A handwritten summary is second best, but it has to be transcribed before anything else can be done with it.
Except to be read while reviewing the class content. No transcription required. And, you might note that if you handwrote it the first time, and then "transcribed" it after class, you've now processed the material twice, instead of simply typed it into the computer verbatim once.
Am I missing something? The student paid good money to be in that class. If they choose not to participate how is that a problem
Because they aren't getting what they paid for while they think they are. And then they'll probably rate the instructor as bad because they didn't learn what they paid to learn.
unless they are distracting others?
You know, people complain bitterly about how a cellphone in vibrate mode in someone's pocket absolutely destroys their ability to enjoy a movie, and yet it seems out of the realm of possibility that someone sitting in class clicking away on a keyboard might distract anyone else. We must create cell-free zones where signals are blocked in violation of federal law to protect the former nutjobs, but the latter is perfectly fine.
Let's not forget how rude it is to the speaker when that is going on. "I'm in class to learn something from you, but what I am doing on my computer is much more important than what you are saying..."
In college tier, you probably should have a copy of Matlab
Matlab is not for typing equations. And any "typing equations" solution that does result in an equation after entering the proper codes to get the right characters is going to be slower and more inconvenient than just writing it down directly. For example, I have no idea how to write a summation symbol (capital sigma) in Matlab, even though there is probably a latex encoding that will result in it being displayed in a document Matlab produces. Putting the sub and superscripts on that symbol would be a nightmare trying to do it in real time.
If not, that's a case to have subsidized software infrastructure.
The $99 student edition of Matlab is what I would call a highly subsidized software infrastructure.
In case of a diagram, there's MsPaint.
236: MsPaint MsPaint: Command not found.
There is nothing as productive as trying to use five different programs to take notes in one class.
Please post these things in units that can be universally understood.
They did.
For the imperialists, "2200 square mile" is a relevant unit.
For everyone else, "trillion metric-ton" is relevant. A metric ton is 1000 kg. At about 1kg per 1000 cc, that's 1e6 cc. A trillion (1e12) of those would be 1e18 cubic centimeters. About. Every metric user should immediately identify that kind of volume.
The only problem in combining the imperial with metric is that one is a volume and the other is an area. But let's play. 2200 square miles is about 5.7e9 square meters, if my math is right. (A square 47 miles on a side, or 76000m, ballpark.) A square meter is 1e6 square cm, so a surface area of about 5.7e15 sq cm. To make the appropriate volume, that would require a depth of 1.75e2 cm, or only 1.75m thick. Uhhh, huh?
It's a quarter the size of Wales, so now its clear:D
And now you're trying to get the Sea Shepherds involved in protecting an iceberg, aren't you? Wouldn't put it past those folks to run to the rescue -- but only if the Japanese were making scientific studies of it.
But the most honest Trump claims there is no global warming. Here we are with a major emergency and a total idiot at the helm.
This is a major emergency in your view? And Trump's the total idiot? Not to mention, ice breaks off of Antarctica all the time. This may be the biggest recorded break, but that doesn't mean it is the biggest of all time. Our records of Antarctica are relatively short.
If everyone, in say, Ohio, wants to eliminate "cable monopolies on broadband internet" they need simply petition their local politicians.
"Cable monopolies" other than defacto are infacto illegal. If you want to eliminate a defacto monopoly on broadband internet in any city, create another company that offers broadband internet.
so removing the monopolies will leave unprofitable regions of the state under or un-served
The monopolies were removed more than 20 years ago, and there are still under-served areas.
The answer is wireless broadband, which is typically exempt from existing monopoly agreements
You cannot be exempt from what does not exist. But wireless proves the point -- there are no ISP monopolies. The government has never granted a single one.
Telecos and cable companies don't have a natural monopoly. They have a government-granted monopoly.
Telcos do. Cable companies do not. But you don't have to be a telco to be an ISP, and the ISP part of the telco operations have never been a monopoly.
Your local municipal government entered into a contract with a teleco/cable company which gave them a monopoly.
The term is "franchise", and while telco franchises are exclusive, cable franchises (for cable TV systems) are not. Federal law prohibits that.
If only there were a way for citizens to influence what their government does...
