ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
just stahpHow the hell do we get this guy fired for incompetence? | |
|
| |
Re: just stahpThe only way it's going to happen is if Romney is elected President. The bad thing about that is that Republican's favor big business and the like to give them what they want so nothing will change. | |
|
| | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: just stahpI'm all for big business as long as there is competition. | |
|
| | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to battleop
said by battleop:The only way it's going to happen is if Romney is elected President.Republican's favor big business and the like to give them what they want so nothing will change. And how do you figure that? Genachowski is Obama's man and all Genachowski is doing is following his Dem orders. A change can only help things. | |
|
| | | The Limit Premium Member join:2007-09-25 Denver, CO |
Re: just stahpThis might not be related, but: » factcheck.org/2012/10/wh ··· ditions/I'm not saying Obama is better, because Obama is guilty on going back and forth, but if Romney is acting like this now, what makes you think that he will be any different in office? I ask this out of sheer curiosity. Also: » www.isidewith.com/obama- ··· e-issuesThe fact that the two candidates are similar implies that nothing is really going to change. What are your thoughts on these issues in light of "Genachowski being Obama's man"? Even if this is true, what's to say that Romney won't replace Genachowski with someone similar, IE no backbone? | |
|
| | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 4:16 pm
Re: just stahpIt isn't related. That link shows more difference than similarities and nothing discusses the FCC. So why couldn't the FCC change under a Romney appointed chairman? | |
|
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
Re: just stahpTo say that something is bad under Obama so 'a change will only help things' is flawed logic. You ignore the possibility that things could be (and I suspect would be) worse under Romney. Unfortunately, many Romney-ites rely on this very logic to advance his candidacy rather than actually state HOW it would be better.
What are Romney's planned changes for the FCC that would improve it over Obama's version? | |
|
| | | | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 5:05 pm
Re: just stahpsaid by CXM_Splicer:What are Romney's planned changes for the FCC that would improve it over Obama's version? Romney says nothing about FCC directly. His generic anti-regulatory plans could impact the FCC though. » www.mittromney.com/sites ··· tory.pdfOnly mention of FCC by Romney on his issues web site: The Federal Communications Commission imposed network neutrality regulations (defying both the legislature and judiciary) that restrict how Internet service providers manage the digital transmissions flowing through their networks. I suspect a Romney appointed FCC Chairman along with the 2 Repubs on commission would gut any activist activities by the FCC. And IMHO, that is a good thing. | |
|
| | | | | | | rit56 join:2000-12-01 New York, NY |
rit56
Member
2012-Oct-11 5:25 pm
Re: just stahpRomney doesn't say anything about anything. He is on both sides of every issue. Really pathetic. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
to FFH5
I would strongly disagree. That second part you mention concerning the FCC clearly shows he will put someone in place that will give the incumbents all they want while the consumer continues to get screwed.
The looming net neutrality regulations are the only reason we dont have intertubes for all different services and ridiculous access agreements between carries that will do nothing more than cost consumers more money and line the pockets of the industry they should be protecting us from. | |
|
| | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:I suspect a Romney appointed FCC Chairman along with the 2 Repubs on commission would gut any activist activities by the FCC. And IMHO, that is a good thing. Activist activities? Can you be more specific? Certainly you don't mean the net neutrality issue you quoted from Romney... their 1934 congressional mandate clearly defines this as their jurisdiction. Seeing how the FCC is a regulatory agency, I fail to see how anti-regulatory plans would make it 'better'. More than likely, it is an attempt to make it worse (to the point of useless) in order to bypass its consumer protecting regulations. | |
|
| | | | | | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by CXM_Splicer:What are Romney's planned changes for the FCC that would improve it over Obama's version? Romney says nothing about FCC directly. His generic anti-regulatory plans could impact the FCC though. » www.mittromney.com/sites ··· tory.pdfOnly mention of FCC by Romney on his issues web site: The Federal Communications Commission imposed network neutrality regulations (defying both the legislature and judiciary) that restrict how Internet service providers manage the digital transmissions flowing through their networks. I suspect a Romney appointed FCC Chairman along with the 2 Repubs on commission would gut any activist activities by the FCC. And IMHO, that is a good thing. Good for consumers how? EXPLAIN or your point is bullshit. | |
|
| | | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
Re: just stahpI think his point is that Romney's anti-regulatory plans applied to the FCC would be a good thing for big business... he is not concerned with the consumer at all. | |
|
| | | | | | The Limit Premium Member join:2007-09-25 Denver, CO |
to CXM_Splicer
That's what I was trying to point out, thanks. | |
|
| | | | | The Limit |
to FFH5
I think you missed the entire point I was trying to make.
The "big picture" is that nothing is going to change under Romney, and I'm surprised that you think this to be the case.
