Slashdot Mirror
FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps
An anonymous reader writes On Wednesday at a hearing in front of the US House Committee on Small Business, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler stated that for ISPs to be eligible for government broadband subsidies, they would have to deliver speeds of at least 10 Mbps. Said Wheeler: "What we are saying is we can't make the mistake of spending the people's money, which is what Universal Service is, to continue to subsidize something that's subpar." He further indicated that he would remedy the situation by the end of 2014. The broadband subsidies are collected through bill surcharges paid for by phone customers.
But for once, I like something said by the FCC. Granted, jury is still out if this will go through or not, but I'm loving this push.
Wasn't one way that Broadband penetration was improved previously just by lowering what the definition of broadband was?
Don't know why, but link provided isn't functional. This is a working link: http://arstechnica.com/busines..." - onproton (3434437)
in urban europe 24mbps is considered subpar; what you yanks have, is frightenly slow.
At this point, the various big ISPs have taken so much taxpayer money, and provided so little in return, that I'd say we should stop providing them with any subsidies, and still require the same level of buildout. They can take the balance out of their execs' bonuses from next quarter—which should be enough to cover a fair amount of infrastructure.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
...turn of events is that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler must have moved recently and big telecom didn't know where to send their "support" checks in time.
Why not put the bar at something a little more reasonable, like 25 Mbps..
... at all.
Your hard-earned money is confiscated then given to ISP's, and you still have to pay through the nose for a heaping, steaming pile of manure of throttled, fourth-world internet service? WTF?
The reason the US' internet is so slow is that the ISP's are required to slow down the network traffic so that the NSA can parse the data more efficiently and not get over loaded!
BTW, today my connection must be in bits-per-second since slashdots website took so long just to give me this box to send my two cents.
I live in a major metropolitan center of the Midwest (oxymoron?). The fastest connection my local phone/DSL provider offers me is 10Mbps. The local cable company has a faster offering, although it is shared bandwidth and much more expensive.
Yes! One person in our service area has 10Mbps!
Subsidize our company!
The cynic in me suggests that Wheeler's real agenda might be to cut off the possibility of subsidies going to mid-sized companies that provide what-we-here-consider-slow internet to areas that would otherwise be completely unserved. WISPs come to mind--small businessmen who would be crushed by Title II requirements, and are already struggling under FCC paperwork that the big boys do for next to no marginal cost.
Those little companies "nibble at the edges" of the Big Three, triflingly inhibiting their monopolistic practices. Wipe them out, along with muni broadband, under the guise of improving service. Clever.
All of Europe has internet and it's faster and cheaper even in the most remote areas. Actually, you should try building out the infrastructure of *our* size and then get back to us.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
So does this mean that I'll get faster, better service?
OR
Does this mean that I'll lose the service I now have?
OR
Will the price skyrocket?
One of those three. I live in a rural area, as does much of the country. We have a big country. This is not some piddling small urbanesque country like they have in Europe with short distances. The USA has vast distances between homes and businesses in the rural areas.
Basically what I hear him saying is he only wants to subsidize the urbanites and to hell with the rural folks. Typical bureaucrat. They are from the cities and don't understand the real world outside their borders.
The reality is I already pay $130/month for what costs about $20/month in the city but I only get 1.5Mbps rather than the 25Mbps they get in the urban areas. I suspect that rather than getting better service I'll simply lose what I have. When a piece of hardware goes down the phone company, the only ISP around, will just not replace it leaving a black hole in the telecommunications landscape. No cell. No landline. No internet.
So how is this going to effect rural Internet?
We do not get anywhere close to that, so are all of our substitutes going to disappear and half the country go dark?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
They should also require an absence of download limits.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I like this idea, but I'm going to assume that all that will happen is ISPs charging more for 10 Mbps service. I should think I'm lucky, with 3 choices for ISPs in my area (Charter, AT&T and TDS). I refuse to deal with Charter, and AT&T isn't much better. The problem is that TDS is running over AT&T's infrastructure, and are limited to 3 Mbps DSL.
If the carriers whine about it (and they will), someone should publicly ask them why their networks are so lousy that they can't offer 1/100th of the speed that municipal projects and Google Fiber are providing.
I have been reading that the new 4k video standard requires a 15Mbps stream. 4k TVs are on the marketplace and based on the shipping volumes and price drops will be the standard TV within 3-5 yrs. How will Broadband meet the huge demand for these video streams? Netflix is already providing a couple of shows in 4k, but I doubt many people can view them since it's apparently a huge burden on these ISPs to even provide 3Mbps streams. I think a lot more of the public will start to complain when they can't get the brilliant picture quality they saw in the store while they were buying their new TV.
