The universe is so much bigger than what people can see, and astrophysicist Priyamvada Natarajan is trying to figure out that which we can not see. Producer Rebecca Ramirez talks with Priya and reports on the theory about some of the secret scaffolding of the universe: dark matter.
Our team would love to hear your episode ideas. Email us at [email protected].
This episode was edited by Gisele Grayson and produced by Rebecca Ramirez with help from Indi Khera. Indi also checked the facts. Marcia Caldwell was the audio engineer.
Nearly 200 miles from the nearest ocean, nine surfers are bobbing beneath the Texas sun in what looks like a tropical lagoon.
Then a sound like a muffled jet engine fills the air, overwhelming a reggae song coming from shore.
One surfer starts to paddle, and a head-high wave rises seemingly from nowhere to carry him down the line toward the sandy beach.
Seconds later, two more waves materialize and two more surfers glide off.
One of them is 12-year-old Dane Grochowski.
“I pumped down the line and did a little snap, and kind of got caught behind the section” he says, when I wade out to ask him about his ride. “So I pulled into the barrel. But I wasn’t going to make it out.”
Welcome to the BSR Surf Resort in Waco, Texas, where the machine-made waves are so good they attract top professionals as well as casual surfers.
Hawaiian surfer Carissa Moore trained here and at a similar wave pool in Japan before she won a gold medal at the Tokyo Olympics this summer.
Grochowski and his family made the trip from Pacifica, Calif. after seeing videos of the wave. “It feels like an adventure coming here ’cause it’s in the middle of nowhere,” Grochowski says.
The BSR resort has become an emblem of how a new generation of artificial waves is redefining inland surfing. It’s now clear that if you build the right wave, even in central Texas, surfers will come — and shred.
Compressed air and a computer
The BSR Surf Resort is the result of decades of progress in both the science and technology of wave making.
The wave here is generated by powerful fans that sit behind a concrete wall running along one side of the surf pool. The rest of the pool is bordered by a sandy beach, complete with cabanas and a lifeguard tower.
The fans compress air that is directed to a series of underwater chambers along the wall.
“There’s a proprietary way that that air gets released,” says Mike Schwaab, a surfer who is also the resort’s general manager. “It displaces water and that specific displacement, paired with the way that the concrete bottom is designed, is what creates a breaking wave.”
And a good one. The waves I rode during an intermediate session compared favorably to the ones I once surfed as a teenager in Southern California.
The system in Waco was designed by American Wave Machines in Solana Beach, Calif. It’s one of several companies that uses air pressure to generate surfing waves. Other companies use paddles, plungers, pistons, or even a hydrofoil dragged through the water.
In Waco, a computer algorithm controls the size, shape, and direction of each wave. “You can have a beginner wave, you can have an expert wave, you can have a wave specifically to get barreled,” Schwaab says, referring to a ride that puts a surfer inside the curl of a breaking wave.
Artificial waves have been around for decades. Disney World, for example, opened its Typhoon Lagoon Surf Pool in 1989. But the waves in these pools tended to be slow and mushy. They were designed for bathers, not surfers.
Then in 2015, 11-time World Surf League champion Kelly Slater unveiled a different kind of wave.
It breaks in an abandoned water ski park in central California. A massive hydrofoil is propelled through the water to generate the sort of fast, barreling wave that surfers’ dreams are made of.
But Slater’s wave, now controlled by the World Surf League, was never meant for the surfing masses. The machine produces about 15 waves an hour and riding just one costs hundreds of dollars. The Waco machine can make 120 waves an hour and costs surfers about $10 a ride.
That makes the wave pool commercially viable. Sessions in Waco are generally sold out weeks ahead of time. And the success is encouraging other resorts and water parks to add their own state-of-the-art surf pools.
A wave grows in Waco
Like many water parks, the one in Waco was built for a sport other than surfing.
“The dude that put it all together was a barefoot water skier and this whole place started based on barefoot water skiing,” Schwaab says.
It opened as the Barefoot Ski Ranch in 2012. Over time, the facility added a lazy river, an extreme water slide and a wakeboarding course built around an island that is home to a family of lemurs.
The BSR surf pool opened in 2018. Within weeks, a pro named Seth Moniz landed a back flip on the air section and the video went viral.
That attracted a lot of big-name surfers. But it also brought inexperienced surfers who wanted a good place to learn.
“When I started I was a beginner,” says Brian Fillmore, a Texas native who landed a job as the wave pool’s manager. “Now I’m able to get barreled, do airs, [and I’m] working on perfecting my turns just like every other surfer.”
Inventing the “freak peak”
Surfers often talk about finding the perfect wave. But they don’t want to ride the same perfect wave over and over, says Dave Likins, the facility’s chief operating officer.
“If it’s not changeable, and it’s not something that’s going to be a little bit different each time, you’re eventually going to get bored,” Likins says.
So the Waco wave was designed to be customized, just by changing a computer algorithm.
“We had an event recently out here that Rip Curl did called the GromSearch, and American Wave Machines put a new wave in, a wave that nobody had seen,” Likins says.
The most radical wave in Waco is the Freak Peak. It’s produced when two swells collide to form a wedge that serves as a launch pad for the bold.
But even the standard waves in Waco can challenge surfers used to catching ocean swells.
Rebecca Carr, who traveled from California with her husband and their three kids, nearly gave up after her first session.
“You can only [catch it] in one spot, so you have to be good to get in these waves,” she says.
Carr figured it out, though. So did I, after botching a few waves.
And Carr says she and her family will definitely return.
“I grew up two hours from here in Granbury, Texas,” she says. “So this is our family vacation every year and it just turns out now we can surf when we’re in mid Texas.
As the audio engineer for the Tiny Desk concert series, of course I obsess over how our concerts are experienced — so when I watch someone pull up a session on their smartphone, laptop or tablet, with those tiny and tinny speakers, my heart sinks a little. I’m thrilled people love these concerts as much as we love making them, but they sound so much better when played on a decent sound system, or on headphones. Sure, the concerts sound OK on a mono phone speaker, but you’d be amazed by what you’re missing once you’ve heard the audio mix on a device that can actually reproduce the low and high ends of the frequency spectrum, where all the chest-thumping bass and shimmering cymbals live.
Thankfully, audio snobs need not look on in horror (as much) anymore: great-sounding, relatively affordable smart speakers are popping up everywhere. They’re all convenient for barking questions at, like “What’s the weather on Friday,” or, “How many grams in a pound?” (454, as it turns out.) These are decidedly not the hockey-puck shaped smart devices — with no bottom end, muffled highs and a jarring mid-range — currently littering the homes of family and friends. After spending a bunch of time listening to each one, I frankly couldn’t choose a clear favorite — I just know they all sound better than what most people have in their homes.
In addition to my own assessments, I asked a group of NPR audio engineers and producers to participate in a Pepsi Challenge, to help distinguish the sound between four of the latest offerings from Sonos, Apple, Google and Amazon.
I should note that it’s possible to link any two of these units together to create a stereo pair, but I decided to test only one unit from each brand. After all, you may receive one as a gift, or buy one just to see if you like it. And not to fear, these companies make it easy to add more speakers later — though fair warning, I’ve learned that adding additional speakers is not only expensive, but habit-forming. (I mean if I’m honest, every room should have a speaker in it. And some rooms should have stereo pairs. And still others 5.1 surround. And I should be able to send any audio to any room all from my smartphone or tablet. Obviously.)
Now, the elephant hiding in the corner of the room and taking notes here is the issue of privacy; Google’s head of devices recently recommended disclosing the presence of smart speakers to your houseguests, while concerns have been raised over the devices eavesdropping without permission. If you’re worried about protecting your privacy but still intrigued, know that all of the device’s have options for disabling their mics. You can also take a look at Mozilla’s privacy-focused reviews of the devices. And Sonos makes options without a mic, controlled only by the app.
Sonos was the first company to convince me that wireless audio can rival a home stereo in audio fidelity. In 2005, they were way ahead of the competition when they released the ZonePlayer 100 — which could “wireless stream and amplify your digital music all over the house.”
Now, with the release of the Move this year, Sonos continues their tradition of being in the tech-speaker vanguard. The Move’s biggest appeal is right there in its name: It’s the only speaker in this overview that is completely untethered from both audio and power cables, thanks to a built-in rechargeable battery.
I could start my day with the Move in the bedroom, waking up to NPR One, then lift it off its included charging base via built-in handle and move it to the bathroom for an underscored shower, move it over to the kitchen to make breakfast, then move it up to my building’s rooftop to stream my yoga podcast via Bluetooth. It’s kind of like getting four speakers in one — if you’re willing, that is, to… you get it. Sonos can also play nice with both Amazon’s Alexa and Google Assistant, just not at the same time. Dedicated touch controls on the top of the speaker allow you to play/pause, swipe to skip forward or back and mute the mics. If you hold down the play/pause button on an inactive speaker, whatever is playing on another Sonos speaker on your network will magically start playing. Sonos supports countless music and news streaming services without playing favorites, unlike Apple, Google and Amazon.
