Category: technology

Sikorsky S-97 Raider Takes Flight

Click any image for popup slide show



Flight


Taxiing


Tethered Tests


Rendering showing rotor and hub fairings

Sikorsky’s S-97 Raider advancing blade helicopter prototype has
taken flight at their test center in Florida:

Sikorsky’s “big bet” on the future of rotorcraft took a sizable step forward on May 22, when the S-97 Raider high-speed helicopter made its first flight, almost eight decades after founder Igor Sikorsky set the mold for the helicopter by flying the VS-300.

With its single main rotor and anti-torque tail rotor, the VS-300 solidified a configuration that has come to dominate the rotorcraft market, but also set a speed limit of around 150 kt. that has not changed significantly for 30 years.

With its rigid coaxial rotors and pusher propulsor, Sikorsky believes the Raider and subsequent designs can change the vertical-lift market by offering twice the cruise speed while retaining the low-speed attributes of conventional helicopters, but with higher hot-and-high performance, efficiency and maneuverability, and lower noise, vibration and pilot workload.

The aircraft flown on May 22 is the first of two prototypes of the Raider light tactical helicopter being built under a $200 million industry effort funded by Sikorsky and its supplier partners. This follows on from the $50 million company-funded X2 Technology Demonstrator, which flew 23 times from 2008-11 and exceeded its speed goal of 250 kt.

On its first flight at Sikorsky’s development flight center in West Palm Beach, Florida, the Raider flew for an hour, versus the 30 min. planned, says Mark Miller, vice president of research and engineering, completing three takeoffs and landings, and forward, rearward and sideward flight. The aircraft was flown by Raider chief pilot Bill Fell, with X2 test pilot Kevin Bredenbeck as co-pilot.

Where the 6,000-lb.-gross-weight X2 proved the physics of the rigid coaxial-rotor compound helicopter, Miller says, the production-representative 11,400-lb. Raiders are intended to show their operational effectiveness through customer demonstrations. They will also reduce risk for the 30,000-lb. SB-1 Defiant Sikorsky is building with Boeing for the U.S. Army’s Joint Multi Role technology demonstration.

Rolled out in October, the first Raider had completed 36 hr. of shakedown ground runs since February. This culminated in an untethered ground run on May 20, clearing the aircraft for flight. On the hour-long first sortie, which was limited only by fuel, all 97 points on an “aggressive” test card were completed, including piloted frequency sweeps in all axes, something normally too risky for a first flight, says Fell.

Initially, the Raider is flying with its triplex fly-by-wire flight control system in back-up degraded mode to reduce complexity and focus on basic airworthiness in the low-speed regime. “There is phenomenal control power with the rigid rotors,” he says. “You can make an input in roll or pitch and the aircraft responds immediately. And with no tail rotor, you do not have to manage the pedals.”

………

The Raider will be flown to 140-150 kt. in pure helicopter mode, says Miller. Toward the end of Phase 1, software will be upgraded to Block 2, bringing in the variable-pitch propulsor and articulating tail to increase speed and enable the full flight envelope. Hub and inter-rotor fairings will be fitted to reduce drag.

Phases 1 and 2 will demo the hover KPP carrying the equivalent of six troops and two crew, as well as an endurance objective. Phase 2 will focus on demonstrating—and likely exceeding—the speed objective when fitted with stub wings carrying weapons. “Raider is a balanced design optimized for more than 220 kt. fully weaponized, but the inherent speed of the configuration is more than 250 kt.,” says Miller. “That’s 100 kt. faster than anything else.”

Phase 3 will demo the maneuverability potential of the rigid coaxial rotor and propulsor. In addition to enabling level-attitude acceleration and deceleration and pushing the helicopter to higher forward speeds, the variable-pitch propeller can be used to produce reverse thrust, enabling the Raider to “hang on the prop” to point sensors and weapons toward the ground.

………

The Raider will be flown to 140-150 kt. in pure helicopter mode, says Miller. Toward the end of Phase 1, software will be upgraded to Block 2, bringing in the variable-pitch propulsor and articulating tail to increase speed and enable the full flight envelope. Hub and inter-rotor fairings will be fitted to reduce drag.

[Aircraft 1 is instrumented for envelope expansion, Hub and inter-rotor “sail” fairings for high speed are not yet fitted. Credit: Sikorsky]
Aircraft 1 is instrumented for envelope expansion, Hub and inter-rotor “sail” fairings for high speed are not yet fitted. Credit: Sikorsky

Phases 1 and 2 will demo the hover KPP carrying the equivalent of six troops and two crew, as well as an endurance objective. Phase 2 will focus on demonstrating—and likely exceeding—the speed objective when fitted with stub wings carrying weapons. “Raider is a balanced design optimized for more than 220 kt. fully weaponized, but the inherent speed of the configuration is more than 250 kt.,” says Miller. “That’s 100 kt. faster than anything else.”

