Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
John, The FCC should not have to bribe Wireless Providers for this information. If Wireless Providers are serious about playing in this field then they should fill out the proper paperwork they are asked to file. If not then they will have to pay the price of not being looked as serious players and not given the time of day. With little to no market share, why would the FCC even pick up the phone? They have been more than generous to meet with WISPA as often as they have. Regards, Dawn DiPietro John Thomas wrote: It just seems that if the information is important, the FCC should be willing to put their money where their mouth is. I don't know who would actually put up the money. John Peter R. wrote: I think many (half?) don't even know that they have to file. Many don't understand CALEA or know that they need to comply. So $500... it would probably get you about 400 more, but who will pony up the $200k? Peter John Thomas wrote: Pete, you hit on an interesting idea. What if the FCC were to pay the ISP say $500 each year to fill out the 477? Would more ISP's participate? John -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
It just seems that if the information is important, the FCC should be willing to put their money where their mouth is. I don't know who would actually put up the money. John Peter R. wrote: I think many (half?) don't even know that they have to file. Many don't understand CALEA or know that they need to comply. So $500... it would probably get you about 400 more, but who will pony up the $200k? Peter John Thomas wrote: Pete, you hit on an interesting idea. What if the FCC were to pay the ISP say $500 each year to fill out the 477? Would more ISP's participate? John -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
So from the outside looking in, is my Association, WISPA, being paid a consultancy fee for assisting these various US goverment dept. in drawing up a plan of action to fight crime, etc.?? The reason for paying taxes is that so gov. has money to fund programs for the betterment of the people - period. You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Heh... Is this an argument that taxes are a violation of the 5th Amendment? Especially the part that says ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ? That's where I derive my idea that we do not owe them any services or spending money to provide services or labor without compensation. Heck, CALEA provided funds to the telcos to compensate them... Why the heck are we special and not protected?From the arguments here, we have an unfillable debt owed merely for use of unlicensed spectrum... I disagree there's any debt or obligation whatsoever. - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition you don't give them stuff for free Yes we do. Care to quantify this statement? Sure, the government has never paid me to give them taxes. 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Mark, Do you pay ANY taxes??? If so, continue to the next questions. Otherwise, you have no reason to voice your opinion. Do you support the wars we are involved in currently? All of them, or just one or two of them? Do you support your lawmakers making more money than most of the country? Do you support the fact that your lawmakers should be able to decide their own pay raise every year? Do you support your lawmakers running this country into debt the way it has? If you answered 'NO' to any of the above, do you continue to pay your taxes as I asked with the first question? If you do continue to pay your taxes, even though you do not support what your government is doing with your money, why do you continue to pay them? I believe the same thought process applies to the FCC and what they are currently doing. If you 'support' your government by paying your taxes, why don't you support the FCC's efforts even thought you don't agree with them? Many times it isn't 'what you say', rather 'how you say it.' Keep shouting from the mountain top, but quietly comply. I'd hate for you to be MIA in the future. Life is not always fair, and right doesn't always win. - Cliff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Heh... Is this an argument that taxes are a violation of the 5th Amendment? Especially the part that says ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ? That's where I derive my idea that we do not owe them any services or spending money to provide services or labor without compensation. Heck, CALEA provided funds to the telcos to compensate them... Why the heck are we special and not protected?From the arguments here, we have an unfillable debt owed merely for use of unlicensed spectrum... I disagree there's any debt or obligation whatsoever. - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition you don't give them stuff for free Yes we do. Care to quantify this statement? Sure, the government has never paid me to give them taxes. 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/ -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
And until all good American Citizens stand up and say stop the gravy train, we need to unload some baggage, you will deserve the goverment you get. You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Cliff Leboeuf wrote: Mark, Do you pay ANY taxes??? If so, continue to the next questions. Otherwise, you have no reason to voice your opinion. Do you support the wars we are involved in currently? All of them, or just one or two of them? Do you support your lawmakers making more money than most of the country? Do you support the fact that your lawmakers should be able to decide their own pay raise every year? Do you support your lawmakers running this country into debt the way it has? If you answered 'NO' to any of the above, do you continue to pay your taxes as I asked with the first question? If you do continue to pay your taxes, even though you do not support what your government is doing with your money, why do you continue to pay them? I believe the same thought process applies to the FCC and what they are currently doing. If you 'support' your government by paying your taxes, why don't you support the FCC's efforts even thought you don't agree with them? Many times it isn't 'what you say', rather 'how you say it.' Keep shouting from the mountain top, but quietly comply. I'd hate for you to be MIA in the future. Life is not always fair, and right doesn't always win. - Cliff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Heh... Is this an argument that taxes are a violation of the 5th Amendment? Especially the part that says ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ? That's where I derive my idea that we do not owe them any services or spending money to provide services or labor without compensation. Heck, CALEA provided funds to the telcos to compensate them... Why the heck are we special and not protected?From the arguments here, we have an unfillable debt owed merely for use of unlicensed spectrum... I disagree there's any debt or obligation whatsoever. - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition you don't give them stuff for free Yes we do. Care to quantify this statement? Sure, the government has never paid me to give them taxes. 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Mark Koskenmaki wrote: And why aren't we defending our industry from gatekeeper regulation which stifles entry into it? Man, you people don't logically connect the dots, do you? Why wasn't WISPA asking every member, list member, and everyone else they could to flood the FCC with objections, and then offer a much saner view of how ISP's can assist LEA's?WISPA doesn't need to advocate flaunting the law to object, as some here are misportraying the notion.Instead, we're trying to downplay a very arbitrary intrusion into our networks and business. Instead of building leadership, WISPA is letting it slip away. Or maybe WISPA's figuring to join the ranks of the TTP's out there trying to scare people into buying into something for protection. When that's done to a brick and mortar business, it's called extortion. Really, I don't think they are... But that's how some people have viewed it. I know, I've seen the comments. Seen the comments where? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Mark Koskenmaki wrote: While I'm sure the statement this is not universally possible is technically correct (the best kind of correct!) I believe you're seriously over-estimating the difficulty. I'd wager most of us already have, somewhere in our network, a decent managed switch that can be configured to spit out the requested data. Feed said data into a cheap PC with a big hard drive (another thing that most of us already have), filter out the specific bits the government wants, spit it out. If this takes more than a couple hours to set up, there's something seriously weird going on with your network. Oh, and I do not. I have NO PLACE within my network where traffic can be tapped. None. Zilch. Not cpe, not ap's, not my gateway at my provider's. You'd actually have to go upstream, to my providers server room to do that. That is as close as I can get. I would call Bull here. At the point where you connect to your upstream is what can be referred to as the Edge device in your network. If that Edge device was a FreeBSD ROuter or an ImageStream or a Cisco 7200, then you are probably in compliance, as all 3 devices can provide the Feds with the tap they want. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
The way I understand it, is that Mark has to do the capture. His provider can not do it for him. Also per a previous conversation the tap needs to be done at the CPE. To me that should be real simple with a few firewall rules in the CPE or at worst the AP. If PPPoE were in use then it would be fairly simple to be sure of getting the clients traffic. Part of Marks (and others) objections is that that we have to pay to be compliant. That IMO is BS. I have no problem with providing any LEA with a port that has the stream they are asking for but they should be paying for the sniffer. That would be the best thing, since the LEA can then handle the chain of evidence securely. Is it possible to have WISPA request that and keep on it? On 4/24/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Koskenmaki wrote: While I'm sure the statement this is not universally possible is technically correct (the best kind of correct!) I believe you're seriously over-estimating the difficulty. I'd wager most of us already have, somewhere in our network, a decent managed switch that can be configured to spit out the requested data. Feed said data into a cheap PC with a big hard drive (another thing that most of us already have), filter out the specific bits the government wants, spit it out. If this takes more than a couple hours to set up, there's something seriously weird going on with your network. Oh, and I do not. I have NO PLACE within my network where traffic can be tapped. None. Zilch. Not cpe, not ap's, not my gateway at my provider's. You'd actually have to go upstream, to my providers server room to do that. That is as close as I can get. I would call Bull here. At the point where you connect to your upstream is what can be referred to as the Edge device in your network. If that Edge device was a FreeBSD ROuter or an ImageStream or a Cisco 7200, then you are probably in compliance, as all 3 devices can provide the Feds with the tap they want. - Peter -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:39 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark, This was one of the best emails you have ever written IMHO. Mark- interesting insights and ideas. Maybe Mark would consider running for the board? c -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
I think many (half?) don't even know that they have to file. Many don't understand CALEA or know that they need to comply. So $500... it would probably get you about 400 more, but who will pony up the $200k? Peter John Thomas wrote: Pete, you hit on an interesting idea. What if the FCC were to pay the ISP say $500 each year to fill out the 477? Would more ISP's participate? John -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Never say never, they say.What will you do when the FCC or FBI comes and says we want you to help us enforce... blah blah?You're going to have a hard time saying no when you have already made a policy of always saying yes. You will have to blow that non-existent 'goodwill'. It wont' have bought us or anyone else a thing. How many times must I say it? It would be far better to have a solidly honest position of ALWAYS standing up for our industry, in everywhere way, in opposition to EVERYTHING negative. First, let me say that there is no going to DC and standing up for this Industry. It is barely an Industry. And with 200 paid members out of 2000 possible WISP's, it is not very representative. Plus you have Part-15 and its agenda. You have Vendors and their agenda. You have the so-called Big Boys like NextWeb, Clearwire, ELN or whomever - and thiner agenda. And if by some stroke of luck, energy and effort, you could get them all to back your one principle, even then - and with money in the bank - it would be a wasted effort to spend John's, Marlon's and Rick's own money to go to DC to Stand Up. Because someone would break ranks for a deal or good will or whatever. Ask Frank Muto. You have to have Leverage to Stand Up. And a significant number behind you who are willing and demonstrate a willingness to support. Um, we don't have that here. DC is not the Town Hall. DC is layers upon layers of subterfuge. You need a full-time well-connected lobbyist. IN a former life, we hired a well-connected lobbyist to ask Karl Rove if Indie ISP's had a chance (in 2005). This was about the time of Brand-X and Forbearance. The lobbyist gave us the check back with a solemn look. A lobbyist returned money. What does THAT tell you? I hired a PR firm to craft 14 template letters that just needed a signature, a name and an address to be faxed to Congress. Do you know how many times it was downloaded? 15. Yeah. SO tell me again how WISPA with 200 paid members should Stand Up? I'd love to hear the plan, because the one I used obviously did not work. I am not advocating shunning the rules. I am advocating telling those making up the rules as they go, TO BACK OFF BECAUSE THEY ARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE!It is both our privilege and our duty to tell them to back off when they cross their proper boundaries. And we should be utterly unafraid to do so. Actually all your speeches have been about shunning the rules and you have stated you will not comply. That may not be your message, but that is what you have written. No one is tar and feathering you. But look at this perspective: You want people to spend their time and money to travel to DC to do something for you. When they want to go to DC and become Advocates and open doors for WISPA to work with the gov't. (Which is a worthwhile endeavor). You could go to DC and say we want money to comply - or something like that. But you might as well phone it in and save the money for all it will do. One more point: When we have sessions on DC and Lobbying at ISPCON, NO ONE SHOWS UP! When ISP-CEO discusses politics, it empties the room. (So, Frank, no politics this May, okay?) Just my 25 cents worth, Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Never say never, they say.What will you do when the FCC or FBI comes and says we want you to help us enforce... blah blah?You're going to have a hard time saying no when you have already made a policy of always saying yes. You will have to blow that non-existent 'goodwill'. It wont' have bought us or anyone else a thing. How many times must I say it? It would be far better to have a solidly honest position of ALWAYS standing up for our industry, in everywhere way, in opposition to EVERYTHING negative. First, let me say that there is no going to DC and standing up for this Industry. It is barely an Industry. And with 200 paid members out of 2000 possible WISP's, it is not very representative. Plus you have Part-15 and its Well, if your point is that WISPA hasn't much muscle, not even combined with part-15's numbers, I have no disagreement with that. This IS, however, an industry, with thousands of players, both big and small. Are we comparable to telco in assets and sales? No, but then for some reason, we can run rings around them in ceertain markets. agenda. You have Vendors and their agenda. You have the so-called Big Boys like NextWeb, Clearwire, ELN or whomever - and thiner agenda. And if by some stroke of luck, energy and effort, you could get them all to back your one principle, even then - and with money in the bank - it would be a wasted effort to spend John's, Marlon's and Rick's own money to go to DC to Stand Up. Because someone would break ranks for a deal or good will or whatever. Hmmm... You know, I thought I made the case that we needed the numbers... and that WISPA needed the numbers, too, for more clout. I guess maybe I have to say these things, and not just let people connect the logical dots. Ask Frank Muto. You have to have Leverage to Stand Up. And a significant number behind you who are willing and demonstrate a willingness to support. Um, we don't have that here. DC is not the Town Hall. DC is layers upon layers of subterfuge. You need a full-time well-connected lobbyist. IN a former life, we hired a well-connected lobbyist to ask Karl Rove if Indie ISP's had a chance (in 2005). This was about the time of Brand-X and Forbearance. The lobbyist gave us the check back with a solemn look. A lobbyist returned money. What does THAT tell you? that says that we're not going to influence Congress much, unless we manage to find some politician allies. I hired a PR firm to craft 14 template letters that just needed a signature, a name and an address to be faxed to Congress. Do you know how many times it was downloaded? 15. Yeah. SO tell me again how WISPA with 200 paid members should Stand Up? I'd love to hear the plan, because the one I used obviously did not work. Hrm... So, maybe the point is that you need to stir up the membership to fight for thier own interest. Best way I can tell, is to slap down the ones that speak up and say they disagree with something. /sarcasm I am not advocating shunning the rules. I am advocating telling those making up the rules as they go, TO BACK OFF BECAUSE THEY ARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE!It is both our privilege and our duty to tell them to back off when they cross their proper boundaries. And we should be utterly unafraid to do so. Actually all your speeches have been about shunning the rules and you have stated you will not comply. That may not be your message, but that is what you have written. It is not realy your business. But for some reason you want to make this about what I do. Is that because generically, the ideas themselves are hard to argue with?I stated publicly once, clearly, what my intention is. And looks like this... I'm still waiting for some kind of agreement and clear direction from the people working on it. If i can do it, I will. If not, I won't. If not, the FCC is going to know I am not, and cannot. Then I want to know... Where does WISPA fall on this? Does WISPA support the notion of taking out ISP's because they cannot technically or financially, or physically follow some stupidly obscure and obtuse demand? Or will they start arguing in defense of their industry? Because as far as I can tell, I cannot. What I have deployed lacks the technical capability to comply. Yeah, I could help law enforcement, but I can't follow thier stupidly precise and yet obscure specified methodology. I know you've repeatedly complained that I don't put my money where my mouth is, because I can't buy plane tickets and hotel nights and can't run for office in WISPA. But I WILL put EVERYTHING on the line. I'll fight the FCC by myself if I have to. And, it sounds like a lot
