One Year Ago Today, the FCC [Did Not] Kill the Internet

Thoughts? http://reason.com/blog/2018/12/14/one-year-ago-today-the-fcc-killed-the-in

I pretty much agree with the general premise. The sky hasn’t fallen since the end of Net Neutrality. The fear mongering was real, and it was wrong.

Conversation 74 comments

  • lwetzel

    Premium Member
    17 December, 2018 - 5:32 pm

    <p>It's only been a year. </p>

  • Usman

    Premium Member
    17 December, 2018 - 5:34 pm

    <p>Before the Title 2 classification, Netflix was slowed down by ISPs, until Netflix paid them. The "fear mongering" was based on reality, perhaps those ISPs are being paid behind the scenes by these service providers.</p><p><br></p><p>If they are keeping to net neutrality, then why not keep the regulation? The regulation at least ensures that they stick to those rules.</p>

    • lvthunder

      Premium Member
      17 December, 2018 - 5:38 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#383707">In reply to Usman:</a></em></blockquote><p>Title 2 regulation was more then just net neutrality. Nothing says internet like the Telecommunications Act of 1934 which is where Title 2 came from. The FCC used Title 2 to get around Congress instead of doing things the right way and have Congress pass a new law.</p>

      • skane2600

        18 December, 2018 - 1:43 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#383708">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>The Constitution is a lot older than Title 2. Should we abandon it because it's old?</p><p><br></p><p>There's little point in Federal Agencies if all they do is sit around and wait for Congress to take action. The FCC has a mandate and it has authority. </p>

        • lvthunder

          Premium Member
          18 December, 2018 - 11:03 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#383772">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>No go back and read what I said. The internet is new. It's different then telephones. That's why new laws are needed. When they imposed Title 2 they even had to say well we mean this part, but not this part.</p><p><br></p><p>The Constitution applies to the same things now as it did then. Speech, religion, guns, voting, etc. aren't new ideas like the internet is.</p><p><br></p><p>You are right the FCC has a mandate. The internet is not part of that mandate which is why they needed to reclassify it under Title 2 so they could have the authority to do it.</p>

          • skane2600

            18 December, 2018 - 12:03 pm

            <blockquote><em><a href="#383916">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Pro Tip: If you're going to say "go back and read what I said" you need to point out an inconsistency or a misrepresentation of what you said.</p><p><br></p><p>The prior FCC classified the Internet under Title 2 and the current FCC reverse it. Neither of those actions would be legal if the FCC had zero authority over the Internet.</p>

        • Greg Green

          19 December, 2018 - 9:15 am

          <blockquote><a href="#383772"><em>In reply to skane2600</em></a></blockquote><p>The FCC, and many other agencies, have power because congress gave away their constitutional obligations. These agencies are extraconstitutional and allow unelected campaign contributors, lobbyists and has-been politicians to rule with little accountability.</p>

          • skane2600

            19 December, 2018 - 12:43 pm

            <blockquote><em><a href="#384237">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>These agencies were created by Congress so I'm not sure they could be classified as "extraconstitutional". If you're looking for examples where Congress has effectively given away it's power, the best example concerns military action. "Congress shall declare war" yet today a President can take military action without Congressional pre-approval. Even after Pearl Harbor President Roosevelt knew he needed to ask Congress to declare war if he wanted the US to attack Japan.</p><p><br></p>

    • Thom77

      17 December, 2018 - 5:51 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#383707">In reply to Usman:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>But They were doing that before Net Neutrality. They also have been involved in the <span style="color: rgb(34, 31, 31);">Netflix Open Connect program which was free and helped ISP's traffic complaints before Net Neutrality.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(34, 31, 31);">So using your same logic … why even make Net Neutrality to begin with if they were doing it to begin with?</span></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p>

      • lvthunder

        Premium Member
        17 December, 2018 - 6:13 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#383711">In reply to Thom77:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's about power. The left in this country wants to control everything through the government.</p>

        • FalseAgent

          18 December, 2018 - 12:16 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#383712">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>that's some powerful brainwash.</p>

          • lvthunder

            Premium Member
            18 December, 2018 - 11:06 am

            <blockquote><em><a href="#383767">In reply to FalseAgent:</a></em></blockquote><p>Name something the Democrats don't want to control through the government. A lot of the new ones even say they are socialists so they want the government to control the companies as well.</p>

