...spreading disinformation.

Ever since I started running into issues with websites that don't render due to javascript requirements and/or anti-ad-blocker issues, I have changed my way of thinking to an attitude of "If I can't access it, it doesn't exist." That way, I can quickly come to accept the situation and not feel like I'm missing out.

That attitude works quite well with "exclusive" programming on these streaming services. I'm a Star Trek fan, but I never had any intention of subscribing to CBS All Access just to watch their new Star Trek series, so I don't miss it. For me, Star Trek ended with DS9. It's over: so long, and thanks for all the Klingons. If CBS put that new Star Trek series on Netflix, they would get a licensing fee from Netflix and I would be able to access it. They don't, so it simply doesn't exist to me. If I see a headline for an article discussing that Star Trek series, I just pass over it, since it doesn't pertain to me. I do the same with "exclusive" programming from Hulu, Vudu, Prime, etc. If I can't access their programs, the programs don't exist.

When these studios stop producing DVDs, the same will hold true. Advertise your fantastic new movie all you want. Is it a movie I'd love to see, but is only available on a streaming service that I don't subscribe to? ...and you'll never release it on DVD? Then, it doesn't exist.

Now that I know what today's smartphones really are for, which is the selling of my personal information, I feel there is no compelling reason to purchase a new one. My next cellular phone will be either a simple flip-phone with no "apps", or a smartphone which is a true PC in a small, "phone"-factor format that runs my choice of Linux OS which *I* can control. Anything other than that, and I'm not going to purchase one. I lived the first 30 years of my life without a cell phone, I'm sure I can live the remaining 30 years without one.

...and yes, it must have a 3.5mm headphone jack sans DRM.

...and get the fuck off my lawn.

The folks on those morning "news" programs all talk at once, no matter how many "hosts" are on set.

(The roving cameras make me dizzy too, but that's an entirely different subject.)

a declaration that they will not help any government -- including that of the United States -- mount cyberattacks against "innocent civilians and enterprises from anywhere."

Maybe they won't help any *government*, but what about private entities like corporations or wealthy individuals? What if a corporation or a wealthy individual were to ask our new, friendly "Cybersecurity Tech Accord" members to mount a cyberattack against someone? Under that scenario, they would not be helping a government.

...and someone please define "innocent civilians" and "enterprises" for me. I can subjectively define it by my own ideas, but how are our new, friendly "Cybersecurity Tech Accord" members going to define these terms? What does "innocent" mean to them? What does "civilian" mean to them? What constitutes an "enterprise"?

This seems like a seriously limited promise.

Would "lobby group" have legal standing in this situation?

So... MS is going to offer their "cloud" services placed locally on your servers. I wonder how far they can stretch this?

2 years from now:
Admin: "Hmmmm.... I wish there was a way I could put my local Azure Cloud Server out on the internet."
Microsoft: "Ahhhh! Microsoft hears you, good sir! We now offer (for a low, low monthly fee) Microsoft Clouded Local Azure Cloud Server Add-On!!

5 years from now:
Admin: "Hmmmmm.... I wish I could put my Microsoft Clouded Local Azure Cloud Add-On onto my own, local servers.
Micosoft: "Ahhhh! We now offer (for an additional low, low monthly fee) Microsoft Localized Clouded Local Azure Cloud Add-On Server Service!!

Several years ago, I purchased an episode of a TV show on my XBox, and also purchased a movie on iTunes. Neither of them was transferable to any other devices that I own. Apple only works with Apple and Microsoft only works with Microsoft. I quickly made the decision to no longer purchase a) garden/walled hardware or software devices, and b) digital media that is completely tied down by DRM. My original reason was to avoid having movies/TV that can't be played on devices outside their respective "garden".
 
However, I never predicted shit like this coming: "Hey, buddy, we've decided to discontinue your hardware. If you'd like to continue using your digital media, you'll HAVE to purchase a new device from us." HOW FUCKING CONVENIENT for Apple.

So, when do they start doing this with TVs, washing machines, automobiles, etc?

I got a pull-out drawer unit for pencils

Soooooo...... not using vi or emacs, then...

Simple:
If a device doesn't have a 3.5mm (aka "1/8 inch") connector, I'm not purchasing it.
Call me a luddite, call me an old man, etc. That won't change my mind: it's a standard that works and is not in need of change.
To those that argue digital audio is so much cleaner/clearer/crisper, I remind you that no humans have digital hearing.

IMHO, it's particularly alarming when the Debian Stable version of Chromium is showing as "no longer supported" by Google Docs. I ran into this warning several times, and it's one of several reasons I had to break my addiction to Google Docs. I can understand Google's desire to add functionality to their Google Docs platform, but to break Docs' functionality in fairly recent versions of their own open-source browser baffles me. There are reasons I don't want to use Chrome, and prefer to use Chromium. When Google slaps limitations on my ability to use W3C standardized browsers and force me to use their non-standard browser, I get the feeling they're only going to do worse in the future - al la Microsoft.

And so, last year I decided to ditch Google Docs and go back to LibreOffice. The most painful aspect of this is the loss of world-wide, easy access to my documents. Leaving the cloud is a hassle, but it's better than vendor lock-in.

...adding a new user interface...

This scares me.

I had considered that. However, when it comes to politics and politicians, I'm always looking for suspect motivation. If we argue that his statement is merely alliterative pairings, then why would he not have said California to Connecticut and Alaska to Alabama? Covers more states and hits both coasts.

Considering his political motivations, I'm going to posit that Mr. Pai contacted ISPs only in the states he mentioned - avoiding the heavily-populated coastal regions and covering large swaths of land in the middle of the country that likely involve a significantly higher share of "last-mile" internet service issues (due to lower population density) and probably higher operating costs per subscriber as a result. He then gets to allude that a regional issue is nation-wide.

That's why I think it's a valid point to bring out his limited selection of states.

"...held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country -- from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota..."

Just FYI, for those without a map handy, that covers 8 out of 50 states, all in the midwest:
Montana to Minnesota = Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota.
Oklahoma to Ohio = Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.

Again...just FYI.

For how long? A year? Two years? Then how much will they cost?

Sorry, but this whole thing smacks of a corporate-induced tax. Google plays the part of the police here.