Heavy cancellations at Hulu Plus while Sling TV grows to top 10, says report

Heavy cancellations at Hulu Plus while Sling TV grows to top 10, says report
By Tamara Chuang
Jul 30 2015

In this wild west of new online pay-TV services, consumers have the luxury to try a new service and then cancel it — no penalties, extra payments or any commitment. And apparently, they are doing this in droves, according to a new report out by Parks Associates. 

Based on a survey of 10,000 U.S. broadband customers between April to June this year, Parks Associates found that 60 percent who paid for one of 75 online TV streaming services have canceled a service in the past 12 months.

During April to June this year, the research company surveyed 10,000 consumers who are also U.S. broadband Internet customers about which over-the-top services they have canceled in the past 12 months. This excluded free trials.

Netflix held up pretty well — only 4 percent of those surveyed had canceled Netflix. Parks extrapolated that to be about 9 percent of Netflix’s current subscriber base.

Another 7 percent canceled Hulu Plus, which doesn’t sound too bad until you learn that 7 percent of those surveyed represents “approximately one-half of Hulu Plus’s current subscriber base,” according to Parks. Hulu Plus also features a lot of network and cable TV shows that are seasonal, allowing fans to subscribe for just part of the year.

Among the 75 video-streaming services that Parks tracks, 60 percent of users had canceled one or more services in the past 12 months. 

What does this mean for the budding industry?

“For Netflix, it is great,” said Brett Sappington, Parks Associates’ director of research. “For the others, the results are a bit concerning. The low price point and high competition encourages consumers to try a variety of different services. Ultimately, services are going to need to retain customers in order to thrive.”

One local highlight is Sling TV, the service launched by Douglas County’s Dish Network earlier this year. Sling offers major cable channels, including ESPN, in an online-only plan for $20 a month. 

Sappington said that Sling is one of the top 10 online video-subscription companies in the U.S., based on the number of subscribers. Sling officials won’t reveal how many subscribers it has but tech publication ReCode has reported Sling has 250,000 paying customers.

“It is filling a unique niche, and Dish continues to refine the service to meet customer needs. Live sports is a driver of pay-TV services, so Sling TV should experience an uptick among football fans during the season,” Sappington said.


When online security is literally a roll of the dice, which dice do you use?

When online security is literally a roll of the dice, which dice do you use?
My search for an easy way to generate strong passwords and passphrases led me to the “Diceware” method Cory wrote about on Boing Boing. This was no game. I needed serious dice.
Jul 31 2015

I needed to update my passwords. I have long had a bad habit of using a funny little personal “system” for creating passwords–you may have one, too–but I knew it was outdated and insecure. 

There is much about my life online that I have no control over. But one small thing I have absolute control over is my password. Passwords must be strong, easy to remember, and they must be routinely changed. Fail any of those three requirements, and the results can be devastating. 

When I read Cory’s recent post about creating strong, easy-to-use passphrases with a method that involved actually rolling physical dice, I knew I had to try it out.

The so-called  Diceware Method seemed like a great security tool, but it also spoke to me on a personal level. I feel a real affinity for old-school Vegas and craps. It’s in my blood. My mom and dad often brought me “cancelled” casino dice when they returned home to Brooklyn from trips to Las Vegas back in the day. Holding casino dice in my hands today invokes a feeling of fond nostalgia.

Casinos do not use the same kind of dice that come in Yahtzee! or backgammon sets. They use what’s called Precision Dice. Gaming dice are cheaply made and importantly, they are not random. Gaming dice have rounded edges and pips. The little dots cut out from each side to form its numerical value. This produces an uneven balance as the “six” side has more pips (less material/weight) than the “one” side. 
Because of this, pips and rounded edges can skew the randomness pretty heavily:

“Afterwards we calculated the results and the Chessex and GW dice averaged 29% ones. Mind you that this is an average and our high was 33 and our low was 23. We removed any statistical anomalies and came up with 29%. Game room logic, a poor source of anything, would dictate that the side with the one is heavier and would therefore be on the bottom more. Unfortunately this is just not true, take popcorn or batholiths as an example. The 6 is too light to stop the momentum of the die, the rounded corners cannot prevent the die from turning due to the weight. In the end 1s are by far the most common result. On a 6 sided die any given number should appear 16.6% of the time, the Vegas dice were dead on and the square dice with pips were pretty close, only displaying a 19% ratio for ones.”

