firehose

Several years ago, someone came up with a potent worst-case scenario for an internet without net neutrality: it would look like cable TV. With the option to slow down or block individual sites and programs, ISPs would give you the internet equivalent of basic cable, then charge extra for "News" and "Hollywood" bundles with Digg and YouTube instead of CNN and Showtime. There’s no subtlety, but it gets the point across. So what happens when, after almost a year with no net neutrality rules, a company whose name is synonymous with premium cable jumps online?

Earlier today, HBO and its parent company Time Warner announced an internet-only subscription program, letting customers use the HBO Go streaming video app without first buying a cable or satellite package. This has been a major request for years, and HBO has openly acknowledged that many cord-cutters are sharing account passwords with friends, not heading back to the television. Since it hasn’t laid out the details of its plan, it’s possible we won’t get a real substitute for cable, just a better version of its Amazon Prime back catalog. If it’s as good as fans of Game of Thrones, Girls, or Boardwalk Empire hope, though, cable companies could be losing one of the few things — alongside ESPN and other sports channels — that keep customers from dropping TV altogether. But that traffic is still going to be running through those same companies’ internet pipes, and if Netflix hasn’t been able to get by without paying to connect to Comcast and Verizon’s networks, cable companies are going to push as hard or harder to keep making money off a defector.

'Fast lanes' can be flexible, but they make everything else a slow lane

"I think cable operators are aware that more and more content is going to move online," says John Bergmayer of pro-net neutrality group Public Knowledge. "Instead of trying to stop that trend, I think cable companies would just like to find ways to control it — either by offering the online content themselves or coming up with ways to get online video services to pay them." The most extreme version of this would be throttling a particular internet service: if you don’t pay a little extra, HBO Go slows to a crawl, and the cable-fication of the internet begins. This is, simply put, not likely. It’s far more probable that HBO will come to a Netflix-like agreement to directly connect to an ISP, or that it will partner with cable companies for a competitive advantage, like the right to offer service that doesn’t count against users’ data caps.

More generally, there’s a battle going on over whether the FCC should ban internet "fast lanes," in which ISPs would speed up certain sites or software for a price. While they wouldn’t be allowed to actually degrade service for anyone else, improving the internet for specific, popular products arguably makes it easier to skate by without improving the baseline network that new companies use. The more data-hungry a service is, the more noticeable a speed gap would be, so a high-profile streaming-video company that managed to get in the fast lane would have a noticeable advantage. With a strong catalog, backing from Time Warner, and existing relationships with cable operators, HBO is well placed to be the one that does it.

And so far, it seems happy to be in that position. "Every night in the United States, a big piece of the broadband capacity of the country is being used, probably, by Netflix and Youtube," said HBO chairman and CEO Richard Plepler when asked about net neutrality. "If you add a lot more programming ... there's gonna be a strain on that system," he continued. "There's gonna need to be an evolution of financial support to continue to maintain the ability of the broadband infrastructure" for digital video. "One way or another, that's going to work out." Reading between the lines, it’s an endorsement of deals between streaming-video companies and ISPs, whether that means a connection fee or a "sponsored" deal for free data. Plepler said that HBO planned to continue working with its current partners and would "explore models with new partners," echoing the language ISPs use to discuss "fast lanes."

"If you add a lot more programming ... there's gonna be a strain on that system."

To some, fast lanes aren’t categorically bad. "There are good reasons to think even an exclusive sponsored data deal could be good for consumers — and even for Netflix. But it really depends," says Berin Szoka of TechFreedom, which tends to oppose net neutrality. Exempting HBO from a data cap, for example, could free up bandwidth for other video sites. Granted, the higher video resolution goes — Netflix is already looking at 4K — the more precious each gigabyte of data becomes. "As quality levels improve, there might come a point where refusing to allow Netflix to participate in a sponsored data program might well make it harder for Netflix to compete with other video providers," he says. "But we’re certainly nowhere near there yet." The point, for Szoka, is that the FCC shouldn’t rule out possibilities that aren’t clearly anti-consumer, as long as they don’t already fall under antitrust law.

Regardless, plenty of these deals could exist even under the most stringent FCC net neutrality framework. Netflix’s negotiation with Comcast over internet backbone service, for example, doesn’t fall under its proposed purview. Time Warner and an ISP could both fairly undercut competition by offering free HBO Go to customers. Overall bandwidth costs might have to be passed on to consumers, which ideally would incentivize more efficient networks but seems as likely to jack up prices. Could the internet feel more segmented as a result? It’s possible. But as long as ISPs aren’t meddling with the actual speed of data as it flows to their customers, it’s not a net neutrality problem.

