[opendtv] Re: ISPs denied entry into apartment buildings could get help from FCC
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 04:48:18 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Multiple: ...
So, to once again have to belabor the obvious for Craig, you have one choice,
Cox, and I have two, Cox and FiOS, for home broadband. There is no sense in
repeating this "multiple" nonsense. Most people have one choice. Your DSL
option is the slow one, not VDSL or G.fast, so it's quickly becoming as
obsolete as dialup used to be. We don't even have a DSL option anymore, as I
explained many times. Verizon quit supporting that, in fact, at least where
they have FiOS. No "multiple" here.
WHich means that in a few years
Let's revisit this in a few years then, Craig, if things really do change. You
get no points for repeating falsehoods about "multiple options." This is THE
main issue. Inadequate competition **means** that the industry cannot credibly
self-regulate. And don't forget, whatever choice you make, switching over is a
pain. It's not something you do on the spur of the moment. It is something you
have to schedule, and it easily takes more than just one week. It may even take
several weeks.
We are talking about creating a competitive marketplace with
MULTIPLE options moving forward.
And you're going around in circles. I already covered that, way back. I already
said that in principle, theoretically, call it what you will, wireless
broadband could create the competition. But then you move beyond just bullh*t
words, and you notice what is actually happening. The fixed broadband schemes
that will be using wireless to homes, such as Verizon fixed 5G and Google Fiber
2.0, are not all wireless at all. They use the same fiber backhaul as FTTH.
That takes investment down to individual neighborhood level. The ACTUAL effect
of fixed 5G is, the Googles and the Verizons can expand their broadband
offerings, AS OPPOSED TO GIVING UP. As both of them had done!! Read that again,
Craig.
You are fabricating this 5 or 6 providers per household. It's just fantasy, as
of now. Meanwhile, the FCC has a job to do, and that does not involve handing
over, on a silver platter, what only the local monopolies could wish for.
Does Sprint offer broadband in your neighborhood?
Does T-Mobile offer broadband in your neighborhood?
Does Century Link offer broadband in your neighborhood?
Does Google offer broadband in your neighborhood?
No, of course not. I already mentioned that 4G wireless is not credible, for
home broadband to the masses. Why waste time with silly questions.
In reality it is likely that you WILL see fixed broadband from all
of the existing cellular carriers
Unlikely, as I already explained, but if true, great. Until then, we still want
neutral service.
You need to start to tear down the regulatory morass somewhere Bert.
No, Craig. Regulations have to make sense for existing conditions, not some
fantasy future. Chairman Pai had the PERFECT opportunity to float some new and
better neutrality-guarantee trial balloons. Instead, just like you, he happily
ignored the whole issue, even misinforming the public about the nature of
Internet service. Hide head in sand, feed them BS, they'll buy it. And yet,
"they" didn't!! People aren't so stupid!
Much of the backhaul already exists,
That is so much nonsense. You've repeated it several times, and I always hope
you'll come to your senses, before repeating it again. Verizon had to install
an entirely new network for FiOS, throughout FiOS neighborhoods, Craig. The
infrastructure used for ADSL is just left in place, unused, and largely
non-operational. And then they gave up, years ago. Cox too, has upgraded their
neighborhood infrastructure several times. The others you fabricated? Nowhere
to be seen. Remember: both Verizon and Google had GIVEN UP expansion of FTTH.
The fixed 5G option convinced them to give it another try, only because the
costs would go down for them. Do you really think that multiple players, in
these **same circumstances**, could justify high enough returns to their
investors?
Much more important, spectrum is not exactly scarce for 5G.
That's why I said 4G, wrt spectrum shortage. 5G we I just finished describing.
Again, you have already been past this point, Craig. Why are you circling back?
You had already understood the range limitations of 5G. Suddenly you forgot all
of that?
I DID educate you, and the rest of the people on this list, about the
physical limitations of 5G
A good example of your going in circles. You finally understood the meaning of
"tradeoffs," for once, so here you are, trying to argue that wireless solves
everything. 5G does not obviate the backhaul problem. In fact, I even informed
you that some manner of wireless backhaul can play a part too. But in your
usual way, you proclaimed that all backhaul had to be fiber. In short, you make
no sense. Your arguments make no sense. You argue one way, and then the other.
When fixed wireless becomes an option there will be NO BARRIER to
additional competition.
I hope that by now, you are disabused of this notion, right? Fixed wireless is
not the panacea you bounce back and forth pretending it is, when arguing this
way suits you.
If a rental complex includes a MVPD or broadband service in the
rent it may be more difficult to opt out...
Which is not a good answer, but it does show how anti-competitive
these local monopoly schemes are.
How is this anti-competitive?
ROTFL. Put on your thinking cap, Craig, and explain to us how an enforced
expense, single choice, on tenants, is anything but anti-competitive. No wonder
you have a hard time understanding why the FCC needs to guarantee neutrality.
There are no trivial answers when it comes to installing and maintaining
labor-intensive infrastructures, Craig. That's the whole point of "natural
monopolies." They exist because of the laws of physics and economics. We can
only deal with them, intelligently, as opposed to capitulating 100% to their
best interests only, as you like to do. Much as you seem to enjoy it, arguing
in circles becomes less convincing with each new attempt.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: