Derek Kerton 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2649) comment rss

  • On the post: Smart TVs: Not Such A Smart Idea

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2012 @ 01:58am

    Re:

    Sure I have. The same could be said for smartphones. But which TV manufacturer increases the cost of their current TVs so that in 3 years they will still have up to date memory and processing power? None. They build them to get sold today.

    Android, as you brought up, is a great example. Ask the people with Xperia X10s or Galaxy S (I) what they think of your theory of infinite upgradability. The upgrades are slow to be delivered, and soon never are. These devices will never see Ice Cream Sandwich.

  • On the post: Smart TVs: Not Such A Smart Idea

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2012 @ 01:55am

    Re: The article presupposes...

    "the TVs are network-enabled, and play content off the internet - so why wouldn't they be upgradable the same way?"

    So is your smartphone...but you can't do today's leading apps and games on your 2-year old smartphone. Just ask anyone with a T-Mobile G1.

    The problem is the processor, memory, and other hardware. It is bought and paid for at a fixed point in time. Prices drop, Moore's law moves on, and the later TVs are much more powerful. Your TV OEM doesn't need to support your TV so much, since you've already bought it. They worry about selling the latest customers, so they put better and more features in the latest TVs, and orphan yours.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 10:30am

    Re: I take offense to this

    Yeah. I concede that point. "Sloppy" does not apply to the work done by the GPS community. Their work was done to the appropriate tolerances and economics of the time, and the results are freaking amazing. To say the GPS inventors screwed up would be like saying Isaac Newton knew nothing of physics because he didn't get relativity. Yet the genius of the early work is clear.

    But that does not mean that the receivers, by modern standards, aren't a little sloppy, does it? Even at the time, GPS receivers *could have* been designed to tighter tolerances, but were not, correct?

    It looks like I've stumbled upon a war between the LS guys and the GPS camp. So people are hyper-sensitive. But if it's a question of taking sides, I would rather not. I'm more interested in the "new competitor" angle of this story. But if my post has put me on a side, it's probably the GPS side when I note that: "...who is at fault is irrelevant: it remains LightSquared's problem to solve if they want to launch their network."

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 09:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sigh, please learn some basics

    Jeff,

    I'm not LightSquared. I didn't change the rules of anything. I just wish their plan had worked.

    And you're saying that GPS used weak filtering because of (what we agree were) good assumption does not mean that it is not weak filtering.

    Geez. Nowhere do I say that GPS should ever have been done differently. Under the circumstances and time that it was built, it's a freaking miracle. It's great technology, uber useful, and I don't want it to go away. As it is, it takes priority over LS.

    But it does receive interference from adjacent spectrum despite the fact that technology exists to prevent that. Is that so hard to admit?

    Should I be ashamed of stating that fact? Some people in the GPS community are obviously so damned mad at LS that they don't even want to concede that water is wet.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 09:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    There seems to be a lot of overall anger with LS's purchase of spectrum on the cheap. But someone needs to explain to me all the ways we can get more competition in the US without an easier path to market than bidding at auction against the deep pocketws at AT&T and Verizon.

    Even when other players win spectrum at auction, like the cable companies, it often ends up getting re-sold to the biggest carriers, who simply have a better ability to leverage and monetize the spectrum.

    Sure LS got spectrum on the cheap, but it wasn't exactly beach-front property, was it? It came encumbered with a sensitive neighbor, and if you aggravated them, you got shut down. That's a lot of risk, thus the spectrum is rightly low-priced.

    And, so long as we're being angry with LS getting this risky spectrum for a low price, why not funnel some angst at all the TV stations, broadcasters, etc. who got loads of free spectrum for TV decades ago, and who have been monetizing it ever since. Or the last-mile service providers who got free access to trench our towns and nation? Or the railways who were given so much land? There is a long history of giving away public real estate to build national networks because of the benefit those networks might impart. Spread your anger around.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 09:27am

    Re:

    Because we shouldn't try things that are hard?

    Silly.

    We shouldn't approve, go blindly full steam ahead, or just launch things that are "nigh on impossible". But it seems like a really good idea to let people attack the problem in a conditional trial.

    When Kennedy said we'd set foot on the moon within the 60's, it was nigh on impossible.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 09:24am

    Re: Re: Re: sigh, please learn some basics

    No, they are not ignorant of the physics.

    In a similar way that Analog TV broadcasts are a waste of spectrum, because they are using 1940s technology which is currently seen as inefficient, the GPS industry is using 1980s technology, which is analog and built with certain assumptions about what kind of precision would be needed in the radios.

    Those 1980s assumptions are now stale dated. Now, hear me clearly: I'm not saying that the GPS sector should update all their equipment (in fact, I say the contrary in the article). But I do say that they sloppily listen to the adjacent frequencies. That is what it is, and LS must deal with that reality.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 09:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose problem was it?

