Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie At the end of the day when a WISP puts up a 'cell' site it is probably costing them 1/100th of what it costs the cellco to do so. The equipment used is most likely 1/100th the cost at the 'AP' and 1/10th at the CPE and the spectrum that the cellco uses is not free. Even when you take into account that the cellco operates on a much longer ROI and they can get some economy of scale on certain things I don't see how they can overcome the price difference to be able to effectively compete against a WISP, especially given their lack of spectrum. Sure you get a much better noise floor, but they have fewer channels to deal with. And from a cost perspective it is a lot harder to justify putting up micropops as a cellco. I know plenty of WISPs that can afford to put a micro-pop up for 3 customers. I do see how a cellco could afford to do that for eveny 20 times that number. Deep pockets only last so long when you are losing money. On 10/26/11 11:07 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/26/2011 11:42 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: The LIVE network here does 26Mb x 22Mb with70ms latency. The VZW network isn't such bad competition for a WISP for two reasons. One -- those numbers you see are on the brand-new, unloaded network. The've just started selling LTE gear this year, so the cells are nowhere near full capacity. As they get busier, average capacity per subscriber will go down, especially during busy hours. At some point they will add cells, but I'm suspecting it's at a much lower performance point than you're seeing now. Two -- their per-cell costs are much higher, and thus they have to charge more for bulk usage. They have caps on their plans, and additional usage is very costly. So while LTE is okay for the vacation traveler looking to check email and read a few favorite web sites, or the light home user, it's not going to appeal to even moderate users. Even Sprint is starting to cap its plans, after running a huge unlimited (uh, for the rest of the month?) advertising campaign. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
By the same token I doubt they are going to have separate plans for rural and urban sites so what they do in the hinterlands they will have to support in the population centers. An interesting question will be can I pick up my 'fixed' equipment and haul somewhere else and use it, which would make it somewhat mobile. On 10/27/11 10:31 AM, Charles Wu wrote: I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie At the end of the day when a WISP puts up a 'cell' site it is probably costing them 1/100th of what it costs the cellco to do so. The equipment used is most likely 1/100th the cost at the 'AP' and 1/10th at the CPE and the spectrum that the cellco uses is not free. Even when you take into account that the cellco operates on a much longer ROI and they can get some economy of scale on certain things I don't see how they can overcome the price difference to be able to effectively compete against a WISP, especially given their lack of spectrum. Sure you get a much better noise floor, but they have fewer channels to deal with. And from a cost perspective it is a lot harder to justify putting up micropops as a cellco. I know plenty of WISPs that can afford to put a micro-pop up for 3 customers. I do see how a cellco could afford to do that for eveny 20 times that number. Deep pockets only last so long when you are losing money. On 10/26/11 11:07 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/26/2011 11:42 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: The LIVE network here does 26Mb x 22Mb with70ms latency. The VZW network isn't such bad competition for a WISP for two reasons. One -- those numbers you see are on the brand-new, unloaded network. The've just started selling LTE gear this year, so the cells are nowhere near full capacity. As they get busier, average capacity per subscriber will go down, especially during busy hours. At some point they will add cells, but I'm suspecting it's at a much lower performance point than you're seeing now. Two -- their per-cell costs are much higher, and thus they have to charge more for bulk usage. They have caps on their plans, and additional usage is very costly. So while LTE is okay for the vacation traveler looking to check email and read a few favorite web sites, or the light home user, it's not going to appeal to even moderate users. Even Sprint is starting to cap its plans, after running a huge unlimited (uh, for the rest of the month?) advertising campaign. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
