> You have brought up a nagging question about the FCC and bandwidth. The
> original thought was that spectrum should be allocated for "the public
> good," not for huge corporations to use to make money or to be auctioned off
> o support the federal government. Getting content over wire/fiber/satellite
> delivery involved a monthly check to a provider, thus shutting out many
> citizens from access. That runs head on against the public good, where
> everyone that can get a cheap TV can stick up an antenna and get free
> programming, unless you are of course one of our far right fascist
> republicans, to whom a man is measured by his net worth. If content is
> headed toward other pathways, then you should understand that the US has
> some of the most expensive, slowest and not universally available internet
> delivery in the developed world. And if you this that fixing this falls
> under the heading of making America great again, you are a fool.
I spent a dozen years working supplier side to the radio broadcast
industry, and this "public good" and "publicly owned airways" thing is
always a sore topic. There is nothing "public" about it. The FCC
(government) gives and the FCC (government) takes away. But the deal
is that the spectrum is "managed" by the government and access to that
spectrum is "leased" to users. Not sold, but actually leased with an
intended purpose for said spectrum.
This arrangement has been in place for many decades and the FCC has
done its thing across many administrations. Can't blame The Donald on
this one yet, so don't even try.
It varies from country to country, but the communications networks in
nearly all countries are tightly controlled and regulated. Tax revenue
is also used to subsidize the networks. But you say that in XYZ
country, there are 200 different providers you can buy service from.
That's a crock. You actually have only one connection provider but
multiple sellers of the service. That's needed to avoid overbuilds
that are not only costly, but unnecessary. (In some urban areas, our
costs to put in fiber is about $2 million per mile. Rural is about $80
thousand per mile). In the USA, which is generally a
telecommunications free market, in order to afford to put in a new
fiber build, we need a certain customer density to cost-justify the
expense. The average cost per customer for greenfield buildouts (new
subdivision, for example) can exceed $10,000 in equipment costs and
another $10,000 in fiber/copper costs. And you want it for $20 a
month? Sure. Dream on, Bub.
And then when it comes to speed comparison between, say, Singapore,
Hong Kong, Taiwan and the USA? Well, when you figure that the majority
of the customers in those cities live in high-rise, multi-tenant
buildings, it's easy to feed the building with a couple of 10G pipes
and drop off fiber or 100_T to every apartment in the building. That's
child's play. And you know what? In equivalent structures here in the
USA, that's also exactly what is available.
Don't get me started on the cable-tv providers...
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|