I am kind of thinking the same thing when I hear the big carriers want CBRS to be LTE only. So between the government selling licenses and the big carriers getting additional spectrum for cellular data in big cities, how about somebody take a little of that money and compensate us WISPs who have been providing rural service in the 3.65 band for all these years with non-LTE equipment. Not saying they will be successful with this approach. But if I'm going to be forced to replace all my basestations and CPE with LTE equipment so it can GPS sync with what the big carriers want to deploy, how about some compensation for making me replace perfectly good equipment that I was willing to deploy while the big guys were sitting on their hands?
Remember cash-for-clunkers? -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 1:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber I am not wholly against muni fiber systems in concept. But harm to existing service providers must be mitigated. They must be allowed to connect for free and be given some kind of pioneers preference such as no MRC marginal costs for the first year or something like that. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 12:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber >What's stopping the WISP from using the same government fiber to >provide service? > They've already got the advantage as they are established and have the >customers. Cost to connect, MRC costs while you build to break even, loss of margin and ARPU per customer. > But yes, they compete with private facility owners. > I'm sorry, could you be more specific? I don't know of a single market > with an privately owned open access >last mile dark fiber network. Why does it have to be open? If I string up a bunch of fiber and connect a bunch of homes and businesses, how fair is it for the county to use my property tax revenue to do the same and put the hurt on me? > Is it unfair that they charge too little, too much or something else > entirely? See previous answer. > They must be able to pull their own weight or it is a double crime. > Sorry, lost me there. Do you mean the public network must be > profitable or do you mean something else? Yes, if they are not a profit center for the government, then it is truly sad that tax dollars are wasted in hurting commerce. > I remember back in the 1960s, my dad getting "soil bank" payments for > not farming some of his fields. I think that muni and govt fiber > systems should do the same thing for the WISPS they are hurting... > Why? Why not. If the government wants to help commerce, it should help commerce. If they can pay farmers for not farming, they should pay WISPS they injure. If they wipe out service providers they should be forced to buy them out. Just like imminent domain. You want my field for your highway, buy it. Building a dam that wipes out my farm, buy it. There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing whenever the government does a deal. This is part of contract law everywhere. The the government is one party, the people are the other. It is not good faith or fair dealing to hurt the people. >We don't pay buggy-and-whip tax on our cars either. Actually you do, federal excise tax on tires... Jared
