[WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060829/190813.shtml Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi from the /is-that-about-face,-or-just-two-faced?/ dept Remember the good old days of... well, last year, when telcos were telcos and they absolutely hated muni-WiFi? It was such a huge threat to their business that they gave Congress people plenty of money to make it illegal. Of course, that was before they actually bothered looking at many of the muni-WiFi proposals, and recognized they weren't really government-run at all, but were really no different than traditional telco deals. The government was simply giving away rights of way for placing equipment in return for promises of service. The providers could still be commercial providers with real business models. Suddenly, the industry opposition quieted down. Industry associations claimed that muni-WiFi was great... and ATT (whose former employee introduced the bill to ban muni-WiFi) was seen providing the very same free, tax-supported WiFi they had screamed about just months before. Well, congrats to ATT for all that hard work trying to stop muni-WiFi. You've just won another muni-WiFi deal (this one without taxpayer funding). Of course, for those of you who thought that muni-WiFi would give consumers an alternate provider, offering real competition to the incumbent telco... well, that doesn't really work so well when that alternate provider is the telco itself. -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
Many WISPs have been too busy trashing the Muni-WiFi concept to look at the opportunities. Who can blame ATT for taking advantage when most WISPs turned up their noses. It is not too late for WISPs to get a foothold in the Muni-WiFi arena if they try. Turning up their noses at the idea will not win them any contracts though. The most important thing to understand is that getting access to light poles and electrical power is golden. The street light based wireless broadband platform will change over time. Eventually a platform will emerge that will work well. There are many people who are aggressively making headway toward building real carrier class wireless broadband operating off of street lights. I have 4 nodes being installed on street lights this morning. I see a day when these nodes will have GigE backhaul capacity with redundant paths all through the air. WiMAX distribution to homes and businesses will be the norm. This is going to happen. Scriv Peter R. wrote: http://techdirt.com/articles/20060829/190813.shtml Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi from the /is-that-about-face,-or-just-two-faced?/ dept Remember the good old days of... well, last year, when telcos were telcos and they absolutely hated muni-WiFi? It was such a huge threat to their business that they gave Congress people plenty of money to make it illegal. Of course, that was before they actually bothered looking at many of the muni-WiFi proposals, and recognized they weren't really government-run at all, but were really no different than traditional telco deals. The government was simply giving away rights of way for placing equipment in return for promises of service. The providers could still be commercial providers with real business models. Suddenly, the industry opposition quieted down. Industry associations claimed that muni-WiFi was great... and ATT (whose former employee introduced the bill to ban muni-WiFi) was seen providing the very same free, tax-supported WiFi they had screamed about just months before. Well, congrats to ATT for all that hard work trying to stop muni-WiFi. You've just won another muni-WiFi deal (this one without taxpayer funding). Of course, for those of you who thought that muni-WiFi would give consumers an alternate provider, offering real competition to the incumbent telco... well, that doesn't really work so well when that alternate provider is the telco itself. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
It helps you because you get to be the muni wireless company rather than a new player who may infringe upon your market share. George Matt Liotta wrote: I think you may be taking your city's view about muni Wi-Fi and applying it to the rest of the country. For example, if you read the Atlanta RFP, they require you to provide coverage for 95% of the city. Do you know what the city is offering up to the winning bidder? Access to traffic lights and city owned buildings. That's it! If you want pole rights you still have to contract with the local utility. If you want roof rights you have to contract with various building owners. So, what you consider golden isn't even on the table. And its not like Atlanta's RFP is somehow different than other major cities. We already have roof rights throughout the city and we already pay the local utility company for pole rights and power. How does providing a service to the city help me? -Matt John Scrivner wrote: Many WISPs have been too busy trashing the Muni-WiFi concept to look at the opportunities. Who can blame ATT for taking advantage when most WISPs turned up their noses. It is not too late for WISPs to get a foothold in the Muni-WiFi arena if they try. Turning up their noses at the idea will not win them any contracts though. The most important thing to understand is that getting access to light poles and electrical power is golden. The street light based wireless broadband platform will change over time. Eventually a platform will emerge that will work well. There are many people who are aggressively making headway toward building real carrier class wireless broadband operating off of street lights. I have 4 nodes being installed on street lights this morning. I see a day when these nodes will have GigE backhaul capacity with redundant paths all through the air. WiMAX distribution to homes and businesses will be the norm. This is going to happen. Scriv Peter R. wrote: http://techdirt.com/articles/20060829/190813.shtml Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi from the /is-that-about-face,-or-just-two-faced?