Oh, you mean OTHER THAN THE FACT that the US is much much larger than pretty much any other country out there? It takes a LOT of money and money to do a major infrastructure transition of any kind. (We still have to deal with 70 year old power infrastructure.)
I'm not saying many of these should be done. But, I do believe it should be handled by the gov't due to the costs involved and the tendencies of our corporate giants to not want to perform any real investment in ANYTHING other than advertising these days.
Yep. Socialism and planned economy is bad, so is unregulated commercialism (banking crisis for example). What if the FCC had mandated that "to get the radio spectrum license, you have to ensure XX% subscriber coverage with a minimum average bitrate of YYXbps. You have 5 years to do it or the license will be given to someone else"? Would anything be different? What if they had allocated the frequencies from the same frequency spectrum (making mobiles compatible from one operator to another)?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticising anything here, just giving an example what some countries (like SK) have done. Sure they are smaller countries, but also with a significantly smaller GDP and not as easy access to investor money.
I agree with you post almost 100%, but why would GSM/WCDMA networks be any different in their proceedings?
[...]
Excellent points and post.
CDMA-based networks are in a worse position than those using 3GSM, which is far from it's EOL. I'm sure AT&T and T-Mobile USA will start to move to LTE relatively soon after Verizon but the need to compete directly with their LTE network won't be an issue for several later so how 3GSM networks will move is very uncertain at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.
- Paul Simon
Now that you understand what your problem is hopefully you can start correcting it.
I disagree. There's nothing out-of-control free market about the USA. EVERYTHING is regulated. And it's often the regulation that causes the problems. Look at our recent economic troubles. Much can be related to Congress regulating (read that as "interfering") in the market place. Forcing banks to loan to customers that can't possibly repay the money, etc. The Community Reinvestment Act is a joke. It was one of the main contributors to the crisis we're in today. And it's still law.
It's so easy to tell which news sources you ingest. The Community Reinvestment Act had zero effect on the crash. It was tiny. The banksters were not forced to give any mortgage with the ridiculous terms they granted. After all, they were meant to fail. They didn't care how they unloaded the paper. The mortgage was only the excuse to sell it for bundling as a part of a derivative-based "Triple-A security." Ha, ha, sucker!
There was an excellent Frontline on last night, in fact, that showed exactly how it happened. One lone woman in the Clinton administration tried to regulate over-the-counter derivatives, which were a complete black box, unregulated by anyone. Greenspan, Rubin and Summers freaked out and ruined her career. Were they crazy? No, it was the insane consensus. Actually knowing what was going on there would cause a panic, they said. Why? Because there was a huge, mortgage-fed pile of crap growing like a mushroom in there. The Bush administration believed even more strongly in doing nothing about derivatives. It was a house of cards.
Greenspan and Gramm and others were true believers. Others were against regulation of derivatives because they probably knew damn well that it was headed for a cliff, and they wanted to profit from it themselves before the money ran out, or help their friends and political contributors to do the same.
I don't want to subsidize people who want to stream HD over a mobile network.
I think, in a nutshell, too many people take that attitude, and progress stops. There's a limit I'd want to pay, but why can't you realize that, without everyone able to stream video over wireless, each packet costs too much for your individual wallet?
Bandwidth should be plentiful and cheap.
And there is a ton of fiber that was put up in the internet bubble that still hasn't been used. Light it up, I say. Your economics leads to artificial scarcity, slow network speeds, and lots of little, petty monopolies like Comcast.
There's one big secret to the Asian countries and their broadband speeds: government subsidies. Face it, it would have a huge economic impact if the average speed of the US network was gigabit over optical to your street address and ethernet into your computer.
Time was, Republicans used to understand that paying for "local improvements" would stimulate the national economy. That was part of Lincoln's platform, because he was essentially a Whig.
So which is it? Are they raking in huge profits from the iPhone or not? If they are, then invest in bandwidth! Less profitable now, more profitable later.
The problem with AT&T is the billions they had to pay just reattachment most of the old monopoly. In one way, it made sense. The Bush administration was not watching monopolies or anything else. So after they bought Pacific Bell and Southwestern Bell and all the others, they quickly built out the wireless network. The corporate maneuvers ate up so much capital - I mean, over three years, their trucks got repainted three times - to say nothing of how many times the lawyers had to get paid -- that the boring old stuff about towers and how you sustain a fast, reliable network was left for the techies to figure out. When they were bringing DSL to LA in the '90s, I had some revealing conversations with some of the older repairmen who came around. They were letting the experienced techs go, not listening to their input, and everything was for the ads, the commercial deals, and the next acquisition.
Probably the best thing we could do would be to relieve them of all of their copper wire. They hate it, and it's clearly a huge cost for them, so they have to charge ridiculous amounts for calling.
Unlimited exists, but the question is: "what is unlimited? bandwidth, volume or both?". Pay per packet doesn't work. It's been proven too many times. You just can't estimate how many packets you're going to use when you for example syncronize your email or surf the web. This just leads to the situation, where most users will not use it at all after they've gotten a few surprise bills.
Those who want to stream HD can if they pay more for their high bitrates. After all that's how most internet connections (ADSL, Cable) work today and they have the same limitations (ultimate BW limit for the site + backhaul capacity limits).
So, unlimited volume with priced bandwidth. That seems to work pretty well in many a place.
Unlimited exists, but the question is: "what is unlimited? bandwidth, volume or both?".
unlimited could be the times you can use it or the amount of total time you can use it. AOL used to charge me $2.95/hour after a base of 5(?) hours for $15/month. I had unlimited data in every way, but you don't get far with a 2400 baud rate modem.
And there is a ton of fiber that was put up in the internet bubble that still hasn't been used. Light it up, I say. Your economics leads to artificial scarcity, slow network speeds, and lots of little, petty monopolies like Comcast.
There's one big secret to the Asian countries and their broadband speeds: government subsidies. Face it, it would have a huge economic impact if the average speed of the US network was gigabit over optical to your street address and ethernet into your computer.
Time was, Republicans used to understand that paying for "local improvements" would stimulate the national economy. That was part of Lincoln's platform, because he was essentially a Whig.
Wireless bandwidth is never plentiful and cheap --- we are still governed by the laws of physics. Many of the Korean and Japanese iphone plans come with very little data allowance per month. Japanese government is the largest shareholder of NTT --- the government is the monopoly.
Japan has the highest number of fiber optics deployment in the world --- so what? Their economy has been a disaster since 1989.
The problem with AT&T is the billions they had to pay just reattachment most of the old monopoly. In one way, it made sense. The Bush administration was not watching monopolies or anything else. So after they bought Pacific Bell and Southwestern Bell and all the others, they quickly built out the wireless network. The corporate maneuvers ate up so much capital - I mean, over three years, their trucks got repainted three times - to say nothing of how many times the lawyers had to get paid -- that the boring old stuff about towers and how you sustain a fast, reliable network was left for the techies to figure out. When they were bringing DSL to LA in the '90s, I had some revealing conversations with some of the older repairmen who came around. They were letting the experienced techs go, not listening to their input, and everything was for the ads, the commercial deals, and the next acquisition.
Probably the best thing we could do would be to relieve them of all of their copper wire. They hate it, and it's clearly a huge cost for them, so they have to charge ridiculous amounts for calling.
AT&T also fired thousands and thousands of workers after the mergers because they don't need 2-3 different headquarters. They also spent billions of dollars to put all their billings into a single massive (and cheaper to run) computer system.
The wireless network quality difference between Verizon and AT&T for the last decade is that (1) Verizon had easier network upgrades vs. AT&T having 4 different networks (analog/TDMA/GSM/WCDMA) and (2) Verizon Wireless hasn't paid Vodafone a single cent in dividend in 4-5 years (and instead use that money on network infrastructure).
It's just Japan/Korea and Sweden. Sadly the other Nordic countries have left the fiber installations to the market powers and thus we are now behind as the market hasn't invested in FTTH (Fibre mainly in the backhaul).
But FTTH is just one part of the equation. Cable and ADSL/VDSL can also be used. The real penetration of connections above say 2Mbps (or preferably higher) is really interesting. That would be an interesting read. Better if it had some trends in it as well.
Comments
Oh, you mean OTHER THAN THE FACT that the US is much much larger than pretty much any other country out there? It takes a LOT of money and money to do a major infrastructure transition of any kind. (We still have to deal with 70 year old power infrastructure.)
I'm not saying many of these should be done. But, I do believe it should be handled by the gov't due to the costs involved and the tendencies of our corporate giants to not want to perform any real investment in ANYTHING other than advertising these days.
