> programming talent
Can you not see the fundamental difference between those? That one is more conducive to a competitive market and one less so?
He is and pure capitalism is the problem. When shareholders demand growth the companies are forced to cut corners and start charging more for less.
Take a look at Verizon and it's copper POTS lines for a great example of capitalism in action.
...hence the explosion in wireless technologies: multiple providers can easily cover the same areas, and must compete with improving services. It's almost to the point of overtaking wired services in both data rates & cost (just get those monthly data caps up and I'll switch).
The data caps can't be removed. Wireless has much lower bandwidth limits overall--the spectrum would be saturated if everyone decided to move to wireless. It can't happen with current technology.
Not to mention latency is much higher.
If a given volume of space can only handle so much bandwidth over the EM spectrum, it seems the logical solution would be keep the range smaller and put antennas (with wired backhaul) in more places. Similar to how wireless companies do a lot of special capacity work in large stadiums, etc. [1]
Of course, as the range decreases and the number of towers increase, the cost dynamics start to resemble the same last-mile cost problem more and more, but at least:
- you don't have right-of-way problems (presumably any company can lease EM spectrum)
- You can choose the areas install more shorter-range towers based on demand
[1] http://www.steelintheair.com/Blog/2017/01/immaculate_cellula...
However, it still won't come close to replacing wired bandwidth. There is a limit to how low you can reduce transmission power and still get blanket coverage therefore there is a limit to how close together these towers can be without interfering with each other, and a corresponding limitation on bandwidth for a given area.
You'd need to move the towers down to something close to the range of Wi-Fi to provide enough bandwidth to come close to working. And at that range you basically have all of the exact same problems of wired internet.
>you don't have right-of-way problems (presumably any company can lease EM spectrum)
You still have significant right-of-way problems because you still need to provide the wired backhaul for these towers. Unless you want to piggyback on the existing wired infrastructure--in which case you need to pass laws to force existing providers to let you use their pipes.
Wireless internet isn't a solution to the problems we face with ISPs. It might help to provide some limited competition, but the physical limitations prevent it from replacing wired internet.
It's my understanding that LTE and 5G are designed to scale such that the density of cell towers matches the density of the population. Thus in rural areas you have fewer high powered tower and in urban centers you would have many low powered micro towers.
> You still have significant right-of-way problems because you still need to provide the wired backhaul for these towers.
In downtown Atlanta they have ground level LTE installations with wireless backhauls at heavily traffic intersections attached to the street lights.
This is in front of the Apparel Mart, you can see the antenna arrays next to the red light and further up at the streetlight: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7610012,-84.3876772,3a,30.8y...
If you zoom in you can make out LTE on lower Array.
None of what you said is wrong, it's just not enough.
5g is still under design. It's just a specification for minimum speed, latency etc...
The most likely way to accomplish it is through small cells operating at very high frequencies (milometer wave). The problem with high frequencies is that they don't penetrate obstacles. They require direct line of sight, A canvas awning would block the signal.
For 5g to operate at the desired speeds in high density areas, you'd need them on every street corner, and you'd still need lower frequency higher powered transmitters to act as a backup in the very likely scenario that you aren't in direct line of sight of a millimeter wave tower.
In rural areas you could just use the lower frequency higher powered towers. However, the farther from the tower you get the lower the bandwidth. Combine that with the higher noise floor you get at lower frequencies, and the fact that transmitters cover a circular area and you need a large amount of overlap.
In either scenario, rural or urban there is no good way to replace wired access. Although it would be more likely in very rural areas.
In urban areas as I've already said, the tower density needs to be so high, that you lose the advantages that people are hoping will make wireless more competitive. At that density you have all the exact same problems that lead to a natural monopoly.
>In downtown Atlanta they have ground level LTE installations with wireless backhauls at heavily traffic intersections attached to the street lights.
This doesn't solve the right of way issue at all. If you've already got to the street corner, you've already solved the right of way issue. Getting from the road to houses isn't the difficult part. Homeowners will grant you access, they want access. It's getting to the street corner that's a problem.
One of the primary focuses of 5G is to reduce latency and LTE has reduced latency tremendously.
My personal experience looking over test logs on my phone is that LTE averages ~40ms with a low of 25ms and a high of 80ms. My home internet averages ~16ms with a low of 12ms and a high of 44ms.
Gaming is one of the few things where you can really tell the differences between sub 100ms latencies and so for most people wireless internet is more than sufficient.
But even without latency issues, we don't have the technology to replace more than a tiny fraction of total wired bandwidth with wireless.
Can you say, briefly, what you mean by "pure capitalism?"
To me, pure capitalism would be laissez-faire, within the context of a rights-respecting society.
> When shareholders demand growth the companies are forced to cut corners and start charging more for less.
Sometimes, companies respond by innovating solutions that deliver more value at a lower price.
Thoughts?
> To me, pure capitalism would be laissez-faire, within the context of a rights-respecting society.
I mean withOUT the context of a rights-respecting society. The capitalism that we have only respects the rights of others when compelled to do so.
> Sometimes, companies respond by innovating solutions that deliver more value at a lower price.
Yes when there's competition or the consumable isn't a necessity. In many municipalities it's a legal requirement to have running water and/or electricity, particularly if you have children or the elderly in the house; which means not buying is not an option. Utilities are commodity service providers; Southern Company's electricity is no better than Duke Energy's. They do not have any competition because markets have been carved out and consumers do not have a choice. They mostly don't develop the delivery technology, they just purchase it from others (e.g. GE).
With all that in mind, what is the motivation to innovate? So that the customer will be less angry at you as they write you the check each month?
What's the motivation to reduce costs? Lower costs might drive up demand which might put additional strain on infrastructure (look at the issues in Australia) and drive up maintenance costs. Lower costs might also require additional capacity which means capital investments.
The best place for a utility is to convince to you use as little as possible while charging you as much as possible in static fees each month.
State mandated monopolies is not pure capitalism.
Seemingly everybody has their own definition of capitalism. Everybody also thinks that right thinking people share their definition and people who don't are Just Wrong.
It makes arguments about it a little pointless because six different, intelligent people are arguing about capitalism are usually arguing about six related but different things.
That's why it usually makes a bit more sense to argue with language that has a tighter definition - like "monopoly".
What better way to maintain your profits than to have the government preventing others from competing with you.
I’m trying to understand why your characterization doesn’t apply to, say, programming talent. Once I have stable of coders working for me, what’s my incentive to do more than the bare minimum of maintenance work for them, and just collect rent on their productivity?
To me, it seems like you’re just describing capitalism: cash seeks rent.