumer privacy:

“Neither Ternus nor Apple spokespeople commented on what changes may have to be made to abide by Oregon law, but the company said in an earlier statement that the bill’s language “introduces the possibility that Apple would be required to allow unknown, non-secure third-party Face ID or Touch ID modules to unlock” a user’s personal information.”

That’s just scare mongering. You can read in detail over at iFixit how “parts pairing” actually works and how it’s harmful. Apple (like John Deere and every other company angry that their repair monopolies are being dismantled) loves to pretend their interest here is solely in user safety. Their interest is in new phone sales and maintaining a profitable monopoly over repair.

Apple’s whole pivot is framed by the Post, which seems simply thrilled to even have access to an Apple engineering VP, as something Apple just came up with one day because it’s just that forward-thinking and courteous. It’s another example of how Apple’s widely proclaimed “180 on right to repair” is more of a drunken 45 degree begrudging and overdue waddle, propped up by a lazy press.

Aging satellite TV provider Dish Network is supposed to be undergoing a major transformation from tired old satellite TV provider to streaming and wireless juggernaut. It was a cornerstone of a Trump administration FCC and DOJ plan to cobble together a new wireless carrier out of twine and vibes as a counter-balance to the competition-eroding T-Mobile and Sprint merger.

It’s… not going well. All of the problems critics of the T-Mobile and Sprint merger predicted (layoffs, price hikes, lest robust competition) have come true. Meanwhile Dish has been bleeding satellite TV, wireless, and streaming TV subscribers for a while (last quarter the company lost another 314,000 TV subscribers, including 249,000 satellite TV subs and 65,000 Sling TV customers).

Dish’s new 5G network has also generally been received as a sort of half-hearted joke. Dish also lost 123,000 prepaid wireless subscribers last quarter; it can’t pay its debt obligations, can’t afford to buy the spectrum it was supposed to acquire as part of the Sprint/T-Mobile merger arrangement; and expanding its half-cooked 5G network looks tenuous at best.

Last year Dish proposed merging with Echostar in a bid to distract everybody from the company’s ongoing mess. They’ve also tried to goose stock valuations by hinting at an equally doomed merger with DirecTV. But those distractions didn’t help either, and there are increasing worries among belatedly aware analysts that this all ends with bankruptcy and a pile of rubble:

“MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett offered a blunt assessment of the company’s future based on Dish’s deteriorating pay-TV and mobile subscriber customer base: “Dish’s business is spiraling towards bankruptcy. Gradually, then all at once, the declines are gathering speed,” he wrote in a research note.”

From 2019 or so I noted that this whole mess was likely a doomed effort, primarily designed to provide cover for an anti-competitive, job-killing wireless merger. It always seemed likely to me that Dish (which had never built a wireless network) would string FCC regulators along for a few years before selling off its valuable spectrum assets and whatever half-assed 5G network it had managed to construct.

Despite this, trade magazines that cover the telecom industry tried desperately to pretend this was all a very serious adult venture, despite zero indication anyone involved had any idea what they were doing. And the deal rubber stamping and circular logic used to justify it ran in very stark contrast to the ongoing pretense that we supposedly care about “antitrust reform.”

Ultimately Dish will make a killing on spectrum, the FCC will fine them a relative pittance for failing to meet the flimsy build requirements affixed to the merger conditions, and Dish CEO Charlie Ergen will trot off into the sunset on a giant pile of money. Some giant player like Verizon will then swoop in to gobble up what’s left of the wreckage, and the industry will consolidate further (the whole point)

The regulatory impact of approving Sprint/T-Mobile, which consolidated the U.S. wireless market from four to three major providers (jacking up prices and killing off thousands of jobs), will be forgotten, and the regulators and officials behind the entire mess will have long ago moved on to other terrible, short-sighted ideas.

As the Vice collapse and Messenger collapse just got done illustrating in glorious technicolor, the problem with online U.S. journalism isn’t that it’s not inherently profitable. The problem is usually that the worst, least competent, shallowest people imaginable routinely fail upward into positions of management, then treat the media companies they acquire and operate like a disposable napkin.

