I’d find it more “ominous” if there was an actual case of them censoring 
someone, rather than just some language in an AUP.  I’d also worry more if the 
current AUP actually had such language, which apparently it doesn’t.

 

I’ll give you the thing about Rise can do stuff that the government can’t.  
Although it’s a bit complicated.  First Amendment says govt can’t stop you from 
saying hateful things about someone, but if you threaten violence, that speech 
is not protected.  And there must be some kind of exception for schools, which 
can stop things like online bullying.

 

 

From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:53 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS

 

Rise is a private company.  They can write whatever rules they want.

 

A city is government, the people.  

They should not be able to abridge rights.  

This is identical to preventing local residents from checking out certain books 
from the library like Huck Finn.  

According to this mentality, you could not quote certain passages from Huck 
Finn in an email if using the muni system.  

 

From: Ken Hohhof 

Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:46 PM

To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS

 

By the article, you mean the think tank guy?  That paper is from 3 years ago.  
Maybe that language was in the EPB acceptable use policy then, hard to tell, 
especially since he doesn’t cite a reference, but it’s certainly not there now. 
 O’Rielly made his speech just the other day.  Warning of an “ominous threat” 
based on a 3 year old think tank article about language in an AUP seems a bit 
overblown, don’t you think?

 

And maybe we live in glass houses.  I just randomly selected Rise Broadband 
since they’re the biggest WISP and checked their AUP:

 

“YOU may not use the Service to advertise, solicit, store, post, transmit, 
disseminate, or otherwise make available material or information that is 
unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, libelous, defamatory, 
hateful, obscene, indecent, or otherwise objectionable or which encourages or 
participates in conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to 
a civil liability, or otherwise violates any local, state, national, or 
international law, order, rule, or regulation.”

 

And of course “think tanks” are rarely independent and non partisan.  The Free 
State Foundation is funded by CTIA and NCTA, and has ties to ALEC.  Not saying 
that’s wrong, just that they are carrying water for big telecom.

 

 

From: AF <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf 
Of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:03 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS

 

This is breaking LENT a bit.  

 

The TN one was the one quoted in the article.  Specifically mentioned hate 
speech.  

 

From: Ken Hohhof 

Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:35 PM

To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS

 

Chuck, where in this document do you see a threat to the First Amendment:

https://epb.com/storage/app/media/uploaded-files/Residential%20Terms%20and%20Conditions.pdf

 

It looks like ours or any other ISP AUP/TOS document as far as I can see.

 

There are many muni broadband horror stories, I don’t know why he decided to 
pick on one that is generally considered one of the success stories.  Probably 
because AT&T had opposed EPB (which is the power company in Chattanooga) 
expanding beyond town.  I suspect a power company branching out into broadband 
fiber probably has a much higher probability of success than some town that 
says let’s become an ISP, how hard can it be.  And in this case, EPB was 
already a FTTH operator offering gigabit service, they just wanted to expand 
their footprint.

 

I don’t like muni broadband either, especially if it pushes out existing ISPs, 
and potentially leaves the citizens or bondholders on the hook for an expensive 
adventure that ends up failing.  But I think the First Amendment approach is 
the wrong one, especially for the federal government to say that your local 
government is going to censor you, as if the feds would never do that.  And 
picking Chattanooga as the example of this alleged problem, shows he is just a 
shill for AT&T.

 

I’m also not sure I like the trend toward every level of government trying to 
pre-empt the levels below them.  The states want to outlaw local government 
making decisions (foolhardy or not), and the feds want to outlaw the states 
doing things.  This seems contrary to the Tenth Amendment, and I thought 
Republicans were big supporters of states rights.

 

It also seems strange they have no problem with municipalities providing water, 
collecting garbage, plowing snow, or providing police and fire services.  I 
guess those don’t bother some big corporation like AT&T.

 

 

From: AF <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf 
Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:00 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS

 

I’m not a huge fan of muni broadband for some of the reasons you cite.   I was 
just amazed that he is all for free speech when it meets his goals and then 
completely against it another circumstance.

 

Mark

 

On Oct 31, 2018, at 3:53 PM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  wrote:

 

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] 
<mailto:[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://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>
 
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bj49j8/fcc-falsely-claims-community-broadband-an-ominous-threat-to-the-first-amendment

 

 

 

From: AF <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf 
Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:47 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected] <mailto:[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] 
<mailto:[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] 
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf 
Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:13 AM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[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] 
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> 
 <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

 

 

-- 

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

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

 

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

 

 


  _____  


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

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

 

  _____  

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

  _____  

-- 
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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