Re: Looks Like You mean Moore's law?!? Don't you! Add to that Metcalfe's Law and then you are closing in on Butter's Law. In plain english, Moore's means 30%+ improvements annually and Metcalfe nearly doubles that, while Butter maintains fiber can achieve 50% in 9 mos.
So how do these laws stack up with reality? Well, since we remonopolized the sector starting in the early 2000s, bandwidth pricing has indeed been falling between 12-18% annually, which sounds great and results in a 72-86% decline over that period. But wait, if we had had competition, pricing for equivalent performance would have dropped 35% or more, resulting in a nearly 99% price decline. That means current prices are 20-150x higher than they should be!
It can be said, "we live in the best of times and we live in the worst of times," depending on one's perspective and math.
Blair Levin looks like an older Daniel Craig?
If only James Bond could force competition in the broadband space. Only then might we see some action.
Re: Similar? I'm sure that he'd take the complement.... LOL
nah. more resemblance to J.K. Simmons (but with more hair)
Re: "plans" without action are useless
said by mlcarson:Until that investment earns a sufficient return, it won't happen willingly. It will require subsidies and regulation, plain and simple. Otherwise, rural areas that don't make financial sense for investors, will see wireless as their future.
That money needs to go to fiber installs in areas that haven't been built out once rather than to all of the places that already have a decent infrastructure.
said by mlcarson:So we're going to mandate rates and services? Fine, then will guarantee profits for carriers too in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and favors as a regulated monopoly.
None of it should go to wireless solutions unless there's a caveat which requires it be sold at a fixed dollar amount for unlimited usage at a similar rate that wired infrastructures are.
said by mlcarson:Why do you think money is spent? It's spent as an investment; for financial gain and/or the betterment of society.
Why should it go to places the company would be investing anyway.
said by mlcarson:That would be the financial gain part of my previous statement. If you want the betterment of society with upgraded infrastructure in rural environments, it'll take tax breaks, subsidies, and/or political favors to get it done. Spending billions of dollars across huge swaths of rural America does not make for wise financial investments for many of those areas.
It's pretty obvious now that these carriers are going to put next to nothing into rural infrastructure on their own but have no problems at all pouring money into urban areas where there is competition or in highly profitable items like 4G wireless.
Re: No kidding?
said by linicx:They did. The problem is that the CLECs didn't do what they were supposed to be with the aid of the ILECs sharing their infrastructure.
They didn't do in the 90s when it mandated; they are not going to do it 25-years later either.
said by linicx:Ironically, the FCC has mostly done the neutering to itself.
FCC is a toothless lion in the DC Beltway
Re: Use it or lose it
said by BiggA:1. Broadband is not a regulated utility service, so universal service obligations don't apply.
The incumbent wireline carriers in rural areas should have to get X speed out to every customer or else lose their network. It would force them to get off their butts and start laying some fiber, whether it's FTTN or FTTH or whatever. Even RDSLAMs with ADSL2+ would be a huge improvement over what many areas have now.
2. Why is that people always wanna slap this requirement on the telco but never on the cable company?