"__________ with this one weird trick"
I can only hope this was meant to be humorous.
Please don't attempt this humor again. Click-baiting is not something to laugh about.
69 posts • joined 13 Apr 2012
I can only hope this was meant to be humorous.
Please don't attempt this humor again. Click-baiting is not something to laugh about.
That is, those who bought into the Win8 ecosystem. Windows 8 runs like a dream for those with "detachables", those laptops that can separate from their keyboards and covert into a touch-only mode. It's far from perfect, but it's clearly the best use case for a Win8 device.
Unfortunately, Win10 drops all the useful parts of that forced Metro world for these users. :/
PS - I personally quite like Win10 so far, but I use a full, non-touch MacBook Pro as my primary device. My mother, on the other hand, will not be downgrading to Win10, and that's a little sad.
I wonder when it will get sorted out... I suspect when ICANN picks the wrong side and ends up getting hammered by a Cisco or USG.
Apparently our fellow commentards don't care as much as we do. The optimist in me says that maybe the people who do care are busy changing things instead of being commentards. Hope springs eternal.
It's spelled Mayer, not Meyer.
More likely: when no IPv6 address is configured, the extra 25ms wait will not be added. Of course, this is easily testable once the code gets out.
And again, as mentioned earlier and also in the article, that extra 25ms is only on the DNS lookup.
It's not magic that keeps those things people worry about from happening, though it is sometimes coincidence.
Believe it or not, there is some long-term planning in our society. You might not worry about it, but someone does, even if that's only because they see a profit opportunity (read: cleantech).
As far as your proclamation about CO2 output, you may be right, or that "new method of energy generation" may be nuclear generation in a few decades.
...or maybe it's my title that's misleading?
Anyway, the wording of the FAQ page and other Microsoft materials splattered about El Reg's article suggests that this only applies to PSK networks. In addition, the "friend of a friend" sharing appears to only happen if you manually give your friend the password instead of sharing it with them via Wi-Fi Sense.
IDK of a single corporate network using PSK that cares, and all the big corporate networks I've encountered use 802.1x.
Also, not having to actually share my (ideally random) password with friends (who might write it down or have to ask me several times for it) seems like a genuinely good idea and useful feature. Now, if someone walks in and wants the password, I ask if we're FB/Skype friends, and if we're not, then frankly I don't want them on my network and I communicate that politely. If I had kids, I wouldn't want them to know the password either, but I wouldn't care if they shared it with their friends (hope I don't regret those words one day). No more explaining a combination lowercase/uppercase/numeric password to someone who might miss a letter. :D
With all that said, the "opt-out" mechanism is @#)$*&@.
BTW, is this a cost cutting measure or something else?
Without further changes or information on those changes, it sure sounds like a crap plan to save a few $$$. As above commentards have mentioned, it's a great way to convince sales people that they're not valued; your best will leave immediately, the others who stay behind will merely be demoralized.
Let's see what happens in a year. I'm guessing they lose a couple of % of that 70% marketshare in about a year, more if they keep this policy in the long term.
" think the last decent Final Fantasy RPG was ten . . . It's a no brainer that Squarenix would payroll this remake . . ."
Anybody else notice that after the Enix merger Squaresoft's games went to shit?
The story in Kingdom Hearts, for example, was confused but cute. The story in all subsequent entries in the series were absolutely impossible to follow without a master's degree in Kingdom Hearts. Similar observations apply to every game released by Squeenix.
I'm a little confused.
"I believe the testing is on a new beta version of their site that is a little better - but still aspx based."
They are testing a new beta website, but it *seems* (based on my limited exposure) to be a costmestic change with little to nothing changing on the backend. Great for mobile devices, I've been told, but not much different otherwise.
"But I'm stuck with them since miles that I can't use on overseas trips are worthless to me - and I've flown with delta and american just as much over the years and they are all as bad as each other."
Derp. Uhhhh, you do know that United has probably the lowest value points of any of the 3 big US airlines, right? A worthy argument could certainly be made that SkyMiles are worse, however, American's miles are certainly the most valuable of the Big 3 US. And if you're traveling in a premium cabin, then American's become *even more* valuable than the other two. God, United even blocks out award space on some flights completely unless you're elite or have their co-brand credit card.
