Where a 'dumb' jammer is used, the determination is easy, but when the 'jammer' is designed to provide falsified positioning information, this process becomes much harder.
Possibly I don't understand the math. But I would think if an active jammer tried to provide incorrect timebase or ephemeris to create the error, that the GPS receiver would either interpret it as a calculatable DOP, or so far outside the limits that the navigation fix would be lost. I'm sure there are theoretical active attacks on GPS, but it seems for it to work, you'd have to obscure all authentic satellite signals, because any spoofed satellite either wouldn't appear in the almanac of the authentic satellite signals, or the spoofed satellite would appear to be in the wrong orbit of the authentic satellites' almanacs.
Obviously once you have half a dozen independant/orthoganal nav systems on board, it is not that difficult to detect one or two slightly errant systems.
True, but with the exception of IRU and radio/laser altimeters, building, maintaining, and validating independent nav-aids becomes hideously expensive. Currently I am pretty sure IRU and altimeters are used at various phases of flight to sanity check or provide redundancy to the GPS fix.
Hopefully, this is properly considered when they start implementing any NextGen systems.
I think the NextGen transponder design is pretty much nailed down and being installed in a significant test fleet of planes. I'm not aware of any resolution to this question. I doubt there will be a change unless something pushes the FAA to that.
I didn't say, and didn't mean to imply GPS was required for autoland. I could have been more clear by saying GPS, along with several other technologies (such as instrument landing system and autopilots and radio or laser altimeters), allows 2 things, a lower decision height to land during reduced visibility conditions, and automated approach through to landing. If I had re-read the question, maybe I would have noticed the author's emphasis on "right before touchdown." As it was I answered based on approach through landing and gave a lot of information he didn't ask for.
I'm not a GPS expert, but I believe the GPS spoofers they speak of couldn't push the navigation fix off by hundreds of meters unless the GPS receiver wasn't receiving any other satellites. If a spoofer was active, it would degrade the GPS receivers's own calculated navigational accuracy. At some relatively low point, probably measured in the single digit meters, an aviation certified GPS receiver would treat it as a navigation fix lost and all normal alternative safety procedures would apply.
Aircraft also have barometric altimeters and most commercial aircraft have laser altimeters. If the GPS altimeter diverged enough, the altimeter reading would be flagged as potentially in error. The pilot would know to turn off the autopilot and proceed to an airport with a visual approach. In current aircraft regulation policy, when you are landing, the pilot is treated as the final failover system and "machine vision system" that permits the automated process to proceed.
I didn't follow the difference you think between a failover system that can route around obvious jamming, vs a system that reliably decides a signal input is unreliable. GPS is treated as one navigation input (granted the primary one since it is also the most accurate when working correctly). Aircraft that rely on it must have methods to determine when it is not operating to the required accuracy and manage around that situation safely. I don't see an alternative philosophical method to that. The only difference would be having even more navigation methods with more equal weight and more complicated voting schemes.
The situation brought up in the article and this thread isn't even the most concerning problem in my opinion for NextGen navigation. The real problem that may come back to bite us in the butt is the transponders on the plane. In a pure NextGen system, there is no radar on the ground that can independently verify planes are where they say they are. Only the aircraft's onboard transponder reports its location to air traffic control computers. There is nothing to prevent a rogue actor from spoofing many thousands of airplanes airborne in a small area (in effect DDoSing the system) or creating a transponder that misrepresents where the aircraft really is.
LORAN is just as susceptible to jamming as GPS signals. You can also create GPS ground stations (much like Loran) that emulate satellites for at least a 2D fix. Add one satellite or a laser altimeter and you have a 3D fix. I think it was reasonable to decommission Loran and standardize on 1 technology, even if we should have ramped up replacement technology like GPS ground stations instead of treating them as a redundant cost savings opp.
Because properly operating 4G product is a FCC licensed technology, radio interference by definition is not. The better question may be, why did the FCC license a technology that can interfere with another critical product?
