Re: [WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy
Replies inline: Patrick Leary wrote: I favor substantial use rules and also agree in rejecting squatters rights. A method of issuing licenses I like is the following: 1. licenses are broken up into regional and local. Why not license by base station? Then a provider cannot ignore under-served areas. They must serve the area completely or someone else makes a business case and serves the area. Under the plan I proposed the area runs unlicensed if substantial use is not able to be reached. No need for license costs or property protection if you cannot make a business case to build out to begin with or if a service area has too few people to require license protection. Why build layers of administrative overhead for the whole country when some areas run fine on unlicensed. Let the market dictate where the licenses are needed and where they are not. Why should someone be pronounced ruler of the frequency in a place they do not serve? Set licensing by base station and see how many people make the jump from unlicensed to licensed delivery of broadband in this country. You will see the whole country served effectively with wireless broadband very quickly under my plan. Your plan is still requiring more time and money before anything gets built. I am surprised Alvarion is not not jumping on my plan. My plan could sell much more gear than your plan for sure. I am sure of it. 2. the government sets the price in advance We already own these frequencies. Why pay a big chunk to the government for something we already own? This is simply a way to cause services to cost more and limit speed of growth. It cracks me up that we have big companies crying that they cannot afford to build broadband into rural areas without USF but they think it is fine to pay billions for frequencies to do the job. I smell a big rat in that game. It is easy to limit the number of providers who can deliver broadband wirelessly if it costs billions to own all the frequencies in advance and the precious few megasuck.nets in turn get billions in subsidies through USF to build out their network after the fact. Talk about hand-outs. Who is getting the hand-outs from your plan? Your proposal basically makes the process inaccessible to many entrepreneurs and adds overhead cost and slows deployment. I would agree that a monthly or yearly fee should be paid to own and maintain a license. Of course under my plan you could just run unlicensed if you do not feel the need to pay for a license with the rights of property protections which can be afforded by government involvement in the process. Basically if you want the government to help protect your property interest through a license then you should expect to pay the government to help protect you. If you do not need protection then you can still use the band if nobody else has built it up and licensed it in your location 3. competing parties submit proposals How many million proposals would be required to have enough granularity for this to work for anyone but megasuck.net to get a license? Nobody but a megasuck.net conglomerate would be able to compete. This is just another way to do the same crap that has led us to a world of spectrum haves and have nots. Patrick, please try to believe for once that anyone who runs a broadband company does not need to have $25 million in the bank or they should not be in the game. Entrepreneurs need a chance in this game. They do not need to have ALL the game by any means but they should have a shot at the game. Under your proposal there is no chance for a startup to get a license without millions of dollars backing him. This does not foster innovation and stimulate new opportunities for anyone. 4. the proposals are evaluated on their benefit to the public And who does this? Who gets to say my proposal is better than yours? Why not let those who must drink the punch have a say in who is serving it? My proposal does this by allowing a group being served to request the loss of a license for a holder who is charging too much or delivering bad service. They get a say. License holders would not get a license at all if the people in the area served decided not to buy from them. Your plan is more of the same government as usual program where people have no real say in their future and local interests do not get a chance to build communications for their area. My plan allows local interests to have a level field without taking any opportunity away from anyone including the big guys. Your plan excludes smaller companies who are not well funded from the start. Do not forget that Apple started in a garage. 5. parties are also evaluated on their ability to implement My plan does this already. In my plan you have to build the network first, then you get your license if people buy it and like it. If you cannot get market share under unlicensed then applying for a license is not going
Re: [WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy was:3650 equipment
4. the proposals are evaluated on their benefit to the public These are the two flawed areas. Who is qualified to make the decission? The proposals that best show they will benefit the public, will most likely be the same ones that are selling a vapor solution that will never work. The realistic providers that are honest about what the technology or for that matter the business model will deliver are the ones that will lose. The bigger promisers not deliverers will win. 5. parties are also evaluated on their ability to implement Once again, support for large single monopoly, apposed to support of competition of the many small players. The ones that are best financially capable to implement are not the ones that are best morally to deliver the targeted result. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 11:45 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy was:3650 equipment I favor substantial use rules and also agree in rejecting squatters rights. A method of issuing licenses I like is the following: 1. licenses are broken up into regional and local. 