The Move has a very balanced sound that comes from one mid-woofer and one downward-firing tweeter, with a wider soundscape than the (excellent-sounding) Sonos One —which is half the price, but tethered by its power cable. The Move uses Sonos’ auto-tuning feature, Trueplay, automatically every time it’s moved — with other Sonos speakers, you need the iOS version of the app to tune the devices, via your iPhone’s mic. You can, however, adjust the treble, bass and loudness in the dedicated Sonos App for both iOS and Android on all of their devices.
If you already have a Sonos system, the Move is a convenient and portable addition to their lineup. The battery will last for about 10 hours and it’s replaceable (huzzah!). It also supports Apple’s AirPlay, so you can beam audio directly from your Apple device. And if you have a Bluetooth-streaming record player, you can play it through the Move too, like any other Bluetooth source. Alas, it’s missing an aux-in jack, though does have a USB-C port for charging when the base isn’t around. It comes in just one color, an industrial greyish black, and it’s the only speaker on this list with a metal grill instead of fabric. It’s built to take a beating, and get splashed on every now and again too, with an IP56 rating protecting against dust and water. All of this makes it the most expensive smart speaker on the list.
What distinguishes HomePod from the other speakers here is that it is idiot-proof: No matter where you place it in the room, you’re guaranteed to be in the sweet spot. In fact, there is no sweet spot — even if you’re behind it. HomePod tunes itself to its surroundings, so if it’s in a corner, it retunes itself to fire sound in the opposite direction of the wall, automatically attenuating booming bass levels as well. It’s HomePod’s killer app.
Seven “beamforming” tweeters are evenly spaced out on the bottom perimeter of the speaker, which allows sound to bounce off whatever surface it’s on. The “high-excursion” — again, their word — woofer is on top, thus avoiding the possibility of rattling anything nearby.
But the tradeoff with Apple’s intuitive setup is — and this may not come as a surprise — a lack of customization options. There’s no way to adjust bass or treble, though HomePod sounds balanced no matter where you place it. If you like Siri as a virtual assistant and you’re entrenched in Apple’s unrivaled digital “ecosystem,” this is a great-sounding, no-fuss speaker. And, being from Apple, it looks great; HomePod is elegant and blends in well, especially in white.
The touch controls on the top of HomePod are intuitive. Tap once to play/pause, double tap to skip forward and triple tap to skip back. There are dedicated volume buttons, but there’s no hardware option to disable the mics (you can disable Siri in the Home app). The power cord isn’t replaceable, like the other speakers on this list. Most unfortunately, there are no Bluetooth or line-in options either, so getting your growing vinyl collection to play through the HomePod isn’t an option. Also Android users also need not apply, though there is unofficial software available that supposedly works for Airplay (I didn’t test this software). And speaking of Airplay, you can stream any application running on iOS to HomePod, like Spotify or Tidal, but having an Apple Music account is essential for barking musical requests at the smart part of this speaker.
Two woofers and two tweeters make this thing sound as big as it looks — which is saying something, since it’s about twice the size and weight of the others we tested. You can feel the low end in your gut and there’s decent stereo spread if you position yourself a few feet in front of it. It ships in white (“chalk”) and black (“charcoal”) and uses lights under the grill to indicate volume and that it’s listening to commands. Around back, there’s a dedicated switch to mute the mics and a USB-C port that can charge any device. You can also connect to the speaker via aux-in or Bluetooth, though it (unsurprisingly) stops short of integrating support for Apple’s AirPlay.
The device uses smart sound to calibrate itself, just like HomePod and Move, so room placement isn’t super critical. Thankfully, this massive speaker can be placed vertically (mono) or horizontally (stereo), and its clever touch-activated surface knows which way is up. The audio sums to mono when the speaker is vertical due to the position of the four drivers inside. When horizontal, there’s some stereo spread, and you can slide your finger across the top to adjust volume. Slide left, the volume lowers, and the lights under the speaker grill show you how much. It sounds minor, but it’s so nice to have a visual representation of volume right on the front of the speaker. (It also made this Gen X-er nostalgic for Kit, the car from the ’80s TV show Knight Rider, co-starring David Hasselhoff.)
When it comes to smart assistants, you can use… Google. That’s it — Siri and Alexa won’t help you here. Streaming service setup is easy enough, though: Once you’re logged into your accounts, you can ask the Max to natively access Google Play Music, YouTube Music, Spotify, Pandora, TuneIn and iHeartRadio. Apple Music on the Google Home Max? You’re out of luck. But with the inclusion of Bluetooth and aux-in, it’s possible — you just can’t ask Google Assistant to play it for you.