Did you even go to the second link? Did you read all of the viewpoints? I dare say, varying about 5-6 viewpoints, almost all of the viewpoints are in agreement with each other. | |
|
| | | |
to FFH5
Obama isn't going to replace him so we have to wait for him to retire or another party to take power and replace him. | |
|
| | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by battleop:The only way it's going to happen is if Romney is elected President.Republican's favor big business and the like to give them what they want so nothing will change. And how do you figure that? Genachowski is Obama's man and all Genachowski is doing is following his Dem orders. A change can only help things. Yes because Romney is going to be pro-customer and not pro-big business. What in his history has lead you to believe that? | |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 2:55 pm
Spectrum Crunch is all BSits just a ploy to capture the OTA TV frequencies and sell them off for more money than the license fees from the stations generate.
Smart broadcasters will not give up their licenses though.
Naturally of course "reclaimed" spectrum just gets hoarded and never used. | |
|
| TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY |
Re: Spectrum Crunch is all BSsaid by Kearnstd:its just a ploy to capture the OTA TV frequencies and sell them off for more money than the license fees from the stations generate.
Smart broadcasters will not give up their licenses though.
Naturally of course "reclaimed" spectrum just gets hoarded and never used. The worst hoarder of all is Federal, and State Goverments. Look at Wyoming the Wyoming Highway Patrol is sitting on a bunch of frequency segements in the 6 meter region they have not used since the 1960's, ditto the Wyoming Army National Guard. | |
|
| | Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2012-Oct-11 4:15 pm
Re: Spectrum Crunch is all BSsaid by Transmaster:The worst hoarder of all is Federal, and State Goverments. Look at Wyoming the Wyoming Highway Patrol is sitting on a bunch of frequency segements in the 6 meter region they have not used since the 1960's, ditto the Wyoming Army National Guard. The federal government is by far the worst hoarder of spectrum. No one in government talks about how refarming 240 MHz or more of government spectrum under 2 GHz could bring in $Billions from auctions without threatening private sector jobs. Until they do any talk of a spectrum crunch is completely bogus. | |
|
| | |
to Transmaster
Low band VHF has little to no commercial value these days. Too much interference, too much skip and extremely large antenna sizes needed. Channels 2-6 have proved quite useless for digital TV and now are largely abandoned. When it comes to the value of the radio spectrum, low band VHF is the equivalent to swamp land. | |
|
| | | Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2012-Oct-11 7:49 pm
Re: Spectrum Crunch is all BSsaid by big_e:Low band VHF has little to no commercial value these days. RF channel 6 (82-88 MHz) could be very valuable for digital FM radio use. Other low band VHF could provide supplemental backhaul to fiber optics. There are also possible unlicensed (or licensed amateur) uses. | |
|
| (Software) pfSense Asus RT-AC68 Asus RT-AC66
|
to Kearnstd
Not saying we don't have hoarders, but to pretend the spectrum crunch doesn't exist is foolish and very short sighted.
Verizon and AT&T have enough spectrum for the next 5 years probably, But we should be looking at a 10 year timetable for spectrum. Sprint and T-mobile will need more spectrum soon, practically as soon as their LTE network build is done.
Even smaller carriers need spectrum yesterday. Smaller carriers need to be given a better shot at the next spectrum auction and new spectrum needs to be opened up.
To put out a blanket statement like reclaimed spectrum is never used is just plain foolish, what freqencies do you think AT&T and Verizon's LTE networks are running on? Old Analog TV spectrum that was reclaimed. If you want to say they aren't using it fast enough and slowly building things out to appease investors I'll give you that, but your assertion is just plain false. Verizon recently bought AWS spectrum that is has every intention of using as well as AT&T's WCS spectrum buy. | |
|
mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 3:06 pm
Fix for crunch?Enable all wireless devices to support all available frequency ranges, then spread the frequencies evenly to all carriers, in the mean time REQUIRE that all devices can roam on each carriers network/share frequencies from other carriers. When a new carrier wants to enter the market, take 1mhz of frequency to each carrier until it's even again. Promote competition and no gaps in coverage, problem solved.
Matt | |
|
| |
Re: Fix for crunch?Not quite so easy, but I would agree that one universal wireless network would be best for everyone, including the business that want to sell it. | |
|
| | mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 9:08 pm
Re: Fix for crunch?said by Skippy25:Not quite so easy, but I would agree that one universal wireless network would be best for everyone, including the business that want to sell it. If not the "best" at least the most "fair" for businesses and consumers. If Carrier A get's 30 million more subscribers than all the others carriers, then you know who is doing things right and who isn't. Matt | |
|
|
Os
Member
2012-Oct-11 3:22 pm
Doesn't He Just Look Like a Tool?As for who can fix it all, no Democrat or Republican will. They're both bought and paid for. The idiots are the ones thinking the electoral process still works at all. Team Red and Team Blue are in it for themselves and their corporate buddies who pay for the campaigns, we're merely just pawns in their game thinking that we're somehow actually getting a voice. | |
|
|
refarmKarl hit the crux of the problem "refarming 2G network spectrum" is expensive and screws up profitability of the company while they "refarm." Therefore it will be the very last option a company does to remedy this issue. | |
|
| SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 4:04 pm
Re: refarmAt&t has been doing this. They moved EDGE to all 1900 MHz to free up much more 850 for UMTS/HSPA. They still have 2100 for smaller cells for congestion relief with 850 overlays for building and hill penetration. They are now slowly shutting down EDGE in some urban areas to deploy LTE on 1900 MHz, to offload locally for current 700 MHz deployments, much the way they are doing for UMTS. That's why I tell friends who even want a basic phone on an MVNO using AT&T to get one that at least does 3G. EDGE is now on lousy 1900 frequencies(coverage and building penetration) as it is being slowly phased out and shut down. I personally got an LTE phone mostly to future proof myself a bit. Otherwise, HSPA+ is fine for now for me. | |
|
| | |
jfleni
Anon
2012-Oct-11 5:31 pm
Re: refarmEDGE, UMTS/HSPA, LTE, UMTS, MVNO, HSPA+, etc, etc.
