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
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
