Kieren has never met a ISP he likes but it’s amusing anyway: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/29/ff_orielly_rant/ <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/29/ff_orielly_rant/>
Mark > On Oct 31, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > > Chuck, where in this document do you see a threat to the First Amendment: > https://epb.com/storage/app/media/uploaded-files/Residential%20Terms%20and%20Conditions.pdf > > <https://epb.com/storage/app/media/uploaded-files/Residential%20Terms%20and%20Conditions.pdf> > > It looks like ours or any other ISP AUP/TOS document as far as I can see. > > There are many muni broadband horror stories, I don’t know why he decided to > pick on one that is generally considered one of the success stories. > Probably because AT&T had opposed EPB (which is the power company in > Chattanooga) expanding beyond town. I suspect a power company branching out > into broadband fiber probably has a much higher probability of success than > some town that says let’s become an ISP, how hard can it be. And in this > case, EPB was already a FTTH operator offering gigabit service, they just > wanted to expand their footprint. > > I don’t like muni broadband either, especially if it pushes out existing > ISPs, and potentially leaves the citizens or bondholders on the hook for an > expensive adventure that ends up failing. But I think the First Amendment > approach is the wrong one, especially for the federal government to say that > your local government is going to censor you, as if the feds would never do > that. And picking Chattanooga as the example of this alleged problem, shows > he is just a shill for AT&T. > > I’m also not sure I like the trend toward every level of government trying to > pre-empt the levels below them. The states want to outlaw local government > making decisions (foolhardy or not), and the feds want to outlaw the states > doing things. This seems contrary to the Tenth Amendment, and I thought > Republicans were big supporters of states rights. > > It also seems strange they have no problem with municipalities providing > water, collecting garbage, plowing snow, or providing police and fire > services. I guess those don’t bother some big corporation like AT&T. > > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf > Of Mark Radabaugh > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:00 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS > > I’m not a huge fan of muni broadband for some of the reasons you cite. I > was just amazed that he is all for free speech when it meets his goals and > then completely against it another circumstance. > > Mark > > >> On Oct 31, 2018, at 3:53 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >> I actually agreed with the muni wireless and free speech issue. He cited >> exact language in the AUPs. Hate speech is hard to define and muni’s should >> not have that in their AUPs in my opinion. I also liked that he didn’t >> think munis should be able to compete with private sector. >> >> I am only a socialist when it serves my purposes, at all other times I am a >> libertarian... >> >> From: Mark Radabaugh >> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:49 PM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS >> >> 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 >>> <mailto: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 <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 <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