No, if only there was a company that wanted to be an ISP and accepted all the same conditions that the existing franchisees had to meet to get their franchise, instead of trying to cherry pick the limited customer base.
Well, to be fair, Amazon will have to find a REALLY big frame to put Whole Foods in, and it will take a lot of space on the wall. They'll also have to find just the right person to buy it and it will take a while... the best they could do is $42. Now, if there was some letter or documentation for the provenance it would be worth millions.
all children study physics and can discern that it would not be a good idea to interfere with a nuclear power plant.
All children who are brought up right know it is not ethical to interfere with anything belonging to other people, even if it is connected to the internet. Hackers of this kind don't care, they want the cred for doing the most damage they can. And a lot of people today seem to think that if it is connected to the internet then it is fair game for anything they can do to it.
when in reality only the corporate business lans are involved in the attacked,
This.
But headlines aren't so exciting if they reflect reality.
People don't read good news, they react to the sensational bad news. Good news is too boring and run of the mill. "Dog behaved, baby slept peacefully, traffic flowed at a good rate on the interstate..." doesn't get clicks. "Dog eats sleeping baby in the back of a car stuck in a ten hour traffic jam" is what people want to read about.
A 'couple of watts' is already more than twice the power of any system on most $2000 drones.
Except the motors, for example. A 4.5Ah 15V battery that lasts 20 minutes means that it is drawing 13A, or 195 W. Approximately. That's what my DJI P3 battery/lifetime is. Ok, four motors, so each is only using 50W -- continuous.
A 10W pulsed data transmitter would run for quite some time. Assuming a 5% duty cycle (very large for ADS-B), 50% efficiency, that's 1W. At 15V, that's an average draw of 66mA, or 0.5% of the current already being used. This decreases the flight time from 20 minutes by an incredibly massive 6 whole seconds.
They're not more dangeerous; they're generally flown by people who intend to live through the experience and consequently don't do stupid dangerous shit.
The impact of a ultralight landing on your roof is significantly more than a Phantom 3 doing the same, both to your roof and to the pilot. That is why they can rightfully be called "more dangerous".
Your "A thus B" argument is demonstrably false, since many people who intend to live through the experience manage to do things that are quite stupid and dangerous anyway. There is a long history of NTSB reports of people who intended to live through the last flight they ever made but did something stupid or dangerous and that's why it turned out to be the last flight they ever made. For example, the pilot of a US Dept of Interior airplane who intended to return to home base and drive home to dinner but wound up pancaked against the side of a mountain because he stupidly decided to try scud running. Or many people who intended to return home after buzzing their neighbor's house but managed to spin it in and never got home.
ADS-B uses a transmitter output power in excess of 100W.
No. According to this, the minimum power output at the antenna input is 7 watts for low level service. Most drones are not going to be operating in medium (16 watt) or high (100W) airspace. This is for UAT systems; the ES systems do require higher power, but no drone is going to be carrying a full transponder with a squitter to start with.
Considering that the output is a data pulse, the battery drain is not a constant.
In busy airspace the system is already saturated during daytime.
Yes. With 100W to 250W transmitters operating at high altitude, that's a normal result. And it will only get worse as the 2020 deadline approaches.
will just mod their drone so it doesn't squawk anything.
Which makes them easily detectable.
What? You have it 180 degrees backwards. Why do you think transponders are required in manned aircraft when flying in certain airspace, if flying without a transponder will "make them easily detectable"? Have you ever tried to see a drone at 400' AGL that is 2000' away? Easily detectable?
Full-size manned and unmanned aircraft are required to have ADS-B transmitters.
No. The requirement is airspace-based, not aircraft. And not until 2020. 91.225 specifies where aircraft need ADS-B OUT.
1. Class A airspace. Not relevant to most drones, and requires ADS-B OUT ES (extended squitter). Most drones don't have squitters to start with, but they also don't fly in class A airspace.
2. Class B and C airspace. Some of this extends below 400', so appears to apply to drones.
3. Within 30 nautical miles of airspace listed in app. D. (Big airports.) Also surface up.
4. Class E above 10000' MSL, excluding airspace below 2500' AGL. Since Part 107 has a limit of 400' (as do many COAs, and the hobby rules), this doesn't apply to drones.