It would affect nothing. Pilots have a "decision height" at which point they must go around if they can't see the runway. GPS, along with several other technologies, allows 2 things, a lower decision height, and automated landings. Rules that regulate pilots and avionics require that the pilot is always able to identify a failure, and to be reasonably able to safely recover from a failure using alternative instruments or procedures. If the plane's GPS were to loose a fix, it would set off an alarm, and the pilot would either immediately start a go-around, or s/he would choose to land manually.
Planes also have an IRU (internal reference unit) or laser gyroscope that is able to dead reckon where the plane is based on the fact of knowing where an aircraft was at some previous point, and summing up all of the movements of the aircraft since that point. Before GPS, using IRUs were the primary automated navigation tool for commercial aircraft. So even in the event of a loss of GPS fix, the aircraft still knows exactly where it is for a long period of time. I don't know if the IRU can feed its location fix back into the NextGen aircraft transponder (which normally uses GPS) that reports to air traffic control computers where the aircraft is.
Amazon's content filtering may be on-par with the industry. But if any customer has the temerity to forward Wikileaks docs through their bulk email service, I bet we'll find out that their "spam" filter is better than we thought.
From experience, Samsung is not a preferable alternative to HTC when speaking of locking down, and failing to upgrade smart phones. Unfortunately HTC, and some models of Nokia are best, and that's it for the big boys. I loved my first Samsung LCD computer monitor I bought in 2002. Since then, it has been all down hill, and I would prefer other vendors to Samsung.
If I am right about what the parent poster meant, then s/he believes the residents of Kenya have an absolute and immediate right to this information once discovered, to be able to hold their government accountable to the best of their ability. And that the diplomats that discovered this information committed an unethical act by not publicly releasing it.
If we (being non Kenyan citizens) are so paternalistic that we believe we know better how to release this information to minimize suffering in their country, then we also have a moral obligation to explain to those citizens why we believe not engaging in military action to remove the corrupt parts of their government to protect those citizens interest will result in less suffering.
And gauging from the Wikileaks cable releases, it is pretty clear US diplomats and involved politicians are not professionals in international relations either.
We as US citizens didn't elect many of the involved people. They were acting as proxies through our elected officials, or through contracts with our government approved by elected officials. Some of these elected officials have demonstrated they are incompetent or malicious, and their violations of the trust we placed in their elected positions should be public and they should be held accountable.
I don't think the parent meant messenger as being an involved party in the transmission or receipt of the message. Valid or not, I believe the parent was working from the belief that citizens of a country have an absolute right to information regarding corruption in their government. And Wikileaks regardless of how they acquired this information, was the messenger to the people of Kenya. Reworded - don't blame someone for providing information regarding illegal activities, for the death of others who died reacting to those illegal activities.
I'd suggest getting some new healthcare professionals. It is sad when Wikipedia is a more authoritative source of information than someone who spent 10 years in medical school.
The short version is it has been in use since the early 1930's when all other alternative bactericides and fungicides reduced the effectivity of the vaccine. Do we have better alternatives today, including single dose vaccines? Yes. Rich countries can afford single dose vaccines, but they weren't affordable or practical 80 years ago, and they still aren't in poor countries today.
The quantity of mercury you get in your system is probably lower than a good lick off a cheaply painted Chinese toy. Getting an alternative bactericide FDA approved for injectable use would be extremely expensive. Thiomersol has saved thousands of children that would have died in the past 80 years from vaccine contamination. It isn't the devil we make it out to be. Though it is good we are eliminating it from childhood vaccines.
I have a MythTV that is somewhat of a time hog because I am constantly tweaking and updating it as part of a home server, when I should leave well enough alone. I use the MythTV more (but only slightly more) than my Roku Netflix player. Netflix lets me watch TV series on premium channels I don't subscribe to like Showtime (though a year late). But for watching current TV series, on major networks, time-shifted, and with the advertisements automatically cut out, nothing beats Myth (or other advanced DVR).
Well I think my actual ad cost at around $0.50/GB would be several dollars a month, but it would be interesting to investigate. It is a valid point that as long as ads don't get increasingly bloated, and bandwidth costs continue to go down, fighting for several dollars a month as advertisers get better avoiding blocks probably isn't worth it.
