I must not be on the members list anymore, I can't recall seeing anything on this.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > 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 > > ------------------------------ > *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 <af...@ics-il.net> > *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 > > ------------------------------ > *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? > > > > >
