Posted on 07/26/2005 4:04:49 PM PDT by Mike Bates
BTTT
The hardware upgrades needed to move that kind of bandwidth is a significant investment for the sevice providers. Even with the South Koreans and Japanese markets blazing the trail, the ISPs over here are worried about going in as deep as they'll have to. It's moving ahead now on a step-by-step basis, upgrade a little here, a little there, then sit back a while and make sure the sky doesn't fall...
"You think that forbiding "free" wifi is restricting internet access? I think it's just the opposite. Follow me here.....anything the gov't provides will not be run effectively. Technological evolution will be slow, if at all, and service will SUCK.
If it's free, then EVERYONE will use it in place of, say, a tax-generating T-1 line....at least until they get sick of it not performing to their needs."
You as an RF engineer should know the UNII and ISM bands are
wildcat territory as long as no harm no foul unregulated bands.
If a municipality wishes to share some of it's paid for OC3 bandwidth, to allow some folks broadband who otherwise don't have access, what is wrong with that? Are you telling me municipalities and businesses use all of their capacity all the time? I dont think so.
The T1's/or OC3's, or cable or EVDO are all provided by folks who are resistant to change and unwilling to market consumer broadband. Rolling out free wifi nets kind of lights a fire under the Bell remnants to provide service at a fair price. What do I mean by fair? I mean all you can eat broadband for around $30 a month. I'm truly unconcerned about the Feds tax revenue on wired service. What do those fees go for - probably pay the lawyers that run the FCC so the big bells can quibble over market and services offered.
I dont wish to pay $120 a month for a cell phone so I can watch TV in a limited area. Would you agree to the FCC shutting down WIFI to allow SPRINT, VERIZON and the other big carriers to provide spectrum for EVDO coverage at that rate?
The rest of the world has gone GSM. Qualcomm wants a market by legislation. How much will that cost us as taxpayers and consumers? I dont wish to subsidize Baby Bell and Cell boondoggles.
Europeons have a highly regulated market. That a poor comparison. Why didnt CDMA get adopted elswhere in this hemisphere? Probably because the equipment cost too much.
WiFi will slow technology? Thats a pretty poor argument.
Wifi may slow adoption of CDMA. Who would want to pay $120 a month for something they can get for less? Let the market decide. If something is better, faster and cheaper it will be the consumers and the market that decide.
The service quality will depend on who they have running the backend and AP's. San Diego already has a Freenet and plenty of users that can help. The reason it has a freenet is because it's serving a niche that is not being served by the Bells and Cell companies, now not 3 years in the future.
If the SD city wants to put up a few AP's and antennas let them go for it. The country is not run by Ma Bell anymore.
"If a municipality wishes to share some of it's paid for OC3 bandwidth, to allow some folks broadband who otherwise don't have access, what is wrong with that? Are you telling me municipalities and businesses use all of their capacity all the time? I dont think so. "
You are missing my point entirely. The revenue that I'm talking about isn't revenue that goes to the FCC, it goes to the state and local gov'ts. It's franchise fees, and subscriber charges...911 fees, etc. ad nauseum. It's Millions of dollars a year to a city like San Diego.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a government competing with an industry it regulates and taxes heavily. It is worse than a conflict of interest.
I don't disagree that Ma Bell is slow to adapt change (there are tax & other reasons for this, but let's leave that aside for now)
The great experiments with free municipal WiFi will all eventually fail.......because with no revenue basis to allocate effort and investment, there is no way to scale the network to meet demand. In fact, with no cost factor to limit demand - demand is likely to far exceed the network capacity.
I respectfully suggest that your view of GSM/CDMA is flawed on it's technical merits, or lack thereof. That is another discussion that I'd be glad to participate in if you want to start a thread.
In the free market, the cost of things is what the market will bear (and it's never free). Wireless carriers always fight the battle of capacity versus revenue.....if EVDO access is too cheap, then service would suffer. I use EVDO every day. It works, it's good. It is expensive, relative to other fixed line options, but for me, it's totally worth it and critical to what I do.
Curious as to what kind of competition you faced (cable/local dsl providers) and how that manifested itself as resistance with local government, tower leases, etc.
Unrelated relevant note: both the Wright brothers and I learned to glide at Kittyhawk.
?????
Got a 14-yo neighbor? Sounds like you could use some expert help.
Agreed. But I continue to be amazed what personal freedom and privacy the average american is willing to lose in order to get more "free" stuff from government. And I see no signs of a significant change in attitude.
A lib friend of mine was confused when I complained about expansion of government by the republicans. He said, but they're your people. I told him he just didn't get it. All powerful government is bad no matter what party is in charge. I was rewarded with a look of incomprehension.
Doesn't QC control IP related to the design of wireless modems? I seem to recall a lawsuit against TI for
infringement.
We have installed our main radio equipment on the water tower in town and got the same rental agreement they give to the big celluar players. Local govt has not been much of a factor, although we are going to be providing them with point to point links between a few of their offices.
This is the same company that turned US government research in CDMA into patents while working on a contract for the US government? Qualcomm's got theirs -- of course they don't want anyone else getting subsidized too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.