            • skane2600

              18 December, 2018 - 12:09 pm

              <blockquote><em><a href="#383918">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Easy: a women's right to make decisions about her own body, people's sexual orientation or identity, etc.</p><p><br></p><p>A somewhat oversimplified description of party goals would be that Democrats want to put limits on institutions and Republicans want to put limits on people.</p>

              • Daekar

                18 December, 2018 - 2:03 pm

                <blockquote><em><a href="#383951">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>You haven't been paying attention very well. They both want to control both.</p>

                • skane2600

                  18 December, 2018 - 4:03 pm

                  <blockquote><em><a href="#383992">In reply to Daekar:</a></em></blockquote><p>I admit Republicans do want to control some institutions, but primarily people.</p>

        • Skolvikings

          18 December, 2018 - 9:17 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#383712">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>I agree.</p>

  • NoFlames

    17 December, 2018 - 5:42 pm

    <p>Good article. The regulation seemed to be a solution to a mostly hypothetical problem, thus it hasn't been missed.</p>

  • Paul Thurrott

    Premium Member
    17 December, 2018 - 6:36 pm

    <p>You forgot the word "Yet" at the end of that headline. </p><p><br></p><p>Telecos are evil, period. Don't believe for a second they have your best interests at heart.</p>

    • lvthunder

      Premium Member
      17 December, 2018 - 7:01 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#383715">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>Who is saying that the telcos have our best interests at heart? They have their bottom line at heart. If they would block Netflix say everyone would switch and that telco would lose profits.</p>

      • Sprtfan

        Premium Member
        17 December, 2018 - 7:11 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#383719">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>The problem is, for a large number of people, they have nothing to switch to. </p>

        • maethorechannen

          Premium Member
          18 December, 2018 - 5:19 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#383721">In reply to Sprtfan:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent;">Net neutrality is a by-product, not an end goal. </span>What you really want is competition. </p><p><br></p><p>It's kind of odd that the one country that above all others glorifies free market competition can't seem to manage that in telecoms, when plenty of other countries can.</p>

        • lvthunder

          Premium Member
          18 December, 2018 - 10:56 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#383721">In reply to Sprtfan:</a></em></blockquote><p>I have a cabin in the woods in Utah and I have two choices for internet. DSL through the phone company, HughesNet, or LTE through AT&amp;T (I think Verizon works up there too). HughesNet is available everywhere in the USA as long as you can see the satellites. It's not a cheap as it is in the cites, but it is available.</p>

          • Sprtfan

            Premium Member
            18 December, 2018 - 3:09 pm

            <blockquote><em><a href="#383909">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>My parents live in a small town in Iowa and only have one choice. In-laws live in a pretty good size town and their neighborhood only has one choice if a reasonable speed upload is needed. Either way both of the examples are anecdotal and there is plenty of info out about the lack of high speed internet in rural parts of the country let along all of them have several options. </p>

            • lvthunder

              Premium Member
              18 December, 2018 - 7:31 pm

              <blockquote><em><a href="#384025">In reply to Sprtfan:</a></em></blockquote><p>So they don't have LTE service or can see the southern sky to get satellite internet? When talking about this stuff you need to state what you mean. What do you consider high speed internet? What do you consider a reasonable upload speed? Small towns will never be able to compete with big towns for this stuff. That's part of living in a small town. It's a choice people have to make.</p>

              • Sprtfan

                Premium Member
                18 December, 2018 - 9:25 pm

                <blockquote><em><a href="#384101">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>You went from saying that choice isn't a problem because I have 2 options in my cabin in Utah to people living in a small town don't have a choice but it is their fault because they live in a small town? </p><p>The FCC says that broadband speed is <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps. What I consider doesn't matter, it is defined. </span> </p>

      • FalseAgent

        17 December, 2018 - 9:38 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#383719">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>and what if all telcos limited bandwidth to netflix over zero-rating their own services? what will you switch to then? hmm?</p>

        • lvthunder

          Premium Member
          18 December, 2018 - 10:57 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#383733">In reply to FalseAgent:</a></em></blockquote><p>Then Netflix sues them all for collusion or we talk about regulations when it happens.</p>

          • evox81

            Premium Member
            18 December, 2018 - 1:23 pm

            <blockquote><em><a href="#383910">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>But, it has already happened! ISPs have made their intentions clear: They want paid "fast lanes". Some started implementing it (e.g. Comcast throttling Netflix to extort them for money) before Title 2 took effect. You're suggesting this isn't a problem now, and won't be a problem in the future, but it's already been a problem. You also suggest regulating is a possible solution while arguing that it isn't necessary. But it's been necessary!</p>