/ dept Remember the good old days of... well, last year, when telcos were telcos and they absolutely hated muni-WiFi? It was such a huge threat to their business that they gave Congress people plenty of money to make it illegal. Of course, that was before they actually bothered looking at many of the muni-WiFi proposals, and recognized they weren't really government-run at all, but were really no different than traditional telco deals. The government was simply giving away rights of way for placing equipment in return for promises of service. The providers could still be commercial providers with real business models. Suddenly, the industry opposition quieted down. Industry associations claimed that muni-WiFi was great... and ATT (whose former employee introduced the bill to ban muni-WiFi) was seen providing the very same free, tax-supported WiFi they had screamed about just months before. Well, congrats to ATT for all that hard work trying to stop muni-WiFi. You've just won another muni-WiFi deal (this one without taxpayer funding). Of course, for those of you who thought that muni-WiFi would give consumers an alternate provider, offering real competition to the incumbent telco... well, that doesn't really work so well when that alternate provider is the telco itself. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
George Rogato wrote: It helps you because you get to be the muni wireless company rather than a new player who may infringe upon your market share. Even if we did do a deal with the city that wouldn't stop a new player from entering the market. Again, without something of value provided by the city there is no reason to do the deal. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Invictus networks
Rick Lindahl there goes back for years (about 10 that I know of) as one of the early guys in this business. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Invictus networks Has anyone done business with them? Experiences? Mark -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
I did look at the budget for the project. However, without an anchor customer the business plan doesn't look too hot. Personally, I doubt Earthlink can even afford to do it. Then again, they probably can't afford to not do it. I'd hate to be a shareholder. -Matt Brad Larson wrote: Matt, I understand your frustration. Did you spend the time to try and figure out what the cost would be for the Atlanta build out? Today most Muni's want someone to build and maintain on the service provider's dollar which puts larger projects beyond most wisp budgets. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi George Rogato wrote: It helps you because you get to be the muni wireless company rather than a new player who may infringe upon your market share. Even if we did do a deal with the city that wouldn't stop a new player from entering the market. Again, without something of value provided by the city there is no reason to do the deal. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
I should also add that we have a wait-and-see approach to the build it for free model will work. Cities get huge efficiency benefits from these networks and they should not expect to get this for free. The best networks are those that are being carefully designed with most of the applications in mind from the start, not those just designing networks for cheap public use. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:28 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Matt, I understand your frustration. Did you spend the time to try and figure out what the cost would be for the Atlanta build out? Today most Muni's want someone to build and maintain on the service provider's dollar which puts larger projects beyond most wisp budgets. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi George Rogato wrote: It helps you because you get to be the muni wireless company rather than a new player who may infringe upon your market share. Even if we did do a deal with the city that wouldn't stop a new player from entering the market. Again, without something of value provided by the city there is no reason to do the deal. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
Patrick Leary wrote: I agree that many WISPs have panned muni wi-fi instead of leveraging their expertise. WISPs were arguably best positioned initially to address this need. Smart VARs and resellers got busy though and whether WISPs realize it, almost all the VARs that serve the WISP community now have a muni engagement. It is just a business reality. And why shouldn't they? If you are radio vendor, reseller, or VAR muni Wi-Fi is a great thing. You get to sell a bunch radios and consulting time. It doesn't matter if the business plan makes sense or if the network even works long term. operators on the other hand have to be concerned about the long-term. Patrick, I bet your radios are doing great technically in the Mountain View deployment, but you stated you personally aren't able to use the Wi-Fi portion of the network. Does that make the network a failure from your perspective as a consumer? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
Matt, We are on the same page, trust me. There has yet to be a solidly working civic access muni network. By solidly, I mean indoor coverage without forced buying of a secondary CPE. We have also yet to see a successfully scaled mesh network for low cost civic access. Philly and San Fran are still on paper only. These networks are able to provide good outdoor coverage only so far. That is also why we like playing the multipoint backhaul layer. We can reliably deliver that middle layer and get high connectivity for the mesh nodes, fixed cameras, traffic lights, a city buildings, but the success of the Wi-Fi layer is beyond our control and remains the questionable piece. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:10 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Patrick Leary wrote: I agree that many WISPs have panned muni wi-fi instead of leveraging their expertise. WISPs were arguably best positioned initially to address this need. Smart VARs and resellers got busy though and whether WISPs realize it, almost all the VARs that serve the WISP community now have a muni engagement. It is just a business reality. And why shouldn't they? If you are radio vendor, reseller, or VAR muni Wi-Fi is a great thing. You get to sell a bunch radios and consulting time. It doesn't matter if the business plan makes sense or if the network even works long term. operators on the other hand have to be concerned about the long-term. Patrick, I bet your radios are doing great technically in the Mountain View deployment, but you stated you personally aren't able to use the Wi-Fi portion of the network. Does that make the network a failure from your perspective as a consumer? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
