I haven't found another thread on this topic & I am kind of trying to figure this document out in it's legalese.... particular as to how it applies to my area (Pembroke):
»
www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sm ··· 841.htmlWill my area (classified as rural in the document) loose this spectrum?
Will the 3500 MHz be used for different things in different areas, or will this be a blanket removal of it?
----------
As someone who should likely be considered rural (yet within only a few KM of fibre to the pole houses all around me), I would actually support giving up spectrum from small town ISP's with one caveat... funding for the rural expansion of wired services.
If you have a phone line... guarantee DSL/cable access (likely via fibre) to all for those areas affected by the spectrum loss.
I see the push for wireless for rural people, as an excuse to fleece rural customers in the provision of substandard service. A form of protectionism that the companies like Bell and Rogers can only dream of achieving.
Many of these rural ISP's complaining about the spectrum loss are junk service providers that claim to be the saviour of rural internet... they are the rural equivalent to Bell and Rogers, yet far worse than the wireline providers in the provision of service.
Some companies state that wireless is the cheapest way to bring household service to the rurals, but in reality, wireless is the most profitable for them. If wireless is indeed so cheap to roll out, where is the cost savings to the customer.... why are wireless options amongst the most expensive ways to get internet by several times the cost.
As a rural living person, without DSL, I support giving up the spectrum as long as it is tied to a wired expansion in affected areas.
Save the wireless and satellite offerings for what it is meant for, mobile internet, and places like remote mining camps.