more on FCC adopts rules for broadband over power lines

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>
Date: October 16, 2004 4:34:57 PM GMT+01:00
To: dave () farber net, Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on FCC adopts rules for broadband over power 
lines

Dave:

For IP; it's important to respond to and correct some of the assertions
made in responses to my original posting.

Gerry Faulhaber writes:

> "...three large, entrenched monopolies"?  Just a reminder: monopoly 
> means one firm, not three.

Exactly. They are each already monopolies in a different product area.
Which means that each can use its respecive monopoly to subsidize 
expansion
into others -- in exactly the same way that Microsoft leveraged an
operating system monopoly to dominate other markets. It will be the
rare and lucky customer, however, who can obtain broadband from any
of the three. In the vast majority of cases, there will be only one
or two. And where more than one exist, there is more likely to be a
comfortable oligarchy than competition.

> Not getting spectrum out at prices ISPs can afford for wireless BB?  
> Is the FCC supposed to be the ISPs mommy?

The FCC clearly did this (and still does it) in the case of broadcast
radio and television. Those businesses would simply not be feasible if
it did not. Is the FCC being THEIR "mommy?"

> The licensed spectrum will go at auction and those who value it most 
> will get it.

It would be more accurate to say that those large corporations which 
most
value foreclosing competition from wireless broadband, or who want to 
use
it for things which are more profitable than wireless broadband (cable 
and
DSL have pushed prices for broadband so far down the learning curve that
even cell phones are far more profitable) will get it.

> If ISPs think it's valuable for wireless BB that will be reflected in 
> their bids.  If they don't, they won't, and they'll be out of the 
> game.  They are running with the Big Dogs; if they can't keep up, 
> tough.

Should the same have been said for Netscape? Other companies which 
Microsoft
destroyed by leveraging its other existing monopolies?

> And complaining that WiFi is in Part 15 spectrum so that there is 
> potential interference from cordless phones?  Good God, the tech 
> community has been championing commons spectrum, telling us how 
> technology will solve the interference problem.

A few outspoken individuals have been making this claim without either
scientific proof or real life experience, and many economists -- 
especially
those who tend to take positions that favor large businesses -- have 
swallowed
it. I wish it were true; however, as an electrical engineer who has been
working on real life wireless broadband since 1983, I believe that I am
eminently qualified to state that it is unsupported demagoguery. Real 
life
wireless broadband providers, who are out there in the trenches, know 
this.
The simple fact is that, under the current regime, wireless broadband
providers cannot offer service which comes anywhere near the 
reliability of
a wired or fiber connection at a cost that is competitive with them. 
(They
could at extremely high cost -- if they were to outbid the cell phone
companies for spectrum. However, due to the low geographical 
granularity of
the auctions and the absurdly high amounts bid, no WISP can buy 
spectrum at
a cost that allows it to compete.)

> And now we are whining that there's interference at 2.4 GHz?  No 
> kidding; what do you think happens in a commons?

To state this fact isn't "whining;" it is recognizing that the FCC is
precluding competition by not doing for wireless broadband the same
things it has been doing for decades for over-the-air broadcasters.

> Rather than whining that ISPs don't have dedicated spectrum for BB, 
> why not actually implement the tech community's claim to be able to 
> solve interference with appropriate hardware/software protocols so we 
> can use commons/Part 15 spectrum?

Because this claim is provably false. As James Doohan famously quipped,
"Ya canna change the laws of physics, Captain." Any increase in
robustness, given the same limits on bandwidth and power, MUST come at
the expense of a decrease in throughput. Which is exactly what is now
happening on the various Part 15 bands. We now see systems like 
Motorola's
Canopy, which offer less throughput than others (and, hence, make less
efficient use of spectrum) but are designed to be the "last system 
standing"
when multiple providers compete for the use of the Part 15 spectrum.
The only way to compete with this strategy is to design a system which
is more robust but slower and more inefficient still! This is what
happens in a commons where there are no holds barred: everyone loses.

Real life commons that work have sensible rules. Highways are divided so
that traffic traveling in opposite directions is in different lanes. 
Lanes
are reserved for emergency vehicles and carpools. It isn't legal to
knock someone else's car off the road and take over. Part 15 has
no such rules, which is why there is currently bedlam on the airwaves
in the unlicensed bands. I know; as a wireless ISP, I deal with it every
day. I've developed one of the most reliable systems in existence, and
it's still nowhere near reliable enough. The FCC rules preclude it.

--Brett Glass

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/