The fixed-wireless company I work for covers a good rural area in our part of the country, which subsequently gives them a lot of telecommuters who wish to access company VPNs (many of which rarely even visit the company offices).
Because of the strong telecommuting base, the company's "residential" service not only permits telecommuting and other applications that utilize tunnels, encrytion, etc., but treats the home market that uses this product no differently than the business market. You're buying a basic connection - not a business one, home one, school one, etc. Being independent of the legacy incumbant local exchange network, policies and pricing holdovers, I'd expect you're likely to find fixed wireless and other "new" network providers more receptive to approaching residential users without service or quality discrimination.
When you look at the evolution of business vs. residential service, its origins are in the pre-divestiture tariff world where Ma Bell was forced through regulatory means to charge residential users less. Other than competitive pricing forces, there are no good justifications for giving a home user crappy service or limited functionality just because their office is also their residence.
I'd recommend that if you're being screwed by your local phone provider, shop around until you find someone competent.
Hopefully there will be a day when there is a representative we can stand behind
No kidding! I'm still disappointed from learning from this morning's local paper that one of my favorite house reps has sold out to the Dingle/Tauzin "2002 Baby Bell Remonopoliziation and Congressional Patronedge Act".
This fellow (a fresh house rep) had such promise and campaigned as a guy who wasn't bought and paid for by the system. Well, guess who's got a bunch of Qwest and AT&T donations... *sigh*
I wonder how long it's going to take before it boils over. Congresscritters spamming us, cramming fake campaign finance "reform" (incumbant protection), pushing countless constitutional encroachments that benefit major media contributors, and churning out one contributor bill after another. It's almost as if Enron was a validation of their corruption, not a criticism.
Maybe it's time to put them back on the private sector's payroll...
This isn't a government monopoly, this is laying the infrastructure for private companies to take advantage of.
Yes, and as discussed earlier in the thread, this is no different than the NSFNET NAP proposal in the early 90s - creating regional exchange points (owned and operated by RBOCs), establishing a national transport entity (e.g. ANS) for inter-exchange traffic, and the creation of an exchange arrangement preferably favoring measured use charges over time at the exchanges for "all suppliers."
Of course, the RBOCs would likely have lower costs and charges when interconnecting at their own facility and would likely wield the same anticompetitive influences as they do in the rest of their markets (recall the fate of competitive DSL in the past 2 years?).
Thankfully, the open market sidestepped this monstrosity. Apparently all the NSF socialists moved to central Canada and sold them a bill of goods.
*scoove*
Bought and Paid For
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I think we need to remind our congresscritters that in light of the Enron and Global Crossing special interest fiascos, the last thing that would be appropriate for them to do now (especially after their activity on campaign finance reform) would be to pass a bill that should be renamed the "AOL/Time Warner and Friends Racket Act."
As much as I like some of my representatives, I've put them on notice that I'll vote in someone else if they dare pass this scam.
Congress: Quit telling me how to run my business, or I'll tell you how to run yours!
Not true at all. Between fixed-wireless (and NLOS developments coming to market now - finally!), DSL, satellite service, cable modems and potential power-line technology, there's a solution.
If you're not serviced yet, you're dealing with a problem of "too small to be of interest yet" - something that'll be solved as the bigger markets get built out.
After all, if you had to choose between two otherwise identical jobs - one paying $80K/year and one paying $12K/year, we know which one you'd pick. Service providers are no different - and since it usually takes us a year or more to recover our capital investment, we must focus on the bigger markets first (or else go out of business).
Regarding your biting the bullet and getting a T1, I'd suggest you check first. We've come into towns that have had multi-billion dollar corporations with food processing plants that have been trying to get a single T1 for 2-3 years (to no avail). No amount of lobbying can get the incumbant to upgrade and provide service.
Find a competent fixed wireless company and offer them a hilltop or a water tower and see how your luck changes.
I fail to see how broadband access can be called a natural monopoly.
Exactly, and I'm afraid you're still not going to see a competent reply to the question.
In case it wasn't obvious from my post further up the thread, my occupation has been in telecom for the past 13+ years. Recently, I've been working in the rural broadband market and have been coming across municipalities that are adding high-speed Internet to their offering of electricity, water, sewer, natural gas, etc.
Many of these guys have extended into propane and fuel oil sales, telephone service, cable television, and now high-speed (usually over cable).
While the arguments for this extension of focus include "lowering costs because the same fixed cost from office, admin, billing, etc. can be spread over yet another service offering" and "we should do it because we care more about our customers," I've yet to find one that doesn't end up subsidizing from their monopoly markets to cover losses in the competitive ones.
For instance, we've got a muni in Iowa that has all of the above services. Their electric rates are now $0.09/kwh (where the power company in the same town but providing service outside of town to a more expensive, less population-dense rural base, is $0.06/kwh!). Water and sewer rates are also at least 50% greater than neighboring communities that represent a decent comparison.
According to state law, it's illegal for them to subsidize the cable TV, phone and Internet. But any competent accountant can show you dozens of ways to apply the costs while staying legal.
I guess it all comes down to a lesson every business person should learn - the lesson of focus. Treat every business area as a unique discipline, and remember that you've got competitors out there who spend 100% of their time exclusively focused on that one area - being as competent as they can be.
You and I couldn't reasonably expect to be the best IP engineer if we only spent 3 hours a week on the subject, splitting it with time spent on 20 other disciplines. So why should a company expect otherwise? Attempt them all, and do them all poorly.
To strenghten my point: broadband access is currently offered via copper wire, coax cable and satellite.
And don't forget microwave and fixed wireless... works well for our communities (and kicks the holy crap out of the state fiber network).
The US had a monopoly Internet for a few years - NSFNET - which wasn't widely used by many other than academic and research folks, and really had done very poorly extending beyond subsidized locations. Yes, many of us/.ers cut our teeth there and have wonderful memories of the fun we had (at significant taxpayer expense), but we can't forget that while NSFNET advanced the protocols and connected the schools, the real revolution came when real, normal people got connected (I know, this is soooo anti-elitist!)
In 1992, I worked with a rural community of about 8,000 that wanted to launch a freenet. The local NSF regional gave us a quote of $65,000 up front plus $2,500 a month for Internet service - using a 56 Kbps leased line! (They had 35 PhDs on staff and naturally had high costs - that was their justification).
Thanks to the pioneering efforts of UUNET, CERFNET, PSI (now defunct, alas), Sprint, NEARNET/SURANET, and the folks at the Commercial Internet Exchange, the NSF monopoly (which was planned to go into a Bell-like regional with ANS and the RBOCs running the show) was broken apart. Multilateral and later, bilateral peering, became the norm. Exchange points grew (like MAE-E, MAE-W) and the commercial market blew open.
This commercialization is what also brought hundreds of millions of regular people (read "not employed by the government") onto the Internet. Not 23 years of NSFNET, but 3 years of commercial Internet.
While you'd think folks would have discovered the government model doesn't work, we still have numerous states, municipalities and even national governments trying the old way. Iowa, for instance, built a boondoggle fiber network that costs $75,000 to get a connection. Sure, you get fiber, but the Internet connectivity squeezes down to a connection no faster than an ISDN pipe at the egress to the Internet. Although the taxpayers paid for it, many of the fiber customers are leaving for - you guessed - competitive commercial service. We've got the same issues with municipalities providing broadband and having to raise electric, sewer and gas rates to cover their inefficiencies.
I really hate beating a very dead horse, but for some reason some folks like the previous poster continue to believe misnomers. The Internet isn't like a highway system and it doesn't benefit from government administration.
What it does benefit from is being offered and operated by people that focus on this and only this expertise - not people that also issue your license plates, run the welfare agencies, operate electric power, clean your sewer, etc. Being a competent ISP is not a part-time operation.
It also benefits from competition, since this is usually about the only motivator for most folks.
what happens when advertising firms start paying channels less because there are less people actually viewing the show than recording it?
TV remote control has already eroded ad viewing already. Where's the suit to ban remotes?