Personally the only large downloads I do is regular Ubuntu updates and the occasional Netflix viewing on my Roku or Wii. I don't think NF can be cached by any set top box player, and for any significant amount of a movie to be cached in the Windows player you have to Haxor it up. That's not a very good solution. I would also be annoyed by having to manage my viewing habits 24 hrs in advance. Not having to do this was supposed to be an advantage of NF streaming.
I'm also not convinced that internet providers would generally even provide non-metered times even if they were sub-prime. Right now they could offer plans that are say 2mb/256kb from 6am to midnight weekdays and 30mb/3mb from midnight to 6am weekdays and most of the weekend, yet for various reasons they don't other than the standard congestion and oversubscribing. If they did start providing time-binned download limits, I could adjust. What I greatly fear is segmenting the internet to where you can get a cheap plan with unmetered access to a few provider dictated websites and a very low allotment to the wider internet, or much more expensive plans with reasonable allotments to the whole internet.
If that is where we are going, I think franchise agreements should be prohibited, the last mile should be owned by the municipality, and any internet provider should be allowed to lease space wholesale on the network to access customers.
And it will likely be years from now if they ever get streaming on Linux. I used to get POed about this, since I only use Linux at home. But ever since I can get a Roku box for less than $100, or watch on my Wii (or if you have a PS3 or Xbox), it has mostly been a non-issue. I see how they don't want to invest big $$$ to create a custom studio approved DRM system on Linux, for such a small base of users.
This has exactly happened to me watching Fringe and Glee. I've quit watching Fringe on air day, and been catching back up using (supposely less lucrative ad rates) Hulu. Glee I may watch a couple from the beginning on iTunes, but for most I'll probably wait until Netflix has on DVD.
"These are precisely the channels that, in an a-la-carte system, the most subscribers would be buying"
I don't know that is entirely true. ESPN is expensive because many men insist on having it, and Disney can use their joint marketing power to require it to be carried on basic cable, or to not allow it to be a separate package of premium sports channels. I still bet 30% of cable subscribers would cancel ESPN if they could, which is a substantial minority, not really esoteric tastes.
"But on average, a-la-carte will mean higher prices (from higher costs), with the less flexibility."
I'm far from convinced this will be true either. I don't see how a-la-carte creates less flexibility under any circumstance. Yes bundling could create administrative complexities that raise cost. But it can almost completely be automated, and most cable systems are already set up to do a-la-carte, they just chose to bundle due to revenue/marketing/license considerations. But given the 3x increased cost from broadcast only (which one can reasonably assume is mostly the physical plant and fixed costs) to the lowest cable package, there is a lot of fat in there that many customers can choose to cut.
And I pay $61 for supposedly unlimited, but I expect I would get some polite notices to knock it off if I went over 200gigs/mo, so I really pay about $0.60/GB, but would probably get cancelled at the $0.31/GB level.
It is similar to my electric bill, but I do monitor standby power losses, and unplug or get rid of appliances that are too piggy. Acceptable standby power losses generally add to the functionality and convenience of using the product. Internet advertisements 99% of the time do neither.
Whether the difference of blocking ads or not is noticeable to your bill will depend on if you do a lot of streaming and downloads that eats bandwidth, or a lot of static webpage viewing where the fancy animated ads use more bandwidth than the content.
In the end it is more about principle, for me to pay for delivery of a product, your product better be valuable to me. And if it becomes an issue for many consumers, I am sure the already automated processes for creating, maintaining, and distributing hosts files will require little time to set up and virtually no time to use, so the transaction is frictionless.
There are multiple groups that will be affected negatively. Media distributors like Netflix will be hurt, but if enough people implement ad blocks out of principle or because it makes enough difference to be worthwhile, it will hurt advertisers, free to the consumer content producers, and ad servers (like Google) as well.
Your proposed reality land sounds both like a reasonable prediction, and something to be utterly terrified of. Given the ologopoly of landline internet providers, that data interconnection charges between providers I don't believe usually bin price by time, and the fact the internet is now relatively heavily loaded on the evenings from ~6pm to midnight, I'm not so sure you'll get evenings free, possibly just midnight to 6am and weekend days. That's not terribly helpful.