Phase 3 will demo the maneuverability potential of the rigid coaxial rotor and propulsor. In addition to enabling level-attitude acceleration and deceleration and pushing the helicopter to higher forward speeds, the variable-pitch propeller can be used to produce reverse thrust, enabling the Raider to “hang on the prop” to point sensors and weapons toward the ground.

The early tests will involve low, conventional helicopter, speed.  As the test moves to higher speeds, fairings will apply to the mast and rotor hubs.

Right now, there are two competing technologies for high speed vertical lift for the US military,  advancing blade, and tilt rotor.

Tilt rotor appears to offer superior performance in horizontal flight, at the cost of increased down wash issues, less capable low speed handling, and a larger ground envelope.

I’m inclined to go with the advancing blade.  I think that it is an inherently safer technology (autorotation), and the implementation seems to involve a lot less “bleeding edge” technology.  (The V-22’s high pressure hydraulic system, necessary to keep weight down, has been a maintenance nightmare).

Russia Resets its Armor

Click any Image for Popup Slideshow

T-14 Armata Tank, Side View
1

T-14 Armata Tank, Front Qurter View
2

T-14 Armata Tank, Rear Quarter View
3

T-14 Armata T-72 Size Comparison
4

Medium IFV, Kurganets-25
5

T-15 Heavy IFV

6


T-14 vs T-72 on Parade
7

AMX-13 with bustle for autoloader for comparison
8

T-14 Armata Tank, Labeled
9

T-15 Armata IFV,  Labeled
10

New Wheeled “Boomerang” 8X8
11

Koalitsiya-SV Self Propelled Artillery
12

T-15 Engine and Drive Detail
13

T-15 Engine and Drive

14

Nothing has gotten more buzz across the military journalism sphere than the 75th May 9 VE day parade in Moscow.

It appears that Russia is going with completely new designs for pretty much all of its armor.

There appear to be a completely new tank, a heavy IFV (a vehicle that has never before been in the Russian/Soviet inventory), medium IFV, wheeled IFV, and SP Howitzer.

It appears that the Russians are upgrading their entire armored inventory, with the exception of the light airborne elements, over the next few years.

The T-14 Armata tank is perhaps the most significant departure from past practice, dispensing with a crewed turret, and placing the crew, commander, gunner, and driver, in the hull.

Of note is the rather large bustle on the back of the turret. (Picture 1)

It looks rather, like the bustle arrangement for AMX-13 light tank of the 1960s (Picture 8), but it appears even less integrated.

In the AMX-13, the bustle was used to accommodate magazines for the auto-loader, but there does not appear to be enough volume for this application with Russian 125mm rounds.

My (not particularly educated) guess is that the structure accommodates the mechanism for the auto-loader.

I would also note that the turret has an unfinished appearance to it, and I’m wondering if discussions are still ongoing regarding the level of armor on the turret.

Even with the possibilities for space savings from the new configuration, the T-14 is larger than the T-72 family it succeeds.

My guess it is being driven by the following factors:

  • The platform will be used on a new heavy APC/IFV, the T-15.
  • Additional ground clearance allows for greater resistance to mines and IEDs.
  • More space for survivability, particularly in terms of separating ammunition storage from critical components and crew.
  • Improved crew accommodations and comfort.

Among other things, I think that the new platform indicates a focus on counterinsurgency, particularly as it applies to the T-15, which is a vehicle that has not existed in the Russian arsenal before.

The T-15 is in many ways similar to the Israeli Namer IFV, which is derived from the Merkava main battle tank.

One significant difference though is that it appears that the platform has been turned around for the T-15:  The engine and drive sprockets are in the front for the T-15, and in the rear for the T-14.  (Pictures 1, 6, 10, 13, & 14) (The Merkava and Namer both have front mounted engines and drive sprockets)

The T-15 likely reflects a new strategic vision:  A heavy IFV does not gain one a lot in “Fulda Gap” scenario, where tanks would still likely be able to take them out with impunity, but it would be useful in counterinsurgency and occupation scenarios.

The new medium IFV, in the 25 ton class, is the Kurganets-25, and once again, it is larger than its predecessor, though it carries the same remotely operated turret as the T-15.

It is larger than its BMP predecessors, and has greater ground clearance as well as greater height, indicating easier entrance and egress from the vehicle, which in turn suggests that the vehicle is likely to be deployed like an IFV than an APC.  (Basically troops in the vehicle until much closer to the line of battle)

Like its larger sibling, and unlike the BMP, the engine will be front mounted, which should further aid in deploying troops.

For lighter deployments, the Russians appear to be replacing their BTR with the “Boomerang”.

Much like the other IFVs, the engines have been moved forward to allow for rear dismount, and much like its western counterparts, and unlike the BTR, it has a deep “V” hull for better resistance to mines and IEDs.

Finally, there is the Koalitsiya-SV self propelled howitzer.  It is the only one of the new tanks that is derived from an existing platform, specifically a chassis from the T-80, which is shares with its predecessor, 2S19 Msta-S.

