[WISPA] Earthlink to build Philadelphia wireless network
http://q1.schwab.com/content/rb/2005/10/04/1136855.html 5:52 PM ET 10/04/05 Earthlink to build Philadelphia wireless network NEW YORK, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Internet service provider EarthLink Inc. plans to build a city-wide wireless network for Philadelphia to provide residents and businesses with Internet access, according to the company. EarthLink will spend about $10 million to $14 million to build the network that will include equipment from Motorola Inc. and privately held Tropos Networks, according to Philadelphia's Chief Information Officer, Dianah Neff. The city chose EarthLink over Hewlett-Packard Co. , which was also short-listed from a group of 12 companies that offered proposals for the project. Analysts said the deal could open up a new growth opportunity for EarthLink. Strategically its very important. From a financial perspective, its not enough to move the needle in the short term, said Jefferies analyst Youssef Squali, who estimated that at least another 20 U.S. cities are looking at similar projects. If Philadelphia is a success, it could help EarthLink win some of these contracts, independent telecommunications analyst Jeff Kagan said in an e-mail. This win is much bigger than Philadelphia for EarthLink because if they do a good job there are countless other metro areas who would hire them to do the same thing, Kagan said. Philadelphia was one of the first of many U.S. cities to look at building municipal wireless networks, mainly to encourage economic growth and provide affordable Web access to poorer residents. Some municipal plans, which essentially compete with incumbent services, have created friction with telephone and cable providers. The Mayor of San Francisco has said he was bracing for a battle with telephone and cable companies as his city plans to offer free or low-cost municipal services. Philadelphia plans to offer free Internet access in public spaces such as parks, covering about 10 percent of the city, but outside of these areas, monthly subscriptions will cost from $10 to $20. Neff said up to 30 percent of Philadelphia's 560,000 households, or 1.5 million people, may qualify for the cheaper rate of $10, with others being charged $20 a month. The idea is part of a plan to boost the City's economy by educating residents and transforming rundown neighborhoods where sometimes there are no wires in the ground for Web access. We believe that affordable access to the Internet will help us do so. To be a city of the 21st century you need to have your populace able to use Internet, Neff said. EarthLink said the network, which will cover 135 square miles, will be the biggest municipal wireless project in the country when it is completed about a year from now. It will also manage the network and is expected to recoup the costs by charging other Web services wholesale rates to offer services using its network, according to Neff who said EarthLink would share some revenue with the city. The service will be based on a series of interconnected hotspots based on Wi-Fi, a short-range radio technology popular among laptop computer users in public venues, such as coffee shops. About 75 percent of the network will be wireless with some wireline backhaul Internet links. REUTERS Cliff Work 985-879-3219 www.cssla.com www.triparish.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: [equipment-l] Dial up - CHEAP
I read your arttical and your name caught my eye I was wondering if you are kin to a Al Dearman in White Castle La. if you are please contact me he was a very dear friend. I know he had a brother in Mississippi .He was like a older brother my e-mail is [EMAIL PROTECTED] thanks so much. Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Earthlink to build Philadelphia wireless network
A perfect reason why Municipality is a VERY bad thing. The top contender bidders were large super companies willing to spend lots of money, in exchange for the marketing benefit. Basically publuc Ride of ways, that Small independent WISPs have had to fight tooth and nail to gain access to will just be handed over to the winner. Unrealistic goals have been representedon whatbenefitsthe consumer will be able to obtain.Basically the network will end up being a low grade commodity network, because it is being design to serve the masses at tolow a cost, that the technology can't realisticallysupport. The users will then have SPAM and advertising forced upon them against their will. New players will not be able to enter the market effectively, because of the subsidized competition of themuniciplaity supported venture. Consumersperception of what a fair price should be, will be set/branded to low, making provider that offer a higher reasonable price based on what it costs to deliver broadband, to be viewed as a rip off company, destroying the ability for an ISP to offer a quality service for a fair price and gain market share. Then the MESH node, which I can almost guarantee will be 400mw-1w Omnis at MAX EIRP will flood the city with Noise destroying the spectrum for the general public and Fixed Wireless providers attempting to offer quality.Basically, its taking a very valuable and short in supply product (spectrum) and wasting it on wide scale commodity deployment instead of using a technology better for that, such as Cable that could be supplied in infinate supply.At least if the left unclicenced spectrum to independent providers, a select number of consumerswould have the choice to purchase a higher level of service from them. These decissions brinf tears to my eyes because it strengthens three principles. 1 Thatlow price is more important thanQuality of service. 2 The big players with moneywin, regardless of whether they have the best plan or the best experience. For example, for a very technical project, they chose a marketing company. 3 That a provider canfeed a municipality a boat load full of unrealistic expectations and non-efficient spectral design and win, by buying the agreement. I see a history of government that makes decissions based on being bought.For example, Microsoft gets off the hook for trust court battles, as soon as Microsoft agrees to donate a bunch of free computers to schools.My point is that government has a responsibility to the voters adn tax payers, so their decissions are not always based on what is right, wrong, or best for competition or the industry. Judgement is scewed by their responsibilities to the tax payer. A decission that will look good in the public eye, isn't alwaysthe bestsolution. Thats why its best for open market competition to make these decissions and not the governement. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Cliff To: Peter R. ; noc.kl.terranova.net ; WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 9:05 AM Subject: [WISPA] Earthlink to build Philadelphia wireless network http://q1.schwab.com/content/rb/2005/10/04/1136855.html 5:52 PM ET 10/04/05Earthlink to build Philadelphia wireless network NEW YORK, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Internet service provider EarthLink Inc. plans to build a city-wide wireless network for Philadelphia to provide residents and businesses with Internet access, according to the company. EarthLink will spend about $10 million to $14 million to build the network that will include equipment from Motorola Inc. and privately held Tropos Networks, according to Philadelphia's Chief Information Officer, Dianah Neff. The city chose EarthLink over Hewlett-Packard Co. , which was also short-listed from a group of 12 companies that offered proposals for the project. Analysts said the deal could open up a new growth opportunity for EarthLink. "Strategically its very important. From a financial perspective, its not enough to move the needle in the short term," said Jefferies analyst Youssef Squali, who estimated that at least another 20 U.S. cities are looking at similar projects. If Philadelphia is a success, it could help EarthLink win some of these contracts, independent telecommunications analyst Jeff Kagan said in an e-mail. "This win is much bigger than Philadelphia for EarthLink because if they do a good job there are countless other metro areas who would hire them to do the same thing," Kagan said. Philadelphia was one of the first of many U.S. cities to look at building municipal wireless networks, mainly to encourage economic growth and provide affordable Web access to poorer residents. Some municipal plans, which essentially compete with incumbent services, have created friction
Re: [WISPA] Covad to acquire NextWeb for $23M
Yes, But I don't believe it. Its not likely they have an average ARPU of $400 a sub. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. If they really had $1,200,000 a month revenue, thats $14,000,000 a year, and they got screwed on the deal. Thats only a 2x annual revenue sell out, a way low evaluation under worth for a young industry like wireless. What makes it worse, is that only $4,000,000 of it was in cash. I'd argue that Covad stock is worth much less than wireless stock because of the CLEC market getting killed right now by legislation and FCC non-support. All I can say is, either Next-web was out of money, executives getting tired, or problems with their network. I'd argue they should be worth 4x annual, and at least half in cash, or they are lying about their revenue or revenue is not reoccurring revenue from subscriptions. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Covad to acquire NextWeb for $23M $1,200,000 per month / 3000 subs = $400 per sub per month Must be nice to get those kinds of rates George wrote: Not sure who is subscribed to the isp-investor list. But this was a post today: NextWeb put out a press release a year ago with details regarding a 4-year track record of 84~100% annual growth. They announced sales of $8M annually ($670K/mo) with over 2,000 subs. Looking at those figures mentioned one can assume 3,000 subs and $1.2M/month with sustained growth. They are EBITDA positive. George G.Villarini wrote: 100 customers paying $49.95, wet-11 CPE's NOT!!! :-) Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 1:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Covad to acquire NextWeb for $23M G.Villarini wrote: IIRC, Next web is a Axcellera shop . nice price tag for a unlicensed WISP. Gino A. Villarini, Anyone know how many subs and what the annual revenue of Next web is? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/116 - Release Date: 9/30/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Cogent - Level3
For those that are not aware, Level-3 vilolated its inplace agreements, and blocked all peering connections from Cogent communications yesterday (October 5th), and rumor has it that they are also nowblocking all Cogent assigned IP ranges, so that routing diverse paths won't be effective. Not much I can say aboutpeering disputes, but blocking IPs without cause (meaning violation of AUP)is crossing the line, and clearly anti-competitive and a law sute soon to happen. Level3 VOIP provider just lost our business over this one. Can't risk using a provider that demonstrates such practices. If using Level3 for servers, call to complain, because otherwise you are going to have lots of unsatisfied customers that can't get to the servers that reside on the Cogent network. Level 3 is doing the blocking. For those of you using Level3 and looking to become multi-homed, nows the chance to save.Cogent is offering FREE one years transit service at the samecapacity as the level 3 connection. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3