If the guy selling tacos in the street talked like that, he'd get deported in an hour!
It's a shame to see educated fools from a thousand different bufoon academies trying so hard to destroy the English language! | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to axiomatic
said by axiomatic:Karl hit the crux of the problem "refarming 2G network spectrum" is expensive and screws up profitability of the company while they "refarm." Therefore it will be the very last option a company does to remedy this issue. Refarming also disrupts those people still using older equipment. They have to BUY new devices. Of course, there are those who will say the carrier should just GIVE them new phones. | |
|
| | |
Re: refarmI'm not sure anyone would say give them new phones.
However, anyone thinking that a technology like that will live forever and not need to address the equipment on their end is blind and silly. At this point I would say it is OK to give them a 3 month notice period and let them upgrade on their one by then or lose the service. | |
|
| | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Oct-11 7:17 pm
Re: refarmsaid by Skippy25:I'm not sure anyone would say give them new phones.
However, anyone thinking that a technology like that will live forever and not need to address the equipment on their end is blind and silly. At this point I would say it is OK to give them a 3 month notice period and let them upgrade on their one by then or lose the service. 3 months? they just got a 98 1/2 month notice from Verizon. No excuses. | |
|
88615298
1 recommendation |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Oct-11 3:53 pm
Devils' AdvocateAnd for those who don't what that term means I suggest looking it up before trolling.
Would mobile companies be able to run their network efficiently with ONLY the current allotment of 4G spectrum and if there wasn't any caps once 90% or more of their customers were using 4G devices and wi-fi wasn't an option?
The answer is no. So in that vein he is correct about the spectrum crunch.
What is preventing said crunch is several fold
A) Caps. Customers hate Verizon and at&t getting rid of unlimited but the fact is keeping most of your customers to under 2 GB helps prevent more spectrum from being needed.
B) wi-fi. Training your customers to use wi-fi because of your caps also alleviates the need for more spectrum. Let's face it I could stream Netflix and Pandora all day over wi-fi and it won't effect my cell companies network at all.
C) Spectrum purchases. Julius may be a douche but he nor anyone else could have predicted Verizon would be allowed to purchase spectrum from cable companies back in 2009. This purchase helps alleviate spectrum issues.
D) Spectrum refarming. Once again unless your Nostradamus no one in 2009 or 2010 or 2011 or earlier this year could give a time table for when this would happen. Now we know. At&t will refarm 2G in 2017. Verizon will refarm 2G and 3G in 2021. Once again this will also help. But if you say you knew in 2009 WHEN this was going to happen you're full of shit.
E) Advances in technology. No one can predict when advances will come along. Not now, not in 2009. Yes some advances have been made. More will be made. What kind of advances, when they will come and how more helpful they will be no one knows. If anything we overestimate advances. 50 years ago they said by 2012 we'd have moon colonies and we would have humans land on Mars. How's that working out?
Even with all of these things there is still no way that in 10 years Verizon or at&t could offer unlimited 4G like everyone wants. Sure they could add more towers. Guess what, this cost money and then everyone will bitch about higher bills, because surely the cost will be passed onto customers. Not to mention the same people that bitch about wanting unlimited data also bitch when it's proposed that a tower be put in their area. | |
|
| •••••••• |
|
#maybe if 3 or 4 carriers work in the wireless spectrum, maybe they'll let 3 or 4 wired carriers (that's 1-3 more than already exist in many markets) for there to be competition. | |
|
|
Everything is A-OKAs long as Karl's iPhone works today, it's not a problem. Watch him scream 5 years from now when no one can connect in big cities. | |
|
scooper join:2000-07-11 Kansas City, KS |
Unless I see their farmed / stocked spectrum being usedThere is no spectrum crunch.
There is no need to crunch the OTA TV spectrum.
Need I go on ? | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Oct-12 6:53 pm
Re: Unless I see their farmed / stocked spectrum being usedsaid by scooper:There is no spectrum crunch.
There is no need to crunch the OTA TV spectrum.
Need I go on ? OTA will still exist at best they'll get channels 38-51. More likely they'll get 44-51. Looks at it this way channels 44-51 could give both Sprint and T-mobile a nationwide 10X10 MHz 4G swath and they'd very competitive with Verizon and at&t then. Isn't that what everyone wants more competition? | |
|
|
|