And while we're on the topic, we need toilets that have lids that lock during commercials and refridgerators with auto-locking doors. Better yet, let's install seat belts on couches and lazboys and require all viewers be belted in before viewing. Belts will automatically lock during commercial breaks for optimum viewing convenience.
The reality of it all is that it's time for the advertiser to evolve. Rather than fighting intuitive behavior, those that want to survive will focus on better product integration in the programs and blur the advertising boundries from where we're at today. Heck, we might even Wouldn't a Whopper be good right now? see comperable use on/.!
Imagine that there is a rate limiter upstream of my connection. I, as a customer, have a simple piece of software which does two things:
I used to love hearing that line when dealing with non-IT customers. "We need a simple piece of software that performs miracle X. Can we have it in two weeks?" Almost as much fun as the purchase order from the accounting dept. director who wanted "One fiber optic cable" since he was going to implement a high-speed LAN (no other equipment or explanation of how that fiber was going to magically connect all the peecees).
Not to be condescending however, Paul probably hasn't spent several years in telecom billing purgatory. It's a nightmare due to variables like:
- measured use (hours/minutes/seconds, which mean different things compared to how the marketing fuzzhead designed the product, like "initial 3 minute block and then do whole minute billing rounding from there except after 5 pm when we give a discount and bill in 6 second increments" - a lot of silly non-use events that need billing, like "bong" charges (you hear a bong when your call completes and we whack you for $5.50 - very common on calling cards that advertise $0.01 per minute rates), initiation charges, customer support charges, etc.
- variable billing by time of day, both on the calling and called ends, often with nonstandard definitions of time of day (day/offday for some destinations, day, evening, night/weekend for others)
- taxes: what a joy, since technically every darn jurisdiction can apply them, all the way down to a SID. different all over the place, and varying rules of how they apply based on where the caller is at and where your switch they're calling to is at
Now do you see why your bill is usually wrong, and it costs me $12 million up front and $3 million annually to bill your calls?
So limiting your traffic (driven out of a customer self-provisioning system based on web input? perhaps if I force PPPoE on you and allow you to change your settings, however I'll have to deal with partial billing periods since you'll be free to change your settings frequently so I need to bill you at different rates) isn't "simple."
And how do I deal with the following product abuse:
1. set rate to fastest
2. download pr0n files and mp3s for two hours
3. set rate to super cheap slowest discount rate
4. go to bed and leave it on slow until next pr0n session
It's easier and more appropriate to just have me bill you per Mb and let you suck bandwidth any time you want, than to deal with allowing you to rateshape yourself in order to get performance or price.
Really, instead of simplifying things, the details here are quite ugly and will cost you more than you want to pay. How about a flat-rate bill and a free radio or plush toy instead?
Run their traffic through a router with fair queueing,QOS, and rate limiting. Offer the customer a fair committed rate burstable to 1Mb and make a fair profit.
Ah... you sound like me on a marketing hype day (before my engineers threaten to shoot me). Besides being horribly expensive to implement, I'm not aware that this has ever been proven to scale to the extent of a broadband consumer net has to.
In fact, whenever I've crunched the numbers, it gets rather difficult to absorb the new costs associated with the complexity you've introduced in measuring, mediating, billing, and supporting this type of network.
Billing by measured use and quality/class of service puts you into a billing system typically pushed by folks like Kenan, Saville, etc. You're going to funnel millions of records daily, have significant storage and processing costs, etc. Having purchased a system like this for a smaller international telco, we scraped and got a junior system that ran $12 million including the hardware, not including annual license and support fees (several million annually, which usually tiers with customer base).
Add that to the general nature of customer telecom bill complexity aversion (people like predictable bills = flat rate models) with a highly dynamic and unpredictable product use model and you'll see why we're in trouble.
Really, the reason broadband service came out at around $30/month was due to marketing analysis - that's what people will pay and you'll get decent market penetration. Look at the data showing that as DSL providers move up to $45/mo or above, they start hiking churn up fast and lose customers (not to mention scare off new ones). Consider that your $30/month is a hold over from the dot-com era when it didn't matter if we made money; what did matter is how much of the market we acquired (then at month 31, a miracle happens which we can't explain and we get a hockey stick leap in earnings).
Unfortunately, with consumer aversion to measured billing, I think the only solution is either crippled service or hiked prices. We do both - limit the low cost service and provide the full service at a higher price - very comperable to the airline pricing model. Want first class? $$$ Want the lowest price and no guarantee you're getting on? Fly standby.
I'd pay $80 if the connection was fast both ways and I was allowed to run small home web sites.
How about $800? Or More? Look at wholesale T1 pipes to any major ISP worth connecting to - e.g. UUNET. ~$800/month for 1.5 Mbps.
Maybe if these companies are hurting for money so much they could take some of the cash they are wasting on cheesy commercials and put it towards reducing the cost of bandwidth.
Now there's a great idea: Let's not advertise! And you want your service provider to last more than a few months? Actually, if you're just slamming the cheesy ones, I'd have to agree with you there.
For years, US West used to run these ads that used a formula like this: "You're dumb. We're smart. Look, a dog doing tricks! Buy our service." If you've seen the ads, you'll know what I'm talking about. Amazing that people would buy stuff from a company that tells them they're idiots.
Sure this stuff costs a lot to install but there is a crap load of fiber already installed
Someone's got to put an end to this misnomer. There may be a lot of city pair fiber (e.g. from Cleveland to Chicago) unlit or underutilized out there, but the magic comes in putting it together. Everything from equipment to terminate the pipes, facilities to house the equipment, people to implement and maintain it all, and the stuff to put secret ingredient IP on top of it all cost bucks.
Don't forget either that what most customers want isn't a fiber pipe between Cleveland and Chicago. They want "Internet" - meaning expensive pipes terminating to a major player's network - UUNET, Sprint, etc.
Add it all up, throw in the backoffice, customer support, bad debt from deadbeats that don't pay, and you're paying probably at or less than actual cost right now.
Don't forget the people cost too - Cox in our area is dying daily deaths on their cable Internet ever since they migrated off of @Home. Their gateway router in town reboots hourly, and at least once a day we see the entire metro network crater for about an hour. A major part of the problem (besides having the suits in Atlanta make the equipment purchase decisions) is that they pay their router geeks crap - the top guys make about $42K/year. But hey, once they get up to the CCNP, they discover they can be hired for $15K or more a year anywhere else in town. So Cox ensures regular turnover and technically limited staff (hey, who says you can't static route the entire metro network?). So is unreliable service worth that low price?
while at the same time leaving a lot of their capacity left untouched.
Hmm... providers offering service right now at or below cost, and you want them to overproduce as well? Look at the ag world for how well that works.
Another solution is to offer proxy servers and make them part of the default install.
A decent suggestion, but web surfing isn't the majority of the problem. Peer to peer apps, streaming audio (which I tend to abuse), etc. kill your bandwidth models.
I'm greatly surprised more ISP's don't offer something like a regional BBS-like interface that lets users chat and trade files with others locally.
Did I forget to list attorney fees above? Yes, I sure did. Filesharing offered by the ISP is a nice way to meet the friendly folks from the software police who will explain to you how many millions of dollars you will be donating to their policing efforts. Almost as much fun as a visit from the Rainbow Coalition...
Either way please get rid of those crappy commercials. I'd pay an extra $5/month just to be able not to see those.:)
Don't like them? Shop with your feet. I've got a personal aversion to the whole dot-com mystery meat advertising ploys, like AT&T's new Mlife campaign. It's like putting frosting on a cow pattie.
Better yet, try my investing model: short the stock of dot-com marketing hypsters. I did well on Lucent and a few other made up name companies who used those fuzzy zero-substance marketing campaigns. The only thing better than knowing a company is a loser is making money when you're right.
I wonder when this sort of thing will start to be a more common event."
Considering the amount of space junk in orbit and the clutter and risk it represents, it's nice to see that some of this stuff is finally exceeding its orbital lifespan and is reentering.
Of course, I'm not sure I'd want it ending up on/my/ house, but since we can't really make sure everyone sticks around to deal with their space litter (hello USSR?), I'm not sure what other options are available.