And when low cost civic access is not a component of the project, we do not believe mesh fits at all (except for small, localized clusters like in parks). In such cases, there is no one to fund it for free and cities themselves cannot justify 50-60 mesh nodes per square mile for their own internal use. So we spec in our mobile 900MHz layered under BreezeACCESS VL and/or 4900 cells (depending on the applications). In this method, we can get 1mbps net to vehicles using only a tenth of less of the infrastructure. At the same time, we enable officers to benefit from low cost Wi-Fi access by making the cars themselves Wi-Fi pico cells that they can use to connect to via PDAs or laptops. This is exactly why we won large installed public safety projects like Ocean City, MD; Cheyenne, WY; Fresno, CA; multiple cities on the edge of Chicago; and many other places. Those are networks where there is no residential/low cost civic access, this no rational case at all for mesh. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Matt, We are on the same page, trust me. There has yet to be a solidly working civic access muni network. By solidly, I mean indoor coverage without forced buying of a secondary CPE. We have also yet to see a successfully scaled mesh network for low cost civic access. Philly and San Fran are still on paper only. These networks are able to provide good outdoor coverage only so far. That is also why we like playing the multipoint backhaul layer. We can reliably deliver that middle layer and get high connectivity for the mesh nodes, fixed cameras, traffic lights, a city buildings, but the success of the Wi-Fi layer is beyond our control and remains the questionable piece. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:10 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Patrick Leary wrote: I agree that many WISPs have panned muni wi-fi instead of leveraging their expertise. WISPs were arguably best positioned initially to address this need. Smart VARs and resellers got busy though and whether WISPs realize it, almost all the VARs that serve the WISP community now have a muni engagement. It is just a business reality. And why shouldn't they? If you are radio vendor, reseller, or VAR muni Wi-Fi is a great thing. You get to sell a bunch radios and consulting time. It doesn't matter if the business plan makes sense or if the network even works long term. operators on the other hand have to be concerned about the long-term. Patrick, I bet your radios are doing great technically in the Mountain View deployment, but you stated you personally aren't able to use the Wi-Fi portion of the network. Does that make the network a failure from your perspective as a consumer? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
Patrick Leary wrote: We are on the same page, trust me. There has yet to be a solidly working civic access muni network. By solidly, I mean indoor coverage without forced buying of a secondary CPE. We have also yet to see a successfully scaled mesh network for low cost civic access. Philly and San Fran are still on paper only. These networks are able to provide good outdoor coverage only so far. That is also why we like playing the multipoint backhaul layer. We can reliably deliver that middle layer and get high connectivity for the mesh nodes, fixed cameras, traffic lights, a city buildings, but the success of the Wi-Fi layer is beyond our control and remains the questionable piece. What happens to Alvarion when these networks fail? Does the market get flooded with your radios for pennies on the dollar? Does it make customers question the viability of wireless operators in general? We are certainly questioned routinely on why we will succeed when WinStar and others failed. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
Our side of the network works well, and while the mesh side is not so good for residential, nomadic users are using it as are some city workers. So these networks will never be claimed to be a public failure. Instead, you may see them quietly transferred for local groups to run if the big guys building them cannot make a case over time. But again, our side works well and a major part of the business case is NOT the residential side, but in selling fixed services to businesses using the middle layer technology. At the same time, our radios are also connecting the traffic systems in some case, cameras in some, etc. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Patrick Leary wrote: We are on the same page, trust me. There has yet to be a solidly working civic access muni network. By solidly, I mean indoor coverage without forced buying of a secondary CPE. We have also yet to see a successfully scaled mesh network for low cost civic access. Philly and San Fran are still on paper only. These networks are able to provide good outdoor coverage only so far. That is also why we like playing the multipoint backhaul layer. We can reliably deliver that middle layer and get high connectivity for the mesh nodes, fixed cameras, traffic lights, a city buildings, but the success of the Wi-Fi layer is beyond our control and remains the questionable piece. What happens to Alvarion when these networks fail? Does the market get flooded with your radios for pennies on the dollar? Does it make customers question the viability of wireless operators in general? We are certainly questioned routinely on why we will succeed when WinStar and others failed. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
