 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  First Thoughts...
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
 | 
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | Re: First Thoughts... Not until now but I'm laughing pretty hard since I read your post.  | |
|
| | 
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | Re: First Thoughts... Ditto, lol. | |
|
| | 
devilbush
@printable.com | Trust me when I say no one is laughing at that harder than Berke Breathed.  | |
|
| 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | "The more you tighter your grip, the more systems will slip through your figures " | |
|
| bi0tech
join:2003-06-19 | Yay for abstract Star Wars references.
Wait... if AT&T is the empire, wouldn't that make the FCC the good guys? | |
|
| | 
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA
1 edit | Re: First Thoughts... no, makes them the Hutt's, fat and greedy | |
|
| | | |
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by bi0tech  :Wait... if AT&T is the empire, wouldn't that make the FCC the good guys? Point... I don't know who to root for LOL.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| 
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub | Nice one. | |
|
| 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
1 edit | Make the whole spectrum public, like citizens band radio's.
Then we just buy the equip and hook up.
Libraries and schools could host the servers, and other public places.
--
The will of the people is the best law. -Ulysses S Grant | |
|
| | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN | Re: First Thoughts... Yeah, cause that worked out pretty well with the unlicensed 900MHz and 2.4GHz spectrums. No issues with congestion there.
--
Go Colts | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | LOL
Now, if only someone could fly in and blow the reactor.... | |
|
|
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | Why not.. Why not take that money that may be spent on your next lawsuit and upgrade and extend your crappy U-Verse services to new areas at&t?
I just don't understand. Up is down, dogs and cats living together, it's like I'm living in crazy world! | |
|
| 
Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Why not.. ATT have been mulling over the 700 spectrum for at least 10 years, now that the spectrum actually is seeing light things are starting to happen. ATT left up the cones one some of their old MW sites just for the 700mhz spectrum as it would work point to point with just having to upgrade the infrastructure. ATT is not fooling me they had their chance and blew it, one into the side of the mother ship makes me happy... | |
|
| | 
Splitpair
Premium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: Why not.. said by Sr Tech :ATT left up the cones one some of their old MW sites just for the 700mhz spectrum as it would work point to point with just having to upgrade the infrastructure. ATT is not fooling me they had their chance and blew it, one into the side of the mother ship makes me happy... Yea right!
Reading from the BSP’s for those antennas I see there this information. “The KS-15676 antenna is designed for operation within the 3700 MHz to 4200 MHz, the 5925MHz to 6425Mhz, and the 10,700Mhz to 11,700Mhz common carrier bands.”
Don’t see anything about using it for the 700 MHz band nor do I think it would be possible to push 700MHz up the 1.5 inch waveguide feeding one of those antennas.
Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. | |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
1 edit | the telco business model if you can't buy it, sue it
as for the reason for the potential suit:
"AT&T said in the filing that the proposals that carve out part of the radio spectrum for discounted rates would lower the amount of revenue the government could generate from the potential sale."
the FCC rules governing these auctions have a clause that prohibits them from taking revenue into account, so maximizing auction revenues is not supposed to be a criteria | |
|
| 
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
| Re: the telco business model said by nasadude :if you can't buy it, sue it as for the reason for the potential suit: "AT&T said in the filing that the proposals that carve out part of the radio spectrum for discounted rates would lower the amount of revenue the government could generate from the potential sale."the FCC rules governing these auctions have a clause that prohibits them from taking revenue into account, so maximizing auction revenues is not supposed to be a criteria Works for the French. »www.muniwireless.com/article/art···12/1/23/
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire | |
|
| Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308
| exactly. There was an article about the monopolizing of the airwaves by them to keep out competitors.
If anyone had any doubts that the current auction system creates abuse.