And regardless of what strained legal reasoning is used, no one should be subject to US law that is either not a US citizen, or physically inside US jurisdiction. Also, just because something is determined to be "illegal" doesn't mean it is dangerous or should be stopped. It just means the current government has decided it is threatening to its interest.
I guess there are still a lot of customers tolerating over $100/month cable bills? Not me. For the past year I've paid out the nose for "fast" internet (15/2 at $60/mo), and broadcast only cable $12/mo, and had a Netflix account. I wouldn't go back. 99% of cable programming is crap. I get better quality for less money.
I bet you are wrong about that for most consumers. From what I understand, many channels may not cost much, but there are a few that cost a lot (like ESPN which I care nothing about) and when you have 200 or more channels, even a little cost starts to add up fast. Of course there will be a few where the price goes up and they complain.
In my area, broadcast only is the lowest level and it costs about $12/mo, which is what I have now. The next cheapest basic package is $40 plus about $8 per TV connected due to the required cable box for most digital channels being encrypted. That's a huge difference. I'd be willing to pay $12, plus a few dollars a month for a few channels that I really want. But most of the garbage they offer is just that, and I don't want to pay 3 or more times what I pay now for about 3 more channels that I do want. I also don't really want another damn box connected to my TV. Cablecards should be $2/month, or I should be able to buy a set top box for a one time fee of about $80.
I wouldn't mind being required to have the minimum channel order time be 30 days, or if I have to get my request completed by an agent, having a reasonable charge for that. It wouldn't be reasonable to be able to order channels for one day when a show was on, and waste agent's time connecting and reconnecting channels repeatedly. But since this can easily be automated, there also shouldn't be one year commitments for channels, or $30 per channel connection and disconnection charges.
I've never much minded internet advertisements as long as they weren't popups, popovers, or popunders. But if I have to start paying for every bit delivered to me, my hosts file is gonna get big fast, adblock and javascript blocking will become required addons for all my web browsers. Every business that advertises on the web should be screaming bloody murder at internet providers to not implement this. It will decimate the internet revenue model for many companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Where a 'dumb' jammer is used, the determination is easy, but when the 'jammer' is designed to provide falsified positioning information, this process becomes much harder.
Possibly I don't understand the math. But I would think if an active jammer tried to provide incorrect timebase or ephemeris to create the error, that the GPS receiver would either interpret it as a calculatable DOP, or so far outside the limits that the navigation fix would be lost. I'm sure there are theoretical active attacks on GPS, but it seems for it to work, you'd have to obscure all authentic satellite signals, because any spoofed satellite either wouldn't appear in the almanac of the authentic satellite signals, or the spoofed satellite would appear to be in the wrong orbit of the authentic satellites' almanacs.
Obviously once you have half a dozen independant/orthoganal nav systems on board, it is not that difficult to detect one or two slightly errant systems.
True, but with the exception of IRU and radio/laser altimeters, building, maintaining, and validating independent nav-aids becomes hideously expensive. Currently I am pretty sure IRU and altimeters are used at various phases of flight to sanity check or provide redundancy to the GPS fix.
Hopefully, this is properly considered when they start implementing any NextGen systems.
I think the NextGen transponder design is pretty much nailed down and being installed in a significant test fleet of planes. I'm not aware of any resolution to this question. I doubt there will be a change unless something pushes the FAA to that.
I didn't say, and didn't mean to imply GPS was required for autoland. I could have been more clear by saying GPS, along with several other technologies (such as instrument landing system and autopilots and radio or laser altimeters), allows 2 things, a lower decision height to land during reduced visibility conditions, and automated approach through to landing. If I had re-read the question, maybe I would have noticed the author's emphasis on "right before touchdown." As it was I answered based on approach through landing and gave a lot of information he didn't ask for.
I'm not a GPS expert, but I believe the GPS spoofers they speak of couldn't push the navigation fix off by hundreds of meters unless the GPS receiver wasn't receiving any other satellites. If a spoofer was active, it would degrade the GPS receivers's own calculated navigational accuracy. At some relatively low point, probably measured in the single digit meters, an aviation certified GPS receiver would treat it as a navigation fix lost and all normal alternative safety procedures would apply.
