[opendtv] Re: Easing 5G deployment and then the customary banalities
- From: "Craig Birkmaier" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "brewmastercraig" for DMARC)
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 11:35:45 -0400
Here we go again...
On Sep 28, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Manfredi (US), Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Once again, the Chairman showing an amazing lack of perspective. Those
billions of dollars are billions of dollars we, the people, will be paying
back, with interest, to the (only) companies this FCC Chairman seems to be
working for.
Not to the companies Bert...
To the government.
These companies have spent hundreds of billions to acquire spectrum at auction.
This is just a form of indirect taxation’s for a resource that is said to be
owned by the citizens of this country.
Contrast this to what broadcasters have paid for their spectrum.
Now consider what lies ahead. We are talking about allocating vast amounts of
spectrum for 5G. Much of this spectrum will be auctioned and cost consumers
billions over the next decade. But a significant portions of this spectrum
COULD be opened up for unlicensed use, as was the case for WiFi. The economic
impact of WiFi is enormous - allocating significant amounts of unlicensed
spectrum for 5G could accelerate deployment and significantly reduce the cost
to consumers.
"And to put these efforts in perspective: We are aiming to free up more
spectrum than is currently held by every mobile broadband provider combined."
To put this in perspective: that's mindless hype. Designed to wow the
ignorant. This is a logarithmic distribution. You go up in frequencies, and
of course you will be talking about larger and larger chunks. Just as, the
entire AM broadcast band, about 1.1 MHz total, once upon a time the entirety
of commercial RF spectrum managed by the FCC that was available to
broadcasters, is merely 1/6th of the spectrum assigned to a SINGLE TV
station! Are we wowed, or what?
You totally missed the ost important point here Bert. This has NOTHING to do
with bandwidth. Obviously the Chairman is correct that in terms of frequencies
being opened up for commercial use, this will be the largest chunk ever. But
that’s just as a measure of bandwidth.
The real story here is CAPACITY, not bandwidth.
Your radio and TV examples are perfectly appropriate to this discussion. These
represent relatively small chunks of spectrum that are used in a highly
inefficient manner. The services are designed to Gallow for wide geographic
coverage, at the expense of efficient use of the potential capacity of the
spectrum band. For every radio or TV station there is more spectrum reserved to
protect those broadcast signals from interference, than that which is used for
the services.
5G is a very different story. The potential coverage of these frequency bands
is measured in FEET; deployments will use thousands of small “cells,” which is
WHY the FCC is taking this action, as outlined by the Chairman in the following
quote from his release:
"We'll need an estimated 800,000 new cell sites by 2025. For perspective, we
have barely a quarter of those today. We'll also need a lot more fiber optic
lines to connect all these small cells to the networks' core."
And then Bert falls for the scam here.
Yes, and as Commissioner Rosenworcel pointed out, the siting fees are a small
part of the cost of deploying these infrastructures. That's why roi will rule
the day, and it's silly to expect any huge increase in competition, with 5G.
These fees are NOT small Bert. They are a major source of revenue for local
governments, and they bring with them a bundle of associated costs and delays,
as local governments slow walk the process to exact maximum revenues.
This is the sad history of regulating utilities as natural monopolies. Multiple
layers of regulators exacting their pounds of flesh; legions of attorneys
navigating the process of setting rates, plying the regulators with mountains
of paperwork, and the expected political “tribute” from the regulated to the
regulators to play the regulation game.
If we are paying through the nose for wireless services Bert, how do you
explain why these services are so much more capable and less expensive than the
regulated Title II telephone infrastructure that is now at the end of its
useful life?
There are two answers:
1. Competition
2. The ability of the companies that have paid for spectrum at auction the
determine the technical standards for its use.
And then Bert goes off on the Chairman and Net Neutrality...again..
Broken record...
Regards
Craig
And then Bert goes off on the Net Neutrality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: