They are absolutely not. One of the major disadvantages to DOCSIS (cable) networks is very low upstream bandwidth compared to XGS-PON and GPON (ftth protocols).

0 doesn't make sense because the FCC operates in the US and is headed by the biggest moron in the tech world.
The problem with A is that is that companies that currently invest billions of dollars per year in R&D to develop the standards will stop. They'll wait until someone else does the work and then just implement it. If we took this approach we would still be waiting on LTE, not even dreaming about deploying 5G which has already begun in some areas.
B is a bit more reasonable, but then device makers will be paying the same royalty on a $25 LTE feature phone sold in India compared to a $1100 flagship sold in Orange County. You basically make the royalty a regressive tax on tech by doing this.

At how many herz?

I'm not a semiconductor fab expert either, but I do know that some times big jumps like that are counter-intuitively easier.

For example, 10gbps network connections were starting to push the physical limits of a single wavelength on fiber and of the electronics behind the laser and photodiode, 25gbps is about as good as it gets with single wavelength direct detection on-off keying photonics. However, with 100gbps optics (real ones, not LR4 or SR10) it forced the need to use DSPs to generate the transmit and process the receive. The side effect is that suddenly the 100gbps optics have much higher noise and dispersion tolerance than the previous generation of 10gbps stuff. Now you can go out and buy a single wavelength 400gbps optic if you have the need and the budget.

Maybe the move to 7nm fabs will also involve a fundamental change in some other aspect of lithography that makes it much easier than 10nm was.

SUVs are minivans for insecure people.

"...remove the unsafe cars..." Maybe we should say remove less safe cars? Somehow I feel like those 293 are still safer than anything made by Fiat Chrysler

The 200 IQ play is to patent the concept of even having a name in the first place.

The article is the example, less the 'really smart people'.

Bell Labs is a current company. https://www.bell-labs.com/ It's owned by Nokia, but is still doing fundamental R&D on things you'll use, whether you know it or not, in a decade or two.

If Uber can be compelled to give access to records without a subpoena, we all can be. I'm not an Uber fan, but I don't have a problem with this behavior.

We could call it something like "Capital Gains Tax" maybe?

It would not necessarily be insecure by design. Some access technologies, like GPON, incorporate the option for AES encryption. Most networks I've seen don't enable the feature though. You'd need very specialized equipment to sniff GPON traffic anyway. There's no reason this system couldn't be encrypted between the modem and terminating device.

It's doubtful that it was an AT&T engineer. They don't engineer their own equipment anymore since the breakup and the Bell Labs / Lucent spin off. I don't know which of their vendors is pushing this solution. This announcement is a bit out of the blue, and it sounds like a turd.

Came here to say this. I have a Nokia Steel and a friend of mine has a Steel HR and they are no hassle and look like a real watch and not a kids toy or a device for monitoring livestock. I highly recommend them for someone who is looking for a fitness tracker that is durable as fuck, doesn't nag to be recharged, and looks good no matter what you're wearing.

Amazon is not an ISP and Google is not using their ISP unit, Google Fiber, to block Amazon. This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.