Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams
Tom DeReggi wrote: You dont use Sun Boxes! You use Linux based P4-3Ghz Rackmount PCs, they cost us about $700, and never had one give us a bit of trouble in 5 years. Could probably do it in a set top box type unit for under $350. While I haven't seen their software, the traditional reason to use a Sun box over something x86 is that an application is IO-bound as opposed to CPU bound. In this case, HTTP proxying sounds a lot like an IO-bound application hence the Sun box. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams
Tom DeReggi wrote: Well thats the question. Does it have to be that way. I don't see the need to have all the traffic flow through it. I see it sitting in parallel, and just certain type of traffic gets redirected to the cache appliance server that adds the marketing data. You aren't familiar with their business and neither am I. However, they are probably pretty familiar with their business and have designed their architecture with that in mind. Unless you are planning an entry into their business you probably want to take their word for it. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Colocation
They were told $1500 here. That's CELL phone company use though. Not wisp. I took an antenna to a city council meeting and showed them what little space I'd be using. I also compared revenue streams between cell phone companies and wisps. Then I told them that I wanted to service the community but couldn't do it alone. I needed their help. I'd get to people that the telco didn't with dsl and I'd offer the ONLY competitive pressure to the incumbent offering (still to this day there are only two of us). In the end, it costs them almost nothing. Our contract is for non interference not exclusive use. Our contract also says that when we fire up if we cause problems for ANYONE in the AREA we'll shut it down and redo things. They buy the hardware and we provide service to any city facilities that need it. Also talked them down from a $5,000,000 insurance requirement to $1,000,000 (worked out how to do that with my insurance agent). In the end, they are out nothing because I couldn't have gone up there at $1500 per month. And the community gained service where it wouldn't have gone otherwise and the city is saving hundreds on communications costs. That more helpful? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Jason Hensley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Colocation Thanks Cliff (and everyone else). The local folks here have been told by someone they should not take less than $1000 per month for someone to locate on their tower. Needless to say that puts a pretty big hit in the pocket book, and makes ROI pretty much non-existent for small-town WISP's like myself (I'm in a town of rolling hills and lots of big thick oak trees, population around 12,000). So, I'm working trying to find comparable figures for what others are paying and have worked out, etc, just to show that most are not paying anywhere near the $1000 per month for a water tower. Other towers, yes, maybe, but not water towers - at least not that I have found. - Original Message - From: "Cliff Leboeuf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:25 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Water Tower Colocation Jason, Each deal is different. I had tried unsuccessfully to get access to the water towers in my area for years. Than, one day, the realized that I could offer them something...two way IP communication to their equipment, and they could eliminate the 1FB's and modem they were currently using. I not charge them $30 per month for their 42 locations, and have rights to all of their towers for AP's...Go figure! - Cliff - Original Message - From: "Jason Hensley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:25 PM Subject: [WISPA] Water Tower Colocation I'm looking for comparisons again on water tower colocation. Have another area I'm trying to go into. Looking for what you're paying, if anything, what you're trading out (speed, number of buildings / connections, etc), etc etc. Specifically looking for folks in towns of under 20,000, but anything will help. Thanks a lot in advance!!! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams
Matt, That is a rediculous comment. This is a WISP list, to discuss issues related to WISPs. Not a marketor's LIST to discuss product for large scale telcos, cable monopolies, and DialUp ISPs. So if a Marketor discusses their product here, it is with the purpose to attract partnerships with WISPs. Their model is NOT designed to work with current day WISPs. As there is no WISP that I am aware of in the country with 10,000 subs to date. If someone is discussing a product on this LIST, it is appropriate and an obligation of the WISPs on it to speak up on what is required for that product to be accepted into the WISP markets. That feedback is as helpful to the solution provider as it is for other WISPs. Every partnership business model (Which Adzilla is) requires two parties, the one offering a services to the ISP (Adzilla), and the ISP launching the service. As a WISP, I have as much of a right to discuss and challenge the business model of