The Federal Communications Commission's plan to investigate and potentially regulate data caps is all but dead now, after President-elect Donald Trump's announcement that he will promote Commissioner Brendan Carr to the chairmanship role.

The FCC last month voted 3–2 to open a formal inquiry into how broadband data caps affect consumers and whether the commission has authority to regulate how Internet service providers impose such caps. The proceeding is continuing for now, as the FCC comment and reply comment deadlines are November 14 and December 2. You can view the docket here.

Broadband industry lobby groups knew they would face no possibility of data-cap regulation once Trump won the election. But they submitted their comments late last week, making the case that data caps are good for customers and that the FCC has no authority to regulate them—the same arguments that Carr made when he dissented from the vote to open an inquiry.

NCTA—The Internet & Television Association, representing cable firms including Comcast and Charter, told the FCC that what ISPs call "usage-based pricing" expands options for consumers and promotes competition and network investment. NCTA claimed that the offering of plans with data caps "reflects the highly competitive environment as providers seek to distinguish their offers from their competitors'."

Cable firms: Usage-based pricing does no harm

Data caps enable "innovative plans at lower monthly rates," the lobby group said. The NCTA also wrote:

Usage-based pricing is a widely accepted pricing model used not only for communications services, but also for the sale of many other categories of goods and services. Such consumption-based pricing equitably and efficiently ensures that consumers who use goods or services the most pay more than those that do not. Indeed, in the communications context, the notion that requiring very heavy users of a service to pay more than light users has long been determined to be a reasonable pricing structure. It would be economically unsound to prohibit broadband providers from engaging in usage-based pricing in the absence of any harm caused by such practices.

Carr and fellow FCC Republican Nathan Simington made similar arguments when they dissented from last month's vote to open an inquiry. Carr blasted what he called "the Biden-Harris Administration's inexorable march towards rate regulation," and said that "prohibiting customers from choosing to purchase plans with data caps—which are more affordable than unlimited ones—necessarily regulates the service rates they are paying for."

Many Internet users filed comments asking the FCC to ban data caps. A coalition of consumer advocacy groups filed comments saying that "data caps are another profit-driving tool for ISPs at the expense of consumers and the public interest."

"Data caps have a negative impact on all consumers but the effects are felt most acutely in low-income households," stated comments filed by Public Knowledge, the Open Technology Institute at New America, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, and the National Consumer Law Center.

Consumer groups: Caps don’t manage congestion

The consumer groups said the COVID-19 pandemic "made it more apparent how data caps are artificially imposed restrictions that negatively impact consumers, discriminate against the use of certain high-data services, and are not necessary to address network congestion, which is generally not present on home broadband networks."

"Unlike speed tiers, data caps do not effectively manage network congestion or peak usage times, because they do not influence real-time network load," the groups also said. "Instead, they enable further price discrimination by pushing consumers toward more expensive plans with higher or unlimited data allowances. They are price discrimination dressed up as network management."

Jessica Rosenworcel, who has been FCC chairwoman since 2021, argued last month that consumer complaints show the FCC inquiry is necessary. "The mental toll of constantly thinking about how much you use a service that is essential for modern life is real as is the frustration of so many consumers who tell us they believe these caps are costly and unfair," Rosenworcel said.

ISPs lifting caps during the pandemic "suggest[s] that our networks have the capacity to meet consumer demand without these restrictions," she said, adding that "some providers do not have them at all" and "others lifted them in network merger conditions."

ISPs: Pandemic doesn’t show caps are unnecessary

The NCTA tried to counter Rosenworcel's claim that the widespread lifting of data caps during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that the caps aren't necessary.

"Because of the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and with so many people working and learning from home, broadband traffic during the pandemic surged between 30 percent and 50 percent across mobile and fixed networks," the NCTA wrote. "Recognizing this national emergency, cable and other providers paused data plans and took many other steps to ensure Americans stayed connected to the Internet."

The NCTA argued that the temporary lifting of caps "does not change the fundamental economics of usage-based pricing... Providers were able to suspend usage-based pricing temporarily during the pandemic, recognizing that this was an extraordinary circumstance and that eventually schools and workplaces would reopen."

The FCC also received opposition from USTelecom, wireless lobby group CTIA, and America's Communications Association (formerly the American Cable Association). USTelecom claimed that banning data caps would force ISPs to raise prices.

"Requiring all users to pay for unlimited data would raise prices for consumers who use little data," USTelecom wrote. "This difference in price could be the deciding factor in whether an individual can, or wants to, subscribe to broadband. Moreover, requiring flat pricing plans with unlimited data would effectively require those who use less data to subsidize those that use more."