I owned a Palm VII. Found the wireless service horribly slow, pricey (yet another indication that measured use only discourages people from becoming loyal customers) and useful really only for email (the little web-like applications were terribly limited). The Palm ended up being used 99% of the time as my calendar.
I bought a Compaq Ipaq with 802.11b card and back for the Ipaq this fall. I use it nonstop, love the real browser, the speed and openness of the connection (I can run it at home, work, coffee shop, etc.), and absolutely love the price! (Now, if it could only run Netstumbler...
So, unless it completely falls apart, I'd suggest Palm might become a nice acquisition for AOL/TW. Use that Netscape browser for a change and put out wireless browsers with AOL email. Yea, it'd be gross and for the masses, but perhaps AOL/TW would understand the scale necessary to push this product and get it everywhere for $99. Otherwise, Palm's proved once again that the Apple route is the best way to guarantee failure.
drinkypoo writes:
There is a sizable difference between me spending money which I earned through my own work, and buying a computer which I personally own, and the available radio frequency bandwidth.
How so? I've bought frequency out of money I earned through my own work as well - licensed microwave paths, for instance, which require a few thousand bucks in path analysis, engineering and application fees.
In fact, it's cheaper to buy a PC than a simple point to point 6 GHz microwave shot.
What gives the FCC the right to sell that off?
I find it funny that as a hard core objectivist, I'm arguing on behalf of the government to regulate (perhaps that's the realist in me coming out). The best answer to your question is probably an Ayn Rand one: a Gun
If you decide you don't have to recognize their right and encroach upon it, you'll eventually discover the extent of their enforcement. Look at all the income tax opponents (Ruby Ridge, anyone?).
I'd like to be able to use some of it to play around
So would I. I can't tell you how disgusted I am that numerous auctions have sold off wonderful frequency, only to have the frequency purchased and sat on by loser incumbants who see it as a cheap way to avoid competition. But I have an option: pay more than they do, or shut up.
and why should I have to pay (ultimately, because of licensing fees and whatnot we all pay) to use the airwaves?
How else would you assign finite property we all share? Give it to friends of the political party in charge? Keep it owned by the government? People like to argue how the current system is unfair, but don't fully explain an alternate.
It sounds like UWB may make most frequencies useless for traditional radio, especially the higher ones, but perhaps it's the right thing to do.
Again, thanks to wonderful PR by the UWB patent holder corporation(s). Many people on/. have provided good links to a sufficient base of analysis debunking both the amazing uniqueness of UWB and its alleged noninterference with other services.
As much as I enjoy Cringley's writing, it's clear that he's a journalist, not a technologist. If you read him for more than entertainment and perspective, you're going to be disappointed.
Perhaps my use of "licensed owners" wasn't clear enough. The process of licensing conveys ownership and its rights as specified in the license for the duration of the license.
You may want to argue semantics about something licensed not being ownership, but think about what things you usually "own": your land? your house? your car?
All three are technically licensed to you as well. Should you not pay property tax to the government, you lose your land, house and car. Really, you don't have clear and absolute ownership with these items - you just have a license to use them given the terms provided. Terms? On your property? Try building a 1000 foot tower on your land - you own it, right? You'll quickly discover an organization called the FCC explaining how you don't have the right to do that without following their rules. Same with building a landfill, pr0n shop in some areas, etc. All sorts of people have rules that apply to your use of "your property."
I mean, if UWB really can deliver on it's potential, then why the hell should we stime it just so people who have invested in outdated technology can profit?
First of all, UWB may not deliver on its potential. Secondly, who said the rest of the spectrum is outdated technology? Cell companies, microwave operators, hams, military, ISM users, etc. would have a slight disagreement with you. I assume you don't use a cell phone, 802.11b device, pager, etc. since they're outdated?
That's moronic. Look, I mean if you own land and the government wants to put down a highway or a railroad, then they will. They just have to pay you for it.
But what you're arguing for is a highway on my property (spectrum license) without paying me for it, telling me I won't notice the highway and it won't cause me any inconvenience.
Simply put, for one prospective licensee using what some have alleged to be junk commercial science to risk the entire RF spectrum management system is questionable, at a minimum.
The idea that we should hold back a huge technological advance which some have noted interesting parallels to the CueCat and the perpetual motion machines on account of some moronic idea that people can 'own' mathimatical descriptions of b-feild flux is incredibly stupid.
Licensing scarce natural resources (frequency) that are irrespective of manmade political boundries is quite different than owning mathimatical (sic) descriptions.
and per Iguanophobic's note:
I would argue that the government had no right to sell the frequencies in the first place.
Some people aren't comfortable with private ownership, as it deprives them from mooching off of others and limits the ease a parasite can access the product of others hard work.
If you follow the FCC's enforcement actions (detailed on their website), you'll quickly learn the importance of assigning frequencies via license and enforcing that. They routinely deal with mentally unbalanced idiots who find pleasure in jamming other services, cheaters damaging other peoples services by operating on top of their frequency (usually at higher power, destroying the legit user's service), etc.
Think about your cell phone for a second - operating in a licensed band. What if I followed you around and jammed your service every time you went to use your phone, simply because I didn't like you? With no licensing of frequencies, you'd have no recourse - I have as much right to jam you as you do to try to use your service. Or that crummy radio station I don't like... they're going down, baby! (I'd guess that nearly every station has at least one party that doesn't like their broadcast and nothing would be free from interference).
Remember, licenses not only establishes boundries and ownership, but they mandate behavior and provide enforcement should that behavior not be followed within the frequencies as well.
>I hardly think the "property" argument jibes with the "public interest, convenience and necessity" traditional mandate of FCC regulation.
Fortunately, we're beginning to have Supreme Court rulings changing that annoying trend of stealing people's property under the guise of "public interest." Look at this year's ruling on partial confiscation as an indication of a overdue correction on property rights.
Like it or not, the rules of frequency management are that transmissions in other people's bands is illegal (except in particular permitted circumstances, e.g. emergencies). UWB represents a slippery slope of property theft - allowing tresspass into anyones frequency "as long as they had good intentions."
What's next? Letting me borrow CPU cycles without your authorization because I had a nice intention and wouldn't/really/ slow your web surfing down much? (Oops... I never figured you were going to play Quake... sorry about crashing your game. Look, it's not my fault that you play annoying games that I never tested for. Maybe we ought to ban the games so we don't interfere with my borrowing cycles!).
Actually, this whole "it's not theft if you weren't going to use it" argument you raise is rather interesting - I think it probably represents a significant rationalization used by various thieves in the tech world, though not new nor exclusive to it ("honest officer, we were just borrowing the car while it wasn't used!")
> UWB promises not to interfere, so what's the beef?
Besides the fact that it's not theirs to use? That it steals other people's frequencies? Why hell, go ahead and borrow my wife and car while you're at it, since I wasn't going to use them while I was asleep.
Seriously tho, what if the licensed owners (who paid for their right to use the frequency and received title from the government) wanted to operate similar spread spectrum apps in their allocations? Very similar to the recent partial confiscation case where the farmer could do anything he liked to his property - oh, except for build, farm, drain the wetland, etc. You're stealing this use from the frequency holders.
Also, there has been considerable debate about the "no interference" tests submitted by the applicant by their paid consultants. These tests were limited to examples that were guaranteed to pass, while other critical assessments showing interference were ignored. Which is better: a promise by a commercial interest that wants to steal the entire frequency spectrum and has a definite financial gain, or objective scientists and analysts who've demonstrated no problem in the past coexisting with other services? Can anyone say RIAA?
> That they didn't pass a Morris Code exam?
Were you making a point here, or just confused? Morris the cat? Morris what? Pathetic.
> That my radio waves can't "overfly" your land without paying your for the privilege?
Absurd points that have no bearing on the real issues, as you hopefully already knew when you posted.
> Sounds fair, except of course that the sum of lots of them might seriously raise the noise floor in some portions of the spectrum. That's a valid technical debate, but not a property debate, unless it degrades performance of licensed services.
Aha... "unless" - which is exactly the point brought up by numerous parties. Sort of like saying my theft of your vehicle "isn't a valid debate unless you actually intended on using it at a later date."