The first time I played around with an Amazon Echo, I remember thinking Alexa was a very cool party trick, but thought it would never catch on. As a self-proclaimed audio snob, I just couldn’t get past the subpar sound quality. Enter Echo Studio.
What’s surprising is that Amazon has upped the sonic ante, too, with “3D Music.” With a subscription to Amazon Music HD ($13-15 per month), you get access to countless songs remastered for Dolby Atmos, and what they’ve achieved from a single box seems impossible, with sound seeming to come from an entire wall rather than a single point source. I’m very curious to learn what mixing a Tiny Desk concert for this system might sound like in the future, but I’m a sucker for tried-and-true stereo and turned off Echo Studio’s enhanced sound setting for this review.
There are five directional speakers inside the Echo Studio: one on top, two on either side firing out, one facing front and a subwoofer firing down. What does that get you? Stereo separation! Of all the speakers I tested, none could reproduce stereo imaging like the Echo Studio. However, there was a dead zone directly behind the device — I’d love to see a sixth speaker added in the back to fill that space. The speaker also features “Automatic Room Adaptation,” Amazon’s version of room calibration, which uses the mics to automatically tune the speaker. Just like the others.
In addition to Wi-Fi, you can stream audio to the Echo Studio via Bluetooth, or connect a device via aux input. AirPlay is not supported; however you can summon Amazon Music, Apple Music, Spotify, Siriusxm, iHeartRadio, Pandora and Tidal with your voice. If the Echo Studio had AirPlay, a built-in battery and a handle (like the Sonos Move) plus a sixth speaker around back (like the HomePod), it would be the ultimate smart speaker.
The Smart Speaker Pepsi Challenge
I like the sound coming out of all these speakers, and I’m relieved that tech companies are making strides to improve fidelity. But sound quality is subjective, so I sat down with four NPR producers and engineers in front of these smart speakers for a blind listening test:
Natasha Branch is a broadcast recording technician, who engineers NPR radio news programs and occasionally assists me on Tiny Desk sessions.
Kevin Wait is my mentor — he recorded the first 450 or so Tiny Desk concerts.
What follows are the unedited first impressions of these NPR staffers after listening to 30-second-long clips of the following audio:
NPR’s morning program Up First, to get a sense of how news and podcasts will sound.
The Jupiter movement of Gustav Holst’s The Planets, to analyze how they perform under the weight of a full orchestra (as suggested by NPR’s resident classical music expert, Tom Huizenga)
“Money,” by Pink Floyd, for amazing stereo imaging and a sense of how they handle the sound of rock.
“Tempo,” by Lizzo. Because it’s Lizzo and the song slaps.
No. 1: Sonos Move
Natasha: Overall, nice tonal balance, if a little mid-forward. Great for dialogue-heavy listening. No stereo soundstage, but good separation of elements, nonetheless.
Suraya:Up First — boomy mids. Jupiter — mono, dull, mid-range-y, with harsh highs. “Money” — needs a better bottom. “Tempo” — low-end is not good.
Bob: Quite clear. Nice highs. Not enough depth on classical. Average sound, musically. Nice highs, mids just okay.
Kevin: This thing gets loud! No distortion noted. Good low-end/frequency response. Mono. Still a little boxy-ness.
No. 2: Apple HomePod
Natasha: The lower to mid-range frequencies (where bass and floor toms live) sound muddy to my ears. It’s all a bit of a wash, with no depth or separation between elements. Though there’s no stereo spread here, it is nice that elements don’t drop out as you move around the room.
Suraya:Up First — I like the sense of space. Jupiter — not bad, pretty good frequency response. “Money” — warmer low-end, but I might want to EQ it. “Tempo” – mid and high frequencies too prominent.
Bob: Very natural sound. Good bass balance. Good top end. Nice depth. Bass not as deep as others, but that wasn’t a minus. Rock sounds great.
Kevin: Not as loud as No. 1. No distortion noted. Not boxy, but not crisp. Mild stereo separation on “Money.”
No. 3: Google Home Max
Natasha: The highs and lows are emphasized too much for my taste, but this could be exciting for movie viewing or casual listening. I’m happy to hear a stereo image, but it’s quite narrow, and there’s really only room for one person in the sweet spot.
Suraya:Up First — almost phase-y [Ed. note: Meaning washed out and hollow sounding] Jupiter — crispy high end. “Money” — decent left-right imaging, pretty smooth frequency response. “Tempo” — vocals too prominent, bass decent.