However, here's this:
(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed,
Now I can't speak for all drones, but I know none of the DJIs I have owned or used have electrical systems that are certified to FAA standards. Does yours? Also, the rules for ADS-B require GPS certified to FAA standards. Does the GPS in your drone meet the FAA certification standards? I'm not going to go look it up, but I'm pretty sure that WAAS is a requirement, and I don't know of a drone system that has WAAS augmentation.
this would be an ideal time to push for miniturization of the technology to use on drones.
The FAA regulations require ADS-B OUT equipment manufactured to specific TSO standards. Manned aircraft do not need, and therefore will not get, ADS-B equipment that is small enough to put on a drone, and it will cost a lot of money for such equipment to be built. The second that you make it an FAA TSO product and mandated in aircraft, the price multiplies by a factor of ten, at least. For example, the
Icom IC-A220 Panel Mount VHF Air Band Transceiver has a list price of $2200 for what amounts to an 8 watt AM VHF dual channel radio with built in weather radio. I can buy a similarly functional handheld (on FM VHF) from China for less than $100.
Not to mention, flooding the ADS-B system with Phantom 4 and 3 and Mavic and all the other mid-sized drone data is going to create havoc. Many years ago they came out with Mode C transponders which report aircraft altitude and made it similarly mandatory to ADS-B. The situation is currently that you can be told to turn your transponder to standby (not off, but not responding) in areas of high density transponder traffic. Let's not make ADS-B so saturated that it suffers the same fate.
I have a Mavic Pro, and registering with the FAA was a mandatory part of the installation process.
Huh? How can DJI make a step that isn't mandatory, mandatory?
So I either register, or I spend the next 10 years writing my own code to fly my drone.
Registering with the FAA doesn't mean your drone is transmitting an identification. It means you've registered it with the FAA.
It is likely that squawking an ID will be the same. Very few people will have the skills to bypass it.
1. Find the antenna.
2. Cut the wire.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Step 2 might be changed to "paint over the circuit board antenna with conductive paint", or just "unplug the antenna" if there is a connector. Three very easy things for people to do, especially people who are motivated to not be identified flying illegally.
They should be classified as militia weapons protected under the 2nd Amd.
There is no such thing as a "militia" weapon. The 2nd amendment talks about "arms".
ACARS is a telex link used to send data to the aircraft and back -- point to point. You mean ADS-B, specifically ADS-B out, a broadcast system.
Given that people can build their own from parts, you're going to create a huge mess by shoehorning drones into the ADS-B system. (My drone identifies as Air Force One! Haaaaaa! haa!) You'll be creating a costly mess by creating a new ADS-B system for drones.
Agreements are in place which grant the entrenched providers monopoly over the right-of-way.
If they are, then they are in violation of US federal law. Report them to the DOJ.
That's why so much effort is being spent on solving the last mile problem with wireless,
No, the reason effort is being spent on last mile with wireless is not because of any fictional monopoly franchise, but because of the inherent cost of running wires vs. radio.
or at least contracts which prevent competition.
Report them to the DOJ, if you ever find any. But post a link here so we can see where they exist, first.
Local governments, e.g. county or city, provide monopolistic franchise agreements with cable and internet providers.
Not in the US. Maybe some other country.
Gas and electric are usually covered by state Public Services Commission and are provided effective natural monopolies.
Where I live in the US, I am able to buy my electricity from three or four providers. The wires belong to Pacific Power, but the power comes from other places. Note that this is possible with a very simple infrastructure; trying to shoehorn this onto cable infrastructure would be much harder.
"Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned âoerights of wayâ so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property.
Yes. This is not a "monopolistic franchise agreement", however. ISPs have NEVER been granted government monopolies in the US.
"Throughout most of cable's history, it's been regulated at the local level.
Until twenty years ago, perhaps.
That's why I kept saying "local government".
I didn't reply to your comment about "local government", I replied to your claim that there are "government grants of monopoly status". I pointed out that this is not how it is done in the US, and since we are talking about the FCC we really should keep the discussion US-related.
It sells sections of airwaves to singular companies, and then it works to prevent any interference from anybody or anything else.