Charles, I think you should rephrase your statement - Cellular networks (especially in metropolitan areas) WERE built for coverage. With 4G services, they are built for capacity. I doubt the coverage metric will change in rural areas though. There is also a major question on backhaul. Microwave backhaul may be equal for 2G/3G networks, but as 4G proliferates it will have a higher dependency on Fiber or 60GHz/80GHz short range high capacity backhaul. Most rural sites will only support 11GHz/6GHz for backhaul and therefore lower found capacity they could deliver via fixed wireless. On the other hand, WISP's can be nimble to all of these demands, at a much lower equipment cost. FTTH of course is a different metric altogether. Verizon wireline loves to plow fiber now. Anyways, my 2 cents. I could certainly be wrong :-) Daniel White -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie At the end of the day when a WISP puts up a 'cell' site it is probably costing them 1/100th of what it costs the cellco to do so. The equipment used is most likely 1/100th the cost at the 'AP' and 1/10th at the CPE and the spectrum that the cellco uses is not free. Even when you take into account that the cellco operates on a much longer ROI and they can get some economy of scale on certain things I don't see how they can overcome the price difference to be able to effectively compete against a WISP, especially given their lack of spectrum. Sure you get a much better noise floor, but they have fewer channels to deal with. And from a cost perspective it is a lot harder to justify putting up micropops as a cellco. I know plenty of WISPs that can afford to put a micro-pop up for 3 customers. I do see how a cellco could afford to do that for eveny 20 times that number. Deep pockets only last so long when you are losing money. On 10/26/11 11:07 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/26/2011 11:42 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: The LIVE network here does 26Mb x 22Mb with70ms latency. The VZW network isn't such bad competition for a WISP for two reasons. One -- those numbers you see are on the brand-new, unloaded network. The've just started selling LTE gear this year, so the cells are nowhere near full capacity. As they get busier, average capacity per subscriber will go down, especially during busy hours. At some point they will add cells, but I'm suspecting it's at a much lower performance point than you're seeing now. Two -- their per-cell costs are much higher, and thus they have to charge more for bulk usage. They have caps on their plans, and additional usage is very costly. So while LTE is okay for the vacation traveler looking to check email and read a few favorite web sites, or the light home user, it's not going to appeal to even moderate users. Even Sprint is starting to cap its plans, after running a huge unlimited (uh, for the rest of the month?) advertising campaign. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
Cellular systems in urban areas are built for capacity. Thats why you have so many low level sites, frequency reuse. Capacity rules king. In rural areas, coverage rules. That is why they use a lot of intellirepeater sites, that actually work off close existing sites, with very minimal capacity. Often limited to one outdoor cabinet and 3 panels. (and in some cases a mag mount antenna on the cabinet for the donor site to be able to talk to it) Capacity of varying sites changes also on a network. While one site may have X capacity with X transcievers, the one 5 miles away, same network, may have twice that number. They may look alike from the outside, but the equipment inside is different TOE. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Charles Wu c...@cticonnect.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles / WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
Didn't Verizon announce FIOS is pretty much dead at this point. I thought I read they are fulfilling their current obligations, but planned no new rollouts in the forseeable future. On 10/27/11 11:20 AM, Daniel White wrote: Charles, I think you should rephrase your statement - Cellular networks (especially in metropolitan areas) WERE built for coverage. With 4G services, they are built for capacity. I doubt the coverage metric will change in rural areas though. There is also a major question on backhaul. Microwave backhaul may be equal for 2G/3G networks, but as 4G proliferates it will have a higher dependency on Fiber or 60GHz/80GHz short range high capacity backhaul. Most rural sites will only support 11GHz/6GHz for backhaul and therefore lower found capacity they could deliver via fixed wireless. On the other hand, WISP's can be nimble to all of these demands, at a much lower equipment cost. FTTH of course is a different metric altogether. Verizon wireline loves to plow fiber now. Anyways, my 2 cents. I could certainly be wrong :-) Daniel White -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie At the end of the day when a WISP puts up a 'cell' site it is probably costing them 1/100th of what it costs the cellco to do so. The equipment used is most likely 1/100th the cost at the 'AP' and 1/10th at the CPE and the spectrum that the cellco uses is not free. Even when you take into account that the cellco operates on a much longer ROI and they can get some economy of scale on certain things I don't see how they can overcome the price difference to be able to effectively compete against a WISP, especially given their lack of spectrum. Sure you get a much better noise floor, but they have fewer channels to deal with. And from a cost perspective it is a lot harder to justify putting up micropops as a cellco. I know plenty of WISPs that can afford to put a