Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
Yes, when you start working with Cities and giving them good service, they remember It is nice to have someone call you asking for service because Mr. x from another city liked your work. John >-Original Message- >From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2006 08:33 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum] > >I do not have the link to the proceeding but t is known as 04-186 and a >quick Google should get you to it. It is on the FCC.gov website >someplace. Anyone have a link to it? The power limits are spelled out >there I believe. The public process on 04-186 is complete now. We will >have what we have according to that proceeding. It is a good rulemaking >for us. I think we should be able to ask for some adaptations in the >future which could allow for some protections if we show substantial use >of the band for public safety, government, economic development and >general good of the public. Most of you guys already do this so it >should be easy. For those of you who have not tapped into the killer >application of public safety (police cars, firetrucks, civil defense, >disaster preparedness, etc.) you need to get with the program. If you >become the best friend of the head of your (EOC) Emergency Operations >Center for your county then you will have a ticket to do most anything >you need to "protect and serve" using good spectrum in your community. I >whole heartedly believe this is the path to entrenching us into the >fabric of communications from now on in our service areas. >Cheers, >Scriv > > >Dylan Oliver wrote: > >>Has there been any word on what the power limitations in the >>whitespace band will be? Or is this up to the FCC when the bills pass? >>I wish the band was WISP-only, and registered like 3650 to keep things >>proper. >> >>Thanks, >>-- >>Dylan Oliver >>Primaverity, LLC >> >> >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
The link to the original (PDF) NPRM 04-186 is http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516214773 FCC Search link - http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi Search for 04-186 for the list of comments. FCC WTB - http://wireless.fcc.gov/ The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) handles nearly all FCC domestic wireless telecommunications programs, policies, and outreach initiatives. Wireless communications services include Amateur, Cellular, Paging, Broadband PCS, Public Safety, and more. FCC WTB News Releases - http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html I would also recommend subscribing to the FCC Daily Digest - http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/subscribe.html Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I do not have the link to the proceeding but t is known as 04-186 and a quick Google should get you to it. It is on the FCC.gov website someplace. Anyone have a link to it? The power limits are spelled out there I believe. The public process on 04-186 is complete now. We will have what we have according to that proceeding. It is a good rulemaking for us. I think we should be able to ask for some adaptations in the future which could allow for some protections if we show substantial use of the band for public safety, government, economic development and general good of the public. Most of you guys already do this so it should be easy. For those of you who have not tapped into the killer application of public safety (police cars, firetrucks, civil defense, disaster preparedness, etc.) you need to get with the program. If you become the best friend of the head of your (EOC) Emergency Operations Center for your county then you will have a ticket to do most anything you need to "protect and serve" using good spectrum in your community. I whole heartedly believe this is the path to entrenching us into the fabric of communications from now on in our service areas. Cheers, Scriv Dylan Oliver wrote: Has there been any word on what the power limitations in the whitespace band will be? Or is this up to the FCC when the bills pass? I wish the band was WISP-only, and registered like 3650 to keep things proper. Thanks, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
I do not have the link to the proceeding but t is known as 04-186 and a quick Google should get you to it. It is on the FCC.gov website someplace. Anyone have a link to it? The power limits are spelled out there I believe. The public process on 04-186 is complete now. We will have what we have according to that proceeding. It is a good rulemaking for us. I think we should be able to ask for some adaptations in the future which could allow for some protections if we show substantial use of the band for public safety, government, economic development and general good of the public. Most of you guys already do this so it should be easy. For those of you who have not tapped into the killer application of public safety (police cars, firetrucks, civil defense, disaster preparedness, etc.) you need to get with the program. If you become the best friend of the head of your (EOC) Emergency Operations Center for your county then you will have a ticket to do most anything you need to "protect and serve" using good spectrum in your community. I whole heartedly believe this is the path to entrenching us into the fabric of communications from now on in our service areas. Cheers, Scriv Dylan Oliver wrote: Has there been any word on what the power limitations in the whitespace band will be? Or is this up to the FCC when the bills pass? I wish the band was WISP-only, and registered like 3650 to keep things proper. Thanks, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
Has there been any word on what the power limitations in the whitespace band will be? Or is this up to the FCC when the bills pass? I wish the band was WISP-only, and registered like 3650 to keep things proper. Thanks, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