Hi Tom Do you have a url for this news? Thanks George Tom DeReggi wrote: For those that are not aware, Level-3 vilolated its inplace agreements, and blocked all peering connections from Cogent communications yesterday (October 5th), and rumor has it that they are also now blocking all Cogent assigned IP ranges, so that routing diverse paths won't be effective. Not much I can say about peering disputes, but blocking IPs without cause (meaning violation of AUP) is crossing the line, and clearly anti-competitive and a law sute soon to happen. Level3 VOIP provider just lost our business over this one. Can't risk using a provider that demonstrates such practices. If using Level3 for servers, call to complain, because otherwise you are going to have lots of unsatisfied customers that can't get to the servers that reside on the Cogent network. Level 3 is doing the blocking. For those of you using Level3 and looking to become multi-homed, nows the chance to save. Cogent is offering FREE one years transit service at the same capacity as the level 3 connection. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3
On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated between L3 and Cogent. I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement. http://status.cogentco.com/ There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an announcement for Sprint-Verio-Cogent, but not an ATT-Cogent path. I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people on the list should have a more complete story [1]. You could be entirely correct about there having been a contract violation. I am confident that a considerable amount of money will be wasted trying to determine that. I fear that because of the the popularity of this issue it will reach the ears of the less clueful xEOs at carrier organizations and that the current SFI structure could be at risk of being 're-evaluated' in favor of paid interconnection. Most of the scenarios that I can think of involving compensation for interconnection lead to higher wholesale prices of bandwidth and additional overall system complexity. It appears that Cogent is unwilling to use this route because it would force them to pay (Verio) per Mb/s for the information sent to/from L3's network. The de-peering was consistent with the peering agreement between L3 and Cogent according to http://status.cogentco.com/ It stated that, but it is not in actuallity. So why would Cogent lie about something that makes them look bad on their own public web site? Many SFI contracts allow for termination without cause given enough notice and it is reasonable to assume that this one included that type of language. According to conjecture on NANOG, Cogent was given notice 40 days before the disconnect. In the absence of more reliable information I don't have any reason to assume otherwise. Current NANOG consensus (whatever that's worth) is that both companies are equally responsible for correcting their reachability issues, but L3 initiated the de-peering process. Agreed. UNLESS Level3 is actually blocking IPs that were assigned via Cogent apposed to just blocking routes or connections. Unfortuneately I am not in a possition to prove wether our IPs are blocked because we are still single homed with Cogent. Cogent has so many peers that could transmit our data via alternate paths, and the amount of traffic on our network going to level 3 is so little,
[WISPA] rooftop leasing?
Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Weasler Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated between L3 and Cogent. I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement. http://status.cogentco.com/ There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an announcement for Sprint-Verio-Cogent, but not an ATT-Cogent path. I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people on the list should have a more complete story [1]. You could be entirely correct about there having been a contract violation. I am confident that a considerable amount of money will be wasted trying to determine that. I fear that because of the the popularity of this issue it will reach the ears of the less clueful xEOs at carrier organizations and that the current SFI structure could be at risk of being 're-evaluated' in favor of paid interconnection. Most of the scenarios that I can think of involving compensation for interconnection lead to higher wholesale prices of bandwidth and additional overall system complexity. It appears that Cogent is unwilling to use this route because it would force them to pay (Verio) per Mb/s for the information sent to/from L3's network. The de-peering was consistent with the peering agreement between L3 and Cogent according to http://status.cogentco.com/ It stated that, but it is not in actuallity. So why would Cogent lie about something that makes them look bad on their own public web site? Many SFI contracts allow for termination without cause given enough notice and it is reasonable to assume that this one included that type of language. According to conjecture on NANOG, Cogent was given notice 40 days before the disconnect. In the absence of more reliable information I don't have any reason to assume otherwise. Current NANOG consensus
Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
Depends on the value of the roof top. Basically if they are asking for this, it is because in the past, 90% of their tenants never paid their roof rent because of bankruptcies and such. They just want to be certain that they can count on you succeeding, so they get paid. By giving them a business plan, it shows that you have thought about how you will succeed, and are aware how much sales you need to make to pay the roof fees. However, if they ask for it, they should also not have a problem signing a non-compete or non-disclosure relating to your business plan. Be certain this is the reason, before you give them business plans. Otherwise, they could use the business plan against you to justify demanding a larger rent. Another way to handle the problem, is to say your business plan is none of their business, and confidential information, however you understand their concern, and instead you are willing to mkae provisions to protect that the Landlord gets paid. For example, you could give them a deposit, or pre-pay the lease for the first 6 months, or something like that. When you go to lease an apartment or office space, they don't have a right to see your business plan or financials. However, they do have the right to confirm your ability to pay the rent. A roof top leasor is no different. Their space has value, and they do not want to chew up time and legal hours righting contracts for short term relationships. Nor do they want to give their tenants recommendations to a provider that will fail in 6 months. There is an implied indorsement the second the landlord allows you on his roof. Personally, I would not give them a business plan, but it is you responsibilty to prove your ability to be a good tenant, and you need to find a way to do that, if the roof space you are applying for is of value to you. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dan Metcalf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Weasler Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated between L3 and Cogent. I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement. http://status.cogentco.com/ There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I