That’s certainly been the case over at Sports Illustrated, which isn’t so much even a media organization anymore as much as it is a bloated brand corpse being exploited by extraction-centric, visionless failsons, who have minimal coherent interest in the company’s original function: sports journalism.

That’s all well exemplified by this Washington Post article that explores how as the company was falling apart and its journalists and editors were being fired right and left, the folks in charge of the company were throwing lavish Super Bowl parties. It’s well worth a read, and features a lot of doublespeak by managers who talk out of both sides of their mouth about “values” and “mission.”

Over the past six years Sports Illustrated has been tossed around between a rotating crop of dodgy middlemen for whom journalism was an afterthought. SI was acquired in 2018 by what was left of Meredith Publishing as part of the purchase of Time (which founded the magazine in 1954), then had its intellectual property sold to Authentic Brands Group (ABG) for $110 million a year later.

ABG has basically just been renting the Sports Illustrated brand to a company by the name of The Arena Group, which has been mismanaging it for most of that time. The company, like Vice, was run by a lot of non-journalism, affluent, hedge fund brats, simply interested in blindly chasing engagement at impossible scale via seventy-five consecutive but nonsensical attempts to “pivot to video.”

Arena just got bogged down in a massive scandal after it began using fake AI generated authors to create shitty, fake AI-generated journalism — without bothering to even tell staff or readers. Then the company balked on paying its $12 million yearly fee to ABG, resulting in more chaos.

Now Authentic Brands Group is left pondering what to do with the brand. And it will probably involve renting it yet again to some other set of visionless brunchlords keen on chasing engagement at impossible scale in the most superficial way possible. The people who pay the actual price for this incompetence are, as usual, the journalists and editors who have little to do with mismanagement.

When you read the Washington Post article, there seems to be some realization by the executives at ABG, like CEO Jamie Salter, that you can’t just hollow a journalism company out like a pumpkin and parade the corpse around to sell shitty supplements without repercussions:

“Salter insisted SI’s journalism remains central to his mission. “That’s the mouthpiece to the brand,” he explained. “It’s not as critically important from the financial side, but what we put out there from journalism [is the] core. If you took the shoes out of Reebok, I’m not sure Reebok would be Reebok anymore.”

But then these hustlebros will proceed to do exactly that. Repeatedly. Their entire function is to collect brands, exploit and extract any last bit of value, and then when they’ve drained all meaning from the husk, toss it in the trash and start over somewhere else. Salter seems to throw most of the blame for this dysfunction in the lap of The Arena Group, but the dysfunction is commonplace and everywhere in media.

And then the question the Post correctly asks is, why are the actual employees doing the work always left holding the bag, while never getting a cut of the proceeds? Why does this extraction class view labor as such an irrelevant, exploitable resource in the pursuit of their fourth home?

“If Authentic is forging a new way to monetize a media brand — and, to be sure, there are not a lot of happy stories anywhere in media today — why, SI staffers asked, can’t they get a real cut?”

…”As the fates of some 80 staffers hang in the balance and Authentic contemplates its next move, whatever comes next for SI — a new publisher, a zombie website, a cultural renaissance or anything else — Salter probably will be just fine.”

The Sports Illustrated implosion is just such a perfect example of the utterly hollow vision of a lot of the modern media extraction class. There’s really no genuine interest in craft, or journalism, building consistent audience, or longevity. It’s just mindless consolidation, acquisition, quirky tax tricks, and exploitation dressed up as savvy deal-making, all slathered in as much tacky neon paint as possible.

So we’ve noted for a long while that the fixation on China and TikTok specifically has often been used by some lazy thinkers (like the FCC’s Brendan Carr) as a giant distraction from the fact the U.S. has proven too corrupt to regulate data brokers, or even to pass a baseline privacy law for the internet era. The cost of this corruption, misdirection, and distraction has been fairly obvious.

Enter the Biden administration, which this week announced that Biden was signing a new executive order that would restrict the sale of sensitive behavioral, location, financial, or other data to “countries of concern,” including Russia and China. At a speech, a senior administration official stated the new restrictions would shore up national security:

“Our current policies and laws leave open access to vast amounts of American sensitive personal data. Buying data through data brokers is currently legal in the United States, and that reflects a gap in our national security toolkit that we are working to fill with this program.”