Thanks for the link, it seemed kind of strange why that little slice of 6 MHz was left out. John >-Original Message- >From: Dawn DiPietro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2006 06:43 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum] > >All, > >I guess at this point I am at a loss of words. The original press >release with contact info was posted in my first email. >Did the contact person at the TIA ever get back to you about the press >release? What should be done in the future >to avoid a situation like this? > >I was under the impression there were people on this list to make >corrections when the media passes on misinformation. >We do need to thank Frannie for clearing this up. > >Below is a link to explain why 608-614 Mhz spectrum cannot be used for >wireless broadband. >http://www.medical.philips.com/us/products/patient_monitoring/products/philips_telemetry_system/index.html > > "Philips Telemetry System (608-614 MHz) >Fresh capabilities for our proven system (operating at >608-614 MHz) >Philips classic telemetry systems are installed in >thousands of healthcare facilities around the world, and they have >proven both >durable and adaptable for over a decade. Upgraded >transmitters combine standard and EASI derived 12-lead ECG* monitoring >on a single device, run on AA batteries, and provide >audio feedback for many tasks. They’re also upgradeable to run on our >cellular >telemetry system." > >Apologies to all, >Dawn DiPietro > >John Scrivner wrote: > >> We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was >> wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for >> ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong >> with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am >> sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose >> of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. >> Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press >> outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to >> SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but >> apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on >> this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again >> send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the >> ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very >> sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. >> Scriv >> >> >> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES >> >> Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced >> >> the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on >> >> * >> >> A BILL >> >> * >> >> To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and >> >> expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and >> >> other areas, and for other purposes. >> >> // >> >> /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / >> >> // >> >> /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, >> >> ** >> >> *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * >> >> This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband >> >> for Communities Act’’. >> >> 2 >> >> ** >> >> *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * >> >> ** >> >> *FOR WIRELESS USE. * >> >> Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 >> >> (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end >> >> the following: >> >> ** >> >> *‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * >> >> ** >> >> *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. * >> >> ‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the >> >> band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other >> >> than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega- >> >> Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in- >> >> cluding wireless broadband devices.’’. >> >> ** >> >> *SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. * >> >> Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this >> >> Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall— >> >> (1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in >> >> ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate >> >> the robust and efficient use of the spectr
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
It is a little strange to have a few MHz be left out, but with that range, who cares? This will make for some very cool possibilities... John >-Original Message- >From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, April 7, 2006 09:24 PM >To: wireless@wispa.org >Subject: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum] > >We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was >wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL >tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with >that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for >the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill. >Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro, >can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent >out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If >you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much >help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a >valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to >all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what >he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. >Please forgive me. >Scriv > > >IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES > >Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced > >the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on > >* > >A BILL > >* > >To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and > >expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and > >other areas, and for other purposes. > >// > >/Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / > >// > >/tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, > >** > >*SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * > >This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband > >for Communities Act’’. > >2 > >** > >*SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * > >** > >*FOR WIRELESS USE. * > >Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 > >(47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end > >the following: > >** > >*‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * > >** > >*MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. * > >‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the > >band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other > >than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega- > >Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in- > >cluding wireless broadband devices.’’. > >** > >*SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. * > >Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this > >Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall— > >(1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in > >ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate > >the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made > >available under section 342 of the Communications > >Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices, > >including wireless broadband devices; and > >(2) establish rules and procedures to— > >(A) protect incumbent licensed services, in- > >cluding broadcast television and public safety > >equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses > >3 > >from harmful interference from such unlicensed > >devices; > >(B) address complaints from licensed > >broadcast stations that an unlicensed device > >using such spectrum causes harmful inter- > >ference that include verification, in the field, of > >actual harmful interference; > >(C) require manufacturers of unlicensed > >devices designed to be operated in this spectrum > >to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy > >actual harmful interference to the extent that > >harmful interference is found by the Commis- > >sion which may include disabling or modifying > >the unlicensed device remotely; and > >(D) require certification of unlicensed de- > >vices designed to be operated in that spectrum > >to ensure that they meet the technical criteria > >established under paragraph (1) and can per- > >form the functions described in subparagraph > >(C). > >March 31, 2006 (3:22 PM) > > > >*From:* John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >*Sent:* Fri 07/04/2006 15:07 >*To:* Frannie Wellings >*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum > >I need a copy of this bill right away. >Scriv > > >Frannie Wellings wrote: > > > Hey John, > > > > The Inslee bill is a good bill - it doesn't do what you're saying > &g