Yep. Socialism and planned economy is bad, so is unregulated commercialism (banking crisis for example). What if the FCC had mandated that "to get the radio spectrum license, you have to ensure XX% subscriber coverage with a minimum average bitrate of YYXbps. You have 5 years to do it or the license will be given to someone else"? Would anything be different? What if they had allocated the frequencies from the same frequency spectrum (making mobiles compatible from one operator to another)?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticising anything here, just giving an example what some countries (like SK) have done. Sure they are smaller countries, but also with a significantly smaller GDP and not as easy access to investor money.
Reg, Jarkko
Getting your knuckles virtually smacked with a ruler a few hundred times on this forum has learned him.
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.
- Paul Simon
Capitalism isn't the best economy model,
In your opinion, what is the best economic model?
I agree with you post almost 100%, but why would GSM/WCDMA networks be any different in their proceedings?
[...]
Excellent points and post.
CDMA-based networks are in a worse position than those using 3GSM, which is far from it's EOL. I'm sure AT&T and T-Mobile USA will start to move to LTE relatively soon after Verizon but the need to compete directly with their LTE network won't be an issue for several later so how 3GSM networks will move is very uncertain at this point.
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.
- Paul Simon
Now that you understand what your problem is hopefully you can start correcting it.
Now that you understand what your problem is hopefully you can start correcting it.
I expect better from you than IKYABWAI.
There never was such a thing as unlimited.
I don't want to subsidize people who want to stream HD over a mobile network.
I disagree. There's nothing out-of-control free market about the USA. EVERYTHING is regulated. And it's often the regulation that causes the problems. Look at our recent economic troubles. Much can be related to Congress regulating (read that as "interfering") in the market place. Forcing banks to loan to customers that can't possibly repay the money, etc. The Community Reinvestment Act is a joke. It was one of the main contributors to the crisis we're in today. And it's still law.
It's so easy to tell which news sources you ingest. The Community Reinvestment Act had zero effect on the crash. It was tiny. The banksters were not forced to give any mortgage with the ridiculous terms they granted. After all, they were meant to fail. They didn't care how they unloaded the paper. The mortgage was only the excuse to sell it for bundling as a part of a derivative-based "Triple-A security." Ha, ha, sucker!
There was an excellent Frontline on last night, in fact, that showed exactly how it happened. One lone woman in the Clinton administration tried to regulate over-the-counter derivatives, which were a complete black box, unregulated by anyone. Greenspan, Rubin and Summers freaked out and ruined her career. Were they crazy? No, it was the insane consensus. Actually knowing what was going on there would cause a panic, they said. Why? Because there was a huge, mortgage-fed pile of crap growing like a mushroom in there. The Bush administration believed even more strongly in doing nothing about derivatives. It was a house of cards.
Greenspan and Gramm and others were true believers. Others were against regulation of derivatives because they probably knew damn well that it was headed for a cliff, and they wanted to profit from it themselves before the money ran out, or help their friends and political contributors to do the same.
Pay per packet.
There never was such a thing as unlimited.
I don't want to subsidize people who want to stream HD over a mobile network.
I think, in a nutshell, too many people take that attitude, and progress stops. There's a limit I'd want to pay, but why can't you realize that, without everyone able to stream video over wireless, each packet costs too much for your individual wallet?
Bandwidth should be plentiful and cheap.
And there is a ton of fiber that was put up in the internet bubble that still hasn't been used. Light it up, I say. Your economics leads to artificial scarcity, slow network speeds, and lots of little, petty monopolies like Comcast.
There's one big secret to the Asian countries and their broadband speeds: government subsidies. Face it, it would have a huge economic impact if the average speed of the US network was gigabit over optical to your street address and ethernet into your computer.
Time was, Republicans used to understand that paying for "local improvements" would stimulate the national economy. That was part of Lincoln's platform, because he was essentially a Whig.
So which is it? Are they raking in huge profits from the iPhone or not? If they are, then invest in bandwidth! Less profitable now, more profitable later.
The problem with AT&T is the billions they had to pay just reattachment most of the old monopoly. In one way, it made sense. The Bush administration was not watching monopolies or anything else. So after they bought Pacific Bell and Southwestern Bell and all the others, they quickly built out the wireless network. The corporate maneuvers ate up so much capital - I mean, over three years, their trucks got repainted three times - to say nothing of how many times the lawyers had to get paid -- that the boring old stuff about towers and how you sustain a fast, reliable network was left for the techies to figure out. When they were bringing DSL to LA in the '90s, I had some revealing conversations with some of the older repairmen who came around. They were letting the experienced techs go, not listening to their input, and everything was for the ads, the commercial deals, and the next acquisition.
