If Mercedes is really going to sell electric cars, Tesla will have completion in their niche market, which means Tesla is more rapidly running out of runway. Now they have price competition and less of a differentiator for their products. Their margin for error was always pretty small, but this will only make it smaller.
I think Musk sees this coming, which explains his erratic behavior of late as CEO of Tesla. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like he's taking the stress very well.
Isn't this what backup generators and N+1 infrastructure is for?
Yea, that's the theory.. However, in practice, maintaining no single point of failure fault tolerance is harder than it sounds. I've seen (and implemented) many N+1 system designs. Building them isn't too much of a problem if you have a careful plan and follow it. BUT.. Keeping it N+1 as maintenance and improvements get done is *really* hard.
Remember that you can break N+1 redundancy by simply plugging in a device to the wrong outlet, or moving a network cable from one switch to another during some late night debugging session. Even if you get the wires in the right place, you can break the network redundancy by a simple misconfiguration of a network device. There are just too many ways N+1 can be broken over time and many of these ways don't affect anything until something goes wrong.
It takes a lot of effort to maintain N+1, so I'm not surprised to hear that even large expert providers have issues doing it reliably.
I'm going to guess that the internet access is acceptable for mining, but is likely not great as it's likely satellite based with huge latency as a result.
Also, don't underestimate the impact of being remote. In this part of the world, travel is impossible for weeks at a time, regardless of how bad you want or need to go, you are stuck. Where this can sound inviting, it can be a huge problem when all you have to do is board games and Netflix is "buffering" 2 hours for every 30 min show you want to binge watch.
The Aussies use this for grid stability, not for peak shifting.
The Aussies use fossil fuels for their primary supply of power. Fossil fueled plants are best operated where the transportation logistics are cheaper, which drives their power plants to the coasts. With population centers away from the coasts, storage allows them to run without having to maintain generation capacity in places where transportation of fuel is expensive and deal with supply disruptions that might take their grid down otherwise.
So think of this as more of an industrial sized UPS, big enough to provide make up power and keep the grid stable during temporary losses of supply. It's there to give them time to throttle up their online generation capacity when something goes wrong.
So this isn't really load shifting green energy capacity in the land down under, it's about grid stability.
So, do you have some kind of cost estimate per ton of CO2 released? Because all this data you cite is alarmist BS unless you have actual cost numbers.
I once debated the environmentalists over a nuclear power plant, way back in the 80's. They where making all sots of unsubstantiated claims of deaths due to radiation releases from the plant because they DO release radiation. They had convinced themselves that the nuclear plant would cause deaths from increased cancer rates, and had death rate estimates to boot. The fly in the ointment for them was that the other means of producing electricity was coal, but they didn't have clue about the actual process of burning coal, nor did they know that crushing coal released a LOT of radiation, liberating radon gas from the coal. The amount of radiation from coal burring was orders of magnitude more than ANY nuclear plant, but they didn't let facts dissuade them from a good PR argument.
So, I call BS on your PR campaign. Estimates are not facts, they are opinions. Where I do not doubt the earth is getting warmer, I do doubt the degree to which it is under man's control or due to our burning fossil fuels. Remember, correlation does not imply causation, just because CO2 is rising and the earth is getting warmer, does not mean CO2 caused the warm up. Not to mention that the Coal particulate and Sulfur Dioxide issue has been largely abated with stack scrubbers and technology which is already in wide spread use. Acid rain? We sort of solved that issue back in the 1970's, that's from sulfur dioxide. Particulate pollution has also been cleaned up from coal burning using filters. You are bleating about stuff that looks scary from a PR perspective, but isn't a problem in reality.
So reduce it to dollars in some measureable actual cost or we cannot discuss this rationally in terms of financial costs. As you are the one making the claim, I leave it to you to itemize the actual costs and quantify them with observable and provable data. As it stands, the cheapest industrial method for power generation is geothermal (but under ideal conditions which are not universally available) followed by Natural Gas. The most expensive is photovoltaic solar. Wind is between solar and coal on the high end. Nuclear is about midrange, but we haven't built any nuclear capacity in decades because NG is so cheap.
It all depends on improved battery technology. If that happens, then California will be able to reach their goal.
Yet the law makers in this crazy state are wiling to bet their state's financial future on a "it depends"?
My point is that this will be a serious blow to the state's economy which is already in decline. It will hit everyone with higher prices on nearly everything, and I do mean everyone. The rich (who can afford it), The middle class (Who will be pushed closer to poverty), AND the poor (who cannot afford it). As the cost of living goes up and the standard of living declines, folks will be encouraged to depart California, taking their economic activity with them, driving an already shaky state finance situation into further trouble.
But if California wants to do this to themselves, so be it. I don't have a dog in the hunt or a vote in the state.
I doubt you can change your MAC address on a phone or tablet.
Like I said, the ISP is going to finger you as the owner of the IP in question, so you are getting sued in this hypothetical. I'm just saying that your MAC address doesn't matter and doesn't uniquely ID your device in all cases.
First, California has its own grid so it's easy to keep out fossil fuel electricity.
Their grid isn't isolated from the rest of the country any more than Texas' grid is. We have our own grid too, but we are heavily connected to states on our borders, as well as Mexico. All "having your own grid" means is that you manage your load and generation within an area, but it doesn't mean you are isolated from the rest of the country.
One wrong
Batteries are proven. Australia is a good example.
Oh yea for load capacity pick up over having rotating capacity online in diverse locations. This has more to do with the economies of shipping fuels over the distances involved than green energy or peak offset. It's a safety device for grid stability because it's not practical to run fossil fueled capacity in some places. So you are not exactly wrong, just not aware of the actual reason they are using it.
(Lithium batteries are very easy to recycle into safe non-toxic components and even new batteries.)
The issue is refining of the lithium from natural sources. It is usually refined using electrolysis at a high temperature, much like aluminum and consumes a large amount of power. Recycling it is similar energy consumption. They may be safe and non-toxic materials, but they are expensive if you consider the CO2 emissions of production. So No, two wrong
There is also geothermal, hydro and pumped storage which can easily be controlled to fill in gaps.
Geothermal plants are the only option here for California, but they are huge investments and very subject to causing earthquakes. California is not an ideal place for geothermal, but it is at least possible there. Hydro doesn't exist in California as they are very short on water, same with pumped storage. The facilities don't exist for this and depend on a ready source of water, which just isn't there. So, one kind of right, two wrong in that statement.
Renewable electricity is cheaper than fossil fuel electricity (the "fuel" for renewables is free) and it just keeps getting cheaper. States which rely on fossil fuel electricity will be at a high cost disadvantage.
With the possible exception of geothermal under ideal conditions, other renewable forms of energy are NOT cheaper than fossil fuels. Apart from geothermal, The absolute cheapest form of power generation over the full life cycle of the plant is natural gas. And this INCLUDES all fuel costs, the cost to build and decommission the plant. Renewables are MORE expensive, total cost, even though the "fuel" is free. So your statement is wrong again.
So by my count you had two facts right, one misleading and five incorrect.
You do realize that Hydro requires water and right now that's in very short supply out west...
Also your "some storage" is in the range of 50,000 Megawatt hours or more, just to even out the solar peak at noon to the usage peak at 5 PM (based on today's usage curve in Texas on an average summer day). This is HUGE amounts of power to store, which currently is made up by fossil fueled power generators and sucking power from the grid from places outside the state.
ONE Tesla Power Wall 2 stores 13 Kwh and costs $6k. To store 50,000 Mwh you will be needing about 3.8 million of these things running a list price of about $22.8 Billion. I have a feeling Tesla would love to have the order, but I doubt they will be able to make 3.8 million of these things in the time allowed.
