[opendtv] Re: Commissioner Rosenworcel and NAB on next gen TV
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:37:46 -0400
On Oct 16, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Again, Craig indulges in banalities, writing **volumes and volumes** of
useless prose. The simple point is, as low a number as 4 GB is, per month, it
shows exactly what I said. Wireless is not an option for the heavy lifting.
Not yet, maybe not for some time. There is no significant competition for
home broadband service. You have one choice, Craig. How many times does this
have to be repeated?
It says nothing of the sort. It is an AVERAGE for a huge industry that still
charges a premium for data. The reason this number is this low is that the vast
majority of cellular customers do not spend their time streaming video on
cellphones. This is not to say they don’t stream some video, they do. At lower
resolutions, 4GB can support a fair amount of video streaming.
The reason the average is low is BECAUSE the vast majority of consumers buy
both fixed and wireless data services. Until the telcos can provide a single
integrated fixed/mobile broadband service - you can call this a bundle if you
like - we will continue to see “conservation” of expensive mobile bits.
This “problem” is likely to disappear within 5 years thanks to 5G. At that
point the cable guys better have a viable mobile strategy, or they will suffer
from two types of “cord cutting.”
Your list of applications contains several that are bandwidth hogs
The real work, yes. Anything that isn't trivia. Let's not have to belabor the
obvious again.
No, real work typically does not require massive bandwidth. Video streaming,
online gaming, and software downloads are not work per se. If your JOB requires
moving massive files around you may eat into your monthly bit bucket, but most
work at home connectivity is of the limited bandwidth variety; e-mail,
accessing corporate data bases, sending out reports, proposals and contracts,
etc.
The hours of homework is a huge canard. Most homework is NOT ONLINE,
and most of what does require the use of the Internet
As if you even know! More and more, it does.
Not really. And even when a student must search for something online the
bandwidth needed is not significant. Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see
education move to online courseware that is able to use multiple media to
teach. But most of this is not bandwidth intensive.
I am now reading e-books; these are typically very small files. Public school
students GO TO SCHOOL and attend classes with real teachers - they do not
consume 6 hours a day of online courseware.
And sadly, the trend, at least at the elementary school level, is to get rid of
homework...
Much of what required a library before can or is now done online. Many
lectures come online too, even for courses that are not online courses. This
is even true for many jobs. You need broadband for them too. You have this
idea that the only thing young kids need the Internet for is texting or
Facebook. Ridiculous.
You do not need 25 Mbps broadband for online courseware. This stuff can be
streamed at less than 1 Mbps, as is the case for most of the video consumed on
cellphones.
I do not believe that the only thing kids need the Internet for is social
media. But I do believe that this is the majority of what they do online, not
their homework.
And the major reason for this is that the majority of homework kids do, does
not involve the Internet. Further, where schools are moving to tablets and
ChromBooks, most of the heavy lifting is downloading the apps to the devices,
which is done by the IT people at the schools. Most of these apps (especially
electronic textbooks) are on the device - the major use of networking is for
interactions with teachers and testing, which is typically done over the
networks in the schools.
That being said, many school districts DISABLE the ability of the devices they
issue to access social media and entertainment apps.
Do these kids even have computers?
Yes! (Let's not forget. This is the same Craig who swore up and down that
only 4% of TV is watched online, after all.)
What a ridiculous response.
Only 2 percent of Americans can't get internet access, but 20 percent
choose not to
Those students who can't get Internet access at home have to go elsewhere to
get access, putting them at a disadvantage.
DUH.
Unfortunately, even if we could provide home Internet access for every
disadvantaged kid in the U.S. it would not change the environment they live in.
Even just writing a report. If you have Internet access you can do research
instantly. If not, you have to trek to the library. That puts you at a
disadvantage. If you don't understand a problem, you can get help online
without too much trouble. If not, you can't. Does this really need to be
belabored? Don't you ever use the Internet, Craig? You appear weirdly
unfamiliar with what should be obvious.
What I am familiar with is REALITY Bert. There are many things that put kids at
a disadvantage today. Not being able to read is a classic example.
Older, less educated, and poorer Americans are much less likely to
be online
Craig suggests it's best to be uneducated. Not a surprise! So, who cares if
people can't get access? Just remain ignorant.
More crap. Of course it puts you at a disadvantage if you are uneducated. The
Internet is not going to educate someone who is not interested in learning; if
they cannot read the Internet is mostly useless.
I linked to an article that said what you quoted above. It is part of the
unfortunate REALITY I referred to above.
It takes more than technology to help kids learn Bert. It takes a learning
environment, parents who provide the structure, role models, and the discipline
to get their kids to understand why it is important to LEARN.
The Internet is not going to change that.
And then there is the reality that some people just WANT to be “off the grid.”
Nobody is denying the importance of the Internet Bert.
What crap. You are, Craig, by not getting why it's an essential telecom
service, much more so than the telephone ever was. For the longest time, you
were frozen on the idea that just VoIP is telecom.
The Internet is NOT a telecom service Bert. It may use telecommunications for
access, even for real telecommunications Apps like VOIP, but it is an
information service, and is clearly defined as such in the 1996 Communications
Act. It is YOU who does not understand the difference.
NOBODY needs cable broadband to do their homework Bert.
Again, as if you would even know. She has school-age kids, as does the
Chairman, and all you have is dogma. Who do you think is more credible, Craig?
Missed it completely. I was referring to what the FCC now defines as
“Broadband” - i.e. 25/3, which is HIGH SPEED internet. 1 Mbps is more than
sufficient to deal with homework, and most of the “work,” like writing a report
does not even need connectivity, other than for some aspects of research.
The U.S. Illiteracy Rate Hasn't Changed In 10 Years
Irrelevant. Like arguing that if, in 1910, kids were doing just fine in
school without the Internet, they could do the same now. It's not just
literacy, genius. As times change, the tools of education have to change too.
Education is not just learning how to read. To get educated properly today,
you need to get way more information across than you did in 1910, get it?
Make sense, Craig. Your arguing is preposterous.
The tools of education are USELESS if the person you are trying to educate is
illiterate Bert. I don’t care what technology you want to use. Most of the
literary classics used in education existed in 1910 as printed books. Putting
them online changes nothing for someone who cannot read.
Should we make all books and textbooks audio books Bert? Will that help reduce
the illiteracy rate?
You are looking for a magic bullet for the problems with our educations system
- technology is not the real problem.
He talks *all the time* about how many millions the FCC is dedicating
to deploy broadband where it doesn't exist (not even DSL).
Ya think? We have been working on this issue for nearly a century,
Then go back and erase the crap you wrote about the USF. The USF is what pays
for deploying Internet service where market forces would make it way too
expensive, so it doesn't exist.
But it does exist. The expensive part is certainly an issue, but if you REALLY
need Internet access you can get satellite Internet almost EVERYWHERE.
Funny, how other industries manage to provide products to remote areas without
government subsidies. Sorry that is inaccurate - without government
redistribution of wealth.
Same sort of problem which existed a century ago for telephone service, for
power distribution, and so on. Even Chairman Pai understands this, in spite
of his formulaic narrative. But you seem not to, Craig.
I think you are wrong about what Chairman Pai thinks or understands. He is
trying to dismantle the regulatory regimes of the past century that created
expensive monopolies, layers of regulatory morass with accompanying layers of
taxes and cost shifting, and a “special interest” culture that enriches
lawyers, lobbyists, and the political establishment.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: