AMD jettisons ATI brand name, makes Radeon its own – The Tech Report

My comments

Some of us who have observed what has happened with the ATI graphics chipset name was taken over by AMD and were wondering what would happen with this name and the graphics-chipset scene.

Now that AMD has changed the brand for the ATI chipsets to their own brand, who knows what could happen next especially when it comes to computer display solutions, especially integrated-display setups like in laptops, all-in-one PCs and low-profile desktop computers.

One way that the situation could evolve would be for AMD to end up making motherboard or chipset solutions centred around an AMD CPU and GPU setup. This may be in a similar vein to the Intel Centrino solutions which include an Intel Wi-Fi chipset as well as the Intel CPU.

The worst thing that could affect high-end graphics and gaming users is for AMD to pull out of the plug-in display-card scene thus reducing a competitive aftermarket when it comes to performance graphics. This is because the ATI brand has been put up as an alternative to NVIDIA when it came to aftermarket and OEM plug-in display cards pitched at the gaming, multimedia and performance graphics scene.

Once we see disappearance of brands that are part of a competitive market, there has to be others who well provide competing products or a nasty monopoly or cartel can start to exist.

 Broadband pricing in US and Europe falls • The Register

My comments

This article talks of a highly-competitive broadband Internet-service that exists in the US and Europe, with this aided and abetted by the provision of lower-cost prepaid mobile broadband services with generous usage caps and the provision of multiple-play services by the ISPs. In some countries like the UK and France, this would be augmented by telecommunications competition regulations that “have teeth” and the willingness for telecommunications regulators like OFCOM (UK) and ARCEP (France) to enforce these regulations.

In the case of multiple-play (triple-play) services, the ISPs can make up for the low-cost Internet through highly-differentiated telephone and pay-TV packages as well as selling or leasing-out hardware for these services.

But there are some other factors worth considering here. One would be that the cost of a regular cable or ADSL fixed-line service would be going downhill because most of the countries are rolling out fibre-optic-based “next-generation broadband”. Here, users who are technologically “switched on” would head to these services and the ADSL services would then be freed up and sold to most people who have regular broadband needs at a “dime-a-dozen”. It would then make the “modest-bandwidth” services become less valuable to the ISPs and these would be sold as “entry-level” services while existing customers would be shifted up to the higher-bandwidth services.

In Australia, we are missing out on this because we have a series of problems:

• The role of the universal telephony service provider is on Telstra’s hands with people who buy Telstra’s discretionary services like Internet or mobile-telephony service bearing the cost of them furnishing this basic requirement through high costs or reduced download quotas.
• Reduced infrastructure-based competition between mainstream telcos for Internet and mobile-telephony service with some operators charging others a premium to use their infrastructure.
• Higher costs and reduced international-link competition that also keep the Internet costs high.

At least the broadband issue has been one of the main playing cards in the last Federal election. This could put everyone “on notice” about the providing of cost-effective Internet service across the country.

Article

E-Government-Offensive im Microsoft-Browser | news.ORF.at (Austria – German language)

My comments and brief interpretation

Judging from my basic understanding of the German language together with use of Google’s machine translation, I had “got the gist” of this situation which would be considered hostile to the European Commission’s agenda concerning Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser.

What I was reading here was that the federal government in Austria were placing heavy emphasis on Internet Explorer 8 as part of their “e-government” initiative. This was including a downloadable toolbar add-in amongst obvious page-optimisation for this browser.

Most likely, I would suspect that, like most large organisations, the Austrian government uses Internet Explorer 8 as part of their standard operating environment and they expect that most users in that country may have stuck with IE8 even during the “Browser Choice Screen” switchover. One could say that this government could get away with this practice because many public and private organisations supply iPhone client apps to make their “front-end” useable on an iPhone which may be platform-specific.

What I would like to see with this is that if the government sites become less useful or unable to fulfil their function because of the preference for a particular browser is concerned, then the sites should be organised to at least fulfil their function no matter the desktop-computer user agent.

 EU resolves Microsoft IE antitrust case | Microsoft – CNET News

From the horse’s mouth

European Union

Microsoft’s press release

My comments on this issue

Previously, there was talk of Microsoft having to supply European customers with “browser-delete” options for copies of Windows 7 operating system where they would have to explicitly download their browser of choice and wouldn’t be able to “get going” with Internet Explorer. Now, there is the requirement to provide a “browser-select” screen when you can install any of 12 alternative browsers and nominate one of the other browsers as the default browser. This will have the browsers organised in a random order so as not to favour Internet Explorer or a “browser-skin” with hooks to the Internet Explorer code.

One main improvement that I had liked about this is that you can deploy more than one browser from the “browser-select” screen, which will please Web-site developers who want to test their site in other browser environments. Similarly this will please users who are testing browsers for a proposed usage environment or replicating problems encountered with a particular browser.

It will be feasible for a computer supplier to “run with” a different default browser yet consumers can choose whichever browser suits them better. This would be more so with operations like Dell or the small independently-run High Street computer shops who build computers “to order” for individuals, rather than suppliers like HP/Compaq or Toshiba who build systems to particular packages to be sold through electronics chain stores.

