elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Wisdom, Kansas Style The bill doesn't "give cable a monopoly".
Instead, it frees obsolete, unsustainable copper markets, to be competitive via wireless service.
Nothing prevents an overbuilder or cooperative from building their own last-mile network, or for that matter, the local municipality from taking ownership of the copper plant, if they should choose to invoke eminent domain and pay FMV for the franchise. |
|
ke4pymPremium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Broadban..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Northland Cable ..
| said by elray:Nothing prevents an overbuilder or cooperative from building their own last-mile network, or for that matter, the local municipality from taking ownership of the copper plant, if they should choose to invoke eminent domain and pay FMV for the franchise.
Good thing this isn't in NC. Because the muni's can't get in that business.
Well, they can. After they jump through so many hoops it bankrupts them... |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to elray
said by elray:Instead, it frees obsolete, unsustainable copper markets, to be competitive via wireless service.
Wireless isn't even close to being competitive with cable. |
|
|
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to ke4pym
said by ke4pym:said by elray:Nothing prevents an overbuilder or cooperative from building their own last-mile network, or for that matter, the local municipality from taking ownership of the copper plant, if they should choose to invoke eminent domain and pay FMV for the franchise.
Good thing this isn't in NC. Because the muni's can't get in that business. Well, they can. After they jump through so many hoops it bankrupts them... Most government agencies don't need any help going bankrupt.
That's only one of many reasons why they should stay out of the broadband business. Lets leave the BK losses to investors and shareholders, thanks.
But if a muni sincerely wants to, they can, indeed, take over the local franchise, providing they pay for it. What you call "hoops" we call checks and balances, protecting the citizens from the errant folly of their elected officials.
What they can't and shouldn't do easily, is set up their own shop in "competition" with the very entities they once gave exclusive license to, then proceed to bankrupt them (or themselves) with a race-to-the-bottom using taxpayer funds.
And lastly, again, there is nothing that prevents a 3rd-party overbuilder, CLEC or cooperative, from entering the fray and wiring the neighborhood. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to brad
said by brad:said by elray:Instead, it frees obsolete, unsustainable copper markets, to be competitive via wireless service.
Wireless isn't even close to being competitive with cable. Wireless is competitive - "greed" will draw multiple sellers.
Cable is irrelevant in copper-only markets. |
|
CXM_Splicera more sensible viewPremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by elray:said by brad:said by elray:Instead, it frees obsolete, unsustainable copper markets, to be competitive via wireless service.
Wireless isn't even close to being competitive with cable. Wireless is competitive - "greed" will draw multiple sellers. Cable is irrelevant in copper-only markets. If spectrum wasn't a fixed resource you would be right. |
|
| reply to elray
Follow the money trail. Why are these types of anti municipal fiber bills universally funded by the telephone and cable companies? Because they're trying to protect taxpayer money out of the goodness of their own heart? |
|
ke4pymPremium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Verizon Broadban..
·RoadRunner Cable
·Northland Cable ..
| reply to elray
said by elray:Most government agencies don't need any help going bankrupt.
That's only one of many reasons why they should stay out of the broadband business. Lets leave the BK losses to investors and shareholders, thanks.
But if a muni sincerely wants to, they can, indeed, take over the local franchise, providing they pay for it. What you call "hoops" we call checks and balances, protecting the citizens from the errant folly of their elected officials.
What they can't and shouldn't do easily, is set up their own shop in "competition" with the very entities they once gave exclusive license to, then proceed to bankrupt them (or themselves) with a race-to-the-bottom using taxpayer funds.
And lastly, again, there is nothing that prevents a 3rd-party overbuilder, CLEC or cooperative, from entering the fray and wiring the neighborhood.
I find this argument funny.
No, you can't use tax payer dollars to back a broadband solution (read: not directly fund).
But it's okay (at least in this city) to:
Use (local and (as proposed) state) tax payer dollars to fund a renovation of a privately owned NFL stadium.
Use tax payer dollars to fund a trolley to no where (that gets stuck in traffic like cheaper-to-run city buses).
Use tax payer dollars to fund our basketball team.
Now, our water and sewer is tax payer backed. But it is funded by revenue collected by those using the system. Why are people not against this? But against this model for broadband? |
|
ke4pymPremium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Verizon Broadban..
·RoadRunner Cable
·Northland Cable ..
| reply to elray
said by elray:said by brad:said by elray:Instead, it frees obsolete, unsustainable copper markets, to be competitive via wireless service.