So because it has granted an exclusive license to a 6MHz wide chunk of the airwaves in a specific service area to one company, you claim that creates a monopoly for the service that station provides? There is no competition from any other station using a different 6MHz chunk of spectrum in the same area?
Did you buy a TV with no tuning dial, fixed to receive only one channel? I didn't. And does your cellphone not find your service provider from amongst the others, even if they each have different spaces in the spectrum?
The FCC was quite explicit in the initial cell service spectrum auctions that there were TWO companies in every area, specifically to prevent a government-granted monopoly. And in every place I've been, there are many more than two nowadays. Sure, one companies transmitter on frequency X is protected from interference from other companies, but they each have their own frequencies to operate on, and you can access them all. The reason your locale has only one CBS station (a MONOPOLY for CBS!) is not FCC based, it is a limitation CBS puts on accepting affiliates. Contractual, not legal.
75% of people only have one provider choice because of government grants of monopoly status.
We're talking about the FCC, so how about sticking to the USA? I have no idea what the laws are regarding ISPs in Kenya or Zambizia or wherever, but I do know about the USA. There are no ISPs with government granted monopolies.
In areas where local government has granted access rights to only one provider, use PSC model to mandate that that provider must provide access to other providers for the backbone to the pole
So if no second provider wants to compete on the same playing field as the existing one, they get special access to the existing one's facilities to make their costs lower.
If there is no second provider, then who is it that will be accessing the "backbone to the pole"? And when the second provider is granted access rights, your special treatment doesn't apply anymore.
we can't have 100 companies digging up roads to bury cable or pipes
We can't even entice two, and you're worried about 100?
Okay, I'm granting you exclusive rights to provide service for this community.
Hi. I'm from the US DOJ. Cease and desist, let's chat about your financial future as a local government, ok? You cannot legally grant exclusive rights for this.
So they set their rates, make money,
Back when there was the ability to grant exclusive franchises, many of them came with local regulatory bodies that had control over the rates that a cable company could charge. I know, I have been on two of them. Every rate increase had to be approved.
With DEregulation, that power was taken from the local communities and rates began their nearly unfettered climb. DEregulation caused that.
Slashdot Mirror
2 is also > 1.
Ok. I see the factor of 100. Thanks. 175m makes more sense.
A handwritten summary is second best, but it has to be transcribed before anything else can be done with it.
Except to be read while reviewing the class content. No transcription required. And, you might note that if you handwrote it the first time, and then "transcribed" it after class, you've now processed the material twice, instead of simply typed it into the computer verbatim once.
Am I missing something? The student paid good money to be in that class. If they choose not to participate how is that a problem
Because they aren't getting what they paid for while they think they are. And then they'll probably rate the instructor as bad because they didn't learn what they paid to learn.
unless they are distracting others?
You know, people complain bitterly about how a cellphone in vibrate mode in someone's pocket absolutely destroys their ability to enjoy a movie, and yet it seems out of the realm of possibility that someone sitting in class clicking away on a keyboard might distract anyone else. We must create cell-free zones where signals are blocked in violation of federal law to protect the former nutjobs, but the latter is perfectly fine.
Let's not forget how rude it is to the speaker when that is going on. "I'm in class to learn something from you, but what I am doing on my computer is much more important than what you are saying..."
In college tier, you probably should have a copy of Matlab
Matlab is not for typing equations. And any "typing equations" solution that does result in an equation after entering the proper codes to get the right characters is going to be slower and more inconvenient than just writing it down directly. For example, I have no idea how to write a summation symbol (capital sigma) in Matlab, even though there is probably a latex encoding that will result in it being displayed in a document Matlab produces. Putting the sub and superscripts on that symbol would be a nightmare trying to do it in real time.
If not, that's a case to have subsidized software infrastructure.
The $99 student edition of Matlab is what I would call a highly subsidized software infrastructure.
In case of a diagram, there's MsPaint.
There is nothing as productive as trying to use five different programs to take notes in one class.
Please post these things in units that can be universally understood.
They did.
For the imperialists, "2200 square mile" is a relevant unit.
For everyone else, "trillion metric-ton" is relevant. A metric ton is 1000 kg. At about 1kg per 1000 cc, that's 1e6 cc. A trillion (1e12) of those would be 1e18 cubic centimeters. About. Every metric user should immediately identify that kind of volume.