Batteries are way too expensive here. Pumped storage is better priced, but like hydro, requires water and while not as expensive to build, is a bit less efficient. Just firing up the Natural Gas plant would be a LOT cheaper, but hey, they said they don't want to do that.
I think this is a very bad idea for California. But hey, if they want to...
The hell batteries are not expensive. And how you keep California on the nation's power grid, but regulate how the power you receive from it is generated is beyond me. Sure, you can *claim* it's green energy, but is it really when that coal plant in MO is pumping out power into the same grid? I'd call it load shifting to fossil fuels by "proxy" if nothing else. So let's say California wants to go it alone...
Industrial level power storage is HUGELY expensive and dangerous operations. We are talking about having to store HUGE amounts of power to shift the peak load by only the few hours between noon (when solar is at it's peak) and 5 PM when use usually peaks. In Texas, where I have data available, we'd need to store be able to store and produce power at about 10,000 Megawatt peak rate, and store about 5 hours worth of power, or 50,000 Megawatt hours, to smooth out the peak. 50,000 Megawatt hours is a LOT of energy and 10,000 Megawatt rates is pretty fast. That would allow the flattening of the demand curve to better match solar supplies, using wind and nuclear for base load would help, but again, wind is something you forecast, but cannot schedule as you want..
The above assumes 100% storage efficiency, which is no way near realistic. I'd say that pumped energy storage is likely the most cost effective, but it's only 70 - 80 % efficient. Batteries, when new, are about 90%, but that means that to get 50,000 Megawatt hours out, you are going to consume some 56,000 Megawatt hours to charge it, but batteries are very expensive, wear out over time and are environmentally a mess to make and recycle. No to mention kind of dangerous when they decide to discharge themselves. Then there is all the solar and wind power infrastructure they will need to build to cover demand AND for charging all those storage devices. That's going to be pricey too.
Personally, I think California is crazy to unilaterally decide to just pay a lot more for less reliable power. It's going to further hobble their state's industry, drive prices higher and residents to other places. This will further degrade the state's financial condition and add to their woes. Plus, it's dubious at best if they will achieve C02 reductions overall, having to build such expensive infrastructure at who knows what actual environmental cost. But they are free to make a mess of their state if they insist.
But my point is, the FCC still has price controls for those outside the 1/2 limits. They didn't totally abandon price controls for everybody with a single provider, just some of them.
Import all electricity from Nevada. Problem solved.
Which is exactly what will happen here. Invest in power generators from surrounding states if they are serious about this. They will be making money hand over fist burring fossil fuels for California. Why? Because it's cheaper than all the other options.
In terms of states' rights and energy independence and the environment, this is a good thing. Whether or not this works out, we will learn a lot about the feasibility of eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels from California's effort; other states could then model their own clean energy programs based on the positives and negatives of California's experiment.
(I'm not sure what the anti-Trump rhetoric adds to the article summary other than virtual signaling... ??)
This isn't going to work out. California will simply be importing power from states where fossil fuels are used, suffering blackouts and paying a LOT more for power.
Electrical power grids require that the energy going in must be exactly the energy being used at every instant. To be safe, one must provide an "operating margin" that can handle the loss of generation capacity and power any variations in load. Grid managers must maintain this balance, by planning generation capacity hours in advance of actual need. The problem with "Green" energy (solar and wind) is that you may be able to forecast what will be available, but you cannot manage when you are going to get it. The sun shines and the wind blows when it wants to, but that may or may not match when you need the power to keep the grid stable. That forces you to shift power in time using storage, and storage is expensive.
I just don't see how California will be able to generate enough electricity at the right times to make this work without getting *really* expensive. They may have enough "green" capacity, but that doesn't fix the peak load on a calm or cloudy day or provide a place to put the excess on the sunny days with the Santa Anna winds howling. One can only store so much energy.
IF they are serious about this, I'd recommend one invest in fossil fueled plants in surrounding states and transmission lines into California. They will be dying to buy power at any price, from any source eventually.
