iPhone, iPad bandwidth strains could lead FCC to pay for airwaves

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Sorry to get political, but "owning" spectrum is part of the problem.



    For one, it's a natural resource, and thus cannot be owned.



    Are you a Georgist? Or a socialist?



    Indeed, pretty much all natural resources in western countries are privately owned, with few exceptions.
  • Reply 22 of 38
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stonefree View Post


    I think the 3G-less models will far outsell the 3Gs. I read good 3G chips cost about $7 wholesale. Apple is charging an extra $129 for them. An 1800% markup is high even for Apple! It's almost as if they don't want to sell them (yet), or at least until AT&T fixes their network. If anything, AT&T could pay for part of the chips since they will bring them more business.



    If you go by iSuppli's last iPhone breakdown the cellular HW for the iPad is about $20-$30, before licensing, before R&D, before testing, before manufacturing, etc. It's not that much of a markup.



    Remember, this is an alternative, high end option that will sell less volume than just the WiFi version so economics of scale are in effect. If the 3G version sells really well or they over estimated the demand of the 3G version they can then drop the price. They also could be charging a premium to offset a less than average profit on the WiFi version to help increase sales.



    This is how companies operate but it's not some absurd number. Look at how much the iPhone costs compared to the iPod Touch. It's more than $130 more. Look at other devices, like netbooks, that offer a 3G option, they charge you more than $130 more. My USB 3G card was $300 without contract. Verizon's new ETF fees, now that is excessive.
  • Reply 23 of 38
    fix
  • Reply 24 of 38
    bwikbwik Posts: 565member
    It is comical how the massive TV spectrum was already misallocated out of the market, allowing it to be locked up forever. Certain parties profit by making spectrum extremely scarce. Then they can corner the market for wireless data in the coming decades. Oops, the government didn't get the memo.



    Compared to the available spectrum, iPhones use a tiny, tiny amount of spectrum. This is really pathetic.
  • Reply 25 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by airmanchairman View Post


    However you describe it or define the problem, it is a step in the right direction to lay down a plan right now for future bandwidth requirements.



    Game changers like the iPhone, iPad, the newer-fangled smartphones and 'net devices are only the advance wave of the coming bandwidth crunch in the future so things could easily get far worse before they get better... make hay while the Sun shines is what I'd say...



    Ehhhhhh?



    No one said nothing would be planned. Instead of the FCC allotting chunks of bandwidth for particular uses, service-providers would be planning ahead to say "this is how much bandwidth I need, and this is the range of spectrum I can use."



    As another poster said, spectrum is a limited resource (organically harmless spectrum, that is). Therefore, its distribution and use should be dictated by what services are popular -- i.e. market demand -- as opposed to government dictation. Gov't will always react slower than market demand, leaving smart phone users paying inflated prices for a constrained supply of the service. That helps no one.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iGenius View Post


    Are you a Georgist? Or a socialist?



    Indeed, pretty much all natural resources in western countries are privately owned, with few exceptions.



    Well... if you want to throw a label on it, when it comes to natural resources, I would say I'm definitely closer to a Georgist than Socialist (though some of his ideas could be considered Socialist by today's standards). I think instead of labeling things "Georgist" and "Socialist" (or whatever else) we would be well-served to consider issues more holistically.



    I think a healthy balance between the "property = theft" folks and the "property/privacy rights" folks can be found in the form of renting unimproved-upon natural resources, and that's where I am.
  • Reply 26 of 38
    Sorry for the crude language. But this stinks of ATT Exec taking warm shower with the FCC, swamping spit into the late hours of the night!!! First ATT complains not because of bandwidth. But they really want to scheme to make more money from their new cash cow's iPhone user. Customers lash back... now it's face enemy, saying you may have to pay more money Then ATT says it not us it regulation.... that cause us to raise prices and you just have to pay the premium



    Just like when iPhone users did the bring down the ATT network, ATT response we saw no strain

    It's like charging commuter extra money to cross the bridge during commute time. Wow penalize for having a job.
  • Reply 27 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The problem with better compression is that it takes more processing power to decompress. The HW will need to support H.264 decoding with an installed base approaching 100% before the stations can make the switch.



    Just look at the DTV transition to see what a drawn out kerfuffle it can be. I'm only seeing 10 countries completed since 2009. That is to get rid of standard that was how old? Most channels are still in SD yet I don't know a single person that doesn't have HDTVs or HD cable boxes and DVRs, but I know this is not the norm.



    PS: My hotels usually have HDTVs but the signal is still being sent as analog SD. It's a pretty weak setup all around. Annoys the piss out of me.



    PPS: THe US went DTV in 2009, but Japan and Canada are scheduled for mid to late 2011. We beat Japan in technology adoption for once. Woot! Brazil did their transition in big cities back in 2007 but won't get the entire country until an estimated 2014.



    The US started its digital transition in 1996 and extended its deadline more than once to finish in 2009 but now it is done. Now we have better pictures, more efficient use of spectrum, etc.



    The untold consequence of grabbing all the spectrum from TV to auction it off is the destruction of non-cable TV. This would be a travesty. Yes, there are many people happy to spend $100 per month and more for access to cable TV but that doesn't mean this expense should be imposed on everyone. Free, over the air HDTV is the highest resolution video (except maybe 1080p blu-ray on a good day) and with the cost of modest HDTV's continuing to come down a real entertainment and information boon to people who don't choose to spend freely on cable and satellite TV.
  • Reply 28 of 38
    If ATT would give everyone with ATT DSL a WiFI router with a 3g micro cell built in I think it would take a big load of the cell towers. I don't need a micro cell at home because my reception is fine but maybe enough micro cells could eliminate the need to build new cell towers.