Actually you are also taking your own city's view and trying to say that is all there is. My opportunity gets me a paid contract to deploy mobile WiFi service into all police vehicles (even though it does not pay much), use of street light poles, use of water towers, etc. I doubt another provider would be interested in trying to compete if you cover a good part of your city. If you are not then why aren't you trying to cover the whole of the city? I am betting there is plenty of opportunity. What I don't know is if it makes money or goes broke using the muni-deployment model. Does the model pay out on paper? How long is ROI? What does the IRR look like over 5 years? I would be interested in seeing what you see as a model for this going forward. At least the capex and opex based on what revenues. Can you share? Maybe on the operator membership list? Thanks for anything you can share Matt. Scriv Matt Liotta wrote: I think you may be taking your city's view about muni Wi-Fi and applying it to the rest of the country. For example, if you read the Atlanta RFP, they require you to provide coverage for 95% of the city. Do you know what the city is offering up to the winning bidder? Access to traffic lights and city owned buildings. That's it! If you want pole rights you still have to contract with the local utility. If you want roof rights you have to contract with various building owners. So, what you consider golden isn't even on the table. And its not like Atlanta's RFP is somehow different than other major cities. We already have roof rights throughout the city and we already pay the local utility company for pole rights and power. How does providing a service to the city help me? -Matt John Scrivner wrote: Many WISPs have been too busy trashing the Muni-WiFi concept to look at the opportunities. Who can blame ATT for taking advantage when most WISPs turned up their noses. It is not too late for WISPs to get a foothold in the Muni-WiFi arena if they try. Turning up their noses at the idea will not win them any contracts though. The most important thing to understand is that getting access to light poles and electrical power is golden. The street light based wireless broadband platform will change over time. Eventually a platform will emerge that will work well. There are many people who are aggressively making headway toward building real carrier class wireless broadband operating off of street lights. I have 4 nodes being installed on street lights this morning. I see a day when these nodes will have GigE backhaul capacity with redundant paths all through the air. WiMAX distribution to homes and businesses will be the norm. This is going to happen. Scriv Peter R. wrote: http://techdirt.com/articles/20060829/190813.shtml Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi from the /is-that-about-face,-or-just-two-faced?/ dept Remember the good old days of... well, last year, when telcos were telcos and they absolutely hated muni-WiFi? It was such a huge threat to their business that they gave Congress people plenty of money to make it illegal. Of course, that was before they actually bothered looking at many of the muni-WiFi proposals, and recognized they weren't really government-run at all, but were really no different than traditional telco deals. The government was simply giving away rights of way for placing equipment in return for promises of service. The providers could still be commercial providers with real business models. Suddenly, the industry opposition quieted down. Industry associations claimed that muni-WiFi was great... and ATT (whose former employee introduced the bill to ban muni-WiFi) was seen providing the very same free, tax-supported WiFi they had screamed about just months before. Well, congrats to ATT for all that hard work trying to stop muni-WiFi. You've just won another muni-WiFi deal (this one without taxpayer funding). Of course, for those of you who thought that muni-WiFi would give consumers an alternate provider, offering real competition to the incumbent telco... well, that doesn't really work so well when that alternate provider is the telco itself. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
Matt Liotta wrote: Patrick Leary wrote: We are on the same page, trust me. There has yet to be a solidly working civic access muni network. By solidly, I mean indoor coverage without forced buying of a secondary CPE. We have also yet to see a successfully scaled mesh network for low cost civic access. Philly and San Fran are still on paper only. These networks are able to provide good outdoor coverage only so far. That is also why we like playing the multipoint backhaul layer. We can reliably deliver that middle layer and get high connectivity for the mesh nodes, fixed cameras, traffic lights, a city buildings, but the success of the Wi-Fi layer is beyond our control and remains the questionable piece. What happens to Alvarion when these networks fail? Does the market get flooded with your radios for pennies on the dollar? Does it make customers question the viability of wireless operators in general? We are certainly questioned routinely on why we will succeed when WinStar and others failed. -Matt Why should the networks all fail? If they provide easy mobile access to WiFi then that is what you design and build them to do. That is what I am doing. If the 4 nodes we turned on today in our downtown provide me with the ability to find a business downtown through the captive portal, allow me to access the Internet to check my email, and allow me to search for other information then it does what it needs to do for me. Define the terms for failure you are predicting. I have yet to see anyone prove that muni-WiFi will fail any more than I have seen anyone prove it will work. Matt, if you are thinking the platform will fail then why are you launching nodes on street lights yourself? Is it just a test system you are building or what? I believe there is too much interest in seeing muni-WiFi as a future platform for it to be a complete failure. I sure would like to see that business plan that shows it failing or prospering though. Neither plan exists as far as I know. It is the great unknown right now. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