Probably the best thing we could do would be to relieve them of all of their copper wire. They hate it, and it's clearly a huge cost for them, so they have to charge ridiculous amounts for calling.
Pay per packet.
There never was such a thing as unlimited.
Unlimited exists, but the question is: "what is unlimited? bandwidth, volume or both?". Pay per packet doesn't work. It's been proven too many times. You just can't estimate how many packets you're going to use when you for example syncronize your email or surf the web. This just leads to the situation, where most users will not use it at all after they've gotten a few surprise bills.
Those who want to stream HD can if they pay more for their high bitrates. After all that's how most internet connections (ADSL, Cable) work today and they have the same limitations (ultimate BW limit for the site + backhaul capacity limits).
So, unlimited volume with priced bandwidth. That seems to work pretty well in many a place.
Regs, Jarkko
Unlimited exists, but the question is: "what is unlimited? bandwidth, volume or both?".
unlimited could be the times you can use it or the amount of total time you can use it. AOL used to charge me $2.95/hour after a base of 5(?) hours for $15/month. I had unlimited data in every way, but you don't get far with a 2400 baud rate modem.
Bandwidth should be plentiful and cheap.
And there is a ton of fiber that was put up in the internet bubble that still hasn't been used. Light it up, I say. Your economics leads to artificial scarcity, slow network speeds, and lots of little, petty monopolies like Comcast.
There's one big secret to the Asian countries and their broadband speeds: government subsidies. Face it, it would have a huge economic impact if the average speed of the US network was gigabit over optical to your street address and ethernet into your computer.
Time was, Republicans used to understand that paying for "local improvements" would stimulate the national economy. That was part of Lincoln's platform, because he was essentially a Whig.
Wireless bandwidth is never plentiful and cheap --- we are still governed by the laws of physics. Many of the Korean and Japanese iphone plans come with very little data allowance per month. Japanese government is the largest shareholder of NTT --- the government is the monopoly.
Japan has the highest number of fiber optics deployment in the world --- so what? Their economy has been a disaster since 1989.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...513143300.html
Aside from the statistical anomalies in Japan/Korea and the nordic countries --- the US is 4 years ahead of Europe in FTTH fiber deployment.
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172028
The problem with AT&T is the billions they had to pay just reattachment most of the old monopoly. In one way, it made sense. The Bush administration was not watching monopolies or anything else. So after they bought Pacific Bell and Southwestern Bell and all the others, they quickly built out the wireless network. The corporate maneuvers ate up so much capital - I mean, over three years, their trucks got repainted three times - to say nothing of how many times the lawyers had to get paid -- that the boring old stuff about towers and how you sustain a fast, reliable network was left for the techies to figure out. When they were bringing DSL to LA in the '90s, I had some revealing conversations with some of the older repairmen who came around. They were letting the experienced techs go, not listening to their input, and everything was for the ads, the commercial deals, and the next acquisition.
Probably the best thing we could do would be to relieve them of all of their copper wire. They hate it, and it's clearly a huge cost for them, so they have to charge ridiculous amounts for calling.
AT&T also fired thousands and thousands of workers after the mergers because they don't need 2-3 different headquarters. They also spent billions of dollars to put all their billings into a single massive (and cheaper to run) computer system.
The wireless network quality difference between Verizon and AT&T for the last decade is that (1) Verizon had easier network upgrades vs. AT&T having 4 different networks (analog/TDMA/GSM/WCDMA) and (2) Verizon Wireless hasn't paid Vodafone a single cent in dividend in 4-5 years (and instead use that money on network infrastructure).
Aside from the statistical anomalies in Japan/Korea and the nordic countries --- the US is 4 years ahead of Europe in FTTH fiber deployment.
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172028
It's just Japan/Korea and Sweden. Sadly the other Nordic countries have left the fiber installations to the market powers and thus we are now behind as the market hasn't invested in FTTH (Fibre mainly in the backhaul).
But FTTH is just one part of the equation. Cable and ADSL/VDSL can also be used. The real penetration of connections above say 2Mbps (or preferably higher) is really interesting. That would be an interesting read. Better if it had some trends in it as well.
Regs, Jarkko