 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. | |
|
 |
 |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Will existing wireless providers buy spectrum to NOT use it said by LiamJunket :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? | |
|
  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
join:2002-08-13 Imperial, MO
| Re: Sell it with no restrictions 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 | |
|
 |  |   kyler13 Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12 Arnold, MD
| Re: Sell it with no restrictions 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. | |
|
 |   digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09 49533 | 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. | |
|
 |   sporkme drop the crantini and move it, sister Premium,MVM join:2000-07-01 Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| 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? | |
|
 |  RadioDoc 58ef2c0 Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 | 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. | |
|
 |  |
  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 | |
|
 |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| 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. | |
|
 |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| 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!) | |
|
  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. | |
|
 |  |
 |  disc
join:2005-12-31 Raleigh, NC
| 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. | |
|
 jevernew
join:2007-07-12 Sedro Woolley, WA
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
  batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs: | GSM CDMA Verizon and at&t use very different systems and the phones will NEVER roam on the others system.
Verizon should let Google and MS buy it then leech off them and suck them dry. It should be cheep to buy with such restrictions. | |
|
 |
|
 |