A better system would be TAKE THE SPECTRUM away from the Government and give it back to the PUBLIC for affordable cell and broadband. | |
|
| | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: the telco business model And how would you assign the spectrum. | |
|
| | | Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 | Re: the telco business model Where there is a will,there is a way. | |
|
| | | | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: the telco business model If you don't have any idea on a new system, then why state the current system is broken. What about the current system is broken | |
|
| | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: the telco business model said by Nuts :If you don't have any idea on a new system, then why state the current system is broken. What about the current system is broken we need REAL competition, not the the monopoly/duopoly market we have now. As much as the astroturfers and incumbents and others (including the FCC) yell about all the "competition" we have, the reality for most of the nation is a choice of one cable provider and one phone provider. A lot of people only have one choice, either a telco or a cableco - I can only get cable broadband, not DSL. Some people have no choice except dialup (mostly, but not all rural).
my new idea is COMPETITION; the 700Mhz spectrum is possibly the last chance to actually have competition in broadband, but with this FCC in charge I don't think it's going to happen.
so, we're screwed for another five or ten years, while the rest of the leading broadband nations pull even further ahead of us. | |
|
| | | | | | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: the telco business model quote:
Some people have no choice except dialup (mostly, but not all rural).
I'm one of these people. About 3000 ft to far for dsl, and talking to a wall when trying to get service from cable. | |
|
| | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| if it was up to me, I wouldn't let any of the major incumbents (telco and cableco) bid on any spectrum except what they need to cover wireless reception holes.
the FCC is supposed to look out for the interests of consumers, not maximize revenue. | |
|
| | | | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH
| Re: the telco business model I don't have a problem with any of the major telco's and cable co's bidding on the spectrum. However, I would place rules that anyone who gets that spectrum, but submit a plan to use that spectrum within 12 months. And, within 12 months of that, they must start deployment. Within 5 years of starting deployment, you must complete your install. Any spectrum not in use will be lost and the fcc can re auction it. This should keep anyone from buying the spectrum and sitting on it. In fact, these rules could be used to get back any spectrum that anyone ownes and has no plans to use. | |
|
| | | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: the telco business model said by Nuts :I don't have a problem with any of the major telco's and cable co's bidding on the spectrum. However, I would place rules that anyone who gets that spectrum, but submit a plan to use that spectrum within 12 months. And, within 12 months of that, they must start deployment. Within 5 years of starting deployment, you must complete your install. Any spectrum not in use will be lost and the fcc can re auction it. This should keep anyone from buying the spectrum and sitting on it. In fact, these rules could be used to get back any spectrum that anyone ownes and has no plans to use. NO. Your schedule lets them block usage for 7 years. Just wait a year to submit a phony plan, wait a year and then do a token deployment, and then goof-off for the next 5 years doing nothing before your spectrum can be confiscated. Set firm milestones that must be met at the penalty of confiscation/forfeiture of your spectrum.
My idea is something like this:
6 months to submit, then 6 months to be 25% deployed, and then 1 year to finish. Failure to meet any of these milestones either loses your rights to the spectrum (if no plan) or to the unused spectrum (if you fail to deploy fast enough). If you are bidding, you should have plans NOW on how you will deploy if you win so 6 months enough to fine tune your plans based on what you win is enough time and 6 additional months (ie: 1 year from winning) is enough to get 25% deployed to show you are using your spectrum with another 1 year to finish seems adequate to me. | |
|
| | | | | | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH
| Re: the telco business model You do realize that to develop a detaited plans it costs money. Most companies will not spend the money on detailed plans until they know if they have to bandwidth to use. Thus, they'll need time to develop their plans in detail.
Rushing out a deployment would be worse then not using the bandwidth at all. Yes, I would like to have service sooner than later, but forcing a company into an unrealalistic timetable that pisses off customers, gets bad reviews and forces a company to close it's doors, will just cause even more delays.
