The wealthy? Dream on, in NY state the top 1% pay over 50% of all taxes collected. The other 99% of New Yorkers contribute an equal amount (about 50%).
Why do the wealthy have to pay more? Maybe it's time for the 99% to step up a pitch in?
d. NPR notes that the language is classified as a non-binding resolution, "meaning that even if it were to pass... it wouldn't itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years."
So we need to pass meaningless 'state of the House' bills to save the planet?
No, I get it, they can't actually do anything, like pass a bill, raise taxes, etc because Democrats only control the House, but for goodness sake, at least try and pass a bill that could do something, rather than these purely symbolic bills.
When asked how we would fund this, AOC suggested we do it the same way we paid for World War 2... Brilliant!
I'm still not sure why they can't grab a few dozen resisters and capacitors and use a standard first class letter for $0.55, instead of a mailer envelope for $8.00+ shipping.
Because it makes their life so much easier, and the $8 probably approximates the cost of picking, packing, and shipping your order.
If they offered $0.55 shipping in a first class envelope (I assume), they'd have to worry about the components being crushed in the mail, weighing and labelling each shipment, and they'd actually be encouraging their customers to place onsie-towsie orders, which will kill their profitability and drive them out of business.
I can only imagine the number of "makers" that would order 50-75 cents worth of resistors and other parts, ask for 55 cent postage, and then put the order on their bank card. Subtract the 20-30 cents per transaction fee, 2-3% discount on credit card reimbursement, and Mouser has lost money on the order. By keeping a fixed shipping charge, they can be assured profitability on each order. The other option is a minimum order size...
You can't find an x86 computer for $35? Seriously? I can buy complete windows systems w/ operating system, keyboard, mouse, display, and power supply for well, well under $100, maybe even as low as $50 - $35 is tough, but since the Raspberry Pi, at $35, doesn't include keyboard, mouse, display or power supply the comparison is probably valid.
Raspberry PI would be smarter to team up with local maker spaces to provide common parts to makers where they go to work at a price that doesn't go much above wholesale costs.
Anything more involved than a vending machine stuffed with Raspberry Pi boards and accessories would be non-sensical, and even at that a vending machine in a maker space is a target for clever engineers to hack into and steal the contents.
For some reason you think relying mainly on internet sales with a handful of brick and mortar retailers is holding back the success of the Raspberry Pi ecosystem? Please explain, so far they've pumped 19 million of those boards into the world in about what, 7 years? Seems like they are doing OK to me.
And how will the target market of computer-illiterate school age children that live outside the community the store is located in benefit from this investment?
The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a UK-based charity that works to put the power of computing and digital making into the hands of people all over the world. We do this so that more people are able to harness the power of computing and digital technologies for work, to solve problems that matter to them, and to express themselves creatively.
Prices on Raspberry Pi boards have gone up noticeably (as have various kits sold with the Pi boards in them) in the past few months. Along with prices on other consumer goods that have also risen since November, this is likely the tariffs at work.
Despite its popularity -- more than 19 million Raspberry Pi units have been sold since 2012 -- the Raspberry Pi still feels a little niche to merit its own dedicated retail store.
That is true, there are only two kinds of people in the world, those that own no Raspberry PIs, and those that own several dozen Pis - so that puts the maximal user base at well under 1 million world-wide. Now, conveniently, all those Raspberry Pi owners are clustered in high-density first-world cities, so this was an obvious next step for the Raspberry Pi Foundation.
The quote tags were mis-placed, the first two lines are both quoted from the article:
This makes sense; carriers have an incentive to raise the costs of exploring alternatives in order to make their preferred, zero-rated choice of content more attractive. However, once that incentive is removed, the wireless carrier no longer has a reason to raise the cost of alternatives because nothing is given special treatment. In short, zero rating practices cost you more money.
This makes sense; carriers have an incentive to raise the costs of exploring alternatives in order to make their preferred, zero-rated choice of content more attractive.
However, once that incentive is removed, the wireless carrier no longer has a reason to raise the cost of alternatives because nothing is given special treatment. In short, zero rating practices cost you more money.
