Interesting People mailing list archives
Some history and a viewpoint Re vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage?
From: "Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 01:59:57 +0000
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Andrew Seybold <aseybold () andrewseybold com> Date: Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 7:50 PM Subject: RE: [IP] Re vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? To: dave () farber net <dave () farber net> Interesting comments and my two cents—first of all I have not been a member of this IP list for a lot of yours, but then I was active, so back thank you Dave. First the Federal Government failed with a project called iWN nationwide Land Mobile Radio system for all Federal agencies, it was conceived and put forth in the early 2000 and by 2011 it was dead, only a small portion of it was ever built in Oregon I believe which is still up and running. The bids were way over budget, there were lawsuits and the Feds had no one who had a clue how to put all of these radio systems together. When I started working on what now is FirstNet in 2009 (the start of it actually dates back to a speech Morgan O’Brien a co-found of Nextel made in 2006, we were working with the Federal government, FCC, Congress, Executive branch and they did not want anything to do with trying to build out the nationwide broadband system for the public safety community so when FirstNet was born in 2012 it was to be built as a Federal/Private partnership. AT&T was the successful bidder and is in the process of building out the network 10 years later! If this had been a private only network it would have been up and operational years ago. Next, 5G is NOT a fixed set of spectrum assets coast to coast. It is a group of very different portions of the spectrum staring at 3.5 GHz and going up to over 35 GHZ. These systems were never designed to be nationwide but rather to be used as small cells along rights of way, normally in dense urban areas. The distance from a 5G cell site is measured in feet not miles. It would be near impossible to stich together a truly nationwide network using this spectrum. The reason it is going to be so fast is that at these portions of the spectrum there is lots of spectrum available, on some bands over 60 or more MHz It was never supposed to be nationwide, simply an extension of the LTE systems of today, faster for sure. Ideally suited for smart city deployment in street lights and other close together poles. Lastly, for now, the reason I am told that the Feds want to do this is to make sure there is a secure wireless network—what they are missing is that just as soon as you attach it to the Internet it is not longer as secure. If you use a smartphone on it that also has LTE built-in then it is not as secure. If you want a truly secure network it will be one that does not touch the internet and over which there are no users permitted. If the Feds cannot even contain the hacks on their own agencies including the CIA, NSA, and the Federal Reserve (50 times and counting) how is it possible that magically they have the ability to build, or have built and to secure a 5G network? Andy *From:* Dave Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 11:52 AM *To:* ip <ip () listbox com> *Subject:* [IP] Re vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Fred Campbell <fbcjr () me com> Date: Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [IP] vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? To: <dave () farber net> For the list, if you wish. Geoff, What is the basis of your allegation that private wireless providers’ have been “negligent” with respect to coverage? That’s a bold position to take given the longstanding bi-partisan consensus among U.S. policy makers that it is uneconomic to build out in sparsely populated areas, as evidenced by policy makers’ adoption of universal service subsidies for both wired and wireless networks. If it’s uneconomic to build out, it would be “negligent" to do so in the absence of subsidy, because the resources would ultimately be wasted and the loss passed on to ratepayers. It’s unclear how you define “true nationwide coverage.” To the extent your question is whether other wireless providers will be forced to build their own facilities on a nationwide basis, however, the answer to your question is “no” (unless the the FirstNet network is exempt from FCC roaming obligations (Andy?)). The FCC’s “automatic roaming" rules require a wireless provider who has built out more extensively than others (the “non-negligent provider”) to let the other (“negligent”) providers’ subscribers use the “non-negligent provider’s” network on “commercially reasonable” terms, because the FCC found that "there may be areas where expanding a provider’s network may be economically infeasible or unrealistic.” Because “negligent providers” can rely on this FCC rule to offer coverage to their subscribers that is coextensive (or largely so) with its competitors’ build outs, market incentives for “negligent providers” to build their own networks in rural areas are substantially reduced. It appears that at least 1 wireless provider actually reduced its rural coverage in response to the FCC’s rule: https://www.theverge.com/2012/1/24/2731141/att-sprint-roaming-fcc. In addition, the market incentives of a potential “non-negligent” provider to expand its network coverage are also reduced, because its investment will also benefit it competitors. Put another way, the FCC’s rule mitigates the potential competitive advantage of offering expanded rural coverage. The FCC recognized these risks, but chose to elevate the potential benefits of its policy to urban competition (because “negligent” providers could offer their urban customers greater coverage profiles than their own networks could provide) over its potential detriments to rural built out. This is just one example of the complex interactions between economics, competition, and universal service policies. Labeling private enterprise as “negligent” for rational responses to government policy or economic infeasibility doesn’t appear to be the most productive way of considering these complexities. For what it’s worth, I believe the most effective way to address rural and underserved broadband deployment would be through more aggressive implementation of universal service funding for deployment by private enterprise: https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2018/01/29/net-neutrality-effort-counting-on-republican-passivity/#1aca8dd65236 . On Jan 29, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Andrew Seybold <aseybold () andrewseybold com> Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:16 