2. the government sets the price in advance 3. competing parties submit proposals 4. the proposals are evaluated on their benefit to the public 5. parties are also evaluated on their ability to implement 6. a proposal is picked, a license awarded, a timeframe set 7. parties failing in the timeframe requirement lose their license That is a good model in some cases. I also think that auctions have their place, but have to be carefully managed and evidence of collusion needs to be punished massively. I also think unlicensed has its place, and I am all for a registration requirement (not a license, but a registration of active base stations for ALL commercial UL operators), which is something I conceived of and proposed to the Spectrum Policy Task Force back in 2002. With all do respect John, I do not buy the power to the people argument. And I don't buy that all WISPs are pure and good and have the public interest at heart. Most WISPs deploy to fill their capacity, they do not deploy to address equity issues or to make sure that anyone in the cell that wants access gets it. Most WISPs are just as much capitalists pigs as the big guys, only on a smaller scale. And that is fine, but let's not pretend there is some sort of special nobility just by virtue of being a WISP. I've seen my share of folks that I consider noble, but it does not make their business noble. And I've seen more than my share of opportunist scumbags praying on customers, abusing rules, etc. Nothing prevents anyone from creating a business plan that can attract capital and investment and the government is under no obligation to offer commercial rights to those that cannot. Many WISPs started very humbly and succeeded brick by brick and now have multi-million dollar businesses. If a BWA-dedicated UL is finally created, you should realize that anyone can use it, even those companies you revile. There are no rights for use by WISPs only. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy was:3650 equipment It would be amazing if one time our government could get spectrum policy right. Up until now they have not got it right even once regarding access to spectrum in my opinion. Unlicensed is closer to right than licensed because it at least allows other entrants into the space other than just the ultra-rich. It gives back some of the power to the people. Unlicensed is wrong because it has no possibility of protections at all for those who use this to build their business. That completely stinks.. License auctions create a land grab mentality with little to no thought given to how people will be served in the long run. We have seen this fail time and time again. The right way is for us to finally have a band dedicated to broadband use with some right to run a little power...please!... for God's sake!...give us some power one time! It would start as unlicensed with registration required. As the band could be proven to be substantially used (serving real customers with actual services) by an operator then licenses would be issued. A license would be for only one base station though. If an operator shows he has customers served on a base station then he can apply for a license. No more blanket region licenses. The substantial use provision means nobody gets squatters rights. You either prove you are using the band to serve actual customers on a base station or you run unlicensed until you can prove substantial use. Then the incentive is for operators to build out
[WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy was:3650 equipment
It would be amazing if one time our government could get spectrum policy right. Up until now they have not got it right even once regarding access to spectrum in my opinion. Unlicensed is closer to right than licensed because it at least allows other entrants into the space other than just the ultra-rich. It gives back some of the power to the people. Unlicensed is wrong because it has no possibility of protections at all for those who use this to build their business. That completely stinks.. License auctions create a land grab mentality with little to no thought given to how people will be served in the long run. We have seen this fail time and time again. The right way is for us to finally have a band dedicated to broadband use with some right to run a little power...please!... for God's sake!...give us some power one time! It would start as unlicensed with registration required. As the band could be proven to be substantially used (serving real customers with actual services) by an operator then licenses would be issued. A license would be for only one base station though. If an operator shows he has customers served on a base station then he can apply for a license. No more blanket region licenses. The substantial use provision means nobody gets squatters rights. You either prove you are using the band to serve actual customers on a base station or you run unlicensed until you can prove substantial use. Then the incentive is for operators to build out a network and serve customers as quickly as possible to attain licenses as opposed to buying large regions and squatting on licenses leaving them unused for years or even decades as we see now. If they price it too high then people do not buy service from the operator and the operator cannot get the protection of a license. Note the operator has the right to serve immediately as an unlicensed operator and has an incentive to serve customers as quickly as possible to gain license protections. I think that the licenses should be contingent upon public good for perpetuity. If public good is lost in the future (by an operator who over-prices or sells to a mega-corp who does not care) then the license could become open again if people request this. Charge too much, lose your license. Sell to megasuck.net, lose your license. Provide crap service, lose your license. Note that this does not mean you cannot operate there if you lose your license. It just means you lose your exclusive license and right to impose interference protection. It means competition can move in on you and work toward gaining the license if you do not do your job. This puts the power right where it should be, in the hands of the people. In a 50 MHz band (like 3650) with 10 MHz channels imposed you could conceivably have up to 5 licenses available for 5 base station in any one location. If