John, Well said.
I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face.
I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk full
for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in critiquing
Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a lot with 30 Mhz,
although tough. But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help
Americans.
New spectrum legislation crafted
By Dan O'Shea
Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM
Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new
legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to
use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for
unlicensed wireless services.
The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co-
sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor
(R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.).
The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency
president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that these
proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the
television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for
the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry
and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative
broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers.
http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/
My thoughts:
The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help
and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been starved
for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have for so long.
This does not match the legislation being introduced by the Senate at all
and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring
broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the TIA
has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding our efforts
back. They would prefer to either have only licensed spectrum which acts
as a means of keeping competitors out of the wireless space or as we see
here they would like to see competing offers from the Senate and House so
that the true opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in
debate and taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the
effort is killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from
both sides of Congress.
If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio
or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and let them
know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of water to a man
walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and
wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. This is
terrible news and we need to act quickly.
The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the
unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking
which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with
passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help
the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband use
is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of
understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and
under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot
receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give
them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel is not a true effort to help and is
insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for frequency
reuse the single channel forces providers to either segment the single
channel into minuscule sizes delivering substandard speeds or face almost
certain interference as multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz
channel space would interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators
doing the same. In short this is not worthy of consideration and should be
scrapped.
The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass
legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which
will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage of
broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory if we
are to truly close the "Digital Divide" which is now wider than ever due
to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem is not that
rural Americans do not want broadband or that private enterprise has
failed them in some way, the problem is that the thousands of Wireless
Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the necessary spectrum to
bring their citizens the broadband they are begging to receive.
Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The site
will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in the states
where this laughable legislation originated you need to speak out. We
obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of Representatives but
we do need them to understand that this is not going to come close to
doing the job they are trying to do and that this is not going to fix
anything unless we have access to a larger amount of quality spectrum. So
please go now and make this happen, right now, in the next 10 minutes.
Scriv
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
All,
Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may affect
the wireless industry?
Regards,
Dawn
---
---
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