If you're looking to travel internationally, check out AA's award chart and compare it to United's on partners. Yeahhhhhhh. Delta doesn't even publish an award chart anymore; they'll be revenue-based soon enough.
United's code is ANCIENT and a carryover from a much smaller airline they merged with several years ago: Continental. The spectacularly failed integration of their two systems is considered the primary reason that American Airlines, in its merger with US Airways, is now working almost exclusively on a slow cutover to the reservation system of the *larger* airline (American, in case you were wondering).
What's worse is that United actually has much bigger problems than just its IT infrastructure and code. They were absolutely HEMORRHAGING cash, for example, before the economy recovered and oil prices dropped, to the point that investors were beginning to talk of ousting the CEO. They have a company culture problem, too, and old (read: inefficient) planes with poor on-time performance. And all this with the largest international network of any US airline. *sigh*
Anyone else here find it interesting that WorldMate is the company finding these bugs? I didn't even realize they were large enough to have a security officer. lol Srsly, though, if you travel a lot, check out their product.
"The three provisions that will lapse include Section 215, which the NSA uses as legal cover for its blanket slurping of citizens' mobile phone records, and which a US court has found illegal."
This is poor wording, I think, and incorrect. The three provisions you're referring to are legal, Iain (did I spell that right?). The government's interpretation specifically of section 215 was found to be illegal (it's not clear to me whether this actually has legal implications, though, because it wasn't really prudent to comment on that particular aspect of the lawsuit), but more directly, the dismissal of the case was ruled to be inappropriate. The case was sent back to the lower court for reconsideration. This is FAR from being decided, and most likely the US government will avoid letting the judiciary make a final ruling by changing the program such that the plaintiffs no longer have standing. Actually, passing this law pretty well removes their standing. Where's the controversy that a court requires?
Is this all going to be MTM or are they at least committing to FTTP for new builds?
Sorry for being so ignorant on the topic.
Not a misprint, we just like our Chocolate, and enjoy paying for it!
This is actually really interesting news. It's a hybrid of the business plans of Ting (variable month-to-month pricing without penalties), T-Mobile (free international texts and data), and Apple (special SIM card). It's also literally been a discussion since at least the original iPhone, when Jobs allegedly considered creating an MVNO for his network of iThings. That plan was probably scrapped when he had trouble even getting a single carrier to agree to Apple's *other* conditions for carrying the iPhone, like control over software updates, and prepurchasing millions of the suckers at a time.
Actually, the guy who tweeted specifically called out the TSA for being the most reasonable of the involved agencies, because they basically weren't involved. The FBI was the group that detained him.
Better coverage here: http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2015/04/20/does-an-airline-have-the-right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone/
It's going to be the majority leader (and their whip[s]).
Interesting point about the presidential candidates, though!
Wouldn't any block device be "Time Machine-compatible"?
Pic is because that's what I look like right now. Let me know if I'm wrong.
However, I'd opine (if asked) that Snowden was more responsible in his disclosure, both because it was purposeful, and also because it was thoughtful. Snowden segregated the duties such that others were responsible for sifting through the data, interpreting it, and deciding what and what to release it.
Petraeus was simply sloppy. He was irresponsible in handing over his notes that contained classified materials, which he would not have done if he'd been thinking about it (at least, God, I hope he was not thinking about it!).
Which deserves the harsher punishment? And what exactly is being punished?
Yeah, and there's reason to be cautious, but we only need one thing to keep Jeb from getting elected:
A well-timed statement of any kind from dear old W.
His own party hates him for a reason, and he definitely soiled his family's name while in office, particularly during the 2nd term (much as Obama isn't doing anyone favors right now). If Jeb wants to separate himself from his family, he's going to have to prove he's different. Every time I read an article about him right now, though, it only seems to prove that he's the same as W... and Jeb doesn't have Rove working for him.
This analogy fails very quickly.
Causing buffering on Netflix, for example, would be analogous to being able to pick up the paper from an ATT quarter-eating news-stand and finding that only the headlines are present, or only the first page, and that the rest is blank.
IDK that analogies to existing media are appropriate when adjudicating whether ATT is an "information service provider."
