You can now ensure that you're not going to be hit by hidden fees and taxes before you sign up with an internet service provider (ISP). Starting today, big ISPs with more than 100,000 subscribers will be required to display "nutrition labels" both in store and online under a new FCC rule. Those labels have to show the companies' plans, fees and any additional costs, such as activation fees and upfront or rental fees for modems and other equipment. 

They also have to show whether a particular amount that's being advertised is an introductory or a discounted rate and how long you can enjoy that lower rate. Plus, the labels have to indicate each particular plan's download and upload speeds, as well as any early termination fee associated with it. ISPs can't hide these labels behind multiple clicks or camouflage them with other elements that make them hard to see. They have to be accessible from your customer account portal, and ISPs should give you a copy if you ask. 

The FCC first floated the idea of nutrition labels for ISPs back in 2016, but it wasn't until 2022 that it formally introduced rules requiring them to be displayed at the companies' points of sale. As you can see in the image below, it resembles the nutrition labels for food and will (theoretically and hopefully) account for every dollar you pay for a wired or wireless plan. Back when the rule was announced, FCC Chairperson Jessica Rosenworcel explained that the agency chose to approve and implement it as part of its efforts to "end the kind of unexpected fees and junk costs that can get buried in long and mind-numbingly confusing statements of terms and conditions."

Based on the FCC's website, providers with less than 100,000 subscribers will be given a bit more time to comply and have until October 10. And in case you come across any ISP that isn't displaying any label even when they should or is showing inaccurate information, you can file a complaint with the commission through its official portal. 

FCC

OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and other companies developing generative AI are continuing to improve their technologies and releasing better and better large language models. In order to create a common approach for independent evaluation on the safety of those models as they come out, the UK and the US governments have signed a Memorandum of Understanding. Together, the UK's AI Safety Institute and its counterpart in the US, which was announced by Vice President Kamala Harris but has yet to begin operations, will develop suites of tests to assess the risks and ensure the safety of "the most advanced AI models."

They're planning to share technical knowledge, information and even personnel as part of the partnership, and one of their initial goals seems to be performing a joint testing exercise on a publicly accessible model. UK's science minister Michelle Donelan, who signed the agreement, told The Financial Times that they've "really got to act quickly" because they're expecting a new generation of AI models to come out over the next year. They believe those models could be "complete game-changers," and they still don't know what they could be capable of. 

According to The Times, this partnership is the first bilateral arrangement on AI safety in the world, though both the US and the UK intend to team up with other countries in the future. "AI is the defining technology of our generation. This partnership is going to accelerate both of our Institutes' work across the full spectrum of risks, whether to our national security or to our broader society," US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said. "Our partnership makes clear that we aren't running away from these concerns — we're running at them. Because of our collaboration, our Institutes will gain a better understanding of AI systems, conduct more robust evaluations, and issue more rigorous guidance."

While this particular partnership is focused on testing and evaluation, governments around the world are also conjuring regulations to keep AI tools in check. Back in March, the White House signed an executive order aiming to ensure that federal agencies are only using AI tools that "do not endanger the rights and safety of the American people." A couple of weeks before that, the European Parliament approved sweeping legislation to regulate artificial intelligence. It will ban "AI that manipulates human behavior or exploits people’s vulnerabilities," "biometric categorization systems based on sensitive characteristics," as well as the "untargeted scraping" of faces from CCTV footage and the web to create facial recognition databases. In addition, deepfakes and other AI-generated images, videos and audio will need to be clearly labeled as such under its rules. 

Long before Gmail became smart enough to finish your sentences, Google’s now-ubiquitous email service was buttering up the public for a fate that defined the internet age: if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.

When Gmail was announced on April 1, 2004, its lofty promises and the timing of its release reportedly had people assuming it was a joke. It wasn’t the first web-based email provider — Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail had already been around for years — but Gmail was offering faster service, automatic conversation grouping for messages, integrated search functions and 1GB of storage, which was at the time a huge leap forward in personal cloud storage. Google in its press release boasted that a gigabyte was “more than 100 times” what its competitors offered. All of that, for free.

Except, as Gmail and countless tech companies in its wake have taught us, there’s no such thing as free. Using Gmail came with a tradeoff that’s now commonplace: You get access to its service, and in exchange, Google gets your data. Specifically, its software could scan the contents of account holders’ emails and use that information to serve them personalized ads on the site’s sidebar. For better or worse, it was a groundbreaking approach.

“Depending on your take, Gmail is either too good to be true, or it’s the height of corporate arrogance, especially coming from a company whose house motto is ‘Don’t Be Evil,’” tech journalist Paul Boutin wrote for Slate when Gmail launched. (Boutin, one of its early media testers, wrote favorably about Google’s email scanning but suggested the company implement a way for users to opt out lest they reject it entirely.)

