The whole thing is a "movement", but at least it's going in the right direction.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 11:06:14 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.5Ghz future sounds like some movement - kind of like trying to move a planet with an underpowered tractor beam.... but, nevertheless, there is movement! hail wispa! hail wispa! hip hip hooray.....hip hip....ok ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Radabaugh To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.5Ghz future The insider view… Yesterday had a significantly better outcome than was expected due to a lot of work by WISPA. If you read the original proposed NPRM versus the released NPRM there are significant and substantial changes. Commissioner Clyburn only voted to release the NPRM because of the changes we were able to get. The original proposal had everything as PEA’s and 10 year terms. The PEA idea is still floated in the NPRM but it’s not the default now. The 10 year term is still the default but they at least ask questions about other options. Remember that this is only a NPRM, and this starts the comment and reply comment periods. The commission has to work through this process before the vote to actually enact the changes happens - which will probably be sometime in February. Now that the NPRM is out we can start applying political pressure in addition to working the FCC comment process. There is still a lot of work to do but we have a lot of allies in this fight, and it’s nowhere near over yet. Pay close attention, but no need to panic. Please hold off on proposing ‘compromise’ positions on the NPRM for now - we want to see what level of support we have for the original rules from outside organizations. Mark Mark Radabaugh WISPA FCC Committee Chair fcc_ch...@wispa.org 419-261-5996 <blockquote> On Oct 25, 2017, at 10:42 AM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: I read the proposed changes....but it was awhile ago. One thing I was never clear on was whether we could still use channels that aren't licensed or aren't deployed in our area. Under this proposed rule, if the SAS knows that nobody has used a channel in our area, then could we use it? ------ Original Message ------ From: "Jeff Broadwick - Lists" < jeffl...@att.net > To: af@afmug.com Sent: 10/25/2017 8:49:34 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.5Ghz future <blockquote> Actually, yesterday was full of good signs. Still very early though. I wouldn’t get too high or too low right now. Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@cticonnect.com On Oct 25, 2017, at 8:38 AM, Paul McCall < pa...@pdmnet.net > wrote: <blockquote> Doesn’t look good From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of David Milholen Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:36 AM To: Animal Farm < af@afmug.com > Subject: [AFMUG] 3.5Ghz future Seems we will be left in the cold! https://insidetowers.com/daily-tower-news-controversial-changes-3-5-ghz/?utm_source=Inside+Towers+List&utm_campaign=bfd6d8f22b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_10_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_af16c4fc22-bfd6d8f22b-74919777&goal=0_af16c4fc22-bfd6d8f22b-74919777 Anybody wanna buy an all cambium wisp? theres nothing to see under the hood LOL -- <image001.jpg> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
