So funny, we used to have a commissioner here that everyone called Boss Hogg. He wasn’t quite as short.
From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 11:51 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS I can see the 1st amendment thing. "Uh oh, you Duke boys been saying bad things on Facebook about county commissioner Boss Hogg. Looks like 'hate speech' to me. We goin ta hafta suspend your internet service. Company policy and all. You understand I'm sure." But it's a hypothetical problem....and more easily solved by changing the AUP than anything else. I'm not sure how either this or lima beans relates to mobile devices in CBRS, but it's a fun conversation all the same. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <[email protected]> Sent: 10/31/2018 6:45:47 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS 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]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:03 PM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[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]> On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:00 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[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] 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]> 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- 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