Read full article

Comments

Last week, actor and director Ben Affleck shared his views on AI's role in filmmaking during the 2024 CNBC Delivering Alpha investor summit, arguing that AI models will transform visual effects but won't replace creative filmmaking anytime soon. A video clip of Affleck's opinion began circulating widely on social media not long after.

"Didn’t expect Ben Affleck to have the most articulate and realistic explanation where video models and Hollywood is going," wrote one X user.

In the clip, Affleck spoke of current AI models' abilities as imitators and conceptual translators—mimics that are typically better at translating one style into another instead of originating deeply creative material.

"AI can write excellent imitative verse, but it cannot write Shakespeare," Affleck told CNBC's David Faber. "The function of having two, three, or four actors in a room and the taste to discern and construct that entirely eludes AI's capability."

Affleck sees AI models as "craftsmen" rather than artists (although some might find the term "craftsman" in his analogy somewhat imprecise). He explained that while AI can learn through imitation—like a craftsman studying furniture-making techniques—it lacks the creative judgment that defines artistry. "Craftsman is knowing how to work. Art is knowing when to stop," he said.

"It's not going to replace human beings making films," Affleck stated. Instead, he sees AI taking over "the more laborious, less creative and more costly aspects of filmmaking," which could lower barriers to entry and make it easier for emerging filmmakers to create movies like Good Will Hunting.

Films will become dramatically cheaper to make

While it may seem on its surface like Affleck was attacking generative AI capabilities in the tech industry, he also did not deny the impact it may have on filmmaking. For example, he predicted that AI would reduce costs and speed up production schedules, potentially allowing shows like HBO's House of the Dragon to release two seasons in the same period as it takes to make one.

The visual effects industry faces the biggest disruption from these efficiency gains, according to Affleck. "I wouldn't like to be in the visual effects business. They're in trouble," he warned, predicting that expensive effects work will become much cheaper through AI automation.

Based on what we've seen of AI video generators, where someone can easily apply AI-generated effects to existing video, this outcome seems plausible. But current AI video synthesis tools like those from Runway may need improvements in getting desired results with some consistency and control—instead of forcing users to repeat generations while hoping for a usable result.

AI-generated content: A new revenue stream?

Affleck thinks that AI technology could create a new source of revenue for studios, potentially replacing lost DVD sales that he says once provided a large chunk of industry revenue but dropped dramatically over the past decade due to the rise of streaming video services.

For example, although he had previously mentioned that AI would not replace human taste in filmmaking, Affleck described a scenario where a future viewer might pay to generate custom episodes of their favorite shows, though he acknowledged such content may be "janky and a little bit weird."

He also imagined a scenario where companies may sell licenses to fans to create custom AI-generate content or AI-generated TikTok videos with character likenesses, similar to how studios sell superhero costumes today.

Even so, Affleck maintains that human creativity will remain central to filmmaking. He explained that AI models currently work by "cross-pollinating things that exist" without truly creating anything new. At least not yet. This limitation, combined with AI's lack of artistic judgment, means that he thinks traditional filmmaking crafted by human directors and actors will persist.

Read full article

Comments

President-elect Donald Trump announced last night that he will make Brendan Carr the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Carr, who wrote a chapter about the FCC for the conservative Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, is a longtime opponent of net neutrality rules and other regulations imposed on Internet service providers.

Although Carr wants to deregulate telecom companies that the FCC has historically regulated, he wants the FCC to start regulating Big Tech and social media firms. He has also echoed Trump's longtime complaints about the news media and proposed punishments for broadcast networks.

Trump's statement on Carr said that "because of his great work, I will now be designating him as permanent Chairman."

"Commissioner Carr is a warrior for Free Speech, and has fought against the regulatory Lawfare that has stifled Americans' Freedoms, and held back our Economy," Trump wrote. "He will end the regulatory onslaught that has been crippling America's Job Creators and Innovators, and ensure that the FCC delivers for rural America."

Carr is a sitting FCC commissioner and therefore no Senate approval is needed to confirm the choice. The president can elevate any commissioner to the chair spot.

Carr wants to punish broadcasters

Carr thanked Trump in a post on his X account last night, then made several more posts describing some of the changes he plans to make at the FCC. One of Carr's posts said the FCC will crack down on broadcast media.

"Broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource—our airwaves. In turn, they are required by law to operate in the public interest. When the transition is complete, the FCC will enforce this public interest obligation," Carr wrote.

We described Carr's views on how the FCC should operate in an article on November 7, just after Trump's election win. We wrote:

A Carr-led FCC could also try to punish news organizations that are perceived to be anti-Trump. Just before the election, Carr alleged that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live was "a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule" and that the FCC should consider issuing penalties. Despite Carr's claim, NBC did provide equal time to the Trump campaign.

