I can see the 1st amendment thing.
"Uh oh, you Duke boys been saying bad things on Facebook about county
commissioner Boss Hogg. Looks like 'hate speech' to me. We goin ta
hafta suspend your internet service. Company policy and all. You
understand I'm sure."
But it's a hypothetical problem....and more easily solved by changing
the AUP than anything else.
I'm not sure how either this or lima beans relates to mobile devices in
CBRS, but it's a fun conversation all the same.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]>
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <[email protected]>
Sent: 10/31/2018 6:45:47 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
I’d find it more “ominous” if there was an actual case of them
censoring someone, rather than just some language in an AUP. I’d also
worry more if the current AUP actually had such language, which
apparently it doesn’t.
I’ll give you the thing about Rise can do stuff that the government
can’t. Although it’s a bit complicated. First Amendment says govt
can’t stop you from saying hateful things about someone, but if you
threaten violence, that speech is not protected. And there must be
some kind of exception for schools, which can stop things like online
bullying.
From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:53 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
Rise is a private company. They can write whatever rules they want.
A city is government, the people.
They should not be able to abridge rights.
This is identical to preventing local residents from checking out
certain books from the library like Huck Finn.
According to this mentality, you could not quote certain passages from
Huck Finn in an email if using the muni system.
From: Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:46 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
By the article, you mean the think tank guy? That paper is from 3
years ago. Maybe that language was in the EPB acceptable use policy
then, hard to tell, especially since he doesn’t cite a reference, but
it’s certainly not there now. O’Rielly made his speech just the other
day. Warning of an “ominous threat” based on a 3 year old think tank
article about language in an AUP seems a bit overblown, don’t you
think?
And maybe we live in glass houses. I just randomly selected Rise
Broadband since they’re the biggest WISP and checked their AUP:
“YOU may not use the Service to advertise, solicit, store, post,
transmit, disseminate, or otherwise make available material or
information that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing,
libelous, defamatory, hateful, obscene, indecent, or otherwise
objectionable or which encourages or participates in conduct that would
constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to a civil liability, or
otherwise violates any local, state, national, or international law,
order, rule, or regulation.”
And of course “think tanks” are rarely independent and non partisan.
The Free State Foundation is funded by CTIA and NCTA, and has ties to
ALEC. Not saying that’s wrong, just that they are carrying water for
big telecom.
From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:03 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
This is breaking LENT a bit.
The TN one was the one quoted in the article. Specifically mentioned
hate speech.
From: Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:35 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
Chuck, where in this document do you see a threat to the First
Amendment:
https://epb.com/storage/app/media/uploaded-files/Residential%20Terms%20and%20Conditions.pdf
It looks like ours or any other ISP AUP/TOS document as far as I can
see.
There are many muni broadband horror stories, I don’t know why he
decided to pick on one that is generally considered one of the success
stories. Probably because AT&T had opposed EPB (which is the power
company in Chattanooga) expanding beyond town. I suspect a power
company branching out into broadband fiber probably has a much higher
probability of success than some town that says let’s become an ISP,
how hard can it be. And in this case, EPB was already a FTTH operator
offering gigabit service, they just wanted to expand their footprint.
I don’t like muni broadband either, especially if it pushes out
existing ISPs, and potentially leaves the citizens or bondholders on
the hook for an expensive adventure that ends up failing. But I think
the First Amendment approach is the wrong one, especially for the
federal government to say that your local government is going to censor
you, as if the feds would never do that. And picking Chattanooga as
the example of this alleged problem, shows he is just a shill for AT&T.
I’m also not sure I like the trend toward every level of government
trying to pre-empt the levels below them. The states want to outlaw
local government making decisions (foolhardy or not), and the feds want
to outlaw the states doing things. This seems contrary to the Tenth
Amendment, and I thought Republicans were big supporters of states
rights.