you are an operator who is building good business relationships you might get all 5 licenses in an area. Maybe not. Maybe you get 2 or 3 and someone else gets some. The point is that you have SOME rights if you do a good job and do not screw the customer. It is time to stop the lack of rights for those building networks on unlicensed bands and stop the squatting on licenses for those with the fattest wallets. It is time for the people to be in control of their spectrum assets. The public good provisions do that. Why should one federal agency get to tell all the people what they can and cannot do with one of our country's most valuable assets? I have a name for this new way of looking at spectrum policy.. I call this Middle Class Spectrum Policy and I would really like to see us all start moving toward this as a group strategy in the future. If we attain some control of spectrum under these terms I am reasonably certain all future spectrum policy would reflect at least the spirit of the policy as outlined above. Do we want to continue to allow policy to happen around us or do we want to start building policy that is forward thinking enough to empower us all? John Scrivner PS. If you are reading this and you have not paid your WISPA dues then go to http://signup.wispa.org/ right now and stop letting others pay to take care of you in D.C. We need your support! Matt Liotta wrote: Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA
RE: [WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy was:3650 equipment
I favor substantial use rules and also agree in rejecting squatters rights. A method of issuing licenses I like is the following: 1. licenses are broken up into regional and local. 2. the government sets the price in advance 3. competing parties submit proposals 4. the proposals are evaluated on their benefit to the public 5. parties are also evaluated on their ability to implement 6. a proposal is picked, a license awarded, a timeframe set 7. parties failing in the timeframe requirement lose their license That is a good model in some cases. I also think that auctions have their place, but have to be carefully managed and evidence of collusion needs to be punished massively. I also think unlicensed has its place, and I am all for a registration requirement (not a license, but a registration of active base stations for ALL commercial UL operators), which is something I conceived of and proposed to the Spectrum Policy Task Force back in 2002. With all do respect John, I do not buy the power to the people argument. And I don't buy that all WISPs are pure and good and have the public interest at heart. Most WISPs deploy to fill their capacity, they do not deploy to address equity issues or to make sure that anyone in the cell that wants access gets it. Most WISPs are just as much capitalists pigs as the big guys, only on a smaller scale. And that is fine, but let's not pretend there is some sort of special nobility just by virtue of being a WISP. I've seen my share of folks that I consider noble, but it does not make their business noble. And I've seen more than my share of opportunist scumbags praying on customers, abusing rules, etc. Nothing prevents anyone from creating a business plan that can attract capital and investment and the government is under no obligation to offer commercial rights to those that cannot. Many WISPs started very humbly and succeeded brick by brick and now have multi-million dollar businesses. If a BWA-dedicated UL is finally created, you should realize that anyone can use it, even those companies you revile. There are no rights for use by WISPs only. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy was:3650 equipment It would be amazing if one time our government could get spectrum policy right. Up until now they have not got it right even once regarding access to spectrum in my opinion. Unlicensed is closer to right than licensed because it at least allows other entrants into the space other than just the ultra-rich. It gives back some of the power to the people. Unlicensed is wrong because it has no possibility of protections at all for those who use this to build their business. That completely stinks.. License auctions create a land grab mentality with little to no thought given to how people will be served in the long run. We have seen this fail time and time again. The right way is for us to finally have a band dedicated to broadband use with some right to run a little power...please!... for God's sake!...give us some power one time! It would start as unlicensed with registration required. As the band could be proven to be substantially used (serving real customers with actual services) by an operator then licenses would be issued. A license would be for only one base station though. If an operator shows he has customers served on a base station then he can apply for a license. No more blanket region licenses. The substantial use provision means nobody gets squatters rights. You either prove you are using the band to serve actual customers on a base station or you run unlicensed until you can prove substantial use. Then the incentive is for operators to build out a network and serve customers as quickly as possible to attain licenses as opposed to buying large regions and squatting on licenses leaving them unused for years or even decades as we see now. If they price it too high then people do not buy service from the operator and the operator cannot get the protection of a license. Note the operator has the right to serve immediately as an unlicensed operator and has an incentive to serve customers as quickly as possible to gain license protections. I think that the licenses should be contingent upon public good for perpetuity. If public good is lost in the future (by an operator who over-prices or sells to a mega-corp who does not care) then the license could become open again if people request this. Charge too much, lose your license. Sell to megasuck.net, lose your license. Provide crap service, lose your license. Note that this does not mean you cannot operate there if you lose your license. It just means you lose your exclusive license and right to impose interference protection. It means competition