Your definition of theft - requiring intent of the entity who was robbed of later using their property - us an odd and disfunctional one. My property taken, regardless of when and how I planned on using it, is theft.
I'm aware of the analysis indicating GPS could be interfered with or potentially broken (hey, what's a 30 second GPS outage to a landing 747 anyways?), and have seen evidence of other impairments, but haven't seen what potential interference might be applied to 2.4 GHz ISM DSSS and FHSS services.
Has anyone come across references to UWB interference or coexistance with 2.4 spread spectrum systems (e.g. 802.11b)?
Curious that we'd throw out 100 years of frequency management for a commercial licensee/patent holder.
No, it's not going to happen any time soon, for what should be obvious reasons.
For those who the reason isn't obvious, much of the controversy with UWB comes from its unlimited use of other people's licensed frequencies, allegedly under the "we don't think it'll interfere too much" rationale. UWB, in that respect, represents the largest theft of frequency since the auctions of the late 90s - stealing pretty much any frequency they want.
There has been substantial analysis of UWB and quite critical findings (see the ARRL's opinion submitted to the FCC - hams in many bands are secondary users and are used to coexisting with primary users, so there's a good reason the ARRL is very concerned about UWB), but instead of addressing it, the UWB lobbyists keep on pushing it forward and getting publicity (quite similar to it showing up on slashdot every once and awhile... who's on the lobby here?).
Unfortunately, the RIAA and peers have done a good job showing how easy it is to steal public or other peoples property when you pay off congress.
But hey, most of the public is technologically illiterate or unconcerned...
They say you can use multiple computers *if* you pay them money for extra IP addresses.
Gosh, this is somewhat offtopic, but your post reminded me of a fortune 500 client I once dealt with. The MIS director (who had a remarkable resemblence to Dilbert's PHB) was bragging about how his company had purchased an ENTIRE CLASS A address block for only $15,000 from a consultant.
Not a bad deal at all, until I saw the network numbers... 10.0.0.0
The $15K was probably a fair consulting price for "introduction to RFC-1918".
Yes, Windows 2000 and Windows XP both have equivelant functionality to NAT and ipchains.
Actually, I'd stay the hell away from XP for routing if you're connecting upstream via PPPoE. The WISP I work with has had nothing but problems with customers using XP to firewall/route their home network to the outside world. While the XP box keeps its session alive for days and sees no problems, the inside systems see nothing but constantly dropping connections. Insert a Linux box in the same role, or replace with a 3Com bridge and Linksys router and the problems disappear. Wish I knew what XP broke...
Incidentally, we don't charge for home networks / extra computers, nor do we ban use of your system for VPN or other work-related stuff (like Cox does). However, with the amount of "my home LAN network is broken" support calls we get and difficulty with people understanding that $30/month doesn't buy them professional LAN integration services, I can see why the big boys simply ban it. It's a lot easier to simply say no than it is to take 30 minutes to troubleshoot the connection and explain to the customer that he's got a problem inside his home network.
I'd love to put up a "home LAN tech support hell" website - commiserating over crazy things like using silver satin for 100+ feet ethernet runs, RJ-11s in the RJ-45 jack (yea, i know they/do/ fit - "Hey, the guy at Radio Shack said it'd work" - how about calling him first then?) and all sorts of amusing things people think up.
Heck, we got one today for a blank screen and a customer wanting us to turn it back on for them... ?!!
No kidding... we've got a weather spotter affectionally known as Tornado Tim in our parts (we're about as far away from an ocean as you can get) who mounted one of those boat radar systems on the top of his beat up Nissan pickup.
Even the hams who play with RF all the time walk in a big circle to avoid his truck...
I can't believe I missed this on the county's website - I believe it explains everything:
Official Mendocino RF Band Plan The following band plan has been established to assist Mendocino residents in identifying their illness and subsequently locating the offending service provider. Should you require public assistance in notifying a provider to terminate service and initiate financial repairations for the harm caused, please contact our office at (707) 463-4480, or visit our website.
BANDPLAN (Revised January 4, 2002)
BAND: VLF
3-10 Hz - heart disease, cancer, diabetes, strange voices, ghosts, UFOs and other unexplained apparations (see this site for scientific proof and to learn about a special device that will protect your home from these evil VLF rays)
Don't tell Mr. Firstenberg, but Mendocino lists a good dozen hams, and I'd have to believe that Mendocino county hasn't been terribly effective in telling the FCC they're the boss.
According to the ARRL's callsign lookup for zipcode 95460, there are 14 hams listed in the community. The town also sports a amateur radio club - Willits Amateur Radio Society (look at their stated objectives for reference to their county).
And I'd have to bet the local luddites haven't been too effective in shutting off satellite reception, AM, FM and broadcast TV reception, licensed microwave, 800 MHz trunking (e.g. city/county police, fire and roads), etc.
So I'm terribly curious how this RF allergy is only affected by specific frequency bands - e.g. 900 MHz analog cellular (but not amateur use of 900), PCS around 1.8 GHz, 2.4 GHz ISM and 5.3/5.8 U-NII allocations?
Even more curious is that I don't see any reference to the pulsed microwaves emitted by microwave ovens - approximately 2.4 GHz devices that often carry 500 watt radios and leak significantly more RF than the receive end of a 2.4 GHz wireless ISP transmission (e.g. -55 to -85 dBm).
Apparently the energy crisis wasn't enough for these mysticism-led luddites. They probably won't be happy until the state is living in an ag commune...
*scoove*
I'd even bet that if we moved service into another frequency assignment, the allergy would follow.
BTW, I've had some people email me about Bubba Billy Tauzin, saying I must be full of it about the US Rep and the fact that he does such an excellent job pushing pro-incumbant phone company legislation is just a quirk.
Before you email or mod the post down, check out Billy's local newspaper and learn how even the home town folks regard him as a telecom whore. Sad when even your neighbors have figured out your racket...
Seems that Qwest is learning some other things from MS as well
This post deserves every mod point and more. Microsoft is a problem, but combine their aggressiveness with Qwest's (former US West) pure evil monopoly attitude and you get something I'm not sure we've had to deal with since Standard Oil. Remember that you heard it here on/. - back when Qwest's raw power was kept under control.
In the mid 1990s, US West (now Qwest) ruthlessly attempted to preserve its monopoly by directing US West Interprise installers to attack ISP operations through numerous means. Articles in the papers of Minneapolis, Des Moines, Omaha, Denver and other markets highlighted the recurring instances of the incumbant getting caught in its overt assault against Internet competition - everything from intentional "misconfiguring" of active dedicated circuits to poaching of dedicated customers when private line quotes were processed.
CLEC services were another target in the mid to late 90s, with clever tricks utilized by the company that included filling up cold central office locations with administrative personnel (literally moving desks into the CO) so that CLECs could be denied the ability to cross connect. "Sorry, we're all out of space" was the favorite response by US West management.
US West did an even better job damaging DSL CLEC operations, simply dragging its feet like a pro. Having learned how difficult digital service was through its failed interactive video and ISDN offerings, the incumbant simply stalled... and won.
Now that it's metamorphized with the Qwest entity, it's aggressive and hungry - the worst possible combination. And now it's learning lessons on how to ruthlessly dominate the consumer market from Microsoft.
Watch out. With Bubba Billy Tauzin's LEC Givaway bill (no, contrary to his website, he's not a foreign national invading our US Congress - apparently he just doesn't like the US language much), Qwest will suck a few hundred million from taxpayer dollars and have regulatory constraints removed.
Slashdot Mirror
The fixed-wireless company I work for covers a good rural area in our part of the country, which subsequently gives them a lot of telecommuters who wish to access company VPNs (many of which rarely even visit the company offices).
Because of the strong telecommuting base, the company's "residential" service not only permits telecommuting and other applications that utilize tunnels, encrytion, etc., but treats the home market that uses this product no differently than the business market. You're buying a basic connection - not a business one, home one, school one, etc. Being independent of the legacy incumbant local exchange network, policies and pricing holdovers, I'd expect you're likely to find fixed wireless and other "new" network providers more receptive to approaching residential users without service or quality discrimination.