    Sure, but CDMA was widely know to be impossible through the 80s and early 90s, which is why almost all the cellular carriers in the world opted for the less spectrally efficient Time Divisioning TDMA.

    If you know your radio history, you'll know that Qualcomm pulled it off shortly thereafter.

    You guys arguing that it was stupid to even try might miss out on some great innovations:

    - for some time, it was thought impossible to break the sound barrier
    - UWB technologies can communicate right over (under) existing analog technologies without interfering
    - Spread spectrum technologies allow conflicting wireless signals to co-exist

    So, even if it was unlikely, it seems like it's awfully conceited to say that it could never work, and should absolutely not be attempted. What did the US public lose here? Could we have gained something? Did we take any risk in this brief, 1 year experiment?

    If a company like LS thinks they can do something, because modern technology enables it...and they are willing to risk their own PRIVATE money on testing it out, well then I'm all for that test. If it works, bully for them. If it doesn't, it's up to them to try something else.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 12:51am

    Re: Limits ofsignal filtering

    Good comment. Thanks.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 12:47am

    Re:

    Nah, not me. I would REALLY love to see LS emerge on the market, but not at the expense of GPS. If they could have made it work, then great, but if not, then rescinding the waiver is correct.

    We'll need to look for other spectra, other technical solutions, and other entrants to add more competition to the market.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 12:40am

    Re:

    Once again, comments that focus on the part of the plan that (obviously) failed. We're in agreement that they could not play nice with the neighbors, and were thus shut down.

    That's not the part that was discussed as scrappy. The scrappy part was the way they were going to go to market, the wholesale model, the technologies they would implement, their openness to innovators and startups. That is what we just lost.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 12:33am

    Re: sigh, please learn some basics

    PS: "I'm not an expert on signals, but I do have a degree in electrical and computer engineering and have taken 300 level college courses on systems and signals (both analog and digital)."

    Is that sarcastic, or not? I'd say that pretty much qualifies you as an expert.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 12:29am

    Re: sigh, please learn some basics

    Ugh. So many comments here arguing the same (forgone) point. You guys keep pointing out how LS causes interference. OK, we all know that. That's why they got their waiver revoked.

    Now, you also argue that "they should have known". That's a lot more interesting point, and I'm sure the Harbinger investors will have questions about that.

    I'm not sure, however, that that was a foregone conclusion. LS had 20MHz to work with, and if they allocated half of that as a "shoulder band", could it have prevented interference? The answer to that, as we now know, is also no.

    My point, in the article, for noting that it is not LS that is broadcasting out of bounds, but instead GPS that is listening out of bounds, is mainly to correct all the news I have seen stating precisely the opposite. And I go on to say, "...who is at fault is irrelevant: it remains LightSquared's problem to solve." It is policy, and I would argue correct policy, that new spectrum uses should not blow existing industries built on adjacent spectrum out of the sky. So chillax, everyone. I'm wasn't diving into the political part of this anyway (and apparently it's quite heated), I mostly lament the loss of a new entrant that was positioned to shake up the cellular market.

    And I am not ignorant of the risky nature of what LS proposed, from an engineering point of view. I am just an advocate of letting them invest their own (private) money into seeing if they can make it work. It didn't, that's really too bad. Isn't it?

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 12:11am

    Re: Re: We should regret LightSquared's failure to grasp the laws of physics?

    RE: wifi, read my 2006 Techdirt article where I argue that Wi-Fi is a bad choice for blanket coverage of a town, or any area. Wi-Fi simply didn't, and still doesn't have the range to displace cellular: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20060612/175252.shtml

    That said, WiFi n provided a substantial jump in range, and ac will add more bandwidth to the range of n. But I am still not, nor likely ever will, argue that Wi-Fi can supplant cellular.

    But what I will argue (and did above) is that Wi-Fi connectivity, increasingly, can substitute for expensive cellular connectivity in numerous locations, and that all it takes is a smartphone with a wifi radio (common today) and some intelligent automatic switching inside the phone.

    The example of Republic Wireless is just such a case. They propose to do MOST of the connectivity over wifi, and only roam onto Sprint's network for those times when out of wifi coverage. THIS is where wifi can challenge cellular.

    Instead of thinking as our smartphones (as we do today) as cellular devices that can offload to wifi when possible, we could start to think of them as wifi devices that can roam onto cellular when needed. We would use fewer of the expensive cellular resources, and would ostensibly pay less.

    I have NEVER been a "Wi-Fi will offer blanket coverage" guy. Read the article linked above to see how far from that I am.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2012 @ 11:47pm

    Re: Re: Whose problem was it?

    Klink, On the subject of "scrappy", you point out that LS got cheap spectrum because it was "zoned" for spatial use, and got a waiver to use it terrestrially - basically a bargain in the spectrum world. True, but that is just a small part of why I would refer to LS as scrappy.

