Industry

Toshiba just announced its QLC (Quad-Level Cell) NAND flash, something we talk about in our upcoming news video, and has further claimed that the new 96GB (768Gb) units will compete with TLC NAND in total program/erase endurance. This is Toshiba’s new 64-layer NAND that hasn’t yet made it into consumer products, but likely will make the move within the next year. Like TLC, QLC increases the count of voltage states (now 16) to increase the bits per cell, thereby increasing storage capacity per cell.

This episode of Ask GN posts on the tail of the X299 and Kaby Lake X / Skylake X embargo lift and in the midst of the newest cryptocurrency craze, which has set upon the video card market like a swarm of locusts.

We’re addressing two general questions we’ve seen around the internet, then following-up with reader/viewer-submitted questions. If you’d like to pose a question for the next Ask GN, the best place to do so would be in either our Patreon discord or in the video comments.

Timestamps below.

We’ve been writing about the latest memory and Flash price increases for a bit now – and this does seem to happen every few years – but relief remains distant. The memory supply is limited for a few reasons right now, including new R&D processes by the big suppliers (Samsung, Toshiba, SK Hynix, Micron) as some of the suppliers attempt to move toward new process technology. More immediately and critical, the phone industry’s launch cycle is on the horizon, and that means drastically increased memory sales to phone vendors. Supply is finite – it has to come out of inventory somewhere, and that tends to be components. As enthusiasts, that’s where we see the increased prices come into play.

We previously wrote about the need for net neutrality, adding our voice to the chorus of others on and off the internet that demanded the internet and net neutrality be protected. As a result of this outcry – and, honestly, basic logic – the FCC moved to protect net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs as Title II. Unfortunately, the new chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, has revealed his plan to roll back net neutrality. 9 senators recently introduced a bill identical to a previous bill by the name of Restoring Internet Freedom Act. This bill seeks to remove the FCC’s jurisdiction over ISPs entirely and thus nullify the net neutrality rules the FCC previously set in place. These moves to kill net neutrality are just as disastrous of a choice as they were just a few years ago, so we naturally still oppose it. Before covering how you can let your opinion be known, let’s briefly review what net neutrality is and why it is needed.

As of April 3rd, 2017, President Trump signed into law a number of resolutions, among them was S.J. 34—the legislation nullifying privacy rules for customers of broadband services.

This was largely no surprise, given the stance that both the current administration and the newly appointed head of the FCC have adopted. The reversal of the rules traveled quick enough through the House and Senate that constituents had little chance to mitigate the overturn. We’ve covered this issue since it became public news, but in the event you’re not up to date, the now non-existent rules would have required ISPs to obtain clear consent before using data for advertising and other monetary purposes.

“What the hell do you have to lose?”

That was the question that now President Trump asked the American people while campaigning. The answer? Internet privacy rights. That’s on top of the other regulations that, according to the current administration, stifle innovation and are harmful to business.

In a vote along party lines, House Republicans successfully voted to repeal privacy protections that were set to go in effect December 2017. All that is left is for President Trump to sign and approve the measure, and there is no reason to believe he will do otherwise. The conservative lawmakers controlling both the House and Senate were not alone in the crusade against digital rights—far from it. Several advertising trade associations both urged and applauded the action, as can be read in this statement. The Internet and Television Association, which represents many broadband providers, has praised the votes against the new rules. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has also staunchly opposed both narrow privacy regulations and net neutrality. For readers unfamiliar with the latter group, their espousal to limited government politics and “virtuous capitalism” is particularly laughable. As expected, they too applauded the deregulatory move.

Also worth mentioning is the chump change needed to sway lawmakers. Put another away: how much does privacy cost? Granted, buying Senators and Congress members isn’t exclusive to one party line or another, but one party responded remarkably well to it for this vote. This list details the contributions made to Senators supporting anti-privacy since 2012. Additionally, this list details how much money Congress members have received. While it seems easy to make an overly simplistic connection between money and votes—and neither party is above taking charitable donations from varying industries—it is worth noting that this vote was extremely partisan, and no champion of the bill offered to substantiate the reason this legislation is good for consumers, other than uttering elusive “anti-consumer” and “free market” platitudes. Similar regurgitant is being recited while plans to unwind the EPA, renewable energy, and climate change policies are being put in motion.

