They specifically stated they didn't want it for macro use when this band first came up.
The discussion has been on the members list, but it was months ago when the proposed rules first came out. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:05:15 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CBRS license cost Sorry, is the discussion over on a specific list, or am I just forgetting? My memory span tends to be short compared to FCC timeframe. Can you expand on why you don’t expect to see this in use significantly outside of venues? I understand that reasoning for 5 GHz, not sure why carriers would not be interested in 30 MHz of additional spectrum everywhere, even if dynamically assigned by a SAS. Especially if they can get priority access which kind of smells like exclusive license and low interference. OK, looking here: http://www.commlawblog.com/tags/35503650-mhz/ I see that PALs would be limited to 30 MHz and 5 years, and as you say, 50 MHz would stay unlicensed. It also says the SAS would dictate power limits which would presumably be lower near census tract boundaries similar to EBS. That would seem to encourage acquiring PALs adjacent to your area so that you can run full power. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:31 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CBRS license cost Each entity can only get 3 licenses, 50 MHz has to remain unlicensed. Ken, I know you've seen the WISPA discussions on this. I don't expect to see this significantly in use outside of venues... small cell stuff. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:26:50 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CBRS license cost That's kind of disappointing. Do you know what mechanisms they plan on putting in place to keep the big carriers from just snapping it all up and warehousing it? I guess that would still mean we could use it as general access as long as they are just squatting on it and not deploying anything in our census tracts, but I have to suspect the cost to outbid us on every license would not be a show stopper for companies used to bidding billions on spectrum auctions. Making the PALs specific to census tract and year might discourage it a little. It says licensees will be able to aggregate across time, frequency, geography, I wonder how many years out they will let you bid on. And whether current licensee gets first right of refusal on extending the time. If everything gets re-auctioned in a year or two, that might discourage bidding on spectrum if you don't intend to use it. -----Original Message----- From: Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 11:43 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CBRS license cost Its going to auction Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr On 1/21/15, 1:41 PM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-148 > >I'm going to need some of that extra 100mhz in the near future. > >Does anyone happen to know what the license cost will be for either the >general or priority tiers? > >Does the FCC even know yet? > >Better yet....when will we be able to buy a license?