Bob: Not well-balanced. Big bottom. Spatially, not much separation. Classical sounds good. Rock sounds very good. Lizzo sounds good.
Kevin: As loud as No. 1, no distortion noted. Not as good a frequency spread as No. 1. Mild stereo separation, a touch wider than No. 2.
No. 4: Amazon Echo Studio
Natasha: Enjoyable tonal balance here, and I’m hearing low-level details, like reverb tails, for the first time. Greater stereo spread than No. 3, but the center image sometimes seems to emanate from the back of the device.
Suraya:Up First — too much midrange. Jupiter — best stereo separation. “Money” — best left-right imaging. Needs a cut at 400 hz [Ed. note: you can use EQ to cut out the tubbiness at 400 kHz] “Tempo” — decent low end, voice too loud.
Bob: Sounds good — voice is natural. Classical had a good, big sound. Stereo sound welcome! Very balanced. Good bass.
Kevin: Louder than No. 3, no distortion noted. Sounds like mono sound is coming out of the side. Mild stereo separation, widest of the bunch. Frequency response flat like No. 2. Not as good as No. 1.
Josh Rogosin: My take? The Google Home Max and Amazon Echo Studio make valiant attempts at stereo in one package, but I’d personally rather have a Sonos speaker that just does mono well. When I can afford it, I can always add a matching paired speaker for an authentic stereo experience.
Sound quality aside, the most important factor in buying or gifting one of these products is the ecosystem you’re joining, or forcing someone else to join. Choose the speaker that works with the services that you use. If you don’t have a preference and are entering the market for the first time, then consider budget and, if you can afford to, set up two speakers as a stereo pair. Willing to ditch the mics and voice assistants? A pair of Sonos/Ikeabookshelf speakers only costs about $200. (But at half the price, they won’t sound quite as full-bodied.)
Smart speakers have made big strides in sound quality with this current crop of offerings. While there are certainly cheaper options available, I would encourage anyone to spend the extra money on one of the better-sounding devices. And there’s certainly no shortage of quality audio content available, much of it offered for free and/or ad-supported, from great organizations. Like NPR.
London’s transportation regulator has refused to renew Uber’s license to operate in the U.K. capital, saying the company is not “fit and proper” to run a private ride-hiring service. The city says Uber’s systems repeatedly allowed unauthorized drivers to pick up passengers.
“We think this decision is wrong and we will appeal,” Uber’s U.K. division says, adding that 3.5 million people use Uber’s app and services in London. Uber’s license was due to expire on Monday.
Transport for London says Uber’s computer systems “allowed unauthorized drivers to upload their photos to other Uber driver accounts” and take on customers as if they were the Uber driver, something the regulator says happened on “at least 14,000 trips.”
All of those rides, according to Transport for London, were uninsured as a result of the drivers’ ability to manipulate Uber’s systems. It adds that some of those drivers were unlicensed — and in one case, a driver whose license had been revoked by the agency used the security gap to pick up new passengers.
Identifying another problem, the regulator says former Uber drivers who had been dismissed or suspended were able to elude punishment simply by creating a new Uber account and carrying passengers again.
“Uber has 21 days to lodge an appeal and can continue to operate during any appeals process,” NPR’s Frank Langfitt reports from London. “Uber remains a popular option in London, particularly as the city’s famous black cabs charge considerably more.”
London’s regulator has previously moved to cancel Uber’s license, most notably in 2017. A judge overruled the agency’s decision in the summer of 2018 — but then reissued the license for only 15 months, to see if the company made good on its promises to change. At the time, Transport for London said Uber’s methods for handling background checks and reporting criminal offenses were flawed. It also accused the company’s drivers of using software called “Greyball” to connect with users in cities where the app and ride service are banned.
Uber says it has “fundamentally changed our business over the last 2 years” to adapt to regulators’ concerns. But while Transport for London acknowledges some positive changes, it says the company hasn’t done enough. And the agency says it’s concerned that “Uber’s systems seem to have been comparatively easily manipulated.”
The Federal Communications Commission is accepting public comment on its proposal to loosen the “net neutrality” rules placed on Internet providers in 2015.
Andrew Harnik/AP
If the activists’ predictions pan out, Wednesday might see one of the largest digital protests to date.
Dozens of websites and apps have joined ranks with consumer advocacy groups, through a “Day of Action,” to publicly protest the plan by the Federal Communications Commission to roll back regulations it placed on Internet service providers in 2015.