The only problem in combining the imperial with metric is that one is a volume and the other is an area. But let's play. 2200 square miles is about 5.7e9 square meters, if my math is right. (A square 47 miles on a side, or 76000m, ballpark.) A square meter is 1e6 square cm, so a surface area of about 5.7e15 sq cm. To make the appropriate volume, that would require a depth of 1.75e2 cm, or only 1.75m thick. Uhhh, huh?
It's a quarter the size of Wales, so now its clear :D
And now you're trying to get the Sea Shepherds involved in protecting an iceberg, aren't you? Wouldn't put it past those folks to run to the rescue -- but only if the Japanese were making scientific studies of it.
But the most honest Trump claims there is no global warming. Here we are with a major emergency and a total idiot at the helm.
This is a major emergency in your view? And Trump's the total idiot? Not to mention, ice breaks off of Antarctica all the time. This may be the biggest recorded break, but that doesn't mean it is the biggest of all time. Our records of Antarctica are relatively short.
If everyone, in say, Ohio, wants to eliminate "cable monopolies on broadband internet" they need simply petition their local politicians.
"Cable monopolies" other than defacto are infacto illegal. If you want to eliminate a defacto monopoly on broadband internet in any city, create another company that offers broadband internet.
so removing the monopolies will leave unprofitable regions of the state under or un-served
The monopolies were removed more than 20 years ago, and there are still under-served areas.
The answer is wireless broadband, which is typically exempt from existing monopoly agreements
You cannot be exempt from what does not exist. But wireless proves the point -- there are no ISP monopolies. The government has never granted a single one.
Telecos and cable companies don't have a natural monopoly. They have a government-granted monopoly.
Telcos do. Cable companies do not. But you don't have to be a telco to be an ISP, and the ISP part of the telco operations have never been a monopoly.
Your local municipal government entered into a contract with a teleco/cable company which gave them a monopoly.
The term is "franchise", and while telco franchises are exclusive, cable franchises (for cable TV systems) are not. Federal law prohibits that.
If only there were a way for citizens to influence what their government does...
No, if only there was a company that wanted to be an ISP and accepted all the same conditions that the existing franchisees had to meet to get their franchise, instead of trying to cherry pick the limited customer base.
This is nothing unusual.
Well, to be fair, Amazon will have to find a REALLY big frame to put Whole Foods in, and it will take a lot of space on the wall. They'll also have to find just the right person to buy it and it will take a while... the best they could do is $42. Now, if there was some letter or documentation for the provenance it would be worth millions.
all children study physics and can discern that it would not be a good idea to interfere with a nuclear power plant.
All children who are brought up right know it is not ethical to interfere with anything belonging to other people, even if it is connected to the internet. Hackers of this kind don't care, they want the cred for doing the most damage they can. And a lot of people today seem to think that if it is connected to the internet then it is fair game for anything they can do to it.
when in reality only the corporate business lans are involved in the attacked,
This.
But headlines aren't so exciting if they reflect reality.
People don't read good news, they react to the sensational bad news. Good news is too boring and run of the mill. "Dog behaved, baby slept peacefully, traffic flowed at a good rate on the interstate..." doesn't get clicks. "Dog eats sleeping baby in the back of a car stuck in a ten hour traffic jam" is what people want to read about.
A 'couple of watts' is already more than twice the power of any system on most $2000 drones.
Except the motors, for example. A 4.5Ah 15V battery that lasts 20 minutes means that it is drawing 13A, or 195 W. Approximately. That's what my DJI P3 battery/lifetime is. Ok, four motors, so each is only using 50W -- continuous.
A 10W pulsed data transmitter would run for quite some time. Assuming a 5% duty cycle (very large for ADS-B), 50% efficiency, that's 1W. At 15V, that's an average draw of 66mA, or 0.5% of the current already being used. This decreases the flight time from 20 minutes by an incredibly massive 6 whole seconds.
They're not more dangeerous; they're generally flown by people who intend to live through the experience and consequently don't do stupid dangerous shit.