Whether or not the FCC adopts meaningful net neutrality rules, as it’s promised to do this year, HBO is still a step towards a world where everything lives on the internet by default. Even if it sides with ISPs instead of Netflix, it’s no longer literally tied to traditional television. Is the internet heading the way of cable? "I don’t know. I think today it looks like cable," says Matt Wood of net neutrality advocacy group Free Press. "It sounds to me like this is probably an improvement."

In case you ever want to relive the grueling boredom that encompasses you on a long flight, Virgin America has produced a nearly six-hour-long commercial about how unbearably dull the average plane ride is. The video shows passengers on a flight across the United States, playing out its events in real time. In this case, the passengers are mannequins that almost look like they've come out of They Live, with totally stupefied and half-dead looks across their faces.

Oddly enough, Adweek reports that the video is meant to run as an online pre-roll, with the assumption that viewers will probably skip over it to go watch their video. But it's actually kind of wonderful to jump around the ad and watch its incredible dullness for a while. There's a great part about four-and-a-half hours in where the one mannequin is playing with its tray table. Naturally, the idea is that if you fly Virgin, you'll have something better to do.

The first device running Google's new Android TV platform with be the Nexus Player, a set-top streaming box made by Google and Asus. The device is being announced today, and it's Google's latest in a very long line of attempts to take over your TV. Though Google's past attempts have been fairly unsuccessful, Android TV looks like it could be a different story. Announced back in June, Android TV has a good-looking interface that allows you to stream music, movies, and TV shows. You can also play Android games on it, and it can mimic the Chromecast's features, all of which make it sound like it could turn out to be a useful little box.

The Nexus Player will be available to preorder on October 17th, and you'll be able to buy it in stores beginning November 3rd. Google hasn't released full details on the streaming box, including its price, but we'll update this story with more details when they're available.

Just days after a report that Apple would stop selling Bose products in its retail stores, the company is now said to be doing the same thing with health tracking devices from Fitbit. Citing sources, Recode says the company's entire line of products will "soon" be disappearing from Apple's stores, adding that it's unclear whether other fitness trackers will experience the same fate. Apple's keeping mum on the change, though did not deny it.

Apple's own wearable is coming early next year, though it hasn't disclosed pricing or a specific release date. It will track fitness activity, including heart rate, using on-board sensors and feed that information to its own Health app. The company also has an API for developers to pipe their own health tracking data, something Fitbit hasn't gotten on board with. Even so, Fitbit still has an app on iOS, and has sometimes put development on that ahead of its Android counterpart.

Right as Fitbit has new models on the way

It's not an unexpected move for Apple to stop selling a competitors product in its stores, though there have been numerous exceptions. Apple still sells some third-party routers, along with the Nest thermostat and Dropcam, which are owned by rival Google. That may not last forever though. A report from MacRumors last week suggested Apple was in the process of removing all Bose products from its physical stores, just months after acquiring Beats. Though since then, Bose and Beats settled a year-old patent spat that was obviously complicating the business arrangement.

The news comes as Fitbit is on the verge of announcing a pair of new fitness trackers. Marketing materials obtained by Gizmodo yesterday suggest the company plans to announce a new model called the Fitbit Charge, as well as the Charge HR, which is unlikely to have anything to do with a human resources department and more like a redo of the skin irritating Force model that tracks your heart rate.

Even older Nexuses will be getting Android 5.0.

Andrew Cunningham

Google's official Android Lollipop announcement this morning originally didn't mention some older Nexus devices—namely, the Nexus 4 and the 2012 Nexus 7. However, Google has confirmed to us that those older devices will indeed be getting Android 5.0, as will the Nexus 5, 2013 Nexus 7, Nexus 10, and the Google Play Edition devices.

Last year when it released KitKat, Google dropped support for the aging Galaxy Nexus phone. Though the official line at the time was that the device was outside its 18-month support window, it was later confirmed that the phone was actually dropped because Texas Instruments had left the SoC market. TI wasn't around to provide newer drivers and support for Google, so the phone was left by the wayside.

We still don't know exactly when older Nexuses will be getting the update; Google has only said it's happening "in the coming weeks." We'll report on Lollipop's performance on older phones and tablets once the update begins rolling out.