When you look at the evolution of business vs. residential service, its origins are in the pre-divestiture tariff world where Ma Bell was forced through regulatory means to charge residential users less. Other than competitive pricing forces, there are no good justifications for giving a home user crappy service or limited functionality just because their office is also their residence.
I'd recommend that if you're being screwed by your local phone provider, shop around until you find someone competent.
*scoove*
Hopefully there will be a day when there is a representative we can stand behind
No kidding! I'm still disappointed from learning from this morning's local paper that one of my favorite house reps has sold out to the Dingle/Tauzin "2002 Baby Bell Remonopoliziation and Congressional Patronedge Act".
This fellow (a fresh house rep) had such promise and campaigned as a guy who wasn't bought and paid for by the system. Well, guess who's got a bunch of Qwest and AT&T donations... *sigh*
I wonder how long it's going to take before it boils over. Congresscritters spamming us, cramming fake campaign finance "reform" (incumbant protection), pushing countless constitutional encroachments that benefit major media contributors, and churning out one contributor bill after another. It's almost as if Enron was a validation of their corruption, not a criticism.
Maybe it's time to put them back on the private sector's payroll...
*scoove*
This isn't a government monopoly, this is laying the infrastructure for private companies to take advantage of.
Yes, and as discussed earlier in the thread, this is no different than the NSFNET NAP proposal in the early 90s - creating regional exchange points (owned and operated by RBOCs), establishing a national transport entity (e.g. ANS) for inter-exchange traffic, and the creation of an exchange arrangement preferably favoring measured use charges over time at the exchanges for "all suppliers."
Of course, the RBOCs would likely have lower costs and charges when interconnecting at their own facility and would likely wield the same anticompetitive influences as they do in the rest of their markets (recall the fate of competitive DSL in the past 2 years?).
Thankfully, the open market sidestepped this monstrosity. Apparently all the NSF socialists moved to central Canada and sold them a bill of goods.
*scoove*
I think we need to remind our congresscritters that in light of the Enron and Global Crossing special interest fiascos, the last thing that would be appropriate for them to do now (especially after their activity on campaign finance reform) would be to pass a bill that should be renamed the "AOL/Time Warner and Friends Racket Act."
As much as I like some of my representatives, I've put them on notice that I'll vote in someone else if they dare pass this scam.
Congress: Quit telling me how to run my business, or I'll tell you how to run yours!
*scoove*
rural coverage isn't "somewhat patchy" it's nonexistant.
Not true at all. Between fixed-wireless (and NLOS developments coming to market now - finally!), DSL, satellite service, cable modems and potential power-line technology, there's a solution.
If you're not serviced yet, you're dealing with a problem of "too small to be of interest yet" - something that'll be solved as the bigger markets get built out.
After all, if you had to choose between two otherwise identical jobs - one paying $80K/year and one paying $12K/year, we know which one you'd pick. Service providers are no different - and since it usually takes us a year or more to recover our capital investment, we must focus on the bigger markets first (or else go out of business).
Regarding your biting the bullet and getting a T1, I'd suggest you check first. We've come into towns that have had multi-billion dollar corporations with food processing plants that have been trying to get a single T1 for 2-3 years (to no avail). No amount of lobbying can get the incumbant to upgrade and provide service.
Find a competent fixed wireless company and offer them a hilltop or a water tower and see how your luck changes.
*scoove*
I fail to see how broadband access can be called a natural monopoly.
Exactly, and I'm afraid you're still not going to see a competent reply to the question.
In case it wasn't obvious from my post further up the thread, my occupation has been in telecom for the past 13+ years. Recently, I've been working in the rural broadband market and have been coming across municipalities that are adding high-speed Internet to their offering of electricity, water, sewer, natural gas, etc.
Many of these guys have extended into propane and fuel oil sales, telephone service, cable television, and now high-speed (usually over cable).
While the arguments for this extension of focus include "lowering costs because the same fixed cost from office, admin, billing, etc. can be spread over yet another service offering" and "we should do it because we care more about our customers," I've yet to find one that doesn't end up subsidizing from their monopoly markets to cover losses in the competitive ones.
For instance, we've got a muni in Iowa that has all of the above services. Their electric rates are now $0.09/kwh (where the power company in the same town but providing service outside of town to a more expensive, less population-dense rural base, is $0.06/kwh!). Water and sewer rates are also at least 50% greater than neighboring communities that represent a decent comparison.
According to state law, it's illegal for them to subsidize the cable TV, phone and Internet. But any competent accountant can show you dozens of ways to apply the costs while staying legal.
I guess it all comes down to a lesson every business person should learn - the lesson of focus. Treat every business area as a unique discipline, and remember that you've got competitors out there who spend 100% of their time exclusively focused on that one area - being as competent as they can be.
You and I couldn't reasonably expect to be the best IP engineer if we only spent 3 hours a week on the subject, splitting it with time spent on 20 other disciplines. So why should a company expect otherwise? Attempt them all, and do them all poorly.
To strenghten my point: broadband access is currently offered via copper wire, coax cable and satellite.
And don't forget microwave and fixed wireless... works well for our communities (and kicks the holy crap out of the state fiber network).
*scoove*
The US had a monopoly Internet for a few years - NSFNET - which wasn't widely used by many other than academic and research folks, and really had done very poorly extending beyond subsidized locations. Yes, many of us /.ers cut our teeth there and have wonderful memories of the fun we had (at significant taxpayer expense), but we can't forget that while NSFNET advanced the protocols and connected the schools, the real revolution came when real, normal people got connected (I know, this is soooo anti-elitist!)
In 1992, I worked with a rural community of about 8,000 that wanted to launch a freenet. The local NSF regional gave us a quote of $65,000 up front plus $2,500 a month for Internet service - using a 56 Kbps leased line! (They had 35 PhDs on staff and naturally had high costs - that was their justification).
Thanks to the pioneering efforts of UUNET, CERFNET, PSI (now defunct, alas), Sprint, NEARNET/SURANET, and the folks at the Commercial Internet Exchange, the NSF monopoly (which was planned to go into a Bell-like regional with ANS and the RBOCs running the show) was broken apart. Multilateral and later, bilateral peering, became the norm. Exchange points grew (like MAE-E, MAE-W) and the commercial market blew open.
This commercialization is what also brought hundreds of millions of regular people (read "not employed by the government") onto the Internet. Not 23 years of NSFNET, but 3 years of commercial Internet.
While you'd think folks would have discovered the government model doesn't work, we still have numerous states, municipalities and even national governments trying the old way. Iowa, for instance, built a boondoggle fiber network that costs $75,000 to get a connection. Sure, you get fiber, but the Internet connectivity squeezes down to a connection no faster than an ISDN pipe at the egress to the Internet. Although the taxpayers paid for it, many of the fiber customers are leaving for - you guessed - competitive commercial service. We've got the same issues with municipalities providing broadband and having to raise electric, sewer and gas rates to cover their inefficiencies.
I really hate beating a very dead horse, but for some reason some folks like the previous poster continue to believe misnomers. The Internet isn't like a highway system and it doesn't benefit from government administration.
What it does benefit from is being offered and operated by people that focus on this and only this expertise - not people that also issue your license plates, run the welfare agencies, operate electric power, clean your sewer, etc. Being a competent ISP is not a part-time operation.
It also benefits from competition, since this is usually about the only motivator for most folks.
*scoove*
what happens when advertising firms start paying channels less because there are less people actually viewing the show than recording it?
/.!
TV remote control has already eroded ad viewing already. Where's the suit to ban remotes?
And while we're on the topic, we need toilets that have lids that lock during commercials and refridgerators with auto-locking doors. Better yet, let's install seat belts on couches and lazboys and require all viewers be belted in before viewing. Belts will automatically lock during commercial breaks for optimum viewing convenience.