In short, data rates are approved by gov't agencies (at least in US), and this study appears to hold every other development, both political and technological, entirely equal across all EU countries examined. Is that really true? Is everyone of the 30 countries considered exactly equal except for the few that choose to zero-rate some services for whatever reason?
Anyone else notice this gem in the "report":
The practice also has a disproportionate impact on low-income users. These users tend to only be able to afford wireless broadband services for their entire Internet experience, resulting in them receiving an inferior Internet compared to users who can afford both a wireline and wireless service.
Apparently wireless broadband is inferior to wired broadband, and since poor people can only afford mobile wireless, they suffer... The implication is that if zero-rating services didn't inflate the cost of broadband service the poor could afford both wired and wireless internet access? That's just stupid - is the claim that zero-rating doubles the cost of the data service? What is the impact o zero-rating services, as discovered by this report? It doesn't say.
And then there's this counter-logical argument, from the people that know what's best for low-income residents in California:
When the issue of zero rating came before California during its debate on net neutrality, California organizations that represent low-income Californians (such as the Western Center on Law and Poverty) as well as organizations that promote the digital civil rights of communities of color (such as the Center for Media Justice and Color of Change) all came out in strong support for California banning on zero rating.
So, all the "California organizations that represent low-income Californians (such as the Western Center on Law and Poverty) as well as organizations that promote the digital civil rights of communities of color (such as the Center for Media Justice and Color of Change)" all argued that it is in the consumers best interest to not be offered any free music or video streaming services that don't count against their data plan, it is better if they are forced to pay for the data the streaming services use. In other words, low-income, people of color, consumers are better off being forced to upgrade their data plans to more expensive tiers to accommodate their streaming needs, rather than subscribe to a lower priced tier that includes free (zero-rated) music and video streaming?
No, the reality is that these low-income "advocates" are throwing their low-income "clients" under the bus to make sure that upper and middle-class consumers pay slightly less for their broadband service.
Uh, insults aside you just described peering charges, not "federal subsidies" - "Peering Charges" come from other ISPs/service providers, not the federal government.
Question - how does this decision help the native Americans on the reservations? Will this drive innovation and investment into the reservation? Will it improve access on the reservation? No. It will simply deny the provider that risked their capital to build the infrastructure their profits because parasitic third-parties are reselling their services at a lower cost.
The federal government requires them to lease network elements and service at pre-determined prices, set by government, without regard for the actual cost of the element.
Please explain these massive subsidies that supposedly telco's are uniquely the recipients of - they invest money and get to write-off the investment. That's not a subsidy, it's a business expense.
When your employer goes out and buys everyone new desktop computers, they also deduct that expense - is that a subsidy?
When I build a fruit stand I can deduct the cost of the actual stand - it's a business expense.
Resellers don't offer competition, they offer the exact same service, provided by their competition, at a 0profit, based on their below cost fees the government forces the facilities-based providers to offer them at.
Resellers make no investment.
Resellers don't innovate.
Resellers don't force infrastructure upgrades.
Imagine if Avis rent a car had to make their cars available to all their competitors below cost - to foster competition - at the local airport. While it reduces the barriers to starting a car rental business at the airport - you don't need to buy any cars, just resell Avis's cars, at a discount. How long would Avis stay at that airport?
Resellers by definition have nothing to offer, except higher prices.
If the facilities-based provider pulls out of the reservation, because everyone buys their services from a third-party provider which the provider must offer the third-party below cost (by law), what will the resellers sell? Will they then sue for facilities-based providers to return to the reservations?
The $25 subsidy checks were always going to flow, the difference is Pai wanted the customer subsidies to go to the facilities-based providers that actually provide the service, the court upheld that parasitic third-parties were entitled to those monies as well, even though the own no facilities, build nothing, merely act as an intermediary reselling others services at a markup.
Well, people that live on reservations don't vote in our elections.
The rule, if you even bothered to read the summary, cut parasitic third-party resellers out of the subsidy pool - these companies don't build infrastructure, they simply buy from those that do and sell it to their customers that could just as easily buy direct from the facilities-based provider.
Seriously, it didn't reduce the money available or who was eligible to get subsidy, it simply cut parasitic resellers out of the subsidy pool in favor of the providers that actually build infrastructure.