~That’s How I Roll – A Scientific Analysis of Dice

Using those dice might be fine for board games with family, but not for making the keys to my house.

Only precision dice, used correctly, are truly random. For our science and math whiz readers, I’ll note the 2012 study examining whether dice are truly random or chaotic, but such debates are beyond my expertise.


Road Hazard: How the ‘Embarrassing’ Gas Tax Impasse Explains Washington

[Note:  This item comes from friend David Rosenthal.  DLH]

Road Hazard: How the ‘Embarrassing’ Gas Tax Impasse Explains Washington
The main federal fund for roads and bridges runs at a deep deficit. If even red states can raise the gas tax, why can’t Congress?
By Alec MacGillis
Jul 22 2015

This story was co-published with Politico.

In 1993, the Dow Jones industrial average was still well under 4,000, the best-selling car in the country was the Ford Taurus, and the average cost of a Major League Baseball ticket was under $10. 

That was also the year that Congress last raised the federal tax on gasoline.

The gas tax pays most of the tab for America’s federal highway program; it’s what we rely on for new highways and for the bridge repairs that keep us safe. Those costs go up every year, but the tax remains stuck at 18.4 cents per gallon. In fact, it’s effectively going down: since it was last raised, those 18.4 cents have lost more than a third of their value to inflation, and at the same time drivers with fuel-efficient vehicles have been buying less gasoline, further reducing the federal take. 

As a result, the main U.S. spending account for infrastructure has fallen deep in the red, and the gap gets worse every year. The government, through a series of funding tricks, keeps the Highway Trust Fund on life support with short-term emergency patches. The latest infusion expires at the end of the month, and the argument about how to fix it is coming to a head this week.

The uncertainty has frozen major projects around the country, from the widening of Route 1 in Delaware to the Kalispell bypass in Montana, while maintenance and repairs are long overdue on thousands of roads and bridges dangerously near the end of their expected life spans.

That Congress can’t fulfill such a basic purpose of government stands out as a signal example of Washington dysfunction. Unlike some other stalemates, though, this one can’t be blamed on special interests at loggerheads. Nearly all the lobbies that take an interest are in favor of simply increasing the tax — big business, the road builders, the unions, even the truckers. Lobbies that might oppose an increase, notably the oil industry, have invested relatively little in the debate.

Instead, it’s an example of those big decisions that get trapped in a kind of ideological crevasse. Because it’s a tax, raising it has been decreed out of bounds by a combination of anti-tax orthodoxy among conservative Republicans and a fear of political backlash that spans both parties.

Still, there may be a way out of the trap. A slew of states around the country — including some led by conservative Republicans — have managed to raise their state gas taxes to address the transportation burden without triggering the fury of taxpayers. The contrast is an unflattering one, says former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat and a leading proselytizer for infrastructure spending. 

“If the gas tax could be voted up or down on a secret ballot, it would get 285 yes votes in the House and 85 or 90 in the Senate,” says Rendell. “Everyone knows we need new revenue, everyone knows we can’t let the trust fund go broke … Everyone knows this is one of the most embarrassing chapters in the history of the U.S. Congress.”

What’s gone so wrong?

It sounds strange now, but the gas tax was born and built up under Republican presidents. The U.S. government has been picking up a part of the highway tab for nearly a century — since 1916, when, in an era of Model T’s bumping over rutted country lanes, the bluntly named Good Roads Movement gave rise to a law providing federal money for any rural routes used for U.S. mail. Fuel taxes started around the same time, but only at the state level. 

When the federal government adopted its own penny-per-gallon one in 1932, under President Hoover, it was intended for deficit reduction, not roads. It was only when the tax was raised to 3 cents under President Eisenhower in 1956 — with an additional cent added on in 1959 — that it was targeted for the new interstate highway system and the Highway Trust Fund that would finance it. 