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Peter R. wrote: So $500... it would probably get you about 400 more, but who will pony up the $200k? For five hundred bucks, I could easily create a few new business entities that serve one or two customers each, do the paperwork, and turn a tidy profit from the affair. I heartily encourage this notion. :) Anyway. FCC 477 only takes me fifteen or twenty minutes to do, twice a year. In exchange for relatively free access to a truckload of unlicensed spectrum, that's a pretty good bargain. The time it takes to complete that form is, in my mind, just another cost of doing business. The WISP industry is, as compared to a lot of other businesses, pretty lightly regulated. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Mark Koskenmaki wrote: I know you've repeatedly complained that I don't put my money where my mouth is, because I can't buy plane tickets and hotel nights and can't run for office in WISPA. But I WILL put EVERYTHING on the line. I'll fight the FCC by myself if I have to. And, it sounds like a lot of people here will applaud my departure. Of course, I suspect that means you're going to have to applaud chopping the WISP numbers down BIG time, because I know there's plenty who can't do it either, because they can't find a way to meet some minor point or other. I know by personal experience that there's PLENTY of people who have the money...and would actually sign up in a hurry, if WISPA were bold and defensive. Heck, they'd have my money again, if they would. But most see no benefit, especially when nobody appears to be defending them, but instead siding with the overreaching regulators. PERCEPTION, as you know, is everything. I don't think anyone wants you to depart. They would rather that you were part of the process. But fight the FCC on what? It is the DOJ that is pressing for CALEA. And if you never see a subpoena, it won't matter will it? There were only 1000 federal legal wiretaps last year. Chances are you won't see one or have to take on the DOJ and the $10k per day fines. I guess I don't understand exactly what it is you want from WISPA. BOLD DEFENSIVE ??? meaning, what? That instead of talking with the FBI and the FCC about standards and stuff, they just said STUFF IT? Instead of working amicably with the gov't, they should what exactly? You want them to fight CALEA and other regulations? How? It takes money. BIG MONEY. (see below) Because during the limited interaction with the F-agencies the Board didn't fight for ??? On the matter of numbers: the Big Guys would never join you in a fight against the Gov't. Would not happen. They may appear, but as soon as they could put a wedge in they would. I could see any number of groups like NextWeb, Clearwire or others saying, F! WISPA! Chairman Martin, Mr. Gonzo. We'll be Compliant. Just give us the spectrum. We'll gladly help you with BB deployment, emergency communications, and anything else. Back to this comment: chopping the WISP numbers down BIG time, because I know there's plenty who can't do it either, because they can't find a way to meet some minor point or other Why do you think there was so much discussion about compliance? To help people get compliant. (There is a webinar this week from Bearhill. ImageStream is working on it. Mikrotik gave there answer.) But from the 2 people I have spoken to at the DOJ, I don't see them killing you if you gave it an honest effort to comply. Back to PLENTY: You think more would join if we gave the Feds the finger. I say more HAVE to join so we can give the Feds the finger. Actually let me re-phrase that: More people would have to get INVOLVED. No one wants to stand alone. Involvement is a mountain to climb in bare feet with no sherpas. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. (813) 963-5884 WISPA Associate Member ++ What it takes to Fight: It takes a lobbyist = about $60K It takes PR = $400 per month to write releases and get some traction It takes an Association Director to handle media calls, memberships, paperwork, and a Voice and Front Man = $50k That's per year. And that doesn't include contributions that need to be made to the campaigns of Congress Critters. Add on travel and dinners for the E.D. to network and press the agenda. In addition to the money, the membership would have to ACT! That is harder to achieve than coming up with the $200K per year! And in case you think I pulled those numbers out of the air. A couple of Exec Director's for ISP Assoc. made $100K. Trying to find one that is accredited and can actually produce a result is hard to find even at $50K. Then add in phone, internet and utility charges, rent, mail, travel and expenses. Lobbyist is $500 per hour - and the clock starts when he exits his office. PR is about $100 per written release and then extra to actually submit. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Never say never, they say.What will you do when the FCC or FBI comes and says we want you to help us enforce... blah blah?You're going to have a hard time saying no when you have already made a policy of always saying yes. You will have to blow that non-existent 'goodwill'. It wont' have bought us or anyone else a thing. How many times must I say it? It would be far better to have a solidly honest position of ALWAYS standing up for our industry, in everywhere way, in opposition to EVERYTHING negative. First, let me say that there is no going to DC and standing up for this Industry. It is barely an Industry. And with 200 paid members out of 2000 possible WISP's, it is not very representative. Plus you have Part-15 and its Well, if your point is that WISPA hasn't much muscle, not even combined with part-15's numbers, I have no disagreement with that. This IS, however, an industry, with thousands of players, both big and small. Are we comparable to telco in assets and sales? No, but then for some reason, we can run rings around them in ceertain markets. agenda. You have Vendors and their agenda. You have the so-called Big Boys like NextWeb, Clearwire, ELN or whomever - and thiner agenda. And if by some stroke of luck, energy and effort, you could get them all to back your one principle, even then - and with money in the bank - it would be a wasted effort to spend John's, Marlon's and Rick's own money to go to DC to Stand Up. Because someone would break ranks for a deal or good will or whatever. Hmmm... You know, I thought I made the case that we needed the numbers... and that WISPA needed the numbers, too, for more clout. I guess maybe I have to say these things, and not just let people connect the logical dots. Ask Frank Muto. You have to have Leverage to Stand Up. And a significant number behind you who are willing and demonstrate a willingness to support. Um, we don't have that here. DC is not the Town Hall. DC is layers upon layers of subterfuge. You need a full-time well-connected lobbyist. IN a former life, we hired a well-connected lobbyist to ask Karl Rove if Indie ISP's had a chance (in 2005). This was about the time of Brand-X and Forbearance. The lobbyist gave us the check back with a solemn look. A lobbyist returned money. What does THAT tell you? that says that we're not going to influence Congress much, unless we manage to find some politician allies. I hired a PR firm to craft 14 template letters that just needed a signature, a name and an address to be faxed to Congress. Do you know how many times it was downloaded? 15. Yeah. SO tell me again how WISPA with 200 paid members should Stand Up? I'd love to hear the plan, because the one I used obviously did not work. Hrm... So, maybe the point is that you need to stir up the membership to fight for thier own interest. Best way I can tell, is to slap down the ones that speak up and say they disagree with something. /sarcasm I am not advocating shunning the rules. I am advocating telling those making up the rules as they go, TO BACK OFF BECAUSE THEY ARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE!It is both our privilege and our duty to tell them to back off when they cross their proper boundaries. And we should be utterly unafraid to do so. Actually all your speeches have been about shunning the rules and you have stated you will not comply. That may not be your message, but that is what you have written. It is not realy your business. But for some reason you want to make this about what I do. Is that because generically, the ideas themselves are hard to argue with?I stated publicly once, clearly, what my intention is. And looks like this... I'm still waiting for some kind of agreement and clear direction from the people working on it. If i can do it, I will. If not, I won't. If not, the FCC is going to know I am not, and cannot. Then I want to know... Where does WISPA fall on this? Does WISPA support the notion of taking out ISP's because they cannot technically or financially, or physically follow some stupidly obscure and obtuse demand? Or will they start arguing in defense of their industry? Because as far as I can tell, I cannot. What I have deployed lacks the technical
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition OK, I'm in a pissy mood today so don't anyone take this too personally. So am I. We filed in support of the new antenna rules. It's MUCH cheaper and easier to be FCC compliant today. So did a bunch of us. The data from the 477 is easy, non useful to competitors etc. and would be MUCH more valuable if people actually filled the dang thing out. We've worked with industry to get accurate data to the FCC via the 477 and other methods. We're not fighting against the 477 cause there's no reason to fight it. It's a LAW and the FCC HAS to ask us for the data. If we're gonna fight for a change in a law we're better off to pick a different battle. Right. The FCC didn't even want information from small providers...and then behold, certain people I was giving money to to represent me (and I thought they were) suddenly turned on me, and encouraged the FCC to apply it to everyone. Law? Hell, no. It's the FCC's wishes. And we're discussing how stupid the whole damn thing is as well. And here you are defending it. You wonder why I'm in a pissy mood??? CALEA is a law that you must follow. It's not the big nasty thing you keep making it sound like. Nothing more than the electronic version of the wiretapping laws that have been on the books for as long as anyone I know can remember. What WISPA has been doing is helping you figure out what you have to do to be compliant. We've spent out time and money working to make this as easy as we can for you so that you DON'T have to shut the doors due to this. We're also working on mechanisms that will be FBI approved and will allow you to be compliant in even nicer ways for less money. $1 and 1 minute is TOO MUCH OBLIGATION. Sorry. Anyone who thinks we OWE them anything for our existence is cracked. THEY OWE US GRATITUDE FOR DOING THE COUNTRYS WORK And they owe us a check for doing work for them. THAT's NOT RADICAL, that's nothing other than CIVICS 101! When I get a chance, we're gonna fight for self certification for WISPs. That'll make all of our networks automatically compliant except in the most extreme cases or where people refuse to run legal power levels. So, we can argue and advocate to the FCC about rules changes and implementations about RF issues, but God forbid we should tell them that CALEA is out of line?It is STILL their ruling and opinions, which is the sole reason we're issued network mandates. HARRRUMPH!!! to repeat an old fashioned retort. I could probably write another page or two about what WISPA HAS done to make YOUR life as a WISP easier and more long term stable/predictable. I think the point has been made though. I like you, Marlon. We've done stuff together and I have respect for you as a person. So don't take this personally...but I call BS on it! My next point is that you really have NO business spouting this rubbish Mark. You made some great arguments but they are based on half truths or ignorance of the facts. They are also, for the most part, a Red Herring. You see, RIGHT NOW we have to be CALEA compliant. If we don't like that we can fight it, but that fight will have to come later. Doesn't matter if we like the law or not, either obey or run the risk of getting caught. WE decided to take the time to help you comply rather than risk getting the $10k per day fines. There will be no fight later. We should have been telling them to stuff it because this silly nonsense that applies to TELCOS doesn't apply to IP networks. Instead, we should be telling them that due to diversity and innovation, it's absolutely impossible to not stifle the way we do things and conform to obscure and frankly... SILLY demands. IF it were me, my comments would be, we as an industry stand ready and willing to assist law enforcement and homeland security any way we can, but it is NOT our obligation to morph our networks into the federal mold at our expense. Rather, it is imperative that the FBI, DOJ, and local law enforcement develop reasonable abilities to deal with IP networks, and that we can work with agencies that have reasonable ability to understand and work with cutting edge technologies, rather than trying to restrain an entire industry for their convenience. I am not advocating flaunting the law, for pity's sakes. I am just eternally vigilant and VERY defensive of my rights and freedoms as a citizen and businessman. Instead, we should have been ADAMANTLY and repeatedly saying in forceful language, THIS IS NOT UNIVERSALLY POSSIBLE, and then asking the industry what ways they can be accommodated- and educating them, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND - them telling us how our networks have to work. It's called setting precedents, Marlon