micro-pop up for 3 customers. I do see how a cellco could afford to do that for eveny 20 times that number. Deep pockets only last so long when you are losing money. On 10/26/11 11:07 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/26/2011 11:42 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: The LIVE network here does 26Mb x 22Mb with70ms latency. The VZW network isn't such bad competition for a WISP for two reasons. One -- those numbers you see are on the brand-new, unloaded network. The've just started selling LTE gear this year, so the cells are nowhere near full capacity. As they get busier, average capacity per subscriber will go down, especially during busy hours. At some point they will add cells, but I'm suspecting it's at a much lower performance point than you're seeing now. Two -- their per-cell costs are much higher, and thus they have to charge more for bulk usage. They have caps on their plans, and additional usage is very costly. So while LTE is okay for the vacation traveler looking to check email and read a few favorite web sites, or the light home user, it's not going to appeal to even moderate users. Even Sprint is starting to cap its plans, after running a huge unlimited (uh, for the rest of the month?) advertising campaign. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701
Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
I believe FiOS already covers a good portion of their existing (urban) coverage area. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 10/27/2011 11:44 AM, Sam Tetherow wrote: Didn't Verizon announce FIOS is pretty much dead at this point. I thought I read they are fulfilling their current obligations, but planned no new rollouts in the forseeable future. On 10/27/11 11:20 AM, Daniel White wrote: Charles, I think you should rephrase your statement - Cellular networks (especially in metropolitan areas) WERE built for coverage. With 4G services, they are built for capacity. I doubt the coverage metric will change in rural areas though. There is also a major question on backhaul. Microwave backhaul may be equal for 2G/3G networks, but as 4G proliferates it will have a higher dependency on Fiber or 60GHz/80GHz short range high capacity backhaul. Most rural sites will only support 11GHz/6GHz for backhaul and therefore lower found capacity they could deliver via fixed wireless. On the other hand, WISP's can be nimble to all of these demands, at a much lower equipment cost. FTTH of course is a different metric altogether. Verizon wireline loves to plow fiber now. Anyways, my 2 cents. I could certainly be wrong :-) Daniel White -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie At the end of the day when a WISP puts up a 'cell' site it is probably costing them 1/100th of what it costs the cellco to do so. The equipment used is most likely 1/100th the cost at the 'AP' and 1/10th at the CPE and the spectrum that the cellco uses is not free. Even when you take into account that the cellco operates on a much longer ROI and they can get some economy of scale on certain things I don't see how they can overcome the price difference to be able to effectively compete against a WISP, especially given their lack of spectrum. Sure you get a much better noise floor, but they have fewer channels to deal with. And from a cost perspective it is a lot harder to justify putting up micropops as a cellco. I know plenty of WISPs that can afford to put a micro-pop up for 3 customers. I do see how a cellco could afford to do that for eveny 20 times that number. Deep pockets only last so long when you are losing money. On 10/26/11 11:07 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/26/2011 11:42 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: The LIVE network here does 26Mb x 22Mb with70ms latency. The VZW network isn't such bad competition for a WISP for two reasons. One -- those numbers you see are on the brand-new, unloaded network. The've just started selling LTE gear this year, so the cells are nowhere near full capacity. As they get busier, average capacity per subscriber will go down, especially during busy hours. At some point they will add cells, but I'm suspecting it's at a much lower performance point than you're seeing now. Two -- their per-cell costs are much higher, and thus they have to charge more for bulk usage. They have caps on their plans, and additional usage is very costly. So while LTE is okay for the vacation traveler looking to check email and read a few favorite web sites, or the light home user, it's not going to appeal to even moderate users. Even Sprint is starting to cap its plans, after running a huge unlimited (uh, for the rest of the
Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
