To the main theme of different broadband experiences among users, I’d suggest our most valuable, informative, and essential internet communication is done at the lowest bit rates. Voice, e-mail, messaging. Then comes web pages; as the paper cites, there will be differences depending on connection speed. It’s possible to guarantee everyone the same quality of experience, but I don’t think that’s what we want. Maybe not everyone can stream Netflix constantly, but that’s less of a problem than not being able to make a call or send or receive a message. Is ones video or peer-to-peer traffic that urgent? Regarding the LTE user in College Station, their experience will not be the same as a wireline broadband connection. Period.

Are ISPs really focussed on “locking down every aspect of their networks?” Yes, my iPhone is an “appliance” rather than a “progammable computer” — to my relief.

I am astounded by the claim that the current FCC is treating spectrum reform “with hostility.” The New America Foundation is a member of the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, which filed a reasonable set of comments in the FCC’s proceeding on dynamic spectrum access. The reforms the FCC is talking about in that proceeding are profound. As can be seen in the comments in that proceeding, real technologies are on track for completion that will make dynamic spectrum access more common in the not too distant future. They can ask Michael Calabrese down the hall.

They suggest OpenBTS as an alternative, but I’d suggest it would be underpowered in most US markets. Maybe for rural areas, for which it was intended.

I may comment further. I thank them for a thought-provoking paper, and you for your column.