The impact of a ultralight landing on your roof is significantly more than a Phantom 3 doing the same, both to your roof and to the pilot. That is why they can rightfully be called "more dangerous".
Your "A thus B" argument is demonstrably false, since many people who intend to live through the experience manage to do things that are quite stupid and dangerous anyway. There is a long history of NTSB reports of people who intended to live through the last flight they ever made but did something stupid or dangerous and that's why it turned out to be the last flight they ever made. For example, the pilot of a US Dept of Interior airplane who intended to return to home base and drive home to dinner but wound up pancaked against the side of a mountain because he stupidly decided to try scud running. Or many people who intended to return home after buzzing their neighbor's house but managed to spin it in and never got home.
ADS-B uses a transmitter output power in excess of 100W.
No. According to this, the minimum power output at the antenna input is 7 watts for low level service. Most drones are not going to be operating in medium (16 watt) or high (100W) airspace. This is for UAT systems; the ES systems do require higher power, but no drone is going to be carrying a full transponder with a squitter to start with.
Considering that the output is a data pulse, the battery drain is not a constant.
In busy airspace the system is already saturated during daytime.
Yes. With 100W to 250W transmitters operating at high altitude, that's a normal result. And it will only get worse as the 2020 deadline approaches.
will just mod their drone so it doesn't squawk anything.
Which makes them easily detectable.
What? You have it 180 degrees backwards. Why do you think transponders are required in manned aircraft when flying in certain airspace, if flying without a transponder will "make them easily detectable"? Have you ever tried to see a drone at 400' AGL that is 2000' away? Easily detectable?
Full-size manned and unmanned aircraft are required to have ADS-B transmitters.
No. The requirement is airspace-based, not aircraft. And not until 2020. 91.225 specifies where aircraft need ADS-B OUT.
1. Class A airspace. Not relevant to most drones, and requires ADS-B OUT ES (extended squitter). Most drones don't have squitters to start with, but they also don't fly in class A airspace.
2. Class B and C airspace. Some of this extends below 400', so appears to apply to drones.
3. Within 30 nautical miles of airspace listed in app. D. (Big airports.) Also surface up.
4. Class E above 10000' MSL, excluding airspace below 2500' AGL. Since Part 107 has a limit of 400' (as do many COAs, and the hobby rules), this doesn't apply to drones.
However, here's this:
Now I can't speak for all drones, but I know none of the DJIs I have owned or used have electrical systems that are certified to FAA standards. Does yours? Also, the rules for ADS-B require GPS certified to FAA standards. Does the GPS in your drone meet the FAA certification standards? I'm not going to go look it up, but I'm pretty sure that WAAS is a requirement, and I don't know of a drone system that has WAAS augmentation.
this would be an ideal time to push for miniturization of the technology to use on drones.
The FAA regulations require ADS-B OUT equipment manufactured to specific TSO standards. Manned aircraft do not need, and therefore will not get, ADS-B equipment that is small enough to put on a drone, and it will cost a lot of money for such equipment to be built. The second that you make it an FAA TSO product and mandated in aircraft, the price multiplies by a factor of ten, at least. For example, the Icom IC-A220 Panel Mount VHF Air Band Transceiver has a list price of $2200 for what amounts to an 8 watt AM VHF dual channel radio with built in weather radio. I can buy a similarly functional handheld (on FM VHF) from China for less than $100.
Not to mention, flooding the ADS-B system with Phantom 4 and 3 and Mavic and all the other mid-sized drone data is going to create havoc. Many years ago they came out with Mode C transponders which report aircraft altitude and made it similarly mandatory to ADS-B. The situation is currently that you can be told to turn your transponder to standby (not off, but not responding) in areas of high density transponder traffic. Let's not make ADS-B so saturated that it suffers the same fate.
I have a Mavic Pro, and registering with the FAA was a mandatory part of the installation process.
Huh? How can DJI make a step that isn't mandatory, mandatory?
So I either register, or I spend the next 10 years writing my own code to fly my drone.
Registering with the FAA doesn't mean your drone is transmitting an identification. It means you've registered it with the FAA.
It is likely that squawking an ID will be the same. Very few people will have the skills to bypass it.
