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" <dave () farber net>]

---------- 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