It also seems strange they have no problem with municipalities
providing water, collecting garbage, plowing snow, or providing police
and fire services. I guess those don’t bother some big corporation
like AT&T.
From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:00 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
I’m not a huge fan of muni broadband for some of the reasons you cite.
I was just amazed that he is all for free speech when it meets his
goals and then completely against it another circumstance.
Mark
On Oct 31, 2018, at 3:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I actually agreed with the muni wireless and free speech issue. He
cited exact language in the AUPs. Hate speech is hard to define and
muni’s should not have that in their AUPs in my opinion. I also liked
that he didn’t think munis should be able to compete with private
sector.
I am only a socialist when it serves my purposes, at all other times I
am a libertarian...
From: Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:49 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
Oh, it’s even better.
In the same speech where he was railing against municipal broadband on
free speech grounds he was also busy bragging about how tough the FCC
is being on those dastardly free speech pirate radio stations.
Because, you know, pirate radio is obviously the lowest of the
scofflaws. How dare someone use a FM transmitter without a license!
The FCC has managed to take a whole slew of incredibly dangerous
pastors broadcasting sermons off the air.
Mark
On Oct 31, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote:
True. The Pai FCC and the Trump Administration in general seems
dedicated to leaving a legacy that can’t easily be undone. Like
selling spectrum, or appointing Supreme Court Justices. They
probably see Wheeler as a fool whose accomplishments could be undone
with the stroke of a pen, and Obama much the same. I’m not being
political, and I guess you have to give them credit for understanding
how the game is played. If you want a legacy that lasts longer than
the next election, you have to build it with bricks not straw.
BTW, did you see where O’Rielly argued that muni broadband, promoted
by the evil Wheeler, presented a “particularly ominous threat to the
First Amendment”, citing TOS language against hate speech and
threats.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354770A1.pdf
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bj49j8/fcc-falsely-claims-community-broadband-an-ominous-threat-to-the-first-amendment
From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:47 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
Michael O’Rielly absolutely positively thinks it’s a fantastic idea.
The really scary part is that he thinks it’s better for private
industry to own it, since he can’t trust future FCC commissioners.
He’s that guy that won’t date a girl that would go out with a guy
like him.
Mark
On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:06 PM, Joe Novak <[email protected]> wrote:
" On the other hand, they get rewarded for carrying spectrum as an
asset on their balance sheet."
This is the most disgusting thing about the American auctioning
system right now.
Who in their right minds thought it was a good idea to just auction
a finite resource to the highest bidder? Why isn't a use it or lose
it system enforced, or at the very least a system like we will see
in CBRS? It all seems like such a sham that gets propped up
continuously.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:42 AM Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote:
It’s going to be interesting, I wonder why the carriers would pay
anywhere near the kind of money for CBRS spectrum that they are
used to for low and mid band spectrum, when they can use it for
free as GAA. Similar to 5 GHz. No cost, and opportunistic use for
carrier aggregation.
On the other hand, they get rewarded for carrying spectrum as an
asset on their balance sheet.
I’m thinking of a scenario where the auction sets too high a
minimum bid, and they get zero bids. Even 10 cents per MHz-POP
might be too high, if it can be used as GAA at no cost. As long as
they have an anchor channel in other spectrum, CBRS is like icing
on the cake, nice but not mission critical, and possibly not worth
paying much money to “own”.
From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mobile in CBRS
That makes it easier for the carriers to stomp out the little GAA
guys :)
On 10/31/18 9:50 AM, Joe Novak wrote:
I think it's more likely that they will have a licensed anchor
channel and only aggregate 3.65 in the downlink, using different
frequencies for uplink. Carrier aggregation is a whole different
game of spectrum usage.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 9:38 AM Adam Moffett <[email protected]>
wrote:
One thing that was unfortunate about the NN license was that
mobile
stations had a stupid low Tx power limit. Basically mobile
wasn't viable.
Is CBRS going to have that type of restriction?
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<image001.jpg>--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