Certainly I didn't mean to imply that Atlanta's RFP is the same as every other city. However, almost all of the first tier cities have similar RFPs. In regard to competition, remember that coverage doesn't matter; sales matter. It is easy to compete with even established WISPs who have large coverage areas because most of the time they don't know how to sell. This is not a problem that only WISPs face. We see it with CLECs as well. In our market, CBeyond easily beat all the established CLECs right in their backyards because they know how to sell. Footprint is not enough; execution is everything. -Matt John Scrivner wrote: Actually you are also taking your own city's view and trying to say that is all there is. My opportunity gets me a paid contract to deploy mobile WiFi service into all police vehicles (even though it does not pay much), use of street light poles, use of water towers, etc. I doubt another provider would be interested in trying to compete if you cover a good part of your city. If you are not then why aren't you trying to cover the whole of the city? I am betting there is plenty of opportunity. What I don't know is if it makes money or goes broke using the muni-deployment model. Does the model pay out on paper? How long is ROI? What does the IRR look like over 5 years? I would be interested in seeing what you see as a model for this going forward. At least the capex and opex based on what revenues. Can you share? Maybe on the operator membership list? Thanks for anything you can share Matt. Scriv Matt Liotta wrote: I think you may be taking your city's view about muni Wi-Fi and applying it to the rest of the country. For example, if you read the Atlanta RFP, they require you to provide coverage for 95% of the city. Do you know what the city is offering up to the winning bidder? Access to traffic lights and city owned buildings. That's it! If you want pole rights you still have to contract with the local utility. If you want roof rights you have to contract with various building owners. So, what you consider golden isn't even on the table. And its not like Atlanta's RFP is somehow different than other major cities. We already have roof rights throughout the city and we already pay the local utility company for pole rights and power. How does providing a service to the city help me? -Matt John Scrivner wrote: Many WISPs have been too busy trashing the Muni-WiFi concept to look at the opportunities. Who can blame ATT for taking advantage when most WISPs turned up their noses. It is not too late for WISPs to get a foothold in the Muni-WiFi arena if they try. Turning up their noses at the idea will not win them any contracts though. The most important thing to understand is that getting access to light poles and electrical power is golden. The street light based wireless broadband platform will change over time. Eventually a platform will emerge that will work well. There are many people who are aggressively making headway toward building real carrier class wireless broadband operating off of street lights. I have 4 nodes being installed on street lights this morning. I see a day when these nodes will have GigE backhaul capacity with redundant paths all through the air. WiMAX distribution to homes and businesses will be the norm. This is going to happen. Scriv Peter R. wrote: http://techdirt.com/articles/20060829/190813.shtml Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi from the /is-that-about-face,-or-just-two-faced?/ dept Remember the good old days of... well, last year, when telcos were telcos and they absolutely hated muni-WiFi? It was such a huge threat to their business that they gave Congress people plenty of money to make it illegal. Of course, that was before they actually bothered looking at many of the muni-WiFi proposals, and recognized they weren't really government-run at all, but were really no different than traditional telco deals. The government was simply giving away rights of way for placing equipment in return for promises of service. The providers could still be commercial providers with real business models. Suddenly, the industry opposition quieted down. Industry associations claimed that muni-WiFi was great... and ATT (whose former employee introduced the bill to ban muni-WiFi) was seen providing the very same free, tax-supported WiFi they had screamed about just months before. Well, congrats to ATT for all that hard work trying to stop muni-WiFi. You've just won another muni-WiFi deal (this one without taxpayer funding). Of course, for those of you who thought that muni-WiFi would give consumers an alternate provider, offering real competition to the incumbent telco... well, that doesn't really work so well when that alternate provider is the telco itself. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
John Scrivner wrote: Why should the networks all fail? If they provide easy mobile access to WiFi then that is what you design and build them to do. That is what I am doing. If the 4 nodes we turned on today in our downtown provide me with the ability to find a business downtown through the captive portal, allow me to access the Internet to check my email, and allow me to search for other information then it does what it needs to do for me. Define the terms for failure you are predicting. I have yet to see anyone prove that muni-WiFi will fail any more than I have seen anyone prove it will work. Matt, if you are thinking the platform will fail then why are you launching nodes on street lights yourself? Is it just a test system you are building or what? I believe there is too much interest in seeing muni-WiFi as a future platform for it to be a complete failure. I sure would like to see that business plan that shows it failing or prospering though. Neither plan exists as far as I know. It is the great unknown right now. Many of these networks are meant for home broadband; not nomadic use. In fact, if you read Philadelphia's RFP one of the reasons they wanted the network was to provide broadband at homes where DSL is not available. I don't think all muni networks will fail, but I do expect ones where the city provides no revenue to fail. Why would we deploy nodes ourselves? Call it a defensive measure. I won't say anything else publicly. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