advertizing to my eye ball customers, as the the person pitching the service. I'm not just going to take their word for it that it requires a $20,000 peice of hardware. I remember my Mail provider telling me that I needed a $10,000 mail server software, well I'm doing just fine with Merak's $1500 version. I'm not trying to tell Adzilla how to run their business, I'm just discussing how they should run their business to attract WISPs. As I am educated in that field, as well as high throughput router/appliance systems. probably pretty familiar with their business and have designed their architecture with that in mind. Thats the problem, many business do that. They design an offering with their business in mind, instead of the targeted partner's business in mind. Both sides have needs to consider. Unless you are planning an entry into their business you probably want to take their word for it. If that were the case, we'd still all be using main frame computers, and paying $500 a month for ISDN circuits to our homes, and letting Compuserve rule the connectivity world. Adzilla does not own the idea of advertising to ISP's consumers, wether it be Click Throughs or Portal advertising. It should be a part of every WISP's thoughts in developing their business's worth, as it is in mine. Discussing Adzilla's approach is not just about discussing Adzilla's approach. Its also about looking for better more cost effective ways to launch similar services. If Adzilla finds away to do it catering to WISPs, more power to them, I'd likely jump on the bandwagon appose to develop myself. Its not uncommon to start a business model catering to the largest prospects first, and then after the fact start adapting and innovating to make it more affordable for the smaller players. There approach may be appropriate based on their stage in progress, just like some WISPs start by serving business customers (the gravy) before going after the low margin residents But I don't know about you, but I don;t plan my business models around the stages other companies are at, I have needs today. I have over 20,000 residential subs living within tenant buildings that I am under contract to have the right to serve, should I decide to. (To be clear: prospects not paying subscribers). The numbers aren't that exciting providing Broadband alone, so I have not yet deployed many of them. But the numbers do start to get exciting, once you start including value added revenue such as VOIP, Selling the rights to Eyeballs/Advertising, And any other value add that can add a dollar here or there. So yes, It is my business to understand the best ways to provide content/advertising to my subscribers, and if selling access to it, is something I want to do. For higher paying subs where their subscription fee pays for delivery of service, I decided not to be involved in content/advertising for ethical reasons. However, there is a huge market, sub $20 a month subscribers, that I would have no problem selling eye balls, as thats the trade off for low cost broadband. Disclaimer: My comments herein are NOT directed at ADZILLA, but directed solely at Matt's comment. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams Tom DeReggi wrote: Well thats the question. Does it have to be that way. I don't see the need to have all the traffic flow through it. I see it sitting in parallel, and just certain type of traffic gets redirected to the cache appliance server that adds the marketing data. You aren't familiar with their business and neither am I. However, they are probably pretty familiar with their business and have designed their architecture with that in mind. Unless you are planning an entry into their business you probably want to take thei
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Colocation
That does help Marlon, and that's basically the approach I've been taking with them. There are, of course, other complications, but I won't go into here. I again appreciate everyone's response. - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Colocation They were told $1500 here. That's CELL phone company use though. Not wisp. I took an antenna to a city council meeting and showed them what little space I'd be using. I also compared revenue streams between cell phone companies and wisps. Then I told them that I wanted to service the community but couldn't do it alone. I needed their help. I'd get to people that the telco didn't with dsl and I'd offer the ONLY competitive pressure to the incumbent offering (still to this day there are only two of us). In the end, it costs them almost nothing. Our contract is for non interference not exclusive use. Our contract also says that when we fire up if we cause problems for ANYONE in the AREA we'll shut it down and redo things. They buy the hardware and we provide service to any city facilities that need it. Also talked them down from a $5,000,000 insurance requirement to $1,000,000 (worked out how to do that with my insurance agent). In the end, they are out nothing because I couldn't have gone up there at $1500 per month. And the community gained service where it wouldn't have gone otherwise and the city is saving hundreds on communications costs. That more helpful? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Jason Hensley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Colocation Thanks Cliff (and everyone else). The local folks here have been told by someone they should not take less than $1000 per month for someone to locate on their tower. Needless to say that puts a pretty big hit in the pocket book, and makes ROI pretty much non-existent for small-town WISP's like myself (I'm in a town of rolling hills and lots of big thick oak trees, population around 12,000). So, I'm working trying to find comparable figures for what others are paying and have worked out, etc, just to show that most are not paying anywhere near the $1000 per month for a water tower. Other towers, yes, maybe, but not water towers - at least not that I have found. - Original Message - From: "Cliff Leboeuf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:25 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Water Tower Colocation Jason, Each deal is different. I had tried unsuccessfully to get access to the water towers in my area for years. Than, one day, the realized that I could offer them something...two way IP communication to their equipment, and they could eliminate the 1FB's and modem they were currently using. I not charge them $30 per month for their 42 locations, and have rights to all of their towers for AP's...Go figure! - Cliff - Original Message - From: "Jason Hensley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:25 PM Subject: [WISPA] Water Tower Colocation I'm looking for comparisons again on water tower colocation. Have another area I'm trying to go into. Looking for what you're paying, if anything, what you're trading out (speed, number of buildings / connections, etc), etc etc. Specifically looking for folks in towns of under 20,000, but anything will help. Thanks a lot in advance!!! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams
Matt, Yes, that may likely be the case. I do not challenge the idea to use SUN boxes for high volume players. However, for low volume players, its just not needed. Our x86 based systems have been tested beyond 100mbps, with many virtual managed firewall rules inline, with no sweat. It also helps when you use onboard 1GB NICs, that typically perform better than a NIC in a PCI slot, depending on MB design. Maybe my original post was a bit rude. But again, my intent was not to challenge Adzilla's business model where it applies, it was to challenge their business model for WISPs. I think Adzilla has also done the same, which is why they just represented a lower dollar appliance is likely on its way in the future for lower volume commits. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams Tom DeReggi wrote: You dont use Sun Boxes! You use Linux based P4-3Ghz Rackmount PCs, they cost us about $700, and never had one give us a bit of trouble in 5 years. Could probably do it in a set top box type unit for under $350. While I haven't seen their software, the traditional reason to use a Sun box over something x86 is that an application is IO-bound as opposed to CPU bound. In this case, HTTP proxying sounds a lot like an IO-bound application hence the Sun box. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams
Tom, Is it just me or are many of your posts written in outrage or disbelief? You have the right to discuss how the model should work for WISPs, but I think that you need to understand that the model needs to work 2 ways - for the vendor and the WISP - whether VOIP or advertising. The problem is that a vendor designs the system from their view and then changes it later to attract more partners. In the process, the original plan is so manipulated that the plan fails and no one wins. (Bandwidth resellers and VOIP providers to name but a few). In the case of Adzilla, the cost of the boxes is one fixed cost but the cost of selling local advertising is a very real additional cost. And if you have ever tried to hire salespeople you know that it is challenging. Media advertising is just as demanding. And as you add partners, a company has to scale. Scale takes money and time and people. Many start-ups want to maximize the business plan (and VC capital infusions) by capturing white elephants. I understand your frustration. Little guys need help and it seems that many vendors don't treat them as partners. There are a few reasons for this, but chief among them is that it takes huge time to sell to many smaller players. Pareto Principle. Regards, Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FW: [TVWHITESPACE] USA Today article on TV white space