1. Find the antenna.
2. Cut the wire.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Step 2 might be changed to "paint over the circuit board antenna with conductive paint", or just "unplug the antenna" if there is a connector. Three very easy things for people to do, especially people who are motivated to not be identified flying illegally.
They should be classified as militia weapons protected under the 2nd Amd.
There is no such thing as a "militia" weapon. The 2nd amendment talks about "arms".
Given that people can build their own from parts, you're going to create a huge mess by shoehorning drones into the ADS-B system. (My drone identifies as Air Force One! Haaaaaa! haa!) You'll be creating a costly mess by creating a new ADS-B system for drones.
Agreements are in place which grant the entrenched providers monopoly over the right-of-way.
If they are, then they are in violation of US federal law. Report them to the DOJ.
That's why so much effort is being spent on solving the last mile problem with wireless,
No, the reason effort is being spent on last mile with wireless is not because of any fictional monopoly franchise, but because of the inherent cost of running wires vs. radio.
or at least contracts which prevent competition.
Report them to the DOJ, if you ever find any. But post a link here so we can see where they exist, first.
Local governments, e.g. county or city, provide monopolistic franchise agreements with cable and internet providers.
Not in the US. Maybe some other country.
Gas and electric are usually covered by state Public Services Commission and are provided effective natural monopolies.
Where I live in the US, I am able to buy my electricity from three or four providers. The wires belong to Pacific Power, but the power comes from other places. Note that this is possible with a very simple infrastructure; trying to shoehorn this onto cable infrastructure would be much harder.
"Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned âoerights of wayâ so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property.
Yes. This is not a "monopolistic franchise agreement", however. ISPs have NEVER been granted government monopolies in the US.
"Throughout most of cable's history, it's been regulated at the local level.
Until twenty years ago, perhaps.
That's why I kept saying "local government".
I didn't reply to your comment about "local government", I replied to your claim that there are "government grants of monopoly status". I pointed out that this is not how it is done in the US, and since we are talking about the FCC we really should keep the discussion US-related.
It sells sections of airwaves to singular companies, and then it works to prevent any interference from anybody or anything else.
So because it has granted an exclusive license to a 6MHz wide chunk of the airwaves in a specific service area to one company, you claim that creates a monopoly for the service that station provides? There is no competition from any other station using a different 6MHz chunk of spectrum in the same area?
Did you buy a TV with no tuning dial, fixed to receive only one channel? I didn't. And does your cellphone not find your service provider from amongst the others, even if they each have different spaces in the spectrum?
The FCC was quite explicit in the initial cell service spectrum auctions that there were TWO companies in every area, specifically to prevent a government-granted monopoly. And in every place I've been, there are many more than two nowadays. Sure, one companies transmitter on frequency X is protected from interference from other companies, but they each have their own frequencies to operate on, and you can access them all. The reason your locale has only one CBS station (a MONOPOLY for CBS!) is not FCC based, it is a limitation CBS puts on accepting affiliates. Contractual, not legal.
75% of people only have one provider choice because of government grants of monopoly status.
We're talking about the FCC, so how about sticking to the USA? I have no idea what the laws are regarding ISPs in Kenya or Zambizia or wherever, but I do know about the USA. There are no ISPs with government granted monopolies.
In areas where local government has granted access rights to only one provider, use PSC model to mandate that that provider must provide access to other providers for the backbone to the pole
So if no second provider wants to compete on the same playing field as the existing one, they get special access to the existing one's facilities to make their costs lower.
If there is no second provider, then who is it that will be accessing the "backbone to the pole"? And when the second provider is granted access rights, your special treatment doesn't apply anymore.
we can't have 100 companies digging up roads to bury cable or pipes
We can't even entice two, and you're worried about 100?
Okay, I'm granting you exclusive rights to provide service for this community.
Hi. I'm from the US DOJ. Cease and desist, let's chat about your financial future as a local government, ok? You cannot legally grant exclusive rights for this.
So they set their rates, make money,
Back when there was the ability to grant exclusive franchises, many of them came with local regulatory bodies that had control over the rates that a cable company could charge. I know, I have been on two of them. Every rate increase had to be approved.
With DEregulation, that power was taken from the local communities and rates began their nearly unfettered climb. DEregulation caused that.