Well below is the copy of the apologies I sent to my congressman. I'm
posting it here to just give everyone some cut and paste materials NOT
to admonish Mr. Scrivner. You acted with best intentions at heart and
are obviously passionate about this industry. Thank you for your
initiative because I likely would not have know about this legislation
until it was to late if you would not have posted what you have. Thanks
again, Anthony
Apology sent to congressman,
It seems a previous message I sent earlier this evening was not
accurate. After further investigation on the details of this bill I am
in support of this legislation. I was mistaken in the fact about it
limiting frequency use to 6 MHz but in reality the bill opens up most
spectrum other then those 6 MHz. I apologize for the strong wording in
the previous message. As you likely can tell I am passionate about this
issue for our rural communities and have spent the last 8 years trying
to deliver them the much needed High speed Internet resources they need.
Again I offer my apologizes and understanding of these issues if you
would like to find out more about how this issue impacts farmers, other
rural community members or more about how local small business in MN are
approaching this issue please contact me.
Anthony Will
Broadband Solutions
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 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/