There was immediate backlash from those who considered Gmail to be a privacy nightmare, yet it grew — and generated a lot of hype, thanks to its invite-only status in the first few years, which spurred a reselling market for Gmail invitations at upwards of $150 a pop, according to TIME. Google continued its ad-related email scanning practices for over a decade, despite the heat, carrying on through Gmail’s public rollout in 2007 and well into the 2010s, when it really started gaining traction.

And why not? If Gmail proved anything, it was that people would, for the most part, accept such terms. Or at least not care enough to read the fine-print closely. In 2012, Gmail became the world’s largest email service, with 425 million active users.

Other sites followed Google’s lead, baking similar deals into their terms of service, so people’s use of the product would automatically mean consent to data collection and specified forms of sharing. Facebook started integrating targeted ads based on its users’ online activities in 2007, and the practice has since become a pillar of social media’s success.

Things have changed a lot in recent years, though, with the rise of a more tech-savvy public and increased scrutiny from regulators. Gmail users on multiple occasions attempted to bring about class-action lawsuits over the scanning issue, and in 2017, Google finally caved. That year, the company announced that regular Gmail users’ emails would no longer be scanned for ad personalization (paid enterprise Gmail accounts already had this treatment).

Google, of course, still collects users’ data in other ways and uses the information to serve hyper-relevant ads. It still scans emails too, both for security purposes and to power some of its smart features. And the company came under fire again in 2018 after The Wall Street Journal revealed it was allowing third-party developers to trawl users’ Gmail inboxes, to which Google responded by reminding users it was within their power to grant and revoke those permissions. As CNET reporters Laura Hautala and Richard Nieva wrote then, Google’s response more or less boiled down to: “This is what you signed up for.”

Really, what users signed up for was a cutting-edge email platform that ran laps around the other services at the time, and in many ways still does. It made the privacy concerns, for some, easier to swallow. From its inception, Gmail set the bar pretty high with its suite of free features. Users could suddenly send files of up to 25MB and check their email from anywhere as long as they had access to an internet connection and a browser, since it wasn’t locked to a desktop app.

It popularized the cloud as well as the Javascript technique AJAX, Wired noted in a piece for Gmail’s 10-year anniversary. This made Gmail dynamic, allowing the inbox to automatically refresh and surface new messages without the user clicking buttons. And it more or less did away with spam, filtering out junk messages.

Still, when Gmail first launched, it was considered by many to be a huge gamble for Google — which had already established itself with its search engine. “A lot of people thought it was a very bad idea, from both a product and a strategic standpoint,” Gmail creator Paul Buchheit told TIME in 2014. “The concern was this didn’t have anything to do with web search.”

Things obviously worked out alright, and Gmail’s dominion has only strengthened. Gmail crossed the one billion user mark in 2016, and its numbers have since doubled. It’s still leading the way in email innovation, 20 years after it first went online, integrating increasingly advanced features to make the process of receiving and responding to emails (which, let’s be honest, is a dreaded daily chore for a lot of us) much easier. Gmail may eventually have changed its approach to data collection, but the precedent it set is now deeply enmeshed in the exchange of services on the internet; companies take what data they can from consumers while they can and ask for forgiveness later.

In October, Microsoft unbundled Teams from Microsoft 365 and Office 365 suites in the European Union and Switzerland to avoid potential fines. Now, the company is expanding this offering, selling Microsoft Teams separately from Microsoft 365 and Office 365 worldwide, Reuters reports. "Doing so also addresses feedback from the European Commission by providing multinational companies more flexibility when they want to standardise their purchasing across geographies," a Microsoft spokesperson told the publication.

Current users can now choose to keep their current deal or switch to one of the separate offerings — especially helpful for anyone who uses the Office suite but prefers another communication service like Zoom or Google Meet. Commercial customers new to Microsoft's offerings can pick up Teams on its own for $5.25, while Office sans Teams is going for anywhere from $7.75 to $54.75.

Microsoft's journey to unbundling Teams and Office started in 2020 when Slack filed an antitrust complaint with the EU. The now Salesforce-owned company alleged that it was illegal to include Teams in the Office suite and that Microsoft was blocking customers from removing the chat platform. The European Commission has subsequently been investigating this matter, with Microsoft announcing in April 2023 that it would separate Teams from Microsoft 35 and Office 365. Though the move went into effect last fall, Microsoft is still at risk of owing the EU a hefty fine if found to have broken antitrust laws.

