Google has never specifically asked for it. But to claim they will stop their fiber buildout if the reclassification happens is pure fiction. Their own policy statements say that Title II reclassification would make it easier for them to build out their fiber network.
Google did not say they support regulating broadband as if it were POTS.
Which isn't anything I claimed considering in the first sentence of what I quoted said "While Google's filing never specifically throws its support behind Title II,". The point of what I linked is that the claim that Google would discontinue their fiber buildout if Title II reclassification happened is nothing but pure bunk and is not supported by any statements that Google has made.
This isn't regulating the Internet. It's regulating the people who provide access. There's a huge difference. And tons of Internet businesses and smaller ISPs are very much for this reclassification. The only people against it are the megacorps who seek to lose a lot of control and will no longer be able to extort money from competing content providers.
There are some small, local ISPs usually in remote locations and according to the FCC those companies are in favor of the regulations as well. The GP is just some whoring shill.
Re:Don't expect ISPs to bend over and take it
on
FCC Favors Net Neutrality
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You, dear consumer, will be the one taking it in the shorts.
Riiight. Because the current mega-ISPs are such great companies to deal with and are always looking for ways to lower the prices of their service, increase data caps, etc. Oh wait...
Take a very close look at ANY of your utility bills and tell me how many fees you are paying that have nothing to do with the thing you are using (the actual electricity, the actual water, etc).
Ok, just did. Everything in my utility bill had to do with city services I use. Nothing was an extraneous fee.
ISPs are going to pass the cost on to the customers. Period.
So nothing new. But at least in this case the cost will be for good.
And you can kiss the small, local ISPs goodbye because they don't have the resources to deal with this.
Except that the small, local ISPs are mostly wanting the Title II regulations.
While Google's filing never specifically throws its support behind Title II, it does specifically point out how Title II rules could come with some significant benefits. Specifically, Google's director of communications law Austin Schlick argues that as a freshly-regulated telecom service under Title II, Google would gain access to utility poles and other essential utility infrastructure to aid expansion of Google Fiber. While the FCC has the right to forbear from these provisions, Google argues they really shouldn't if they value improved broadband services:
"In determining whether forbearance is consistent with the public interest, the Commission must consider whether forbearance would "promote competitive market conditions, including the extent to which such forbearance will enhance competition among providers of telecommunications services." Forbearance from allowing BIAS providers access to available infrastructure under Section 224 would have the exact opposite effect, maintaining a substantial barrier to network deployment by new providers such as Google Fiber, that telecommunications classification otherwise would remove."
Seems Google disagrees with your opinion of what they would think and do.
Exactly. Effective income and corporate tax rates are at historical lows. So according to the GP we should see a roaring economy with next to no unemployment. Oh wait...
Instead if you look back in history the times that had the highest effective tax rates, the 40s through the 60s, saw tremendous economic growth, huge swelling of the middle class and the wages of workers vs inflation wasn't effectively stagnant.
I say "mostly" only because in some cases the "hi-res" version can have better mixes with better dynamic range. But none of that is down to the bit depth or sampling rate. Those specs are the fluff.
Which is pure fluff since it says nothing about the actual quality. I can take an 8-bit 8khz mono track that was heavily DRCed and export it as faux stereo 24-bit/192khz FLAC. Sure it is "hi-res" due to fluff specs but it's gonna sound like shit.
You first say the Fire Phone will only succeed with non-forked Android. You then use the Kindle Fire as a success story. Do you not see the glaring contradiction?
the foundry could make more money letting AMD/NVidia use their stuff than Apple.
In what alternate universe? Apple had nearly $183 billion in revenue in 2014. Nvidia had $4.2 billion in 2014 and AMD had $5.3 billion in 2013. How exactly would they make more money from companies whose yearly revenues combined are less than a single quarter of Apple's revenue?
Riiiight. Because Intel never ever sells fab capacity.
The sentence doesn't say that. It says it wouldn't sell AMD or Nvidia, the companies referred to by the "them" in that sentence, some of their capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Code churn. Can't make contracting money by not rewriting things all the time.
Government contracting money.
Nor are prices when you have next to no competition such as the current situation with ISPs in most markets.
Google has never specifically asked for it. But to claim they will stop their fiber buildout if the reclassification happens is pure fiction. Their own policy statements say that Title II reclassification would make it easier for them to build out their fiber network.
Google did not say they support regulating broadband as if it were POTS.
Which isn't anything I claimed considering in the first sentence of what I quoted said "While Google's filing never specifically throws its support behind Title II,". The point of what I linked is that the claim that Google would discontinue their fiber buildout if Title II reclassification happened is nothing but pure bunk and is not supported by any statements that Google has made.
