Michael O’Rielly absolutely positively thinks it’s a fantastic idea.
The really scary part is that he thinks it’s better for private industry to own it, since he can’t trust future FCC commissioners. He’s that guy that won’t date a girl that would go out with a guy like him. Mark > On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:06 PM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote: > > " On the other hand, they get rewarded for carrying spectrum as an asset on > their balance sheet." > > This is the most disgusting thing about the American auctioning system right > now. > > Who in their right minds thought it was a good idea to just auction a finite > resource to the highest bidder? Why isn't a use it or lose it system > enforced, or at the very least a system like we will see in CBRS? It all > seems like such a sham that gets propped up continuously. > > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:42 AM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com > <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote: > It’s going to be interesting, I wonder why the carriers would pay anywhere > near the kind of money for CBRS spectrum that they are used to for low and > mid band spectrum, when they can use it for free as GAA. Similar to 5 GHz. > No cost, and opportunistic use for carrier aggregation. > > > > On the other hand, they get rewarded for carrying spectrum as an asset on > their balance sheet. > > > > I’m thinking of a scenario where the auction sets too high a minimum bid, and > they get zero bids. Even 10 cents per MHz-POP might be too high, if it can > be used as GAA at no cost. As long as they have an anchor channel in other > spectrum, CBRS is like icing on the cake, nice but not mission critical, and > possibly not worth paying much money to “own”. > > > > > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf > Of Dave > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:13 AM > To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS > > > > That makes it easier for the carriers to stomp out the little GAA guys :) > > > On 10/31/18 9:50 AM, Joe Novak wrote: > > I think it's more likely that they will have a licensed anchor channel and > only aggregate 3.65 in the downlink, using different frequencies for uplink. > Carrier aggregation is a whole different game of spectrum usage. > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 9:38 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com > <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > One thing that was unfortunate about the NN license was that mobile > stations had a stupid low Tx power limit. Basically mobile wasn't viable. > > Is CBRS going to have that type of restriction? > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > > > > > -- > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > <image001.jpg>-- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
