 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to elray
Re: What more needs to be said? Controlled or Managed Supply is the problem.
The demand is there; It's the choice in supply that isn't. (Carefully orchestrated.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
|
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by KrK:Controlled or Managed Supply is the problem.
The demand is there; It's the choice in supply that isn't. (Carefully orchestrated.)
The demand would not exist without a product deployed. Cellco isn't going to launch a service they expect to lose money on.
Spectrum segmentation already constrains supply. How would you add "choice in supply" without further limiting available bandwidth? |
|
| Lose money... You mean like the $3+ billion AT&T made last quarter alone? Or the $2 billion that Verizon made last quarter alone? Yeah those poor poor Cellco companies are hurting soo bad.
Bandwidth is not scarce right now, but I would agree that they will charge what we are willing to pay, but it is the lack of good regulations that allows them to charge the monopolistic/duopolistic prices they charge. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | It also allows them to block competitors from entering the market.
If you can use your market position to force everyone to use your backhaul services you then control the rates any would be competitor would pay. In effect you enhance your profit and make your would be competitor have a razor thin margin. (and then you undercut them with your own service to end users.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Lose money... You mean like the $3+ billion AT&T made last quarter alone? Or the $2 billion that Verizon made last quarter alone? Yeah those poor poor Cellco companies are hurting soo bad.
Bandwidth is not scarce right now, but I would agree that they will charge what we are willing to pay, but it is the lack of good regulations that allows them to charge the monopolistic/duopolistic prices they charge.
AT&T and Verizon maintain profitability by avoiding entering guaranteed-loss markets and delivering premium-priced products that the mainstream is willing to pay for. If they followed your suggestion, indeed, they would lose money. How have Sprint and TMobile fared?
"Good regulations" would only raise rates and stifle innovation.
That may be good for a few lone locales and for the short term, but not for the long run.
Bandwidth is quite scarce today, and will even more scarce in the future, as we continue to promote the expectation of HD-streaming-over-wireless, while auctioning spectrum block-by-block, market-by-market. The government's allocation methodology is about as inefficient as you could ask for. It isn't the fault of the carriers. |
|
| Blah blah blah.
Spectrum is scarce, you mean that scarce spectrum is a farce.
AT&T and Verizons maintain profitability by being a virtual duopoly that was created by many incentives for decades in their creation. They continue to use that dominance that was created through a monopoly to rake in billions every quarter. And guess what? They did that by being forced to enter in guaranteed-loss markets.
Good regulations provide needed services at a reasonable price for virtually EVERYONE. You speculating it would raise rates and stifle innovation is yet another scare tactic and has been proven wrong over and over and over. And before you reply to that statement with another stupid comment tell me how much rates went up and innovation was stifled when AT&T was regulated into what are currently all the phone companies now. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by Skippy25:Blah blah blah.
Spectrum is scarce, you mean that scarce spectrum is a farce.
Nope. While carriers do implement seemingly arbitrary schemes to constrain availability - to prevent abuse, that doesn't change the underlying problem of physics, complicated by government administration.
How much bandwidth does it take to stream one HD video, 720p @ 30 fps, with nominal compression? 3 Mhz? 6 Mhz? 12 Mhz?
How much spectrum does a carrier typically acquire in an auction for a given MSA? Of that block, how is it divided between towers so as not to incur interference?
Our current spectrum allocations barely work for cellphone calls. We get blocking all the time in urban areas. Video demands 100x or more bandwidth per device, and streams last must longer than typical phone calls. Better math, signalling, encoding and RF engineering achieve some efficiency gains, but nothing of the order of magnitude required to deliver point-to-point wireless video for one and all. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to KrK
said by KrK:It also allows them to block competitors from entering the market.
If you can use your market position to force everyone to use your backhaul services you then control the rates any would be competitor would pay. In effect you enhance your profit and make your would be competitor have a razor thin margin. (and then you undercut them with your own service to end users.)
Probably depends on your point of view as to whether more-regulated backhaul would be a taking, an unfair subsidy to the competition. But I agree it can go either way, and merits review and oversight.
A case might be made to re-regulate certain non-competitive / de facto monopoly markets. But be careful what you wish for. Re-regulation doesn't mean lower prices. History suggests otherwise. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to elray
There is an inverse relationship between cell size and spectrum requirements. If the cells were smaller it would result in more efficient spectrum usage that would be able to deliver point to point video no problem. That is why you never hear about a WiFi spectrum shortage despite millions of routers fully capable of streaming video simultaneously.
Of course, smaller cell size would require the companies invest in equipment and fiber build-outs which is exactly what they want to avoid. So it is really only 'scarce' because they don't want to build. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Yes, but how are you going to place and pay for even more cell sites, when there is absolute resistance to the existing ones? |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Thats funny, NextG has been putting up microcells all over the city and Long Island. Sure people complained but as usual, the company puts them up anyway. The spectrum shortage is a consequence of them not wanting to spend money on deployment. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by CXM_Splicer:Thats funny, NextG has been putting up microcells all over the city and Long Island. Sure people complained but as usual, the company puts them up anyway. The spectrum shortage is a consequence of them not wanting to spend money on deployment.
People in NYC are accustomed to paying a 25-30% premium for just about everything and the population density is through the roof. If that described the rest of the country, then indeed, you'd be correct - microcells would be everywhere.
But the rest of us are much more discerning with our funds, spread about, and as such, the revenue stream isn't there to support the capital requirements. |
|
