1 edit | Don't take telecom policy advice from this guy... "End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network."
He doesn't realize the distinction between contractual obligations and interoperability.
"Transition away from owning airwaves. As we've seen with license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned. Cellphone coverage from huge cell towers will naturally migrate seamlessly into offices and even homes via Wi-Fi networking. No more dropped calls in the bathroom."
He doesn't realize that WiFi (802.11x) is designed for a noisy, unlicensed environment and that cellular coverage would decrease DRAMATICALLY if the spectrum was shared rather than allocated."
"End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies."
He doesn't even know exclusive franchise agreements ended long ago
"Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and phones."
Gee, wish someone would have that of that before...
 |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Go to the WISP forum. They're complaining constantly about the crowded spectrum bands they have to work in. Completely unlicensed spectrum like 2.4 GHz is a nightmare if you're trying to provide carriergrade services over it, especially if you're not the oly one in the area trying to do so. |
|
binded2
join:2009-08-11
Providence, RI | reply to SD6
said by SD6:"End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network." He doesn't realize the distinction between contractual obligations and interoperability. "Transition away from owning airwaves. As we've seen with license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned. Cellphone coverage from huge cell towers will naturally migrate seamlessly into offices and even homes via Wi-Fi networking. No more dropped calls in the bathroom." He doesn't realize that WiFi (802.11x) is designed for a noisy, unlicensed environment and that cellular coverage would decrease DRAMATICALLY if the spectrum was shared rather than allocated." "End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies." He doesn't even know exclusive franchise agreements ended long ago "Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and phones." Gee, wish someone would have that of that before... you sound like a ass i have read nothing in the news but these telcos trying ban local towns and citys from making there own networks while at the same time refusing to build it out them selfs |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to SD6
SD6
In many areas exclusive municipal cable contracts exist even today.
Look how hard Verizon had to fight just to get apartment building not to have exclusive agreements(that has been within a year or so). |
|
| said by Lazlow:SD6 In many areas exclusive municipal cable contracts exist even today. Look how hard Verizon had to fight just to get apartment building not to have exclusive agreements(that has been within a year or so). Those exclusive municipal CATV franchise agreements that still exist today are the ones that have not yet expired. But it is no longer legal for municipal CATV franchise agreements to be exclusive, and so it is pointless to suggest such a reform.
Apartment building exclusive contracts are a different thing than exclusive municipal contracts. |
|
Mce SaintPremium
join:2007-10-03
Saint Louis, MO Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Lazlow
Mixing apples and oranges only gets you fruit salad.
In 1984, Congress passed the Cable Communications Policy Act which deregulated cable television and, effectively, put the kiss of death on municipal "exclusivity" deals (i.e., monopolies) with cable companies. Now, any cable company can - in theory - compete in any city, township, municipality, or county it wants to. Problem is, few want to go head-to-head with another company, especially when there is an established incumbent.
There may be *some* municipal exclusive deals that have not yet expired. But they will in time.
Apartment building exclusive agreements are entirely different deal altogether being that the apartment is owned by a private land owner, not a municipal (i.e., public) owner.
Finally, there's a difference between municipal exclusivity deals with cable companies and municipal supplied internet service. Again, the former are dead (or dying) since the federal legislation in 1984.
As to the later, there is no legal barrier to a cable company (or other internet service provider) from providing internet service in are area covered by a municipally owned internet service provider. Instead, the "barrier" is (so, it is argued) a practical one: Cable companies (and other internet service providers) oppose municipally *owned* internet service providers because they think that they will be unable to compete with the municipally owned internet service provider since it doesn't have to worry about making a profit and can be subsidized by tax dollars. |
|
|
|