This just out on TV Whitespaces. We should thank Marlon Shafer and John Scrivner for their persistent cooperation with leaders of various industries to keep pushing this forward. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: FCC NPRM for UHF TV Band Unlicensed Use [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rogers, Chris B Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TVWHITESPACE] USA Today article on TV white space FYI... article in yesterday's USA Today. -Chris Plan would widen rural areas' access to high-speed service By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY URL: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2006-03-13-wireless-rural_x.htm A proposal to allow wireless broadband providers to use vacant frequencies between TV channels is gaining support in Congress, a development that could deliver high-speed access to underserved rural areas. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has not acted on the vacant frequencies matter. By Paul Sakuma, AP File Two recently introduced Senate bills would require the Federal Communications Commission to issue rules to accommodate the unlicensed services within six months. The measures, which are garnering bipartisan support, are likely to be discussed at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday. Yet, they're opposed by TV broadcasters that fear the services would disrupt the nation's transition to digital television. A bill by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, tries to ensure that broadcasters are protected from interference. A similar bill by Sen. George Allen, R-Va., is co-sponsored by Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., plans a similar measure in the House. The bills could be added to telecom reform this year. Thousands of providers use antennas and free, unlicensed spectrum to deliver broadband to sparsely populated rural regions that would be too costly to serve with wires. But gearmakers such as Intel are drooling at the prospect of using TV airwaves, which are in low-frequency bands that allow signals to travel farther and to better penetrate buildings and foliage. That means networks could be built with fewer antennas at a fraction of what systems cost now. Lower expenses could entice wireless providers to expand service. "It would allow broadband services in many rural areas," says Margie Dickman, senior attorney, Intel government affairs. At the end of last year, 24% of adult rural Americans used broadband at home, vs. 39% of those in urban and suburban areas, says the Pew Internet & American Life Project. In 2004, the FCC under then-chairman Michael Powell proposed that wireless services be permitted to operate in the TV band as long as they don't disrupt TV stations. But current Chairman Kevin Martin has not acted on the matter out of concerns that the services would disrupt broadcasters as they shuffle channels in the switch to digital. By Feb. 17, 2009, broadcasters must return their analog channels to the government. "Our concern is that we don't have people go home (on Feb. 18, 2009), turn on the TV and it not work because somebody turned on a wireless unlicensed device," says Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters. But Intel's Peter Pitsch says wireless providers would use smart transmitters that steer clear of channels used by TV stations and reduce their power when necessary. Christopher B. Rogers NBI / Intel Capital (503) 456-2104 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FW: [TVWHITESPACE] This morning's senate hearing on the TV white spaces and the growing political importance of 802.22...
More FYI. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: FCC NPRM for UHF TV Band Unlicensed Use On Behalf Of Jim Snider Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:10 PM Subject: [TVWHITESPACE] This morning's senate hearing on the TV white spaces and the growing political importance of 802.22... I attended this morning's senate hearing on wireless policy (see http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1709) and thought that Kevin Kahn's verbal statement in support of unlicensed use of the TV white spaces was excellent. Here is a link to the written statement, which I have not read: http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/kahn-031406.pdf. Jeannine Kenney from Consumers Union also provided a strong endorsement of unlicensed use of the TV spaces. Even the GAO's representative, JayEtta Hecker was quite supportive of the white spaces proposal. On the other hand, MSTV and PFF came out swinging against it. But it is noteworthy that none of the senators badmouthed the white spaces proposal and Senators Lautenberg, Allen, and Kerry gave it vigorous endorsements, with even Committee Chair Stevens (who has one of the two pro white spaces bills) speaking out in favor of it. The most eloquent statement was by Lautenberg. As a practical matter, the biggest task right now is to refute MSTV's detailed engineering attack on the white spaces proposals, including a point-by-point attack of NAF's Marcus, Kolodzy, Lippman paper. This was handed out to all the senators. It's also time to recognize and respond to the broadcasters' strategy of using the IEEE 802.22 standards setting body to dilute any white spaces proposal Congress or the FCC might adopt. Given the current political situation, the 802.22 standards body recommendations have become central to the broadcasters' counter attack. On the surface, 802.22 supports the FCC's white spaces proposal. But it's a crippled version of the proposal, and that appears to be the compromise the broadcasters are now gunning for. --Jim P.S. If you haven't yet, please read the comments and reply comments to the FCC's proceeding on digital TV distributed transmission systems (docket 05-312). I believe that if broadcasters are successful in expanding their interference protection from their Grade B out to their DMA lines, it will have a huge impact on how much white space would be available under 04-186. If others think my analysis is wrong, I'd welcome your feedback. J.H. Snider, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow New America Foundation 1630 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20009 Phone: 202/986-2700 Fax: 202/986-3696 Web: www.newamerica.net E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My Book Website: speaksoftly.jhsnider.net My Personal Blog: jhsnider.net/telecompolicy -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FW: [TVWHITESPACE] USA Today article on TV white space
