Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
1 edit |  Article Typo
I think you have a typo in your article Karl.
You wrote:
said by Karl :
... the morass of FCC rules
Shouldn't that be:
said by Har Har :
... the more ass-inine of FCC rules
|
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Glad to see all other issues are taken care of.
I was worried about the economy and other pressing issues. I am relieved that everything is going so well now. Good thing the only issue left is Wi-Fi Welfare. |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY | ...
An ad supported, spectrum bought and paid for, WiFi is not welfare. It just lacks an over priced ISP, not unlike over-the-air broadcast tv lacks an overpriced cable company. No welfare. No gouging. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | The difference is that OTA TV is the end product. WiFi is a conduit which still needs to be connected to the Internet via "an over priced ISP".
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY | Connected and paid for via advertising. Paid for like OTA tv. No welfare. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
3 edits | Now that BPL......
Is a rotting carcass I guess this will be the next stupidity the FCC will get into. All that is happening is these free for the masses types are just trying to set up another ridiculously expensive poorly run government entitlement the rest of us will be forced to pay for. I see this can of worms getting out of hand. Free Wifi, but wait the poor don't have computers, so now added into lines for government cheese, wiil be hand outs of notebook computers.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| I like and dislike
This is a plan that tests me --
I don't like the idea of a plan that offers 100% nationwide coverage or it gets pulled in 10 years. You know what's going to happen -- what we in technology call the "ninety-ninety" rule. And then what? (Oh yeah, and I hate the filters and I have doubts that what we'll get will be "broadband" even in current sense, let alone 10-years-from-now sense.)
That said, I like the out-of-the-box thinking here. These frequencies are dregs. If not auctioned, they won't be used. This is like the 3M R&D experiment that led to post-it notes. It won't hurt anything to try it, and even if we end up with something completely different than expected, it'll be interesting to see what we get.
I think the Commissioners have enough info -- if they can shut the corporate lobbyists off and put their jurist hats on, I won't decry a decision either way too much.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. |
|
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| reply to Millenniumle
Re: ...
said by Millenniumle  :Connected and paid for via advertising. Paid for like OTA tv. No welfare. I don't think internet advertising can rake in enough enough cash to pay the over priced ISPs.
But then again, if your advertisement could reach the entire nation...you could charge a pretty penny for that ad.
But, we are being optimistic here because we all know it wont go through. There is just too much tension, and the "smut free" doesn't help its case any (not that I wouldn't mind smut free internet! Can you say encrypted smut sites?  ). And if by some shear act of god, it does go through, it will be delayed by some stupid [insert ISP here] with [insert some made up reason] till it dies. |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| Bandwidth is supposedly cheap, when you cut out the last mile ISP mark-up.
Even when we get past all the other obstacles, I don't see how they could manage congestion. Even people who pay for faster connections like cable and fiber would seemingly be tempted to take advantage of the free connection - especially if metering continues to grow. 5pm to 10pm should be a real treat.
I think the principle is sound - auctioning the spectrum with the Wi-Fi requirement. It's the only way bids would be competitive with one another. The filters, not so much. Leave those for places like China. |
|
Middleofknowhere
@jacksonhole.com | reply to Millenniumle
OTA TV is "free".
How much did your TV cost you to get that free content?
How much do you think the radios / antenna is going to cost you? |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to Transmaster
Re: Now that BPL......
You should spend some time actually looking into the proposal.
This isn't a government run operation. It is privately run. It isn't paid for by the government. There are conditions attached to the spectrum(build out requirements and 25% of bandwidth allocated to the free service (a for pay service would be possible with the rest) and there would be 5% of gross revenue paid to the treasury, similar to the way broadcast television works.
If it fails the taxpayer is not going to be paying to build out the network. The taxpayer is not going to be paying anything to build out the network at any point. The government is not funding the build out of the network. The government is setting conditions for the auction. Beyond this private organizations will be building and running the network, just as for other auctions.
Conservatives don't like it because they want all spectrum auctioned off to the highest bidder without any conditions, which favors only the incumbents, a policy they call letting the free market decide. If we really want the free market deciding it why does the government auction this off in the first place, we should simply abolish all government spectrum control and rules and let the market determine how the various interests will be balanced.
We have had a great deal of other prime spectrum auctioned off to the highest bidder without conditions. This spectrum is taking a different approach. Opponents don't want a different approach used for ANY spectrum, not surprising since the main approach we have been using favors them immensely. |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY | reply to Middleofknowhere
Re: ...
I'd take purchasing a $50 Wi-Fi card with free service rather than $50 per month, every month, any day. (provided the service actually worked) |
|
DavePR
join:2008-06-04 | reply to funchords
Re: I like and dislike
How do you figure these frequencies are "the dregs"? Sirius and XM seem happy enough living in the neighborhood. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | Only because they're tiny and non-contiguous blocks. I seriously had to ask around as to whether they were big enough to be useful.
A single 802.11b channel uses more spectrum than we're talking about here. |
|
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| reply to Millenniumle
Re: ...
We can't forget commercial time eats up our valuable time-share, which depending on your field(s) of expertise could become quite costly to them.
There is an estimated 10-15 minutes per 1 hour show. If your being paid minimum wage to loan the advertisers your time to watch their commercials and they are to pay you a retainer & interest fee and minimum wage that's $6.25 every 4 hours or $1.56 an hour, $37.50 a day in my time-share fees, not including the minimum retainer & interest (of course in our best interest we'd set this at our state legal maximum since commercials seem mandatory.
--
YOUR ISP MAY BE CAPPING OR GETTING READY TO DO SO BY EARLY NEXT YEAR. LETS PUT A STOP TO THEM. »www.ipetitions.com/petition/PMDBI/ |
|
DavePR
join:2008-06-04 | reply to funchords
Re: I like and dislike
If the spectrum is 25 MHz and it lies between 2155 and 2180 MHz, how can it be non-contiguous?
802.11[b] is spread spectrum. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Looks like you're right -- in June 2008 it became 2155-2180 MHz -- maybe it was AWS-2 that I was thinking of.
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···20A1.pdf
802.11b channel centers are 5 MHz apart but the signals are 20 MHz wide ... looks like this:
img: »cp.home.agilent.com/upload/cmc_u···trum.jpg
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. |
|
