As someone who just had FTTP (yep, to the premises) installed in their rural home, the way they did it was thus:

- They went to the local cabinet (which is already fibre-backed to the local exchange many km's away), strung a fibre out of it.
- They got up the telegraph pole in my streets, strung a new fibre off it.
- They used the old copper line that's been there since the 60's to slide the new fibre reel down.
- They put a second hook on my eaves, and hooked the fibre from there, and then wired the fibre direct into my house.
- They didn't remove a damn thing.

Took about 20 minutes, judging by the CCTV.

It would take about the same time just to pull down the copper from my house safely (the above did not require closing or working in the road, for instance), then isolating that from the dozens of others in the road on the pole, then removing that all the way back to the cabinet. Which I know goes underground because when I first moved in a few years ago, the BT guy had to remove that cable from, basically, a huge puddle which was cutting my DSL speed from 75Mbps to 20Mbps (DSL is amazing, though, that it still worked!).

Until everything's fibre, you can't remove those old lines, it's just not practical. And then are you really going to mobilise a bunch of people to remove a small run of copper from every street?

I once did some maths and the IT at the school I work in has something like tens of thousands of km+ of copper wiring that's unused. One room can have 30+ runs of nearly-100m. That's 3km for one room, from where a building was previously wired to have an IT suite, but then changed purpose, etc. We could, in theory, take that pure-copper cable out and recycle it. That one school likely has more copper in it than my entire village.

The fact is that it's just not worth the effort. There are huge thick bundles of it, and while it wouldn't take that long to pull it all out (much easier than putting it in because you can largely just cut and pull the entire bundle), it's not worth doing so in terms of the cost of the raw copper. We know that because honestly much of the time, rather than re-use the old copper runs which we know to be Cat5e, we just run a new Cat6a run alongside them if we do need to wire something. And Cat5e has far more metal in it than old telephone line.

I cut something like 200 cables this summer alone. And I mean I cut the last 2 metres of them because they were in my way in the cabinets. The actual RUN of cable is still in the walls and going all over the building, 50, 60, 70m runs all over the place.

I bet that a single office or school demolition recovers more copper (and steel and other stuff) than an entire village of old telephone lines, and while it may be a factor on the demolition companies finances, it's not a huge one. Scrap metal, which you have to de-sheath, transport, etc. isn't as valuable as people make out. It's why nobody arranges a regular scrap-metal collection at my local council to come and just grab anything of value that they could. No. They do that for paper. They don't do it for metal unless you arrange it with them. There's not much money in it. The only people making money are the guys lobbing some bits of lead, steel and alumium on the back of their van until they have enough to get a couple-of-hundred-quid free personal backhander as part of their work when it's all been moved at the expense of their company's fuel expense account.

Yeah, all you need is 200 years for them to book enough appointments to actually pull the stuff down, and you're golden! (or at least, copper-coloured).

Like an online bookseller turning into a global retail warehouse then renting out their datacenter services, producing talking home assistants, and launching rockets into space?

You are entirely correct. I took another look at what the law actually required and I am definitely crying wolf (at this point). Thanks for taking the time to point this out to me.

There is definitely a slippery slope there, but I agree with you, California is far enough away from the event horizon of that slope that my histrionics are not warranted. Not only that, but the carve out for Linux actually is helpful. Thanks once again.

The companies in question are going to get in serious legal trouble if they fail to comply in verifying the ages of their users. Microsoft, Google, and Apple are all going to give these companies an API that will move that burden from themselves to the makers of the operating system. Discord, to use an example, will be able to say that they asked Microsoft, Google, and Apple to verify ages, and then that they relied on the information that they were given. What's more these companies actually want to know the age of their users. This information is valuable, and they will be able to use it to target their customers with advertising.

What's more, every bad actor is going to try and target this exception. Linux traffic will end up in the same bucket as bots, predators, and any other malicious traffic. There is nothing in the current exception that requires companies to work with Free Software. My guess is that if your operating system can't do age verification that is blessed by Microsoft, Google, or Apple that most sites will simply block your traffic.

This is going to end up being a huge step backwards for Free Software clients.

Social media sites are going to get in trouble if they can't verify ages, and they want the age information so that they can sell it to advertisers. Microsoft, Apple, and Google are going to create APIs that the various services are going to trust. If your alternative implementation of the API response isn't signed by a key controlled by Microsoft, Apple, or Google it will be blocked outright. This loophole is not a victory, it is a huge defeat.

These operations can get in actual legal trouble if they don't gather this information. Plus, it is in their best interests financially to gather this information. Verified age information is ridiculously valuable to them. They want to be able to get your verified age, and now they have a legal reason to require it. Plus, every bot, actual predator, and other bad actor is going to try and climb through this Free Software exemption. The overwhelming majority of traffic that can't provide a response signed with a key by Microsoft, Apple, or Google is going to be crap, pure and simple. This law doesn't say anything about requiring that the service work with Free Software. Instead it puts Free Software in its own little ghetto. One thing is certain about ghettos, they don't put you in a ghetto for any reason but to be able to discriminate against you.