It has an auto-loader, and it is reported to have some sort of fractional propellant system, which could allow for simultaneous rounds on target.

What may be most telling is what we did not see.

Specifically,  the absence of updated airborne armor indicates that the strategic view of the Russian armed forces is significantly different from that of the Soviet ones.

They clearly do not expect to project power much beyond countries on their boarders, which, for example, a heavy IFV makes sense.

If you are looking for world wide operations, the heavy IFV does not make a whole lot of sense, which is why the US Military, which these days is an imperial military, screwed the pooch with their now-abandoned Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV).

As an aside, there is a big difference between a 45-50 ton heavy IFV (the T-15) and a 65-75 ton IFV (GCV) in terms of cost, logistics, maintenance, and support as well.

This is a remarkably ambitious program for the Russian military, and the fact that they actually have something resembling functional hardware in public is remarkable.

In comparison to my experience with the Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles (MGV), where much of the time was spent on (I am not kidding here) dealing with General’s demands that the PowerPoint slides protection color coding be made more consistent (really, not kidding here) until after more than a decade, it was canceled, the Russians seem to have achieved a remarkably competent military design and procurement process.

Various links I used below, in no particular order:

Russia’s armour revolution – IHS Jane’s 360

Photo Gallery: Red Square Revelations | Aviation Week

New Russian Armor – First analysis – Armata | Defense Update:

New Russian armor – First analysis Part II: Kurganets-25 | Defense Update:

Updated: Russian Armata unveiled: a new family of armored combat vehicles | Defense Update:

New Russian armor – Part III: Boomerang 8×8 AFV | Defense Update:

SNAFU!: Close up, Hi Rez pics of the Armata MBT Turret!

SNAFU!: Size comparison between the Armata and T-72…

Russian Armata unveiled: a new family of armored combat vehicles | Defense Update:

Kurganets-25 – a new family of medium troop carriers from Russia | Defense Update:

SNAFU!: Quick and dirty on the Armata MBT…

SNAFU!: What is with the new Russian Heavy IFV?

I Have Not Electrocuted Myself

The light switch in the bathroom went bad, so I replaced it.

I went with a simple switch, instead of the current dimmer, because:

  • I can use LED and compact fluorescent bulbs now.
  • Why the f%$# would anyone ever want to dim the light in the bathroom.

It actually went pretty smoothly.

I would like to offer my most sincere thanks to whoever invented the wire nut.

I had Charlie in the basement so I could check if I got it right without running up and down stairs.

The Coveted “Biggest Asshole in Silicon Valley” Endorsement., Marco Rubio Haz It

I am referring, of course, to Larry Ellison, even if one ignores the persistent rumors of sexual harassment at Oracle, who will be hosting a fundraiser for Marco Rubio’s Presidential campaign.

Rubio is, “Not a mindful human being,” to borrow Ron Reagan Jr.’s phrase,* which is why he accepts Ellison’s money with such equanimity.

Of course, for a Republican Party candidate for President, being a, “Mindful human being,” is a luxury that he cannot afford.

Just look at the amount of fellating that is directed toward Sheldon Adelson by various Republicans, where recent news strongly implies strong ties to Chinese mobsters.

We need real campaign finance reform, if just so that Republicans can tell people like Ellison and Adelson to shut the f%$# up.

*RRJ said about Dick Cheney, “I don’t think he’s a mindful human being. That’s probably the nicest way I can put it,” when describing Cheney’s behavior toward his mom, Nancy Reagan at his Dad’s funeral.
The Link is here. The Cliff Notes version is that Dick Cheney escorted her to Reagan’s casket, and he stopped at the bottom of some stairs, and allowed an 80 year old woman with glaucoma to flounder her way up the stairs. (Really classy)

The Clown Car Gets Even More Full


The Abridged version of CarlyFiorina.org.


Her campaign forgot to register it.


This is unsurprising, seeing as how in her last campaign, she put out the notorious: 


Demon Sheep Ad (Not a parody, really)

Carly Fiorina has formally announced that she is running for President.

In what is an amazing amount of hubris, even by the standards of a Presidential campaign, she will be running on her record as CEO of Hewlett Packard:

Carly Fiorina became the second woman and the first former chief executive to enter the 2016 presidential campaign when she announced on Monday that her private-sector background and conservative credentials made her best positioned to capture the Republican nomination and take on Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Ms. Fiorina’s long-shot campaign — polls show only a sliver of Republicans would support her at this stage — has nevertheless attracted the attention of conservatives in early nominating states, largely because of her increasingly pointed attacks on Mrs. Clinton and her impassioned anti-abortion position. (“Liberals believe that flies are worth protecting but that the life of an unborn child is not,” she said in January.)

“I think I’m the best person for the job because I understand how the economy actually works,” Ms. Fiorina told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News on Monday. “I understand executive decision-making, which is making a tough call in a tough time with high stakes.”

