Got it, thanks. On Saturday, March 28, 2015, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
> No, that’s not what incumbent means in this case. It means federal > radar and grandfathered satellite earth stations. Same thing as when you > are currently registering a 3650 location, if it falls within a protected > area around an earth station, you need their permission. > http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-148 > > > *From:* Jason McKemie > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com');> > *Sent:* Saturday, March 28, 2015 10:25 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC will vote next month on plan to share valuable > 3.5GHz spectrum | PCWorld > > Is incumbent access like homesteading? If so, what are the requirements? > Suggested reading? I'm a bit concerned, as an incompetent operator around > here is all over this band and really just thinks it belongs to them - not > good news if it actually soon will. > > On Saturday, March 28, 2015, Chuck Hogg <ch...@shelbybb.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ch...@shelbybb.com');>> wrote: > >> Steve posted this to the WISPA Members list... >> >> I think that issue has already been decided. From what I hear (from a >> very good source), the FCC will adopt rules for the 3550-3700 MHz band that >> will incorporate, by and large, the three-tier regulatory scheme (Incumbent >> Access, Priority Access and General Authorized Access (GAA)) with short >> term Priority Access Licenses (PALs). There will be no PALs in the >> 3650-3700 MHz band, which will be GAA only, to prevent carriers from >> bidding on these areas and harming existing users. Non-exclusive access to >> 3650-3700 MHz spectrum will be through the automated Spectrum Access System >> (SAS). >> >> >> >> Unless things change, the FCC will adopt the rules and the further notice >> of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) at the April 17 meeting. Not sure about >> this, but I am guessing that the FNPRM will ask for comment on (1) NTIA’s >> proposal regarding the size of exclusion zones per its ex parte letter >> filed earlier this week, (2) competitive bidding procedures for PALs, >> and/or (3) SAS requirements. >> >> >> >> We will try to learn more in the next few weeks, and will also look to >> emphasize WISPA’s positions. >> >> >> Regards, >> Chuck >> >> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Chuck Hogg < >> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ch...@shelbybb.com');> wrote: >> >>> Also, unbid PALs in tracts will go to GAA. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Chuck >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Chuck Hogg < >>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ch...@shelbybb.com');> wrote: >>> >>>> So here's what we've been advocating for a while. >>>> >>>> -Some set of spectrum for GAA (General Access Availability, like >>>> unlicensed) >>>> -Make it so no one company can buy all the PALs (Preferred Access >>>> Licensee) >>>> -Keep the tracts small enough so that we can use them in areas and >>>> apply for PALs at a decent price >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Chuck >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Jason McKemie < >>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com');> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "The FCC would auction off licenses to service providers" - this >>>>> sounds bad. >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, March 27, 2015, Jaime Solorza < >>>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','losguyswirel...@gmail.com');> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2903472/fcc-will-vote-next-month-on-plan-to-share-valuable-35ghz-spectrum.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Jaime Solorza >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
