Comments on: Economists to FCC: Wireless and Wired Broadband Are Equal

By: Deutsche Telekom Doesn’t Want Sprint

Deutsche Telekom Doesn’t Want Sprint — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:15:07 +0000

[...] To be sure, Hoettges didn’t say outright that the U.S. market was a stagnant oligopoly, but his comparison to the European cell market sure made it sound that way. His assessment and comparison may come as a blow to folks on this side of the pond who argue that not only is the country’s cellular market competitive, it’s even robust enough to compete with wireline voice and data. [...]

By: Fred Pilot

Fred Pilot — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:31:17 +0000

For premises IP communications, wireless at this point is an interim solution on the road to FTTP (Fiber to the premises).

Tim Nulty once employed an passenger aviation metaphor to illustrate its role relative to wireline. Wireless IP connectivity is like helicopters and provide limited carrying capacity whereas what is truly needed in the long term are jumbo jets to move people across continents and around the world.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:16:05 +0000

The article above demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the capabilities of wireless.

By: Michael Turk

Michael Turk — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:36:34 +0000

I am continually amazed that writers such as your self make the egotistical argument that just because wireless is an insufficient solution for *your* needs, that it is an insufficient solution for *everyone’s* needs.

Would wireless suit your usage? Probably not. Would it be perfectly fine for many people who use the Internet *less* than you do? Probably.

The fact that it doesn’t have the features, speed and cost *you* want doesn’t mean it’s not a competitive offering.

By: Yacko

Yacko — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:05:54 +0000

Whether the FCC considers wireless as a substitute for landlines is irrelevant. The key is the wireless companies do. The FCC should get out ahead. Like the MPAA learning from the slightly earlier mistakes of the RIAA, wireless learns from our currently chaotic wired internet. Wireless wants caps, wants to weed out copyright questionable content, wants to favor in house video feeds vs stuff like iTunes and YouTube and wants high prices. The question is whether the FCC has sole jurisdiction. Current land lines (including FioS and cable) provide connectivity and bandwidth as the business model. Wireless companies turn this around and provide said connectivity and bandwidth as a side course to a finance contract. That’s the key mistake people make. Yes, that’s right, wireless companies are finance companies whose contract is essentially a rent to own arrangement on top of a downpayment, with “plans” as an adjunct. That’s why there is a credit check and early termination. This rent to own is very lucrative, something like 10% a month, about 100+% per annum. Do the math. Assume iPhone connectivity is worth $20-$25 per month, then apply the rest to the carrier subsidy. Since the whole thing was not regulated from the beginning, unlike landlines, the carriers have been free to define the customer relationship. There is going to be tremendous resistance by companies to regulation and consumers attracted by the latest shiny toy are likely to acquiesce in large enough numbers to make an internet connection managed by wireless companies the standard. What started as cell phones has moved to smartphone and will move to netbooks, housebound tablets, and even stationary objects. It is no accident that the subsidized netbook experiment has started and LTE is close on the horizon. What is daunting is that two major wired companies are also the number 1 & 2 wireless companies so where is the incentive to compete? Also what does a company like Comcast do to stay on the same footing, form partnerships? The only hope I see is wireless competition. Genachowski has recognized the tsunami that is wireless and sees a future wireless frequency deficit. As a consequence the FCC will be much more willing to slice and dice spectrum and award white spaces, so much so, that someone has mentioned that the future radio frequency distribution will look more and more like a genome project. Hopefully when new frequencies come up for bid, others like Google step up to the plate, and they don’t go to a short list of the usual suspects.

By: tom

tom — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:26:16 +0000

a few years ago it was common to see articles describing the future of wireless. these articles often talked about radio transceivers on every lamppost in major cities. the idea is really not that far fetched; and wireless really could be a viable alternative/replacement for wired if the carriers switch to smaller cells covering smaller areas with overlapping frequencies.

anyways it has been a couple years since i have seen discussion of such a wireless network. but i do believe that in the end that is what we will have. the everyday consumer simply assumes that they will be cutting there cord in the years to come. with only a slight price reduction from what we have now we will start see large number move to wireless and am quite sure most will be cancelling the wired connection. the carriers will have no choice but to build the appropriate network as the customers start pilling on.

i do however think it will be a bumpy road as customer live with slow clogged network while the upgrading happens. what i think is underestimated by the tech. press is consumer willingness for a slower less reliable connection in exchange for the convenience of wireless everywhere.