The problem is that I do not like plans that require the payment of money in
advance of collection of money for service provided.
So allthough paying a fee per AP site, may very well be one of the only
reasonable ways to successfully develop a solution, I'd prefer there to be a
solution that is paid for by all not just me. Its not just WISPs that use
unlicensed. So why should it only be Wireless ISPs that pay for the
spectrum, without protections? I'm supportive of a per AP licensing FEE, if
the spectrum is allocated to WISPs. However, it is not likely to be. It will
most likely be allocated to unlicensed in general. Able to be used by SCADA,
Pagers, Home users, Corporations, Extended length Home cordless phones, etc.
What about PtPs that don;t have a cell site or AP? In order for WISPs to
pay, we need a unique advantage justifying why we are paying and others
aren't. For example, if we are given higher power levels for outdoor use,
that could justify it.
I don;t mind footing the bill for what I is given to us, I just don't want
to foot the bill for what is given to everyone else. Unlicensed means
usable by everyone, for any purpose. I'm not apposed to partial license
fees, sorta like 3650M, but with small fees.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Good news and bad news today
I think you and I said the same thing with one exception. Due to difficulty
in tracking per user per megahertz I think it would be simpler to just have
a per base station fee. The fee could be scaled by the amount (Mhz) of
spectrum used in the base station. This would only be for new spectrum and
would not be for unlicensed spectrum. This is a carrot that could well
justify WISPs getting some usable spectrum with higher power and some
spectrum rights. Congress will not likely just give away more spectrum
without having some way of creating some revenue stream from it. This does
not mean I support taxation. I am trying to find a compromise we can all
live with while producing some value for WISPs.
Scriv
Tom DeReggi wrote:
First, the rcrnews feed is meaningless. It lacked all detail and clarity,
to understand what it meant.
Second, It is impairative that existing Unlicensed Spectrum NEVER get
taxed, and that users and providers of it, NEVER get taxed.
Unlicensed spectrum belongs to the people. Whn I charge a client I don;t
charge them for spectrum use, I charge them to cover all my other costs
(Roof rental, staff, support, etc). I'm charging for services not
spectrum.
Third, If Taxed, its important that the tax not only be to providers of
AP and the service. The reason is that there are not enough providers of
APs that it will have any meaningful impact on dollars raised for the
governement, UNLESS we are taxed heavy. And we don;t want that. If a tax
on unlicensed were to happen, we'd want the tax to get charged to Radio
manufacturers based on number of radios made. The reason is that consumer
home devices are what are sold in MASS quantity, and a tax per device
sold, would allow the governemnt to get the largest volume of tax, and
most profit, at the least impact to a single indiviudal. It would allow
the lowest tax per user, because the largest dominant group of users
would be included. The idea is that we do not want WISPs to be the one
that take all the burden. It will likely put us out of business if we had
to, and we would be the ones most hurt if we were targeted.
Fourth, I am NOT apposed to creating a per user tax for NEWLY allocated
spectrum for our industry. The governement is unlikely to allocate
spectrum to us because the billions they can auction it for. If the
governement gave up the auctioned revenue, in favor of giving it to us
(investing/financing us) it would be appropriate to allow the governemtn
to put a plan in place for compensation. A per user tax, is a way that
ALL provider could have the right to play in the game, and only pay an
amount proportional to the number of subscribers they had paying revenue.
However, there is a big problem in taxing per user. Its that spectrum
usage does not match customer size, in most cases. If one company decided
to use all 6 channels for one customer, their tax payment would be much
less than than a large number of users sharing a single channel. What
they could do is tax providers/users, based on per Mhz in a spectrum
range allocated, and per timeslice transmitted. So instead of charging
per user, it could be charged per MB of through put. Use more, pay more.
However, that would be IMPOSSIBLE to track, prove, and inforce.
Its important to distinguish the fine print in legislation that would
allow for taxing unlicensed in general apposed to taxing or charging per
user of new spectrum that is allocated.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Blair Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List"
<wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Good news and bad news today
Now we know why they want the 477 forms.....
Brian Webster wrote:
Well, it does not surprise me that the government has decided to tax
the
unlicensed spectrum. Today the Bush administration announced a plan to
tax
Wi-Fi and other unlicensed spectrum. It is not clear how they will do
it yet
but the process is in motion. That's the bad news, the good news is
they
reached agreement on the 5.4 GHz spectrum and that should become
available
once equipment gets certified. Check the RCR news site for the full
stories.
Oh well, I suspected that it would not last forever the truly free use
of
the spectrum.
http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=25545
http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=25539
Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
Free World Dialup #481416
--
Blair Davis
AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240
West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648
A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC
--
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/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