In Indiana they have been selling everything they can unload. Most of the East Side of Indiana was Verizon now Frontier. In Fort Wayne 2 year ago the dumbed a bunch in FIOS and sold it less than a year later. I believe that with the FCC decision today Verizon sees its future as 100% wireless. I expect to see them offload even more of their planted infrastructure in light of a wireless one. Steve Barnes General Manager PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I believe FiOS already covers a good portion of their existing (urban) coverage area. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 10/27/2011 11:44 AM, Sam Tetherow wrote: Didn't Verizon announce FIOS is pretty much dead at this point. I thought I read they are fulfilling their current obligations, but planned no new rollouts in the forseeable future. On 10/27/11 11:20 AM, Daniel White wrote: Charles, I think you should rephrase your statement - Cellular networks (especially in metropolitan areas) WERE built for coverage. With 4G services, they are built for capacity. I doubt the coverage metric will change in rural areas though. There is also a major question on backhaul. Microwave backhaul may be equal for 2G/3G networks, but as 4G proliferates it will have a higher dependency on Fiber or 60GHz/80GHz short range high capacity backhaul. Most rural sites will only support 11GHz/6GHz for backhaul and therefore lower found capacity they could deliver via fixed wireless. On the other hand, WISP's can be nimble to all of these demands, at a much lower equipment cost. FTTH of course is a different metric altogether. Verizon wireline loves to plow fiber now. Anyways, my 2 cents. I could certainly be wrong :-) Daniel White -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie At the end of the day when a WISP puts up a 'cell' site it is probably costing them 1/100th of what it costs the cellco to do so. The equipment used is most likely 1/100th the cost at the 'AP' and 1/10th at the CPE and the spectrum that the cellco uses is not free. Even when you take into account that the cellco operates on a much longer ROI and they can get some economy of scale on certain things I don't see how they can overcome the price difference to be able to effectively compete against a WISP, especially given their lack of spectrum. Sure you get a much better noise floor, but they have fewer channels to deal with. And from a cost perspective it is a lot harder to justify putting up micropops as a cellco. I know plenty of WISPs that can afford to put a micro-pop up for 3 customers. I do see how a cellco could afford to do that for eveny 20 times that number. Deep pockets only last so long when you are losing money. On 10/26/11 11:07 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/26/2011 11:42 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: The LIVE network here does 26Mb x 22Mb with70ms latency. The VZW network isn't such bad competition for a WISP for two reasons. One -- those numbers you see are on the brand-new, unloaded network. The've just started selling
Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
Hello. I'm experiencing a big problem in my part of the world. I'm loosing customers every week because of the big guys are getting stronger and stronger every day. I have a different problem than you guys in that the big company has brought fiber to the entire town where I have my small wisp. I'm in Dominican Republic and the guys that used to be Verizon here, now Claro (one of Carlos Slim's Empire), are offering internet service to almost 100% of our town with double the bandwidth offered in the past (2 months ago). I can't compete with them. They are offering great prices for their service. They are also advertising it like crazy and people has started to go back to them since they are offering a package that can't be refused: Free installation, double the bandwidth, cable, phone, etc... I'm trying to stay afloat since I've lost over 20% of our customers in the past 3 months. Don't know if we can even make it anymore in this tough market. I've tried to offer the first 3 months for free but, people rather go with the KNOWN NAME. Well, hope things get better for all of us everywhere we're doing business... Thanks and good luck to all. Wilson Hernandez www.figureo56.com www.optimumwireless.com On 10/27/2011 1:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I believe FiOS already covers a good portion of their existing (urban) coverage area. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 10/27/2011 11:44 AM, Sam Tetherow wrote: Didn't Verizon announce FIOS is pretty much dead at this point. I thought I read they are fulfilling their current obligations, but planned no new rollouts in the forseeable future. On 10/27/11 11:20 AM, Daniel White wrote: Charles, I think you should rephrase your statement - Cellular networks (especially in metropolitan areas) WERE built for coverage. With 4G services, they are built for capacity. I doubt the coverage metric will change in rural areas though. There is also a major question on backhaul. Microwave backhaul may be equal for 2G/3G networks, but as 4G proliferates it will have a higher dependency on Fiber or 60GHz/80GHz short range high capacity backhaul. Most rural sites will only support 11GHz/6GHz for backhaul and therefore lower found capacity they could deliver via fixed wireless. On the other hand, WISP's can be nimble to all of these demands, at a much lower equipment cost. FTTH of course is a different metric altogether. Verizon wireline loves to plow fiber now. Anyways, my 2 cents. I could certainly be wrong :-) Daniel White -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie At the end of the day when a WISP puts up a 'cell' site it is probably costing them 1/100th of what it costs the cellco to do so. The equipment used is most likely 1/100th the cost at the 'AP' and 1/10th at the CPE and the spectrum that the cellco uses is not free. Even when you take into account that the cellco operates on a much longer ROI and they can get some economy of scale on certain things I don't see how they can overcome the price difference to be able to effectively compete against a WISP, especially given their lack of spectrum. Sure you get a much better noise floor, but they have fewer channels to deal with. And from a cost perspective it is a lot harder to justify putting up micropops as
Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
It makes it easier to increase your penetration percentage when you sell off what you don't intend on putting fiber in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 10/27/2011 1:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote: In Indiana they have been selling everything they can unload. Most of the East Side of Indiana was Verizon now Frontier. In Fort Wayne 2 year ago the dumbed a bunch in FIOS and sold it less than a year later. I believe that with the FCC decision today Verizon sees its future as 100% wireless. I expect to see them offload even more of their planted infrastructure in light of a wireless one. Steve Barnes General Manager PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I believe FiOS already covers a good portion of their existing (urban) coverage area. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 10/27/2011 11:44 AM, Sam Tetherow wrote: Didn't Verizon announce FIOS is pretty much dead at this point. I thought I read they are fulfilling their current obligations, but planned no new rollouts in the forseeable future. On 10/27/11 11:20 AM, Daniel White wrote: Charles, I think you should rephrase your statement - Cellular networks (especially in metropolitan areas) WERE built for coverage. With 4G services, they are built for capacity. I doubt the coverage metric will change in rural areas though. There is also a major question on backhaul. Microwave backhaul may be equal for 2G/3G networks, but as 4G proliferates it will have a higher dependency on Fiber or 60GHz/80GHz short range high capacity backhaul. Most rural sites will only support 11GHz/6GHz for backhaul and therefore lower found capacity they could deliver via fixed wireless. On the other hand, WISP's can be nimble to all of these demands, at a much lower equipment cost. FTTH of course is a different metric altogether. Verizon wireline loves to plow fiber now. Anyways, my 2 cents. I could certainly be wrong :-) Daniel White -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie At the end of the day when a WISP puts up a 'cell' site it is probably costing them 1/100th of what it costs the cellco to do so. The equipment used is most likely 1/100th the cost at the 'AP' and 1/10th at the CPE and the spectrum that the cellco uses is not free. Even when you take into account that the cellco operates on a much longer ROI and they can get some economy of scale on certain things I don't see how they can overcome the price difference to be able to effectively compete against a WISP, especially given their lack of spectrum. Sure you get a much better noise floor, but they have fewer channels to deal with. And from a cost perspective it is a lot harder to justify putting up micropops as a cellco. I know plenty of WISPs that can afford to put a micro-pop up for 3 customers. I do see how a cellco could afford to do that for eveny 20 times that number. Deep pockets only last so long when you are losing money. On 10/26/11 11:07 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/26/2011 11:42 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: The
Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
At 10/27/2011 03:10 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: It makes it easier to increase your penetration percentage when you sell off what you don't intend on putting fiber in. Worse. They sold off what they could of that plant where they didn't intend to put in fiber. But they couldn't sell it all. So they're going to nurse the old copper plant along for the foreseeable future. In some areas it'll be all they have; in other areas, where there is FiOS, its penetration isn't all that high anyway. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
I just wounder... if they start selling fixed wireless on their mobile network, will they be able to weasel out of the Network Neutrality rules for fixed wireless? On 10/27/2011 4:26 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/27/2011 03:10 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: It makes it easier to increase your penetration percentage when you sell off what you don't intend on putting fiber in. Worse. They sold off what they could of that plant where they didn't intend to put in fiber. But they couldn't sell it all. So they're going to nurse the old copper plant along for the foreseeable future. In some areas it'll be all they have; in other areas, where there is FiOS, its penetration isn't all that high anyway. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