In a country that loves big cars and views cheap energy as a national birthright, the gas tax was never going to be beloved. After several failed attempts to raise the tax in the 1970s as a means to spur fuel conservation and fight inflation, it was left to Ronald Reagan, of all people, to push through the next increase, in late 1982.


Re: Why Can’t We Be Like South Korea?

[Note:  This comment comes from friend Chuck Jackson.  DLH]

From: Charles Jackson <clj@jacksons.net>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Re: Why Can’t We Be Like South Korea?
Date: July 30, 2015 at 11:06:10 EDT
To: dewayne@warpspeed.com

It seems to me that Professor Crawford fails to emphasize two important differences between the U.S. and Korea—population density and the nature of the housing stock.  The more than an order of magnitude difference in population density between South Korea and New Hampshire may result is somewhat higher costs for outside plant in New Hampshire. Wiring an apartment building with 1,000 units is probably much cheaper than building a cable system in a town of 3,000 people.  

A few quick facts from Wikipedia:

Population South Korea 51.3 million
Land Area                       38,691 square miles
Population Density         1,325 pops/mi^2   (my calculation)

Population density in selected parts of U.S 
New Jersey  (most densely populated state)     1,210 Pop/mi^2
New Hampshire                                                     147 Pop/mi^2
Midwest                                                                   90 Pop/mi^2
Mountain West                                                         26 Pop/mi^2

One source I found states that in 2010 more than 80% of South Koreans lived in apartment houses.

The US Census bureau states that 64.2% of US housing units are detached, single-unit dwellings.

This source (http://nmhc.org/Content.aspx?id=4708) says that in:
Washington DC, 35% live in apartments, 
New York State 25%, 
California 16%, 
. . . , 
Idaho 4.9%, 
West Virginia 4.8%.  


see also

Why Can’t We Be Like South Korea?


When Internet access is slow or just nonexistent in the US, we shrug our shoulders. But in that small Asian nation, lousy connections are not tolerated.


By Susan Crawford


Jul 23 2015





Re: Why Can’t We Be Like South Korea?

[Note:  This comment comes from friend Bob Frankston.  DLH]

From: “Bob Frankston” <bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>
Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] Why Can’t We Be Like South Korea?
Date: July 30, 2015 at 11:18:51 EDT
To: dewayne@warpspeed.com

Is this the “Minitel” argument?

In the early 1980’s France led the entire world in giving everyone in the country a computer terminal that could access online services. This was far ahead of the backwaters like the US. But in the 1990’s the future caught up with France because the Minitel was provided by providers and not by a larger dynamic of the Internet that give everyone a chance to create services without having to assure that the provider profited from them.

Today broadband is very much like Minitel in being provided but only if the provider can make a profit. It’s has the same problems as Minitel.

What we need is shared connectivity as infrastructure rather than a service delivered through a provider’s pipes. It’s about ownership and the ability to pool our resources rather than being beholden to a provider. Or, in the case of Korea, chaebols who can spend on redundancy without resilience.

Why Can’t We Be Like South Korea?


When Internet access is slow or just nonexistent in the US, we shrug our shoulders. But in that small Asian nation, lousy connections are not tolerated.


By Susan Crawford


Jul 23 2015





Bobby Jindal Calls for States to Follow Louisiana’s Example in Toughening Gun Laws

[Note:  This item comes from reader Randall Head.  DLH]

Bobby Jindal Calls for States to Follow Louisiana’s Example in Toughening Gun Laws
Jul 26 2015

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana called for tougher gun laws in other states on Sunday, breaking his silence on the issue three days after a gunman with a history of mental illness and violence opened fire in a movie theater in the state’s fourth-largest city.

Gun control has become a prominent subject on the presidential campaign trail after the shooting on Thursday in Lafayette became the third mass shooting in six weeks in the United States. Mr. Jindal, who received an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association, is one of 16 candidates seeking the Republican nomination for 2016.

