Which, tbh, is exactly what LTE is.
How so? Sprint operated 4G LTE, which is a GSM technology (or alternatively, unified the two, depending on how you look at it).
This is why Sprint and Verizon used whitelists: they literally couldn't accept GSM-only devices because you wouldn't be able to make a phone call (the phone would try UMTS but only the non-supported CDMA2000 can be used to actually call, so in turn no phone calls).
Sprint went further by using the CDMA provisioning system on top of LTE instead of just using SIM cards and 3GPP provisioning like most GSM and CDMA carriers. This was a nightmare for custom ROM users like me as custom ROMs were designed for GSM carriers in mind and Sprint was at best an afterthought.
That's when the salesman told me to leave.
Regulators can work to make it extremely simple for new techs in this space to come up so there is real competition for ATT etc.
The walls here are defined by physics. There's only so much spectrum to go around.
You can't have more than 3-4 large cell phone operators working in the same area. Decoupling the radio part and forcing everyone to play as MVNOs is a way to work around this.
Modern protocols do magic things with spectrum efficiency, but there's only so much you can do.
Running a small number of powerful radios on low-frequency spectrum is a cost-effective way to cover large areas. Physics constrains how much of that can happen in the same area. But if networks are willing spend cash, they can get a ton of capacity by densely deploying high-frequency radios. Don't think we're anywhere near hitting the walls on what's possible there.
Putting this another way, networks provide enough bandwidth for everyone in Manhattan. It's just expensive.
That's still not a lot of spectrum. And you need to share it with other consumers (WiFi).
Then you start getting into the practicalities. You'll need to spam EVERYTHING with your access points. Can you imagine dozens of different wireless providers installing access points on every floor of every building? It's just not going to happen.
Roads is a very common argument, but none of the roads are build by "we the people". Government takes your money by force irrespective of how you think it should be spent and then a completely unaccountable red tapy system that employs otherwise unemployable people decides how to spend it. After a massive waste you have some roads which are poorly built even worse maintained.
There is no need for roads to be public infrastructure. It can be fully privatized and people be asked to pay for its use. (While entire compontent of taxes that go towards road building be returned back to the people.)
We will have better roads, less traffic and more money in pocket with that model.
Oh good grief.
> We will have better roads, less traffic and more money in pocket with that model.
I call bullshit.
As evidenced by the many successful and popular real-world cases where it's played out exactly this way. For example, um, uh...
The "accountability" is people voting in/out politicians. I agree they need more accounability, but in this case the folly falls on the ignorant for not properly researching who will lead and manage their towns.
>There is no need for roads to be public infrastructure. It can be fully privatized and people be asked to pay for its use.
Sounds like an awful idea. Land isn't infinite, so it falls into the same problem we have with housing. Lots of inefficiently crafted roads and a nightmare of tolls to manage based on the route you take. Which finals down to a few big boys either battling for the best roads, or worse, colluding with each other to keep tolls high. Navigation now has to incorporate not only for physical distance, but approximate cost as well.
I fail to see an upside here unless your underlying narrative is to force people onto public transportation. Even then that doesn't mean public transportation imroves for those with bad access (also managed by "unaccountable red tapy system")/
Anything less is giving companies control over something they should not have control over.
Another on 'built by private industry, but owned by the public.'
Government ownership isn't a panacea and has historically faultered when faced with innovative and expert requirements.
But I do think anything that trends towards monopoly makes sense as 'let the public own the simplest level, exposed via standards, and innovation happen above and/or below that.'
Going 4 to 3 sucked, let’s go all the way to a state monopoly!
The FCC was created to manage the scarcity inherent to the radio spectrum. It's not an area where regular free market economics apply. GP's proposal would actually make it easier for startups to horn in on the territory of the big established players, since the underlying infrastructure would effectively be socialized.
It's questionable if the FCC is really optimal though. There are huge amounts of spectrum still devoted to dying industries like AM/FM radio and broadcast television.
All kinds of more experimental community networks make use of it. Even better, Magma core is a free 5G core and multiple vendors like Baicells make cheap 5G CBRS base station hardware. CBRS also fully overlaps international 3.5GHz 5G bands, so phones and modems are cheap.
In that setup, all cell providers would effectively be an MVNO, and the three (then, four) physical networks would be operated at arms length from the consumer facing side. Also, the four networks could be structured so that their financial incentives were to improve cell coverage and bandwidth instead of undermining each others' operations.