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
Rick and All, I agree. Thank you to everyone that has helped put this whole organization together and stuck it out even when the membership and lists get restless and cranky. ;-) Regards, Dawn DiPietro On 4/8/06, Rick Harnish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll tell all of the wispa list members something. JOHN SCRIVNER is on of > the best allies any of us have. His untiring devotion to the WISP industry > is amazing. MARLON SHAFER also has but endless hours of volunteer time into > this effort. These two gentlemen deserve a standing ovation from around the > country. > > I have been relatively absent from the list the last few months building new > systems and rebuilding old systems. I owed my staff, my business and my > customers some time dedicated to them. Hopefully, I can start getting more > involved again to help stimulate this legislation. > > Thanks to all who have sent letters and commented on this legislation. Lets > all keep it up. > > Regards, > > Rick Harnish > President > OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. > 260-827-2482 Office > 260-307-4000 Cell > 260-918-4340 VoIP > www.oibw.net > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Scrivner > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:58 AM > To: WISPA General List > Cc: Frannie Wellings > Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum] > > Thanks Dawn. I was in a bit of a panic when I asked for the contact info > for the fist press release. I went back and re-read your post after that > and contacted the TIA press agent directly. I copied this list on that > message asking for them to correct the information. > Thanks all and so sorry, > Scriv > > > Dawn DiPietro wrote: > > > All, > > > > I guess at this point I am at a loss of words. The original press > > release with contact info was posted in my first email. > > Did the contact person at the TIA ever get back to you about the press > > release? What should be done in the future > > to avoid a situation like this? > > > > I was under the impression there were people on this list to make > > corrections when the media passes on misinformation. > > We do need to thank Frannie for clearing this up. > > > > Below is a link to explain why 608-614 Mhz spectrum cannot be used for > > wireless broadband. > > > http://www.medical.philips.com/us/products/patient_monitoring/products/phili > ps_telemetry_system/index.html > > > > > > "Philips Telemetry System (608-614 MHz) > >Fresh capabilities for our proven system (operating at > > 608-614 MHz) > >Philips classic telemetry systems are installed in > > thousands of healthcare facilities around the world, and they have > > proven both > >durable and adaptable for over a decade. Upgraded > > transmitters combine standard and EASI derived 12-lead ECG* monitoring > >on a single device, run on AA batteries, and provide > > audio feedback for many tasks. They're also upgradeable to run on our > > cellular > >telemetry system." > > > > Apologies to all, > > Dawn DiPietro > > > > John Scrivner wrote: > > > >> We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was > >> wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for > >> ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is > >> wrong with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I > >> am sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the > >> purpose of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have > >> happened. Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information > >> on the press outlet that sent out the previous information? It is > >> time for us to SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let > >> me know but apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the > >> wrong position on this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I > >> will never again send out any notices to all of you for action prior > >> to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. > >> I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. > >> Scriv > >> > >> > >> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES > >> > >> Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced > >> > >> the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on > >&g
RE: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
I'll tell all of the wispa list members something. JOHN SCRIVNER is on of the best allies any of us have. His untiring devotion to the WISP industry is amazing. MARLON SHAFER also has but endless hours of volunteer time into this effort. These two gentlemen deserve a standing ovation from around the country. I have been relatively absent from the list the last few months building new systems and rebuilding old systems. I owed my staff, my business and my customers some time dedicated to them. Hopefully, I can start getting more involved again to help stimulate this legislation. Thanks to all who have sent letters and commented on this legislation. Lets all keep it up. Regards, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:58 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: Frannie Wellings Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum] Thanks Dawn. I was in a bit of a panic when I asked for the contact info for the fist press release. I went back and re-read your post after that and contacted the TIA press agent directly. I copied this list on that message asking for them to correct the information. Thanks all and so sorry, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: > All, > > I guess at this point I am at a loss of words. The original press > release with contact info was posted in my first email. > Did the contact person at the TIA ever get back to you about the press > release? What should be done in the future > to avoid a situation like this? > > I was under the impression there were people on this list to make > corrections when the media passes on misinformation. > We do need to thank Frannie for clearing this up. > > Below is a link to explain why 608-614 Mhz spectrum cannot be used for > wireless broadband. > http://www.medical.philips.com/us/products/patient_monitoring/products/phili ps_telemetry_system/index.html > > > "Philips Telemetry System (608-614 MHz) >Fresh capabilities for our proven system (operating at > 608-614 MHz) >Philips classic telemetry systems are installed in > thousands of healthcare facilities around the world, and they have > proven both >durable and adaptable for over a decade. Upgraded > transmitters combine standard and EASI derived 12-lead ECG* monitoring >on a single device, run on AA batteries, and provide > audio feedback for many tasks. They're also upgradeable to run on our > cellular >telemetry system." > > Apologies to all, > Dawn DiPietro > > John Scrivner wrote: > >> We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was >> wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for >> ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is >> wrong with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I >> am sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the >> purpose of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have >> happened. Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information >> on the press outlet that sent out the previous information? It is >> time for us to SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let >> me know but apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the >> wrong position on this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I >> will never again send out any notices to all of you for action prior >> to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. >> I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. >> Scriv >> >> >> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES >> >> Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced >> >> the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on >> >> * >> >> A BILL >> >> * >> >> To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and >> >> expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and >> >> other areas, and for other purposes. >> >> // >> >> /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / >> >> // >> >> /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, >> >> ** >> >> *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * >> >> This Act may be cited as the ''American Broadband >> >> for Communities Act''. >> >> 2 >> >> ** >> >> *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
de- vices designed to be operated in that spectrum to ensure that they meet the technical criteria established under paragraph (1) and can per- form the functions described in subparagraph (C). March 31, 2006 (3:22 PM) *From:* John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Fri 07/04/2006 15:07 *To:* Frannie Wellings *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum I need a copy of this bill right away. Scriv Frannie Wellings wrote: > Hey John, > > The Inslee bill is a good bill - it doesn't do what you're saying > here. I'm not sure what you've read, but it opens up spectrum between > 54-698 MHz (except 608-614) for unlicensed use just like one of the > Senate bills. He's introduced it as a House companion bill. The only > difference is a bit of additional language about protection from > interference. > > This is legislation we need to support. Can you review the bill and > get back to me? If you don't have the text I can send it over. I'm out > of town, but could get a copy to send to you. > > Best, Frannie > > > --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Fri 07/04/2006 15:07 *To:* Frannie Wellings *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum I need a copy of this bill right away. Scriv Frannie Wellings wrote: > Hey John, > > The Inslee bill is a good bill - it doesn't do what you're saying > here. I'm not sure what you've read, but it opens up spectrum between > 54-698 MHz (except 608-614) for unlicensed use just like one of the > Senate bills. He's introduced it as a House companion bill. The only > difference is a bit of additional language about protection from > interference. > > This is legislation we need to support. Can you review the bill and > get back to me? If you don't have the text I can send it over. I'm out > of town, but could get a copy to send to you. > > Best, Frannie > > > --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
22 PM) *From:* John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Fri 07/04/2006 15:07 *To:* Frannie Wellings *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum I need a copy of this bill right away. Scriv Frannie Wellings wrote: > Hey John, > > The Inslee bill is a good bill - it doesn't do what you're saying > here. I'm not sure what you've read, but it opens up spectrum between > 54-698 MHz (except 608-614) for unlicensed use just like one of the > Senate bills. He's introduced it as a House companion bill. The only > difference is a bit of additional language about protection from > interference. > > This is legislation we need to support. Can you review the bill and > get back to me? If you don't have the text I can send it over. I'm out > of town, but could get a copy to send to you. > > Best, Frannie > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. Scriv IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on * A BILL * To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and other areas, and for other purposes. // /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / // /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, ** *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband for Communities Act’’. 2 ** *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * ** *FOR WIRELESS USE. * Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ** *‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * ** *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. * ‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega- Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in- cluding wireless broadband devices.’’. ** *SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. * Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall— (1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made available under section 342 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices, including wireless broadband devices; and (2) establish rules and procedures to— (A) protect incumbent licensed services, in- cluding broadcast television and public safety equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses 3 from harmful interference from such unlicensed devices; (B) address complaints from licensed broadcast stations that an unlicensed device using such spectrum causes harmful inter- ference that include verification, in the field, of actual harmful interference; (C) require manufacturers of unlicensed devices designed to be operated in this spectrum to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy actual harmful interference to the extent that harmful interference is found by the Commis- sion which may include disabling or modifying the