First of all we should all understand that USF is not going anywhere.
Our nation’s telecommunications network is too important. Second with
the above understanding we should try and push the legislation to
account for the work we as WISP's are doing and allow us to contribute
and receive
Can any provide wireless here?
Street: 6911 N. Trenholm Road
Building / Floor / Room: Suite #2
City, State, ZIp: Columbia, SC 29206
Phone: 803-782-5445
Seems to be no cable or DSL.
--
Regards,
Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect Communicate
813.963.5884
Tom,
You correctly identify the Achilles Heel of modern day UL -- the survival of
the nastiest phenomenon. The Part 15.247 rules give equal standing to all
types of systems, regardless of how spectrally gluttonous or abusive. The
problem with this is that it rewards downward innovation (i.e. dumb
Patrick:
I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the
nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a mixed
environment. If that behavior is perceived as nasty by systems that are
less robust, oh well.
But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary
These are just my thoughts, but they come from having taken a serious
beating in DC over the last 18 months.
Lesson One: FCC will protect the PSTN and the associated ILECs at all costs.
Lesson Two: Tax monies are THE issue.
Lesson Three: No Free Lunch. None. Period.
Lesson Four: Politicians
I absolutely agree with the oh well part in the sense of hard-nosed, fair
game competition. But, in your definition, being robust is simply about
clobbering other systems to make room for your own. That is a bit like
saying a bobtail big rig (or at least one not hauling anything much) is more
fix the link...you need to paste the et.html on the end in the browser...
Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
same here. Page flashes up for a sec but then goes away to the other
unable page.
JohnnyO wrote:
We do ? This is what I get when I click on the link below you
provided
We are currently
Patrick:
Yup - agree to disagree, and remaining civil in the discussion.
The basic flaw in your perspective is that the current US license-exempt
bands are intended for communications use. They're not- their PRIMARY
allocation... WAY back, is for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical use,
so
Patrick Leary wrote:
Steve, I simply refuse to accept that the current rules are sacrosanct,
there are not, and the proposed rules for 3650MHz bolter my case. In
3650MHz, the FCC made strong and specific reference that they well might not
accept products that they believed were designed not to,
