Oh, it’s even better. In the same speech where he was railing against municipal broadband on free speech grounds he was also busy bragging about how tough the FCC is being on those dastardly free speech pirate radio stations. Because, you know, pirate radio is obviously the lowest of the scofflaws. How dare someone use a FM transmitter without a license! The FCC has managed to take a whole slew of incredibly dangerous pastors broadcasting sermons off the air.
Mark > On Oct 31, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > > True. The Pai FCC and the Trump Administration in general seems dedicated to > leaving a legacy that can’t easily be undone. Like selling spectrum, or > appointing Supreme Court Justices. They probably see Wheeler as a fool whose > accomplishments could be undone with the stroke of a pen, and Obama much the > same. I’m not being political, and I guess you have to give them credit for > understanding how the game is played. If you want a legacy that lasts longer > than the next election, you have to build it with bricks not straw. > > BTW, did you see where O’Rielly argued that muni broadband, promoted by the > evil Wheeler, presented a “particularly ominous threat to the First > Amendment”, citing TOS language against hate speech and threats. > > https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354770A1.pdf > <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354770A1.pdf> > > https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bj49j8/fcc-falsely-claims-community-broadband-an-ominous-threat-to-the-first-amendment > > <https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bj49j8/fcc-falsely-claims-community-broadband-an-ominous-threat-to-the-first-amendment> > > > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf > Of Mark Radabaugh > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:47 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS > > 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 >> <mailto: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 <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>
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
