RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Common carrier
The whole thing should operate as a common carrier. It wouldn't be a bad idea to apply that to existing wireless operations, too. |
|
nalaregeork
join:2004-08-25
Yorktown Heights, NY
| I hope it happens... soon
Aw da po wittle wireless carriers will have to open up their service to innovation to compete, how terwable.
It's about time hopefully this will become what it should have been a lonf time ago. Hopefully I will be looking for an Internet Tablet with a soft SIP installed to do what we should have been doing around 2000 |
|
raptor1418
Premium
join:2002-12-03
Denver, CO | I want to see the written requirements
All sounds good as a verbal statement but I can't wait to see what pay offs are made to officials to add loop holes into the requirements. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Will existing wireless providers buy spectrum to NOT use it
If the new open access rules only apply to the newly auctioned spectrum and NOT to existing frequencies, will the current wireless providers buy up all the spectrum with the intent of never using it, keeping it out of the hands of competitors?
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | Sell it with no restrictions
There is no reason the government should have ANY say in what a company does with what it buys. This auction needs to happen as soon as possible. A government agency should not own this in the first place. |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by Dagda1175  :A government agency should not own this in the first place. I'm about as anti big government as you'll find, but I got to disagree here. A certain level of government is necessary in certain areas. You wouldn't want private companies (or individuals) to own large rivers (like the Mississippi) which everyone around them uses. You wouldn't want a private company to own a certain section of the atmosphere. Some things are just shared by their nature. Spectrum falls into that category.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | reply to Dagda1175
Considering that companies like AT&T and Verizon buy spectrum and sit on it just so they won't have any competition, your idea is insane. |
|
nipseyrussel
Nipsey Russell, yo
join:2002-02-22
Philadelphia, PA
| exceptions
sounds good....
but: "...The only exceptions would be software that is illegal or could harm a network"
what software is illegal?
"could harm a network"?? cant wait to see the list as defined by the carriers  anything that uses the network could harm it |
|
DC23
@cox.net
 from:
tschmidt
| This isn't Open Access, but "Carterfone" principles
This story is not 100 percent correct. What Martin is proposing is "Carterfone" like principles of freedom to connect devices.
"Open Access" would mean the spectrum license holder would have to provide wholesale access on a reasonably and non-discriminatory basis. If implemented, this would mean that multiple providers would offer service on the spectrum. What Martin has proposed means that only the spectrum holder will provide service, but they can't lock you into their devices. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to nipseyrussel
Re: exceptions
Joost, Skype and others of course cause "excessive network degradation" and must obviously be banned.
Yeah, I'll believe the launching of a unhindered, robust third wireless competitive pipe that challenges the incumbent chokehold when I'm sitting in a park, sucking down coffee and 4Mbps via laptop watching streaming video. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Will existing wireless providers buy spectrum to NOT use it
said by TKJunkMail :If the new open access rules only apply to the newly auctioned spectrum and NOT to existing frequencies, will the current wireless providers buy up all the spectrum with the intent of never using it, keeping it out of the hands of competitors? does a bear sh*t in the woods?
is the pope catholic? |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to Dagda1175
Re: Sell it with no restrictions
said by Dagda1175 :There is no reason the government should have ANY say in what a company does with what it buys. This auction needs to happen as soon as possible. A government agency should not own this in the first place. You know that they are auctioning off something that belongs to you, right? |
|
kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD
| reply to footballdude
said by footballdude :You wouldn't want a private company to own a certain section of the atmosphere. Some things are just shared by their nature. Spectrum falls into that category. Excellent point. But I'll claim rights to the space over my property up to a height of 250 ft. Any "owned" part of the spectrum that permeates and/or travels through my space is subject to certain access fees. I'll draft some letters tonight and send them out to the wireless carriers. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Dagda1175
Oddly enough, they aren't "buying" it. They are being licensed to use it. Licenses can expire, be revoked, or even be modified against the holder's wishes.
Big difference. |
|
Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308
| reply to DC23
Re: This isn't Open Access, but "Carterfone" principles
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone
Hope Skype wins.
»www.3gnewsroom.com/3g_news/mar_0···16.shtml |
|
disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC
| reply to DC23
said by DC23 :
... What Martin has proposed means that only the spectrum holder will provide service, but they can't lock you into their devices.
Reading the articles, I got the impression of net neutrality as the goal. That is, not only unhindered access to devices, but unhindered access to internet-based services as well. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to Dagda1175
Re: Sell it with no restrictions
said by Dagda1175 :There is no reason the government should have ANY say in what a company does with what it buys. Not true.
The seller of an item can choose to put conditions or restrictions on the sale all the time. If a prospective buyer refuses to comply, well, they get told to take a hike.
A classic example is a business that sells off some facilities--- BUT makes the buyer agree that they can't run a competing business in those facilities.
Example: A restaurant chain sells off some locations. As a condition of sale, they prohibit the buyer from opening a competing restaurant, or selling it to someone who would, for xx number of years.
It's perfectly acceptable for the FCC to set rules as to what spectrum is used for/how it is used. This is part of the license they draft. In fact, that's their main job, actually. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: exceptions
said by Karl Bode :Yeah, I'll believe the launching of a unhindered, robust third wireless competitive pipe that challenges the incumbent chokehold when I'm sitting in a park, sucking down coffee and 4Mbps via laptop watching streaming video. Heh....
"We'll be sitting on a beach.... Earning 20 percent."
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
jevernew
join:2007-07-12
Sedro Woolley, WA
| Payoffs and loopholes
To state the obvious here; big business and big money have unlimited access to armies of attorneys whose sole purpose is to give advantage to their employees. USA tax payers have government lawyers who do a very poor job of protecting our resources. |
|
ddpardue
Premium
join:2007-01-07
Hattiesburg, MS
|  DC43 is right
Martin is proposing CarterPhone rules. No locking or blocking devices to your own network. Phone portability across networks, instead of having to buy a new phone everytime you change carriers, or at least use a new phone which they may "give" you. Open access, such as proposed by Google's CEO and many consumer groups, would mandate that whoever won the auction would have to make spectrum available to competitors at reasonable market prices. Being a local WISP provider, I (and 3000+ local WISPs across America) would love to see this pass. It would enable us to offer broadband in much larger rural areas than is possible now using unlicensed bandwidth. Or at least make it more economical, enabling us to compete with the "BIG 4" in the cities also, and enable us to afford to expand our networks in rural areas. |
|