The rules enforce the principle called net neutrality — that Internet service providers shouldn’t slow down or block any sites or apps, or otherwise decide what content gets to users faster. The FCC, under Chairman Ajit Pai, is weighing whether (and how) to undo the rules that enforced net neutrality by placing Internet providers under the strictest-ever FCC oversight.
At the time, Pai was a dissenting Republican commissioner on the Democrat-majority FCC. Now, the party control has reversed and President Trump has elevated him to chairman. Pai has presented the net neutrality rules as the government becoming the regulator of the Internet. He has argued that the rules have put a “bureaucratic straitjacket” on the telecom industry, slowing investments in the expansion of broadband access and innovation.
Numerous Web companies, for their part, have argued that net neutrality rules are paramount to ensure that cable and telecom companies don’t become the gatekeepers of how Americans experience the Internet — what people can access at what speeds. The Internet Association, the trade group for Internet companies, says investments have not slowed.
“We haven’t actually lived in a world where fully the ISPs could block access,” says Denelle Dixon, chief legal and business officer at Mozilla. “It’s very hard to imagine a world without (net neutrality). This is the world we need to imagine now.”
Wednesday’s “Day Of Action” is an Internet protest, during which scores of websites and apps are planning to feature banners, pop-ups or other alerts — like the perpetually spinning wheel — all to encourage users to reach out to the FCC or Congress in favor of the existing rules.
Dozens of websites are planning to feature banners like this to protest the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal on net neutrality during Wednesday’s “Day of Action.”
Courtesy of Fight for the Future
Participants are expected to include Netflix, Etsy, Vimeo, Twitter, Reddit and Amazon. Google and Facebook have recently said they plan to participate as well. Organizers include advocacy groups Fight for the Future, Demand Progress and Free Press — some of the same activists who organized online campaigns to push the Obama-era FCC toward strict net neutrality regulations and, years earlier, the epic blackout to boycott anti-piracy bills known as SOPA and PIPA.
The FCC is currently accepting public comment on its proposal to loosen the rules for Internet providers, which is titled “Restoring Internet Freedom.” Pai’s review of the rules asks wide-spanning questions, proposing a looser regulatory scheme for Internet service providers as well as seeking comment on whether net neutrality principles should be adopted to begin with.
One key element at stake is the idea of paid prioritization, which would give Internet providers the ability to strike deals with content companies to give some apps and websites — or their own services — special treatment.
This is particularly a sensitive matter to Vimeo, a video service smaller than Google’s YouTube or other companies that offer video like Netflix, Amazon and now Facebook. Vimeo’s general counsel Michael Cheah says paid prioritization would “cable-ize the Internet” and hurt independent and small creators.
“Any time you have a situation where there’s an additional barrier to entry, an additional cost you pay someone or toll you have to get on the road,” he says, “it’s going to favor a type of content that already has a footing in the market.”
Critics of net neutrality rules have argued that some such paid-prioritization deals might, in fact, serve the users best — and that the FCC’s approach shouldn’t be definitive and prescriptive.
Comcast, Verizon and other large providers have said they do support the net neutrality principles of no blocking and no throttling, but oppose the regulatory structure imposed by the 2015 rules. It reclassified the Internet as a more heavily regulated “telecommunications service” rather than an “information service” under the Title II of the Communications Act.
AT&T and telecom trade groups have since lost a court challenge to the Title II approach, but they are expected to seek a Supreme Court review of the matter. Pai wants to undo the Title II reclassification, which the industry argues has burdened them. Net neutrality advocates say without the Title II structure, the FCC can’t really enforce net neutrality.
In 2014, the FCC was flooded with some 4 million comments in response to a proposal to allow paid prioritization. John Oliver’s late-night comedy episode on net neutrality also targeted the FCC. But this time around, Pai and his fellow Republican commissioner at the FCC have called for comments to present a cost-benefit analysis or be otherwise “evidence-based.”
In a May 2017 meeting, as we reported, Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said:
“Thankfully, our rulemaking proceeding is not decided like a Dancing With The Stars contest, since counts of comments submitted have only so much value,” O’Rielly said, adding: “Instead of operating an economics-free zone where the benefits of the rules are assumed to outweigh any cost, commenters will need to provide evidence to support their arguments that the rules are or are not needed.”
Vimeo’s Cheah says this approach is unfair given the broad scope of the proposal itself. “The idea that you don’t have the right to file a comment if you don’t know the ‘magic words’ ” like Title II, he says, “frankly, it’s insulting.”
As the net neutrality policy debate stretches into its second decade, lawmakers in Congress have also spoken about settling it with a new law.