If you're really going to run with it, though... ATT owns the quarter-eater, but also the printing press, and blames the person trying to publish material (hereby the content producer) for not paying enough to print the whole run in a timely manner, resulting in some blank spaces. The content producer says he hired Bob to handle the whole process, and Bob blames ATT because he even offered to pay for the upgraded ATT equipment needed to produce the run in a timely manner but ATT refused and insisted on *service* terms instead of a one-off deal whereby Bob purchased equipment for ATT as part of Bob's capex. All parties thereby attempt to absolve themselves of responsibility.
Even this loses some significant amount of the nuance of the situation.
Is the author familiar with recent Presidential history?
It's not at *all* clear that Obama would veto a bill imposing internet regulations. Presidents regularly threaten to veto bills that they ultimately sign into law. It's really difficult to discern the signal from the noise on such issues, but Obama's only had TWO vetoes his entire term in office. That's a low count, even for the number of bills passing across his desk.
Besides that bit, the article was a fine read. Carry on.
Does anybody have an AED?
So this is interesting! Wheeler has almost certainly been the most effective Chairman in at least 10 years, and is probably the most reasonable as well.
Let's see whether he can push past the partisanship and also pay attention to the details (like the minutiae of bidding rules for wireless spectrum) going forward. Perhaps the whole "neutrality" thing has been swallowing his time of late. I also imagine that this round of bidding was well through the process by the time he arrived, so we'll have to see in 2016.
Is there some humor to be found in the fact that ISIS is what kept Google Wallet off the phones of the aforementioned carriers?
If only we had a system that could detect funny looking network traffic with things like names, SSN's, email addresses, etc.... or, at least, one that could pick up on GB's of data heading to servers with IP addresses in countries that we don't do business with... Hmmm......
Yes, I'm saying an IPS/IDS would have done them some good. And to say otherwise is a suspicious claim, at least.
Certainly everything has its place, but, believe me, blades will bring their own issues. They're just like everything else... everything is unique.
Just wait until you hit that $VENDOR bug where all your $COMPONENT reset all AT THE SAME TIME! :D
It's happened before.
I'm totally sympathetic to your plight, though, and have run into my own share of life-sucking problems. In my case, it's usually a bug in our vendor's software (Cisco/Meraki), and they won't even let us see the logs. For us, the worst crime is when the bug COMES BACK. We've twice (since summer 2012) had regressions with firmware updates MONTHS after an issue we surfaced was patched.
It's a weird mish-mash. Originally founded as a federation of independently sovereign States, our legislative, judicial, and executive processes have morphed us into a weird hybrid model where not all rights are clear. For better or worse, though, every jurisdiction (federal, state, locality, and possibly county) has a clear right to tax the ever living F*&$ out of every single individual, as long as that's what society wants.
With all that said, I don't see why this particular issue is such a huge deal. It only takes one company to track it all and run the simple multiplication tables on each transaction. They could keep a small % of each, the same way Visa does. C'est la vie. Though I certainly agree that an economic analysis is called for; if it doesn't make financial sense yet, then it just doesn't make financial sense yet.
Even more lately, my experience has been crappy with consumer gear, particularly routers and WAP's. Back in 2012 I was working to onboard remote employees, including setting up port forwarding on their personal routers to support SIP, and there was literally not a single one that worked the way it should, for whatever reason.
These days, I'm deploying gear and putting out Ubiquiti for both routing and wireless. The wireless still has funny moments now and again (don't ask about v6 support), but the EdgeLite routers are based on Vyatta and have been ROCK solid since install. Not the same features as a UTM appliance, but not the same bugs, either.
I once read a book about Apple's early history, I wish I could remember the name. When Jobs was working on the Macintosh, they had an anecdote about how he pushed suppliers. He pushed and pushed and pushed until they had virtually no margins, then told them to be glad that they were taking part in changing the world, and he sold those suppliers on the idea that Apple would move 10's (if not 100's) of millions of Macintosh boxen, making the investment worthwhile. Of course, the closest sales estimate I can find is that of 70,000 units within 100 days. Certainly not the millions that Steve and Co. were counting on.
Further, I've read unsubstantiated reports that Tim Cook, formerly (?) COO, was also renowned for his tough dealings with suppliers.
It's not surprising that this is how Apple approached the situation. It's moderately surprising that GTAT acquiesced instead of telling them to get lost.