Aircraft also have barometric altimeters and most commercial aircraft have laser altimeters. If the GPS altimeter diverged enough, the altimeter reading would be flagged as potentially in error. The pilot would know to turn off the autopilot and proceed to an airport with a visual approach. In current aircraft regulation policy, when you are landing, the pilot is treated as the final failover system and "machine vision system" that permits the automated process to proceed.
I didn't follow the difference you think between a failover system that can route around obvious jamming, vs a system that reliably decides a signal input is unreliable. GPS is treated as one navigation input (granted the primary one since it is also the most accurate when working correctly). Aircraft that rely on it must have methods to determine when it is not operating to the required accuracy and manage around that situation safely. I don't see an alternative philosophical method to that. The only difference would be having even more navigation methods with more equal weight and more complicated voting schemes.
The situation brought up in the article and this thread isn't even the most concerning problem in my opinion for NextGen navigation. The real problem that may come back to bite us in the butt is the transponders on the plane. In a pure NextGen system, there is no radar on the ground that can independently verify planes are where they say they are. Only the aircraft's onboard transponder reports its location to air traffic control computers. There is nothing to prevent a rogue actor from spoofing many thousands of airplanes airborne in a small area (in effect DDoSing the system) or creating a transponder that misrepresents where the aircraft really is.
LORAN is just as susceptible to jamming as GPS signals. You can also create GPS ground stations (much like Loran) that emulate satellites for at least a 2D fix. Add one satellite or a laser altimeter and you have a 3D fix. I think it was reasonable to decommission Loran and standardize on 1 technology, even if we should have ramped up replacement technology like GPS ground stations instead of treating them as a redundant cost savings opp.
Because properly operating 4G product is a FCC licensed technology, radio interference by definition is not. The better question may be, why did the FCC license a technology that can interfere with another critical product?
Perhaps Samsung is the manufacturer of this GPS jammer, and the Galaxy S was the test unit.
It would affect nothing. Pilots have a "decision height" at which point they must go around if they can't see the runway. GPS, along with several other technologies, allows 2 things, a lower decision height, and automated landings. Rules that regulate pilots and avionics require that the pilot is always able to identify a failure, and to be reasonably able to safely recover from a failure using alternative instruments or procedures. If the plane's GPS were to loose a fix, it would set off an alarm, and the pilot would either immediately start a go-around, or s/he would choose to land manually.
Planes also have an IRU (internal reference unit) or laser gyroscope that is able to dead reckon where the plane is based on the fact of knowing where an aircraft was at some previous point, and summing up all of the movements of the aircraft since that point. Before GPS, using IRUs were the primary automated navigation tool for commercial aircraft. So even in the event of a loss of GPS fix, the aircraft still knows exactly where it is for a long period of time. I don't know if the IRU can feed its location fix back into the NextGen aircraft transponder (which normally uses GPS) that reports to air traffic control computers where the aircraft is.
Amazon's content filtering may be on-par with the industry. But if any customer has the temerity to forward Wikileaks docs through their bulk email service, I bet we'll find out that their "spam" filter is better than we thought.
Yeah... because one extra click on "Search instead for TIPC layer3" is too hard?
From experience, Samsung is not a preferable alternative to HTC when speaking of locking down, and failing to upgrade smart phones. Unfortunately HTC, and some models of Nokia are best, and that's it for the big boys. I loved my first Samsung LCD computer monitor I bought in 2002. Since then, it has been all down hill, and I would prefer other vendors to Samsung.
If I am right about what the parent poster meant, then s/he believes the residents of Kenya have an absolute and immediate right to this information once discovered, to be able to hold their government accountable to the best of their ability. And that the diplomats that discovered this information committed an unethical act by not publicly releasing it.
If we (being non Kenyan citizens) are so paternalistic that we believe we know better how to release this information to minimize suffering in their country, then we also have a moral obligation to explain to those citizens why we believe not engaging in military action to remove the corrupt parts of their government to protect those citizens interest will result in less suffering.
And gauging from the Wikileaks cable releases, it is pretty clear US diplomats and involved politicians are not professionals in international relations either.