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Mark said it better than I can. The only thing I would add it this.. Some have mentioned getting some 'goodwill' from the gov. for doing this Get real. There is no such thing. Mark Koskenmaki wrote: - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition OK, I'm in a pissy mood today so don't anyone take this too personally. So am I. We filed in support of the new antenna rules. It's MUCH cheaper and easier to be FCC compliant today. So did a bunch of us. The data from the 477 is easy, non useful to competitors etc. and would be MUCH more valuable if people actually filled the dang thing out. We've worked with industry to get accurate data to the FCC via the 477 and other methods. We're not fighting against the 477 cause there's no reason to fight it. It's a LAW and the FCC HAS to ask us for the data. If we're gonna fight for a change in a law we're better off to pick a different battle. Right. The FCC didn't even want information from small providers...and then behold, certain people I was giving money to to represent me (and I thought they were) suddenly turned on me, and encouraged the FCC to apply it to everyone. Law? Hell, no. It's the FCC's wishes. And we're discussing how stupid the whole damn thing is as well. And here you are defending it. You wonder why I'm in a "pissy mood"??? CALEA is a law that you must follow. It's not the big nasty thing you keep making it sound like. Nothing more than the electronic version of the wiretapping laws that have been on the books for as long as anyone I know can remember. What WISPA has been doing is helping you figure out what you have to do to be compliant. We've spent out time and money working to make this as easy as we can for you so that you DON'T have to shut the doors due to this. We're also working on mechanisms that will be FBI approved and will allow you to be compliant in even nicer ways for less money. $1 and 1 minute is TOO MUCH OBLIGATION. Sorry. Anyone who thinks we OWE them anything for our existence is cracked. THEY OWE US GRATITUDE FOR DOING THE COUNTRY"S WORK And they owe us a check for doing work for them. THAT's NOT RADICAL, that's nothing other than CIVICS 101! When I get a chance, we're gonna fight for self certification for WISPs. That'll make all of our networks automatically compliant except in the most extreme cases or where people refuse to run legal power levels. So, we can argue and advocate to the FCC about rules changes and implementations about RF issues, but God forbid we should tell them that CALEA is out of line?It is STILL their ruling and opinions, which is the sole reason we're issued network mandates. HARRRUMPH!!! to repeat an old fashioned retort. I could probably write another page or two about what WISPA HAS done to make YOUR life as a WISP easier and more long term stable/predictable. I think the point has been made though. I like you, Marlon. We've done stuff together and I have respect for you as a person. So don't take this personally...but I call BS on it! My next point is that you really have NO business spouting this rubbish Mark. You made some great arguments but they are based on half truths or ignorance of the facts. They are also, for the most part, a Red Herring. You see, RIGHT NOW we have to be CALEA compliant. If we don't like that we can fight it, but that fight will have to come later. Doesn't matter if we like the law or not, either obey or run the risk of getting caught. WE decided to take the time to help you comply rather than risk getting the $10k per day fines. There will be no fight later. We should have been telling them to stuff it because this silly nonsense that applies to TELCOS doesn't apply to IP networks. Instead, we should be telling them that due to diversity and innovation, it's absolutely impossible to not stifle the way we do things and conform to obscure and frankly... SILLY demands. IF it were me, my comments would be, we as an industry stand ready and willing to assist law enforcement and homeland security any way we can, but it is NOT our obligation to morph our networks into the federal mold at our expense. Rather, it is imperative that the FBI, DOJ, and local law enforcement develop reasonable abilities to deal with IP networks, and that we can work with agencies that have reasonable ability to understand and work with cutting edge technologies, rathe
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Law? Hell, no. It's the FCC's wishes. And we're discussing how stupid the whole damn thing is as well. And here you are defending it. You wonder why I'm in a pissy mood??? It's indirectly a law - the FCC is granted broad powers under current law to request things like this. If you think the FCC's authority goes too far, you're welcome to that opinion (and to try to change others' minds on the subject, though it doesn't seem like you've had much luck so far). Given that the FCC gives us access to a truckload of unlicensed spectrum and, so far, only asks me to fill out a ten-minute form twice a year, I think it's a darn good bargain. $1 and 1 minute is TOO MUCH OBLIGATION. Sorry. Anyone who thinks we OWE them anything for our existence is cracked. THEY OWE US GRATITUDE FOR DOING THE COUNTRYS WORK And they owe us a check for doing work for them. THAT's NOT RADICAL, that's nothing other than CIVICS 101! Maybe we went to different schools. Mine had a bunch of classes on how everyone is responsible for doing their part in a participatory democracy. (I know, this is technically a representative republic, but bear with me here.) You pay some property taxes, you get to use all those roads they built. The government doesn't give you stuff for free, you don't give them stuff for free. It's all trade-offs. Basic freshman-year-of-college economics. A few minutes to fill out a form is a pretty darn good price for everything we get from the FCC. So, we can argue and advocate to the FCC about rules changes and implementations about RF issues, but God forbid we should tell them that CALEA is out of line?It is STILL their ruling and opinions, which is the sole reason we're issued network mandates. To be blunt, your opinion is (apparently) in the minority. If you think CALEA goes too far, I don't think anyone is preventing you from making FCC filings to that effect. I am not advocating flaunting the law, for pity's sakes. I am just eternally vigilant and VERY defensive of my rights and freedoms as a citizen and businessman. Instead, we should have been ADAMANTLY and repeatedly saying in forceful language, THIS IS NOT UNIVERSALLY POSSIBLE, and then asking the industry what ways they can be accommodated- and educating them, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND - them telling us how our networks have to work. While I'm sure the statement this is not universally possible is technically correct (the best kind of correct!) I believe you're seriously over-estimating the difficulty. I'd wager most of us already have, somewhere in our network, a decent managed switch that can be configured to spit out the requested data. Feed said data into a cheap PC with a big hard drive (another thing that most of us already have), filter out the specific bits the government wants, spit it out. If this takes more than a couple hours to set up, there's something seriously weird going on with your network. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
David E. Smith wrote: Mark Koskenmaki wrote: You pay some property taxes, you get to use all those roads they built. . It's all trade-offs. Basic freshman-year-of-college economics. I just wanted to point out an error you just made mark, you said : The government doesn't give you stuff for free, And your correct, but this other part is incorrect: you don't give them stuff for free Yes we do. -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 21:19 -0700, George Rogato wrote: David E. Smith wrote: Mark Koskenmaki wrote: You pay some property taxes, you get to use all those roads they built. . It's all trade-offs. Basic freshman-year-of-college economics. I just wanted to point out an error you just made mark, you said : The government doesn't give you stuff for free, And your correct, but this other part is incorrect: you don't give them stuff for free Yes we do. Care to quantify this statement? -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
- Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Law? Hell, no. It's the FCC's wishes. And we're discussing how stupid the whole damn thing is as well. And here you are defending it. You wonder why I'm in a pissy mood??? It's indirectly a law - the FCC is granted broad powers under current law to request things like this. If you think the FCC's authority goes too far, you're welcome to that opinion (and to try to change others' minds on the subject, though it doesn't seem like you've had much luck so far). Given that the FCC gives us access to a truckload of unlicensed spectrum and, so far, only asks me to fill out a ten-minute form twice a year, I think it's a darn good bargain. It's not a 'favor' from the FCC. I don't owe them a blasted thing for it. It's public spectrum, for public use. It does NOT belong to the FCC, it is charged with regulating it, not doling out in return for favors! It is given the task of regulating it for the best public interest. How well it does that is definitely up for discussion, but that IS the FCC's job. You're acting as if it belongs to them and we're asking for their property. It's not that way. $1 and 1 minute is TOO MUCH OBLIGATION. Sorry. Anyone who thinks we OWE them anything for our existence is cracked. THEY OWE US GRATITUDE FOR DOING THE COUNTRYS WORK And they owe us a check for doing work for them. THAT's NOT RADICAL, that's nothing other than CIVICS 101! Maybe we went to different schools. Mine had a bunch of classes on how everyone is responsible for doing their part in a participatory democracy. (I know, this is technically a representative republic, but bear with me here.) You pay some property taxes, you get to use all those roads they built. The government doesn't give you stuff for free, you don't give them stuff for free. It's all trade-offs. Basic freshman-year-of-college economics. A few minutes to fill out a form is a pretty darn good price for everything we get from the FCC. I'd say they are sorely overpaid. As far as everything we get? In my view, they are derelict in doing what should be done. Hardly a case that I owe them my identity, and my business information in return. Even more offensive to me, is the idea that we can brown-nose them into getting stuff. If that's the case, and that's how we want the game played, then we have no chance against the high powered, high dollar efforts by the big boys. We have to appeal to right, wrong, reason, logic, and principle. It's all we have. And it's certainly better to play that game than to get down in the muck where the money tries to buy what they want. So, we can argue and advocate to the FCC about rules changes and implementations about RF issues, but God forbid we should tell them that CALEA is out of line?It is STILL their ruling and opinions, which is the sole reason we're issued network mandates. To be blunt, your opinion is (apparently) in the minority. If you think CALEA goes too far, I don't think anyone is preventing you from making FCC filings to that effect. What, you want me to get into a filings fight with WISPA?Geez, man. I was here when WISPA was started, I STILL WANT TO SEE IT GROW. I want it to be the energetic organization that people see value in jumping in and supporting. I am not advocating flaunting the law, for pity's sakes. I am just eternally vigilant and VERY defensive of my rights and freedoms as a citizen and businessman. Instead, we should have been ADAMANTLY and repeatedly saying in forceful language, THIS IS NOT UNIVERSALLY POSSIBLE, and then asking the industry what ways they can be accommodated- and educating them, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND - them telling us how our networks have to work. While I'm sure the statement this is not universally possible is technically correct (the best kind of correct!) I believe you're seriously over-estimating the difficulty. I'd wager most of us already have, somewhere in our network, a decent managed switch that can be configured to spit out the requested data. Feed said data into a cheap PC with a big hard drive (another thing that most of us already have), filter out the specific bits the government wants, spit it out. If this takes more than a couple hours to set up, there's something seriously weird going on with your network. You say this, but yet none of us seem to be able to point to a single WISP not using someone else's services or software to do it, and nobody seems to know if ANY of it works yet. This is hardly overestimating. Besides, who the heck cares if it's overestimating. If it forces anyone to change how their products work, then it's wrong. I'm seeing people talking about COMPLETELY
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
you don't give them stuff for free Yes we do. Care to quantify this statement? Sure, the government has never paid me to give them taxes. 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Whoa... I think someone's goofed slightly here. I said i don't owe them my services, skills, etc, for free. David said that we don't get stuff given to them, and we should not be giving them things for free.However, I think his point was that he's viewing the mandates on us as payment for unlicensed spectrum. I see unlicensed spectrum as nothing more than the FCC doing it's job, to promote use of a public asset (rf spectrum) as it's supposed to be used... for the benefit of the people. I don't see that as obligating me to do any old thing they happen to dream up for me to do for them. And if it's a quid pro quo, where's the balance point? Do I owe them a $100 / mo service? A $3000 + 400/mo ttp contract for it? WHat is it? And why aren't we defending our industry from gatekeeper regulation which stifles entry into it? Man, you people don't logically connect the dots, do you? Why wasn't WISPA asking every member, list member, and everyone else they could to flood the FCC with objections, and then offer a much saner view of how ISP's can assist LEA's?WISPA doesn't need to advocate flaunting the law to object, as some here are misportraying the notion.Instead, we're trying to downplay a very arbitrary intrusion into our networks and business. Instead of building leadership, WISPA is letting it slip away. Or maybe WISPA's figuring to join the ranks of the TTP's out there trying to scare people into buying into something for protection. When that's done to a brick and mortar business, it's called extortion. Really, I don't think they are... But that's how some people have viewed it. I know, I've seen the comments. - Original Message - From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 21:19 -0700, George Rogato wrote: David E. Smith wrote: Mark Koskenmaki wrote: You pay some property taxes, you get to use all those roads they built. . It's all trade-offs. Basic freshman-year-of-college economics. I just wanted to point out an error you just made mark, you said : The government doesn't give you stuff for free, And your correct, but this other part is incorrect: you don't give them stuff for free Yes we do. Care to quantify this statement? -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Heh... Is this an argument that taxes are a violation of the 5th Amendment? Especially the part that says ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ? That's where I derive my idea that we do not owe them any services or spending money to provide services or labor without compensation. Heck, CALEA provided funds to the telcos to compensate them... Why the heck are we special and not protected?From the arguments here, we have an unfillable debt owed merely for use of unlicensed spectrum... I disagree there's any debt or obligation whatsoever. - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition you don't give them stuff for free Yes we do. Care to quantify this statement? Sure, the government has never paid me to give them taxes. 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Mark, A well written piece. However, I think you miss my point: Either we defend ourselves, and we defend the cowboys as Peter likes to call people like me by rising in opposition to ANY regulatory garbage that puts us under their thumb... Or we've just killed our whole industry. You talk about gov't wiping you out. And I agree. They will because they can't get cooperation (or if you want to go to your extreme, gov't can't maintain control). I could go on and on about the current Admin, what is going on at the Hill, etc., but the differences you and I have over CALEA is that you spent all your time moaning about it when the questions coming up were How do I get compliant? There has been a 2 year battle over CALEA including in the courts. Where was everyone then?? ACE and EFF could have used some help. But you are looking to close the barn door after the animals escaped. You can certainly fight CALEA - and any other regulation you want - but many just want help complying, so they can stay in business. I don't know when you last fought something in DC, but the whole experience is so disgusting that I found myself never wanting to even visit the area again. Liars and scumbags - the whole lot. Everyone up there - even those sitting with you supposedly - have their own agenda. And at any time will throw you under the bus to get their way. And I don't know why you take the term cowboy to be so offensive. If you want to operate in an unregulated or uncontrolled manner, that's a cowboy. People that pioneered the West were cowboys. You did your pioneering and now that Broadband is main stream and the President has proclaimed his BB Policy, you are entering the regulated world. As I explained to someone offlist, cowboy wasn't the best word to use, but I could not come up with another word. But visually a guy sitting on a plain pretty much alone with his livestock (business) is why it got used. Other words were too strong. I just couldn't find a good word to use. Here's my main worry: About 400 of what we will call 2000 want to comply and run their business. The other 1600 don't want to fill out forms or be bothered, which is their prerogative but not their right. But it is the 1600 that will take down the 400. Here's my main peeve: It's quite okay to stand up and oppose something, but whistling in the wind does not get it done. Words are great, but action (like all those people you said would get behind you) is required. If you feel this strongly - and apparently you do because you and I keep going back and forth on this with you being insulted and then me being insulted - take some action. Don't write a missive. Go do something. Meanwhile the deadline for compliance with CALEA is still May 14. (Did you sign up for the Bearhill CALEA webinar?) Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. 813.963.5884 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