MAC addresses are not directly tied to IPv6 addresses except by convention and only in specific situations. IPv6 addresses don't always have the MAC address in them, it's just the easy rule of thumb for address assignments, but it isn't universal. Also MAC addresses are easily changed in software and hardware ones are not guaranteed to be unique. So it *might* be enough to track a device, or it may not.
But it doesn't really matter.. The ISP is going to give up your name and address based on your IP Address so they are going to know who to sue any way you slice it.
As I understand it, The rule is that if there is a competitor with 1/2 of a mile, they can rule that the market has competition. But if there are no competitors, then the price controls apply.
This probably just applies to rural s...holes anyways.
Actually, the price caps remain in rural areas where only one ISP exists and a competitor is more than 1/2 mile away. So it seems to be exactly the opposite to me.
Until now you'd be held liable if you are the person paying for the internet connection. Now, if this ruling stands, I'm not so sure they can come after you without some other kind of evidence, especially if there is an open WiFi network involved.
Something tells me though, that this precedent won't stand. This is a civil court, all they need show is that it was likely you, which is much lower than the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold used in criminal courts.
MAC addresses do NOT survive a Layer 3 translation. MAC is strictly a Layer 2 thing. So the first router that network packet hits will change the MAC address. They are even less useful to trace a packet to a person than IP's are as they are not used above Layer 2.
You figure that a MAC address is going to help ID the perp? Cute.
Also, how about the fact that MAC addresses are not usually part of the Layer 3 conversation? Just one layer 3 device and poof, the MAC address is something different. MAC doesn't survive past Layer 2.
Slashdot Mirror
If Mercedes is really going to sell electric cars, Tesla will have completion in their niche market, which means Tesla is more rapidly running out of runway. Now they have price competition and less of a differentiator for their products. Their margin for error was always pretty small, but this will only make it smaller.
I think Musk sees this coming, which explains his erratic behavior of late as CEO of Tesla. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like he's taking the stress very well.
It was the cooling equipment eh?
I think they are making excuses for patch Tuesday.... :)
Isn't this what backup generators and N+1 infrastructure is for?
Yea, that's the theory.. However, in practice, maintaining no single point of failure fault tolerance is harder than it sounds. I've seen (and implemented) many N+1 system designs. Building them isn't too much of a problem if you have a careful plan and follow it. BUT.. Keeping it N+1 as maintenance and improvements get done is *really* hard.
Remember that you can break N+1 redundancy by simply plugging in a device to the wrong outlet, or moving a network cable from one switch to another during some late night debugging session. Even if you get the wires in the right place, you can break the network redundancy by a simple misconfiguration of a network device. There are just too many ways N+1 can be broken over time and many of these ways don't affect anything until something goes wrong.
It takes a lot of effort to maintain N+1, so I'm not surprised to hear that even large expert providers have issues doing it reliably.
Good internet access?
I'm going to guess that the internet access is acceptable for mining, but is likely not great as it's likely satellite based with huge latency as a result.
Also, don't underestimate the impact of being remote. In this part of the world, travel is impossible for weeks at a time, regardless of how bad you want or need to go, you are stuck. Where this can sound inviting, it can be a huge problem when all you have to do is board games and Netflix is "buffering" 2 hours for every 30 min show you want to binge watch.
The Aussies use this for grid stability, not for peak shifting.
The Aussies use fossil fuels for their primary supply of power. Fossil fueled plants are best operated where the transportation logistics are cheaper, which drives their power plants to the coasts. With population centers away from the coasts, storage allows them to run without having to maintain generation capacity in places where transportation of fuel is expensive and deal with supply disruptions that might take their grid down otherwise.
So think of this as more of an industrial sized UPS, big enough to provide make up power and keep the grid stable during temporary losses of supply. It's there to give them time to throttle up their online generation capacity when something goes wrong.
So this isn't really load shifting green energy capacity in the land down under, it's about grid stability.
So, do you have some kind of cost estimate per ton of CO2 released? Because all this data you cite is alarmist BS unless you have actual cost numbers.