Her record is that she nearly destroyed HP.

Employees began spontaneously singing, “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” at multiple HP sites when the news of her firing broke.


She also approved Lucent’s infamous “Brown Ring of Ambivalence” Logo

Before that, she was the,  president consumer products and later also the president for the global service provider business at Lucent, where she oversaw financing deals that essentially had Lucent paying money to customers to buy their gear:

Dig under the surface, however, and the story grows more complicated and less flattering. The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared. Nor were several of her division’s biggest sales, including the giant PathNet deal.

The Lucent-Fiorina story starts in 1995, when AT&T began to consider selling one of its crown jewels, its equipment-making division. The group had $21 billion in annual revenue and housed the famed Bell Labs, birthplace of the transistor and corporate America’s preeminent research outfit.

Spinning off the equipment group into a separate company had instant appeal. As a separate company, Lucent could sell gear to AT&T’s competitors on an even footing with Nortel, Cisco and others. The timing was also perfect. In the late 1990s companies like Worldcom, Qwest and Global Crossing were laying fiber optic cables around the country and the world. Start-ups like Winstar were spending billions on new-fangled wireless networks. Dozens of small companies including PathNet came up with designs for other types of telecom networks.

………

In the giant PathNet deal that Fiorina oversaw, Lucent agreed to fund more than 100% of the company’s equipment purchases, meaning the small company would get both Lucent gear at no money down and extra cash to boot. Yet how could such a loan to PathNet make sense for Lucent, even based on the world as it appeared in the heady days of 1999? The smaller company had barely $100 million in equity (and that’s based on generous accounting assumptions) on top of which it had already balanced $350 million in junk bonds paying 12.25% interest. Adding $440 million in loans from Lucent to this already debt-heavy capital structure would jack the company’s leverage up to 8 to 1, and potentially even higher as they drew more of the loan.

Fiorina says in her autobiography that she pushed back against the pressure for short-term growth at any cost, and two former Lucent collegues with whom she remains friendly back her up. On the other hand, this 2001 Fortune story, which described Lucent’s irresponsible growth habits, cites sources saying Fiorina made it known that Wall Street would generously reward companies that emphasized and delivered robust revenue growth. And an executive who sat across the table from Fiorina in a big vendor financing negotiation, when asked this week about what he remembers of the bargaining, described Fiorina as being dead set on chalking up a huge sale. He adds: “The press release was always very important to her.”

(emphasis mine)

And she thinks that she can run for President, or more likely, she thinks that the Presidential run will set the table for another future Senate bid.

It appears that she has learned nothing from her shellacking by Barbara Boxer. (10% in 2010, which was a Republican wave election)

I am not so Eager to Fly in a 787

One of the innovations on the aircraft is a move from hydraulic to electric actuators.

The need for higher led to the use of Lithium-Ion batteries, which are more prone to fires, and briefly grounded the aircraft.

It now appears that a counter rolling over could cause a complete loss of electrical power:

A software vulnerability in Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner jet has the potential to cause pilots to lose control of the aircraft, possibly in mid-flight, Federal Aviation Administration officials warned airlines recently.

The bug—which is either a classic integer overflow or one very much resembling it—resides in one of the electrical systems responsible for generating power, according to memo the FAA issued last week. The vulnerability, which Boeing reported to the FAA, is triggered when a generator has been running continuously for a little more than eight months. As a result, FAA officials have adopted a new airworthiness directive (AD) that airlines will be required to follow, at least until the underlying flaw is fixed.

“This AD was prompted by the determination that a Model 787 airplane that has been powered continuously for 248 days can lose all alternating current (AC) electrical power due to the generator control units (GCUs) simultaneously going into failsafe mode,” the memo stated. “This condition is caused by a software counter internal to the GCUs that will overflow after 248 days of continuous power. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of all AC electrical power, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.”

………

The memo doesn’t provide additional details about the underlying software bug. Informed speculation suggests it’s a signed 32-bit integer overflow that is triggered after 231 centiseconds (i.e. 248.55 days) of continuous operation.

This is computer programming 101, and it’s bullsh%$ that no one thought of this.

This was something that was present in in Windows 95 and 98 in the last millennium, where the system would crash after 49.7 days (equal to 232 milliseconds).

The embarrassing part for Microsoft was that it took about a decade before it was found, because no one could keep the systems running that long.

Seriously?  New electrics, new actuators, new structures, new manufacturing configuration, all done at the same time ……… I’m waiting for the next shoe to drop.

Great. Now Bees are Going to Have Nic Fits

It appears that part of the problem with the  neonicotinoid pesticides,  and bees is that bees react in the same way to the pesticides as a smoker does to nicotine, and preferentially select contaminated nectar.  (Research articles is here and here)

This has the effect of increasing their exposure to these pesticides, which have been tied to colony collapse disorder:

Bees prefer food containing neonicotinoid pesticides, research suggests.