unlicensed device remotely; and (D) require certification of unlicensed de- vices designed to be operated in that spectrum to ensure that they meet the technical criteria established under paragraph (1) and can per- form the functions described in subparagraph (C). March 31, 2006 (3:22 PM) *From:* John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Fri 07/04/2006 15:07 *To:* Frannie Wellings *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum I need a copy of this bill right away. Scriv Frannie Wellings wrote: > Hey John, > > The Inslee bill is a good bill - it doesn't do what you're saying > here. I'm not sure what you've read, but it opens up spectrum between > 54-698 MHz (except 608-614) for unlicensed use just like one of the > Senate bills. He's introduced it as a House companion bill. The only > difference is a bit of additional language about protection from > interference. > > This is legislation we need to support. Can you review the bill and > get back to me? If you don't have the text I can send it over. I'm out > of town, but could get a copy to send to you. > > Best, Frannie > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
I sent a similar message to Rep. Joe Schwarz of Michigan. The URL worked for me.>-Original Message->From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2006 11:09 AM>To: 'WISPA General List'>Cc: 'Frannie Wellings'>Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum>>Here is the text of the message I sent to Honorable John Shimkus of >Illinois:>>The current House Spectrum Bill brought forth by Inslee and others to >give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help Americans gain >access to broadband options and could even be regarded as a slap in the >face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum needed to do the >job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation >being introduced by the Senate Commerce Committee at all and could lead >to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the >masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the Telephone Industry >Association has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding >our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed >spectrum which acts as a means of keeping multiple competitors out of >the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing >offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as >outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table >to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having >too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress.>>This bill is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the >desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and wonder why you >even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer.>>The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the >unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking >which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with >passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help >the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband >use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of >understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and >under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot >receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give >them broadband.>>A single 6 MHz channel as proposed in the House Spectrum Bill is not a >true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without several >channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel forces >providers to either segment the single channel into minuscule sizes >delivering substandard speeds or face almost certain interference as >multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz channel space would >interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators doing the same. In >short this is not worthy of consideration and should be scrapped.>>The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass >legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which >will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage >of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory >if we are to truly close the "Digital Divide" which is now wider than >ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem >is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private >enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the >thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the >necessary spectrum to bring their citizens the broadband they are >begging to receive.>>Honorable John Shimkus, as representative of our mainly rural district >in Illinois, I am begging you to please consider drafting and submitting >a competing bill to the House which will task the FCC with finishing >what they started and passing the 04-186 rulemaking which is the path to >universal access to low-cost broadband opportunity for all Americans.>>I will gladly buy a plane ticket and come to Washington to speak in >person on this important issue if you so desire. Please act quickly so >we may see the promise of broadband to all Americans soon. Tasking the >FCC to pass 04-186 would do more to stimulate broadband availability >than anything ever proposed by our legislature. Please take the lead in >this important endeavor and let's give rural citizens equal access to >the Digital American Dream. Say NO to the current House Spectrum Bill >and submit a competing proposal that has a chance to do some good.>Respectfully,>John Scrivner>>-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Thanks Jack. I am reasonably sure that your number 2 assumption is on the mark. I used the "slap in the face" statement to illustrate the emotional impact these issues have on me and thousands of others who tell 60% of potential customers each day that they cannot get their broadband because Uncle Sam refuses to give us the spectrum we need to bring them broadband. This borders on outright lunacy. If the House lawmakers wanted to do some good they would have at least read what their Senate counterparts were proposing and saw that undoing the FCC hold-up of the 04-186 rulemaking is the key to the entire effort. Any other sideline efforts such as the House Spectrum Bill are simply ways of tripping up the process and further slowing the wheels of real progress. I am appalled that my own Representative, John Shimkus, who serves on the House Telecommunications Subcommittee has never once even called me for some feedback into what is really happening. I have called him asking for support more than once and I even personally went to his Washington D.C. office once and delivered papers outlining these efforts.. I see more and more why there is so much cynicism about politics today. If I were a Congressman I would admit freely and openly if I did not understand the nuances of a given subject. After all none of us know everything. Most Congressman appear to me to be unable to make that leap and ask for real guidance and try to understand what is at stake in their decision making. It is not enough for politicians to hide behind the rhetoric and be led by cash driven lobbying efforts which direct them like lemmings. The lack of objectivity and rational thinking in D.C. boggles the mind at times. With that said I am sure that telling the House they are "Slapping us in the face" may be a bit harsh. Maybe they need to hear harsh though if they cannot see what is really happening. If I were drafting a bill I think I would certainly learn what is at stake and what is being played out in the Senate before being part of a crippled effort like that of this House Spectrum Bill. Thanks for listening to my rant. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: John, Yours is an articulate, well written summary. Although some WISPs may feel "slapped in the face", politics (law-making) is, as we know, not about face-slapping. Politics is about making laws that bring specific benefits to specific (large or small) groups of people. I expect the 6 MHz of proposed spectrum is either 1 or 2, below: 1. A sincere attempt to provide more license-free spectrum and to bring affordable broadband access to large numbers of rural citizens, proposed by lawmakers who are TECHNICALLY UNEDUCATED about how "x" amount of spectrum is needed to deliver "y" amount of broadband throughput to serve "z" number of citizens. 2. An sincere attempt on the part of TECHNOLOGY-SAVVY lawmakers to improve the business power and dominant political-economic position of the monopolistic telecom industry while ordinary citizens are "on their own" to cope with the consequences. Thank you for your write-up. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: John, Well said. I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face. I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk full for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in critiquing Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a lot with 30 Mhz, although tough. But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help Americans. New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/re
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
John, Yours is an articulate, well written summary. Although some WISPs may feel "slapped in the face", politics (law-making) is, as we know, not about face-slapping. Politics is about making laws that bring specific benefits to specific (large or small) groups of people. I expect the 6 MHz of proposed spectrum is either 1 or 2, below: 1. A sincere attempt to provide more license-free spectrum and to bring affordable broadband access to large numbers of rural citizens, proposed by lawmakers who are TECHNICALLY UNEDUCATED about how "x" amount of spectrum is needed to deliver "y" amount of broadband throughput to serve "z" number of citizens. 2. An sincere attempt on the part of TECHNOLOGY-SAVVY lawmakers to improve the business power and dominant political-economic position of the monopolistic telecom industry while ordinary citizens are "on their own" to cope with the consequences. Thank you for your write-up. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: John, Well said. I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face. I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk full for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in critiquing Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a lot with 30 Mhz, although tough. But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help Americans. New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ My thoughts: The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by the Senate at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the TIA has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed spectrum which acts as a means of keeping competitors out of the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress. If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and let them know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. This is terrible news and we need to act quickly. The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel is not a true effort to help and is insulting to the public. W
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
John, Well said. I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face. I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk full for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in critiquing Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a lot with 30 Mhz, although tough. But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help Americans. New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ My thoughts: The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by the Senate at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the TIA has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed spectrum which acts as a means of keeping competitors out of the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress. If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and let them know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. This is terrible news and we need to act quickly. The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel is not a true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel forces providers to either segment the single channel into minuscule sizes delivering substandard speeds or face almost certain interference as multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz channel space would interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators doing the same. In short this is not worthy of consideration and should be scrapped. The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory if we are to truly close the "Digital Divide" which is now wider than ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who ser