I once debated the environmentalists over a nuclear power plant, way back in the 80's. They where making all sots of unsubstantiated claims of deaths due to radiation releases from the plant because they DO release radiation. They had convinced themselves that the nuclear plant would cause deaths from increased cancer rates, and had death rate estimates to boot. The fly in the ointment for them was that the other means of producing electricity was coal, but they didn't have clue about the actual process of burning coal, nor did they know that crushing coal released a LOT of radiation, liberating radon gas from the coal. The amount of radiation from coal burring was orders of magnitude more than ANY nuclear plant, but they didn't let facts dissuade them from a good PR argument.
So, I call BS on your PR campaign. Estimates are not facts, they are opinions. Where I do not doubt the earth is getting warmer, I do doubt the degree to which it is under man's control or due to our burning fossil fuels. Remember, correlation does not imply causation, just because CO2 is rising and the earth is getting warmer, does not mean CO2 caused the warm up. Not to mention that the Coal particulate and Sulfur Dioxide issue has been largely abated with stack scrubbers and technology which is already in wide spread use. Acid rain? We sort of solved that issue back in the 1970's, that's from sulfur dioxide. Particulate pollution has also been cleaned up from coal burning using filters. You are bleating about stuff that looks scary from a PR perspective, but isn't a problem in reality.
So reduce it to dollars in some measureable actual cost or we cannot discuss this rationally in terms of financial costs. As you are the one making the claim, I leave it to you to itemize the actual costs and quantify them with observable and provable data. As it stands, the cheapest industrial method for power generation is geothermal (but under ideal conditions which are not universally available) followed by Natural Gas. The most expensive is photovoltaic solar. Wind is between solar and coal on the high end. Nuclear is about midrange, but we haven't built any nuclear capacity in decades because NG is so cheap.
It all depends on improved battery technology. If that happens, then California will be able to reach their goal.
Yet the law makers in this crazy state are wiling to bet their state's financial future on a "it depends"?
My point is that this will be a serious blow to the state's economy which is already in decline. It will hit everyone with higher prices on nearly everything, and I do mean everyone. The rich (who can afford it), The middle class (Who will be pushed closer to poverty), AND the poor (who cannot afford it). As the cost of living goes up and the standard of living declines, folks will be encouraged to depart California, taking their economic activity with them, driving an already shaky state finance situation into further trouble.
But if California wants to do this to themselves, so be it. I don't have a dog in the hunt or a vote in the state.
I doubt you can change your MAC address on a phone or tablet.
Like I said, the ISP is going to finger you as the owner of the IP in question, so you are getting sued in this hypothetical. I'm just saying that your MAC address doesn't matter and doesn't uniquely ID your device in all cases.
How may ways can you be wrong? Let's count!
First, California has its own grid so it's easy to keep out fossil fuel electricity.
Their grid isn't isolated from the rest of the country any more than Texas' grid is. We have our own grid too, but we are heavily connected to states on our borders, as well as Mexico. All "having your own grid" means is that you manage your load and generation within an area, but it doesn't mean you are isolated from the rest of the country.
One wrong
Batteries are proven. Australia is a good example.
Oh yea for load capacity pick up over having rotating capacity online in diverse locations. This has more to do with the economies of shipping fuels over the distances involved than green energy or peak offset. It's a safety device for grid stability because it's not practical to run fossil fueled capacity in some places. So you are not exactly wrong, just not aware of the actual reason they are using it.
(Lithium batteries are very easy to recycle into safe non-toxic components and even new batteries.)
The issue is refining of the lithium from natural sources. It is usually refined using electrolysis at a high temperature, much like aluminum and consumes a large amount of power. Recycling it is similar energy consumption. They may be safe and non-toxic materials, but they are expensive if you consider the CO2 emissions of production. So No, two wrong
There is also geothermal, hydro and pumped storage which can easily be controlled to fill in gaps.