They may “get a buzz” from the nicotine-like chemicals in the same way smokers crave cigarettes, according to scientists at Newcastle University.

The experiments raise the question of whether bees can be exposed to harmful doses of pesticides because they are attracted to the chemicals.

Another study found neonicotinoids had a negative effect on bees in the wild.

The Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide producers, questioned the findings of the studies, published in the journal, Nature.
Scientific controversy

Bees are in decline in Europe and North America due to a number of factors, including pesticides, habitat loss and diseases.

In 2013, the EU imposed a two-year ban on using three neonicotinoid pesticides on flowering crops amid concern about their effects on bees.

Neonicotinoids contain synthetic chemicals similar to nicotine, which as a plant toxin is damaging to insects.

Neuroscientists at Newcastle University tested whether honeybees and bumblebees preferred food containing neonicotinoids over untreated food in the laboratory.

They were surprised to find that sugar solution containing two of three neonicotinoid pesticides appeared to be attractive to bees and “may act like a drug” targeting the brain.

This sh%$ is getting very real.

We need to stop pandering to the Ag chemical companies of the world, and review these chemicals with a lot more rigor.

There May Still Be Some Utility Left in the Mk. 1 Human

Toyota has discovered that robots cannot do it all, and that they need highly experienced experts to maximize the productivity at their plants:

Inside Toyota Motor Corp.’s oldest plant, there’s a corner where humans have taken over from robots in thwacking glowing lumps of metal into crankshafts. This is Mitsuru Kawai’s vision of the future.

“We need to become more solid and get back to basics, to sharpen our manual skills and further develop them,” said Kawai, a half century-long company veteran tapped by President Akio Toyoda to promote craftsmanship at Toyota’s plants. “When I was a novice, experienced masters used to be called gods, and they could make anything.”

These gods, or “kami-sama” in Japanese, are making a comeback at Toyota, the company that long set the pace for manufacturing prowess in the auto industry and beyond. Toyota’s next step forward is counterintuitive in an age of automation: Humans are taking the place of machines in plants across the nation so workers can develop new skills and figure out ways to improve production lines and the car-building process.

“Toyota views their people who work in a plant like this as craftsmen who need to continue to refine their art and skill level,” said Jeff Liker, who has written eight books on Toyota and visited Kawai last year. “In almost every company you would visit, the workers’ jobs are to feed parts into a machine and call somebody for help when it breaks down.”

The return of the kami-sama is emblematic of how Toyoda, 57, is remaking the company founded by his grandfather as the chief executive officer has pledged to tilt priorities back toward quality and efficiency from a growth mentality. He’s reining in expansion at the world’s-largest automaker with a three-year freeze on new car plants.

………

“What Akio Toyoda feared the company lost when it was growing so fast was the time to struggle and learn,” said Liker, who met with Toyoda in November. “He felt Toyota got big-company disease and was too busy getting product out.”

………

Learning how to make car parts from scratch gives younger workers insights they otherwise wouldn’t get from picking parts from bins and conveyor belts, or pressing buttons on machines. At about 100 manual-intensive workspaces introduced over the last three years across Toyota’s factories in Japan, these lessons can then be applied to reprogram machines to cut down on waste and improve processes, Kawai said.

In an area Kawai directly supervises at the forging division of Toyota’s Honsha plant, workers twist, turn and hammer metal into crankshafts instead of using the typically automated process. Experiences there have led to innovations in reducing levels of scrap and shortening the production line 96 percent from its length three years ago.

Toyota has eliminated about 10 percent of material-related waste from building crankshafts at Honsha. Kawai said the aim is to apply those savings to the next-generation Prius hybrid.

The work extends beyond crankshafts. Kawai credits manual labor for helping workers at Honsha improve production of axle beams and cut the costs of making chassis parts.

Though Kawai doesn’t envision the day his employer will rid itself of robots — 760 of them take part in 96 percent of the production process at its Motomachi plant in Japan — he has introduced multiple lines dedicated to manual labor in each of Toyota’s factories in its home country, he said.

“We cannot simply depend on the machines that only repeat the same task over and over again,” Kawai said. “To be the master of the machine, you have to have the knowledge and the skills to teach the machine.”

True dat.

Guys on the shop floor are an invaluable source of knowledge and wisdom.

FCC Publishes Net Neutrality Rules, Lawsuit Filed Immediately

This is not a surprise.

The two most common types of broadband providers in the United States, telcos and cable companies, have predicated their business models on monopoly power and the extraction of rents.

Net neutrality closes off a potential sources of rent, hence the lawsuit:

While the Federal Communications Commission passed its net neutrality rules on February 26, they weren’t published in the Federal Register until today.

The publication means a couple of things: the rules go into effect 60 days from today, and parties that oppose the rules have 10 days to file lawsuits against the FCC. Almost immediately after publication, a trade group representing ISPs called USTelecom filed suit in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

USTelecom’s petition said the FCC’s ruling is “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion” and “violates federal law, including, but not limited to, the Constitution, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and FCC regulations promulgated thereunder.”

