[Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change

[Eric S. Johansson]

jeff at aerodata.net wrote:
> Ahh.. careful use of words. "Populated areas". Does this mean you disagree
> with my statement that over the bulk of the U.S. landmass, 440 is as dead
> as a doornail (highly underutlized) most of the time?

you've had 2 m to that in the Boston area.  Or as I could never strep a 
contact on 440, I could stir up a contact on 2 m as long as it was 
during rush hour.  Otherwise, the two bands were indistinguishable since 
my decision to remove 2m/440 from the car.

>> The solution to the WISP problem and the entire wireless broadband access
>> is
>> the governments failing to provided a large protected frequency band for
>> such purpose...that is IF they do mean for WISP activity to be a primary
>> distributor of broadband Internet access.
> 
> The undisputed RF device that changed the late 20th century as well as
> provided a undisputed tool for Ecom's, was the cell phone. Cell phone
> companies provide a service at a cost to the consumer. Yet they paid
> billions of dollars for these protected frequency.
> 
> Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP industry?

well, there is a significant amount of corporate welfare which has been 
well documented in many newsmagazines and newspapers.  It takes the form 
of tax write-offs specifically targeted at a company to outright grants 
of cash.  why not wisp?

one could also argue that the cell phone companies overpaid for the 
spectrum.  After all auctions represent the triumph of the person with a 
worse judgment and the most money.  When the European 3g auctions went 
through, the organizations that purchased the spectrum rights lost 
significant share value.  And they lost value because it was generally 
recognize that the auction winner would never pay off that debt without 
many years of very expensive services.

desperately trying to bring this back on topic, if wireless ISPs want 
some sort of special treatment, they should get together, plan and build 
out a shared access wireless infrastructure.  once they have 
demonstrated they can cooperate, build a communal managed and funded 
wireless infrastructure with nondiscriminatory access, then they deserve 
special treatment.  Otherwise if they can't manage their house in the 
part 15 spectrum, why would they deserve special spectrum allocations