Previous chairs defended free speech

Previous FCC chairs from both major parties have avoided punishing news organizations because of free speech concerns. Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, the current FCC chairwoman, last month criticized Trump's calls for licenses to be revoked from TV news organizations whose coverage he dislikes.

"While repeated attacks against broadcast stations by the former President may now be familiar, these threats against free speech are serious and should not be ignored," Rosenworcel said at the time. "As I've said before, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage."

Former Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, rejected the idea of revoking licenses in 2017 after similar calls from Trump. Pai said that the FCC "under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment" and that "the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast."

Carr believes differently. After the Saturday Night Live incident, Carr told Fox News that "all remedies should be on the table," including "license revocations" for NBC.

We've pointed out repeatedly that the FCC doesn't actually license TV networks such as CBS or NBC. But the FCC could punish affiliates. The FCC's licensing authority is over broadcast stations, many of which are affiliated with or owned by a big network.

Carr targets “censorship cartel”

Carr wrote last night that "we must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans." This seems to be referring to making social media networks change how they moderate content. On November 15, Carr wrote that "Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft & others have played central roles in the censorship cartel," along with fact-checking groups and ad agencies that "helped enforce one-sided narratives."

During his first presidential term, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms' legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable.

Trump and Carr have claimed that such a step is necessary because of anti-conservative bias. In his Project 2025 chapter, Carr wrote that the FCC "should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute."

Carr's willingness to reinterpret Section 230 is likely a big plus in Trump's eyes. In 2020, Trump pulled the re-nomination of FCC Republican member Michael O'Rielly after O'Rielly said that "we should all reject demands, in the name of the First Amendment, for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way. Like it or not, the First Amendment's protections apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making."

Carr to end FCC diversity policies

Last night, Carr also said he would end the FCC's embrace of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies. "The FCC's most recent budget request said that promoting DEI was the agency's second highest strategic goal. Starting next year, the FCC will end its promotion of DEI," Carr wrote.

The FCC budget request said the agency "will pursue focused action and investments to eliminate historical, systemic, and structural barriers that perpetuate disadvantaged or underserved individuals and communities." The Rosenworcel FCC said it aimed to create a diverse staff and to help "underserved individuals and communities" access "digital technologies, media, communication services, and next-generation networks."

Carr dissented last year in the FCC's 3-2 decision to impose rules that prohibit discrimination in access to broadband services, describing the rulemaking as "President Biden's plan to give the administrative state effective control of all Internet services and infrastructure in the US."

Another major goal for Carr is forcing Big Tech firms to help subsidize broadband network construction. Carr's Project 2025 chapter said the FCC should "require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share" into "the FCC's roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund."

Media advocacy group Free Press said yesterday that "Brendan Carr has been campaigning for this job with promises to do the bidding of Donald Trump and Elon Musk" and "got this job because he will carry out Trump and Musk's personal vendettas. While styling himself as a free-speech champion, Carr refused to stand up when Trump threatened to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations for daring to fact-check him during the campaign. This alone should be disqualifying."

Lobby groups representing Internet service providers will be happy to have an FCC chair focused on eliminating broadband regulations. USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter issued a statement saying that "Brendan Carr has been a proven leader and an important partner in our shared goal to connect all Americans. With his deep experience and expertise, Commissioner Carr clearly understands the regulatory challenges and opportunities across the communications landscape."

Pai, who teamed up with Carr and O'Rielly to eliminate net neutrality rules in 2017, wrote that Carr "was a brilliant advisor and General Counsel and has been a superb Commissioner, and I'm confident he will be a great FCC Chairman."

Read full article

Comments

I’m a big fan of many, many things in this strange and complicated and sloppy world of ours, and two of those things are Things That Make Small Pickup Trucks Even Better and News That Is Many Months Late. Well, today is a good day because I have something that meets both of those criteria: a Ford patent application from May that describes something that would make Ford’s small unibody Maverick pickup significantly better, I think: a midgate.

It’s interesting – at least to me – to note that one month before this patent was filed I did a big review of the Maverick where the whole point of the review was that I liked the truck, but I sure would like it more if it had a midgate.

You know what I mean by midgate, right? It’d be a panel that opened from the bed and allowed cargo to extend into the cab, a bit. Like this:

This would fundamentally transform this already-useful unibody pickup into something incredibly useful, and I’m all for that. Let’s look at what this patent application is proposing, and I should note it was actually filed way back in October of 2022, but just published in May of this year. So I’m not trying to imply Ford got any ideas from me, because they didn’t:

The midgate design ford is showing here is a pretty simple, straightforward design, essentially just a rectangular opening accessed by folding down the rear seatback forward, into the cab, and folding a rear panel backward, into the bed. It’s very much like what Subaru did with the Baja:

You can see the seatback and panel folding setup in this diagram here:

It’s also worth noting that the thick, plug-like midgate hatch is designed to be level with the in-bed wheel wells, so you can lay, say, a flat sheet of plywood over the midgate hatch and wheel wells and form a “floor” with storage room below.