The EO fact sheet is vague, but states the Biden administration will ask the The Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, to all work in concert to ensure problematic countries aren’t able to buy “large scale” data repositories filled with U.S. consumer data, and to pass new rules and regulations tightening up the flow of data broker information.

We’ve noted for a long, long time that our corrupt failure to pass a privacy law or regulate data brokers was not only a frontal assault on consumer privacy, it was easily exploitable by foreign intelligence agencies looking to build massive surveillance databases on American citizens.

It’s why it was bizarre to see lawmakers myopically fixated on banning TikTok, while ignoring the fact that our corrupt policy failures had made TikTok’s privacy issues possible in the first place.

You could ban TikTok tomorrow with a giant patriotic flourish to “fix privacy,” but if you’re not willing to rein in the hundreds of sleazy international data brokers doing the same thing (or in some cases much worse at even bigger scale), you haven’t actually accomplished much beyond posturing to get on TV.

The EO sounds at least like a first step (depending entirely on the implementation), but is filled with some flowery and revisionist language. This bit, for example:

“These actions not only align with the U.S.’ longstanding support for the trusted free flow of data, but also are consistent with U.S.’ commitment to an open Internet with strong and effective protections for individuals’ privacy and measures to preserve governments’ abilities to enforce laws and advance policies in the public interest.”

Again, we don’t have a privacy law for the internet era in 2024 not because it was too hard to write one, but because Congress is too corrupt to pass one. We have, repeatedly, made the decision to prioritize the profits of an interconnected array of extractive industries over the public welfare, public safety, and even national security.

The result has been a massive, interconnected, hyper-surveillance market that hoovers up data on your every fart down to the millimeter, bundles that data up in vast profiles, and monetizes it across the globe with very little if any real concern for exploitation and abuse. All under the pretense that because much of this data was “anonymized” (a meaningless, gibberish term), there could be no possible harm.

The result has been just a rotating crop of ugly scandals that have gotten progressively worse. All while we (mostly) sat on our hands whining about TikTok.

The FTC has been cracking down on some location data brokers, but generally lacks the resources (by design) to tackle the problem at the scale it’s occurring. They lack the resources because the over-arching policy of the U.S. government for the better part of the last generation has been to defund and defang regulators under the simplistic pretense this unleashes untold innovation (with no downside).

This myopic view of how government works is all pervasive in America, and has resulted in most corporate oversight in the U.S. having the structural integrity of damp cardboard. And it’s all about to get significantly worse courtesy of a handful of looming Supreme Court rulings aimed at eroding regulatory independence even further. There’s a very real cost for this approach, and the check has been, and will be, increasingly coming due in a wide variety of very obvious and spectacular ways.

But we also don’t have a privacy law and refuse to regulate data brokers because the U.S. government benefits from the dysfunction, having realized long ago that the barely regulated data broker market is a great way to purchase data you’d otherwise need to get a warrant to obtain. Data broker location data is now tethered tightly to all manner of U.S. government operations, including military targeting.

The press has also played a role in failing to educate the public about the real risks of failing to regulate data brokers or pass a privacy law. Just 23 percent of the U.S. public even knows the government has failed to pass a privacy law for the internet era. And when the U.S. press does cover privacy, the fact that rank corruption is at the heart of the dysfunction is routinely never mentioned.

So yes, it’s great that we’re starting to see some growing awareness about the real world costs of our corrupt failures on privacy policy. Senator Ron Wyden, in particular, has been doing an amazing job sounding the alarm on how this failure is being exploited by not just a diverse array of self-serving companies, but a surging authoritarian movement in the post-Roe era.

But it’s going to take a hell of a lot more than an EO to course correct. It’s going to take shaking Congress out of its corrupt apathy. And the only thing I think will accomplish that will be a privacy scandal so massive and unprecedented (potentially including mass fatalities or the leaking of powerful figures’ data at unprecedented scale), that elected officials have absolutely no choice but do do their fucking job.

Now that subscriber growth has slowed, streaming TV giants have taken the predictable turn of making their services shittier and more expensive to deliver Wall Street (impossibly) unlimited quarterly revenue growth.