Geothermal plants are the only option here for California, but they are huge investments and very subject to causing earthquakes. California is not an ideal place for geothermal, but it is at least possible there. Hydro doesn't exist in California as they are very short on water, same with pumped storage. The facilities don't exist for this and depend on a ready source of water, which just isn't there. So, one kind of right, two wrong in that statement.
Renewable electricity is cheaper than fossil fuel electricity (the "fuel" for renewables is free) and it just keeps getting cheaper. States which rely on fossil fuel electricity will be at a high cost disadvantage.
With the possible exception of geothermal under ideal conditions, other renewable forms of energy are NOT cheaper than fossil fuels. Apart from geothermal, The absolute cheapest form of power generation over the full life cycle of the plant is natural gas. And this INCLUDES all fuel costs, the cost to build and decommission the plant. Renewables are MORE expensive, total cost, even though the "fuel" is free. So your statement is wrong again.
So by my count you had two facts right, one misleading and five incorrect.
You do realize that Hydro requires water and right now that's in very short supply out west...
Also your "some storage" is in the range of 50,000 Megawatt hours or more, just to even out the solar peak at noon to the usage peak at 5 PM (based on today's usage curve in Texas on an average summer day). This is HUGE amounts of power to store, which currently is made up by fossil fueled power generators and sucking power from the grid from places outside the state.
ONE Tesla Power Wall 2 stores 13 Kwh and costs $6k. To store 50,000 Mwh you will be needing about 3.8 million of these things running a list price of about $22.8 Billion. I have a feeling Tesla would love to have the order, but I doubt they will be able to make 3.8 million of these things in the time allowed.
Batteries are way too expensive here. Pumped storage is better priced, but like hydro, requires water and while not as expensive to build, is a bit less efficient. Just firing up the Natural Gas plant would be a LOT cheaper, but hey, they said they don't want to do that.
I think this is a very bad idea for California. But hey, if they want to...
The hell batteries are not expensive. And how you keep California on the nation's power grid, but regulate how the power you receive from it is generated is beyond me. Sure, you can *claim* it's green energy, but is it really when that coal plant in MO is pumping out power into the same grid? I'd call it load shifting to fossil fuels by "proxy" if nothing else. So let's say California wants to go it alone...
Industrial level power storage is HUGELY expensive and dangerous operations. We are talking about having to store HUGE amounts of power to shift the peak load by only the few hours between noon (when solar is at it's peak) and 5 PM when use usually peaks. In Texas, where I have data available, we'd need to store be able to store and produce power at about 10,000 Megawatt peak rate, and store about 5 hours worth of power, or 50,000 Megawatt hours, to smooth out the peak. 50,000 Megawatt hours is a LOT of energy and 10,000 Megawatt rates is pretty fast. That would allow the flattening of the demand curve to better match solar supplies, using wind and nuclear for base load would help, but again, wind is something you forecast, but cannot schedule as you want..
The above assumes 100% storage efficiency, which is no way near realistic. I'd say that pumped energy storage is likely the most cost effective, but it's only 70 - 80 % efficient. Batteries, when new, are about 90%, but that means that to get 50,000 Megawatt hours out, you are going to consume some 56,000 Megawatt hours to charge it, but batteries are very expensive, wear out over time and are environmentally a mess to make and recycle. No to mention kind of dangerous when they decide to discharge themselves. Then there is all the solar and wind power infrastructure they will need to build to cover demand AND for charging all those storage devices. That's going to be pricey too.
Personally, I think California is crazy to unilaterally decide to just pay a lot more for less reliable power. It's going to further hobble their state's industry, drive prices higher and residents to other places. This will further degrade the state's financial condition and add to their woes. Plus, it's dubious at best if they will achieve C02 reductions overall, having to build such expensive infrastructure at who knows what actual environmental cost. But they are free to make a mess of their state if they insist.
My point is the headline is misleading as the new rule only effects a subset of ISP customers nation wide not all of us.