to take us all out. You used 2K as the number of operators, and 400 that comply. that's 400 vs 1600, and that the 1600 will take down the 400. How? What's the strategy? Ban wireless ISP's? Is that not counterproductive to EVERYTHING they have claimed they're for? But this argument isn't really about CALEA, Peter. I'm merely pointing out that if we choose to run down that road... it's a LOT farther back when the next thing pops up. And either we're going to start advocating shamelessly and boldly for ALL our industry... Or we might as well fold up shop and go home. I don't think there's a picking and choosing option later. Once you choose to support something that hurts some of your industry in the name of cooperation, then you're pretty much committed to that action and WISPA will see it enforce it's own industry's stagnation and perhaps demise, and really have no choice in the matter. Maybe it has no choice as the board sees it now. That's not my view, but again, I'm not in charge. And lastly, you keep talking about someone has to do something, it takes numbers, not a lone voice. Uhhh, if I don't succeed in rallying any WISP's to the idea, then what would be the point of anything else? Is not THIS the starting point? Is not THIS the place to have the discussion? Attacking WISPA from the outside, in my view would be a nasty thing to do, but if we were to argue this outside, it WOULD turn into that, and I think that would be absolutely WRONG. Just because I disagree with the driver of the bus, doesn't mean I want to blow the bus up.We need it. - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark, A well written piece. However, I think you miss my point: Either we defend ourselves, and we defend the cowboys as Peter likes to call people like me by rising in opposition to ANY regulatory garbage that puts us under their thumb... Or we've just killed our whole industry. You talk about gov't wiping you out. And I agree. They will because they can't get cooperation (or if you want to go to your extreme, gov't can't maintain control). I could go on and on about the current Admin, what is going on at the Hill, etc., but the differences you and I have over CALEA is that you spent all your time moaning about it when the questions coming up were How do I get compliant? There has been a 2 year battle over CALEA including in the courts. Where was everyone then?? ACE and EFF could have used some help. But you are looking to close the barn door after the animals escaped. You can certainly fight CALEA - and any other regulation you want - but many just want help complying, so they can stay in business. I don't know when you last fought something in DC, but the whole experience is so disgusting that I found myself never wanting to even visit the area again. Liars and scumbags - the whole lot. Everyone up there - even those sitting with you supposedly - have their own agenda. And at any time will throw you under the bus to get their way. And I don't know why you take the term cowboy to be so offensive. If you want to operate in an unregulated or uncontrolled manner, that's a cowboy. People that pioneered the West were cowboys. You did your pioneering and now that Broadband is main stream and the President has proclaimed his BB Policy, you are entering the regulated world. As I explained to someone offlist, cowboy wasn't the best word to use, but I could not come up with another word. But visually a guy sitting on a plain pretty much alone with his livestock (business) is why it got used. Other words were too strong. I just couldn't find a good word to use. Here's my main worry: About 400 of what we will call 2000 want to comply and run their business. The other 1600 don't want to fill out forms or be bothered, which is their prerogative but not their right. But it is the 1600 that will take down the 400. Here's my main peeve: It's quite okay to stand up and oppose something, but whistling in the wind does not get it done. Words are great, but action (like all those people you said would get behind you) is required. If you feel this strongly - and apparently you do because you and I keep going back and forth on this with you being insulted and then me being insulted - take some action. Don't write a missive. Go do something. Meanwhile the deadline for compliance with CALEA is still May 14. (Did you sign up for the Bearhill CALEA webinar?) Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. 813.963.5884 -- 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
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Pete, you hit on an interesting idea. What if the FCC were to pay the ISP say $500 each year to fill out the 477? Would more ISP's participate? John Pete Davis wrote: 12000, 6000, 2000, or whatever number of WISPs is mainly hard to quantify because there are LOTS of 2 and 3 customer private wireless networks, where a business will buy a T1, DSL or whatever, and share it wirelessly with a few nearby business, within or without the terms of service agreements. Those guys may have bought their equipment from vendor X, and most likely didn't tell anyone (not even the FCC or the RUS) about their venture. This adds a new customer to Electrocomm's roll's and one of 12000 wisps in the mix of some of these speculative counts. Another customer of WISP equipment that is not a WISP might be the colleges and universities. Many colleges use wireless backhauls and hotspots on campus. Does that make them a WISP? University of Houston Victoria Campus has some wireless stuff in their network for their campus. If they have 1000 students who use it, does that make them a 1000 subscriber wisp? I doubt that they filed a 477. If they bought from Smartbridges, Hutton, Electrocomm, or whoever Marlon might have probed, then they are on his radar, but not necessarily a real privately held, public-serving WISP. As far as serving the underserved, like the FCC wants us to do, so they can give out these low-cost loans, if they would simply offer tax breaks to WISPs who DO register and deliver broadband to customers who live in areas of less than (x/sq mile) density. Sort of like the USF money, but with income tax breaks instead of $100+/mo/sub incentive like ATT gets in some markets. Anyway offering tax breaks to registered rural WISPs would get those 477 forms filled out to show a true(er) number. This would boost our numbers in the eyes of the elected officials, and be a boom for free enterprise and all that it stands for, and I think the broadband subscribers census numbers would put us even or ahead of the rest of the world. Sprint/Nextel seem to be stepping up to the plate and helping with our goal of market penetration http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/wireless/sprint-wimax-24mpbs-55month-open-access-yes-please-229995.php We don't have gigabit fiber to the home like the Japanese, but we also don't all live in the same skyscraper that we work and shop in either. If shopping/working/living under a single roof was common, fiber broadband would make more sense. We may not have the same market penetration as Australia, but we also don't have $10+/hr minimum wage. I know that a LOT of people consider $39/mo for internet a burden, especially in smaller towns, where the best paying job down at the mill has 40 year old men making $7.50/hr. Of course, the $30/hr on the oilfield and the $50/hr offshore oilfield jobs make a difference in the labor pool also, making it hard to get qualified affordable help to install ISP customers. If your goal is 100% broadband market penetration for every home in the US, I suppose we could take the foodstamps approach to it. Add $500/yr/household tax to the IRS, then distribute $40/mo coupons to every household. If they want the basic service, the coupon should cover it. If they want the $80/mo service, it will cost a little more, but this will ensure that EVERY customer could afford it, and it would cost everyone the same. This is a ridiculous proposal, but it would truly level the playing field. unfortunately it would also bring out every dirtbag and put them into the ISP business buying the coupon books for 1/10 of their redemption value from crackheads. If you had guaranteed 100% market penetration, how much cheaper could you offer service? Delivering service to a customer base without a computer in the home would be EASY if there was a $40 coupon that I could buy from them for $4. pd Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: There were 12,000 on the rolls. The largest single count was 6000. I assumed a 75% overlap to be on the safe side. But with a high of 6000 at ONE company, there's no way to have overlap on that 6000. The real number in 2004 was somewhere around that 6000 mark. And for your 40% that are gone, how many new are out there that we've not heard about yet. How many muni networks are out there? They too are wisps. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition And that was 2004. I'm not arguing just to argue. This is a soapbox, so delete and move on if you want. When you go to the Feds and say
RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Nope. I still won't fill it out. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Thomas Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 2:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Pete, you hit on an interesting idea. What if the FCC were to pay the ISP say $500 each year to fill out the 477? Would more ISP's participate? John Pete Davis wrote: 12000, 6000, 2000, or whatever number of WISPs is mainly hard to quantify because there are LOTS of 2 and 3 customer private wireless networks, where a business will buy a T1, DSL or whatever, and share it wirelessly with a few nearby business, within or without the terms of service agreements. Those guys may have bought their equipment from vendor X, and most likely didn't tell anyone (not even the FCC or the RUS) about their venture. This adds a new customer to Electrocomm's roll's and one of 12000 wisps in the mix of some of these speculative counts. Another customer of WISP equipment that is not a WISP might be the colleges and universities. Many colleges use wireless backhauls and hotspots on campus. Does that make them a WISP? University of Houston Victoria Campus has some wireless stuff in their network for their campus. If they have 1000 students who use it, does that make them a 1000 subscriber wisp? I doubt that they filed a 477. If they bought from Smartbridges, Hutton, Electrocomm, or whoever Marlon might have probed, then they are on his radar, but not necessarily a real privately held, public-serving WISP. As far as serving the underserved, like the FCC wants us to do, so they can give out these low-cost loans, if they would simply offer tax breaks to WISPs who DO register and deliver broadband to customers who live in areas of less than (x/sq mile) density. Sort of like the USF money, but with income tax breaks instead of $100+/mo/sub incentive like ATT gets in some markets. Anyway offering tax breaks to registered rural WISPs would get those 477 forms filled out to show a true(er) number. This would boost our numbers in the eyes of the elected officials, and be a boom for free enterprise and all that it stands for, and I think the broadband subscribers census numbers would put us even or ahead of the rest of the world. Sprint/Nextel seem to be stepping up to the plate and helping with our goal of market penetration http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/wireless/sprint-wimax-24mpbs-55month-open-acc ess-yes-please-229995.php We don't have gigabit fiber to the home like the Japanese, but we also don't all live in the same skyscraper that we work and shop in either. If shopping/working/living under a single roof was common, fiber broadband would make more sense. We may not have the same market penetration as Australia, but we also don't have $10+/hr minimum wage. I know that a LOT of people consider $39/mo for internet a burden, especially in smaller towns, where the best paying job down at the mill has 40 year old men making $7.50/hr. Of course, the $30/hr on the oilfield and the $50/hr offshore oilfield jobs make a difference in the labor pool also, making it hard to get qualified affordable help to install ISP customers. If your goal is 100% broadband market penetration for every home in the US, I suppose we could take the foodstamps approach to it. Add $500/yr/household tax to the IRS, then distribute $40/mo coupons to every household. If they want the basic service, the coupon should cover it. If they want the $80/mo service, it will cost a little more, but this will ensure that EVERY customer could afford it, and it would cost everyone the same. This is a ridiculous proposal, but it would truly level the playing field. unfortunately it would also bring out every dirtbag and put them into the ISP business buying the coupon books for 1/10 of their redemption value from crackheads. If you had guaranteed 100% market penetration, how much cheaper could you offer service? Delivering service to a customer base without a computer in the home would be EASY if there was a $40 coupon that I could buy from them for $4. pd Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: There were 12,000 on the rolls. The largest single count was 6000. I assumed a 75% overlap to be on the safe side. But with a high of 6000 at ONE company, there's no way to have overlap on that 6000. The real number in 2004 was somewhere around that 6000 mark. And for your 40% that are gone, how many new are out there that we've not heard about yet. How many muni networks are out there? They too are wisps. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
a picking and choosing option later. Once you choose to support something that hurts some of your industry in the name of cooperation, then you're pretty much committed to that action and WISPA will see it enforce it's own industry's stagnation and perhaps demise, and really have no choice in the matter. Maybe it has no choice as the board sees it now. That's not my view, but again, I'm not in charge. And lastly, you keep talking about someone has to do something, it takes numbers, not a lone voice. Uhhh, if I don't succeed in rallying any WISP's to the idea, then what would be the point of anything else? Is not THIS the starting point? Is not THIS the place to have the discussion? Attacking WISPA from the outside, in my view would be a nasty thing to do, but if we were to argue this outside, it WOULD turn into that, and I think that would be absolutely WRONG. Just because I disagree with the driver of the bus, doesn't mean I want to blow the bus up.We need it. - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark, A well written piece. However, I think you miss my point: Either we defend ourselves, and we defend the cowboys as Peter likes to call people like me by rising in opposition to ANY regulatory garbage that puts us under their thumb... Or we've just killed our whole industry. You talk about gov't wiping you out. And I agree. They will because they can't get cooperation (or if you want to go to your extreme, gov't can't maintain control). I could go on and on about the current Admin, what is going on at the Hill, etc., but the differences you and I have over CALEA is that you spent all your time moaning about it when the questions coming up were How do I get compliant? There has been a 2 year battle over CALEA including in the courts. Where was everyone then?? ACE and EFF could have used some help. But you are looking to close the barn door after the animals escaped. You can certainly fight CALEA - and any other regulation you want - but many just want help complying, so they can stay in business. I don't know when you last fought something in DC, but the whole experience is so disgusting that I found myself never wanting to even visit the area again. Liars and scumbags - the whole lot. Everyone up there - even those sitting with you supposedly - have their own agenda. And at any time will throw you under the bus to get their way. And I don't know why you take the term cowboy to be so offensive. If you want to operate in an unregulated or uncontrolled manner, that's a cowboy. People that pioneered the West were cowboys. You did your pioneering and now that Broadband is main stream and the President has proclaimed his BB Policy, you are entering the regulated world. As I explained to someone offlist, cowboy wasn't the best word to use, but I could not come up with another word. But visually a guy sitting on a plain pretty much alone with his livestock (business) is why it got used. Other words were too strong. I just couldn't find a good word to use. Here's my main worry: About 400 of what we will call 2000 want to comply and run their business. The other 1600 don't want to fill out forms or be bothered, which is their prerogative but not their right. But it is the 1600 that will take down the 400. Here's my main peeve: It's quite okay to stand up and oppose something, but whistling in the wind does not get it done. Words are great, but action (like all those people you said would get behind you) is required. If you feel this strongly - and apparently you do because you and I keep going back and forth on this with you being insulted and then me being insulted - take some action. Don't write a missive. Go do something. Meanwhile the deadline for compliance with CALEA is still May 14. (Did you sign up for the Bearhill CALEA webinar?) Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. 813.963.5884 -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Mark, Are you a paid WISPA member? Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Peter, your intended meaning for the word...and what I assumed you meant, were pretty much the same. I am not offended by it, so no worries. You stated something that I was hoping you'd reveal... it goes something like this, the regulators are in pursuit of control or cooperation. I'd like to point out that there's no cooperation, really. Oh, a little. They meet and play politely, but nowhere in this mess do we have a veto over ANYTHING they propose to demand. All couched in nice language, but it's still the man with the gun saying do it or die. And, as you rightly point out, somewhere down this road, comes a point of confrontation. When the FCC realizes that the great majority simply will not comply... or, perhaps, cannot, or even more obtusely, don't even know or care, these two trains are headed head on down the same track, in opposite directions. I dunno what it's going to look like, I don't know how public it will be, but the nature of regulators is to take out non-compliance. The question is then, who will WISPA, EFF, etc, etc, stand with?Court fights between the FCC and FBI and DOJ, etc, aside, the rubber meets the road when the deadlines arrive, and I suspect that the vast majority of networks that are supposed to be compliant are not. Then what? As you know, WISPA reprepresents under 200 actual members. Part 15 has no huge number either. At that point, does the FCC start shutting down THOUSANDS of networks? If the industry associations take their side... Yes. And when or if Part 15 or WISPA takes the side of taking people down... Exactly what do you think their future growth will be? This is going to get ugly, people. It's going to get REAL ugly, because I don't think that WISPA will be able to remain on the fence. I know where Bullitt stands. He's already publicly threatened to destroy non-compliant people. I told him what I thought of that, and that's why I have a consultant of the year plaque on my wall signed by him, but am banned from everything Part-15. It was his stand that he was going to employ people to search out WISP's and report non-filers. I dunno if he did or not. This is why I posted about whether our industry is going to thrive or die. The FCC or FBI or whomever, is going to ask everyone to help enforce. If that means putting people out of business, will WISPA do it? I'm not asking this to incite an argument with the list members and the board, I'm pointing out that there's coming a point where there's a NO WIN situation coming. And, it might NOT be over CALEA. It might be the next thing to come down the pike. Should WISPA engage in helping members help authorities in lawful pursuit of criminals? Oh, absolutely. So far, WISPA is sitting the fence. We don't police the industry. But what will be the response when the FCC asks them to? I would suggest the board at present and the soon to be elected board members consider this now. I'm not even suggesting one way or the other. I'm no longer a member of WISPA, though I strongly support the notion and value of a trade organization for WISP's. I would guess from the response, we all see the need for MORE, not less WISP's in our country, and we need growth in our industry. What will be the response when WISPA is asked to undertake or support enforcement actions that reduce the numbers and place barrriers to entry into the WISP business? As you stated... WE ARE COWBOYS. That's because that's who is always the forefront of any industry. The intrepid, the gutsy, the indedpendent, the stubborn, and willful. And I can predict without any hesitation that a majority, perhaps not of WISPA members, but of the non-allied network operators will not be so easily corralled into compliance. Not because what they need is wrong, but because it's wrong for the government to do what it's trying to do, place mandates on us for purely it's own convenience. The choices now will have a huge influence on the future.No matter which way the twig is bent, the tree starts that way and reversing course will NOT be without pain, cost and consequence. No matter which way WISPA goes, it will cause grief, pain, and consequences. There's NO WINNING this one. There's no side to choose to come out smelling like a rose. I suspect you all know what the stand would be should i be in charge. But either way, the sooner leadership gets on a side, and stands by it with whatever principles they choose to uphold, the better. Yeah, I think we should have addresssed this long ago. But there's another important decision by the feds to make.. and that is what kind of enforcement... Enough
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
- Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark, As the driver of the bus I feel compelled to reply. You certainly do a god job of selling your ideas. I could almost decide to mutiny along with you if I did not believe that part of doing business is to obey the laws of the land. But I am not talking about mutiny. Where is the unwritten rule that whatever Uncle Sam wants, he gets without argument? There is a very much alive principle that there is going to be contention between those un-elected regulators and those they seek to regulate. If we have no choice, if we cannnot argue back, then we live in a society I no longer recognize nor want to live in. If it is WISPA's position that we cannot lobby, argue, and publicly campaign against things they do wrong, then WISPA's wrong too. So far the government of the United States has asked some fairly basic things of me and our industry in order to be able to use the airwaves for free in the United States and to freely operate our businesses. Baloney! I was BORN WITH THE RIGHT to do this. I do not owe the federal government one single IOTA of consideration. Sorry. I pay my taxes. That's my obligation. I do not OWE for the privelidge of being in business providing needed services. I do not owe one smidgeon of giving up privelege, rights, or anything else for doing what I do. If I owe ANYONE for the use of the public spectrum, then I owe the people I provide service to... to whom that spectrum belongs. They have told me that I must use equipment which has been tested and certified to comply with the rules. They have told me not to exceed power levels. These are general principles we can all agree on. They want to know where we serve and how many people we serve. They're welcome to poll my valley and find out, if they really want to know. Just demanding I do the work for them is wrong. Plain old wrong. Not to mention, they already admitted the information is useless anyway. Did we tell them we thought that was a bad idea way back when? Nope. Why the bloody hell not??? There's REAL stuff that can be done to advance what they want advanced, rather than waste our time, their time, and our money on pointless nonsense? Why weren't we advocating this all along? They want me to help them if they need to catch criminals who are using our networks for planning criminal acts. No problem. But they can darn well pay for it. Each of these requirements seem to be logical things a government would expect of the businesses who serve the people that they represent. No, it's logical WANTS of a government. They have not the slightest IOTA of reason to expect we should volunteer our time, talents, and spend our money for their wants. I do NOT, nor does anyone else, OWE them this. They are MY SERVANTS. I am not theirs. I do not owe them the slightest consideration or otherwise. They OWE ME if they want me to do something for them. I do not like the way many of these things are being handled by our government and I do not like some of the rules but I have no problem complying with these rules and laws. But you put yourself in the position of being the person to express FOR US, or objections. I feel it is WISPA's job to make sure operators know how to comply with the rules and the laws and to try to lobby for change in the way government interacts with us when we see it is being done wrong. If WISPA ever develops a certification program for WISPs then we will, by default, become somewhat of a policing agency for our industry at least if people acknowledge us as an authority within the industry. The policing authority would not move to the obstructive and intrusive levels as described by you, Mark. It would simply be a self-imposed and recognized certification system which others could support or in your case probably ignore. I am sure part of the certification process would involve an oath that an operator would follow the rules and laws of the country they serve. Any industry trade association who offers a certification process would require the same I would think. Works for me. There would only be government recognition of such a system if they opted to recognize it officially in some way. An example might be that a WISPA certified operator might be granted some leeway in mixing and matching certified components in order to build certified systems which may not have been tested in a lab as a system. Another example would be that the FCC might develop band sharing rules where some bands could be coordinated between certified operators. These are only examples for reference sake. Right. These are items of negotiation between regulators and those wanting something. More to the point, they are the bits
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
I used to be, Mac. The why not now is not to be aired in public. - Original Message - From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 1:00 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark, Are you a paid WISPA member? Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Peter, your intended meaning for the word...and what I assumed you meant, were pretty much the same. I am not offended by it, so no worries. You stated something that I was hoping you'd reveal... it goes something like this, the regulators are in pursuit of control or cooperation. I'd like to point out that there's no cooperation, really. Oh, a little. They meet and play politely, but nowhere in this mess do we have a veto over ANYTHING they propose to demand. All couched in nice language, but it's still the man with the gun saying do it or die. And, as you rightly point out, somewhere down this road, comes a point of confrontation. When the FCC realizes that the great majority simply will not comply... or, perhaps, cannot, or even more obtusely, don't even know or care, these two trains are headed head on down the same track, in opposite directions. I dunno what it's going to look like, I don't know how public it will be, but the nature of regulators is to take out non-compliance. The question is then, who will WISPA, EFF, etc, etc, stand with?Court fights between the FCC and FBI and DOJ, etc, aside, the rubber meets the road when the deadlines arrive, and I suspect that the vast majority of networks that are supposed to be compliant are not. Then what? As you know, WISPA reprepresents under 200 actual members. Part 15 has no huge number either. At that point, does the FCC start shutting down THOUSANDS of networks? If the industry associations take their side... Yes. And when or if Part 15 or WISPA takes the side of taking people down... Exactly what do you think their future growth will be? This is going to get ugly, people. It's going to get REAL ugly, because I don't think that WISPA will be able to remain on the fence. I know where Bullitt stands. He's already publicly threatened to destroy non-compliant people. I told him what I thought of that, and that's why I have a consultant of the year plaque on my wall signed by him, but am banned from everything Part-15. It was his stand that he was going to employ people to search out WISP's and report non-filers. I dunno if he did or not. This is why I posted about whether our industry is going to thrive or die. The FCC or FBI or whomever, is going to ask everyone to help enforce. If that means putting people out of business, will WISPA do it? I'm not asking this to incite an argument with the list members and the board, I'm pointing out that there's coming a point where there's a NO WIN situation coming. And, it might NOT be over CALEA. It might be the next thing to come down the pike. Should WISPA engage in helping members help authorities in lawful pursuit of criminals? Oh, absolutely. So far, WISPA is sitting the fence. We don't police the industry. But what will be the response when the FCC asks them to? I would suggest the board at present and the soon to be elected board members consider this now. I'm not even suggesting one way or the other. I'm no longer a member of WISPA, though I strongly support the notion and value of a trade organization for WISP's. I would guess from the response, we all see the need for MORE, not less WISP's in our country, and we need growth in our industry. What will be the response when WISPA is asked to undertake or support enforcement actions that reduce the numbers and place barrriers to entry into the WISP business? As you stated... WE ARE COWBOYS. That's because that's who is always the forefront of any industry. The intrepid, the gutsy, the indedpendent, the stubborn, and willful. And I can predict without any hesitation that a majority, perhaps not of WISPA members, but of the non-allied network operators will not be so easily corralled into compliance. Not because what they need is wrong, but because it's wrong for the government to do what it's trying to do, place mandates on us for purely it's own convenience. The choices now will have a huge influence on the future.No matter which way the twig is bent, the tree starts that way and reversing course will NOT be without pain, cost and consequence. No matter which way WISPA goes, it will cause grief, pain, and consequences. There's NO WINNING this one. There's no side to choose to come out smelling like a rose. I suspect
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Doesn't work that way. Those entities are called commercial, educational etc. As a rule, only a wisp would be called a wisp on the books. All customers are classified. marlon - Original Message - From: Pete Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 5:59 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition 12000, 6000, 2000, or whatever number of WISPs is mainly hard to quantify because there are LOTS of 2 and 3 customer private wireless networks, where a business will buy a T1, DSL or whatever, and share it wirelessly with a few nearby business, within or without the terms of service agreements. Those guys may have bought their equipment from vendor X, and most likely didn't tell anyone (not even the FCC or the RUS) about their venture. This adds a new customer to Electrocomm's roll's and one of 12000 wisps in the mix of some of these speculative counts. Another customer of WISP equipment that is not a WISP might be the colleges and universities. Many colleges use wireless backhauls and hotspots on campus. Does that make them a WISP? University of Houston Victoria Campus has some wireless stuff in their network for their campus. If they have 1000 students who use it, does that make them a 1000 subscriber wisp? I doubt that they filed a 477. If they bought from Smartbridges, Hutton, Electrocomm, or whoever Marlon might have probed, then they are on his radar, but not necessarily a real privately held, public-serving WISP. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
and coverage. The only way to get at the heart of the mattter, is to study the people...find who does, who does not, and then find out WHY. Do they not care? Maybe they don't want it. Maybe they aren't willing to pay for it. Maybe they have no use for it! Maybe nobody will offer service. If not, WHY NOT? And then comprehensively address those issues of why one of us cowboys will not go there.Because if we won't, then nobody will, unless they're bribed with public money, to do what nobody sensible would do. There should not be 6000 of us. Not even 12,000 of us. There should be at least 20,000 and more appropriately, 50,000 of us. We should be like the grocery store. One or more for every town. If we do, WE WILL have the clout in DC to get heard. But unless we defend our industry against imposed gatekeepers, toll booths and whatever other kind of barrier to entry and continuation, we have already lost the battle without ever having even reached the fight. Like it or not, WE HAVE THE ANSWERS the FCC is looking for. But we're stuck on playing little political games. Darnit, WE ARE ALREADY THE LEADERS, because we're going out and doin what should be done in the first place. The fact that they are only recently aware of even our EXISTENCE, much less the true power of free enterprise we can wield in advancing our nation is a monument sized explanation of just how out of touch and isolated Washington DC is from where the rubber meets the road. We should not shrink from boldly standing up for both what is right, and PROUDLY ADVOCATING FOR OUR BEST INTEREST. Not just making the toll bearable or trying to make sure they don't kill too many of us, not meekly going to them, hat in hand, hoping for status in DC. That's not leadership. That's followship. And it's our death if we do it. There. I've ranted again. Somehow, I feel like I haven't done it near enough. The definition of a fanatic, some say, is that they not only have opinions on something, but that they won't shut up about it. Are we fanatics for our industry and ourselves... or just mere passive players? Mark - Original Message - From: Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 5:52 AM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Found this on Slashdot For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070205/165735.shtml measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. See the problem? For some reason the FCC still hasn't changed its ways, but at least they're starting to realize the problem. They're now saying they need to change http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2115154,00.asp the way they measure competition. Commissioner Michael Copps points out: 'Our statistical methodology seems almost calculated to obscure just how far http://techdirt.com/articles/20070418/143208.shtml our country is falling behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability, adoption, speed and price.' -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Mark, This was one of the best emails you have ever written IMHO. At 3070 words, it must have taken you all night to write, but I appreciate the time you put into it and your opinions are well stated. I believe this is a must read for anyone wanting to get a real-life picture of our industry and it's challenges. There is definitely room for more radical views to be heard. I'm sure others will disagree or dispute some of the opinions you have stated but that's ok. This will create some great discussion. As a board member of WISPA, it is our duty to reflect and consider all opinions of the members of our association. We need to weigh all opinions and guide policy direction as the majority sees fit. While we may not always take your side in some matters, we do so in what we interpret as the best course for the future of the industry. Does that mean we don't listen? Heavens no! This is the great part of group efforts, molding peoples ideas into a negotiated platform that is livable by as many of us as possible would be our necessary goal. It is a balancing act sometimes to represent the membership while maintaining a respectful front with the FCC and legislators who have the power to make the laws and policies which police our industry. WISPA can be radical at times, but we also need to temper our views somewhat to maintain a respectful image with those who make the decisions. Again, I appreciate your comments! Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Of coures it's flawed. That's like saying that if anyone within zipcode x has a newly paved street in front of their home, then everyone in zip code x has the same. I don't offer service via zip code. I offer service via where my signal reaches. And, I've even made a few little interesting things to get service where it DOES NOT reach. Or...well, it didn't at first. The presumption that every who has broadband available will buy it is... absurd. We all know that. I know people who won't even pay for dialup. The question is, why do we want to know?I can think of business reasons why I'd want to know. But why would the mayor of my town, for instance, want to know? What public purpose would be served by expending resources to find out? None, that I can actually think of. Even nationally, the SAME ANSWER applies. There is no actual need OF ANY KIND to know the number. If 27 percent of the population has broadband available, is there some kind of crisis? What if it's 80%? what if it's 99.776 %?The answer is, THE NUMBER DOES NOT MATTER. Once you realize this fundamental truth, then we can get beyond this, and start to make coherent and logical analysis of what's going on, and what, if anything, should be done about it. First, to get a clear-eyed perspective, let's look at something that's an indisputable need. Food. Is there anywhere in this country you can't buy food? ( Yeah, I know, try going to out eat in Odessa, it's a constraining experience) If you know of any town where the people cannot, without extreme difficulty obtain food, I'd love to hear of it. So, let me ask you... Is the ubiquitous availability of commodity food due to government policy? Was a large government initiative required to get grocery stores available throughout our nation? Did the USDA and other agencies create programs to fund the creation of grocery stores throughout the country? Did Congress address the lack of grocery stores repeatedly until it was solved? The negative answers to all those somewhat silly questions is kind of obvious. Whereever people wanted to live, there was a demand for a place to buy at least the staples and someone filled that need, often more than a single someone, and they competed for the customer. So, why is the FCC and Congress in a dither about where broadband is available? If people want it, it will come. Just like grocery stores. If it won't, then the real question of consequence is... WHY? Is it not economically feasible? If not, why not? Is it physically not feasible? If not, why not? Is the actual demand enough to sustain the mechanism to provide the service? (you mean they might not want it? Yeah... they might not!) Then, finally, what artificial obstructions exist to providing broadband? Let me state some of the issues that the above questions begin to relate to... economically feasible, to start with. What are the main problems that occur money-wise when attempting to bring broadband to an unserved area, or make it financially unworkable? Gee, a good lot of you have done it, me included. What about we collaborate a bit and summarize those obstacles we
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
I second Rick's comments. I was very impressed with Mark's comments. I need to reread that note later and make some notes of things to consider. Rick Harnish wrote: Mark, This was one of the best emails you have ever written IMHO. At 3070 words, it must have taken you all night to write, but I appreciate the time you put into it and your opinions are well stated. I believe this is a must read for anyone wanting to get a real-life picture of our industry and it's challenges. There is definitely room for more radical views to be heard. I'm sure others will disagree or dispute some of the opinions you have stated but that's ok. This will create some great discussion. As a board member of WISPA, it is our duty to reflect and consider all opinions of the members of our association. We need to weigh all opinions and guide policy direction as the majority sees fit. While we may not always take your side in some matters, we do so in what we interpret as the best course for the future of the industry. Does that mean we don't listen? Heavens no! This is the great part of group efforts, molding peoples ideas into a negotiated platform that is livable by as many of us as possible would be our necessary goal. It is a balancing act sometimes to represent the membership while maintaining a respectful front with the FCC and legislators who have the power to make the laws and policies which police our industry. WISPA can be radical at times, but we also need to temper our views somewhat to maintain a respectful image with those who make the decisions. Again, I appreciate your comments! Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Of coures it's flawed. That's like saying that if anyone within zipcode x has a newly paved street in front of their home, then everyone in zip code x has the same. I don't offer service via zip code. I offer service via where my signal reaches. And, I've even made a few little interesting things to get service where it DOES NOT reach. Or...well, it didn't at first. The presumption that every who has broadband available will buy it is... absurd. We all know that. I know people who won't even pay for dialup. The question is, why do we want to know?I can think of business reasons why I'd want to know. But why would the mayor of my town, for instance, want to know? What public purpose would be served by expending resources to find out? None, that I can actually think of. Even nationally, the SAME ANSWER applies. There is no actual need OF ANY KIND to know the number. If 27 percent of the population has broadband available, is there some kind of crisis? What if it's 80%? what if it's 99.776 %?The answer is, THE NUMBER DOES NOT MATTER. Once you realize this fundamental truth, then we can get beyond this, and start to make coherent and logical analysis of what's going on, and what, if anything, should be done about it. First, to get a clear-eyed perspective, let's look at something that's an indisputable need. Food. Is there anywhere in this country you can't buy food? ( Yeah, I know, try going to out eat in Odessa, it's a constraining experience) If you know of any town where the people cannot, without extreme difficulty obtain food, I'd love to hear of it. So, let me ask you... Is the ubiquitous availability of commodity food due to government policy? Was a large government initiative required to get grocery stores available throughout our nation? Did the USDA and other agencies create programs to fund the creation of grocery stores throughout the country? Did Congress address the lack of grocery stores repeatedly until it was solved? The negative answers to all those somewhat silly questions is kind of obvious. Whereever people wanted to live, there was a demand for a place to buy at least the staples and someone filled that need, often more than a single someone, and they competed for the customer. So, why is the FCC and Congress in a dither about where broadband is available? If people want it, it will come. Just like grocery stores. If it won't, then the real question of consequence is... WHY? Is it not economically feasible? If not, why not? Is it physically not feasible? If not, why not? Is the actual demand enough to sustain the mechanism to provide the service? (you mean they might not want it? Yeah... they might not!) Then, finally, what artificial obstructions exist to providing broadband? Let me state some of the issues that the above questions begin to relate to... economically feasible, to start with. What are the main problems that occur money-wise when attempting to bring broadband
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
I agree Mark's post was extremely well said, and insightful. To me, it's like Yellowstone wildlife management. Once it became a national park the park management (people) said we need to manage the wildlife. They did this, then 10 years later they did that, then 10 years later they did something else, etc. All the while it was painfully obvious that it was unnecessary for people to manage natural wildlife. Yet they continued, each policy meant to repair or undo the damage of the previous one. I immensely enjoy the programs that reflect back on 100 years of park management that look a tale of one one blunder after another ... everything they seek to fix were problems they created. The underlying truth is that many things like a free marketplace operate quite fine when left alone. Once people (read: government) interferes they sometimes cannot help but be disruptive by whatever they do ... because intruding was never the right thing to do in the first place. I think the basic need to intrude in the broadband marketplace stems from a long line of federal government intrusion into telecommunications 30 years ago, and it's yet to do anything for the citizenry of our country that hasn't been harmful (all the way back to Judge Green). But that's as far as I go feeling gov should butt out. I'm a strong advocate that gov should set standards for interoperability for each band for the public good of the citizenry of our country. So I'm not anti-gov, just feel in some areas like trying to manage industries they should excuse themselves ... forever. But gov does do many important things for us all, and I believe the FCC has an absolutely vital role to perform. I just wish they would do better where I think they bear a responsibility, and abandon meddling where I think they shouldn't have ever interfered. Rich - Original Message - From: Rick Harnish To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 10:38 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark, This was one of the best emails you have ever written IMHO. At 3070 words, it must have taken you all night to write, but I appreciate the time you put into it and your opinions are well stated. I believe this is a must read for anyone wanting to get a real-life picture of our industry and it's challenges. There is definitely room for more radical views to be heard. I'm sure others will disagree or dispute some of the opinions you have stated but that's ok. This will create some great discussion. As a board member of WISPA, it is our duty to reflect and consider all opinions of the members of our association. We need to weigh all opinions and guide policy direction as the majority sees fit. While we may not always take your side in some matters, we do so in what we interpret as the best course for the future of the industry. Does that mean we don't listen? Heavens no! This is the great part of group efforts, molding peoples ideas into a negotiated platform that is livable by as many of us as possible would be our necessary goal. It is a balancing act sometimes to represent the membership while maintaining a respectful front with the FCC and legislators who have the power to make the laws and policies which police our industry. WISPA can be radical at times, but we also need to temper our views somewhat to maintain a respectful image with those who make the decisions. Again, I appreciate your comments! Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Of coures it's flawed. That's like saying that if anyone within zipcode x has a newly paved street in front of their home, then everyone in zip code x has the same. I don't offer service via zip code. I offer service via where my signal reaches. And, I've even made a few little interesting things to get service where it DOES NOT reach. Or...well, it didn't at first. The presumption that every who has broadband available will buy it is... absurd. We all know that. I know people who won't even pay for dialup. The question is, why do we want to know?I can think of business reasons why I'd want to know. But why would the mayor of my town, for instance, want to know? What public purpose would be served by expending resources to find out? None, that I can actually think of. Even nationally, the SAME ANSWER applies. There is no actual need OF ANY KIND to know the number. If 27 percent of the population has broadband available, is there some kind of crisis? What if it's 80%? what
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
spending, the number serves no practical purpose in advancing real deployment and coverage. The only way to get at the heart of the mattter, is to study the people...find who does, who does not, and then find out WHY. Do they not care? Maybe they don't want it. Maybe they aren't willing to pay for it. Maybe they have no use for it! Maybe nobody will offer service. If not, WHY NOT? And then comprehensively address those issues of why one of us cowboys will not go there.Because if we won't, then nobody will, unless they're bribed with public money, to do what nobody sensible would do. There should not be 6000 of us. Not even 12,000 of us. There should be at least 20,000 and more appropriately, 50,000 of us. We should be like the grocery store. One or more for every town. If we do, WE WILL have the clout in DC to get heard. But unless we defend our industry against imposed gatekeepers, toll booths and whatever other kind of barrier to entry and continuation, we have already lost the battle without ever having even reached the fight. Like it or not, WE HAVE THE ANSWERS the FCC is looking for. But we're stuck on playing little political games. Darnit, WE ARE ALREADY THE LEADERS, because we're going out and doin what should be done in the first place. The fact that they are only recently aware of even our EXISTENCE, much less the true power of free enterprise we can wield in advancing our nation is a monument sized explanation of just how out of touch and isolated Washington DC is from where the rubber meets the road. We should not shrink from boldly standing up for both what is right, and PROUDLY ADVOCATING FOR OUR BEST INTEREST. Not just making the toll bearable or trying to make sure they don't kill too many of us, not meekly going to them, hat in hand, hoping for status in DC. That's not leadership. That's followship. And it's our death if we do it. There. I've ranted again. Somehow, I feel like I haven't done it near enough. The definition of a fanatic, some say, is that they not only have opinions on something, but that they won't shut up about it. Are we fanatics for our industry and ourselves... or just mere passive players? Mark - Original Message - From: Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 5:52 AM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Found this on Slashdot For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070205/165735.shtml measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. See the problem? For some reason the FCC still hasn't changed its ways, but at least they're starting to realize the problem. They're now saying they need to change http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2115154,00.asp the way they measure competition. Commissioner Michael Copps points out: 'Our statistical methodology seems almost calculated to obscure just how far http://techdirt.com/articles/20070418/143208.shtml our country is falling behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability, adoption, speed and price.' -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
That's true. Under the current definition I got from a muni guy *I'M* a muni wifi provider! Is that cool or what? marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Marlon, The projections for municipal wireless networks are about 300 but you cannot say this number will add 300 Wireless Providers to the total number of WISP's. Some providers of these networks could run more than one municipality. I am sure some of these providers are already counted in your figure so there would be no bearing on whether they built a municipal network or not. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: There were 12,000 on the rolls. The largest single count was 6000. I assumed a 75% overlap to be on the safe side. But with a high of 6000 at ONE company, there's no way to have overlap on that 6000. The real number in 2004 was somewhere around that 6000 mark. And for your 40% that are gone, how many new are out there that we've not heard about yet. How many muni networks are out there? They too are wisps. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition And that was 2004. I'm not arguing just to argue. This is a soapbox, so delete and move on if you want. When you go to the Feds and say that there are 6000 and only 400 have reported, that doesn't bode well for anyone. It makes the Feds nervous. It shines an ugly light on this so-called Industry. As Powell has stated it is way easier to deal with 12 companies using the same platforms than 1000's using many platforms. And Gonzo and K-Mart feel the same way (since they take their cues from the Roving 3). And when the gov't wants control and CALEA and surveillance and etc. and they can't get cooperation from this Industry, what do you think will happen? They will pick up a pen and wipe it out. But, Marlon, as I mentioned off-list, going through my Florida ISP database, about 40% are gone and some that are in business are not an ISP any longer. - Peter Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Except that the SAME wisps were dealing with the top 5 or 6 vendors, so your count is quite inflated. Lonnie On 4/20/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In case you missed it in an earlier email. I called the top 5 or 6 vendors in the WISP space and pestered them till they told me how many providers they had on the books as WISPs. MUCH more accurate than the 477 and a similar or more comprehensive effort by the FCC would take someone all over a day or two. That help? Marlon -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