            • lvthunder

              Premium Member
              18 December, 2018 - 1:44 pm

              <blockquote><em><a href="#383984">In reply to evox81:</a></em></blockquote><p>Is anyone complaining about being Netflix being throttled today? One isolated event back a few years ago doesn't cut it in my mind. That might have been their intentions then, but they have probably changed since then. Last time I was in the Cox store (our cable company) when my friend moved they looked to be a Netflix provider. They were advertising it everywhere. I guess they have just added Netflix to their cable box.</p>

              • skane2600

                18 December, 2018 - 3:59 pm

                <blockquote><em><a href="#383989">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>"Is anyone complaining about being Netflix being throttled today?"</p><p><br></p><p>Is that your criteria? It's not happening today so it's not going to be a problem? </p>

                • lvthunder

                  Premium Member
                  18 December, 2018 - 7:29 pm

                  <blockquote><em><a href="#384049">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yeah you don't stifle business decisions until there is an actual problem.</p>

                • skane2600

                  18 December, 2018 - 10:17 pm

                  <blockquote><em><a href="#384100">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>As has already been established there was an actual problem. You can't logically argue both that net neutrality is unnecessary because providers won't do anything inconsistent with it and also that it will stifle business decisions if it's enforced. </p>

      • waethorn

        19 December, 2018 - 12:57 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#383719">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>When did they block Netflix?</p>

    • Skolvikings

      18 December, 2018 - 9:16 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#383715">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>Of course not. ISPs are companies out to make a profit. How much profit do they make when they piss off their customers who then switch to 5G? Or vice versa. Competition is good.</p>

      • evox81

        Premium Member
        18 December, 2018 - 9:27 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#383837">In reply to Skolvikings:</a></em></blockquote><p>"then switch to 5G" – And what happens when the 5G providers all have the same crap policies as a person's 1, maybe 2, traditional ISP choices?</p>

        • lvthunder

          Premium Member
          18 December, 2018 - 10:58 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#383847">In reply to evox81:</a></em></blockquote><p>You sue them for collusion.</p>

  • Sprtfan

    Premium Member
    17 December, 2018 - 6:52 pm

    <p>Wasn't there part of Net Neutrality that was going to allow/force competition in cable boxes that pretty much ended with Net Neutrality? </p>

  • jimchamplin

    Premium Member
    18 December, 2018 - 2:21 am

    <p>Only a year.</p><p><br></p><p>Don't worry, the pigopolists are still hard at work. I hope Ajit Pai and his scum-sucking friends end up in prison.</p>

  • harmjr

    Premium Member
    18 December, 2018 - 8:55 am

    <p>Plus the current congress could undo it. Yes unlikely so they will keep quiet until we remember less and less of this story and then bam. Internet TOLL ROAD GOING UP. I say give it 2 years. Maybe an excuse well we need to pay for this 5G or rural internet.</p>

  • waethorn

    18 December, 2018 - 9:50 am

    <p>It was the Democrats that did the fear-mongering on this, and yet it's the Democrats in California that want to tax your text messaging – likely to force you to move to alternative systems like Google's domineering RDS adoption that includes additional tracking information from your phone.</p>

    • Bob Shutts

      18 December, 2018 - 10:02 am

      <blockquote><a href="#383859"><em>In reply to Waethorn:</em></a><em> Yes and every election we hear the same old trope that the GOP is going to take away your social security.</em></blockquote><p><br></p>

      • skane2600

        18 December, 2018 - 11:52 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#383863">In reply to Bob_Shutts:</a></em></blockquote><p>GOP officials have made several proposals to eliminate social security and replace it with something else. They may continue to fail to pass these ideas into law, but that doesn't change their intentions.</p>

        • Bob Shutts

          18 December, 2018 - 12:26 pm

          <blockquote><a href="#383949"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a><em> They had a majority in both houses of Congress, plus the White House for the last two years. I never heard a peep about reducing SS, did you? :)</em></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote><em>The Dems are like the Spanish Inquisition: their chief weapon is fear. (And surprise, LOL)</em></blockquote><p><br></p>

          • skane2600

            18 December, 2018 - 1:38 pm

            <blockquote><em><a href="#383954">In reply to Bob_Shutts:</a></em></blockquote><p>No, they didn't pass a law eliminating SS if that was your point. Did prominent members of the GOP talk about? Yes, plenty. If they believe the charge that they want to eliminate or replace SS is unfair, why do they keep talking about it? </p>