AT&T says 7.6 million current customers were affected by a recent leak in which sensitive data was released on the dark web, along with 65.4 million former account holders. TechCrunch first reported on Saturday morning that the company has reset the passcodes of all affected active accounts, and AT&T confirmed the move in an update published on its support page. The data set, which AT&T says “appears to be from 2019 or earlier,” includes names, home addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth and Social Security numbers, according to TechCrunch.

TechCrunch reports that it alerted AT&T about the potential for the leaked data to be used to access customers accounts on Monday, after a security researcher discovered that the records included easily decipherable encrypted passcodes. AT&T has since said that it’s launched an investigation into the issue, but so far “does not have evidence of unauthorized access to its systems resulting in exfiltration of the data set.” The data appeared on the dark web about two weeks ago, according to AT&T.

It comes three years after a hacker known as ShinyHunters claimed in 2021 that they’d obtained the account data of 73 million AT&T customers. AT&T at the time told BleepingComputer that it had not suffered a breach and that samples of information shared by the hacker online did “not appear to have come from our systems.” The company now says that “it is not yet known whether the data in those fields originated from AT&T or one of its vendors.”

AT&T says it is working with cybersecurity experts and will reach out to both current and former account holders who have been affected by the leak. The company also says it will offer credit monitoring to those customers “where applicable.”

If you're in the US, you might see a new shaded section at the top of your Google Search results with a summary answering your inquiry, along with links for more information. That section, generated by Google's generative AI technology, used to appear only if you've opted into the Search Generative Experience (SGE) in the Search Labs platform. Now, according to Search Engine Land, Google has started adding the experience on a "subset of queries, on a small percentage of search traffic in the US." And that is why you could be getting Google's experimental AI-generated section even if you haven't switched it on. 

The company introduced SGE at its I/O developer conference in May last year, shortly after it opened up access to its ChatGPT rival Bard, now called Gemini. By November, it had rolled out the feature to 120 countries with more languages other than English, but it still remained opt in. Search Engine Land says Google will start showing you the experience even if you haven't opted in if you look up complex queries or if it thinks you could benefit from getting information from multiple websites. "How do I get marks off painted walls," is apparently one example. 

Google told the publication that for these tests, it will only show AI overviews if it has confidence that they will show information better than what Search results might surface. Apparently, the company is conducting these tests, because it wants to get feedback from more people, specifically from those who didn't choose to activate the feature. That way it can have a better idea of how generative AI can serve those who may not be tech-savvy or those who couldn't care less about generative AI. 

Google just announced that it has been using AI to successfully predict riverline floods, up to seven days in advance in some cases. This isn’t just tech company hyperbole, as the findings were actually published in the esteemed science journal Nature. Floods are the most common natural disaster throughout the world, so any early warning system is good news.

Floods have been notoriously tricky to predict, as most rivers don’t have streamflow gauges. Google got around this problem by training machine learning models with all kinds of relevant data, including historical events, river level readings, elevation and terrain readings and more. After that, the company generated localized maps and ran “hundreds of thousands” of simulations in each location. This combination of techniques allowed the models to accurately predict upcoming floods.

The approach built “highly accurate models for very particular locations”, but Google hopes to use these techniques to eventually solve the problem at global scale. While the company did successfully predict some floods a full seven days in advance, the average came in at around five days. Still, Google’s confident that it has extended the “reliability of currently-available global nowcasts from zero to five days.” It’s also significantly improved forecasting in underrepresented regions, like some parts of Africa and Asia.

All told, this technology allowed Google to provide accurate flood forecasting in 80 countries, with a total population of 460 million. The company made these forecasts available in Google Search, Google Maps, and via Android notifications. This information is also available via the company’s proprietary Flood Hub web app, which began operations back in 2022.

So what’s next? Google will continue to explore the “potential of machine learning to create better flood forecasting models” and has teamed up with academic researchers to fine tune the AI-driven approach. The company hopes this will eventually result in a “global end-to-end flood forecasting platform.”

Meta is continuing its slow march toward compatibility with the fediverse. The company has been experimenting with making posts from a handful of accounts available on Mastodon since the end of last year. Now, it’s offered a brief preview of how the integration works and what it might look like once more people have the ability to share from Threads directly to the fediverse.

Instagram engineer Peter Cottle gave a short presentation on “Threads in the Fediverse” at FediForum, a virtual event for decentralized social media enthusiasts. In the demo, Cottle explains how Threads users will be able to opt-in to fediverse sharing and offered some insight into how Meta is thinking about its role in the fediverse.

In a short video demo, first spotted by The Verge, Cottle shows off a new account setting called “fediverse sharing.” As the name suggests, the menu will enable users to make their posts viewable from Mastodon and other platforms that use ActivityPub. Notably, it appears to also come with lengthy disclaimers explaining exactly what that will mean for their content.