Some of the participants in Wednesday’s “Day of Action” say the protest aims to pressure lawmakers to stand up in support of the current rules, possibly more so than trying to sway the FCC.
Free-market groups and other critics of the current regulations are also looking to Congress as a place to settle the net neutrality debate.
“Enthusiasm for Title II regulations for the internet is misplaced,” wrote a PR firm representing the Internet-provider trade group Broadband for America. “Activists should work together with others who favor net neutrality to get bipartisan legislation through Congress that all sides can agree upon.”
The FCC is collecting public comments until July 17. Then it will collect replies to comments until Aug. 16.
Aerial view of the Heart Reef, part of the Great Barrier Reef
Arterra/UIG via Getty Images
Nearly a hundred miles off the shore of Port Douglas, Australia, tourists jump into the water of the outer reef. On their dive, they see giant clams, sea turtles and a rainbow of tropical fish, all swimming above brightly colored coral.
On a boat, marine biologist Lorna Howlett quizzes the tourists in the sunshine. “How many people out there saw a coral highlighter-yellow?” she asks, eliciting a show of hands. “What about highlighter-blue? Yeah? Anyone see some hot pinks?”
Many think of vibrantly colored coral as an example of natural beauty. But in fact, these are early signs that the coral is dying. Healthy coral is usually earth-tone.
Kyle Taylor/Flickr
Eager hands shoot up among the few dozen tourists lounging on the deck of the boat in their wetsuits. Everyone’s still smiling from their Technicolor tour of the Great Barrier Reef, a UNESCO World Heritage site that encompasses the world’s biggest coral reef system and is home to some 400 different types of coral.
Then Howlett breaks the news: “Those are not natural coral colors,” she tells them, prompting quizzical looks. “That is actually coral that is stressed, OK. So it’s got a sniffly nose, got a bit of a sore throat.”
It turns out a reef filled with neon coral is not normal. Healthy coral is usually earth-toned. The bright pinks, blues and yellows these tourists saw in their dive along the northern part of the Great Barrier Reef are the first signs that coral is dying.
And then, says marine biologist John Edmondson, “You see it going white.”
Scuba-diving tourists are helped into the water by a boat crew member on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
William West/AFP/Getty Images
That’s the second sign of dying coral, says Edmondson, who runs Wavelength Reef Cruises, a tour operator on the reef.
“That’s when it’s most dramatic looking,” he says, pointing to a bleached brain coralthat is hundreds of years old. “But you don’t know if it’s going to die or it’s going to recover. … And when you start to see the coral actually dying, getting covered with algae and looking horrible, that is when it really hits home.”
In the past 18 months, Edmondson has watched as two-thirds of the coral along this 400-mile northern stretch of the Great Barrier Reef has turned white and died. Rising ocean temperatures have caused the single greatest loss of coral ever recorded along the reef.
John Edmondson runs Wavelength Reef Cruises in Port Douglas, Australia. Trained as a marine biologist, Edmondson makes a point of explaining the science behind climate change and coral bleaching to his customers.
Rob Schmitz/NPR
The die-off is devastating for the thousands of species that depend on the reef, including those responsible for its decline — humans, who depend on it for $6 billion in tourism revenue annually.
Those who work on the reef never thought things would get so bad so fast.
“I did not expect to see a loss of corals to this extent in my lifetime. This has come sooner than we had hoped,” says Terry Hughes, director of the Coral Reef Center at James Cook University in Townsville, along the midsection of the reef.
The world’s oceans have absorbed some of the heat from the global rise in greenhouse gas emissions, and in many cases, their waters are now warmer than at any time in recorded history. Corals are sensitive to temperature swings. Much like a human body, a rise of a few degrees can lead to illness, and eventually, death. The average ocean temperature has risen by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit. UNESCO expressed “serious concern” about the reef’s health last week — though it left the reef off its endangered list.
Top, bleached coral along the Great Barrier Reef. More than two-thirds of all the coral along the northernmost 400 miles of the reef bleached and died in the past 18 months. A sea turtle rests along the Great Barrier Reef, lower left, and a giant clam is seen along the outer reef, lower right.
Chelsea Malayny/NPR
“The new normal”
For the past two years, Hughes has led a team of scientists in both aerial and underwater surveys of the reef. It took a while — the Great Barrier Reef is made up of more than 3,000 individual reefs stretching as long as the entire West Coast of the United States. Their findings, published in March in the journal Nature, estimate that a third of the coral died along the entire Great Barrier Reef between March and November 2016, due to warmer-than-average water temperatures.
“Close to half of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef have died in a period of about 18 months,” Hughes says. “This is the new normal.”