This isn't regulating the Internet. It's regulating the people who provide access. There's a huge difference. And tons of Internet businesses and smaller ISPs are very much for this reclassification. The only people against it are the megacorps who seek to lose a lot of control and will no longer be able to extort money from competing content providers.
There are some small, local ISPs usually in remote locations and according to the FCC those companies are in favor of the regulations as well. The GP is just some whoring shill.
You, dear consumer, will be the one taking it in the shorts.
Riiight. Because the current mega-ISPs are such great companies to deal with and are always looking for ways to lower the prices of their service, increase data caps, etc. Oh wait...
Take a very close look at ANY of your utility bills and tell me how many fees you are paying that have nothing to do with the thing you are using (the actual electricity, the actual water, etc).
Ok, just did. Everything in my utility bill had to do with city services I use. Nothing was an extraneous fee.
ISPs are going to pass the cost on to the customers. Period.
So nothing new. But at least in this case the cost will be for good.
And you can kiss the small, local ISPs goodbye because they don't have the resources to deal with this.
Except that the small, local ISPs are mostly wanting the Title II regulations.
I agree. It's less than the yearly increases I saw when I was a Time Warner customer.
If services like Google Fiber are made Title II, watch how fast those sorts of projects come to a screeching halt.
Oh really?
While Google's filing never specifically throws its support behind Title II, it does specifically point out how Title II rules could come with some significant benefits. Specifically, Google's director of communications law Austin Schlick argues that as a freshly-regulated telecom service under Title II, Google would gain access to utility poles and other essential utility infrastructure to aid expansion of Google Fiber. While the FCC has the right to forbear from these provisions, Google argues they really shouldn't if they value improved broadband services:
"In determining whether forbearance is consistent with the public interest, the Commission must consider whether forbearance would "promote competitive market conditions, including the extent to which such forbearance will enhance competition among providers of telecommunications services." Forbearance from allowing BIAS providers access to available infrastructure under Section 224 would have the exact opposite effect, maintaining a substantial barrier to network deployment by new providers such as Google Fiber, that telecommunications classification otherwise would remove."
Seems Google disagrees with your opinion of what they would think and do.
Christians tend to go by the New Testament, which has very little violence, and a whole lot of love, forgiveness, and peace.
No, they tend to go by quite a bit of the Old Testament as well. They just tend to not follow the parts they find inconvenient.
And the ones you call heretics will lob the same accusation at you.
The cost of building and equipping a fab is more than AMD's entire yearly revenue. They don't have the cash or credit to take on such a huge debt.
No, the taxes are not high.
Exactly. Effective income and corporate tax rates are at historical lows. So according to the GP we should see a roaring economy with next to no unemployment. Oh wait...
Instead if you look back in history the times that had the highest effective tax rates, the 40s through the 60s, saw tremendous economic growth, huge swelling of the middle class and the wages of workers vs inflation wasn't effectively stagnant.
No it doesn't. ABX tests have shown this pretty consistently.
I say "mostly" only because in some cases the "hi-res" version can have better mixes with better dynamic range. But none of that is down to the bit depth or sampling rate. Those specs are the fluff.
Which is pure fluff since it says nothing about the actual quality. I can take an 8-bit 8khz mono track that was heavily DRCed and export it as faux stereo 24-bit/192khz FLAC. Sure it is "hi-res" due to fluff specs but it's gonna sound like shit.
Taxes were higher during the 50s and 60s when the country had a booming economy and huge middle class.
You first say the Fire Phone will only succeed with non-forked Android. You then use the Kindle Fire as a success story. Do you not see the glaring contradiction?
How is this informative? Do you not know what an index fund is?
Why wouldn't Intel sell some of their capacity to nVidia or AMD for their GPUs?
Because they make more money using that capacity to make their own CPUs.
the foundry could make more money letting AMD/NVidia use their stuff than Apple.
In what alternate universe? Apple had nearly $183 billion in revenue in 2014. Nvidia had $4.2 billion in 2014 and AMD had $5.3 billion in 2013. How exactly would they make more money from companies whose yearly revenues combined are less than a single quarter of Apple's revenue?
Intel would *love* to sell fab capacity
Intel has no need to sell their fab capacity.
With what money do you expect them to build a fab?
Riiiight. Because Intel never ever sells fab capacity.
The sentence doesn't say that. It says it wouldn't sell AMD or Nvidia, the companies referred to by the "them" in that sentence, some of their capacity.