Actually, that's probably what lead to this situation. GTAT was the furnace maker, and not in the business of making sapphire. So Apple needed a way of keeping competitors from developing sapphire screens, and one way of doing that is to lock GTAT into a contract with Apple. Of course, GTAT could have shown them the door and said go find a builder because we don't have any experience there, but that was one of only a handful of options available to Apple.
GTAT should have recognized the strength of their hand. There's a reason Apple is approaching you, GTAT.
You could sound like an arse for giving loads of money away to support education?
More seriously, how much of a problem is it that so much wealth is concentrated at Harvard because of the network opportunities and social prestige? This is sort of the epitome of conspicuous consumption for the donation field. (The true epitome of conspicuous consumption being that Microsoft arch-rival Larry Ellison, who practically owns his own Hawaiian island.)
"And calmly and rationally batting aside objections like "Obamacare"."
Let's do just that for a moment. Did you see The Oatmeal's comic about this? Here, have a look if you haven't already: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
Go ahead, soak it in. Now, let's also take in Senator Cruz's full quote: ""Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government."
As I stated in an earlier comment, 3+ million comments to the FCC and <1% oppose net neutrality. Mr. Cruz's comment can and should be used against him. It was stupid. With that said...
He has kind of a point after the semicolon. I'm willing to take that into consideration. However, I don't believe that regulating the last mile into a shared access medium is inherently incompatible with his concerns.
The Oatmeal takes pains to point this out. It doesn't make sense for a Senator to be opposed to the idea of net neutrality, only certain aspects of its implementation. I think the Senator's expressed concerns can be accommodated. What I don't think is that he and his colleagues will actually focus enough on the topic to accomplish anything worthwhile. So, for my time investment, it's much more effective to try out non-legislative solutions; it's simply more efficient. If we *must* involve Congress (which, in spite of your proclamations to the contrary, may not be the case) then this fight will be longer, slower, and vastly more expensive, and that's assuming that the legislators get everything right (which they recently proved they could not, even when having the free time to do so from being the least productive Congress in AGES, as they still haven't got patent reform right).
I have to agree with the first half here. 3+ million comments to the FCC, early indications of which suggest that <1% of them are negative in sentiment toward net neutrality, would disagree with your claims, Andrew.
That's also the reason that Mr. Cruz's comment was incredibly stupid, politically speaking. It revealed an astounding disregard for the demonstrated feelings of the US public.
Am I missing something here? There's a lot of talk about price, but it's nothing like the price of the last Nexuses (ignoring Nexus One). I also don't think comparing the $700 64GB's Nexus 6 price to Apple's $750 64GB iPhone 6 price or even $850 64GB iPhone 6+ is a fair comparison when talking about how "cheap" it is compared to the competition.
Perhaps I'm a bit lost but comparison of "flagship" Google/Apple phones would look more like this:
Nexus 5 (last year's model): $350 (if you can find it)
Nexus 6: $650
iPhone 6: $650
iPhone 6+: $750
And just to be clear a "really good phone" can be had for $400-ish in the OnePlus One. A "good enough" phone can be had for $200-ish in the Moto G. Want a different vendor's "flagship"?
Samsung Galaxy S5: $500(-ish)
If you're going to compare pricing, please be clear about what you're comparing.
Further, the Nexus line changed my expectation for my investment in a phone. I do NOT want to double the price of my phone (pushing it into laptop pricing territory) for a marginal performance increase. Further, even if I'd drunk the Apple Kool-Aid (disclosure: I too hate phablets, and until the iPhone 6, I at least thought Apple had good design sense), I'd only be looking at the entry level models. To me, all my data lives online, so I only need enough space for my apps and what I might want on a given plane ride.
Note for the author: I hope our shared preference for non-phablets manifests itself in a course correction on the smartphone trajectory. I need something discreet, not a laptop replacement.
So I took the time to read that 24-page white paper (thanks for the link, author!).
There are some strengths and weaknesses. Let's cover some strengths first:
"Under the plain terms of the statute, mobile broadband Internet access cannot be CMRS.
CMRS is a mobile service that makes “available to the public” an “interconnected service”—i.e.,
a service “that is interconnected with the public switched network.”"
"public switched network" used to imply the PSTN, which is a legitimate point. The only flaw being that it doesn't explicitly *state* PSTN. Still, it's a strength for Verizon's argument against treating wireless under Title II.