We as US citizens didn't elect many of the involved people. They were acting as proxies through our elected officials, or through contracts with our government approved by elected officials. Some of these elected officials have demonstrated they are incompetent or malicious, and their violations of the trust we placed in their elected positions should be public and they should be held accountable.
I don't think the parent meant messenger as being an involved party in the transmission or receipt of the message. Valid or not, I believe the parent was working from the belief that citizens of a country have an absolute right to information regarding corruption in their government. And Wikileaks regardless of how they acquired this information, was the messenger to the people of Kenya. Reworded - don't blame someone for providing information regarding illegal activities, for the death of others who died reacting to those illegal activities.
I'd suggest getting some new healthcare professionals. It is sad when Wikipedia is a more authoritative source of information than someone who spent 10 years in medical school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal
The short version is it has been in use since the early 1930's when all other alternative bactericides and fungicides reduced the effectivity of the vaccine. Do we have better alternatives today, including single dose vaccines? Yes. Rich countries can afford single dose vaccines, but they weren't affordable or practical 80 years ago, and they still aren't in poor countries today.
The quantity of mercury you get in your system is probably lower than a good lick off a cheaply painted Chinese toy. Getting an alternative bactericide FDA approved for injectable use would be extremely expensive. Thiomersol has saved thousands of children that would have died in the past 80 years from vaccine contamination. It isn't the devil we make it out to be. Though it is good we are eliminating it from childhood vaccines.
SISSy... I love it!
I have a MythTV that is somewhat of a time hog because I am constantly tweaking and updating it as part of a home server, when I should leave well enough alone. I use the MythTV more (but only slightly more) than my Roku Netflix player. Netflix lets me watch TV series on premium channels I don't subscribe to like Showtime (though a year late). But for watching current TV series, on major networks, time-shifted, and with the advertisements automatically cut out, nothing beats Myth (or other advanced DVR).
Well I think my actual ad cost at around $0.50/GB would be several dollars a month, but it would be interesting to investigate. It is a valid point that as long as ads don't get increasingly bloated, and bandwidth costs continue to go down, fighting for several dollars a month as advertisers get better avoiding blocks probably isn't worth it.
Personally the only large downloads I do is regular Ubuntu updates and the occasional Netflix viewing on my Roku or Wii. I don't think NF can be cached by any set top box player, and for any significant amount of a movie to be cached in the Windows player you have to Haxor it up. That's not a very good solution. I would also be annoyed by having to manage my viewing habits 24 hrs in advance. Not having to do this was supposed to be an advantage of NF streaming.
I'm also not convinced that internet providers would generally even provide non-metered times even if they were sub-prime. Right now they could offer plans that are say 2mb/256kb from 6am to midnight weekdays and 30mb/3mb from midnight to 6am weekdays and most of the weekend, yet for various reasons they don't other than the standard congestion and oversubscribing. If they did start providing time-binned download limits, I could adjust. What I greatly fear is segmenting the internet to where you can get a cheap plan with unmetered access to a few provider dictated websites and a very low allotment to the wider internet, or much more expensive plans with reasonable allotments to the whole internet.
If that is where we are going, I think franchise agreements should be prohibited, the last mile should be owned by the municipality, and any internet provider should be allowed to lease space wholesale on the network to access customers.
And it will likely be years from now if they ever get streaming on Linux. I used to get POed about this, since I only use Linux at home. But ever since I can get a Roku box for less than $100, or watch on my Wii (or if you have a PS3 or Xbox), it has mostly been a non-issue. I see how they don't want to invest big $$$ to create a custom studio approved DRM system on Linux, for such a small base of users.
This has exactly happened to me watching Fringe and Glee. I've quit watching Fringe on air day, and been catching back up using (supposely less lucrative ad rates) Hulu. Glee I may watch a couple from the beginning on iTunes, but for most I'll probably wait until Netflix has on DVD.
"These are precisely the channels that, in an a-la-carte system, the most subscribers would be buying"
I don't know that is entirely true. ESPN is expensive because many men insist on having it, and Disney can use their joint marketing power to require it to be carried on basic cable, or to not allow it to be a separate package of premium sports channels. I still bet 30% of cable subscribers would cancel ESPN if they could, which is a substantial minority, not really esoteric tastes.