Verizon Wireless

Verizon Wireless’s Edge financing program will reportedly start making customers pay off a higher percentage of the cost of a phone before they can upgrade to a new device.

Edge lets customers “upgrade every year, or more often,” its website says. But that’s going to change from a year to 18 months (less if customers pay up early) under new payment plans being unveiled tomorrow, according to reports in Droid Life and FierceWireless.

Droid Life attributed the information to “multiple sources,” while FierceWireless said it confirmed the changes with Verizon. A Verizon spokesperson told Ars that the articles are accurate.

California law requires that all smartphones made beginning next July include a "kill switch" that allows them to be disabled when stolen, and it appears that Google has just built one into Android. Recode reports that Android Lollipop includes a feature called "Factory Reset Protection," which can make a phone require that a password is entered before it's reset. When combined with the ability to remotely lock your phone, which Google introduced last year, it appears that Android devices now have a full "kill switch" that can make a phone useless when stolen and then bring it back to life should it be recovered.

The kill switch could come to make a big difference for owners of Android smartphones: since Apple added various theft protections to iOS, law enforcers say that they've seen thefts of iPhones plummet. On top of all of that, Android Lollipop also encrypts user data by default, which adds another major layer of security. Of course, Android users will have to actually update to Lollipop — which could take a while — so the results may not be so widespread and immediate. Microsoft is also preparing a kill switch for Windows Phones.

It's remarkable that a movement as stupid and horrible as Gamergate managed to last more than a week, but here we are. Months after it began as a harassment campaign against game developer Zoe Quinn, Gamergate and its apparent affiliates have tallied numerous threats against women, most recently including a dramatic threat to shoot and bomb a gathering at Utah State University where Tropes vs. Women creator Anita Sarkeesian was scheduled to speak. Promising a "Montreal Massacre-style attack" on USU's Center for Women and Gender, the unknown author wrote that "feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge." It's far from the first violent threat Sarkeesian has received over the past two years, but it's perhaps the most harrowing threat made in the wake of Gamergate — and it's causing Gamergate's critics to speak up loudly.

Incidentally, Utah's gun laws may have helped spark today's vocal backlash against Gamergate. Sarkeesian has faced threats before and endured them, but she canceled her USU appearance because Utah's laws permit people to carry concealed firearms and police were therefore unwilling to perform firearm searches at her venue.

Since the threat to USU was reported yesterday, critics of the movement have spoken out on Twitter using #StopGamerGate2014, which sat on Twitter's trending topic bar throughout most of Wednesday. People have excoriated the movement for months now, but it's the first time thousands of voices against Gamergate have spoken publicly under a common banner.

This is bad news for Gamergate supporters who actually care about being taken seriously. Use of a hashtag by the opposition isn't the mark of a rigorous political movement, but, then, Gamergate isn't a serious movement either — at least not in any sense that would give it legitimacy among decent people. Every claim Gamergate has made, including its original claim that game journalism is corrupt, has been a lie in service of its misogynistic, regressive goals. It has been shown over and over again to be a movement that merely speaks about "ethics" while incubating and supporting angry people who harass and threaten women.

Of course, while a trending topic will give critics a welcome boost, it's won't be enough to convince Gamergate's zealots of anything meaningful. The simplest explanation for this stubbornness, which has been repeated over and over again by thoughtful observers, is that Gamergate is really dumb. But it should come as no surprise that a movement born from an image board where anonymous people call each other "fags" and "niggers" both ironically and unironically has no claim to authority on the subject of ethics.

Gamergate's most hardcore supporters don't even have a grasp on reality

Still, it's important for reasonable people to speak up, if only to set the terms of reality — something Gamergate's most hardcore supporters don't even seem to grasp. Gamergate's echo chamber is an endless rabbit hole of paranoia, like an irredeemably dark version of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The entire affair is built on trolling, counter-trolling, anger, and ignorance; Gamergate's forums exhibit deranged skepticism in almost everything, including vicious doubts about every woman who speaks up against harassment and threats. Entire threads have been devoted to accusing Sarkeesian and other recipients of hatred and violence of running false-flag campaigns to elevate their own status. In their world, everyone who's not on their side is a "shill" who's lying for attention.

They're wrong. Last night Utah State University confirmed the authenticity of the "massacre" threat to The Verge, and Sarkeesian says several threats were made against the university with one threat naming Gamergate specifically. One hashtag won't turn the tide, but it's a start.