PM Subject: RE: vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? To: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow <geoff () iconia com> CC: Dave Farber <dave () farber net> Geoff, thanks and I already received a note that I am signed up, been a long time and I will be active. OK-so every Thursday I publish a blog called the Public Safety Advocate at it resides at allthingsfirstnet.com. It is also posted on Linked in and Twitter. I have been doing this weekly since 2010 My next PSA this Thursday deals with the rural coverage issues specifically as opposed to the highway issues. However, when FirstNet, the Authority bid the FirstNet network they describe rural coverage in 3 segments, two of which have to be covered. First are the rural communities, next up is the interstates that run through rural areas and the third to be covered on an as needed basis is what is called wilderness And to answer your question yes what ever AT&T covers the others are almost forced to cover. At this point—my unofficial rating of the networks and their coverage based on nationwide coverage is Verzion about 10% better than AT&T T-Mobile a close third Sprint a distance 4th. FirstNet (AT&T) is also required to work with rural telcos for more coverage Andy *From:* geoffg () gmail com [mailto:geoffg () gmail com] *On Behalf Of *the keyboard of geoff goodfellow *Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2018 2:50 PM *To:* Andrew Seybold <aseybold () andrewseybold com> *Cc:* Dave Farber <dave () farber net> *Subject:* Re: vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? Andy, what means is your next *PS advocate ?* wondering if the the FirstNet buildout will NOW FORCE the other "private enterprise network" carriers to also solve the Truckers (lack of) True Nationwide Coverage (Dilemma)? hope you will re-join Dave Farber's IP list and then chime in (n.b. am CC'ng Dave on this reply in case he has to "approve" your subscription, this will give him a heads up)! vis-a-vis (re)joining farber's ip list - it can be read on the web at: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now and for back months and years at: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/ to get back on IP, enter your desired email address at: https://www.listbox.com/subscribe/?list_id=247 ALSO, highly recommended reading is the Risks Digest (which yours truly also contributes to) at www.risks.org or get on it emailed to you, go to: http://www.csl.sri.com/users/risko/risksinfo.html lastly, there is Dewayne's list on the web at: https://dewaynenet.wordpress.com http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/ or get on it directly by emailing him at dewayne () warpspeed com On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Andrew Seybold <aseybold () andrewseybold com> wrote: WOW Geoff, I used to be on his list, did not even know it was still around, loved it when I was on it. As for this post—two things I can say is that there is a lot of work going on for better highway coverage and into small towns as well, my next PS advocate deals with this issue a lot. FirstNet (the network being built by AT&T for public safety) is required to cover much more of the Interstate system than is covered today. More if you want it. Thanks Andy *From:* geoffg () gmail com [mailto:geoffg () gmail com] *On Behalf Of *the keyboard of geoff goodfellow *Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2018 1:49 PM *To:* Andrew Seybold <aseybold () andrewseybold com> *Subject:* Fwd: vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? andy, can recall if you are on Dave Farber's IP list? just wanted to make sure you saw this and hope you'll chime in... geoff ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *the keyboard of geoff goodfellow* <geoff () iconia com> Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:39 AM Subject: vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? To: E-mail Pamphleteer Dave Farber's Interesting People list <ip () listbox com
Dave, am Very Curious to know what the Interesting People list collective think or would be IS The Best AND Most Assured/Effective way to effectuate a (long overdue!) solution to what cross country truck driver Curtis Lund comments on (in the ref'd *Variety* article below) regarding The Issue Of Solving The Nationwide Coverage GAPs Issue as exhibited by our extant ("negligent") private enterprise providers we all have been and currently tolerate/living with? viz. excerpting from: http://variety.com/2018/politics/news/fcc-ajit-pai-trump-5g-nationalization-1202680028/ : JANUARY 29, 2018 AT 9:12 AM <http://variety.com/2018/politics/news/fcc-ajit-pai-trump-5g-nationalization-1202680028/#comment-5751083> *Curtis Lund* *says:* *As a cross country truck driver I can tell you that there is minimal or zero cellular service along many stretches of our highway system, and many small towns as well that have none.* *So if we are going to compete with China, Japan, and many other countries that have better national coverage for their citizenship than we do*, we have to make 5G nationwide coverage a big part of any infrastructure overhaul plan moving toward. *Right now the major carriers don’t bid on FCC licenses for spectrum in rural areas do to the minimum ROI for their shareholders.* But a 5G nationwide system would benefit all Americans the same way as our nationwide power grid and landline system has done. And one last thing, we Americans pay twice as much in our cellular bills and get half as much compared to what other citizens in many countries do. *They have faster cheaper, and fuller coverage than we do.* Dammit let’s quit talking about it, and just do it! -- Geoff.Goodfellow () iconia com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -- Geoff.Goodfellow () iconia com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com Fred B. Campbell, Jr. President FBC Enterprises fbcjr () me com 703-470-4145 Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/29535209-64d57bd5>| Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20180130135229:B65AFDB8-05EE-11E8-8023-CF5535C065D2> <http://www.listbox.com> ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20180130210016:79264858-062A-11E8-AFC4-C94D2372C86A Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? Dave Farber (Jan 29)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? Dave Farber (Jan 29)
- Message not available
- Re vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? Dave Farber (Jan 30)
- Message not available
- Some history and a viewpoint Re vis-a-vis a Government-Backed 5G vs. private enterprise network -- which is better equipped to build out truly national coverage? Dave Farber (Jan 30)
- Message not available