Wireless isn't even close to being competitive with cable. Wireless is competitive - "greed" will draw multiple sellers. Cable is irrelevant in copper-only markets. What is a copper-only market? Last I checked, cable was delivered over copper (in 98.9% of the cases). |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to elray
Checks and balances should apply to AT&T, as well as the municipalities. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:If spectrum wasn't a fixed resource you would be right.
According most of the partisans here, spectrum is unlimited.
But while you are technically correct, for purposes of replacing copper service to low-density / rural settings, spectrum availability for fixed-LTE should not be an issue, only the unrealistic expectations of "unlimited" service levels held by a small minority of subscribers. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | No, it is only the deluded that think spectrum is unlimited. The same people who think wireless is actually adequate for replacing wireline services (under current conditions).
Then it isn't a replacement for wireline services. |
|
CXM_Splicera more sensible viewPremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| True... I think there is a BIG difference is saying 'spectrum is unlimited' and 'there is no spectrum crunch'. I don't think I have ever heard anyone profess the former.
If spectrum is not an issue and demand will create competitors then why don't we have a hundred different wireless competing like they do in parts of Europe? |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by CXM_Splicer:True... I think there is a BIG difference is saying 'spectrum is unlimited' and 'there is no spectrum crunch'. I don't think I have ever heard anyone profess the former.
If spectrum is not an issue and demand will create competitors then why don't we have a hundred different wireless competing like they do in parts of Europe?
Demand does not exist if you aren't willing to pay; most of the underserved/unserved low-density rural markets have a majority disconnected population that either isn't interested in, or unwilling to pay market rates for broadband.
"Parts of Europe" don't have 100 different wireless "competitors".
They have resellers, much like we have MVNOs, which is a more rational way of using (ahem) limited spectrum if you don't want to have a monopoly operator.
Fixed LTE is in its infancy; in the next few years, we will see it widely deployed, and presuming it works, the profit potential will induce additional players to come to each market, and force the rates down further. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by elray:said by CXM_Splicer:True... I think there is a BIG difference is saying 'spectrum is unlimited' and 'there is no spectrum crunch'. I don't think I have ever heard anyone profess the former.
If spectrum is not an issue and demand will create competitors then why don't we have a hundred different wireless competing like they do in parts of Europe?
Demand does not exist if you aren't willing to pay; most of the underserved/unserved low-density rural markets have a majority disconnected population that either isn't interested in, or unwilling to pay market rates for broadband. "Parts of Europe" don't have 100 different wireless "competitors". They have resellers, much like we have MVNOs, which is a more rational way of using (ahem) limited spectrum if you don't want to have a monopoly operator. Fixed LTE is in its infancy; in the next few years, we will see it widely deployed, and presuming it works, the profit potential will induce additional players to come to each market, and force the rates down further. So then until the plans improve and the rates come down it isn't a replacement for wireline broadband connections. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by brad:said by elray:Demand does not exist if you aren't willing to pay; most of the underserved/unserved low-density rural markets have a majority disconnected population that either isn't interested in, or unwilling to pay market rates for broadband.
Fixed LTE is in its infancy; in the next few years, we will see it widely deployed, and presuming it works, the profit potential will induce additional players to come to each market, and force the rates down further.
So then until the plans improve and the rates come down it isn't a replacement for wireline broadband connections. In the case of the rural LEC, it is a replacement for wireline today, as those services don't even qualify as broadband, according to the goalpost-movers here. Again, assuming, that the technology works well as deployed - the jury is still out.
I do agree with you, CXMSlicer, sonicmerlin, and others that the rate structure is disappointing at present. While your contingent apparently can't understand the fundamental need for structured limits, I concur that the bucket rates are unreasonably high. We should see that improve, dramatically, over the coming years. |
|
CXM_Splicera more sensible viewPremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to elray
"Parts of Europe" don't have 100 different wireless "competitors".
quote:
The gap reflects differences in the competitive landscape. Europe has about 100 mobile firms to the United States' six, as well as harsher rules that have sapped profitability and contributed to four straight years of revenue decline.
»news.yahoo.com/divide-between-eu···tor.html
What do you think it is that keeps that from happening here in the US? |
|
| Well it does help that Europe is an entire continent made up of 50 countries with even more languages. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to CXM_Splicer
We are thankfully, not Europe.
The article is making a false comparison.
The EU is 27 countries.
I think you'd find that there are 4-5 "mobile firms" present in each.
The EU does benefit from having a common radio protocol, which makes for more efficient use of spectrum, and makes forcing wholesale roaming tariffs a bit easier, so virtual cross-border operation doesn't require as much capital.
Most of that does not, can not, and will not apply to us. |
|