Seriously, this will only help us maintain our current level of behind the rest of the world. 100mbps is a solid minimum link speed.
How about a really bold statement there FCC?
I had 10Mbps 15 fucking years ago.
Isn't this sort of a 2014 version of the phrase "Let them eat cake!"
Parallel statements:
Poor people shouldn't have to ride the bus, we should all just give them cars - and not crappy econoboxes, something nice.
We should give homeless people luxury condos on the seaside.
I mean, if you're talking about a SUBSIDIZED service, shouldn't it BE subpar? Asserting otherwise is to say, in effect, "people who can't pay for stuff, should get stuff as good as everyone else"....no? Why, then, would anyone pay for anything?
-Styopa
can we address data caps too? Who cares if we have 100 MB access if we're capped a 1 GB?
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I'd be happy if those fuckers just stopped overselling their bandwidth. I pay for the bandwidth but many times I get squat because everyone else is on the neighborhood cable loop. If the sell it, they need to be able to support it 24/7. This airline approach is bullshit.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Oh, Okay, but lets subsidize big pharma which in turn they charge $100k's year for cancer treatments and such, lets not forget that current corporate isp's do get subsidized for laying out the cable wiring. Right, only corporations(pay 2% u.s taxes) get subsidized but when it comes down to small time companies(non-share holder) they get the middle finger. U.S internet is too damn expensive with so many damn restrictions(caps, can't run your own email server unless you upgrade to business package).
I agree in general but I disagree in two key areas:
* Internet and telephone access to the poor should be subsidized for the same reason we subsidize food, housing, and medicine for the poor: Because in practical terms they are essential to function in American society. However, as a "necessity" the average person only need enough instantaneous bandwidth to talk, email, and browse the web. In most cases "slow DSL" speeds of 0.5Mbps is adequate, and in almost all cases 2-3Mbps is more than enough. If a poor person can pay $20 for subsidize 10Mbps service that would be more expensive without the subsidy, he can pay 100% of a $20 bill for unsubsidized "entry level" service from his local ISP or smartphone network provider.
* In lightly populated remote areas that are currently not serviced and where running new wires or fiber is impractical and radio or satellite is the only option that's remotely cost-effective, I'm fine using my tax dollars to provide 1Mbps service or even 0.5Mbps service if the alternative is either no service at all or spending significantly more for a legally-mandated 10Mbps service. However, this is contingent on either the recipient being a full-time resident (sorry, not for summer vacation homes) or some other public benefit, such as providing internet to a public park or roadside rest area.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Fine if 10 Mbps were guaranteed. If the ISP's specify "Up To 10 Mbps" speeds then we all know that the consumer will see a fraction of that on almost every occasion.
That one person is bound to be someone who works for the company too.
Yes, but those are restrictions imposed by nature, not a monopoly/duopoly. There's a big difference.
Host files suck.
Hosts do everything stated here http://news.slashdot.org/comme... as well as here in less/more general detail http://news.slashdot.org/comme... vs. other inferior solutions that no longer do their intended jobs (AdBlock or Ghostery) as well as possible by default, for speed + bandwidth gains, and even offer better security + reliability (vs. malware or malicious sites and DNS security shortcomings).
* Which you're welcome to disprove validly on a technical basis... which, clearly from your reply, you evidently can't (nobody can, or, ever will - truth & fact are like that: Unassailable!).
APK
P.S.=> I just make it easier to populate them from 12 reputable security-community sources for end-users giving them more security, speed, reliability, & even anonymity (to a lesser extent in the latter), "automagically" via my program - just giving people what they not only WANT, but what they NEED, simply being of service to others, gratis, from "yours truly"... apk
For malware makers, botnet herders, advertisers & those working in collusion with them stealing your bandwidth you paid out for monthly to be online *trying* to sell you something you don't really want or need. They don't suck at all for those of us that use them to their fullest possible potential making the internet faster, safer, and more reliable doing so with less moving parts complexity for breakdown yet more efficacy, doing more with less.
I tried this. It is a key logger and sends files in my documents and other user created directories. I had identity fraud issues the week after I installed this program.
In other words, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler wants to screw the poor and the elderly on fixed incomes who may not be able to afford a faster service that 10 Mbps. Instead of slow service, they'll have no service.
And is 10 Mpbs that bad. About five years ago, that was the standard cable broadband speed where I lived in Seattle. To get faster, you had to pay a lot more.
Heck, I can remember being delighted when I replaced my 1200 bps modem with a 2400 bps modem. Speed is in the eye of the beholder.