Perhaps some rules dealing with areas to receive service first would help. Such as not deploying first to those areas that already have a telco and cable option. Or auction off areas of the country that are underserved/not served. Of course, for that, you would need to know who is served and who is not, and the FCC has no clue on that. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| Re: the telco business model said by KrK :said by Nuts :You do realize that to develop a detaited plans it costs money. Most companies already have a detailed plan BEFORE they buy it at auction! You don't spend a load of money buying something and then think about why you bought it later.... I agree but in a different way... The incumbents have no plans at all and still want to buy the spectrum. THat way they hold everyone hostage to their high rates and crappy service while making the most profit.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| | | | | | | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by KrK :said by Nuts :You do realize that to develop a detaited plans it costs money. Most companies already have a detailed plan BEFORE they buy it at auction! You don't spend a load of money buying something and then think about why you bought it later.... Which is what I was alluding to. You come up with a general plan just to justify bidding and then fine tune it after you find out what you have won. The 6 month limit to file is to show good faith. You still have the full year to get something done and available as the second good faith gesture. My figures might need to be adjusted some but I want to have rules that will eliminate or penalize the bandwidth hoarders and force them to deploy what they have won or else. The original suggested terms are WAY to lenient and subject to gaming. There need to be built in milestones that must be met at the risk of having the sale voided due to non-compliance. I can see multiple deployment percentages over the term but this do a token deployment and then stop doing anything else is a crock of Bovine Excrement. I think the rule should be "Use It or Lose It". | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 | Can we join in a lawsuit against AT&T ???Break them up again These clowns are trying to hobble broadband access in this country.
Our capitalist = predators. No gov oversight and you see what happens. | |
|
| 
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | Re: Can we join in a lawsuit against AT&T ???Break them up again every time we break them up don't they just join back together stronger than ever? | |
|
| | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Can we join in a lawsuit against AT&T ???Break them up again They only end up back together because the people in DC don't know any better. All they have to do is make a bunch of meaningless promises and they get anything. Easy enough for them to do. But break them apart and actually attach to the break up they can't merge or be bought or buy by any other company for XXX amount of years. Fixes that problem | |
|
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| said by Eric Martin :These clowns are trying to hobble broadband access in this country. Our capitalist = predators. No gov oversight and you see what happens. No your wrong on that, What ATT is doing is monopolistic, which is anti-capitalism.
--
Go courageously to do whatever you are called to do. fear nothing. - St. Francis de Sales
| |
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | If they don't like the terms, don't bid. Why is this very simple concept so difficult for AT&T to grasp? | |
|
| rafwireless
join:2007-07-09
Baskerville, VA
| Re: If they don't like the terms, don't bid. said by ColorBASIC :Why is this very simple concept so difficult for AT&T to grasp? They are simply managing as if the earth was really flat. This is the old "copperline" mentality, fostered by their heavy reliance on union shops. It is all about control points & toll gates.
Wireless is new to them, therefore the square peg doesn't fit in the round hole of reality, AKA competition...
Rafman | |
|
thetommy
join:2002-10-05
Las Vegas, NV | 700MHZ hmm no more wirlesss audio mics? i believe wireless audio gear is in this range. but audio gear has no lobby. so say goodbye to all the cool wireless mics in ear monitors and stuff. | |
|
| 
insomx
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Canada | Re: 700MHZ hmm no more wirlesss audio mics? I was thinking just that! Many mics/in-ear monitors i've used are 730mhz-750mhz. | |
|
| SylphFi
Premium
join:2007-06-07
Moses Lake, WA | The NFL announcers have banded together and hollered about this interfering with their audio systems. | |
|
| |
thetommy
join:2002-10-05
Las Vegas, NV
| Re: 700MHZ hmm no more wirlesss audio mics? it will take more than the NFL to save it. i thought the motion picture folks along with others were going to get involved, but it seems everyone is waiting till the last min. to do anything. if you own a large amount of wireless audio stuff- you be screwed. | |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| AT&T can't compete in a free market It's about protecting there business model and profit, not about what customers want. Services that customers would normally pay for with AT&T might pay less or get it for free with another company. AT&T is basiclly attacking the free market society concept. Since AT&T can't compete, they have to attack the very concept that AT&T was able to prosper on. | |
|
Paladin
Sage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL | Break up AT&T again This time, just split it into two parts. AT&T and Cingular Wireless. | |
|
tpower
join:2001-03-28
Snellville, GA
·Vonage
| Typical This is typical Cable Company and Telco behavior, and why the US is lagging behind the rest of the world more and more everyday when it comes to Cellular as well as broadband.
Telcos and Cable Co's moto: Legislate or Litigate instead of innovate.
Instead of building the best company with the best service and best customer service, Telcos and CableCos pay off the politicians or sue to prevent competition, and offer semi-crappy service at the most profit.
A Duopoly is no better than a monopoly. We need true competition in the US to get the innovation going again.
| |
|
|
|
|
AT&T Hints At FCC Lawsuit
·