The FCC action would not have eliminated anyone's service, it would have altered the name on their monthly service bill.
Reselling someone elseâ(TM)s network services doesnâ(TM)t create competition, it discourages investment. Why would a Verizon or Comcast roll out fiber infrastructure in a neighborhood/reservation when they are forced to sell those network services at at a discount so that others can profit off their investment? At issue is the ability for resellers to buy discounted network services from a facilities-based providers and undercut the network provider, and to do so while receiving $25 subsidy checks from govâ(TM)t. for each reservation subscriber.
You are cheering on resellers who build nothing, they simply feed off others and tell yourself that the Indians will have âoegreater choicesâ - thereâ(TM)s only one network, and you are hurting the company that risked their money to build it.
The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers.
It would have limited âoetribal residentsâ to buying services from the telco/isp that invested in the infrastructure, rather than through third-parties that only resell otherâ(TM)s network services... Resellers donâ(TM)t invest in infrastructure, they resell it - if you want to increase âoeaccessâ and drive investments in infrastructure then the FCC change was appropriate.
Itâ(TM)s like a fruit stand where the store owner sells apples for 50 cents each, but lawmakers say they must sell those apples to resellers for 40 cents each, and those resellers turn around and offer the apples for 45 cents. Keep in mind the apples cost the market 46 cents each. These resellers donâ(TM)t bring in more apples to the market, they simply sell the marketâ(TM)s apples at a discount. Eventually the grocer may decide to stock fewer apples or even drop apples from the store.
Being able to buy the exact same service provided on exactly the same network at a govâ(TM)t mandated discount isnâ(TM)t competition - it makes the service non-profitable and discourages investment in infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
The wealthy? Dream on, in NY state the top 1% pay over 50% of all taxes collected. The other 99% of New Yorkers contribute an equal amount (about 50%).
Why do the wealthy have to pay more? Maybe it's time for the 99% to step up a pitch in?
d. NPR notes that the language is classified as a non-binding resolution, "meaning that even if it were to pass... it wouldn't itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years."
So we need to pass meaningless 'state of the House' bills to save the planet?
No, I get it, they can't actually do anything, like pass a bill, raise taxes, etc because Democrats only control the House, but for goodness sake, at least try and pass a bill that could do something, rather than these purely symbolic bills.
When asked how we would fund this, AOC suggested we do it the same way we paid for World War 2... Brilliant!
I'm still not sure why they can't grab a few dozen resisters and capacitors and use a standard first class letter for $0.55, instead of a mailer envelope for $8.00+ shipping.
Because it makes their life so much easier, and the $8 probably approximates the cost of picking, packing, and shipping your order.
If they offered $0.55 shipping in a first class envelope (I assume), they'd have to worry about the components being crushed in the mail, weighing and labelling each shipment, and they'd actually be encouraging their customers to place onsie-towsie orders, which will kill their profitability and drive them out of business.
I can only imagine the number of "makers" that would order 50-75 cents worth of resistors and other parts, ask for 55 cent postage, and then put the order on their bank card. Subtract the 20-30 cents per transaction fee, 2-3% discount on credit card reimbursement, and Mouser has lost money on the order. By keeping a fixed shipping charge, they can be assured profitability on each order. The other option is a minimum order size...
No, it means you need go out and get a few dozen more, you're falling behind!
You can't find an x86 computer for $35? Seriously? I can buy complete windows systems w/ operating system, keyboard, mouse, display, and power supply for well, well under $100, maybe even as low as $50 - $35 is tough, but since the Raspberry Pi, at $35, doesn't include keyboard, mouse, display or power supply the comparison is probably valid.
*Gasp!* Does this mean . . . 2019 will be . . . the year of Raspberry Pi on the desktop!?!?!
Only when the Raspberry Pi supports Windows, oh wait!
Raspberry PI would be smarter to team up with local maker spaces to provide common parts to makers where they go to work at a price that doesn't go much above wholesale costs.
Anything more involved than a vending machine stuffed with Raspberry Pi boards and accessories would be non-sensical, and even at that a vending machine in a maker space is a target for clever engineers to hack into and steal the contents.