I do not see the upside to any Muni-Wifi Project for WISPs. Unless, the Muni is providing the funds to grant to the WISP that wins the RFP. Even if RFP required a Small Business set aside portion in proposal (for example 25% of opportunity must be contracted out to third party local WISPs), it would not be enough. Most new Muni projects are only offering non-cash assets, that established WISPs likely already have in some equivellent shape or form. I embrace Muni Wifi, only for the reason that I loose less, if I get involved. By getting involved... WISPs have the opportunity to protect the wireless broadband reputation, by encouraging best practices. WISPs have the opporuntiy to incourage non-interference and co-existence, by gaining good will with parties involved. WISPs have the opportunity to delay progress, by bring up relevent issues that need addressing before deployments would be successful (Buying time). It doesn't have to be that way, but it is, because legislators are to worried about conserving tax dollars to win elections than they are about putting tax dollars to good use to help the success of an industry that would indirectly help the public. The exception to this, are the WISPs going after grants and loans, where the local governement becomes a partner to help secure the requirements for receiving federal or state funding. The other reason this is the case is that high volume projects are structured to reduce profit margin. Once that happens, its a commodity price business, just like everything else where service no longer matters. I will say that Muni networks will likely help some under preveledged areas get broadband, where they currently couldn't. So some public will benefit. But I don't see how the WISP will end up winning. It may create jobs for skilled Wireless techs, who's previous companies got put out of business. The worst part of Muni Wireless is that it will substancially kill the abilty for funding options to independent WISPs. If their is a public funded Wifi Project, it will be impossible for independant WISPs to get funding support from Governements to compete against the public project. It wouldn't be politically correct. I actually think Muni Wireless will be rather Ironic at the end of the day. Many WISPs spent years trying to get easements from governement assets, ending up empty handed. Only for easements to eventually be given to the goliath company that wins the RFP. You know, the company that wouldn't deliver broadband to mcuh of the needy consumers the first 5 years, which was the reason for the start of WISP companies in the first place. There is no loyalty in this business, is my opinion. Whats most ironic about it, is Muni Wireless is often nomadic in technical design. Most likely WiMax(e) Mobile will replace the architecture, and most of the Muni Projects will just have to be rebuilt again, 2 years down the road, to compete with the Telcos for nomadic broadband services. A better approach, would be for the federal Government to require all MTU property owners to deploy or contract to deploy a minimum of 2 broadband options to their buildings. And then let the WISPs or those moving fastest start taking orders. Public assets are not whats needed, its private MTU owners's assets taht are needed for mass adoption. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Matt Liotta wrote: Patrick Leary wrote: We are on the same page, trust me. There has yet to be a solidly working civic access muni network. By solidly, I mean indoor coverage without forced buying of a secondary CPE. We have also yet to see a successfully scaled mesh network for low cost civic access. Philly and San Fran are still on paper only. These networks are able to provide good outdoor coverage only so far. That is also why we like playing the multipoint backhaul layer. We can reliably deliver that middle layer and get high connectivity for the mesh nodes, fixed cameras, traffic lights, a city buildings, but the success of the Wi-Fi layer is beyond our control and remains the questionable piece. What happens to Alvarion when these networks fail? Does the market get flooded with your radios for pennies on the dollar? Does it make customers question the viability of wireless operators in general? We are certainly questioned routinely on why we will succeed when WinStar and others failed. -Matt Why should the networks all fail? If they provide easy mobile access to WiFi then that is what you design and build them to do. That is what I am doing. If the 4 nodes we turned on today in our downtown provide me with the ability to find a business downtown through the captive portal, allow me to access
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
There are networks like Allconet that are definate success stories of Muni wireless, in their case that use Alvarion gear. But these are different animals, and projects funded by the government for governement as the subscribers. There are definately benefits to government workers that need nomadic or mobile connectivity options. The secret is to sell that benefit, so that governement pays for it, and has the excess capacity jsut sitting theree unused to sell or donate to public use. My arguement is that the biggest prospective client for use of a mobile network is the governement. If you give service to them free or without financial contribution from them, its just plain stupid in my mind. The reason most Muni will fail, is that they try and maximize the advantage of their assets by playing the potentual users agaisnt each other in competition to find the higherst bidder to buy the exclusive rights. (Which I argue is unethical). But they then limit their options to one provider. Instead what they should do is create a blank PO for ALL service providers that will give the assets up to the quickest takers on a first come first serve basis for as much space that is available for free. (not just one provider). To be clear, I'm not suggesting all exclusive city wide territory, in the Blank PO, I'm referring to a Blank PO that would cover and accelerate approval for all poles but the right to install on a specific pole is a first come first serve per pole. No right is granted for more than 30 days in advance of it actually being installed. This would create a labd fight race to see who could build quickest to serve people. And it wouldn't put all