RE: [WISPA] Customer dropped branch
Title: Message All ya can do in this case is replace it and laugh it off :) I have extra feed arms - will send ya a couple ! :) JohnnyO -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott ReedSent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:48 PMTo: wireless@wispa.orgSubject: [WISPA] Customer dropped branchCustomer tried to improve signal by cutting a tree limb that was in front of antenna: Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.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] rooftop leasing?
if need be, post a bond. Aubrey Wells wrote: How is it none of their business? The business plan is none of their business, but the financials certainly are. Just like any other lease agreement you enter in to (car, house, apartment, whatever) they want to make sure you can pay up before they give you the lease. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? None of their business. We had a request like this, and claimed that it was unfair business practice, and the landlord dropped their request for such information. Probably ended up costing us that extra $100 / month but our financial statements are no one's business. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Metcalf Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Weasler Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated between L3 and Cogent. I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: "Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement." http://status.cogentco.com/ There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an announcement for Sprint-Verio-Cogent, but not an ATT-Cogent path. I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people on the list should have a more complete story [1]. You could be entirely correct about there having been a contract violation. I am confident that a
RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
Hey Matt - give me a call tomorrow morning please - 1-800-774-0320 JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? We have certainly had landlords question us financially, but none have ever asked for a business plan. -Matt Dan Metcalf wrote: Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Weasler Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated between L3 and Cogent. I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement. http://status.cogentco.com/ There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an announcement for Sprint-Verio-Cogent, but not an ATT-Cogent path. I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people on the list should have a more complete story [1]. You could be entirely correct about there having been a contract violation. I am confident that a considerable amount of money will be wasted trying to determine that. I fear that because of the the popularity of this issue it will reach the ears of the less clueful xEOs at carrier organizations and that the current SFI structure could be at risk of being 're-evaluated' in favor of paid interconnection. Most of the scenarios that I can think of involving compensation for interconnection lead to higher wholesale prices of bandwidth and additional overall system complexity. It appears that Cogent is unwilling to use this route because it would force them to pay (Verio) per Mb/s for the information sent to/from L3's network. The de-peering was consistent with the peering agreement between L3 and Cogent according to http://status.cogentco.com/ It stated that, but it is not in actuallity. So why would Cogent lie about
RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
NDA or not.NO WAY to the biz plan would be my vote Chuck Moses High Desert Wireless Broadband Communication 16922 Airport Blvd # 3 Mojave CA 93501 661 824 3431 office 818 406 6818 cell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Metcalf Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:22 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? Did you do an NDA? What type of financial documents did provide? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? We have certainly had landlords question us financially, but none have ever asked for a business plan. -Matt Dan Metcalf wrote: Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Weasler Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated between L3 and Cogent. I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement. http://status.cogentco.com/ There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an announcement for Sprint-Verio-Cogent, but not an ATT-Cogent path. I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people on the list should have a more complete story [1]. You could be entirely correct about there having been a contract violation. I am confident that a considerable amount of money will be wasted trying to determine that. I fear that because of the the popularity of this issue it will reach the ears of the less clueful xEOs at carrier organizations and that the current SFI structure could be at risk of being 're-evaluated' in favor of paid interconnection. Most of the scenarios that I can think of involving compensation for interconnection lead to higher wholesale prices of bandwidth and additional
