I must not be on the members list anymore, I can't recall seeing anything
on this.
They specifically stated they didn't want it for macro use when this band
first came up.
The discussion has been on the members list, but it was months ago when
the proposed rules first came out.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------
*Sent: *Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:05:15 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] CBRS license cost
Sorry, is the discussion over on a specific list, or am I just
forgetting? My memory span tends to be short compared to FCC timeframe.
Can you expand on why you donât expect to see this in use significantly
outside of venues? I understand that reasoning for 5 GHz, not sure why
carriers would not be interested in 30 MHz of additional spectrum
everywhere, even if dynamically assigned by a SAS. Especially if they can
get priority access which kind of smells like exclusive license and low
interference.
http://www.commlawblog.com/tags/35503650-mhz/
I see that PALs would be limited to 30 MHz and 5 years, and as you say, 50
MHz would stay unlicensed. It also says the SAS would dictate power limits
which would presumably be lower near census tract boundaries similar to
EBS. That would seem to encourage acquiring PALs adjacent to your area so
that you can run full power.
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:31 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CBRS license cost
Each entity can only get 3 licenses, 50 MHz has to remain unlicensed.
Ken, I know you've seen the WISPA discussions on this.
I don't expect to see this significantly in use outside of venues...
small cell stuff.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------
*Sent: *Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:26:50 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] CBRS license cost
That's kind of disappointing. Do you know what mechanisms they plan on
putting in place to keep the big carriers from just snapping it all up and
warehousing it? I guess that would still mean we could use it as general
access as long as they are just squatting on it and not deploying anything
in our census tracts, but I have to suspect the cost to outbid us on every
license would not be a show stopper for companies used to bidding billions
on spectrum auctions.
Making the PALs specific to census tract and year might discourage it a
little. It says licensees will be able to aggregate across time,
frequency,
geography, I wonder how many years out they will let you bid on. And
whether current licensee gets first right of refusal on extending the
time.
If everything gets re-auctioned in a year or two, that might discourage
bidding on spectrum if you don't intend to use it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CBRS license cost
Its going to auction
Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com
@aeronetpr
Post by Adam Moffetthttp://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-148
I'm going to need some of that extra 100mhz in the near future.
Does anyone happen to know what the license cost will be for either the
general or priority tiers?
Does the FCC even know yet?
Better yet....when will we be able to buy a license?