OK this seems like it is going to be coming pretty soon. I have seen lots of talk on how it is going to help WISPs compete and how it can help rural areas. My question is how much is it going to cost me to get the equipment to do this? I have a huge investment in my current gear and do not want to through it all away for something new. Is it going to be within the grasp of a small WISP to purchase what is needed to broadcast on these channels? Are the current TV companies going to be using them also for the same service. Everyone sees this as a grand venture, but is it going to take a capital base of a Million+ to get started? I have never seen any equipment that will work on these frequencies and I am sure TV broadcast gear is very expensive. Jory Privett WCCS - Original Message - From: Rick Harnish To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 1:39 PM Subject: [WISPA] FW: [TVWHITESPACE] USA Today article on TV white space This just out on TV Whitespaces. We should thank Marlon Shafer and John Scrivner for their persistent cooperation with leaders of various industries to keep pushing this forward. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: FCC NPRM for UHF TV Band Unlicensed Use [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rogers, Chris BSent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 1:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TVWHITESPACE] USA Today article on TV white space FYI... article in yesterday's USA Today. -Chris Plan would widen rural areas' access to high-speed service By Paul Davidson, USA TODAYURL: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2006-03-13-wireless-rural_x.htm A proposal to allow wireless broadband providers to use vacant frequencies between TV channels is gaining support in Congress, a development that could deliver high-speed access to underserved rural areas. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has not acted on the vacant frequencies matter. By Paul Sakuma, AP File Two recently introduced Senate bills would require the Federal Communications Commission to issue rules to accommodate the unlicensed services within six months. The measures, which are garnering bipartisan support, are likely to be discussed at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday. Yet, they're opposed by TV broadcasters that fear the services would disrupt the nation's transition to digital television. A bill by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, tries to ensure that broadcasters are protected from interference. A similar bill by Sen. George Allen, R-Va., is co-sponsored by Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., plans a similar measure in the House. The bills could be added to telecom reform this year. Thousands of providers use antennas and free, unlicensed spectrum to deliver broadband to sparsely populated rural regions that would be too costly to serve with wires. But gearmakers such as Intel are drooling at the prospect of using TV airwaves, which are in low-frequency bands that allow signals to travel farther and to better penetrate buildings and foliage. That means networks could be built with fewer antennas at a fraction of what systems cost now. Lower expenses could entice wireless providers to expand service. "It would allow broadband services in many rural areas," says Margie Dickman, senior attorney, Intel government affairs. At the end of last year, 24% of adult rural Americans used broadband at home, vs. 39% of those in urban and suburban areas, says the Pew Internet & American Life Project. In 2004, the FCC under then-chairman Michael Powell proposed that wireless services be permitted to operate in the TV band as long as they don't disrupt TV stations. But current Chairman Kevin Martin has not acted on the matter out of concerns that the services would disrupt broadcasters as they shuffle channels in the switch to digital. By Feb. 17, 2009, broadcasters must return their analog channels to the government. "Our concern is that we don't have people go home (on Feb. 18, 2009), turn on the TV and it not work because somebody turned on a wireless unlicensed device," says Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters. But Intel's Peter Pitsch says wireless providers would use smart transmitters that steer clear of channels used by TV stations and reduce their power when necessary. Christop
Re: [WISPA] FW: [TVWHITESPACE] This morning's senate hearing on the TV white spaces and the growing political importance of 802.22...