"Reliance interests are especially relevant here because the avowed and express purpose of
the Commission’s prior classification orders was to induce the billions in investment that have
Although the Supreme Court suggested in Fox that an agency may receive more
leeway for a policy change when its prior views on the question were equivocal, 556 U.S. at 518,
for almost two decades, the Commission has done precisely the opposite when it comes to
classifying broadband. The Commission has repeatedly and unequivocally interpreted the 1996
Act to exclude broadband from Title II."
Yeah, that one's going to hurt. The justices like doing economic analyses to decide law, and this is going to be painful for the FCC. On the other hand...
"...(reasoning that an agency must provide “a more complete explanation” when
changing its position either on “particular factual findings . . . or . . . on its view of the governing
law,” because then “one would normally expect the agency to focus upon those earlier views of
fact, or law, . . . and explain why they are no longer controlling""
That's a weakness, believe it or not. The justices didn't close the door, but again stated that they would need a reasonable argument, which might be challenging, but is probably possible to achieve. There are a lot of really smart lawyers out there in the world!
"Unbundling would create prohibitive complexities in delivering separate services;
customers would have to pay for both types of services, which would raise consumer costs; and
all of this would drive away consumers and providers from broadband service, thereby harming
the Commission’s goal of promoting broadband deployment."
I don't think there's any other passage in the entire paper that's more fluff. This is completely a matter of interpretation. All they have to do is redefine "broadband" (say, as 25Mbps) and suddenly deployment numbers drop, and unbundling COULD lower costs for some subset of users, meaning greater deployment. This one is way too easy to wipe away.
"There still is no way to use the Internet and to
access, utilize, retrieve or process the stored information available through web sites around the
world “without also purchasing a connection to the Internet,” "
This is both untrue and also because of bundling. Unbundle it. He goes on, though...
"Indeed, given developments in the nature of broadband services offered since the time of
Brand X, the conclusion that broadband Internet access is an integrated offering is even more
true today. The typical broadband Internet access services today use telecommunications to
perform even more information service capabilities than they did when Brand X was decided.
New parental controls, for example, allow customers to identify and filter inappropriate content.
Multiple e-mail accounts allow customers to store, access, utilize and make available
information. And on-line storage services are a common part of broadband Internet access
offerings and allow customers both to store information they retrieve on-line and then to access,
utilize, and further process that information. All of these information services are “functionally
integrated” services that “transmit data only in connection with the further processing of
information” and require the use of telecommunications."
None of the examples cited are fundamentally a part of the internet connection/access, therefore are not "functionally integrated," in spite of what Verizon wants you to believe.
Give me my IP address, or even just my L2 modem via Title II, and I'll bring you competitors for your L3 business. Here's to hoping the FCC sees it the same way.
Well, I was going to offer that perhaps Obama would show some backbone here. That is, until I looked up his records.
Who wouldn't want to stick to that Washingtonian veto pattern?
It could still be blamed on the highly unproductive congresscritters of late, but yeah, that's kind of my last bastion of hope. Anyone taking bets on whether that ambiguity becomes a concession after January?
...but it's wrong. So wrong.
"Given the precarious position of the FCC, it's likely that only Congress has the authority to devise telco regulation that might withstand a legal assault."
There's very little legal ground for the above claim. The Supreme Court did not declare that ISP's are "information services" (which would leave little to no room for the FCC to reclassify them), it declared the all courts must defer to the FCC in making these decisions. So, if the FCC changes its mind about whether ISP's are "telecommunications services" providers, they have the Supreme Court's official blessing to do so.
You're wrong, Andrew. See below for an excerpt from the NCTA v. Brand X decision backing up my claims.
"n Chevron, this Court held that ambiguities in statutes within an agency’s jurisdiction to administer are delegations of authority to the agency to fill the statutory gap in reasonable fashion. Filling these gaps, the Court explained, involves difficult policy choices that agencies are better equipped to make than courts. ... If a statute is ambiguous, and if the implementing agency’s construction is reasonable, Chevron requires a federal court to accept the agency’s construction of the statute, even if the agency’s reading differs from what the court believes is the best statutory interpretation."
