[opendtv] Re: EE Times: 5G Needs Mmwave Regs—Pronto
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 07:59:08 -0400
On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:48 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Whoever does the job has to be above their own special interest, Craig. Just
exactly as the Department of Commerce had to do, in order for the public
interest to be met, as opposed to just allowing the very few to hog all
available publically owned resources. So, you are talking out of both sides
of your mouth.
I could not agree more. The said fact is that the history of FCC regulation
"in the public interest" has created the very problem you fear. In every case,
the special interests are rewarded and competition is thwarted or delayed.
There is a huge difference between FCC regulation and the gist handed touch of
Commerce department management, with the threat of litigation if an actor
misbehaves.
The way the FCC allocates spectrum now, and the local caps they establish,
interference limits, and so on, is exactly the kind of job they have to do,
wrt OTA broadcast.
Sorry, but that is outdated thinking. The reality is that the radio industry
was doing just fine managing the spectrum resources with Commerce as an
"advisor" until a few special interests convinced Hoover to "REGULATE US!"
The cellular network in this country is far more complex than the broadcast
infrastructure - and the industry is doing just fine managing their spectrum
without the help of the FCC.
It makes no difference at all, whether at some times in the past, some of the
special interests attempted to pay off whoever, to get an unfair advantage.
Equally, today as well as 110 years ago, guaranteeing the neutrality of the
nationwide telecoms is also in the public interest, in very much the same
way. Just as the neutrality of the postal service had to be guaranteed, for
centuries.
FOTFL laughing.
The entire history of the FCC has been about the protection of special
interests and managing broadcast speech.
The postal service sued Federal Express because they were competing. There has
been all kinds of talk about ending Saturday USPS deliveries to save money. But
now the USPS is delivering Amazon packages on Sundays...
GO figure.
Sorry, Craig, wrong again. The FCC regulates which "greedy bastards" can
operate on what slices of spectrum, in cellular comms, specifically to
guarantee that adequate competition remains. Since you seem to not know this,
here's the first link that popped up. You can find plenty more.
This is fake news.
The FCC does not regulate the cellular carriers, with one exception: they still
require the testing of equipment for unwanted emissions. They don't do the
actual testing, they just certify the results.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6154016_regulates-cell-phone-companies_.html
Thanks for making my point.
Congress instructed the FCC to first create lotteries, then to auction the
spectrum for cellular. The FCC bungled the lotteries, but in the end the
spectrum was removed from FCC management and the industry was allowed to manage
it, and the spectrum they bought at auction.
As a result these is a market for this spectrum, with the ability for companies
to sell or trade licenses to create a national footprint. There is a robust
third party market with "fabless" companies leasing access from the companies
that bought the spectrum. And there is widespread spectrum and infrastructure
sharing.
Your vague rhetoric just now implied that the FCC in the 1990s got out of the
picture, allowing greedy bastards to have their way (and remarkably, that
this was good!). False. On the contrary, the FCC took on whole new jobs, as
it now regulates this new cellular industry too. For exactly the same reasons
as the Department of Commerce had to do in the 1920s.
All False.
ONLY COMPETITION can allow an industry to self-regulate.
WOW! He finally gets it!
We have robust competition in cellular, and the industry manages its spectrum
allocations.
You still haven’t grasped this concept, even though your arguments wander in
this direction occasionally. The FCC did permit the different cell providers
to choose their own standards, but only within their own spectrum allocations
(which is now resulting in some inevitable waste of cellular spectrum, of
course).
Do you even have a clue how stupid you sound?
Congress told the FCC to allocate the spectrum for Cellular and to let the
industry manage this resource. The FCC did not "permit" a thing. They got out
of the way as instructed by Congress.
SO thank you for agreeing with me - we do not need government
agencies and regulators setting technical standards.
I HARDLY agreed with you. I simply explained that when you have to regulate
something globally, it cannot be a US government agency doing the job. You
seem to have a stubborn fixation, as extremists tend to have, that gives you
tunnel vision. We don’t have a world government, so instead, we set up
organizations like the ITU and the IANA, to take on those jobs. How is that
better than having the FCC doing the job, within the US?
The ITU started as a industry created forum to manage the telegraph industry.
In recent decades, after the creation of the United Nations, it became a subset
of that organization.
They do not manage spectrum, nor do they create technical standards. They
create international recommendations for spectrum allocation and act as an
International "court" to resolve interference issues, as radio waves do not
respect national borders. They also provide a legal framework for
standardization allowing companies to collaborate on standards without
anti-trust concerns. In this they act in a manner similar to the IETF.
They do not have control over global technical standards for
telecommunications. In many cases their members create competing standards, as
was the case with video compression. Just look at the proliferation of analog
and digital television standards. The ITU could not convince its members to
create a global TV standard. Regional standards were created to protect
domestic and regional markets and anufacturers.
Your BS rhetoric does you no favors, Craig, I say again. It makes you sound
incoherent, devoid of logic.
At least it is my rhetoric, and well supported by facts.
You just parrot the progressive, regulatory line...
Probably cannot help yourself since you work in the nation's capital for a HUGE
special interest. Nice win with that $3 billion order for planes from Iran...
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:
