The SAS system handles coordination and is supposed to mitigate interference between users, and the SAS developers (Google, Microsoft, etc) are of the opinion that their SAS is capable of handling census-tract-sized license areas.

Who has the local spectrum? From the FCC's plan: "Up to seven total PALs may be assigned in any given census tract with up to four PALs going to any single applicant." At the very least this will allow a duopoly, with up to seven licensed competitors in an area. Regardless of the license size, big or small, there is nothing preventing a large carrier from bidding on a license!

"National and state wide networks" are allowed to bid against any local user. The difference is the area the license covers. Census tracts are 52 square miles on average. Partial Economic Areas are 9125 square miles on average. How many users do you think can afford a PEA-sized license? It is economically unfeasible for anyone except a select few cellular carriers. Does that sound like "real price competition" to you?

Under the 2015 NPRM, licenses would be bid upon every 3 years. That allows license prices to reflect current market value, and doesn't allow for any generational lock-in.

The same national networks that cover densely populated areas, and ignore many rural areas in between? The same national networks that already own oodles of spectrum licenses, yet don't utilize that spectrum remotely to its full potential? The same national networks that lock customers in to multi-year contracts, lock down the smartphone OSes, preinstall bloatware, ads and tracking software? The same national networks that don't offer true unlimited service or fixed service plans for home use? The same mobile networks that don't offer public IP addresses, and (in some locations) stable network latency suitable for gaming and interactive uses?

What about the many, many small towns with limited or no service from the national carriers, despite the carriers already owning spectrum licenses that cover those towns? Those areas deemed economically unfeasible by the large companies, may never get that "bridge" built unless a local company or cooperative does it. CBRS isn't magical, and the companies who haven't deployed 600/700/800Mhz LTE in small towns or rural areas yet, probably won't be rolling in to put up new towers just for 3.65Ghz. CBRS is an opportunity for local people to fill in gaps in the coverage areas of the national carriers, but with the 9125-square-mile average license size that TMO/CTIA are wanting, this opportunity will not come to fruition.

With all due respect, I have to question your motivation on this topic. It's not a "relaxing of federal rules", it's a tweak of proposed rulemaking that makes it practical for only the largest few companies to gain licensed access, shutting out the opportunity for smaller users to even bid on their local area. It does nothing to encourage competition, and does everything to stifle it. CBRS has in the works since 2010, and from the outset it was intended to be a different, modern approach to sharing wireless spectrum, a limited resource, in the most efficient manner possible, allowing it to be used by many groups for many purposes, and use it in geographically small areas that has never been available before. TMO/CTIA are seeking to bring CBRS as much "into the fold" as possible, so they can use it just like they use their many other spectrum licenses scattered across the microwave bands.

This is a battle of "same 'ol, same 'ol" versus a new method of using spectrum to more of its potential.

How do you expect CBRS licenses will change this situation? The CBRS plan from 2015 until late 2017 was to have census-tract-sized licenses, covering a smaller area than has been licensed before. The TMO/CTIA proposal is to use PEA (Partial Economic Area)-sized licenses, which cover metro areas or large swaths of rural areas. This would make the license area similar to existing cellular licenses, far from "nationwide" like you are saying.

CBRS is an acronym for Citizens Broadband Radio Service. "Telco", "call cost", and "national" aren't really very relevant to this discussion.

Taken from the FCC's NPRM on CBRS:
6. This regulatory adaptability should make the 3.5 GHz Band hospitable to a wide variety of users, deployment models, and business cases, including some solutions to market needs not adequately served by our conventional licensed or unlicensed rules. Carriers can avail themselves of "success-based" license acquisition, deploying small cells on a GAA basis where they need additional capacity and paying for the surety of license protection only in targeted locations where they find a demonstrable need for more interference protection. Real estate owners can deploy neutral host systems in high-traffic venues, allowing for cost-effective network sharing among multiple wireless providers and their customers. Manufacturers, utilities, and other large industries can construct private wireless broadband networks to automate processes that require some measure of interference protection and yet are not appropriately outsourced to a commercial cellular network. Smart grid, rural broadband, small cell backhaul, and other point-to-multipoint networks can potentially access three times more bandwidth than was available under our previous 3650-3700 MHz band rules. All of these applications could share common wireless technologies, providing economies of scale and facilitating intensive use of the spectrum.

As I've shown above, that isn't the purpose of CBRS, nor will CBRS enable this while previous spectrum auctions have failed. There is nothing preventing large carriers from bidding on these licenses, large or small. Large licenses shut out the very users CBRS was intended for, though, solely for the benefit of the large cellular carriers. I don't believe most Americans view the large carriers with the same rosey glasses as you. "Your trusted telco brand" may have better approval ratings than Congress, but that's a pretty low bar.

3.65Ghz LTE (not Wifi) equipment is available today from Airspan, Baicells, Telrad, and probably other manufacturers. Equipment has been available for a while for use under older licensing rules, with the intent to keep using the same equipment when 3.65Ghz gets repurposed under newer CBRS licensing rules, replacing the older licensed usage. The working plan since 2015, supported by Google, Microsoft, and other developers of SAS (Spectrum Access System, the centralized control system that prevents various licensees from interfering with each other), has been for licenses to cover census tract-sized areas. Small network operators have been purchasing and deploying this equipment for years, expecting the opportunity to bid on census-tract-sized licenses when their current licenses are subsumed under the new CBRS rules. This TMO and CTIA-supported change is tantamount to pulling the rug out from under these operators, after they have already invested heavily in this new LTE equipment.

Whoa whoa whoa. Lots of misinformation here. -You really should look at flashlight output curves with alkaline cells, and then NiMH cells. While they tend to start out brighter with alkaline cells, that tends to quickly change, and NiMH cells will stay brighter for longer. The brighter the flashlight, the more this difference is amplified. -I wouldn't say rechargeables store DISTINCTLY less energy. Technology has improved, and they are now storing nearly as much energy as alkalines. I look for them to surpass alkalines sometime this year. The catch is useable energy. As currents increase, alkalines really start performing poorly. I know that with a piddly 1A current draw, NiMH cells will very noticeably outperform alkalines. I've got a flashlight pulling 3.3A, and alkalines barely last 10 minutes in it. My NiMH cells last over 40 minutes. -I'm not sure what the shelf life is of NiMH batteries, but the majority of my 4 year old cells are working fine. The reason some aren't is because I ran them too low in large battery packs (8 cell series configuration), and every now and then a weak one will reverse charge in that scenario. Now that I don't try to milk every last joule out of them before I put them on the charger, I haven't had any more problems. In my experience, capacity doesn't start noticeable dropping until at least 100 charge/drain cycles. -Complaining about a two-color status LED requiring attention? Come on man, this is Slashdot, FFS! Solid red light means it's charging, flashlight red light means it couldn't charge because of a problem, and green indicates the batteries were successfully charged. How hard is that? Even my father figured it out, and I had to show him the power button on his new TV remote the other day. And while we're on the topic, it's perfectly safe to charge any NiMH battery in any NiMH charger, regardless of brand. I'd just stay away from off-brand chargers, and even off-brand cells. Just like I don't use no-name alkalines. Cost-wise, it's something everyone has to figure out for themselves. For me, it was simple. Duracell/Energizer alkaline: ~$.60. Energizer 2500mAH NiMH cells: $2.00. Even including the electricity to charge them, the rechargeables pay for themselves in just 4 charges. There's the charger cost to consider too ($20), but recharging 4 AAs just six times covers that, by my math. I still use alkalines in my alarm clock, but that's about it. And to the other child poster: NiMHs actually do lose energy just by sitting, and in fact at a greater rate than NiCD. I believe NiMHs lose about 30% of their energy per month, while NiCD is more like 18%. This is NiMH's chief drawback IMO, but it's not significant to most people. I just use alkalines in my clocks and remotes, and NiMHs in everything else.