So Rick, Marlon & Scriv Where do we go from here? Here is a copy of a letter I sent to Mich Senators Levin & Stabenow, fyi. My name is Ron Wallace, I have been a long time supporter of Senator Levin and appreciate his good work in the Senate. I am writing you today to ask for your support for the present legislation before the Senate regarding the unlicensed use of unused Broadcast Television frequency bandwidth by wireless internet service providers (WISPs). I operate a WISP in Lenawee County Michigan. Providing adequate signal coverage to my rural service area is difficult at best using the existing unlicensed ISM, and UNII frequency bands (900 Mhz, 2.45 Ghz & 5.2-5.8 Ghz). These bands are severly attenuated by arboreal foliage (greatly decreased by trees & shrubbery), limiting our ability to reach rural subscribers. In these days of industrial contraction in Michigan, our small manufacturers that support the auto industry are being severely affected. More people are beginning to work at home in these rural areas. Western Lenawee County is no exception. The bills are the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006 (WINN Act), S 2327, introduced by Senators Allen (R-VA), Kerry (D-MA), Sununu (R-NH) and Boxer (D-CA) and the American Broadband for Communities Act (ABC Act), S 2332, introduced by Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens. We need the Senators support of this critical legislation to ensure growth, and economic vitality in our County. I look forward to your support and you may count on my continued support of the important work that Senator Levin continues to do in the US Senate.Ron WallaceHahnron, Inc.220 S. Jackson Dt.Addison, MI 49220Phone: (517)547-8410Mobile: (517)605-4542e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] according to Jim Snyder we need to "refute MSTV's detailed engineering attack on the white spaces proposals". What do you all recommend? How may I assist?>-Original Message->From: Rick Harnish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 02:40 PM>To: ''WISPA General List''>Subject: [WISPA] FW: [TVWHITESPACE] This morning's senate hearing on the TV white spaces and the growing political importance of 802.22...>>More FYI.>>Rick Harnish>President>OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc.>260-827-2482 Office>260-307-4000 Cell>260-918-4340 VoIP>www.oibw.net>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>>-Original Message->From: FCC NPRM for UHF TV Band Unlicensed Use On Behalf Of Jim Snider>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:10 PM>Subject: [TVWHITESPACE] This morning's senate hearing on the TV white spaces>and the growing political importance of 802.22...>>I attended this morning's senate hearing on wireless policy (see>http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1709) and thought>that Kevin Kahn's verbal statement in support of unlicensed use of the>TV white spaces was excellent. Here is a link to the written statement,>which I have not read: http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/kahn-031406.pdf.>Jeannine Kenney from Consumers Union also provided a strong endorsement>of unlicensed use of the TV spaces. Even the GAO's representative,>JayEtta Hecker was quite supportive of the white spaces proposal. >>On the other hand, MSTV and PFF came out swinging against it. But it is>noteworthy that none of the senators badmouthed the white spaces>proposal and Senators Lautenberg, Allen, and Kerry gave it vigorous>endorsements, with even Committee Chair Stevens (who has one of the two>pro white spaces bills) speaking out in favor of it. The most eloquent>statement was by Lautenberg.>>As a practical matter, the biggest task right now is to refute MSTV's>detailed engineering attack on the white spaces proposals, including a>point-by-point attack of NAF's Marcus, Kolodzy, Lippman paper. This was>handed out to all the senators. >>It's also time to recognize and respond to the broadcasters' strategy of>using the IEEE 802.22 standards setting body to dilute any white spaces>proposal Congress or the FCC might adopt. Given the current political>situation, the 802.22 standards body recommendations have become central>to the broadcasters' counter attack. On the surface, 802.22 supports>the FCC's white spaces proposal. But it's a crippled version of the>proposal, and that appears to be the compromise the broadcasters are now>gunning for.>>--Jim>>P.S. If you haven't yet, please read the comments and reply comments to>the FCC's proceeding on digital TV distributed transmission systems>(docket 05-312). I believe that if broadcasters are successful in>expanding their interference protection from their Grade B out to their>DMA lines, it will have a huge impact on how much white space would be>available under 04-186. If others think my analysis is wrong, I'd>welcome your feedback.>>J.H. Snider, Ph.D.>Senior Research Fellow >New America Foundation >1630 Connecticut Ave., NW >Washington, DC 20009 >Phone: 202/986-2700 >Fax: 202/986-3696 >Web: www.newamerica.net >E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >My Book Website: speaksoft
RE: [WISPA] FW: [TVWHITESPACE] This morning's senate hearing on the TV white spaces and the growing political importance of 802.22...