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Here is the text of the message I sent to Honorable John Shimkus of Illinois: The current House Spectrum Bill brought forth by Inslee and others to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help Americans gain access to broadband options and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum needed to do the job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by the Senate Commerce Committee at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the Telephone Industry Association has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed spectrum which acts as a means of keeping multiple competitors out of the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress. This bill is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel as proposed in the House Spectrum Bill is not a true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel forces providers to either segment the single channel into minuscule sizes delivering substandard speeds or face almost certain interference as multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz channel space would interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators doing the same. In short this is not worthy of consideration and should be scrapped. The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory if we are to truly close the "Digital Divide" which is now wider than ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the necessary spectrum to bring their citizens the broadband they are begging to receive. Honorable John Shimkus, as representative of our mainly rural district in Illinois, I am begging you to please consider drafting and submitting a competing bill to the House which will task the FCC with finishing what they started and passing the 04-186 rulemaking which is the path to universal access to low-cost broadband opportunity for all Americans. I will gladly buy a plane ticket and come to Washington to speak in person on this important issue if you so desire. Please act quickly so we may see the promise of broadband to all Americans soon. Tasking the FCC to pass 04-186 would do more to stimulate broadband availability than anything ever proposed by our legislature. Please take the lead in this important endeavor and let's give rural citizens equal access to the Digital American Dream. Say NO to the current House Spectrum Bill and submit a competing proposal that has a chance to do some good. Respectfully, John Scrivner -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Yep, I just used it to write my representative. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Dawn DiPietro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: WISPA General List Sent: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:20:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum > Mario, > > It worked for me. > > Regards, > Dawn > > Mario Pommier wrote: > > > just fyi, that link doesn't find anything. > > > > M > > > > John Scrivner wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to > >> http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The > >> site will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in > >> the states where this laughable legislation originated you need to > >> speak out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of > >> Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not > >> going to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that > >> this is not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger > >> amount of quality spectrum. So please go now and make this happen, > >> right now, in the next 10 minutes. > >> Scriv > >> > >> > >> Dawn DiPietro wrote: > >> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may > >>> affect the wireless industry? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Dawn > >>> --- > >>> --- > >>> > > --- > > [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] > > > > --- > --- > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- End of Original Message --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Mario, It worked for me. Regards, Dawn Mario Pommier wrote: just fyi, that link doesn't find anything. M John Scrivner wrote: Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The site will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in the states where this laughable legislation originated you need to speak out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not going to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that this is not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger amount of quality spectrum. So please go now and make this happen, right now, in the next 10 minutes. Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may affect the wireless industry? Regards, Dawn --- --- --- [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
just fyi, that link doesn't find anything. M John Scrivner wrote: Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The site will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in the states where this laughable legislation originated you need to speak out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not going to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that this is not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger amount of quality spectrum. So please go now and make this happen, right now, in the next 10 minutes. Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may affect the wireless industry? Regards, Dawn --- --- --- [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help Americans. New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ My thoughts: The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by the Senate at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the TIA has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed spectrum which acts as a means of keeping competitors out of the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress. If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and let them know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. This is terrible news and we need to act quickly. The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel is not a true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel forces providers to either segment the single channel into minuscule sizes delivering substandard speeds or face almost certain interference as multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz channel space would interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators doing the same. In short this is not worthy of consideration and should be scrapped. The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory if we are to truly close the "Digital Divide" which is now wider than ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the necessary spectrum to bring their citizens the broadband they are begging to receive. Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The site will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in the states where this laughable legislation originated you need to speak out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not going to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that this is not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger amount of q
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Not at 6 mhz of spectrum only. Where did the rest of it go? WISPs need atleast 30 Mhz. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" ; Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:16 AM Subject: [WISPA] TV spectrum All, Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may affect the wireless industry? New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ Original press release below; http://www.tiaonline.org/business/media/press_releases/2006/PR06-31.cfm Regards, Dawn --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
