I actually agreed with the muni wireless and free speech issue.  He cited exact 
language in the AUPs.  Hate speech is hard to define and muni’s should not have 
that in their AUPs in my opinion.  I also liked that he didn’t think munis 
should be able to compete with private sector.  

I am only a socialist when it serves my purposes, at all other times I am a 
libertarian...

From: Mark Radabaugh 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:49 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS

Oh, it’s even better.    

In the same speech where he was railing against municipal broadband on free 
speech grounds he was also busy bragging about how tough the FCC is being on 
those dastardly free speech pirate radio stations.   Because, you know, pirate 
radio is obviously the lowest of the scofflaws.   How dare someone use a FM 
transmitter without a license!    The FCC has managed to take a whole slew of 
incredibly dangerous pastors broadcasting sermons off the air. 

Mark



  On Oct 31, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote:

  True.  The Pai FCC and the Trump Administration in general seems dedicated to 
leaving a legacy that can’t easily be undone.  Like selling spectrum, or 
appointing Supreme Court Justices.  They probably see Wheeler as a fool whose 
accomplishments could be undone with the stroke of a pen, and Obama much the 
same.  I’m not being political, and I guess you have to give them credit for 
understanding how the game is played.  If you want a legacy that lasts longer 
than the next election, you have to build it with bricks not straw.
   
  BTW, did you see where O’Rielly argued that muni broadband, promoted by the 
evil Wheeler, presented a “particularly ominous threat to the First Amendment”, 
citing TOS language against hate speech and threats.
   
  https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354770A1.pdf
   
  
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bj49j8/fcc-falsely-claims-community-broadband-an-ominous-threat-to-the-first-amendment
   
   
   
  From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
  Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:47 PM
  To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
   
  Michael O’Rielly absolutely positively thinks it’s a fantastic idea.   
   
  The really scary part is that he thinks it’s better for private industry to 
own it, since he can’t trust future FCC commissioners.    He’s that guy that 
won’t date a girl that would go out with a guy like him.
   
  Mark



    On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:06 PM, Joe Novak <[email protected]> wrote:
     
    " On the other hand, they get rewarded for carrying spectrum as an asset on 
their balance sheet."
     
    This is the most disgusting thing about the American auctioning system 
right now.
     
    Who in their right minds thought it was a good idea to just auction a 
finite resource to the highest bidder? Why isn't a use it or lose it system 
enforced, or at the very least a system like we will see in CBRS? It all seems 
like such a sham that gets propped up continuously. 
     
     
     
     
    On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:42 AM Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote:
      It’s going to be interesting, I wonder why the carriers would pay 
anywhere near the kind of money for CBRS spectrum that they are used to for low 
and mid band spectrum, when they can use it for free as GAA.  Similar to 5 GHz. 
 No cost, and opportunistic use for carrier aggregation.
       
      On the other hand, they get rewarded for carrying spectrum as an asset on 
their balance sheet.
       
      I’m thinking of a scenario where the auction sets too high a minimum bid, 
and they get zero bids.  Even 10 cents per MHz-POP might be too high, if it can 
be used as GAA at no cost.  As long as they have an anchor channel in other 
spectrum, CBRS is like icing on the cake, nice but not mission critical, and 
possibly not worth paying much money to “own”.
       
       
      From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dave
      Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:13 AM
      To: [email protected]
      Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
       
      That makes it easier for the carriers to stomp out the little GAA guys :)

      On 10/31/18 9:50 AM, Joe Novak wrote:
        I think it's more likely that they will have a licensed anchor channel 
and only aggregate 3.65 in the downlink, using different frequencies for 
uplink. Carrier aggregation is a whole different game of spectrum usage. 
         
        On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 9:38 AM Adam Moffett <[email protected]> 
wrote:
          One thing that was unfortunate about the NN license was that mobile 
          stations had a stupid low Tx power limit.   Basically mobile wasn't 
viable.

          Is CBRS going to have that type of restriction?


          -- 
          AF mailing list
          [email protected]
          http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
         

       
      -- 

      -- 
      AF mailing list
      [email protected]
      http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
    <image001.jpg>-- 
    AF mailing list
    [email protected]
    http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
   
  -- 
  AF mailing list
  [email protected]
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Reply via email to