Why couldn't the federal government regulate internet speeds similar to how they regulate automobile fuel economy? It couldn't be as straightforward, but perhaps they could stop the ISPs from listing max speeds (the whole "up to 20 Mbps" crap) and specifying percentages for speeds over time (e.g., customer must receive 95% of the bandwidth they are paying for 100% of the time). They could also force minimum bandwidth plans that must be provided and because of the lack of competition in certain geographical areas, even stipulate a maximum cost per Mbps of speed based on national averages of broadband fees.
CAFE has certainly forced auto manufacturers to invest in new technology in order to meet new standards (to varying degrees of success).
While I generally support the notion that if you own the vehicle you should be allowed to hack the vehicle, some of the protections for in-vehicle electronics are either mandated by external entities or self-imposed.
Someone mentioned earlier the fact that auto manufacturing today is global in scope. That is a fact, and the electrical systems in vehicles today are designed to be used in as many markets as possible to minimize engineering costs.
Since virtually all of the ECUs in a vehicle are reprogrammable these days, and since many of those ECUs are involved in the security features built into vehicles these days, the European Insurance lobby (whose name escapes me at the moment) requires auto manufacturers selling vehicles in Europe to "secure" their ECUs against tampering. This allows the manufacturer to obtain good ratings from the insurance providers, otherwise the vehicle is essentially docked points for being unsecure. These features obviously affect the average consumers ability to do things to their vehicles.
Secondly, as more and more features are software driven, the OEMs have the ability to provide vehicle features via software. Therefore they have some incentive to "secure" the ECUs in order to prevent customers from obtaining features that they either didn't pay for or should not be enabled in the vehicle depending on where it was sold.
Somehow I doubt that Nader is taking any of this into consideration, and I highly doubt his initiative will gain enough momentum to overcome these hurdles.
Don't rule out the other fuel cell technologies. Ethanol and methanol fuel cell technologies are even better than hydrogen since we already have large industries capable of producing them. Not to mention they don't have to be stored at high pressure and supercooled while they are in the vehicle.
I can't really speak towards the motives of the people in the Oval office, but I will agree that the viability of alternative fuel vehicles is really in the hands of consumers and always will be.
The American car buyer in particular will be a tough sell. American's aren't interested in diesel engines. America's perception of diesel engines is that they are loud and noisy. CNG is tough to package due to the tank size required in order to have the range available in gas vehicles today.
The battle of perception is key to moving people over to alternate fuel vehicles. People are only going to start buying alternate fuel vehicles en masse when buying one of those vehicles doesn't compromise the vehicle's utility and their pocket book.
Slashdot Mirror
Why couldn't the federal government regulate internet speeds similar to how they regulate automobile fuel economy? It couldn't be as straightforward, but perhaps they could stop the ISPs from listing max speeds (the whole "up to 20 Mbps" crap) and specifying percentages for speeds over time (e.g., customer must receive 95% of the bandwidth they are paying for 100% of the time). They could also force minimum bandwidth plans that must be provided and because of the lack of competition in certain geographical areas, even stipulate a maximum cost per Mbps of speed based on national averages of broadband fees.
CAFE has certainly forced auto manufacturers to invest in new technology in order to meet new standards (to varying degrees of success).
While I generally support the notion that if you own the vehicle you should be allowed to hack the vehicle, some of the protections for in-vehicle electronics are either mandated by external entities or self-imposed.
Someone mentioned earlier the fact that auto manufacturing today is global in scope. That is a fact, and the electrical systems in vehicles today are designed to be used in as many markets as possible to minimize engineering costs.
Since virtually all of the ECUs in a vehicle are reprogrammable these days, and since many of those ECUs are involved in the security features built into vehicles these days, the European Insurance lobby (whose name escapes me at the moment) requires auto manufacturers selling vehicles in Europe to "secure" their ECUs against tampering. This allows the manufacturer to obtain good ratings from the insurance providers, otherwise the vehicle is essentially docked points for being unsecure. These features obviously affect the average consumers ability to do things to their vehicles.
Secondly, as more and more features are software driven, the OEMs have the ability to provide vehicle features via software. Therefore they have some incentive to "secure" the ECUs in order to prevent customers from obtaining features that they either didn't pay for or should not be enabled in the vehicle depending on where it was sold.
Somehow I doubt that Nader is taking any of this into consideration, and I highly doubt his initiative will gain enough momentum to overcome these hurdles.
Don't rule out the other fuel cell technologies. Ethanol and methanol fuel cell technologies are even better than hydrogen since we already have large industries capable of producing them. Not to mention they don't have to be stored at high pressure and supercooled while they are in the vehicle.
I can't really speak towards the motives of the people in the Oval office, but I will agree that the viability of alternative fuel vehicles is really in the hands of consumers and always will be.
The American car buyer in particular will be a tough sell. American's aren't interested in diesel engines. America's perception of diesel engines is that they are loud and noisy. CNG is tough to package due to the tank size required in order to have the range available in gas vehicles today.
The battle of perception is key to moving people over to alternate fuel vehicles. People are only going to start buying alternate fuel vehicles en masse when buying one of those vehicles doesn't compromise the vehicle's utility and their pocket book.