The only issue is whether an individual or organisation can determine a particular browser as part of a Windows-based “standard operating environment” when they specify their computer equipment and not have to pass through the “browser-select” screen. Also, what will be the expectation for any proposed computer fleets and “standard operating environments”? Will the company who buys the computer equipment be able to determine which is the default browser for their environment or will they be required to allow individual staff members / end-users to choose which browser they are to work with? The reason I am raising this issue is because in some countries within the EEA like France, there is an organised-labour culture where the trade unions can exercise a lot of influence over what goes on in a workplace.

Another issue that may need to be raised is whether the European-specific “browser-choice” arrangements will be available outside of the European Economic Area. This may be of concern to independent system builders who may want to assure customers of browser choice as a differentiating factor or local, state or federal government departments who may want to be assured of this for computers supplied as part of their IT programs operating in their area or as part of a legislative requirement for their area. It may also be of benefit to PC users who want to load their computers with many browsers so as to, for example, test a Web site under many operating environments.

 thinkbroadband :: European Commission introduces broadband funding guidelines

European Commission Broadband Funding Guidelines – PDF document (English) (Français) (Deutsch)

My comments and summary of this document

The European Commission’s goal in this document is to provide 100% high-speed broadband service to every European citizen – broadband to he just like regular telephone or electricity service. They are to put EUR 1.02bn to European Agricultural Fund For Rural Development with part of this money for equipping rural areas with high-speed broadband “hot and cold running Internet”. As well, member countries are pitching money towards deploying very high speed Internet services (fibre-optic Internet) into populated areas.

The activities covered in the guidelines may typically be equipment and backhaul “pipeline” to provide broadband Internet to remote population centres in the case of basic broadband provision or equipment and works to provide next-generation broadband to areas that aren’t worth it due to sparse population or poorer neighbourhoods that are less likely to pay for the service.

What to be done to qualify for State aid

New basic-broadband services

• Proper geographical analysis of Internet service in all areas to identify white and grey areas
• Open tender process for providing the State-underpinned services or infrastructure
• Most economically advantageous offer (best value for money) to be preferred for providing the service
• Technology-neutral service so that a provider can use their choice of wireline, terrestrial wireless, satellite wireless or mobile wireless technologies or provide a mix of the technologies
• Use of existing infrastructure (ducts, poles, black fibre, etc) preferred without favouring existing incumbent operators.
• Wholesale access to be preferred so that fair and equitable retail Internet access can be provided to customers from multiple providers
• Prices to be benchmarked to assess real competitiveness
• Support for a claw-back mechanism if there is over-compensation

New next-generation broadband services

Preference to pure competition such as access to ducts, black fibre or bitstream by competing operators; or support for differing topologies like point-to-point or point-to-multipoint

This could include providing for the use of trenches caused by renovation works for existing services like electricity, gas or water.

What hasn’t been covered

One major gap that exists in these guidelines, especially as far as unbundled services or next-generation broadband services is concerned is privately-owned multi-tenancy developments like shopping centres or blocks of flats.

In these places, a property owner or management committee could permit only a particular operator to lay infrastructure in their building and prohibit competing providers from laying their infrastructure in the same building. There isn’t provision for measures that preclude this kind of behaviour that denies tenants or unit owners access to infrastructurally-competitive Internet service.

Conclusion

This document should be looked at and considered by governments and telecommunications regulators when they prepare frameworks for next-generation telecommunications and Internet services.

Over the last week, Microsoft put up the idea of offering the “E” versions of all of its Windows 7 operating system packages sold in the European Union. This version, which doesn’t include Internet Explorer, is an attempt to appease European-Commission anti-trust action that was instigated at the behest of Opera. This was even though the European Commission may require Windows-based computers to have a “ballot-screen” where the user chooses which Web browser to install when they set up their new computer.

The main issue that I was thinking about with the fiasco is whether a computer supplier will have to do what vehicle builders did before the 1980s with the car radio. That is to offer a “radio-delete” option where you bought the vehicle at a slightly-reduced cost if the radio wasn’t supplied. Most people took advantage of this option to allow the purchase of a better car radio from the retail sector, where as some just saw it as a way of reducing the cost of their vehicle purchase. This kind of packaging was more feasible with vehicles that were to be bought new off the showroom floor because the motorist was in a better position to have the desired package.

Could there then be a requirement for all computer retailers in Europe to provide computer systems with a "Web-browser delete” option where they provide the computer with no Web-browser. Users would then be supplied with a DVD-ROM disc or USB memory key that has the installation packages for four or five different Web browsers. It may appear easier to provide this option for computers that are being sold “to order”, which is practised mainly with small independently-run computer shops; or online computer resellers like Dell. On the other hand, it may not be feasible where computer equipment is sold “off the rack” like in most non-specialist stores like department stores or discount electrical stores. In these locations, users also expect to buy a particular package of equipment for the price quoted on the sticker. They can satisfy these requirements by providing the aforementioned DVD-ROM disc or USB memory key with the Web-browser installation packages.

The main issue for most users, especially those buying their first computer, is that they will go for the browser they are most familiar with, whether the one that is supplied by default with the operating system for their platform or the one that their school or workplace uses.