I see you have made your introduction K. :-) I think you guys will find this lady's enthusiasm toward policy change to be no less than revolutionary. She has an eye toward a complete rework of the FCC (as in destroy it and rebuild governance of spectrum and policy from the ground up) to allow for more progressive spectrum and related policy. I have explained that we are all still attempting a more standard approach to working within the framework of our existing system a little longer before we are ready to start burning the FCC at the stake. While there would be a certain pleasure in seeing the system rebuilt from scratch it would be of little use if it ended up being rebuilt by people who do not care about our needs as an industry. At least some policy bodes well for us now or we would not even be talking here today.

One thing K definitely drives home is a need by our industry to intelligently tell our story and allow for scientific studies and other varied resources to back up our claims. We need support like this. We live in a time where the NAB is creating video propaganda saying unlicensed use of television channels will make grandma's TV stop working. I am not exaggerating. We need some powerful varied input from operators, manufacturers, scientists, universities, related organizations like New America, Part-15 and Media Access, etc. We all have common goals here regarding the need of good quality lower frequency spectrum like unused television channels. We do not want to see the communications status quo of this country destroy innovation and growth of our potential uses for technology, specifically unlicensed wireless broadband in our case, within the United States.

Our industry is one of the last havens for telecommunications innovation that is not tied directly to the RBOCs in this country. We represent the only way for middle class America to own and operate broadband in this country. All the other options require millions to get in the game. We had all better think very hard about what is required of us to stop the erosion of all we have worked for in the last couple of years. With stalled rulings in 3650 and unused television channels it seems obvious that the FCC has an agenda that does include us currently. Indeed I believe we are in a time where RBOCs and other mega-sized interests hold the power within the FCC.

Why do I say this? Well K made something blatantly clear to me. The FCC may be in transition and one could argue they are acting slowly on policy change to gauge the new direction but we did not see any delay from our new FCC when it came to snubbing VOIP with a demand that they have 911 right away. It should not be ignored that the cellular industry was given decades to meet this criteria without demands of compliance while the fledgling VOIP industry has a heavy-handed demand placed on it before the industry even has legs. <sarcasm>I am sure Pulver is just tickled to death </sarcasm>. We need him on this list. Does anyone know him very well? I have met him and I know we are a part of his "tribe".

So K why don't you take a little time to read what you see here and let us know how we can better tell our story or at least do a better job of getting you the raw data you would need to help us get the spectrum we so desperately need to serve America. Those television channels would be a revolution for us. We need at least part of those channels to completely change the face of wireless broadband in this country. We can make it happen. The tools are out there ready to go. We just need the permission from the FCC to jump off the starting line. I thank you K for trying to use your skills to help us all see this goal realized.
John Scrivner

k claffy wrote:

[not reading this list regularly, but tom hit a nerve]:

tom et al

caida (www.caida.org) is an internet data analysis/research organization
whose mission includes informing public policy, aimed toward improving
policy 'toward congruence' with our best empirical (scientifically grounded)
understanding of the relevant technological issues/constraints/parameters.

i am no expert on spectrum policy, but afaict the difference between
having huge effect and having no effect is sufficiently formalized
reporting/analysis of Real World Operational Experiences (this means
you), written in way that will convey to scientists (this means me), as
well as to the public, what happens when technology gets deployed in
reality.  one underutilized option is collaborating with university
researchers to quantitatively document (1) potential deliverables under
various regulatory scenaraios (2) successes and failures under existing
regulatory scenarios.

caida Really wants to help support forward motion here, but we are
desperately lacking hard data.  emergency situations are obviously not
the time to talk about research, but i want to make it clear that if you
still don't have what you want by the time this emergency is over, please
don't underestimate the value of hard data and careful articulation
of the experiences you have had, so that scientists can come in and help
compile them into comprehensive and unassailable demonstrations to their
funding agencies of why change is essential.
i believe the right kind of analyses/reporting could reduce the
length of this fight from 10 years to 2.  (ok, maybe 20 to 4...)

but the research community and the deployment communities are going to have to [find time and resources] to work together. we've never
needed eachother more.


On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:18:55PM -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote:
 "Auction", I hate that evil word.
Really guys, if there is any time to hammer congressional legislators and Home land security personelle, NOW is the time. Before our precious spectrum is auctioned off to the special interets. Auctioning off 700Mhz to a major IELC could be the death of independent rural WISPs. I got an idea, why don't they give the FULL 700Mhz to the 700 ISPs, spread out decentrally across the country, and in trade all 7000 WISPs will give FREE access / priority access to public safety officials as needed. (except public safety buy's their own CPEs). Instantly the staff of 7000 ISPs across the country available for disaster relief. it would be like the Navy reserves but instead the WISP reserves. Basically anyone that is granted a non-exclusive license of 700Mhz must first register as a volunteer emergency communications AID, and conform to guidelines for documenting configuration criteria for the public safety workers. Why not AVOID the whole expendature althogeather for the governement, and still accomplish public safety, when WISP can already donate the service? Better yet, why not jsut grant the public safety budget to WISPs to expand their network, to accommodate public safety needs. Lets see the RUS grant get substituted with the Public safety grant. But auction? I don't see how that could benefit anyone. Communications is a necessary utility, not a luxury to auction off for a special interest. Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
 Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum foremergency responders >Snip/ >Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum for emergency responders >came after Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) >called for Congress to move forward on legislation that would free up >radio spectrum by requiring television stations to switch from analog to >digital broadcasts. A move to digital television (DTV) would free up >spectrum in the upper 700-MHz radio frequency band for commercial and >public safety uses. The FCC has said it would give 24 MHz of that spectrum >to public safety users and auction off 60 MHz for commercial uses. /snip
>I got an idea, why don't they just open it up to wisps all across the >country, let us use ths spectrum for what we are now doing and then in the >event of another disaster, there will already be gear in place to keep >everyone going?
>-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>-- >No virus found in this incoming message.
 >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
 >Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005
-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to