One major factor you have to consider for Verizon and FIOs is the union problem. Verizon had established specialized teams to deploy fiber and were moving along at or ahead of schedule and budgets. The teams would go to the new areas and stay to get the work done. Then the union stepped up and filed grievances stating it was taking work away from the local guys. Short story is the union won out, now they have to deploy with people who have no incentive to hurry up and get the work done so they can go back home to their families. I think this is why you have seen them slow down. The union is the most counterproductive aspect of Verizon, even the employees who are non-union know this. The wireless division refuses to unionize, that should tell you something. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 4:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie At 10/27/2011 03:10 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: It makes it easier to increase your penetration percentage when you sell off what you don't intend on putting fiber in. Worse. They sold off what they could of that plant where they didn't intend to put in fiber. But they couldn't sell it all. So they're going to nurse the old copper plant along for the foreseeable future. In some areas it'll be all they have; in other areas, where there is FiOS, its penetration isn't all that high anyway. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
That's right Blake, and it was way before 4G that designing for capacity came into play. Before I became a wisp in '03, I had designed and had a part in building over 1000 cell sites for 4 different carriers in 3 different countries. In the mid-90s companies were going for coverage only. They quickly learned that once digital technologies came into play, coverage meant squat in terms of how many subs you could pack on a network. Just like with us, cell sites are limited in capacity and the noisier things get with CDMA based systems, the quicker they go to crap. In urban, sub-urban morphologies, capacity rules. In rural areas though, they don't anticipate near the traffic levels, so they build taller sites that can cover more area. Along highways, they may only build 2 sector sites, at least initially, because the extra sector that doesn't carry any traffic is a waste of money. If they really are going for fixed wireless as a major play, then they may have to add sites in the rural areas. They may not realize it yet. It was tough sell to convince them the first time around. When Sprint first deployed 1x, we, the consultants told them that designing for coverage was a waste of time and money. They didn't believe us and ended up having to add 25% more sites after turning the network up. Cameron On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Blake Bowers bbow...@mozarks.com wrote: Cellular systems in urban areas are built for capacity. Thats why you have so many low level sites, frequency reuse. Capacity rules king. In rural areas, coverage rules. That is why they use a lot of intellirepeater sites, that actually work off close existing sites, with very minimal capacity. Often limited to one outdoor cabinet and 3 panels. (and in some cases a mag mount antenna on the cabinet for the donor site to be able to talk to it) Capacity of varying sites changes also on a network. While one site may have X capacity with X transcievers, the one 5 miles away, same network, may have twice that number. They may look alike from the outside, but the equipment inside is different TOE. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Charles Wu c...@cticonnect.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles / WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/
[WISPA] Metro wifi for free in USA
Dear All I am not from USA and I am very curious about free wifi access in the metro area in USA. I was wondering: 1) is there any metro free wifi access (NY, LA, etc) 2) I know some time ago some private effort has been done (I guess by google) but I also remember that those networks miserably failed 3) would anybody of you complain (as member of your local community) if your local municipality would offer wifi free using your taxes? And would you complain as WISP if they would use your taxes to give wifi for free? 4) do you see any business in giving 1 hour (or time limited) wifi for free to users in order to push them to buy more hours? What is the average amount in terms of hours per day of your customers on the hotspots? Any information is really appreciated -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Metro wifi for free in USA