While this kind of regression in the digital age is alarming, there are other policies in place that protect consumers, albeit not to the same extent. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act all have privacy provisions relating to customer information. Specifically, Title II, Section 222 of the Telecommunications Act imposes privacy requirements; however, they are from 1996 and mostly apply to telecom services. The FCC vowed to write new internet-specific rules regarding how ISPs are to handle privacy. In a rare win for privacy advocates, the rules (which passed last year) explicitly detailed how ISPs were to store and handle data, and offer customers clear notices and opt-in requirements. Those rules are all but nullified now. If AT&T’s arguably unconstitutional surveillance business model is any indicator, archaic laws are not sufficient for modern internet access.

Kingston Digital was responsible for a full 16% of SSDs shipped in 2016, according to data compiled by research firm Forward Insights. This puts their market share in second place, just behind Samsung’s 21%.

Take Action: How You Can Save Internet Privacy

By Published March 27, 2017 at 5:00 pm

Last year the FCC laid out landmark rules protecting internet privacy. Now, the current FCC leadership and members of the U.S. Senate are actively seeking to erase them. In fact, S.J. Res. 34 has already passed the Senate, and H.J. Res. 86—The House version of the bill—goes to Congress immediately. The House plans to take up the legislation this week, and we can be assured that is so constituents are not afforded the opportunity to learn the damage that is being done.

For those in need of a primer, eliminating the privacy protections will allow ISPs to aggressively monetize personal data without consent—to the tune of selling internet activity to marketers, targeted advertising, and redirecting traffic to paying third parties. For those interested in acting—and that should be everyone who uses the internet—towards preserving the rights to online privacy, here are some ways to get involved.

The right-to-repair bills (otherwise known as “Fair Repair”) that are making their way across a few different states are facing staunch opposition from The Entertainment Software Association, a trade organization including Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo as well as many video game developers and publishers. The proposed legislation would not only make it easier for consumers to fix consoles, but electronics in general, including cell phones. Bills have been introduced in Nebraska, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, and Kansas. Currently, the bill is the furthest along in Nebraska where the ESA have concentrated lobbying efforts.

Console makers have been a notable enemy of aftermarket repair, but they are far from alone; both Apple and John Deere have vehemently opposed this kind of legislation. In a letter to the Copyright Office, John Deere asserted—among other spectacular delusions, like owners only have an implied license to operate the tractor—that allowing owners to repair, tinker with, or modify their tractors would “make it possible for pirates, third-party developers, and less innovative competitors to free-ride off the creativity, unique expression and ingenuity of vehicle software.”

ISPs Slated to Extend Invasive Privacy Reach

By Published March 25, 2017 at 3:24 pm

Senate Republicans have voted to rescind momentous laws protecting Internet privacy that the FCC wrote and adopted last year. U.S. senators voted 50 to 48 to approve a joint resolution sponsored by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz) that would prevent that privacy framework from going into effect. What’s more, the resolution seeks to bar the FCC from enacting similar laws. As of March 23rd, 2017, the resolution has passed the senate and moves toward the House where, barring a complete backlash, it will likely pass.

The Federal Communications Commission’s new rules were adopted last year to prevent ISPs from exploiting users’ behavioral data in contentious ways, such as selling it to paying third parties or creating targeted advertising. ISPs are no longer interested in just being network providers; they seek to monetize the consumer’s routine use of the internet to create their own digital economy—and they seek to do it without explicit consent. The previous FCC leadership viewed this as an overreach, thus the new privacy rules were set to go in effect. The rules primarily ensured the following:

Page 1 of 7

Advertisement:

  VigLink badge