He may have been able to write more maintainable, more stable, better tested, and altogether cleaner code, given what he asked. Possibly in half of his worst-case estimate of 2 years. In the long run, the crap that needed to be slapped together to get the project "done", in 4x the time he was allotted, will end up costing the company more than giving him what he asked for in order to do it right. You must be an MBA.

Depending on how far along in the project you are, it's reasonable to expect changing a single word in the spec to have a major impact on the project. Consider:

So you do all the prep work, car's primed with a dark primer, black paint is mixed and ready to go, then this change request comes in:

Well, now you've wasted the paint you just tinted black, and you can't paint white on top of dark primer (well, you can, but you need many more coats), so you've got to redo the prep work. That means waiting while the primer fully cures, so you can sand it off properly; otherwise, it'll gum your sandpaper. then re-prime, then you can paint. Assuming you don't see

in the meantime.

That was one word. Yes, one line matters.

The commenter who replied to you pretty much pointed out where you're wrong, so I'm not gonna waste my time. I'll add one bit that he missed, though; the relevant 8 pages are a subset of Title II's 33 pages. Have a nice day.

Okay, let's break that down:

Pretty clear. Rules = code. 8 pages of rules will be codified.

An additional 79 pages of rules that could have been codified won't be. Can they be later? Sure, whether they were in this document or not, they can always be written and voted on later.

Oh, look, more rules they considered, but that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.

Even more things they talked about that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.

For reference, to codify means To turn into law.

In short, it's 300+ pages of shit they discussed before arriving at the 8 page subsection of the existing Title II that will apply to internet services. We don't get to see the 8 pages of stuff that does apply, or the 300+ pages of discussion that does not, just yet; however, a reasonable person can probably guess which of the 33 pages of Title II might have made it into the applicable 8 pages.

That said, I wouldn't expect you to have that ability.

Title 2 has been around since 1996. If you don't know what it says, that's on you, not the FCC. All the FCC did was reclassify internet services as common carrier, covered by Title 2; the 300+ pages is an account of their justification for doing so, not 300+ pages of new rules.

It's title 2, which we've had since 1996, plus 300 some odd pages of justifications. It is, quite literally, nothing new.

I like how nobody denies it.

Or, you know, the ISPs could just be up-front about what they're actually selling for the price they're charging.

Who, Fox? Yeah, I know.

Similarly, it may not be obvious, but they're an insulating layer. (Yes, a layer of ice or snow in your roof acts as added insulation, keeping heat in until it melts away or slides off)

Or, someone else changes the key, MITM's the site, injects a brief explanation of why the key was changed into a banner on the page (oh, but you have to accept the new key in order to see that, assuming the site uses SSL everywhere as it should) or spoofs an email with the explanation, or spoofs a social media campaign with the explanation, whatever.

Maybe they target an individual user, that user gets the spoofed email and sees the spoofed tweets, and accepts the new key. Company would never be the wiser, since no fake notices would go out publicly, and the user, well...

This would work for you, this would work for me, hell it'd work for a handful of people here, because we know to spend longer than the time it takes to click "OK" to investigate these things. The real problem with your solution is that 99.999% of users either don't know to do that, or simply don't think it's a big enough deal to warrant actually doing it. You think it'd be a better situation based on your experience with a few competent and security-minded people, but the reality is we're the minority and the situation would end up much worse as a result.

divide that 100Mhz channel into 1000 1ms time slots (or 10000 100 microsecond time slots and allow 1000 users 10 apiece, or keep dividing into smaller slices as the technology allows, to reduce latency) and provide 1gbps to 1000 users. Or 10000 1ms slots, to provide 100mbps to 10000 users.

At the 1gbps per user level, that's a little less capacity (without overselling) than current towers, considerable more if oversold at current rates. At the 100mbps level, that's insanely better coverage in high-population-density areas, as each channel can handle 10000 simultaneous users without overselling, closer to 20k if oversold. At which point, interference becomes an issue and you have 20k users on the channel, each getting 10-20mbps; which is a huge improvement over the current situation during a conference, where the most anyone is lucky to get is a few kbps, due to radio interference, while the hard line running to the tower sits there mostly unused. It's not even a matter of the tower not having a large enough pipe to the network, the radios can't keep up with demand, so the pipe largely goes unused in these instances.

And what happens when they do? Why actively encourage them to make themselves harder to catch?

Unless the other endpoint was compromised at some point and legitimately changed their key as a mitigation measure. Solve that problem and we'll be in agreement.

I'm not sure your credentials qualify you to make internet diagnoses of fictional diseases. I do enjoy a good troll, though, so keep at it; if it bothered me, I wouldn't reply. ;)