You may recall that this same group sued the FCC over the net neutrality rules last month. That was done just in case the 10-day deadline could be applied after the rules were posted to the FCC’s website, which happened before publication to the Federal Register. In either case, the initial challenge is mostly a procedural matter; detailed briefs laying out a legal argument against the FCC’s rules will probably come this summer.

Thankfully, the DC Court of Appeals, (technically the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit), the most likely venue for a suit, has become significantly less right wing with recent judicial appointments.

I expect this to end up at the Supreme Court though.

FCC Net Neutrality Order Rolls Out

Seriously. What can I do but point you to the telecommunications regulatory deity Harold Feld comments regarding the final rule.

The short version of this is:

  • The rules go to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for a review under the paperwork reduction act, but this likely just a formality, taking 1-2 weeks.
  • The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next 2-6 weeks.
  • It will technically go into effect 60 days after publication.
  • Law suits will almost certainly be filed after publication in the Federal Register and before it takes effect, and it is also likely that litigants against the FCC would request an injunction.
  • The court hearing this will likely be the DC Circuit.

My guess is that would end up at the Supreme Court, though SCOTUS might simply refuse to hear the case, and let the district or appellate court decision stand.

FCC Does the Right Thing, Part Two

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to preempt state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that prevent municipal broadband providers from expanding outside their territories.

The action is a year in the making. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced in February 2014 his intention to override state laws designed to protect private cable companies and telcos from public sector competition. Wheeler took his cue from the federal appeals court ruling that overturned net neutrality rules; tucked away in that decision was one judge’s opinion that the FCC has the authority to preempt “state laws that prohibit municipalities from creating their own broadband infrastructure to compete against private companies.”

Nineteen states have such laws, often passed at the behest of private Internet service providers that didn’t want to face competition. Communities in two of the states asked the FCC to take action. The City of Wilson, North Carolina and the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga, Tennessee filed the petitions that led to today’s FCC action. Each offers broadband service to residents and received requests for service from people in nearby towns, but they alleged that state laws made it difficult or impossible for them to expand.

“You can’t say you’re for broadband and then turn around and endorse limits on who can offer it,” Wheeler said today. “You can’t say, ‘I want to follow the explicit instructions of Congress to remove barriers to infrastructure investment,’ but endorse barriers on infrastructure investment. You can’t say you’re for competition but deny local elected officials the right to offer competitive choices.”

States have given municipalities the authority to offer broadband but made it difficult with tons of bureaucratic requirements, he said. “The bottom line is some states have created thickets of red tape designed to limit competition,” he said. Local residents and businesses are the ones suffering the consequences, he argued, pointing to members of the two communities in the audience.

For most internet users, this may have a more noticeable impact than the FCC’s net neutrality (Title II) decision, because in most of the United States, there is no meaningful competition, and so consumers are ripped off and abused by the telcos and the cable companies.

Their local monopoly status is why the big cable companies are free to behave in a manner that has made them the most widely loathed companies in America.

To rephrase Lily Tomlin, “So, the next time you complain about your cable service, why don’t you try using two Dixie cups with a string? We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the cable Company.”

FCC Does the Right Thing, Part One

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment.

The most controversial part of the FCC’s decision reclassifies fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service, with providers to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This decision brings Internet service under the same type of regulatory regime faced by wireline telephone service and mobile voice, though the FCC is forbearing from stricter utility-style rules that it could also apply under Title II.

The decision comes after a year of intense public interest, with the FCC receiving four million public comments from companies, trade associations, advocacy groups, and individuals. President Obama weighed in as well, asking the FCC to adopt the rules using Title II as the legal underpinning. The vote was 3-2, with Democrats voting in favor and Republicans against.

Chairman Tom Wheeler said that broadband providers have the technical ability and financial incentive to impose restrictions on the Internet. Wheeler said further:

The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.

This proposal has been described by one opponent as “a secret plan to regulate the Internet.” Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.

Wheeler also said putting rules in place will give network operators the certainty they need to keep investing.

In May 2014, the Wheeler-led commission proposed rules that relied on weaker authority and did not ban paid fast lanes. Wheeler eventually changed his mind, leading to today’s vote.

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the longest-tenured commissioner and someone who supported Title II five years ago, said the net neutrality order does not address only theoretical harms.

“This is more than a theoretical exercise,” she said. “Providers here in the United States have, in fact, blocked applications on mobile devices, which not only hampers free expression, it also restricts innovation by allowing companies, not the consumer, to pick winners and losers.”

Clyburn convinced Chairman Tom Wheeler to remove language that she believed was problematic.

“We worked closely with the chairman’s office to strike an appropriate balance and, yes, it is true that significant changes were made at my office’s request, including the elimination of the sender side classification, but I firmly believe that these edits have strengthened this item,” she said.