wishful thinking FCC realizes areas are underserved. They also realize independent broadband providers -- read wireless ISPs -- are an excellent, if not better, solution as a competitive solution in many areas, rural and otherwise. FCC makes sub-700Mhz available for unlicensed broadband, or reasonably licensed broadband which independent WISPs can access. Then, small business innovators -- read WISPs -- win and users win. /wishful thinking Is that sooo wishful? Mario Matt wrote: For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070205/165735.shtml measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. See the problem? For some reason soapbox This gets old. They say the US is way behind. Really? I think they are comparing apples to oranges. Do all they rural farms in Australia have broadband? All the rural areas in China? Even S. Korea, one of the most wired countries, do they have broadband in all there rural areas? Sure its great in there metro areas but so is it here in the US. The only reason this upsets me is we are investing a great deal of our own money building out to these underserved areas. I can just see some report coming out then the government giving some grants to telcos or whoever to bury fiber or whatever at huge expense to every rural house in the country side. What I find really irritating is I/we pay taxes too and will be getting the shaft. Its difficult to compete with fiber with a 900 Canopy SM. /soapbox 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
wishful thinking FCC realizes areas are underserved. They also realize independent broadband providers -- read wireless ISPs -- are an excellent, if not better, solution as a competitive solution in many areas, rural and otherwise. FCC makes sub-700Mhz available for unlicensed broadband, or reasonably licensed broadband which independent WISPs can access. Then, small business innovators -- read WISPs -- win and users win. /wishful thinking Are we voting? Sounds good to me. ;) 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Where did you get THAT number? 3000. 6000. I'd bet that there are less than 2000 total indie ISP's left. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Arrggh! The REAL problem is that the don't accurately count providers. They only catch the larger ones. We're NOT behind. Not like some like to claim we are. Hell, there are at LEAST 3000 wisps out there yet the FCC only has 400 of them filing the form 477. I'll bet the real number of wisps is north of 6000. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how much further ahead we probably are? grr Marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Found this on Slashdot For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070205/165735.shtml measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. See the problem? For some reason the FCC still hasn't changed its ways, but at least they're starting to realize the problem. They're now saying they need to change http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2115154,00.asp the way they measure competition. Commissioner Michael Copps points out: 'Our statistical methodology seems almost calculated to obscure just how far http://techdirt.com/articles/20070418/143208.shtml our country is falling behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability, adoption, speed and price.' -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Arrggh! The REAL problem is that the don't accurately count providers. They only catch the larger ones. We're NOT behind. Not like some like to claim we are. Hell, there are at LEAST 3000 wisps out there yet the FCC only has 400 of them filing the form 477. I'll bet the real number of wisps is north of 6000. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how much further ahead we probably are? grr Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 5:52 AM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Found this on Slashdot For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070205/165735.shtml measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. See the problem? For some reason the FCC still hasn't changed its ways, but at least they're starting to realize the problem. They're now saying they need to change http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2115154,00.asp the way they measure competition. Commissioner Michael Copps points out: 'Our statistical methodology seems almost calculated to obscure just how far http://techdirt.com/articles/20070418/143208.shtml our country is falling behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability, adoption, speed and price.' -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070205/165735.shtml measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. See the problem? For some reason soapbox This gets old. They say the US is way behind. Really? I think they are comparing apples to oranges. Do all they rural farms in Australia have broadband? All the rural areas in China? Even S. Korea, one of the most wired countries, do they have broadband in all there rural areas? Sure its great in there metro areas but so is it here in the US. The only reason this upsets me is we are investing a great deal of our own money building out to these underserved areas. I can just see some report coming out then the government giving some grants to telcos or whoever to bury fiber or whatever at huge expense to every rural house in the country side. What I find really irritating is I/we pay taxes too and will be getting the shaft. Its difficult to compete with fiber with a 900 Canopy SM. /soapbox 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
I would tend to agree with you Peter. That number may have been valid 12 months ago, but I have seen quite a few in my area that have closed up shop. I can only assume that our area is similar to the rest of the country. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:38 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Where did you get THAT number? 3000. 6000. I'd bet that there are less than 2000 total indie ISP's left. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Arrggh! The REAL problem is that the don't accurately count providers. They only catch the larger ones. We're NOT behind. Not like some like to claim we are. Hell, there are at LEAST 3000 wisps out there yet the FCC only has 400 of them filing the form 477. I'll bet the real number of wisps is north of 6000. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how much further ahead we probably are? grr Marlon -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Yeah. But the FCC is also to blame. The form is ridiculously complicated. And how many are really gonna fill it out? The FCC needs to really do research beyond asking the public to provide input. Unfortunately, we'll likely never really know till there is a tax on broadband connections. People are pretty good about paying the appropriate taxes. Or, at the very least, the FCC needs to start going after those that won't fill out the form. It's a screwy deal. In the end, does it even matter? The public outcry has died out long ago. Now it's just political posturing and handwringing. The consumer's problems are largely gone. The ACCESS to broadband is very high in most of the country. Who care's about the DEPLOYMENT rate other than us that are deeply involved in the industry. Mostly, everyone is worried about a mole hill that some are trying to turn into a government funded mountain. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Marlon, And why does the FCC only know about 400 WISP's? How can the FCC know these numbers did not come out of thin air if the number of WISP's you claim there are don't fill out the proper paper work and let their presence be known? If the majority of WISP's don't fill out the papers then how can you expect anyone to know these numbers are for real? Like I have been saying for awhile now if WISP's want to be taken seriously then they have to play by the same rules as all the other players. Considering WISP's are lumped in with satellite dish and still equal less than 1% of the market it is not even a blip on the radar screen. If there is anyone to blame for this it is not the people reporting the numbers. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Arrggh! The REAL problem is that the don't accurately count providers. They only catch the larger ones. We're NOT behind. Not like some like to claim we are. Hell, there are at LEAST 3000 wisps out there yet the FCC only has 400 of them filing the form 477. I'll bet the real number of wisps is north of 6000. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how much further ahead we probably are? grr Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 5:52 AM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Found this on Slashdot For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070205/165735.shtml measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. See the problem? For some reason the FCC still hasn't changed its ways, but at least they're starting to realize the problem. They're now saying they need to change http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2115154,00.asp the way they measure competition. Commissioner Michael Copps points out: 'Our statistical methodology seems almost calculated to obscure just how far http://techdirt.com/articles/20070418/143208.shtml our country is falling behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability, adoption, speed and price.' -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
I believe that we are at a junction where if there is a need for broadband and those in need make it known, that the competitive private sector will gladly step up and offer service. Isn't that where most of us are at now? Looking for new markets? George Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Yeah. But the FCC is also to blame. The form is ridiculously complicated. And how many are really gonna fill it out? The FCC needs to really do research beyond asking the public to provide input. Unfortunately, we'll likely never really know till there is a tax on broadband connections. People are pretty good about paying the appropriate taxes. Or, at the very least, the FCC needs to start going after those that won't fill out the form. It's a screwy deal. In the end, does it even matter? The public outcry has died out long ago. Now it's just political posturing and handwringing. The consumer's problems are largely gone. The ACCESS to broadband is very high in most of the country. Who care's about the DEPLOYMENT rate other than us that are deeply involved in the industry. Mostly, everyone is worried about a mole hill that some are trying to turn into a government funded mountain. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Marlon, And why does the FCC only know about 400 WISP's? How can the FCC know these numbers did not come out of thin air if the number of WISP's you claim there are don't fill out the proper paper work and let their presence be known? If the majority of WISP's don't fill out the papers then how can you expect anyone to know these numbers are for real? Like I have been saying for awhile now if WISP's want to be taken seriously then they have to play by the same rules as all the other players. Considering WISP's are lumped in with satellite dish and still equal less than 1% of the market it is not even a blip on the radar screen. If there is anyone to blame for this it is not the people reporting the numbers. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Arrggh! The REAL problem is that the don't accurately count providers. They only catch the larger ones. We're NOT behind. Not like some like to claim we are. Hell, there are at LEAST 3000 wisps out there yet the FCC only has 400 of them filing the form 477. I'll bet the real number of wisps is north of 6000. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how much further ahead we probably are? grr Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 5:52 AM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Found this on Slashdot For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070205/165735.shtml measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. See the problem? For some reason the FCC still hasn't changed its ways, but at least they're starting to realize the problem. They're now saying they need to change http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2115154,00.asp the way they measure competition. Commissioner Michael Copps points out: 'Our statistical methodology seems almost calculated to obscure just how far http://techdirt.com/articles/20070418/143208.shtml our country is falling behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability, adoption, speed and price.' -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Doesn't explain where you got the 3000 or 6000 number. If you pulled it out of your.. air... then you are doing a disservice. If the number is really 900, and 300 fill out the form - that's 1/3 and great. Even though it is disappointed that there are only 900 indie ISP's left. If the number is 3000 and 300 fill it out, that is awful. But if the number is 6000, then this industry is all cowboy - and the FCC will not take kindly to that.. Be careful what number you use. BTW, many of the Internet Providers aren't even in access any more. They are hosting, managed services, ASP, SAAS, etc. but still associate themselves as ISPs. This doesn't help the count either because those guys don't have to complete any forms. Plus virtual ISP's who don't have to fill out forms either (the wholesaler does). So - again - be careful with the number. Regards, Peter Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Yeah. But the FCC is also to blame. The form is ridiculously complicated. And how many are really gonna fill it out? The FCC needs to really do research beyond asking the public to provide input. Unfortunately, we'll likely never really know till there is a tax on broadband connections. People are pretty good about paying the appropriate taxes. Or, at the very least, the FCC needs to start going after those that won't fill out the form. It's a screwy deal. In the end, does it even matter? The public outcry has died out long ago. Now it's just political posturing and handwringing. The consumer's problems are largely gone. The ACCESS to broadband is very high in most of the country. Who care's about the DEPLOYMENT rate other than us that are deeply involved in the industry. Mostly, everyone is worried about a mole hill that some are trying to turn into a government funded mountain. Marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Sure there are some that close up. But we're still seeing new ones form too. And, as importantly, those still here seem to be growing by leaps and bounds too. We're running 96% ahead of last year's installation numbers right now! At least on the cash sales side of things, no special projects in there to skew the numbers either. At this rate I might actually be able to afford to take a vacation in a couple of years! Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:03 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition I would tend to agree with you Peter. That number may have been valid 12 months ago, but I have seen quite a few in my area that have closed up shop. I can only assume that our area is similar to the rest of the country. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:38 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Where did you get THAT number? 3000. 6000. I'd bet that there are less than 2000 total indie ISP's left. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Arrggh! The REAL problem is that the don't accurately count providers. They only catch the larger ones. We're NOT behind. Not like some like to claim we are. Hell, there are at LEAST 3000 wisps out there yet the FCC only has 400 of them filing the form 477. I'll bet the real number of wisps is north of 6000. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how much further ahead we probably are? grr Marlon -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Not me. I'm still looking for money to build out. Not many places left, and they certainly aren't low hanging fruit anymore, but there are still places to play. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition I believe that we are at a junction where if there is a need for broadband and those in need make it known, that the competitive private sector will gladly step up and offer service. Isn't that where most of us are at now? Looking for new markets? George Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Yeah. But the FCC is also to blame. The form is ridiculously complicated. And how many are really gonna fill it out? The FCC needs to really do research beyond asking the public to provide input. Unfortunately, we'll likely never really know till there is a tax on broadband connections. People are pretty good about paying the appropriate taxes. Or, at the very least, the FCC needs to start going after those that won't fill out the form. It's a screwy deal. In the end, does it even matter? The public outcry has died out long ago. Now it's just political posturing and handwringing. The consumer's problems are largely gone. The ACCESS to broadband is very high in most of the country. Who care's about the DEPLOYMENT rate other than us that are deeply involved in the industry. Mostly, everyone is worried about a mole hill that some are trying to turn into a government funded mountain. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Marlon, And why does the FCC only know about 400 WISP's? How can the FCC know these numbers did not come out of thin air if the number of WISP's you claim there are don't fill out the proper paper work and let their presence be known? If the majority of WISP's don't fill out the papers then how can you expect anyone to know these numbers are for real? Like I have been saying for awhile now if WISP's want to be taken seriously then they have to play by the same rules as all the other players. Considering WISP's are lumped in with satellite dish and still equal less than 1% of the market it is not even a blip on the radar screen. If there is anyone to blame for this it is not the people reporting the numbers. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Arrggh! The REAL problem is that the don't accurately count providers. They only catch the larger ones. We're NOT behind. Not like some like to claim we are. Hell, there are at LEAST 3000 wisps out there yet the FCC only has 400 of them filing the form 477. I'll bet the real number of wisps is north of 6000. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how much further ahead we probably are? grr Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 5:52 AM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Found this on Slashdot For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070205/165735.shtml measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. See the problem? For some reason the FCC still hasn't changed its ways, but at least they're starting to realize the problem. They're now saying they need to change http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2115154,00.asp the way they measure competition. Commissioner Michael Copps points out: 'Our statistical methodology seems almost calculated to obscure just how far http://techdirt.com/articles/20070418/143208.shtml our country is falling behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability, adoption, speed and price.' -- WISPA Wireless List