Hughes is calling on everyone who studies and protects the world’s coral reefs to adjust to this new normal. He says coral reef management has always focused on restoring reefs to their pristine condition — before the oceans began to warm.
“And we argue that’s no longer possible,” says Hughes. “What we should be aiming for is keeping the reefs functional, recognizing that the world is on a conveyor belt. We are going to a new type of coral reef ecosystem, but if we’re careful how we do that, we will have a functioning ecosystem that will provide benefits to people.”
He doesn’t have any specific answers as to how to make that happen, but he’s calling on reef managers around the world to come up with plans.
Jon Brodie is a research fellow at James Cook University’s Coral Reef Center. He used to direct water quality for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Brodie believes it’s too late to save the coral along the reef.
Rob Schmitz/NPR
Not everyone at the Coral Reef Center shares Hughes’ optimism. Research fellow Jon Brodie used to direct water quality for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. He believes it’s too late to save the coral. Water temperatures are rising too fast, he says, and he predicts that in 30 years, most of it will be gone.
The 70-year-old has given his life to the reef. For him, the new normal is hard to accept.
“I have lots of young or youngish Ph.D. students and the like, and it wasn’t too many years ago when I could inspire them that this was a great area to work in and make a difference,” he says. “I find that more difficult now; much more difficult now.”
In many areas, oceans are warmer than at any time in recorded history. Coral is sensitive to temperature swings. Like a human body, a rise of a few degrees can lead to illness, and eventually, death.
Chelsea Malayny/NPR
A multibillion-dollar business
But along the waterfront in Cairns, where kids splash in a pool and diving boats sound their horns, his concerns seem far away. The city is the main hub of tourism along the Great Barrier Reef, a $6 billion industry employing 60,000 people. Many tour operators here take issue with the surveys scientists like Hughes have conducted of the reef’s health.
Col McKenzie directs the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators in Cairns. He says he’s bracing for a financial hit.
Rob Schmitz/NPR
“When they try to paint holistic pictures from sampling, you don’t get the real story,” says Col McKenzie, who directs the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators in Cairns.
McKenzie questions how accurate these scientific surveys have been, and he thinks the media has influenced people to think the reef has become the Great Barrier Graveyard.
“If we’re taking tourists out of Cairns to reefs that are destroyed, our business wouldn’t survive for more than a month,” says McKenzie, laughing. “We just wouldn’t be able to keep doing it. Yet you go and talk to people coming off these boats, they’ve had a fantastic time. They’ve seen what they came here to see!”
McKenzie maintains that there’s still a lot of healthy habitat to see, and there will be for years to come. But he does worry about the amount of coral that has died and what it’s going to do to the region’s bottom line.
“My guess is we’ve seen the end of double-digit growth,” he says, furrowing his brow. “We’re probably going to go back to 2 to 3 percent growth instead of 20 to 30 [percent]. The big issue is we got a lot of money being spent on additional infrastructure here in Cairns: new pontoons, new boats, new hotels going up.”
And that’s why McKenzie thinks rash measures should be taken to save the reef. He proposes installing enormous turbines in the deep ocean surrounding the reef. “If you could imagine a massive big ceiling fan, like a turbine pushing cool water to the surface,” he says.
A bleached coral like this one – hundreds of years old – is becoming a more common sight along the Great Barrier Reef, where scientists say an average of a third of all coral died last year alone.
Chelsea Malayny/NPR
In an email, Terry Hughes called McKenzie’s proposal one of the most “hare-brained” ideas he’s ever heard. He says tackling climate change would be easier.
Caught between the scientists and tour operators are the tourists themselves. Seventy percent of them come from outside Australia, like Alan Crabtree from Bellingham, Wash.
“One of the reasons we came now is because we wanted to see the barrier reef before it disappeared,” says Crabtree. “We wanted to take advantage of that.”
At the end of a day of snorkeling, the tourist boat pulls into Port Douglas, where thousands of colorful lorikeets fly between palm trees as the sun sets behind them. Wavelength Reef Cruises’ owner John Edmondson sits on his boat, talking about how the tourism industry is having a hard time dealing with the reef’s loss of coral.
Some operators don’t mention it to tourists for fear of spoiling a fun day out, but he’s chosen to educate his customers about what’s going on and what they can do to prevent climate change.
“If you’ve got a fantastic product, but there’s a negative aspect of it, how do you deal with that negative aspect?” Edmondson asks. “It’s best, I think, to explain it because most people are understanding.”
After all, says Edmondson, this isn’t Disneyland. It’s the world. Our world.