Law enforcement authorities are investigating how the gunman in last week’s attack, identified as John R. Houser, 59, was able to walk into an Alabama pawnshop and legally buy the Hi-Point .40-caliber handgun he used to kill two women and injure nine other people before killing himself at the Grand 16 Theater. A motive for the shooting has not been determined.

Until Sunday, Mr. Jindal and most of his Republican rivals had deflected questions in recent days over whether the killings reflected a need for tighter gun control laws. On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Mr. Jindal called for states to adopt laws similar to Louisiana’s that feed information about mental illness into a federal background check system for potential gun buyers.

“I think every state should strengthen their laws,” he said. “Every state should make sure this information is being reported in the background system. We need to make sure that background system is working. Absolutely, in this instance, this man never should have been able to buy a gun.”

Officials have said Mr. Houser, of Phenix City, Ala., legally bought the weapon there in 2014, although he had been denied a state-issued concealed weapons permit in 2006 because he was accused of domestic violence and soliciting arson. His family repeatedly described him as violent and mentally ill, and questions about his mental health had been raised for decades. In 2008, his family had him involuntarily committed to a hospital in Georgia to receive psychiatric care.

Mr. Jindal insisted that Louisiana laws would have prevented Mr. Houser from buying a gun.

“In Louisiana, we toughened our laws a couple of years ago,” Mr. Jindal said. “If he had been involuntarily committed here, if he had tried to buy that gun here, he wouldn’t have been allowed to do that.”

He added: “Look, every time this happens, it seems like the person has a history of mental illness. We need to make sure the systems we have in place actually work.”

Mr. Jindal said investigators had interviewed Mr. Houser’s family and were examining journals found in his hotel room in which he described his intention to carry out a shooting in the theater. The authorities believe Mr. Houser went to multiple theaters in southern Louisiana before picking the one in Lafayette, the governor said.

The investigators also believe that Mr. Houser intended to escape. He parked his car near the theater’s exit, and had a wig and disguises in his car and hotel room, Mr. Jindal said.


The Real Test of the Iran Deal

The Real Test of the Iran Deal
The agreement doesn’t guarantee that Tehran will never produce nuclear weapons—because no agreement could do so.
By James Fallows
Jul 28 2015

A week ago I volunteered my way into an Atlantic debate on the merits of the Iran nuclear agreement. The long version of the post is here; the summary is that the administration has both specific facts and longer-term historic patterns on its side in recommending the deal.

On the factual front, I argued that opponents had not then (and have not now) met President Obama’s challenge to propose a better real-world alternative to the negotiated terms. Better means one that would make it less attractive for Iran to pursue a bomb, over a longer period of time. Real world means not the standard “Obama should have been tougher” carping but a specific demand that the other countries on “our” side, notably including Russia and China, would have joined in insisting on, and that the Iranians would have accepted.

“What’s your better idea?” is a challenge any honest opponent must accept. If this deal fails—which means, if the U.S. Congress rejects an agreement that the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran have accepted—then something else will happen, and all known “somethings” involve faster Iranian progress toward a bomb.

On historical judgment, I said that for two reasons the supporters of the deal should get the benefit of the doubt. The short-term reason is that nearly everyone who in 2015 is alarmist about Iran was in 2002 alarmist about Iraq. You can find exceptions, but only a few. That doesn’t prove that today’s alarmists are wrong, but in any other realm it would count. The longer-term reason is that the history of controversial diplomatic agreements through the past century shows that those recommending “risks for peace” have more often proven right than their opponents. (Don’t believe me? Go back and consider the past examples.)

Three topics for today’s updates, with a connecting historical theme.

* * *

Correlation of Forces

In the two weeks since the deal was announced, the forces pro and con have lined up. The clear opponents include:

—The congressional GOP, which invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak against the deal long before it was struck, and virtually all of whose members oppose it.

—Candidates for the GOP presidential nomination, including Scott Walker with his promise to revoke the deal on day one in office (which would be difficult, unless he could convince Russia, China, etc. to reinstate sanctions), Mike Huckabee with his odious “oven” line, and the rest who oppose the deal as uniformly as they opposed Obamacare.