[opendtv] Re: Report: T-Mobile Now Has the Best Wireless Network | Fox Business
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:45:51 -0400
On Aug 3, 2017, at 11:18 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Speaking of useless words, what does this even mean? Let me explain data caps
that would be less objectionable. Data caps apply to everything equally, not
only as a way to block Netflix or other specific web sites. And to respond to
data caps, sites like Netflix can very simply offer various levels of
quality, as many sites do, explaining why they offer the options to their
customers. Simple. Now the user can avoid the cap, or paying the extra
amount, and the edge servers can serve more people.
Sorry, but this is a bullshit answer that has nothing to do with the situation
I was discussing. The fact remains that the QOS for data capped customers
declined when AT&T and Verizon responded to the competition from T-Mobile.
I was playing you, baiting you to agree that this is a Net Neutrality
violation. It is not. It is just the reality of marketplace competition in a
rapidly evolving industry.
Only because you are completely unable to connect the dots. When you read
that bit about how Verizon 4G slowed down, it should instantly have brought
to mind that previous nonsense you were trying to peddle, time and time
again, when attempting to argue that there's "plenty of competition."
i am not only able to connect the dots, Bert, They establish a trend line, that
tells us that wireless data is now competing with fixed broadband, and will be
on an equal footing when 5G fixed wireless is deployed over the next 3-5 years.
But even this misses the real story here.
You are correct, that there is little real competition in fixed broadband
today. But the cost in the U.S. Is not much different than int he rest of the
world, and if anything, the cable systems are much more open with ISP service
than MVPD services. You can buy your own modem and there are multiple tiers of
service, including very low cost lifeline broadband for customers who can prove
they receive SNAP benefits. The cable "monopoly" would not be doing this if
they felt they were immune from competition moving forward.
The real story here is that there is intense competition between companies that
have built out the cellular infrastructure, even extending to the development
of services that have no infrastructure like Metro PCS.
The FCC did not demand that Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint lease access to
their infrastructure, as they did when they made AT&T lease access to their
data lines to competitors. The marketplace worked out these sharing
agreements, as it has with the infrastructure itself, shifting the maintenance
and operation of cell towers shared by all to third party service companies.
Turns out that the author of the The Political Spectrum, Thomas Hazlett, wrote
a short position statement pamphlet in 2011, after the FCC approved the 2010
Net neutrality rules. It is entitled: The Fallacy of Net neutrality. Bert might
want to pick up a copy on Amazon - it cost less than $5.
Hazlett tells us about the first attempts to get the FCC to regulate the
Internet, several years before Tim Wu coined the term "Net Neutrality."
For instance, the initial lobbying for “neutrality” rules governing broadband
networks was launched in the 1990s by phone company GTE and dial-up ISP
America Online. These interests, numerous advocacy groups, and highly
regarded law professors argued that cable modem providers would inevitably
bias customer choices, steering their subscribers to affiliated websites. The
threat was purportedly severe, crushing innovation at the edge and deterring
Internet growth.
Sound familiar Bert?
The proposed remedy was for FCC imposition of “open access” rules mandating
cable TV systems rent broadband links to third-party providers at reasonable
(regulated) rates. While the remedy focused on ISP access, the asserted
“market failure” precisely tracks the current argument for network neutrality.
The FCC flatly rejected cable “open access” rules. In announcing the
decision, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard put the point thusly: “We do not
have a monopoly. We do not have a duopoly. We have a no-opoly.” At an early
stage of growth, it made no sense to presume that the market had already
developed and was ready for regulation. More subtly, the statement was a
stark admission: The reduction in industry growth dominated whatever static
gains could be extended by encouraging more access to existing facilities.
That tension continues to exist even as the emergent broadband-services
market has matured.
There will always be special interests who run to the politicians and
regulators for protection from competition. The story here is that competition
can actually work, if it is allowed to.
Let me explain something about learning things, Craig. You have to be able to
make associations, *and* you have to be able to make paradigm shifts. You
cannot look at each topic as if in a vacuum, and stubbornly, repeatedly, fail
to connect the dots. Plus, you cannot keep repeating yesterday's rules and
yesterday's truisms, as you always do, as if they must also apply tomorrow.
You would do well to head your own advice.
Then MetroPCS slipped in a bonus: free, unlimited YouTube videos.
Did they offer free unlimited videos from any other comers? If yes, no
problem.
They did not Bert. And that was NOT a problem, nor was it a Net neutrality
violation as the special interests claimed. It was a necessary condition of a
very low cost alternative to cellular service built on the legacy 2G network
technology.
Metro PCS did not have significant market share; as a result, it would not have
been productive to go after them on anti-trust grounds. Customers had MANY
alternatives, albeit more expensive options, including service tiers from Metro
PCS that did provide unfettered access to ALL Internet sites.
If the FCC had forced Metro PCS to allow access to all websites with this low
cost 2G service it would have disrupted service for everyone who chose this
option, versus more expensive services from Metro PCS and competitors.
Consumers were not coerced to choose this option. It was just a low cost option
enabled by a fully functional marketplace.
Simple enough. If they were an MVPD, and they had their own non-neutral
tiers, then whatever goes in those non-neutral slices of spectrum doesn't
matter.
This has nothing to do with MVPD service Bert. it was primarily a voice and
text based cellular service with limited access to the Internet. The SAME
limited access that existed when the iPhone was introduced in 2007.
It is worth notion that the YouTube App was included on the original iPhone.
This app did not support Flash Video - the same technology YouTube deployed to
support the iPhone was used to support YouTube access on Metro PC 2G phones a
few year later.
What is even more important is that the U.S. cellular infrastructure has been
upgraded twice since then; first with 3G, then 4G/LTE.
This happened because of competition, not FCC regulation. We might still be
suffering with 2G networks if we had depended on the FCC to approve technology
choices for the spectrum they mismanage. Thanks to deregulation and the
decision to auction spectrum for cellular we have robust competition and very
rapid innovation. This innovation is going to unleash REAL competition for
fixed broadband before the end of this decade.
But that is not going to happen under Title II regulation of the Internet.
(Clipped away the excess verbosity.)
As usual Bert avoids the tough questions. It's much easier to just parrot the
progressive memes, not matter how much they are discredited.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