For some reason you think relying mainly on internet sales with a handful of brick and mortar retailers is holding back the success of the Raspberry Pi ecosystem? Please explain, so far they've pumped 19 million of those boards into the world in about what, 7 years? Seems like they are doing OK to me.
Is it near the OLPC store? That would seem appropriate, I'd love to get one of their new OLPC XO-1.75 laptops.
And how will the target market of computer-illiterate school age children that live outside the community the store is located in benefit from this investment?
The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a UK-based charity that works to put the power of computing and digital making into the hands of people all over the world. We do this so that more people are able to harness the power of computing and digital technologies for work, to solve problems that matter to them, and to express themselves creatively.
Source: Raspberry Pi Foundation - About Us
Prices on Raspberry Pi boards have gone up noticeably (as have various kits sold with the Pi boards in them) in the past few months. Along with prices on other consumer goods that have also risen since November, this is likely the tariffs at work.
Where are your Raspberry Pis built? Where are you buying them? They've been building them in the Sony UK plant for the past 5+ years, to the tune of 14 million as of Sept. 2017
Has your gov't entered into a tariff war with the UK/EU?
Despite its popularity -- more than 19 million Raspberry Pi units have been sold since 2012 -- the Raspberry Pi still feels a little niche to merit its own dedicated retail store.
That is true, there are only two kinds of people in the world, those that own no Raspberry PIs, and those that own several dozen Pis - so that puts the maximal user base at well under 1 million world-wide. Now, conveniently, all those Raspberry Pi owners are clustered in high-density first-world cities, so this was an obvious next step for the Raspberry Pi Foundation.
The quote tags were mis-placed, the first two lines are both quoted from the article:
This makes sense; carriers have an incentive to raise the costs of exploring alternatives in order to make their preferred, zero-rated choice of content more attractive. However, once that incentive is removed, the wireless carrier no longer has a reason to raise the cost of alternatives because nothing is given special treatment. In short, zero rating practices cost you more money.
This makes sense; carriers have an incentive to raise the costs of exploring alternatives in order to make their preferred, zero-rated choice of content more attractive.
However, once that incentive is removed, the wireless carrier no longer has a reason to raise the cost of alternatives because nothing is given special treatment. In short, zero rating practices cost you more money.
In short, data rates are approved by gov't agencies (at least in US), and this study appears to hold every other development, both political and technological, entirely equal across all EU countries examined. Is that really true? Is everyone of the 30 countries considered exactly equal except for the few that choose to zero-rate some services for whatever reason?
Anyone else notice this gem in the "report":
The practice also has a disproportionate impact on low-income users. These users tend to only be able to afford wireless broadband services for their entire Internet experience, resulting in them receiving an inferior Internet compared to users who can afford both a wireline and wireless service.
Apparently wireless broadband is inferior to wired broadband, and since poor people can only afford mobile wireless, they suffer... The implication is that if zero-rating services didn't inflate the cost of broadband service the poor could afford both wired and wireless internet access? That's just stupid - is the claim that zero-rating doubles the cost of the data service? What is the impact o zero-rating services, as discovered by this report? It doesn't say.
And then there's this counter-logical argument, from the people that know what's best for low-income residents in California:
When the issue of zero rating came before California during its debate on net neutrality, California organizations that represent low-income Californians (such as the Western Center on Law and Poverty) as well as organizations that promote the digital civil rights of communities of color (such as the Center for Media Justice and Color of Change) all came out in strong support for California banning on zero rating.
So, all the "California organizations that represent low-income Californians (such as the Western Center on Law and Poverty) as well as organizations that promote the digital civil rights of communities of color (such as the Center for Media Justice and Color of Change)" all argued that it is in the consumers best interest to not be offered any free music or video streaming services that don't count against their data plan, it is better if they are forced to pay for the data the streaming services use. In other words, low-income, people of color, consumers are better off being forced to upgrade their data plans to more expensive tiers to accommodate their streaming needs, rather than subscribe to a lower priced tier that includes free (zero-rated) music and video streaming?
No, the reality is that these low-income "advocates" are throwing their low-income "clients" under the bus to make sure that upper and middle-class consumers pay slightly less for their broadband service.
A former regulator that sold-out once they left office and entered the private sector - now that IS news!
Seriously?
Uh, insults aside you just described peering charges, not "federal subsidies" - "Peering Charges" come from other ISPs/service providers, not the federal government.
It's designed to discourage competitors to the telecoms.
Resellers don't compete with "Big Telcos" - they resell "Big Telcos" services. Without "Big Telcos" the resellers would have nothing to sell.
Question - how does this decision help the native Americans on the reservations? Will this drive innovation and investment into the reservation? Will it improve access on the reservation? No. It will simply deny the provider that risked their capital to build the infrastructure their profits because parasitic third-parties are reselling their services at a lower cost.
The federal government requires them to lease network elements and service at pre-determined prices, set by government, without regard for the actual cost of the element.
Please explain these massive subsidies that supposedly telco's are uniquely the recipients of - they invest money and get to write-off the investment. That's not a subsidy, it's a business expense.
When your employer goes out and buys everyone new desktop computers, they also deduct that expense - is that a subsidy?
When I build a fruit stand I can deduct the cost of the actual stand - it's a business expense.
Resellers don't offer competition, they offer the exact same service, provided by their competition, at a 0profit, based on their below cost fees the government forces the facilities-based providers to offer them at.
Resellers make no investment.
Resellers don't innovate.
Resellers don't force infrastructure upgrades.
Imagine if Avis rent a car had to make their cars available to all their competitors below cost - to foster competition - at the local airport. While it reduces the barriers to starting a car rental business at the airport - you don't need to buy any cars, just resell Avis's cars, at a discount. How long would Avis stay at that airport?
Resellers by definition have nothing to offer, except higher prices.
If the facilities-based provider pulls out of the reservation, because everyone buys their services from a third-party provider which the provider must offer the third-party below cost (by law), what will the resellers sell? Will they then sue for facilities-based providers to return to the reservations?
The $25 subsidy checks were always going to flow, the difference is Pai wanted the customer subsidies to go to the facilities-based providers that actually provide the service, the court upheld that parasitic third-parties were entitled to those monies as well, even though the own no facilities, build nothing, merely act as an intermediary reselling others services at a markup.
Well, people that live on reservations don't vote in our elections.
The rule, if you even bothered to read the summary, cut parasitic third-party resellers out of the subsidy pool - these companies don't build infrastructure, they simply buy from those that do and sell it to their customers that could just as easily buy direct from the facilities-based provider.
Seriously, it didn't reduce the money available or who was eligible to get subsidy, it simply cut parasitic resellers out of the subsidy pool in favor of the providers that actually build infrastructure.
The FCC action would not have eliminated anyone's service, it would have altered the name on their monthly service bill.
That isn't "gutting" the service.
Reselling someone elseâ(TM)s network services doesnâ(TM)t create competition, it discourages investment. Why would a Verizon or Comcast roll out fiber infrastructure in a neighborhood/reservation when they are forced to sell those network services at at a discount so that others can profit off their investment? At issue is the ability for resellers to buy discounted network services from a facilities-based providers and undercut the network provider, and to do so while receiving $25 subsidy checks from govâ(TM)t. for each reservation subscriber.
You are cheering on resellers who build nothing, they simply feed off others and tell yourself that the Indians will have âoegreater choicesâ - thereâ(TM)s only one network, and you are hurting the company that risked their money to build it.
The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers.
It would have limited âoetribal residentsâ to buying services from the telco/isp that invested in the infrastructure, rather than through third-parties that only resell otherâ(TM)s network services... Resellers donâ(TM)t invest in infrastructure, they resell it - if you want to increase âoeaccessâ and drive investments in infrastructure then the FCC change was appropriate.
Itâ(TM)s like a fruit stand where the store owner sells apples for 50 cents each, but lawmakers say they must sell those apples to resellers for 40 cents each, and those resellers turn around and offer the apples for 45 cents. Keep in mind the apples cost the market 46 cents each. These resellers donâ(TM)t bring in more apples to the market, they simply sell the marketâ(TM)s apples at a discount. Eventually the grocer may decide to stock fewer apples or even drop apples from the store.
Being able to buy the exact same service provided on exactly the same network at a govâ(TM)t mandated discount isnâ(TM)t competition - it makes the service non-profitable and discourages investment in infrastructure.