The reality of it all is that it's time for the advertiser to evolve. Rather than fighting intuitive behavior, those that want to survive will focus on better product integration in the programs and blur the advertising boundries from where we're at today. Heck, we might even Wouldn't a Whopper be good right now? see comperable use on
*scoove*
Imagine that there is a rate limiter upstream of my connection. I, as a customer, have a simple piece of software which does two things:
I used to love hearing that line when dealing with non-IT customers. "We need a simple piece of software that performs miracle X. Can we have it in two weeks?" Almost as much fun as the purchase order from the accounting dept. director who wanted "One fiber optic cable" since he was going to implement a high-speed LAN (no other equipment or explanation of how that fiber was going to magically connect all the peecees).
Not to be condescending however, Paul probably hasn't spent several years in telecom billing purgatory. It's a nightmare due to variables like:
- measured use (hours/minutes/seconds, which mean different things compared to how the marketing fuzzhead designed the product, like "initial 3 minute block and then do whole minute billing rounding from there except after 5 pm when we give a discount and bill in 6 second increments" - a lot of silly non-use events that need billing, like "bong" charges (you hear a bong when your call completes and we whack you for $5.50 - very common on calling cards that advertise $0.01 per minute rates), initiation charges, customer support charges, etc.
- variable billing by time of day, both on the calling and called ends, often with nonstandard definitions of time of day (day/offday for some destinations, day, evening, night/weekend for others)
- taxes: what a joy, since technically every darn jurisdiction can apply them, all the way down to a SID. different all over the place, and varying rules of how they apply based on where the caller is at and where your switch they're calling to is at
Now do you see why your bill is usually wrong, and it costs me $12 million up front and $3 million annually to bill your calls?
So limiting your traffic (driven out of a customer self-provisioning system based on web input? perhaps if I force PPPoE on you and allow you to change your settings, however I'll have to deal with partial billing periods since you'll be free to change your settings frequently so I need to bill you at different rates) isn't "simple."
And how do I deal with the following product abuse:
1. set rate to fastest
2. download pr0n files and mp3s for two hours
3. set rate to super cheap slowest discount rate
4. go to bed and leave it on slow until next pr0n session
It's easier and more appropriate to just have me bill you per Mb and let you suck bandwidth any time you want, than to deal with allowing you to rateshape yourself in order to get performance or price.
Really, instead of simplifying things, the details here are quite ugly and will cost you more than you want to pay. How about a flat-rate bill and a free radio or plush toy instead?
*scoove*
Run their traffic through a router with fair queueing,QOS, and rate limiting. Offer the customer a fair committed rate burstable to 1Mb and make a fair profit.
Ah... you sound like me on a marketing hype day (before my engineers threaten to shoot me). Besides being horribly expensive to implement, I'm not aware that this has ever been proven to scale to the extent of a broadband consumer net has to.
In fact, whenever I've crunched the numbers, it gets rather difficult to absorb the new costs associated with the complexity you've introduced in measuring, mediating, billing, and supporting this type of network.
Billing by measured use and quality/class of service puts you into a billing system typically pushed by folks like Kenan, Saville, etc. You're going to funnel millions of records daily, have significant storage and processing costs, etc. Having purchased a system like this for a smaller international telco, we scraped and got a junior system that ran $12 million including the hardware, not including annual license and support fees (several million annually, which usually tiers with customer base).
Add that to the general nature of customer telecom bill complexity aversion (people like predictable bills = flat rate models) with a highly dynamic and unpredictable product use model and you'll see why we're in trouble.
Really, the reason broadband service came out at around $30/month was due to marketing analysis - that's what people will pay and you'll get decent market penetration. Look at the data showing that as DSL providers move up to $45/mo or above, they start hiking churn up fast and lose customers (not to mention scare off new ones). Consider that your $30/month is a hold over from the dot-com era when it didn't matter if we made money; what did matter is how much of the market we acquired (then at month 31, a miracle happens which we can't explain and we get a hockey stick leap in earnings).
Unfortunately, with consumer aversion to measured billing, I think the only solution is either crippled service or hiked prices. We do both - limit the low cost service and provide the full service at a higher price - very comperable to the airline pricing model. Want first class? $$$ Want the lowest price and no guarantee you're getting on? Fly standby.
*scoove*
I'd pay $80 if the connection was fast both ways and I was allowed to run small home web sites.
:)
How about $800? Or More? Look at wholesale T1 pipes to any major ISP worth connecting to - e.g. UUNET. ~$800/month for 1.5 Mbps.
Maybe if these companies are hurting for money so much they could take some of the cash they are wasting on cheesy commercials and put it towards reducing the cost of bandwidth.
Now there's a great idea: Let's not advertise! And you want your service provider to last more than a few months? Actually, if you're just slamming the cheesy ones, I'd have to agree with you there.
For years, US West used to run these ads that used a formula like this: "You're dumb. We're smart. Look, a dog doing tricks! Buy our service." If you've seen the ads, you'll know what I'm talking about. Amazing that people would buy stuff from a company that tells them they're idiots.
Sure this stuff costs a lot to install but there is a crap load of fiber already installed
Someone's got to put an end to this misnomer. There may be a lot of city pair fiber (e.g. from Cleveland to Chicago) unlit or underutilized out there, but the magic comes in putting it together. Everything from equipment to terminate the pipes, facilities to house the equipment, people to implement and maintain it all, and the stuff to put secret ingredient IP on top of it all cost bucks.
Don't forget either that what most customers want isn't a fiber pipe between Cleveland and Chicago. They want "Internet" - meaning expensive pipes terminating to a major player's network - UUNET, Sprint, etc.
Add it all up, throw in the backoffice, customer support, bad debt from deadbeats that don't pay, and you're paying probably at or less than actual cost right now.
Don't forget the people cost too - Cox in our area is dying daily deaths on their cable Internet ever since they migrated off of @Home. Their gateway router in town reboots hourly, and at least once a day we see the entire metro network crater for about an hour. A major part of the problem (besides having the suits in Atlanta make the equipment purchase decisions) is that they pay their router geeks crap - the top guys make about $42K/year. But hey, once they get up to the CCNP, they discover they can be hired for $15K or more a year anywhere else in town. So Cox ensures regular turnover and technically limited staff (hey, who says you can't static route the entire metro network?). So is unreliable service worth that low price?
while at the same time leaving a lot of their capacity left untouched.
Hmm... providers offering service right now at or below cost, and you want them to overproduce as well? Look at the ag world for how well that works.
Another solution is to offer proxy servers and make them part of the default install.
A decent suggestion, but web surfing isn't the majority of the problem. Peer to peer apps, streaming audio (which I tend to abuse), etc. kill your bandwidth models.
I'm greatly surprised more ISP's don't offer something like a regional BBS-like interface that lets users chat and trade files with others locally.
Did I forget to list attorney fees above? Yes, I sure did. Filesharing offered by the ISP is a nice way to meet the friendly folks from the software police who will explain to you how many millions of dollars you will be donating to their policing efforts. Almost as much fun as a visit from the Rainbow Coalition...
Either way please get rid of those crappy commercials. I'd pay an extra $5/month just to be able not to see those.
Don't like them? Shop with your feet. I've got a personal aversion to the whole dot-com mystery meat advertising ploys, like AT&T's new Mlife campaign. It's like putting frosting on a cow pattie.
Better yet, try my investing model: short the stock of dot-com marketing hypsters. I did well on Lucent and a few other made up name companies who used those fuzzy zero-substance marketing campaigns. The only thing better than knowing a company is a loser is making money when you're right.
*scoove*
I wonder when this sort of thing will start to be a more common event."
/my/ house, but since we can't really make sure everyone sticks around to deal with their space litter (hello USSR?), I'm not sure what other options are available.
Considering the amount of space junk in orbit and the clutter and risk it represents, it's nice to see that some of this stuff is finally exceeding its orbital lifespan and is reentering.
Of course, I'm not sure I'd want it ending up on
*scoove*
To little, to late, and TO EXPENSIVE!
I owned a Palm VII. Found the wireless service horribly slow, pricey (yet another indication that measured use only discourages people from becoming loyal customers) and useful really only for email (the little web-like applications were terribly limited). The Palm ended up being used 99% of the time as my calendar.
I bought a Compaq Ipaq with 802.11b card and back for the Ipaq this fall. I use it nonstop, love the real browser, the speed and openness of the connection (I can run it at home, work, coffee shop, etc.), and absolutely love the price! (Now, if it could only run Netstumbler...