1) Typically cities try, get bids and the company drops the idea. It doesn't offer a good return on investment. 2) Yep, many many times 3) I would. I'd lose customers and I'm paying for it to happen! 4) There are several success stories involving this, I don't have one myself Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@level7.it wrote: Dear All I am not from USA and I am very curious about free wifi access in the metro area in USA. I was wondering: 1) is there any metro free wifi access (NY, LA, etc) 2) I know some time ago some private effort has been done (I guess by google) but I also remember that those networks miserably failed 3) would anybody of you complain (as member of your local community) if your local municipality would offer wifi free using your taxes? And would you complain as WISP if they would use your taxes to give wifi for free? 4) do you see any business in giving 1 hour (or time limited) wifi for free to users in order to push them to buy more hours? What is the average amount in terms of hours per day of your customers on the hotspots? Any information is really appreciated -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
But what did you know right Cameron? The arrogance and ignorance of carriers still never ceases to amaze me. Most times it is due to the fact that the person in that position of network design authority, who should already know those answers, simply does not and feel like they need to draw the line in the sand and make it seem like they know more than the consultant, otherwise they fear their bosses will question their value to the organization... Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie That's right Blake, and it was way before 4G that designing for capacity came into play. Before I became a wisp in '03, I had designed and had a part in building over 1000 cell sites for 4 different carriers in 3 different countries. In the mid-90s companies were going for coverage only. They quickly learned that once digital technologies came into play, coverage meant squat in terms of how many subs you could pack on a network. Just like with us, cell sites are limited in capacity and the noisier things get with CDMA based systems, the quicker they go to crap. In urban, sub-urban morphologies, capacity rules. In rural areas though, they don't anticipate near the traffic levels, so they build taller sites that can cover more area. Along highways, they may only build 2 sector sites, at least initially, because the extra sector that doesn't carry any traffic is a waste of money. If they really are going for fixed wireless as a major play, then they may have to add sites in the rural areas. They may not realize it yet. It was tough sell to convince them the first time around. When Sprint first deployed 1x, we, the consultants told them that designing for coverage was a waste of time and money. They didn't believe us and ended up having to add 25% more sites after turning the network up. Cameron On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Blake Bowers bbow...@mozarks.com wrote: Cellular systems in urban areas are built for capacity. Thats why you have so many low level sites, frequency reuse. Capacity rules king. In rural areas, coverage rules. That is why they use a lot of intellirepeater sites, that actually work off close existing sites, with very minimal capacity. Often limited to one outdoor cabinet and 3 panels. (and in some cases a mag mount antenna on the cabinet for the donor site to be able to talk to it) Capacity of varying sites changes also on a network. While one site may have X capacity with X transcievers, the one 5 miles away, same network, may have twice that number. They may look alike from the outside, but the equipment inside is different TOE. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Charles Wu c...@cticonnect.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie I have a dissenting opinion... It all comes down to a simple economics in the end. Who can most cost effectively provide broadband. A cellular network is built for coverage Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will tend to put the same equipment everywhere What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is found money -- self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor -Charles / WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA
Re: [WISPA] Metro wifi for free in USA
Hi Josh thank you for your nice reply. :) I hope that also other WISPs will express an opinion about this topic. Regards, Paolo 1) Typically cities try, get bids and the company drops the idea. It doesn't offer a good return on investment. 2) Yep, many many times 3) I would. I'd lose customers and I'm paying for it to happen! 4) There are several success stories involving this, I don't have one myself Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@level7.it wrote: Dear All I am not from USA and I am very curious about free wifi access in the metro area in USA. I was wondering: 1) is there any metro free wifi access (NY, LA, etc) 2) I know some time ago some private effort has been done (I guess by google) but I also remember that those networks miserably failed 3) would anybody of you complain (as member of your local community) if your local municipality would offer wifi free using your taxes? And would you complain as WISP if they would use your taxes to give wifi for free? 4) do you see any business in giving 1 hour (or time limited) wifi for free to users in order to push them to buy more hours? What is the average amount in terms of hours per day of your customers on the hotspots? Any information is really appreciated -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/