Also, this appears to be a leap out of an ignorance of the topic (it is complicated, so I don't blame Andrew for being ignorant, if that's the case):
"Google built the world's largest private network to carry YouTube traffic – would it be happy with everyone using these facilities? Or would Amazon be obliged to offer free access to its cloud? Google has already said it doesn't offer voice with its fibre because of common carrier regulations, even though the cost of the voice part would be "almost nothing" to Google."
We're talking specifically about *consumer* services, not extending Title II to private internal networks. That's dumb, dude. IDK what would lead you to believe such things would happen.
"My business is paying around $500/month for 20Mb service. I pay $100/month for 100Mb service at my house. The difference?"
The difference is, in part, that you're a business. Therefore, you pay for "business class" services, which basically means F%$& you, the telcos can charge what they want because you'll still pay it (this is the same reason airline tickets are more expensive last minute; business travelers often buy last minute and will pay more for the privilege... because they can pay more for the privilege). With Comcast, that means, technically, that you don't have a usage cap, and legally, that your ass is covered (allowed to run servers and buy the connection as a business without violating the ToS).
I'm not disagreeing per se, just saying that it's not a straightforward apples-to-apples comparison.
If only they actually did that, instead of lying to buyers about timelines and where their money was going.
BTW, it's illegal in the US to take money for pre-orders, then use it to fund development activities. That's what Kickstarter is for, not pre-orders.
The issue is not what the company would eventually do (though they were at least 9 months behind when they were raided and had assets seized), but the fraud in how the company was being run. That's illegal and, frankly, based on the chat logs, I'd say it should be punished. You can't treat a company like your personal bank account, because that's called embezzlement.
Hey, the first half of that film was excellent (though I've found most people found it boring).
You won't catch me defending the second half, though, nor Boyle's apparent views on women in storytelling.
$500M in net profit last year on revenues of $13B.
This is the same company that's beginning a campaign of putting tip envelopes in rooms so that guests are "more aware" of the "custom of tipping housekeeping."
Hey, that's the Nicaraguan First Lady you're talking about! (Read: She's not just a "government press person," she's actually highly influential in politics, moreso than most First Lady's, and disturbingly out of touch with science.)
I'm guessing this was an explosive. The interesting thing is that it might not be from the civil war (Somoza) or Contra era; there's evidently a small, but new, wave of violence sweeping the country. We may see more of this in the future, and it may turn out that the political leaders or military were looking for an alternative explanation to distract from the fact that they don't know what caused this.
"The best part of half a day..." means at least half of half a day. Assuming an hour work day, he means 2-ish hours. I am not impressed with your logic.
Also, at least on our HP blades at work, BL460c, I think, of G1 and G8 variety, it takes about 10-20 mins at least to get through the boot sequence. We've also had bad luck getting the firmwares updated as there are several tools and they'll sometimes take 45+ mins to figure out that they are lacking some file or other dependency ("no, you'll have to upgrade this *other* firmware first and you need a different tool for that") and you have to start all over again... In short, 2AM upgrades on HP blades are hell.
If you and yours take less than an hour, you should offer training courses and/or thank your lucky stars.
The two IPv6 sessions have the same link. Intended?
And peepholes, for that matter. Seriously, I've had a smartphone since 2008 and STILL I have to carry a sharp, malformed chunk of potentially lethal (for children, natch) metal with me at all times?
I actually spent some time thinking about this once. Refrigerators are near useless to network, but a lightswitch is remarkably useful. For example, turn on the A/C/heating when lightswitch detects a paired bluetooth smartphone nearby and adjust the dimmer based on time of day or detected lighting levels.
Personally, I want an oven that dings my smartphone to let me know when it's done preheating. I tend to step away and forget while waiting for it to warm up enough to cook my frozen pizza.
"Going the "my techno and nothing else" is becoming more and more a strategical mistake for Cupertino. Soon, they will realise it ..."
Because the more you say it, the more true it is.
I miss the old days... can El Reg bring back that little touch? It's nice that you still mention it, but I prefer the full effect of "Warning:" written just beforehand.
Ditz. This is getting fucking annoying. Snowden's like Manning, in that he handed over the files, and now reporters are combing through them to write articles. At least, that's the last I'd heard.
If this weren't already the Register, I'd expect the Register to be skewering you and every other half-brained reporter. Truly, it's sad.
Or it could be indicative of a negotiating position when Telstra comes to the table. It gives them some leverage.