So, unless it completely falls apart, I'd suggest Palm might become a nice acquisition for AOL/TW. Use that Netscape browser for a change and put out wireless browsers with AOL email. Yea, it'd be gross and for the masses, but perhaps AOL/TW would understand the scale necessary to push this product and get it everywhere for $99. Otherwise, Palm's proved once again that the Apple route is the best way to guarantee failure.
*scoove*
drinkypoo writes:
/. have provided good links to a sufficient base of analysis debunking both the amazing uniqueness of UWB and its alleged noninterference with other services.
There is a sizable difference between me spending money which I earned through my own work, and buying a computer which I personally own, and the available radio frequency bandwidth.
How so? I've bought frequency out of money I earned through my own work as well - licensed microwave paths, for instance, which require a few thousand bucks in path analysis, engineering and application fees.
In fact, it's cheaper to buy a PC than a simple point to point 6 GHz microwave shot.
What gives the FCC the right to sell that off?
I find it funny that as a hard core objectivist, I'm arguing on behalf of the government to regulate (perhaps that's the realist in me coming out). The best answer to your question is probably an Ayn Rand one: a Gun
If you decide you don't have to recognize their right and encroach upon it, you'll eventually discover the extent of their enforcement. Look at all the income tax opponents (Ruby Ridge, anyone?).
I'd like to be able to use some of it to play around
So would I. I can't tell you how disgusted I am that numerous auctions have sold off wonderful frequency, only to have the frequency purchased and sat on by loser incumbants who see it as a cheap way to avoid competition. But I have an option: pay more than they do, or shut up.
and why should I have to pay (ultimately, because of licensing fees and whatnot we all pay) to use the airwaves?
How else would you assign finite property we all share? Give it to friends of the political party in charge? Keep it owned by the government? People like to argue how the current system is unfair, but don't fully explain an alternate.
It sounds like UWB may make most frequencies useless for traditional radio, especially the higher ones, but perhaps it's the right thing to do.
Again, thanks to wonderful PR by the UWB patent holder corporation(s). Many people on
As much as I enjoy Cringley's writing, it's clear that he's a journalist, not a technologist. If you read him for more than entertainment and perspective, you're going to be disappointed.
*scoove*
autopr0n writes:
How can you own a frequency?
Perhaps my use of "licensed owners" wasn't clear enough. The process of licensing conveys ownership and its rights as specified in the license for the duration of the license.
You may want to argue semantics about something licensed not being ownership, but think about what things you usually "own": your land? your house? your car?
All three are technically licensed to you as well. Should you not pay property tax to the government, you lose your land, house and car. Really, you don't have clear and absolute ownership with these items - you just have a license to use them given the terms provided. Terms? On your property? Try building a 1000 foot tower on your land - you own it, right? You'll quickly discover an organization called the FCC explaining how you don't have the right to do that without following their rules. Same with building a landfill, pr0n shop in some areas, etc. All sorts of people have rules that apply to your use of "your property."
I mean, if UWB really can deliver on it's potential, then why the hell should we stime it just so people who have invested in outdated technology can profit?
First of all, UWB may not deliver on its potential. Secondly, who said the rest of the spectrum is outdated technology? Cell companies, microwave operators, hams, military, ISM users, etc. would have a slight disagreement with you. I assume you don't use a cell phone, 802.11b device, pager, etc. since they're outdated?
That's moronic. Look, I mean if you own land and the government wants to put down a highway or a railroad, then they will. They just have to pay you for it.
But what you're arguing for is a highway on my property (spectrum license) without paying me for it, telling me I won't notice the highway and it won't cause me any inconvenience.
Simply put, for one prospective licensee using what some have alleged to be junk commercial science to risk the entire RF spectrum management system is questionable, at a minimum.
The idea that we should hold back a huge technological advance which some have noted interesting parallels to the CueCat and the perpetual motion machines on account of some moronic idea that people can 'own' mathimatical descriptions of b-feild flux is incredibly stupid.
Licensing scarce natural resources (frequency) that are irrespective of manmade political boundries is quite different than owning mathimatical (sic) descriptions.
and per Iguanophobic's note:
I would argue that the government had no right to sell the frequencies in the first place.
Some people aren't comfortable with private ownership, as it deprives them from mooching off of others and limits the ease a parasite can access the product of others hard work.
If you follow the FCC's enforcement actions (detailed on their website), you'll quickly learn the importance of assigning frequencies via license and enforcing that. They routinely deal with mentally unbalanced idiots who find pleasure in jamming other services, cheaters damaging other peoples services by operating on top of their frequency (usually at higher power, destroying the legit user's service), etc.
Think about your cell phone for a second - operating in a licensed band. What if I followed you around and jammed your service every time you went to use your phone, simply because I didn't like you? With no licensing of frequencies, you'd have no recourse - I have as much right to jam you as you do to try to use your service. Or that crummy radio station I don't like... they're going down, baby! (I'd guess that nearly every station has at least one party that doesn't like their broadcast and nothing would be free from interference).
Remember, licenses not only establishes boundries and ownership, but they mandate behavior and provide enforcement should that behavior not be followed within the frequencies as well.
*scoove*
>I hardly think the "property" argument jibes with the "public interest, convenience and necessity" traditional mandate of FCC regulation.
/really/ slow your web surfing down much? (Oops... I never figured you were going to play Quake... sorry about crashing your game. Look, it's not my fault that you play annoying games that I never tested for. Maybe we ought to ban the games so we don't interfere with my borrowing cycles!).
Fortunately, we're beginning to have Supreme Court rulings changing that annoying trend of stealing people's property under the guise of "public interest." Look at this year's ruling on partial confiscation as an indication of a overdue correction on property rights.
Like it or not, the rules of frequency management are that transmissions in other people's bands is illegal (except in particular permitted circumstances, e.g. emergencies). UWB represents a slippery slope of property theft - allowing tresspass into anyones frequency "as long as they had good intentions."
What's next? Letting me borrow CPU cycles without your authorization because I had a nice intention and wouldn't
Actually, this whole "it's not theft if you weren't going to use it" argument you raise is rather interesting - I think it probably represents a significant rationalization used by various thieves in the tech world, though not new nor exclusive to it ("honest officer, we were just borrowing the car while it wasn't used!")
> UWB promises not to interfere, so what's the beef?
Besides the fact that it's not theirs to use? That it steals other people's frequencies? Why hell, go ahead and borrow my wife and car while you're at it, since I wasn't going to use them while I was asleep.
Seriously tho, what if the licensed owners (who paid for their right to use the frequency and received title from the government) wanted to operate similar spread spectrum apps in their allocations? Very similar to the recent partial confiscation case where the farmer could do anything he liked to his property - oh, except for build, farm, drain the wetland, etc. You're stealing this use from the frequency holders.
Also, there has been considerable debate about the "no interference" tests submitted by the applicant by their paid consultants. These tests were limited to examples that were guaranteed to pass, while other critical assessments showing interference were ignored. Which is better: a promise by a commercial interest that wants to steal the entire frequency spectrum and has a definite financial gain, or objective scientists and analysts who've demonstrated no problem in the past coexisting with other services? Can anyone say RIAA?
> That they didn't pass a Morris Code exam?
Were you making a point here, or just confused? Morris the cat? Morris what? Pathetic.
> That my radio waves can't "overfly" your land without paying your for the privilege?
Absurd points that have no bearing on the real issues, as you hopefully already knew when you posted.
> Sounds fair, except of course that the sum of lots of them might seriously raise the noise floor in some portions of the spectrum. That's a valid technical debate, but not a property debate, unless it degrades performance of licensed services.
Aha... "unless" - which is exactly the point brought up by numerous parties. Sort of like saying my theft of your vehicle "isn't a valid debate unless you actually intended on using it at a later date."
Your definition of theft - requiring intent of the entity who was robbed of later using their property - us an odd and disfunctional one. My property taken, regardless of when and how I planned on using it, is theft.