    • lvthunder

      Premium Member
      18 December, 2018 - 10:51 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#383859">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>No, the California Democrats don't want people to move to another technology. They just want more money to blow on stupid stuff. If everyone went to RDS they would just want to tax that too.</p>

      • waethorn

        18 December, 2018 - 2:28 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#383907">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Google practically dictates what the RDS standard is to include, and they've been in bed with the Clinton Foundation and the Obama's for years.</p>

        • skane2600

          18 December, 2018 - 3:54 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#383998">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Did you use a conspiracy building app? You know, where you just enter terms like "Obama", "Clinton Foundation" and "Google" and it creates a new conspiracy theory?</p>

          • waethorn

            18 December, 2018 - 4:26 pm

            <blockquote><em><a href="#384048">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>They contributed heavily to the Obama's and Clinton's. Show me where they contributed equally to the GOP.</p>

            • skane2600

              18 December, 2018 - 6:27 pm

              <blockquote><em><a href="#384058">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>I assume you mean their campaigns which has nothing to do with RDS or the Clinton Foundation. Not to mention that Obama and Bill Clinton as a former presidents and Hillary Clinton as a non-president have no power over the fate of Google or RDS. And of course none of them has held positions of authority in California.</p>

              • waethorn

                19 December, 2018 - 1:00 pm

                <blockquote><em><a href="#384085">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>You're not even trying to address my point: Google/Alphabet contributed to the DEMOCRATS. And the Democrats sided with them on every turn, including silencing Conservative voices. Show me where they played fair with Conservatives or the GOP.</p>

                • skane2600

                  19 December, 2018 - 3:30 pm

                  <blockquote><em><a href="#384300">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yes, companies make contributions to political parties, not exactly news. Democrats can have opinions of course, but they haven't passed any laws to silence conservative voices. And of course, there are tons of conservative voices on the Internet that can be just as easily found with Google as liberal voices. </p>

          • lvthunder

            Premium Member
            18 December, 2018 - 6:05 pm

            <blockquote><em><a href="#384048">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's not a stretch to say silicon valley is full of Democrats. It's a pretty known fact. Twitter is one of the few that will actually admit it. </p><p><br></p><p>I don't remember off hand which book it was, but when President Obama took office a bunch of Google people went to work with him in the White House. They were all disgruntled because they couldn't use all the same tools as they did at Google because of the security requirements.</p>

            • skane2600

              18 December, 2018 - 6:37 pm

              <blockquote><em><a href="#384080">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>People from industry have been taking jobs in Presidential administrations for many decades and most of them were Republicans when they went to work for Republican Presidents and Democrats for Democratic Presidents. Nothing to see there.</p><p><br></p><p>The primary motivation of the vast majority of tech companies is to make money and any social or political considerations are given minimal consideration. Twitter in particular allows Trump to violate the rules simply because he makes them a lot of money even though they are supposedly "liberal".</p>

              • lvthunder

                Premium Member
                18 December, 2018 - 7:27 pm

                <blockquote><em><a href="#384086">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>For the most part that is true, but that is changing. Especially for the social media companies. I would say that deplatforming people causes them not to maximize the amount of money they make. They deplatform people like Alex Jones yet people like Louis Farakan get to stay.</p>

                • skane2600

                  18 December, 2018 - 8:47 pm

                  <blockquote><em><a href="#384099">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm not a fan of Farakan but how many people have been put in danger because of lies he told? I would have banned Jones the first time he spread his BS. Among other things he claimed 911 was an inside job, that Sandy Hook was a hoax, that Obama was going to put people in concentration camps and promoted the absurd pizzagate theory. If Farakan has done similar things he should be banned too.</p>

                • waethorn

                  19 December, 2018 - 1:02 pm

                  <blockquote><em><a href="#384138">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>Louis Farrakhan has spouted outright hate towards Jews and Israel, claiming both should be destroyed. If you think that's not putting people in danger by inciting hate, you must be anti-Semitic.</p>

                • skane2600

                  19 December, 2018 - 3:53 pm

                  <blockquote><em><a href="#384301">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Are you under the miss-impression that Farrakhan is a liberal?&nbsp;</p><p><br></p><p>https://medium.com/s/story/no-farrakhan-is-not-the-problem-d2d1a37e1162</p&gt;

    • skane2600

      18 December, 2018 - 11:46 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#383859">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>There's no connection between net neutrality and taxing text messages. In fact, text messages have nothing to do with the net at all. Any other random complaints about Democrats you want to inject into this discussion?</p>