Clyburn, Google, and consumer advocacy groups told Wheeler that language classifying a business relationship between ISPs and Web services as a common carrier service could give ISPs grounds to charge online content providers for access to their networks. This language was removed, but service that ISPs offer to home and business Internet users was still reclassified as a common carrier service. FCC officials believe this classification alone gives them power to enforce net neutrality rules and oversee network interconnection disputes that affect consumers.

In response, Verizon issued their dissent to the FCC, in Morse code, dated 1934, which is either a little bit clever, or a little bit lame.  (I am still trying to figure out which.)

I was wrong when I predicted that former cable company lobbyist, and current FCC Chairman would cave to cable company f%$#ery, and I am immensely pleased to be wrong.

Floriduh!

The Leg passed a law banning juvenile sexting, and it appears that in so doing, they effectively legalized sexting:

The Florida legislature is commonly considered to be one of the stupidest law-making bodies in the United States, and for good reason. Who can forget the time the state’s fine representatives inadvertently banned all computers and smartphones? Or the time the legislature unintentionally outlawed sex? Now, however, the Sunshine State’s legislators may have outdone themselves: In an effort to outlaw sexting between teenagers, Florida accidentally legalized it.

Here’s the sorry story of the state’s latest legal mishap: In 2011, the legislature passed a “sexting” statute barring minors from sending images of nudity (their own or somebody else’s) to other minors. The first offense would qualify as only a civil infraction; minors who violated the law would merely have to perform court-ordered community service or pay a $60 fine. The second and third offenses, however, would qualify as misdemeanors, while the fourth offense would qualify as a felony.

Under this law, Florida prosecutors thought they had a slam-dunk case when they brought charges against a minor who texted a picture of her own vagina to a classmate because she was “bored.” But the state quickly ran into a problem: Florida law doesn’t give any court jurisdiction of civil infractions by juveniles—as opposed to criminal infractions—and the sexting statute doesn’t grant any court this kind of jurisdiction. Accordingly, no court in the state currently has legal authority to hear a case involving minors sexting. The prosecutors attempting to prosecute the sexting teen got their case thrown out of court, a decision an appeals court later affirmed.

The upshot of this misadventure in statute-drafting is that Florida’s sexting law is completely unenforceable. Thanks to the statute’s layered structure, the more serious penalties for sexting can only come after a minor has been convicted of his first offense. But because that first offense is a civil infraction—and because no court can hear civil cases involving minors—it is legally impossible for any minor to be charged with that first offense. As a result, there simply cannot be a second, third, or fourth offense. Sexting between teens—even sexting images of a minor’s nude body—is now functionally legal in Florida.

Of course, the bigger picture, that Florida wanted to make this a crime for a child to send pix of their own naughty bits, and in some cases, make it a felony, is the really stupid part.

Seriously.

Isn’t there already enough overcrowding in prisons without criminalize victimless teen stupidity?

H/t Tech Dirt.

I May Have Been Wrong About Former Cable Company Lobbyist Tom Wheeler

It now appears that the FCC will preempt bans on municipal broadband, and rule that broadband service is a telecommunications service, preserving net neutrality:

A Federal Communications Commission proposal to preempt state laws that harm municipal broadband projects are being made official this week, with Chairman Tom Wheeler circulating a draft decision to his fellow commissioners, The Washington Post reported today. The commissioners are expected to vote on the matter on February 26, the same day they are likely to vote for new net neutrality rules.

Municipal broadband operators in Tennessee and North Carolina petitioned the FCC to preempt state laws that prevent them from expanding to nearby communities that want Internet service. Wheeler plans to invoke the FCC’s authority to remove barriers that prevent broadband investment and competition.

and

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission this week is widely expected to propose regulating Internet service like a public utility, a move certain to unleash another round of intense debate and lobbying about how to ensure so-called net neutrality, or an open Internet.

It is expected that the proposal will reclassify high-speed Internet service as a telecommunications service, instead of an information service, under Title II of the Communications Act, according to industry analysts, lobbyists and former F.C.C. staff members.

The change, the analysts and others say, which has been pushed by President Obama, would give the commission strong legal authority to ensure that no content is blocked and no so-called pay-to-play fast lanes exist — prohibitions that are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept.

I had figured that Wheeler was another Obama revolving door sellout.

While this is not a done deal, and the devil is, as always, in the details, I am pleasantly surprised.

Also, thanks to the FOUR MILLION people who made their voices heard against “Cable Company F%$#ery”.

This would not have happened without them.

FCC to Marriott: Go Cheney Yourself

The FCC just made it clear to hotels and convention centers, you block WiFi, and there will be sanctions:

After Marriott blocked Wi-Fi hotspots in parts of its hotels, the FCC sent a stern warning: don’t even think about trying that again.

