<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for tbetts007</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/tbetts007/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/tbetts007/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:04:18 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Questions aside, nationwide network remains vital</title><link>http://urgentcomm.com/networks_and_systems/commentary/national-broadband-necessary-20090723/#comment-13305637</link><description>&lt;p&gt;We in Public Safety question the merits of a nationwide broadband network, not because we're content our current capabilities but because we have nowhere to go. We're at the mercy of the carriers. We either use our existing private systems at low speed or we pay the carriers for minimally adequate service. A national broadband network controlled by the carriers gives us greater capabilities but at what cost? &lt;br&gt;Using your analogy, what if your bat was owned by someone else, you had to pay a fee to use it and when you needed it the most (think 2 out and the bottom of the 9th), the owner won't let you have it because it's being used by someone else?&lt;br&gt;Our desire is to allow for regional licensing of that spectrum to Public Safety; let us tailor it to our needs for coverage, priority and use. We're not against a Public/Private partnership, we're just saying it's not for everyone.&lt;br&gt;The argument has been made that only large urban areas can afford this model. I would argue that if rural areas held the license to that spectrum, they could leverage one heck of a deal with carriers.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tbetts007</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:04:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Questions aside, nationwide network remains vital</title><link>http://urgentcomm.com/networks_and_systems/commentary/national-broadband-necessary-20090723/#comment-13292650</link><description>&lt;p&gt;We in Public Safety question the merits of a NationWide network not because we're satisfied with our current technology, just the opposite. We're stuck at 19.2kbs or forced to pay monthly subscriber fees to the carriers. A nationwide network from the carriers give us nothing more. &lt;br&gt;To use your baseball bat analogy; what if you didn't own the bat, that you had to pay a monthly fee for its use and when you needed it the most, (2 out in the bottom of the 9th) the guy who owned it gave it to someone else based on priority.&lt;br&gt;This is why Public Safety is against a carrier owned network. Give us the opportunity to license, build and control our own networks.&lt;br&gt;And if you want rural coverage, give them 20Mhz of spectrum and see how much leverage they'll have in getting the carriers to build a network for them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tbetts007</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:27:44 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>