I've never understood why you didn't just put up a couple of public-facing DNS servers that provided the same basic function as your insane HOSTS patch but which would, by it's nature, be always up to date (assuming you maintained it diligently) and NOT require people to have to download a solution that requires manual maintenance and management, especially across medium to large networks.
A pair of managed, public-facing DNS servers could accomplish everything that your unwieldy HOSTS solution purports to do, with MUCH less hassle for end-users.
-AC
With security issues (Kaminsky redirect poisoning flaw) that hosts actually FIX, w/ something you ALREADY HAVE, natively as part of any BSD based IP stack.
(Yes - a patch & work-arounds exist (that increase inefficiency literally DOUBLING DNS overheads which is greater than that of hosts as is, by using TCP vs. UDP): Problem is, MOST ISP DNS SERVERS ARE NOT PATCHED THUS (even though that patch has been out for 10++ yrs., it's *NOT* implemented due to problems w/ MX records, iirc)).
Hosts are also VERY easy to understand internally vs. DNS systems as well
So, I work with what you already have instead, vs. "bolting on MORE", yet doing the same (better - fixing DNS issues in security, faster local resolutions, etc. - et al), with less - "LESS IS MORE" & THAT? Is GOOD engineering!
* That answer your question?
APK
P.S.=> Now, as far as DNS? DNS admins should *LOVE* the fact I lighten up their request loads when users use hosts hardcodes (faster resolution than remote DNS calls) & I combine hosts with the MOST SOLID DNS provider I know of in OpenDNS (properly fully patched vs. Kaminsky redirect poisoning flaw AND uses DNSSEC between themselves & their upstream updaters too)...
"BEAT THAT WITH A STICK" & - "there ya go"!
... apk
Take the subsidy money collected from the public and use to provide high-speed, high quality municipal internet services. It's the easiest, most doable, and cost-effective way to provide competition to the ISP monopolies, and to boot, if they start with impoverished neibourhoods, the corporate ISPs would look really bad if they opposed it. Sure some municipalities would resist at first but hopefully popularity and success in others would put them under overwhelming pressure to provide it.
Telephone service in the USA is granted monopoly service districts by the 50 state governments to one or more telephone companies within each state. This originally was to encourage the provision of local telephone service when telephony was relatively new (more than 100 years ago). Companies, such as AT&T, operated local districts and franchised technology to other local providers. AT&T began selling long distance (between local districts) in 1885 and coast to coast long distance in 1915. The Kingsbury Commitment (1912) provided for interoperability between telephone networks. Over time, holding companies (including AT&T) acquired local providers and created large multi-state networks. [End of the Line, by Leslie Cauley]. So while the federal government may talk of improving things, the fundamental problem is the 100+ year old state monopolies that inhibit competition in telephone service.
Cable television service (including internet) in the USA is regulated by the 50 state governments. However, the (federal) Cable Communications Act of 1984 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Communications_Act_of_1984] has been both positively and negatively disruptive. The act was used by cable companies to force state and local government to provide right-of-way access to customers. Either by leasing government owned right-of-way or by forcing electric power companies to lease space on neighborhood overhead power poles. (Note: power companies also have state granted monopolies, which allowed the state governments to force compliance.) Initially there were many providers and a great deal of competition. The problem is the act allowed for Cable Television Franchise Fees [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_franchise_fee]. These fees are based on gross revenue collected by the cable company from customers within a local government (ie city, county, or parrish). The local governments discovered that competition drives down prices, which in turn reduces these franchise fees. Thus, local governments have been discouraging competition amongst cable companies.
This is why Americans pay too much money for too little bandwidth.
227-3517
The Internet today could be so much faster if they wanted this to happen but no because of the lazy ðY" FCC and the Government! If you went to Europe you would get twice the speed unlike here in Sorry to say this outdated USA! They get Terabytes try 8-64 per house hold!
Lessen the data you intake (in ads): My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk
Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk
From a reputable security community source that's a highly esteemed security company in MalwareBytes (via hpHosts).
They ARE literally & currently, THE BEST IN THE BUSINESS in antivirus/antispyware per this very recent test:
http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
BEATING THE COMMERCIAL COMPETITION BY A COUNTRY MILE (as the saying goes)
FACT: They host & RECOMMEND my hosts program as "best of breed" @ the top of their hpHosts page here http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... , + they vetted its code & have seen its source, plus host it for me!
Thus?
* YOU FAIL, troll...
APK
P.S.=> WoW... "how LOW can YOU go" is all I can say to the ac scumbag I just replied to - Too bad I 'shot you down' easily, with documented concrete verifiable & UNDENIABLE facts to the contrary, eh?