“The Communications Act prohibits anyone from … interfering with authorized radio communications, including Wi-Fi,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in a statement. “Marriott’s request seeking the FCC’s blessing to block guests’ use of non-Marriott networks is contrary to this basic principle.”

Wheeler pointed out that the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau fined Marriott (MAR) $600,000 for blocking Wi-Fi, and said the agency will fine other hotels if they try anything similar.

After being fined, Marriott petitioned the FCC to change the Communications Act so that it could block access to Wi-Fi devices in its conference spaces. The hotel chain said it needed to block Wi-Fi hotspot access in conference centers because attendees could launch cyberattacks on the company’s network or disrupt Wi-Fi service for the conference or guests.

Many customers were outraged by the petition, claiming that Marriott’s request for a conference center Wi-Fi ban was a veiled attempt to ban access in hotel rooms and lobbies as well.

Of course it was.

Overpriced phone and internet has been a major profit center for hotels, and they are eager to find ways to get that money back.

The law is pretty simple though:  Civilians operating radio jammers is illegal.

In fact, it’s illegal for most law enforcement as well.

If It’s a Blizzard, Uber will be Price Gouging

Here in New York City and other parts of the Northeast, the snow has begun to fall and it likely won’t stop for the next 24 hours or longer. Some estimate the city will be buried in up to 30 inches of snow by late tomorrow.

For customers of Uber and Lyft, that should bring up nightmares of blizzards past when Uber’s surge prices hit seven to eight times the normal rates — or upwards of $30 a mile.

With that in mind, NYC mayor Bill de Blasio said in a press conference, “Price gouging in the context of an emergency is illegal.” In response, Uber and Lyft have capped their surge prices at 280% and 200% respectively.

The cap is a welcome gesture, but doesn’t that still constitute “price gouging in the context of an emergency”? Under New York State law, price gouging is defined as an “unconscionably excessive price” during an “abnormal disruption of the market.” Like many laws, there’s a bit of vagueness written into that language, and I’ve reached out to the Attorney General’s office to ask whether Uber’s and Lyft’s capped surge rates qualify as “unconscionably excessive” and will update the post if I hear back.

Seriously.  This is a company whose business model is, “We’re contemptible greed-head ratf%$#s.”

Why do people use this, and why do their massively underpaid drivers stay with them?

I Will Set Aside my Skepticism ……… For Now

In what amounts to a major change in policy, Obama appears to have to endorsed municipal owned and run broadband networks:

U.S. President Barack Obama said laws that impede local governments from bringing competitively priced, high-speed Internet to their residents hold back businesses and raise prices for consumers.

Obama used the the well-wired city of Cedar Falls, Iowa, which he said provides broadband access that’s almost 100 times faster than the national average, as an example for the rest of the country and to urge repeal of laws the prevent communities from creating their own networks.

“High-speed broadband isn’t a luxury, it’s a necessity,” Obama on Wednesday told an audience at Cedar Falls Utilities, which has extended fiber lines capable of high Internet speeds to all local residences and businesses. “This is about helping local businesses grow, prosper and compete in a global economy.”

The president is urging the Federal Communications Commission to address barriers that keep communities from building their own broadband networks. His remarks were intended to touch on one of the messages he’ll deliver in his State of the Union address to the nation next week.

While the FCC might rule on this, the chance of any meaningful legislation from a Republican Congress is about the same as Ayman al-Zawahiri becoming a contributing editor at Charlie Hebdo.

Truth be told, I really don’t expect any significant moves on this issue, given the obvious heat that he and the FCC will take on net neutrality.

Let the Looting Begin

The Gray Lady has noticed that Silicon Valley is looking to education as a new profit center.

The article itself is rather adulatory of such efforts, rather unsurprising given the New York Times‘ predilection for the financialization of pretty much everything, but I am not so sanguine:

The education technology business is chock-full of fledgling companies whose innovative ideas have not yet proved effective — or profitable. But that is not slowing investors, who are pouring money into ventures as diverse as free classroom-management apps for teachers and foreign language lessons for adult learners.

Venture and equity financing for ed tech companies soared to nearly $1.87 billion last year, up 55 percent from the year before, according to a new report from CB Insights, a venture capital database. The figures are the highest since CB Insights began covering the industry in 2009.

………

“Education is one of the last industries to be touched by Internet technology, and we’re seeing a lot of catch-up going on,” said Betsy Corcoran, the chief executive of EdSurge, an industry news service and research company. “We’re starting to see more classical investors — the Kleiner Perkinses, the Andreessen Horowitzes, the Sequoias — pay more attention to the marketplace than before.”

Translation: There’s public taxpayer money in them there hills.

And then we have this pearl:

“I think there are businesses that won’t be able to cross that bridge,” said Michael Moe, chief executive of GSV Capital, a venture capital firm. “But if you monetize 2 to 20 percent of the network, there’s no reason it can’t work in education.”

Yes, let’s all of us f%$# our children so that you can buy a vacation house in the Hamptons.

Not enough bullets.