It is far more likely that a year from now Linux will be unusable for sites that require age verification, than it is that Linux will be the loophole that websites allow ti work despite not having "certified" age verification. Microsoft, Apple, and Google didn't fight this because they know that this actually strengthens their grip on operating systems. From now on, any device created by people that want to potentially do business in California (ie, everyone), is going to have to find a way to get a "blessed" age verification API by one of the big three. If they can't get that blessing then their fancy new device is unlikely to work on any service that has personalized accounts.

The exception only gives websites and other software a way to break if you insist on using Free Software. Every malicious bot, every child predator, every last bad actor is going to pretend to be Free Software, and people needing to comply with the law are simply going to block everything that isn't made by Google, Microsoft, or Apple. The reason that this got through the legislature is that it is the opposite of a win for Free Software, it is a devastating loss.

The commercial software vendors are going to create a framework that is going to insist on software signed by one of them to be "legitimate," and everyone that needs this verification to meet the standards of the law is going to simply block traffic that doesn't provide it. Free Software will still technically be legal, but it won't interoperate, and so it won't be usable.

You can see a bit how this works with Google Chrome on Linux. It mostly works great, until you need to watch something that requires Widevine, and then it either doesn't work at all, or it works with artificially reduced functionality. This is not because Chrome on Linux is less secure, or less capable, but rather because it is different. This isn't stopping piracy, the streams still escape. In fact, there are streaming services that I don't pay for, despite wanting to watch their content, simply because I would have to boot into something besides Linux to use their service, and the extra work isn't worth the hassle.

The difference is that this law is going to cover essentially every service that we want to use on the Internet. Every website, every app, every service with accounts that wants to be able to do business in California (and that's basically everyone), is going to require this age verification. Not only are they going to get in trouble if they don't get this information, but they actively want the information so that they can use the information to sell to advertisers. These operations aren't going to work on a non-validated code path. They are simply going to require commercial software verification and block everything else. It is not only the path of least resistance, it is the path of greatest profit.

No where does the law require that services work equally well without age verification. No where does the law say that the standard has to be open and implementable by Free Software. The reason that this exception stayed in the final bill is that the commercial software vendors saw this and realized that if they were going to be forced to build this API they could at least use it as an opportunity to shoulder out their competition for the long term.

Heck, this doesn't just work against Free Software. It is going to work against any newcomer to the party. Anyone creating a new device is going to have to use negotiate to use software blessed by Microsoft, Apple, or Google, because website and application operators are going to be skeptical of anything else. Anything else is going to look like a bot, or an attack, or some other bad actor.

On the basis of water usage, no. Depending on the estimate you use, California's almond growers use four to seven times as much water as all US data centers combined. Which industry does more good for you?

The new system is simply another set of inputs. You will still get search results even if you don't click on anything. In fact, I would bet that actual user interaction with this new system is going to be very small. Most of the input that Google will get will be people trying to game the system.

I didn't even know about Kagi. In fact, it has been a long time since I have even considered using someone besides Google. I just resigned myself to the idea that things were forever broken. Thanks for the insight.

That is a very good point. duckduckgo.com (to use an example) does not summarize the search results for you, and, once you know what to look for the ads are clearly marked. To be honest, purchasing ads on duckduckgo.com is likely a sign of good taste on the part of the advertiser as well. Honestly, I hadn't even considered using a non-Google search option for a long time. That is almost certainly part of the problem. Thanks for your response.

There was nothing automatic about Google's trustworthiness. It simply counted up links that lead back to a particular page. If it had more links it was (supposedly) a better page. Almost immediately webmasters around the world started gaming the system. Google still restricts some of the things my account can do for hidden links that were added to some ads on websites that I ran in like 2001. GoDaddy and all of the other big web hosting companies of that era all rose to prominence on the strength of gaming the PageRank system.

I am sure that other industries tell the same story.

PageRank might seem trustworthy to you, but that's only because you weren't trying to game the system back in the day. I can assure you that, right from the start, people were abusing PageRank in precisely the same way that upsets you now. The only difference was that registering a domain back then cost $70 for two years, and you probably created the links you used to game the system by writing Perl. That raised the barrier to entry significantly. However, there was still real money to be made in that arena, and whether the winners paid Google directly, or paid for back links to their content (or both), I can guarantee you that the road to your trust was paved in money.

In the end Google has decided that the most reliable way to have publishers show that their information is trustworthy is to force them to pay for the privilege. Coincidentally that also happens to be the method that makes Google the most money. For years an entire SEO industry has thrived around the idea that if you pay someone enough money they can trick Google to steal your information instead of your competitors. Now we are finally at the endgame and Google doesn't even send traffic. They simply summarize the information for their customers. Chances are excellent that you don't even leave the google.com domain.

Google's competitors are simply doing the same thing at a different domain. All of them make their money by charging publishers to show up prominently in search ranks. Whether you are rooting for Oceania, Eurasia, or Eastasia it's Big Brother all of the way down.

I was saying this 20+ years ago when I was studying AI and its history back then, long before LLMs existed.

AI is, and always has been, exclusively nothing but exponentially-increasing requirements for logarithmically-plateauing results.

Any mathematician will tell you what that means in the end.