Hello! The Technology Liberation Front is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Thriving competition indeed. Unfortunately Erick's statement that "Microsoft killed off Netscape with Internet Explorer" perpetuates the myth the regulators are scared about in the...
- It's clear that you need to brush up on the facts before commenting. No, Level3 is not an ILEC. Qwest is, of course. And, no, Internet access is not at all like POTS. We are, most emphatically,...
- I totally agree with you that we all need to put down our pens (or rather our keyboards for this matter), and understand that we are doing great harm to those journalists, institutions, or other...
- Your issue as I understand it is with Level 3 - are they an ILEC? Isn't Qwest (or a local coop) the ILEC there in Laramie? Two - you provide services a lot like a local exchange - I would guess...
- Yes, I will agree that you are not "getting me." First of all, I do not buy unbundled network elements (UNEs), nor am I a CLEC. I am a wireless ISP -- a true last mile provider and an...
2 years ago
Both sides of the discussion of "wireless net neutrality" are missing the core point. I believe the incumbent operators are doing so intentionally, forcing the neutrality camp, exemplified by Wu, to try to climb the hill on the steep and slippery side.
The real issue is the Soviet nature of spectrum allocation. The barrier to entry is very high: There seems to be no efficient market for spectrum. One needs to buy too large chunks of spectrum in order to play.
Why can't spectrum be traded so that, for example, a small(er) provider can bid for a small slice of spectrum in a dense metro area?
"True" network capacity (i.e. landline) cost is negligible compared to wireless capacity. For example, the only thing that prevents me from offering very low cost 2.5GHz (licensed band) service to my neighborhood is the fact that I can't obtain a small enough license. Even my ISP is happy for me to share my DSL line (yes, really: Speakeasy).
You may argue that it's not economically feasible to "allow such fragmentation", in part because ensuring RF compatibility with neighboring providers would make in uneconomical.
Perhaps. But without an efficient spectrum market, all we have to go on is the "informed opinion" of insiders - the operators and the FCC. Biased, therefore suspect.
Markets have successfully securitized all sorts of things like credit card debt and weather, but we can't do radio spectrum? That's bogus.