    More scrappy, for me, is what I have seen on the ground with what LS was doing to business models and technology for mobile telecoms. They were partnering with some very different technology partners. They were going all IP. The wholesale model would have put dozens of new MVNOs into our market - all with different pricing schemes and business models. ex: Best Buy might sell you a laptop with 1-yr connectivity bundled into the price. I saw startups who couldn't get the time of day from a major wireless carrier get rushed into the test labs at LS. That is precisely the kind of 'scrappy' that I wrote about in the article. As you and Artp noted, I somewhat glossed over the spectrum purchase part. What I wrote about, and what will be missed, is this venue of open and free thought, unlimited by any legacy.

  • On the post: Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2012 @ 11:37pm

    Re: Re: Whose problem was it?

    I don't dispute anything in the thread here by artp or Wilhelm Klink. I think you guys have added some background, but otherwise are just spinning around the words in a way that comes back to basically what I wrote.

    Klink, you are concerned that the FCC didn't "rescind". OK, forgive me, the term they used was "indefinitely suspend". They had given LS a waiver to run their terrestrial system on formerly spatial spectrum. They revoked that waiver. If "rescind" doesn't fit for you, then I've got a head full of hairs we can split when you have time.

    Artp, you are spot-on that running a terrestrial network in adjacent spectrum to a spatial network is ill-advised. You somewhat take the position that it is LS's "loud yelling" next door that is the problem, I somewhat take the position that it is GPS's active listening that is the problem. But, regardless, as I put in the article, it doesn't matter: it is LS's job to make it work, or they can't launch. "A long history of spectrum policy states that new entrants must not mess up the existing radio devices".

  • On the post: A 4G iPad Requires A Sensible Shared Data Plan

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2012 @ 01:48pm

    Re:

    Ummm. I'm pretty sure I read into things exactly what was said. You are, of course, free to question the NPD research, but I did not cite it even slightly out of context.

    Also, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support that theory, but that doesn't count for much unless you trust my sources, as I do, and it comes from multiple different sources. My sources are cellular carriers who have sold 3G-enabled tablets, only to see them disconnect from the network and not re-subscribe.

  • On the post: A 4G iPad Requires A Sensible Shared Data Plan

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2012 @ 09:01am

    Re: Killer App for Wi-Fi

    Look into spanish firm: Fon

  • On the post: A 4G iPad Requires A Sensible Shared Data Plan

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2012 @ 08:59am

    Re: There Will Be No Change

    But the free advice to the carriers is in their best interests.

    If they continue to gouge us for our second and third devices, they will lose the long-term opportunity to have those devices connected. Eventually, nobody will want non-phones to have a cellular radio. We'll all use wifi. Wifi will get better, then we'll start switching our phones off cellular data, too.

  • On the post: A 4G iPad Requires A Sensible Shared Data Plan

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2012 @ 08:56am

    Re: The Wireless Myth

    I suppose I'm the resident telco apologist, so let me have a crack at this. There are reasons why moving a cellular MB is more expensive than a fixed MB. Here are some:

    - Fixed infrastructure was put in place decades ago (cable and phone lines) and amortized long ago on telephone and cable TV revenues. You don't have to dig new trenches. The new found windfall of selling broadband connectivity over those same copper lines has none of the expensive capex of doing the same on wireless. Developing nations don't have this amortized infrastructure, so they build wireless first.

    - The fixed cables are simply fatter pipes. And the cable operators can pump every and any frequency down that pipe - it's all theirs. Every improvement in end-device compression, multiplexing and modulation schemes results in vast improvements in total bandwidth (ex: CWDM or DOCSIS). In wireless, we are historically working within 5MHz channels, and carriers often have maybe 20MHz in a region. Mobile carriers, with LTE, are approaching the Shannon-Hartley theoretical limit for how much data can be crammed in a limited band width.

    - Much of the fixed data business in the world is done in densely populated cities. There's a reason datacenters, banks, movie production studios, etc, all locate near the big peering centers and fiber interconnection spots. It's cheaper to wire a dense city for lots of Terabytes, because the cables are non-interfering and so capacity is unlimited. Each one carriers its signal, and another can be laid next to it. With wireless, density actually causes problems. The airwaves are interfering, so capacity is not unlimited.

    - In less dense areas, it is also more expensive to invest in cellular, because few users are there to pay back the infrastructure. And the USA has lots of rural areas. Now, this argument applies to both fixed and mobile...but mobile covers a far wider swath of the country than fixed broadband.

    - Cable companies and telcos were often given the rights of way for their networks, as part of franchise agreements with governments and in a deal that they would offer universal service. In contrast, cellular carriers must outbid each other at auction to get access to more spectrum. The last auction for LTE spectrum raised $19B. This is a cost fixed providers don't have to pay. And instead of the municipality offering you right of way so that there will be cable (or phones), cellular carriers usually end up fighting the town or NIMBY citizens for every tower they install.

    Not to say that cellular carriers won't try to extract every penny they can from the customer...they certainly will. But there are additional costs and limits that you don't have with fixed lines.

Next >>