That means higher prices, annoying new surcharges, greater restrictions, more layoffs, more cut corners, worse customer service, and a lot of pointless mergers designed specifically to goose stock valuations and provide big fat tax breaks.

The king of said “growth for growth’s sake” consolidation was of course the AT&T–>Warner Brothers–>Discovery series of mergers, which resulted in no limit of brand degradation, layoffs, and absolute chaos in the empty pursuit of unlimited scale (aka “enshittification”). The dumb merger already killed Mad Magazine, HBO, and countless television shows, driving millions of subscribers to the exits.

But Max executives clearly aren’t done with ham-fisted efforts to make stocks go up. This week Max executives decided that they’d make John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight harder to watch by no longer making show clips available on YouTube the next day:

The goal was to apparently drive subscribers to the Max streaming service. But because they’re apparently too cheap to pay residuals and hosting costs, Max also no longer lets users watch old seasons of the show, meaning that only the last two seasons of the show are available. In short: the quest for unrealistic quarterly growth sooner or later creates perverse incentives to cannibalize brand quality.

Again, this is all par for the course for an industry that learned absolutely nothing from the scale-chasing disaster that ultimately was traditional cable TV. They’re going to continue on this path until they see a dramatic subscriber exodus to cheap or free services (whether that’s TikTok and Twitch or, more obviously, piracy), at which point they’ll blame everything but themselves (VPNs! China!) for the self-inflicted wound.

Last month we noted how deteriorating quality over at Google search and Google news was resulting in both platforms being flooded by AI-generated gibberish and nonsense, with money that should be going to real journalists instead being funneled to a rotating crop of lazy automated engagement farmers.

This collapse of online informational integrity is happening at precisely the same time that U.S. journalism is effectively being lobotomized by a handful of hedge fund brunchlords for whom accurately informing the public has long been a distant afterthought.

It’s a moment in time where the financial incentives all point toward lazy automated ad engagement, and away from pesky things like the truth or public welfare. It costs companies money to implement systems at scale that can help clean up online information pollution, and it’s far more profitable to spend that time and those resources lazily maximizing engagement at any cost. The end result is everywhere you look.

The latest case in point: as hustlebros look to profit from automated engagement bait, The Verge notes that there has been a rise in automated obituary spam.

Like we’ve seen elsewhere in the field of journalism, engagement is all that matters, resulting in a flood of bizarre, automated zero-calorie gibberish where facts, truth, and public welfare simply don’t matter. The result, automated obituaries at unprecedented scale for people who aren’t dead. Like this poor widower, whose death was widely (and incorrectly) reported by dozens of trash automation sites:

“[The obituaries] had this real world impact where at least four people that I know of called [our] mutual friends, and thought that I had died with her, like we had a suicide pact or something,” says Vastag, who for a time was married to Mazur and remained close with her. “It caused extra distress to some of my friends, and that made me really angry.”

Much like the recent complaints over the deteriorating quality of Google News, and the deteriorating quality of Google search, Google sits nestled at the heart of the problem thanks to a refusal to meaningfully invest in combating “obituary scraping”:

“Google has long struggled to contain obituary spam — for years, low-effort SEO-bait websites have simmered in the background and popped to the top of search results after an individual dies. The sites then aggressively monetize the content by loading up pages with intrusive ads and profit when searchers click on results. Now, the widespread availability of generative AI tools appears to be accelerating the deluge of low-quality fake obituaries.”

Yes, managing this kind of flood of automated gibberish is, like content moderation, impossible to tackle perfectly (or anywhere close) at scale. At the same time, all of the financial incentives in the modern engagement infotainment economy point toward prioritizing the embrace of automated engagement bait, as opposed to spending time and resources policing information quality (even using AI).

As journalism collapses and a parade of engagement baiting automation (and rank political propaganda) fills the void, the American public’s head gets increasingly filled with pebbles, pudding, and hate. We’re in desperate need of a paradigm shift away from viewing absolutely everything (even human death) through the MBA lens of maximizing profitability and engagement at boundless scale at any cost.

At some point morals, ethics, and competent leadership in the online information space needs to make an appearance somewhere in the frame in a bid to protect public welfare and even the accurate documentation of history. It’s just decidedly unclear how we bridge the gap.