RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

[C. Moses]

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 AT&T->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 e

RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

[JohnnyO]

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 AT&T->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

Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

[A. Huppenthal]

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 AT&T->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

RE: [WISPA] Customer dropped branch

[JohnnyO]

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] Customer dropped branch

[Dawn DiPietro]

Scott,

Ouch! I would assume customer paid for the antenna?

Thanks,
Dawn



Scott Reed wrote:

Customer 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 





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.11/121 - Release Date: 10/6/2005
 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] CNN coverage- WTG Mac Dearman!

[Jeffrey Thomas]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/10/05/katrina.tech.response.ap/index.html

pretty cool article...:)

-

Jeff


--
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

[Tony Weasler]

Hi George,

Is this what you are referring to?
http://www.verio.com/about/newsroom/pr/index.cfm?fuseaction=press&Year=04&id=249751102013222

Cogent and Verio do have business relationships and that is probably
one of the reasons why they chose to use them as a transit provider.
I don't think that it has much to do with the current SFI fiasco though.

Best,
Tony


On 10/6/2005 7:13 PM, George created:
> Cogent recently bought or took over some of Verrio's business, maybe
> this has to do with that?
> George
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3

[George]

Cogent recently bought or took over some of Verrio's business, maybe 
this has to do with that?

George


Tony Weasler wrote:

To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated
between L3 and Cogent.  There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is
blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent
pays $$ for.)  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/

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.

Peering (or Settlement Free Interconnection, SFI) is an extremely
complicated subject often involving millions of dollars to the
carriers involved.  The current NANOG thread on the subject contains a
great deal of information (and mis-information) and is a good read for
those interested in the subject.  I tend to weight the arguments made
by Patrick, Leo, Randy, Vijay, and Richard higher than most others.

Best,
Tony

On 10/6/2005 11:16 AM, Tom DeReggi created:


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] rooftop leasing?

[Tom DeReggi]

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'" 
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 eas

Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

[Blair Davis]

I would offer them credit references, your landlord, suppliers that you 
have net 10 or net 30 accounts with and so on.


Nothing more.

Blair


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 AT&T->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 

RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

[Aubrey Wells]

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 AT&T->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 

RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

[Rick Smith]

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 AT&T->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.  T

RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

[Dan Metcalf]

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 AT&T->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 Cogen

Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

[Matt Liotta]

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 AT&T->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 reli

[WISPA] rooftop leasing?

[Dan Metcalf]

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 AT&T->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 d

Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3

[Tony Weasler]

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 AT&T->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 

Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3

[Tom DeReggi]

To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated
between L3 and Cogent.


I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that.

>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.



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.


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, that Cogent would be making a poor financial decission 
not to route our traffic an alternate path based on risking that we would 
switch to a redundant link to Level3.  Its not to Cogent's benefit to not 
route our traffic financial, so it is only logical that it is Level3 
blocking our IPs.  I was also told Level3 was blocking our IPs, which is why 
our IPs could not be re-routed. Sure I can't prove this, but its not looking 
good for level-3.



Peering (or Settlement Free Interconnection, SFI) is an extremely
complicated subject often involving millions of dollars to the
carriers involved.  The current NANOG thread on the subject contains a
great deal of information (and mis-information) and is a good read for
those interested in the subject.  I tend to weight the arguments made
by Patrick, Leo, Randy, Vijay, and Richard higher than most others.

Best,
Tony

On 10/6/2005 11:16 AM, Tom DeReggi created:

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/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.11/121 - Release Date: 10/6/2005




--
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

[John Scrivner]

Here you go:
http://ct.zdnet.com.com/clicks?c=530414-23845546&brand=zdnet&ds=5&fs=0

George wrote:


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

[Tony Weasler]

To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated
between L3 and Cogent.  There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is
blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent
pays $$ for.)  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/

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.

Peering (or Settlement Free Interconnection, SFI) is an extremely
complicated subject often involving millions of dollars to the
carriers involved.  The current NANOG thread on the subject contains a
great deal of information (and mis-information) and is a good read for
those interested in the subject.  I tend to weight the arguments made
by Patrick, Leo, Randy, Vijay, and Richard higher than most others.

Best,
Tony

On 10/6/2005 11:16 AM, Tom DeReggi created:
> 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

[George]

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/

[WISPA] Cogent - Level3

[Tom DeReggi]

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 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] Covad to acquire NextWeb for $23M

[Tom DeReggi]

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" 
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/

Re: [WISPA] Earthlink to build Philadelphia wireless network

[Tom DeReggi]

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 represented on 
what benefits the 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 to low a cost, 
that the technology can't realistically support.  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 the municiplaity supported venture. 
Consumers perception 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 consumers would 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> That low price is more important 
than Quality of service.
 
2> The big players with money win, 
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 can feed 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 always the best solution.  
 
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 wi

[WISPA] Re: [equipment-l] Dial up - CHEAP

[warring doles]

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/

[WISPA] Earthlink to build Philadelphia wireless network

[Cliff]

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/