I'm not arguing to justify or vilify the FCC's actions, only point out that they are not changing anything for the majority of people out there.
But my point is, the FCC still has price controls for those outside the 1/2 limits. They didn't totally abandon price controls for everybody with a single provider, just some of them.
Import all electricity from Nevada. Problem solved.
Which is exactly what will happen here. Invest in power generators from surrounding states if they are serious about this. They will be making money hand over fist burring fossil fuels for California. Why? Because it's cheaper than all the other options.
In terms of states' rights and energy independence and the environment, this is a good thing. Whether or not this works out, we will learn a lot about the feasibility of eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels from California's effort; other states could then model their own clean energy programs based on the positives and negatives of California's experiment.
(I'm not sure what the anti-Trump rhetoric adds to the article summary other than virtual signaling... ??)
This isn't going to work out. California will simply be importing power from states where fossil fuels are used, suffering blackouts and paying a LOT more for power.
Electrical power grids require that the energy going in must be exactly the energy being used at every instant. To be safe, one must provide an "operating margin" that can handle the loss of generation capacity and power any variations in load. Grid managers must maintain this balance, by planning generation capacity hours in advance of actual need. The problem with "Green" energy (solar and wind) is that you may be able to forecast what will be available, but you cannot manage when you are going to get it. The sun shines and the wind blows when it wants to, but that may or may not match when you need the power to keep the grid stable. That forces you to shift power in time using storage, and storage is expensive.
I just don't see how California will be able to generate enough electricity at the right times to make this work without getting *really* expensive. They may have enough "green" capacity, but that doesn't fix the peak load on a calm or cloudy day or provide a place to put the excess on the sunny days with the Santa Anna winds howling. One can only store so much energy.
IF they are serious about this, I'd recommend one invest in fossil fueled plants in surrounding states and transmission lines into California. They will be dying to buy power at any price, from any source eventually.
Unless it is IP6 ...
MAC addresses are not directly tied to IPv6 addresses except by convention and only in specific situations. IPv6 addresses don't always have the MAC address in them, it's just the easy rule of thumb for address assignments, but it isn't universal. Also MAC addresses are easily changed in software and hardware ones are not guaranteed to be unique. So it *might* be enough to track a device, or it may not.
But it doesn't really matter.. The ISP is going to give up your name and address based on your IP Address so they are going to know who to sue any way you slice it.
As I understand it, The rule is that if there is a competitor with 1/2 of a mile, they can rule that the market has competition. But if there are no competitors, then the price controls apply.
So I think the headline is a bit misleading here.
This probably just applies to rural s...holes anyways.
Actually, the price caps remain in rural areas where only one ISP exists and a competitor is more than 1/2 mile away. So it seems to be exactly the opposite to me.
But your MAC address may be a part of your IPv6...
Emphasis added.
But only if your ISP supports IPv6, your router supports IPv6, You've not spoofed your MAC and your device supports IPv6....
Until now you'd be held liable if you are the person paying for the internet connection. Now, if this ruling stands, I'm not so sure they can come after you without some other kind of evidence, especially if there is an open WiFi network involved.
Something tells me though, that this precedent won't stand. This is a civil court, all they need show is that it was likely you, which is much lower than the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold used in criminal courts.
MAC addresses do NOT survive a Layer 3 translation. MAC is strictly a Layer 2 thing. So the first router that network packet hits will change the MAC address. They are even less useful to trace a packet to a person than IP's are as they are not used above Layer 2.
Unless your kids are adults with money, they are coming after you anyway.
You figure that a MAC address is going to help ID the perp? Cute.
Also, how about the fact that MAC addresses are not usually part of the Layer 3 conversation? Just one layer 3 device and poof, the MAC address is something different. MAC doesn't survive past Layer 2.
And as long as you don't sell, trade or give them away, the make at home model is as legal as any other firearm of the same type/features.
Have fun America.
29 apparently.. But not all of them are routinely overturned so not all have the red nose and floppy shoes.