*scoove*
I'm aware of the analysis indicating GPS could be interfered with or potentially broken (hey, what's a 30 second GPS outage to a landing 747 anyways?), and have seen evidence of other impairments, but haven't seen what potential interference might be applied to 2.4 GHz ISM DSSS and FHSS services.
Has anyone come across references to UWB interference or coexistance with 2.4 spread spectrum systems (e.g. 802.11b)?
Curious that we'd throw out 100 years of frequency management for a commercial licensee/patent holder.
*scoove*
No, it's not going to happen any time soon, for what should be obvious reasons.
For those who the reason isn't obvious, much of the controversy with UWB comes from its unlimited use of other people's licensed frequencies, allegedly under the "we don't think it'll interfere too much" rationale. UWB, in that respect, represents the largest theft of frequency since the auctions of the late 90s - stealing pretty much any frequency they want.
There has been substantial analysis of UWB and quite critical findings (see the ARRL's opinion submitted to the FCC - hams in many bands are secondary users and are used to coexisting with primary users, so there's a good reason the ARRL is very concerned about UWB), but instead of addressing it, the UWB lobbyists keep on pushing it forward and getting publicity (quite similar to it showing up on slashdot every once and awhile... who's on the lobby here?).
Unfortunately, the RIAA and peers have done a good job showing how easy it is to steal public or other peoples property when you pay off congress.
But hey, most of the public is technologically illiterate or unconcerned...
*scoove*
They say you can use multiple computers *if* you pay them money for extra IP addresses.
Gosh, this is somewhat offtopic, but your post reminded me of a fortune 500 client I once dealt with. The MIS director (who had a remarkable resemblence to Dilbert's PHB) was bragging about how his company had purchased an ENTIRE CLASS A address block for only $15,000 from a consultant.
Not a bad deal at all, until I saw the network numbers... 10.0.0.0
The $15K was probably a fair consulting price for "introduction to RFC-1918".
*scoove*
Yes, Windows 2000 and Windows XP both have equivelant functionality to NAT and ipchains.
/do/ fit - "Hey, the guy at Radio Shack said it'd work" - how about calling him first then?) and all sorts of amusing things people think up.
Actually, I'd stay the hell away from XP for routing if you're connecting upstream via PPPoE. The WISP I work with has had nothing but problems with customers using XP to firewall/route their home network to the outside world. While the XP box keeps its session alive for days and sees no problems, the inside systems see nothing but constantly dropping connections. Insert a Linux box in the same role, or replace with a 3Com bridge and Linksys router and the problems disappear. Wish I knew what XP broke...
Incidentally, we don't charge for home networks / extra computers, nor do we ban use of your system for VPN or other work-related stuff (like Cox does). However, with the amount of "my home LAN network is broken" support calls we get and difficulty with people understanding that $30/month doesn't buy them professional LAN integration services, I can see why the big boys simply ban it. It's a lot easier to simply say no than it is to take 30 minutes to troubleshoot the connection and explain to the customer that he's got a problem inside his home network.
I'd love to put up a "home LAN tech support hell" website - commiserating over crazy things like using silver satin for 100+ feet ethernet runs, RJ-11s in the RJ-45 jack (yea, i know they
Heck, we got one today for a blank screen and a customer wanting us to turn it back on for them... ?!!
*scoove*
No kidding... we've got a weather spotter affectionally known as Tornado Tim in our parts (we're about as far away from an ocean as you can get) who mounted one of those boat radar systems on the top of his beat up Nissan pickup.
Even the hams who play with RF all the time walk in a big circle to avoid his truck...
*scoove*
I can't believe I missed this on the county's website - I believe it explains everything:
Official Mendocino RF Band Plan
The following band plan has been established to assist Mendocino residents in identifying their illness and subsequently locating the offending service provider. Should you require public assistance in notifying a provider to terminate service and initiate financial repairations for the harm caused, please contact our office at (707) 463-4480, or visit our website.
BANDPLAN (Revised January 4, 2002)
BAND: VLF
3-10 Hz - heart disease, cancer, diabetes, strange voices, ghosts, UFOs and other unexplained apparations (see this site for scientific proof and to learn about a special device that will protect your home from these evil VLF rays)
60 Hz - cancer, heart disease, mental illness, colds, flu, hairloss, rashes, psychotic episodes, ebola, gulf war syndrome
BAND: HF
26.965-27.405 MHz - Obesity, intestinal gas, intellectual stunting, unexplained cravings for tractor pulls, women with tatoos and very cheap beer
BAND: VHF/UHF
400-470 MHz - Uncontrollable sexual urges, strange thoughts, dishonesty, attraction to interns, voices, balding, interest in congressional office
800-950 MHz - AIDS, Herpes and other SIDs
BAND: SHF AND ABOVE
2400-2472 MHz - Cancer, blisters, warts, headaches, nausea
5300-5850 MHz - Blindness, body odor, night sweats, rashes
Don't tell Mr. Firstenberg, but Mendocino lists a good dozen hams, and I'd have to believe that Mendocino county hasn't been terribly effective in telling the FCC they're the boss.
According to the ARRL's callsign lookup for zipcode 95460, there are 14 hams listed in the community. The town also sports a amateur radio club - Willits Amateur Radio Society (look at their stated objectives for reference to their county).
And I'd have to bet the local luddites haven't been too effective in shutting off satellite reception, AM, FM and broadcast TV reception, licensed microwave, 800 MHz trunking (e.g. city/county police, fire and roads), etc.
So I'm terribly curious how this RF allergy is only affected by specific frequency bands - e.g. 900 MHz analog cellular (but not amateur use of 900), PCS around 1.8 GHz, 2.4 GHz ISM and 5.3/5.8 U-NII allocations?
Even more curious is that I don't see any reference to the pulsed microwaves emitted by microwave ovens - approximately 2.4 GHz devices that often carry 500 watt radios and leak significantly more RF than the receive end of a 2.4 GHz wireless ISP transmission (e.g. -55 to -85 dBm).
Apparently the energy crisis wasn't enough for these mysticism-led luddites. They probably won't be happy until the state is living in an ag commune...
*scoove*
I'd even bet that if we moved service into another frequency assignment, the allergy would follow.
BTW, I've had some people email me about Bubba Billy Tauzin, saying I must be full of it about the US Rep and the fact that he does such an excellent job pushing pro-incumbant phone company legislation is just a quirk.
Before you email or mod the post down, check out Billy's local newspaper and learn how even the home town folks regard him as a telecom whore. Sad when even your neighbors have figured out your racket...
*scoove*
Seems that Qwest is learning some other things from MS as well
/. - back when Qwest's raw power was kept under control.
This post deserves every mod point and more. Microsoft is a problem, but combine their aggressiveness with Qwest's (former US West) pure evil monopoly attitude and you get something I'm not sure we've had to deal with since Standard Oil. Remember that you heard it here on
In the mid 1990s, US West (now Qwest) ruthlessly attempted to preserve its monopoly by directing US West Interprise installers to attack ISP operations through numerous means. Articles in the papers of Minneapolis, Des Moines, Omaha, Denver and other markets highlighted the recurring instances of the incumbant getting caught in its overt assault against Internet competition - everything from intentional "misconfiguring" of active dedicated circuits to poaching of dedicated customers when private line quotes were processed.
CLEC services were another target in the mid to late 90s, with clever tricks utilized by the company that included filling up cold central office locations with administrative personnel (literally moving desks into the CO) so that CLECs could be denied the ability to cross connect. "Sorry, we're all out of space" was the favorite response by US West management.
US West did an even better job damaging DSL CLEC operations, simply dragging its feet like a pro. Having learned how difficult digital service was through its failed interactive video and ISDN offerings, the incumbant simply stalled... and won.
Now that it's metamorphized with the Qwest entity, it's aggressive and hungry - the worst possible combination. And now it's learning lessons on how to ruthlessly dominate the consumer market from Microsoft.
Watch out. With Bubba Billy Tauzin's LEC Givaway bill (no, contrary to his website, he's not a foreign national invading our US Congress - apparently he just doesn't like the US language much), Qwest will suck a few hundred million from taxpayer dollars and have regulatory constraints removed.
*scoove*