    When I am at work it doesn't matter if someone is using my bandwidth at home to make a call since I am not there using my bandwidth. It only matters in the evening so I can disable it or throttle it at that time.



    Since I don't need a micro cell ATT could incentivize me by giving me a discount on my DSL bill. A few dollars off the bill or boosting me up to the next speed level for free



    I don't think it is a question of bandwidth scarcity but instead cell tower density.



    I think Micro cells could increase that density rather cheaply.
  • Reply 29 of 38
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Well... if you want to throw a label on it, when it comes to natural resources, I would say I'm definitely closer to a Georgist than Socialist (though some of his ideas could be considered Socialist by today's standards). I think instead of labeling things "Georgist" and "Socialist" (or whatever else) we would be well-served to consider issues more holistically.



    I think a healthy balance between the "property = theft" folks and the "property/privacy rights" folks can be found in the form of renting unimproved-upon natural resources, and that's where I am.



    Cool. You sounded like a Georgist when you made your comment. I have some sympathy for the view that the use value of real property should be taxed, and not the improvements. Some of George's ideas are extremely interesting.
  • Reply 30 of 38
    There is no spectrum scarcity, just inefficient allocation. In rural areas, you need range for economics to work, but you can easily range-limit and gain several orders of magnitude improvements in bandwidth. The enemy here is simply the economics.



    When you get in a major city, things flip around a little; you have systems already designed for limited range (generally), but a few services that insist on full coverage from a single location. These are the enemy, and broadcast tv and radio are the main problems.



    Enter software-defined radio, which can help optimize and prioritize bandwith and users. The problem is your AM radio gets a lot more complicated.



    This is why raw bandwidth should be the utility, not "value added services" that just ride on the pipe.
  • Reply 31 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iGenius View Post


    Cool. You sounded like a Georgist when you made your comment. I have some sympathy for the view that the use value of real property should be taxed, and not the improvements. Some of George's ideas are extremely interesting.



    Extremely.



    It's a pity that the US is in a dead-lock between two dogmatic political constructs, both of which are fraught with inconsistent applications of their own "principles."



    ...but anyway...



    -Clive
  • Reply 32 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    If you go by iSuppli's last iPhone breakdown the cellular HW for the iPad is about $20-$30, before licensing, before R&D, before testing, before manufacturing, etc. It's not that much of a markup.



    Actually, the 3G version of the iPad has a GPS chip built into it too, so I reckon that adds another $30-50 to the cost.
  • Reply 33 of 38
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bartfat View Post


    Actually, the 3G version of the iPad has a GPS chip built into it too, so I reckon that adds another $30-50 to the cost.



    I accounted for that, too. According to iSuppli the Infineon GPS chip is only $2.25.
  • Reply 34 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mitchelljd View Post


    maybe the FCC ought to look into iphone network exclusivity with ATT. their network stinks, and they have a lower than needed network budget to support its buildout. its ATT problem. not a nationwide bandwidth problem.



    instead of blaming all wireless and coverage. sorry, i think TV ought to keep spectrum, no reason to change anything.



    You are so, so ill-informed. A simple Google search will find many reputable sources discussing the bandwidth shortage that looms not far down the road.
  • Reply 35 of 38
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    Well OTA Digital TV today is vastly inefficient using MPEG-2, it should have started off on MPEG-4/H.264 for bandwidth savings!



    It was the best technology AT THE TIME when the spec was written for the CPU required and for the spectrum space required. NTSC used 6 MHz channels and ATSC uses the same 6 MHz channel.
  • Reply 36 of 38
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    There is no spectrum scarcity, just inefficient allocation. In rural areas, you need range for economics to work, but you can easily range-limit and gain several orders of magnitude improvements in bandwidth. The enemy here is simply the economics.



    When you get in a major city, things flip around a little; you have systems already designed for limited range (generally), but a few services that insist on full coverage from a single location. These are the enemy, and broadcast tv and radio are the main problems.



    Enter software-defined radio, which can help optimize and prioritize bandwith and users. The problem is your AM radio gets a lot more complicated.



    This is why raw bandwidth should be the utility, not "value added services" that just ride on the pipe.



    There is no such thing as inefficient allocation when the economics portion is fine.



    You might as well say that carriers should install cell towers every 100 feet apart --- for your RF physics to work.



    There is one reason why you can't get true "video on demand" on satellite tv --- they don't have the spectrum space to allow everybody to stream tv programs on their satellite. There is one reason why tv is broadcast the way it is --- one tv signal broadcast to all the homes at the same time. There is no possible way to give you "video on demand" tv programs on over-the-air tv broadcasting.
  • Reply 37 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Supposedly one can cut a SIM card down to fit a MicroSIM phone, it's just extra plastic all around, the guts are the same between the two. So I read.





    (warning: I have not verified or performed this, proceed at your own risk)









    I much rather have our failed government find ways of doing things without spending money if possible, they got the power to create good change with laws. The way we are going now, we will be ending up like Greece shortly.



    You didn't read the whole article. They want to buy the frequencies back from old media and sell them to communications companies. Ideally this wouldn't cost taxpayers anything.
  • Reply 38 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by esummers View Post


    You didn't read the whole article. They want to buy the frequencies back from old media and sell them to communications companies. Ideally this wouldn't cost taxpayers anything.



    So how much did the broadcasters originally pay for that spectrum?
Sign In or Register to comment.