"But on average, a-la-carte will mean higher prices (from higher costs), with the less flexibility."
I'm far from convinced this will be true either. I don't see how a-la-carte creates less flexibility under any circumstance. Yes bundling could create administrative complexities that raise cost. But it can almost completely be automated, and most cable systems are already set up to do a-la-carte, they just chose to bundle due to revenue/marketing/license considerations. But given the 3x increased cost from broadcast only (which one can reasonably assume is mostly the physical plant and fixed costs) to the lowest cable package, there is a lot of fat in there that many customers can choose to cut.
And I pay $61 for supposedly unlimited, but I expect I would get some polite notices to knock it off if I went over 200gigs/mo, so I really pay about $0.60/GB, but would probably get cancelled at the $0.31/GB level.
It is similar to my electric bill, but I do monitor standby power losses, and unplug or get rid of appliances that are too piggy. Acceptable standby power losses generally add to the functionality and convenience of using the product. Internet advertisements 99% of the time do neither.
Whether the difference of blocking ads or not is noticeable to your bill will depend on if you do a lot of streaming and downloads that eats bandwidth, or a lot of static webpage viewing where the fancy animated ads use more bandwidth than the content.
In the end it is more about principle, for me to pay for delivery of a product, your product better be valuable to me. And if it becomes an issue for many consumers, I am sure the already automated processes for creating, maintaining, and distributing hosts files will require little time to set up and virtually no time to use, so the transaction is frictionless.
There are multiple groups that will be affected negatively. Media distributors like Netflix will be hurt, but if enough people implement ad blocks out of principle or because it makes enough difference to be worthwhile, it will hurt advertisers, free to the consumer content producers, and ad servers (like Google) as well.
Your proposed reality land sounds both like a reasonable prediction, and something to be utterly terrified of. Given the ologopoly of landline internet providers, that data interconnection charges between providers I don't believe usually bin price by time, and the fact the internet is now relatively heavily loaded on the evenings from ~6pm to midnight, I'm not so sure you'll get evenings free, possibly just midnight to 6am and weekend days. That's not terribly helpful.
And regardless of what strained legal reasoning is used, no one should be subject to US law that is either not a US citizen, or physically inside US jurisdiction. Also, just because something is determined to be "illegal" doesn't mean it is dangerous or should be stopped. It just means the current government has decided it is threatening to its interest.
I guess there are still a lot of customers tolerating over $100/month cable bills? Not me. For the past year I've paid out the nose for "fast" internet (15/2 at $60/mo), and broadcast only cable $12/mo, and had a Netflix account. I wouldn't go back. 99% of cable programming is crap. I get better quality for less money.
I bet you are wrong about that for most consumers. From what I understand, many channels may not cost much, but there are a few that cost a lot (like ESPN which I care nothing about) and when you have 200 or more channels, even a little cost starts to add up fast. Of course there will be a few where the price goes up and they complain.
In my area, broadcast only is the lowest level and it costs about $12/mo, which is what I have now. The next cheapest basic package is $40 plus about $8 per TV connected due to the required cable box for most digital channels being encrypted. That's a huge difference. I'd be willing to pay $12, plus a few dollars a month for a few channels that I really want. But most of the garbage they offer is just that, and I don't want to pay 3 or more times what I pay now for about 3 more channels that I do want. I also don't really want another damn box connected to my TV. Cablecards should be $2/month, or I should be able to buy a set top box for a one time fee of about $80.
I wouldn't mind being required to have the minimum channel order time be 30 days, or if I have to get my request completed by an agent, having a reasonable charge for that. It wouldn't be reasonable to be able to order channels for one day when a show was on, and waste agent's time connecting and reconnecting channels repeatedly. But since this can easily be automated, there also shouldn't be one year commitments for channels, or $30 per channel connection and disconnection charges.
I've never much minded internet advertisements as long as they weren't popups, popovers, or popunders. But if I have to start paying for every bit delivered to me, my hosts file is gonna get big fast, adblock and javascript blocking will become required addons for all my web browsers. Every business that advertises on the web should be screaming bloody murder at internet providers to not implement this. It will decimate the internet revenue model for many companies.