the governments eggs in one basket. Or the governement should issue a certain number of Circuit order for broadband, and award them to the first come first server Wireless providers that can deliver the service. I personally, deployed way more cell sites than I should ahve financially jstified, but I did it because if I didn;t snag them someone else would first. The Governement has the abilty to create such a type of Demand. Instead they want to issue it to one, where it has been proven that there is no accountabilty for failure when no competition has been created in the endeavor. So many confuse Competition as companies competing for the right to be the one to mail the invoice. Competition is need in the infrastructure to. Without it its a doomed model. Its different for Muni FIber. Fiber NEEDs the easement. Fiber is expensive, and can not be justified if its not a long term financed project for all to share the burden of the cost, and where the capacity is near unlimited in practical purposes. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:05 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Our side of the network works well, and while the mesh side is not so good for residential, nomadic users are using it as are some city workers. So these networks will never be claimed to be a public failure. Instead, you may see them quietly transferred for local groups to run if the big guys building them cannot make a case over time. But again, our side works well and a major part of the business case is NOT the residential side, but in selling fixed services to businesses using the middle layer technology. At the same time, our radios are also connecting the traffic systems in some case, cameras in some, etc. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Patrick Leary wrote: We are on the same page, trust me. There has yet to be a solidly working civic access muni network. By solidly, I mean indoor coverage without forced buying of a secondary CPE. We have also yet to see a successfully scaled mesh network for low cost civic access. Philly and San Fran are still on paper only. These networks are able to provide good outdoor coverage only so far. That is also why we like playing the multipoint backhaul layer. We can reliably deliver that middle layer and get high connectivity for the mesh nodes, fixed cameras, traffic lights, a city buildings, but the success of the Wi-Fi layer is beyond our control and remains the questionable piece. What happens to Alvarion when these networks fail? Does the market get flooded with your radios for pennies on the dollar? Does it make customers question the viability of wireless operators in general? We are certainly questioned routinely on why we will succeed when WinStar and others failed. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List:
[WISPA] u.fl pigtails
I'm looking for some u.fl to n female pigtails that are at least 14 - 16 inches long. I need them to be 6 ghz rated or better - very low loss. Anyone? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] u.fl pigtails
Sorry, these need to be u.fl to n female bulkhead. Thanks +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:06 PM Subject: [WISPA] u.fl pigtails I'm looking for some u.fl to n female pigtails that are at least 14 - 16 inches long. I need them to be 6 ghz rated or better - very low loss. Anyone? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
IMHO. For some reason wifi has gone from being a convenience and hotspot technology to the 4th leg of broadband for the masses or the 4th leg of broadband to close the digital divide (meaning 95% or more coverage over a whole community-large and small). Mesh on the edge could be getting oversold and at some point convenience will be the telling force for deployments again. I'm waiting for a deployment to prove me wrong but the RFP's I see for data, voip, and video etc. to the edge are a stretch. I think this may be what Patrick is trying to say?? VOIP is the latest killer application and it brings most wireless networks to their knees with lots of the products that are shipping today. You'll hear more and more on this as deployments start getting legs. Wait until some of the comparisons come out that I have seen from Alvarion and several well respected customers who have done some substantial voip testing. Data is hard enough blanketing whole communities with wifi mesh and when voip and other applications are added the dynamics change quite a bit. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Our side of the network works well, and while the mesh side is not so good for residential, nomadic users are using it as are some city workers. So these networks will never be claimed to be a public failure. Instead, you may see them quietly transferred for local groups to run if the big guys building them cannot make a case over time. But again, our side works well and a major part of the business case is NOT the residential side, but in selling fixed services to businesses using the middle layer technology. At the same time, our radios are also connecting the traffic systems in some case, cameras in some, etc. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Patrick Leary wrote: We are on the same page, trust me. There has yet to be a solidly working civic access muni network. By solidly, I mean indoor coverage without forced buying of a secondary CPE. We have also yet to see a successfully scaled mesh network for low cost civic access. Philly and San Fran are still on paper only. These networks are able to provide good outdoor coverage only so far. That is also why we like playing the multipoint backhaul layer. We can reliably deliver that middle layer and get high connectivity for the mesh nodes, fixed cameras, traffic lights, a city buildings, but the success of the Wi-Fi layer is beyond our control and remains the questionable piece. What happens to Alvarion when these networks fail? Does the market get flooded with your radios for pennies on the dollar? Does it make customers question the viability of wireless operators in general? We are certainly questioned routinely on why we will succeed when WinStar and others failed. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191).