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
In case you missed it in an earlier email. I called the top 5 or 6 vendors in the WISP space and pestered them till they told me how many providers they had on the books as WISPs. MUCH more accurate than the 477 and a similar or more comprehensive effort by the FCC would take someone all over a day or two. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Doesn't explain where you got the 3000 or 6000 number. If you pulled it out of your.. air... then you are doing a disservice. If the number is really 900, and 300 fill out the form - that's 1/3 and great. Even though it is disappointed that there are only 900 indie ISP's left. If the number is 3000 and 300 fill it out, that is awful. But if the number is 6000, then this industry is all cowboy - and the FCC will not take kindly to that.. Be careful what number you use. BTW, many of the Internet Providers aren't even in access any more. They are hosting, managed services, ASP, SAAS, etc. but still associate themselves as ISPs. This doesn't help the count either because those guys don't have to complete any forms. Plus virtual ISP's who don't have to fill out forms either (the wholesaler does). So - again - be careful with the number. Regards, Peter Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Yeah. But the FCC is also to blame. The form is ridiculously complicated. And how many are really gonna fill it out? The FCC needs to really do research beyond asking the public to provide input. Unfortunately, we'll likely never really know till there is a tax on broadband connections. People are pretty good about paying the appropriate taxes. Or, at the very least, the FCC needs to start going after those that won't fill out the form. It's a screwy deal. In the end, does it even matter? The public outcry has died out long ago. Now it's just political posturing and handwringing. The consumer's problems are largely gone. The ACCESS to broadband is very high in most of the country. Who care's about the DEPLOYMENT rate other than us that are deeply involved in the industry. Mostly, everyone is worried about a mole hill that some are trying to turn into a government funded mountain. Marlon -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
In 2004 *I* called the main distributors in the wisp space. 5 of them as I recall. It took some time and some arm twisting, but I got them to tell me how many wisps that they had in their databases. It totaled out at 12,000! I assumed that around 25% had purchased from most of them at one time or another. The highest number for any one company was 6000. That means that there were, really, 6000 wisps that could not have overlapped with any of the others. So, it's reasonable number I'm sure. (sorry Peter, I thought I'd sent this but got interrupted and am just now hitting the send button) Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Where did you get THAT number? 3000. 6000. I'd bet that there are less than 2000 total indie ISP's left. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Arrggh! The REAL problem is that the don't accurately count providers. They only catch the larger ones. We're NOT behind. Not like some like to claim we are. Hell, there are at LEAST 3000 wisps out there yet the FCC only has 400 of them filing the form 477. I'll bet the real number of wisps is north of 6000. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how much further ahead we probably are? grr Marlon -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Except that the SAME wisps were dealing with the top 5 or 6 vendors, so your count is quite inflated. Lonnie On 4/20/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In case you missed it in an earlier email. I called the top 5 or 6 vendors in the WISP space and pestered them till they told me how many providers they had on the books as WISPs. MUCH more accurate than the 477 and a similar or more comprehensive effort by the FCC would take someone all over a day or two. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Doesn't explain where you got the 3000 or 6000 number. If you pulled it out of your.. air... then you are doing a disservice. If the number is really 900, and 300 fill out the form - that's 1/3 and great. Even though it is disappointed that there are only 900 indie ISP's left. If the number is 3000 and 300 fill it out, that is awful. But if the number is 6000, then this industry is all cowboy - and the FCC will not take kindly to that.. Be careful what number you use. BTW, many of the Internet Providers aren't even in access any more. They are hosting, managed services, ASP, SAAS, etc. but still associate themselves as ISPs. This doesn't help the count either because those guys don't have to complete any forms. Plus virtual ISP's who don't have to fill out forms either (the wholesaler does). So - again - be careful with the number. Regards, Peter Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Yeah. But the FCC is also to blame. The form is ridiculously complicated. And how many are really gonna fill it out? The FCC needs to really do research beyond asking the public to provide input. Unfortunately, we'll likely never really know till there is a tax on broadband connections. People are pretty good about paying the appropriate taxes. Or, at the very least, the FCC needs to start going after those that won't fill out the form. It's a screwy deal. In the end, does it even matter? The public outcry has died out long ago. Now it's just political posturing and handwringing. The consumer's problems are largely gone. The ACCESS to broadband is very high in most of the country. Who care's about the DEPLOYMENT rate other than us that are deeply involved in the industry. Mostly, everyone is worried about a mole hill that some are trying to turn into a government funded mountain. Marlon -- 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/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
The exact number of WISPs may be in specific debate, but whether the number is higher than the reported 400 odd WISPs is not. I am certain the number is at least 500% higher than that. And doing some basic number crunching (which I won't reveal) on the amount we sell into the U.S., along with good estimates of what our principal peer vendors sell, it is easy to see that number of subscribers is much higher than reported. That does not even count the subscribers attached to BWA purpose-built Wi-Fi gear, both certified and not certified -- a number I suspect is at least as high as Alvarion's + Moto + Trango. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition In 2004 *I* called the main distributors in the wisp space. 5 of them as I recall. It took some time and some arm twisting, but I got them to tell me how many wisps that they had in their databases. It totaled out at 12,000! I assumed that around 25% had purchased from most of them at one time or another. The highest number for any one company was 6000. That means that there were, really, 6000 wisps that could not have overlapped with any of the others. So, it's reasonable number I'm sure. (sorry Peter, I thought I'd sent this but got interrupted and am just now hitting the send button) Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Where did you get THAT number? 3000. 6000. I'd bet that there are less than 2000 total indie ISP's left. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Arrggh! The REAL problem is that the don't accurately count providers. They only catch the larger ones. We're NOT behind. Not like some like to claim we are. Hell, there are at LEAST 3000 wisps out there yet the FCC only has 400 of them filing the form 477. I'll bet the real number of wisps is north of 6000. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how much further ahead we probably are? grr Marlon -- 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). 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(84). 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
And that was 2004. I'm not arguing just to argue. This is a soapbox, so delete and move on if you want. When you go to the Feds and say that there are 6000 and only 400 have reported, that doesn't bode well for anyone. It makes the Feds nervous. It shines an ugly light on this so-called Industry. As Powell has stated it is way easier to deal with 12 companies using the same platforms than 1000's using many platforms. And Gonzo and K-Mart feel the same way (since they take their cues from the Roving 3). And when the gov't wants control and CALEA and surveillance and etc. and they can't get cooperation from this Industry, what do you think will happen? They will pick up a pen and wipe it out. But, Marlon, as I mentioned off-list, going through my Florida ISP database, about 40% are gone and some that are in business are not an ISP any longer. - Peter Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Except that the SAME wisps were dealing with the top 5 or 6 vendors, so your count is quite inflated. Lonnie On 4/20/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In case you missed it in an earlier email. I called the top 5 or 6 vendors in the WISP space and pestered them till they told me how many providers they had on the books as WISPs. MUCH more accurate than the 477 and a similar or more comprehensive effort by the FCC would take someone all over a day or two. That help? Marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
I can tell you that I have talked to wisps that want nothing to do with FCC, 477, CALEA or anyone that wants to know about their business. So there is quite a large percentage that will not show up on the radar. It would be hard to imagine that the supply chain to this industry would survive if there was not 1000's of wisps buying continuously. One of the things I've asked the board to do is to hire a wispa rep and to have that person start calling isp's across the nation, informing them of wispa, and gaining some membership. This would give us much better insight in to who, where and how many. Maybe after the election, we can again take up this subject. George Peter R. wrote: And that was 2004. I'm not arguing just to argue. This is a soapbox, so delete and move on if you want. When you go to the Feds and say that there are 6000 and only 400 have reported, that doesn't bode well for anyone. It makes the Feds nervous. It shines an ugly light on this so-called Industry. As Powell has stated it is way easier to deal with 12 companies using the same platforms than 1000's using many platforms. And Gonzo and K-Mart feel the same way (since they take their cues from the Roving 3). And when the gov't wants control and CALEA and surveillance and etc. and they can't get cooperation from this Industry, what do you think will happen? They will pick up a pen and wipe it out. But, Marlon, as I mentioned off-list, going through my Florida ISP database, about 40% are gone and some that are in business are not an ISP any longer. - Peter Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Except that the SAME wisps were dealing with the top 5 or 6 vendors, so your count is quite inflated. Lonnie On 4/20/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In case you missed it in an earlier email. I called the top 5 or 6 vendors in the WISP space and pestered them till they told me how many providers they had on the books as WISPs. MUCH more accurate than the 477 and a similar or more comprehensive effort by the FCC would take someone all over a day or two. That help? Marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
There were 12,000 on the rolls. The largest single count was 6000. I assumed a 75% overlap to be on the safe side. But with a high of 6000 at ONE company, there's no way to have overlap on that 6000. The real number in 2004 was somewhere around that 6000 mark. And for your 40% that are gone, how many new are out there that we've not heard about yet. How many muni networks are out there? They too are wisps. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition And that was 2004. I'm not arguing just to argue. This is a soapbox, so delete and move on if you want. When you go to the Feds and say that there are 6000 and only 400 have reported, that doesn't bode well for anyone. It makes the Feds nervous. It shines an ugly light on this so-called Industry. As Powell has stated it is way easier to deal with 12 companies using the same platforms than 1000's using many platforms. And Gonzo and K-Mart feel the same way (since they take their cues from the Roving 3). And when the gov't wants control and CALEA and surveillance and etc. and they can't get cooperation from this Industry, what do you think will happen? They will pick up a pen and wipe it out. But, Marlon, as I mentioned off-list, going through my Florida ISP database, about 40% are gone and some that are in business are not an ISP any longer. - Peter Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Except that the SAME wisps were dealing with the top 5 or 6 vendors, so your count is quite inflated. Lonnie On 4/20/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In case you missed it in an earlier email. I called the top 5 or 6 vendors in the WISP space and pestered them till they told me how many providers they had on the books as WISPs. MUCH more accurate than the 477 and a similar or more comprehensive effort by the FCC would take someone all over a day or two. That help? Marlon -- 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Marlon, The projections for municipal wireless networks are about 300 but you cannot say this number will add 300 Wireless Providers to the total number of WISP's. Some providers of these networks could run more than one municipality. I am sure some of these providers are already counted in your figure so there would be no bearing on whether they built a municipal network or not. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: There were 12,000 on the rolls. The largest single count was 6000. I assumed a 75% overlap to be on the safe side. But with a high of 6000 at ONE company, there's no way to have overlap on that 6000. The real number in 2004 was somewhere around that 6000 mark. And for your 40% that are gone, how many new are out there that we've not heard about yet. How many muni networks are out there? They too are wisps. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition And that was 2004. I'm not arguing just to argue. This is a soapbox, so delete and move on if you want. When you go to the Feds and say that there are 6000 and only 400 have reported, that doesn't bode well for anyone. It makes the Feds nervous. It shines an ugly light on this so-called Industry. As Powell has stated it is way easier to deal with 12 companies using the same platforms than 1000's using many platforms. And Gonzo and K-Mart feel the same way (since they take their cues from the Roving 3). And when the gov't wants control and CALEA and surveillance and etc. and they can't get cooperation from this Industry, what do you think will happen? They will pick up a pen and wipe it out. But, Marlon, as I mentioned off-list, going through my Florida ISP database, about 40% are gone and some that are in business are not an ISP any longer. - Peter Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Except that the SAME wisps were dealing with the top 5 or 6 vendors, so your count is quite inflated. Lonnie On 4/20/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In case you missed it in an earlier email. I called the top 5 or 6 vendors in the WISP space and pestered them till they told me how many providers they had on the books as WISPs. MUCH more accurate than the 477 and a similar or more comprehensive effort by the FCC would take someone all over a day or two. That help? Marlon -- 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/
