Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

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

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 ooe at odessaoffice.com
Tue May 30 23:53:22 UTC 2006

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff King" <jeff at aerodata.net>
To: <ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>
Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" <wisp at wispa.org>; "FCC Discussion" 
<fcc at wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: [WISPA FCC] Re: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change

> On Thu, 18 May 2006 10:03:47 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 
> wrote:
>>>Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP
>>And what did the hams pay for their bands? TV? Radio? Sheesh.
> -0-. Both of them provide to the public good at no charge to the public. 
> WISP's don't, unless of course your saying WISP provide their service for 
> free.

LOL, some days it sure feels that way!

> You want to make money Marlon, you got to spend money. The Part 15 bands 
> where created for a specific purpose, and WISP's were not even considered 
> then. I think it is wonderful that the WISP's have put it to so much good 
> use, and support both the expansion of the Part 15 bands as well as your 
> white space proposal. Yet if you want protected spectrum, someone is going 
> to have to pay for that.

No one is asking for protected spectrum.  Though that would be nice!

You annalogy is flawed.  Tour guides who get paid to show people around 
national parks don't pay for the upkeep of the park.  Trukers that make 
money on the road aren't the only one's to pay into the upkeep of the roads 

Believe it or not, I'd not be opposed to some kind of a tax that would be 
put to the proper care and feeding of the specturm I use.  It would be nice 
to see those running over powered networks really slapped around and/or shut 
down before they kill off more of the industry.

>>I'd be happy to buy spectrum. The deposit to bid on auction 66 is
>>only $1000 less than I paid for my first house! I can put in a lot
>>of gear for that price. And people won't pay any more for licensed
>>service than they will for unlicensed out here. If I could get
>>people to kick loose with $60 to $100 per month for my internet like
>>they will for their cell phones I could *maybe* justify buying some
> Yet other companies are making a profit (or at least staying in business) 
> providing internet broadband on protected spectrum they paid for.

Hardly anyone is doing that.  Certainly not at a profit.  In fact, I heard a 
very good case made one time about how the spectrum auction has been 
primarily responsible for the near collaps of the telecom industry.

>>Look at the financial health of most of the companies that own
>>spectrum too. I think a pretty good argument can be made that the
>>spectrum auction idea is largely responsible for the near collaps of
>>the telecom industry.
> Sure, no doubt they overpaid. But big difference between paying too much 
> and paying nothing. You get what you pay for and if you want free 
> spectrum, you have to take what you can get.

Yeppers.  But, there's more value out there in other ways that is making our 
services worth much more than one would normally think.  Heck, just the 
competition to the cable/dsl duopoly is a huge deal.  You really should 
think of us more like the airline industry.  We too are using a common God 
given medium for our transport mechanism.

> -Jeff
> p.s. All the CC's you added to this keep bouncing, and I suspect I am only 
> seeing half the conversation. Care to do any cross pollination between the 
> groups?

I'm doing what I can on that score.  WISPA won't even file on this issue. 
While we'd like to see it fail, I don't think that there's an upside to our 


> _______________________________________________
> FCC mailing list
> FCC at wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc 

More information about the ham-80211 mailing list