Re: [WISPA] u.fl pigtails
Roger Peters? Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Sorry, these need to be u.fl to n female bulkhead. Thanks +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:06 PM Subject: [WISPA] u.fl pigtails I'm looking for some u.fl to n female pigtails that are at least 14 - 16 inches long. I need them to be 6 ghz rated or better - very low loss. Anyone? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
Tom DeReggi wrote: My arguement is that the biggest prospective client for use of a mobile network is the governement. If you give service to them free or without financial contribution from them, its just plain stupid in my mind. But what about cellular? Aren't they posed best to take advantage of mobile customers because they are all theirs anyways? Sprint just announced they will be doing mobile wimax. Verizon already has a decent nation wide high speed mobile internet access product that a lot of law enforcement are all ready using in the plice cars. And just this morning we heard about 4g cellular delivering 100megs to the police car at 37 miles per hour. How does muni fit into the future that will be dominated by cellular? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Invictus networks
I spoke to Rick today for a bit... seems very knowledgeable, and he has a variety of products in stock, meaning just overnight for me... The first people who seem to know their stuff at overnight distance. Thanks for the name. Mark +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:52 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Invictus networks Rick Lindahl there goes back for years (about 10 that I know of) as one of the early guys in this business. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Invictus networks Has anyone done business with them? Experiences? Mark -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
I wasn't going to pipe in on this topic, but George hit it square on the head: Cellular. Laptops are now available with built-in cellular data cards. This trend will only continue as the cellular data rates continue to increase. My Sprint data card pretty consistently pulls 500Kbps and can peak at nearly 1.5Mbps. This is far better than many WiFi hotspots I have connected to and certainly better than any Muni-WiFi system I've seen. Pure coverage alone will give the cellular networks a huge advantage over any muni system. I can guarantee you the next laptop I buy will have a cellular data card built-in. grin Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Tom DeReggi wrote: My arguement is that the biggest prospective client for use of a mobile network is the governement. If you give service to them free or without financial contribution from them, its just plain stupid in my mind. But what about cellular? Aren't they posed best to take advantage of mobile customers because they are all theirs anyways? Sprint just announced they will be doing mobile wimax. Verizon already has a decent nation wide high speed mobile internet access product that a lot of law enforcement are all ready using in the plice cars. And just this morning we heard about 4g cellular delivering 100megs to the police car at 37 miles per hour. How does muni fit into the future that will be dominated by cellular? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best VAR's
The WISP industry has created some interesting issues with the traditional VAR/Distributor definitions. In reality the lines have been blurred considerably. There are folks like us (Electro-Comm) and Tessco that think of ourselves as traditional 2 tier distributors. Typically we would sell to resellers, dealers and such as we do with the Motorola Canopy model. However in the wireless industry it is typical for the distributors to sell direct to wireless service providers like cellular carriers, paging carriers and such. The WISP is much like these other carriers, only typically smaller. So therefore we have been selling direct to the WISP market when the manufacturers channel model allows, like Tranzeo and Smartbridges. Also, most WISPs are quite savvy when it comes to integrating wireless gear, often as knowledgeable, or more, than the VARs. So the ultimate question is, How much help do you think you need? There are some very good VARs that deal with the WISP industry that can provide on-site RF surveys, do the installations, train your engineers and be available for after-sale support. If you believe yourself to be self sufficient and already knowledgeable in the IP and wireless area and just look for a little additional help and/or recommendations from someone, then the distributors can typically fulfill that roll perfectly well. At Electro-comm we often go a bit beyond the very basics of support, but since we're talking about distributors as a whole I'll leave the definition as is. Now on the VAR side there are 2 types, those that look like distributors and those that focus primarily on services. There are a few resellers that actually inventory product and provide services. Other resellers will drop ship product from the distributor (us) and do the integration and support work themselves. There are many resellers in this business that provide no other service than to simply burn up the phone lines dialing for dollars, looking for WISPs to sell something to. While others can provide considerable support and training. I hope this thread gets some action as I'd like to see other's perceptions of the industry and it's channels. Being an old-timer in this business I've seen it change a lot. We were supplying pigtails, LMR cable, amps and antennas for the systems based on Lucent cards back in the early days. I have to say I like the technological advances. But concerned as it's attracted some people interested in getting a piece of the latest fad. Mike B Jeffrey Thomas wrote: Hey everyone. Just curious- who on this list uses var / vs Distributors like tessco? If you do use VAR/VAD/SI'S do they really provide a value add for you? What Var's are your favorite for purchasing hardware / services from? Thanks for your help, Jeff Booher -- Mike Brownson Electro-comm Distributing 5015 Paris St Denver, CO 80239 www.electro-comm.com (303) 371-8182 x112, (800) 525-0173 Your 24x7 support staff is at www.ShopECBIZ.com Interested in Metro WiFi? We have solutions Coming soon from Tranzeo, 900MHz PtMP -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: SPAM-LOW: [WISPA] Shielded / grounded CAT5
I do not see anything like this on Belden's site, Can you be more specific or send a copy of what you are talking about? Ken Chipps -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:55 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: SPAM-LOW: [WISPA] Sheilded / grounded CAT5 I found a great pdf file on Belden's site showing how to make shielded ends. We use them on all of our AP's. Some CPE installs require shielded also. Like a 900 Canopy recently sharing space with a ham radio in the 145MHz range. They have a Cable 101 section somewhere. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: SPAM-LOW: [WISPA] Sheilded / grounded CAT5 I'm interested in finding out how to make best use of shielded CAT5. Where do I find connectors with the shielding, instructions for these things, etc? I'm going to be working near some high RF spots and think that shielded CAT5 would be good to use. Thanks Mark +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/433 - Release Date: 8/30/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