      • waethorn

        18 December, 2018 - 2:24 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#383946">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>Google wants to control RDS, which they're pushing as the replacement for SMS. RDS allows app developers to include additional packets from your smartphone, including precise tracking positions and data from other apps. Google, the company that wants to control the message so long as it meets with Neo-Liberal Democrat approval.</p>

    • lwetzel

      Premium Member
      19 December, 2018 - 10:13 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#383859">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Can't we leave the politics out of the site? There is enough of this trash on facebook and Twitter to satisfy anyone's need for it. Lets just talk computers.</p>

      • waethorn

        19 December, 2018 - 1:03 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#384249">In reply to lwetzel:</a></em></blockquote><p>So long as the FCC is a US gov't-run authority, there is no way around the politics of the situation.</p>

  • jwpear

    Premium Member
    18 December, 2018 - 10:40 am

    <p>Everything is going to plan. Let's kill net neutrality in name, then wait a bit to really do anything harmful so we can prove that it was all an overblown hoax. Such naivety. Or maybe gullibility.</p>

    • JimP

      19 December, 2018 - 4:30 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#383898">In reply to jwpear:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>The internet exploded in the 1990s. In past 20-30 years, net neutrality existed for only 2 years. Don't you think 20-30 years is enough time?</p>

      • skane2600

        19 December, 2018 - 6:13 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#384376">In reply to JimP:</a></em></blockquote><p>For most of that time streaming and subscription services weren't a mainstream activity, so there was no profit motive for favoring one site over another. </p>

  • spacein_vader

    Premium Member
    18 December, 2018 - 5:04 pm

    <p>The premise is wrong. The FCC can't kill the internet. It also doesn't have authority over the internet.</p><p><br></p><p>What it can do is have authority over (and kill/save,) internet access in the US. It makes no difference to the rest of us.</p><p><br></p><p>The US Telco/cable market is weird as an outsider. For a country that has thrived so much on competition to grow its economy internet access is essentially a cartel of local monopolies and the government and even some of the people are ok with that? Weird.</p><p><br></p><p>It's probably one of the only markets I can think of where the US pays more money for less service than most other developed countries.</p><p><br></p><p>No idea what you can do about it though. Good luck!</p>

  • Bats

    18 December, 2018 - 8:19 pm

    <p>The bottom line is this: INTERNET TECH BLOGGERS ARE DUMB.</p><p><br></p><p>Let's get real here. It's those guys like the boneheads from Ars Technica, Tech Crunch, etc…. that really know nothing. They're not "movers and shakers." Rather, they're just story-tellers who live in a utopian fantasy world that they create in their heads while wearing the jeans, hoodies, and sneakers to work. I'll never forget the time when they demanded that wireless carriers drop "contracts" believing that if they did, our phone bills will be lower. I swear, those people are so stupid.</p><p><br></p><p>Good post, thanks for reminding me.</p>

    • skane2600

      18 December, 2018 - 8:36 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#384117">In reply to Bats:</a></em></blockquote><p>Embracing stereotypes much? </p>

    • waethorn

      19 December, 2018 - 1:10 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#384117">In reply to Bats:</a></em></blockquote><p>Don't forget the douchebag beards and browline eyeglasses.</p>

  • JimP

    19 December, 2018 - 4:31 pm

    <p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Net neutrality was a solution in search of a problem.</span></p>

  • Jeffsters

    19 December, 2018 - 7:44 pm

    <p>ISP’s aren’t stupid! They’ll slowly make changes and see how the public and politicians react. These companies must find new revenue streams, their investors will demand it, and they will. Enjoy!</p>

    • lvthunder

      Premium Member
      20 December, 2018 - 5:02 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#384403">In reply to Jeffsters:</a></em></blockquote><p>That revenue stream will be you pay by the MB just like power and water.</p>

      • skane2600

        20 December, 2018 - 5:22 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#384823">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sometimes my water company charges me for more MBs than I actually used.</p>

  • lordbaal1

    20 December, 2018 - 3:26 pm

    <p>Every level headed person knew and was saying nothing would happen. But the media was still spreading FUD.</p>

    • skane2600

      20 December, 2018 - 4:55 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#384782">In reply to lordbaal1:</a></em></blockquote><p>No, it's my opinions that every level headed person agrees with, so you must be wrong.</p>

Newsletter

Stay up to date with the latest tech news from Thurrott.com!

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2023 BWW Media Group