“I think it's actually kind of tricky for Threads because we have like 130 million people using it monthly, but a lot of people haven't heard of the fediverse,” Cottle said. “But we want to give them the ability to enter that kind of experience. So we have to both explain the fediverse and explain all the disclaimers and then make sure they feel good about the outcome.”

Visually, the fediverse will be represented on Threads by an icon that looks a bit like a planet (the symbol has previously been spotted in code in the app). Cottle explained that users who have enabled fediverse sharing will have the symbol viewable on their profiles and that they’ll see an indication in the app’s composer if a post will be visible in the fediverse. Cottle also confirmed that only public-facing accounts will have the ability to share to the fediverse. He also noted that users will have a 5-minute window before posts go live in order to make any changes or edits as Threads can’t guarantee a deleted Threads post is also deleted from the fediverse.

The demo comes as Meta has started to add a few more accounts to its fediverse sharing experiment. Right now, Mastodon users can follow Instagram chief Adam Mosseri and a handful of other Threads users, but the company hasn’t provided an update on when the functionality will be more widely available. Cottle’s demo also didn’t delve into how sharing from Mastoodn and other ActivityPub-enabled services intoThreads might work. (Right now, if a Mastodon user replies to a Threads post, the reply is only visible on Mastodon, not on Threads.)

But Cottle’s demo is another sign that Meta is taking the growing momentum for decentralized social media seriously. “I know there's a ton of skepticism about threads entering the fediverse, it's completely understandable,” Cottle said. “But I do want to make a plea that I think everyone on the team has really good intentions. We really want to be a really good member of the community and give people the ability to experience what the fediverse is and the power of a protocol.”

Another week, another concerted effort to ban TikTok in the US – except this time, it could actually happen. In this episode, Cherlynn and Devindra chat with Engadget Senior Editor Karissa Bell around the latest TikTok drama. The House passed a bill that could ultimately ban the company if ByteDance doesn’t sell it off within six months. It may face a tougher fight in the Senate, but if it’s approved there President Biden has said he’s willing to sign it into law.

Is this a justified fight against the Chinese-owned social media company, or is it the sum of our political fears against all things China? (Maybe it’s a bit of both?) We discuss why this potential ban could be a huge civil rights violation, as well as the need for true data privacy laws in the US, which would apply to all social networks.

Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcast, Engadget News!

Topics

• U.S. House passes bill that would give Bytedance 6 months to sell TikTok – 0:47

• Microsoft’s Surface and AI event preview – 17:04

• Apple will allow EU users to download some apps from websites – 27:38

• Five Tesla execs earned $2.5B over the last five years while the company paid no income tax – 34:53

• Around Engadget – 44:57

• Working on – 48:31

• Pop culture picks – 50:17

Subscribe!

• iTunes

• Spotify

• Pocket Casts

• Stitcher

• Google Podcasts

Credits
Hosts: Cherlynn Low and Devindra Hardawar
Guest: Karissa Bell
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien

The FCC has raised the speeds required to describe internet service as “broadband” for the first time since 2015. The agency’s annual high-speed internet assessment concluded that 100 Mbps downloads and 20 Mbps uploads will be the new standard. The news will likely irk ISPs who would love to keep pointing to 25 Mbps / 3 Mbps speeds (the previous standards) and convincing people they’re getting high-speed broadband.

The FCC’s report broke down several areas where the country’s online infrastructure falls short. The agency concluded that broadband isn’t being deployed quickly enough to serve Americans, especially those in rural areas and those living on Tribal lands. “These gaps in deployment are not closing rapidly enough,” the agency wrote in its report.

More specifically, the agency said fixed terrestrial broadband service (not including satellite) has yet to be deployed to around 24 million Americans, including about 28 percent of people in rural areas and over 23 percent of those living on Tribal lands. On the mobile front, it added that about nine percent of Americans (including 36 percent in rural areas and over 20 percent on Tribal lands) lack adequate 5G cellular speeds of at least 35 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up.

The report set a long-term goal of broadband speeds of 1 Gbps down / 500 Mbps up “to give stakeholders a collective goal towards which to strive.” Those numbers may hint at where the Commission would like to move the goalposts the next time it updates them. In 2015, when the commission set the 25 Mbps / 3 Mbps requirements, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel commented, “Frankly, it should be 100 Mbps”—the benchmark the agency finally moved to today, nine years later.

The FCC can’t police ISPs to force them to boost their speeds, but this type of move may be the best card it can play. What it can do is prevent them from marketing their services as “broadband” internet if they don’t meet these thresholds. It remains to be seen whether the companies providing the infrastructure play ball or opt for other marketing buzzwords to sell customers on glacial and outdated internet speeds.