It’s not specifically mentioned that this design is for the Maverick in the patent, but as it is currently Ford’s only unibody truck and it sure looks like the Maverick in those illustrations, I think we can safely say this is intended for that truck.

The hatch’s latching system does look nice and secure, though in my head I want those handles to be flipped 180°? Is that just me? Seems like it’d be easier to pull down if they were flipped.

Of course, there are the usual midgate issues relating to the weather, since if you have the midgate open, the cold and wet of the outside world can now get into the cab, but since, I suspect, a midgate tends to be used for short, occasional trips where you need to carry something unusually long, I bet this is not a huge issue. This is the sort of thing you use to get a bunch of long 2x4s from the lumberyard to your yard, not something you’re using on a long roadtrip, unless your roadtrip snack of choice is a 6′ party sub.

I hope this patent actually gets turned into something real, instead of meeting the fate of most automotive patents, which function more like a dream journal for carmakers, just ideas, written down, never to see the light of day.

A midgate of any sort would be transformative for the Maverick, and I would love to see it happen!

Here’s How I’d Configure The Perfect 2025 Ford Maverick

The Ford Maverick Is A Great Vehicle, But Is It A Great Truck? I Tried It And Know How To Make It Better

I Took A Close Look At The 2023 Ford Maverick Tremor’s Off-Road Hardware. Here’s What I Learned

The post Patent Suggests Ford May Finally Give The Maverick The One Thing It Truly Needs appeared first on The Autopian.

Putting out a joke product on April Fools' Day can sometimes be a clever way to quietly gauge the reaction to a wild idea without having to really commit to it.

Nerdish purveyor ThinkGeek did this a few times with the 8-bit tie and the Tauntaun sleeping bag. Pokemon Go crystallized in some ways from a Google Maps joke. And just recently, PC case-maker SilverStone has decided that so many people were into its beige-tastic FLP01 case idea, tossed onto X (formerly Twitter) late on March 31 Tokyo time, that it will now release it in early 2025 in Japan for the USD equivalent of $130.

As shown off at SilverStone's Expo 2024 show in Akihbara last weekend (and spotted on Tom's Hardware), the FLP-01 is a combination of simulacrum and serious, with heavy NEC PC-9800 homage. It has fake 5.25-inch floppy blanks, but they cover real optical disc drive and button/port modules. At SilverStone's Japan Expo, the firm packed a GeForce RTX 4060 Ti, Intel Core Ultra 7 256K CPU, and full-size ATX motherboard and PSU. There are, of course, power and disk activity LEDs on the front. As displayed, SilverStone's demo unit had three intake fans and plenty of room for whatever else you could pack in here.

The whole thing looks like a modern case flipped on its side, so your modern system-building and wire-routing skills won't go to waste. It's 17.32×14.25 inches and 6.7 inches tall in its (literal) desktop configuration, and the case is reinforced enough that you can use it as a monitor stand.

There is no word yet on whether this case will be available outside of Japan. Maybe with enough enthusiast input, the joke can go both real and global.

Read full article

Comments

Toys’R’Us released a TV ad generated with Sora a few months ago. Everyone loathed it and the ad caused massive brand damage. Toys’R’Us executives considered it a huge success. [YouTube; NBC]

You need to understand how much companies abhor paying humans. They want nothing more than to pay for AI instead — because computers can’t unionize.

It doesn’t matter if AI gives the worst results ever seen — they’ll keep trying until they get something barely acceptable.

It’s Coca-Cola’s turn now. They’ve failed to achieve barely acceptable. [YouTube]

This new ad was made with RealAI to recreate Coca-Cola’s popular 1995 “Holidays Are Coming” spot. [YouTube]

No shot is over two seconds, because AI video can’t keep it together longer than that. Animals and snowmen visibly warp their proportions even over that short time. The trucks’ wheels don’t actually move. You’ll see more wrong with the ad the more you look. [AdAge, archive]

The ad still required extensive human cleanup. AI can’t reliably do text, so Coca-Cola logos had to be composited in post-production. You can see them wobbling on the trucks.

Javier Meza, Coca-Cola’s chief marketing officer for Europe, swore the AI wasn’t to save money! “The brief was, we want to bring Holidays Are Coming into the present.” Saving money by making a trash ad was just a side benefit. [Marketing Week, archive]

Critical and popular response has been as bad as it deserved. Everyone thinks the ad looks cheap and like a brand on the skids. [CreativeBloq, archive; Kotaku]