SipSizzurpFo' ShizzlePremium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | Free or Not ? If the FCC is going to get 5% of the revenue from a free service, it is pretty obvious why they are rejecting the deal.
--
Kaspersky will kill your DSLR access. Use Norton ! |
|
1 edit | Uhh...you might want to read it a little more closer cause I do not see where M2Z Networks is providing free access in their business plan.
Here is a company willing to give money to the FCC for the privilege to use this bandwidth for their wireless broadband network. Either the FCC must be run by a complete class of morons, that or they must be really in bed with the Telcos to reject a 5% gross (well I am gonna assume gross) profit from M2Z networks. |
|
3 edits | said by Nightshade:Here is a company willing to give money to the FCC for the privilege to use this bandwidth for their wireless broadband network. Either the FCC must be run by a complete class of morons, that or they must be really in bed with the Telcos to reject a 5% gross (well I am gonna assume gross) profit from M2Z networks. It is not 5% of gross revenues, but only 5% of the revenues from the Premium Service they say they will offer »fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···18725081 . The FCC would be wise to reject this pig in a poke. If M2Z never offers a premium service, but only offer services to safety organizations, there will be no gross revenues to take 5% of.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
 DHRacerFire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA | reply to Nightshade
"Either the FCC must be run by a complete class of morons, that or they must be really in bed with the Telcos to reject a 5% gross (well I am gonna assume gross) profit from M2Z networks."
Why not both?
|
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Nightshade
Seems like both. If there's a technical reason not to allow them, I'd like to hear it. A better answer would be to give them a temporary, non-exclusive license, see how it works out.
I wouldn't sign up for that service unless I couldn't get landline, but I bet it would be useful in rural areas for people who work outside. |
|
| reply to DHRacer
Seriously.
Just as long as we get a tersely worded pdf from the Democratic Commissioners whining that they don't like the rejection but voted for it anyway....I'm completely on board. |
|
SipSizzurpFo' ShizzlePremium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | reply to Nightshade
said by Nightshade:Uhh...you might want to read it a little more closer cause I do not see where M2Z Networks is providing free access in their business plan. Oh you're right ! Duhh..
--
Kaspersky will kill your DSLR access. Use Norton ! |
|
1 edit | reply to DHRacer
I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today
Wimpy
There is no Guarantee that this venture wold ever become or remain profitable. To me this is a sucker bet best avoided. |
|
|
|
 kpfx
join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to axus
I don't think any venture capitalist is going to front spending the big money deploying a proprietary wireless network on the premise of only having a temporary license.
Even doing this in a smaller controlled area as a test would be costly as this spectrum is not currently used for anything... and would thus require custom gear to be made. You then loose on the economies of scale when comparing to 802.11 Wirelss networks and even the new WiMax standards.
The bottom line is that spectrum licenses are expensive and very valuable. The FCC most likely thinks bigger fish to catch vs. this limited "5%" offer. |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:The FCC would be wise to reject this pig in a poke. If M2Z never offers a premium service, but only offer services to safety organizations, there will be no gross revenues to take 5% of. And??? The FCC is not a for profit company, it's a government agency. So what if they don't make any money from this. Radio and Broadcast TV got their licenses for free in exchange for providing free services to the public. If this company wants to do the same with unused spectrum, there needs to be a better reason then the FCC won't make money off of it.? |
|
| The FCC *IS* a for profit company. They are owned by the US government and they *DO* view you and yours as a *source of revenue*...
If you don't get that you don't get the FCC... |
|
| reply to DHRacer
said by DHRacer:"Either the FCC must be run by a complete class of morons, that or they must be really in bed with the Telcos to reject a 5% gross (well I am gonna assume gross) profit from M2Z networks." Why not both? Yeah! I bet dollars for insults that if you can grab one of these commissioners and say "Quick! What's 1080P or MPEG4?" he will stare at you with a blank face. 
Hey! Wait a minuto! Maybe those could be tough questions for them. One fair question that none of them would answer right would be: "Can you format a floppy disk, sir?" To which they would reply back, "Say whaaaat?" |
|
| reply to SipSizzurp
Nice summary of all the issues surrounding the FCC rejection of M2Z's application:
»news.com.com/8301-10784_3-977019···-1_3-0-5
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