Here is an idea to combat the interference worries. Why don't we suggest the use of the methods just approved for the 5.4 GHz band for avoiding the Radar operations. If this system is good enough to protect the federal government systems it should be good enough for all those people who still watch TV off the air (and I have to laugh about that one, those broadcasters don't rely on off the air signals to get the masses, it's cable TV)? Just a thought. Remember my offer to help this proposal with mapping support still stands. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message-From: Ron Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:15 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [TVWHITESPACE] This morning's senate hearing on the TV white spaces and the growing political importance of 802.22... So Rick, Marlon & Scriv Where do we go from here? Here is a copy of a letter I sent to Mich Senators Levin & Stabenow, fyi. My name is Ron Wallace, I have been a long time supporter of Senator Levin and appreciate his good work in the Senate. I am writing you today to ask for your support for the present legislation before the Senate regarding the unlicensed use of unused Broadcast Television frequency bandwidth by wireless internet service providers (WISPs). I operate a WISP in Lenawee County Michigan. Providing adequate signal coverage to my rural service area is difficult at best using the existing unlicensed ISM, and UNII frequency bands (900 Mhz, 2.45 Ghz & 5.2-5.8 Ghz). These bands are severly attenuated by arboreal foliage (greatly decreased by trees & shrubbery), limiting our ability to reach rural subscribers. In these days of industrial contraction in Michigan, our small manufacturers that support the auto industry are being severely affected. More people are beginning to work at home in these rural areas. Western Lenawee County is no exception. The bills are the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006 (WINN Act), S 2327, introduced by Senators Allen (R-VA), Kerry (D-MA), Sununu (R-NH) and Boxer (D-CA) and the American Broadband for Communities Act (ABC Act), S 2332, introduced by Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens. We need the Senators support of this critical legislation to ensure growth, and economic vitality in our County. I look forward to your support and you may count on my continued support of the important work that Senator Levin continues to do in the US Senate.Ron WallaceHahnron, Inc.220 S. Jackson Dt.Addison, MI 49220Phone: (517)547-8410Mobile: (517)605-4542e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] according to Jim Snyder we need to "refute MSTV's detailed engineering attack on the white spaces proposals". What do you all recommend? How may I assist?>-Original Message->From: Rick Harnish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 02:40 PM>To: ''WISPA General List''>Subject: [WISPA] FW: [TVWHITESPACE] This morning's senate hearing on the TV white spaces and the growing political importance of 802.22...>>More FYI.>>Rick Harnish>President>OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc.>260-827-2482 Office>260-307-4000 Cell>260-918-4340 VoIP>www.oibw.net>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>>-Original Message->From: FCC NPRM for UHF TV Band Unlicensed Use On Behalf Of Jim Snider>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:10 PM>Subject: [TVWHITESPACE] This morning's senate hearing on the TV white spaces>and the growing political importance of 802.22...>>I attended this morning's senate hearing on wireless policy (see>http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1709) and thought>that Kevin Kahn's verbal statement in support of unlicensed use of the>TV white spaces was excellent. Here is a link to the written statement,>which I have not read: http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/kahn-031406.pdf.>Jeannine Kenney from Consumers Union also provided a strong endorsement>of unlicensed use of the TV spaces. Even the GAO's representative,>JayEtta Hecker was quite supportive of the white spaces proposal. >>On the other hand, MSTV and PFF came out swinging against it. But it is>noteworthy that none of the senators badmouthed the white spaces>proposal and Senators Lautenberg, Allen, and Kerry gave it vigorous>endorsements, with even Committee Chair Stevens (who has one of the two>pro white spaces bills) speaking out in favor of it. The most eloquent>statement was by Lautenberg.>>As a practical matter, the biggest task right now is to refute MSTV's>detailed engineering attack on the white spaces proposals, including a>point-by-point attack of NAF's Marcus, Kolodzy, Lippman paper. This was>handed out to all the senators. >>It's a
[WISPA] Digital Realty Trust Facilities Offer Rooftop Space
Digital Realty Trust Facilities Offer Rooftop Space in Strategic Locations for Wireless and Satellite Installations the leading owner and manager of corporate data centers and Internet gateways, today announced four recent lease agreements with tenants that have taken rooftop space at Digital Realty Trust Internet Gateway facilities. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-07-2006/0004314752&EDATE= http://www.digitalrealtytrust.com/ -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams
Peter, No need to respond to most of your post, as your points were fair and made sense to me. However a couple comments. if you have ever tried to hire sales people you know that it is challenging I have, and failed miserably. I recognize its not easy. However, my weakness shouldn't effect others from succeeding at it, that are better trained in those skill sets. Someone in the sales business needs to be good at it. Is it just me or are many of your posts written in outrage or disbelief? Depends how you are directing that comment. On average I feel my on-list comments are fair, objective, and realistic. However, recently, I realize that I may have been a little easy to offend, and a little quick to respond in outrage. Recently, I've been under tremendous pressure, and have had little patience because of it, and possibly taken my daily frustrations out on those around me. For that, I appologize, and ask for understanding. However, if I stop for a second and analyze myself, and where the outrage comes from... Its not that I'm an unreasonable person nor that the people I'm conversing with are unreasonable. I think it comes from the constant reminder of several point of views that every one seems to think that everyone should get paid except for me. That nobody should have to foot the bill upfront, except me. That they shouldn't have to take risk in their business venture, but I should to be a part of it. That their part of the partnership has more value than mine. And that by being a small provider I am in some way inadequate or less desirable to do business with than the next guy. And that as a Small guy I am a liabilty, not an asset. It doesn't matter what side of the fense I sit. If I'm the customer, the provider doesn't want to take the risk, If I'm the provider, the customer doesn't want to take the risk. Its always me that bends to make it all work. I'm tired of bending, because I have recognized my worth, and no longer should have to. If I have primarilly download data, they want to sell me transit. If I primarilly have upload data they want to turn me into a peer and charge me to send them traffic. Either way they want to get paid. I just get tired of hearing the message. I need to establish business ventures that guarantee that I get paid. Nobody has directly said these things to me, but its inferred by their daily actions. And when I say "I", I don't only mean "me", I mean small WISP. There is so much potential in the small WISP market, if it was only recognized. The same arguement applies to bankers and financers to. They are looking for the sure thing. Well business isn't a sure thing. Think about it for a second. Even our own government shares this view. If there is any organization in the country that should be investing and partnering in Wireless companies, its the federal governement, or local governements for economic development. Even they are getting on the bandwagon crying "No Tax Dollars Used", make the WISPs come up with the cash to provide the FREE network to consumers. What do you do when your own governement says" Come Earthlink, Come AOL, Come Verizon, you are our only hope, we need your money?" Its not jeolousy, envy, or hatred of the big guys, Its jsut the small guy get overlooked to easilly. I'm just tired of hearing it. Small business is an intricate part of American economy, and we have an aweful lot to offer the world in value. Small Business is NOT a bad word. Small businesses should be helping small businesses succeed. I simply believe that it is my job to stand up for what we WISPs have to offer. And prove our value. I've taken the first step by investing everything I own in being a small WISP, because I see the value. I think the rest of the world should also recognize the value. I don't want to appologize for WISPs because most are still small. I want to demand that they are recognized for full value. You bring the arguement up, "its hard to hire sales people", well I have the same problem, I have to find a way to do it to succeed. Does that mean I turn away $50 residential subs when I'm searching for the big $800 a month subs? I think WISPS need to start setting the presidence of their value. They need to start demanding what should be comming to them, "opportunity to participate". There are two types of players in this business. There are the big guys that control the market and bully everyone else around. And then there is everyone else that is fighting to survive and keep in the game. Unfortuntately, I'm not one of the big players, so I stick up for the little guy. I think the samll guy deserves to play ball jsut like the next guy. Part of the problem I have is I fall trap to stereotypes, and I tend to look at everyone as the big guy or the little guy, and that is really not the case. Sometimes the vendors pitching to the WISPs, are also little guys, and have little guy ne
RE: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams -- Amen
Amen Brother Tom! We'll get you to stand up with brother Matt Larsen at the next tent revival. You had me in stitches on the floor about being the one to be every other persons risk taker, been there done that. Keep your course, it does get better. Just take a couple of nights and knock off early, by 11 PM or so and your head will start to clear and feel better. Great Rant. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams Peter, No need to respond to most of your post, as your points were fair and made sense to me. However a couple comments. > if you have ever tried to hire sales people you know that it is > challenging I have, and failed miserably. I recognize its not easy. However, my weakness shouldn't effect others from succeeding at it, that are better trained in those skill sets. Someone in the sales business needs to be good at it. > Is it just me or are many of your posts written in outrage or disbelief? Depends how you are directing that comment. On average I feel my on-list comments are fair, objective, and realistic. However, recently, I realize that I may have been a little easy to offend, and a little quick to respond in outrage. Recently, I've been under tremendous pressure, and have had little patience because of it, and possibly taken my daily frustrations out on those around me. For that, I appologize, and ask for understanding. However, if I stop for a second and analyze myself, and where the outrage comes from... Its not that I'm an unreasonable person nor that the people I'm conversing with are unreasonable. I think it comes from the constant reminder of several point of views that every one seems to think that everyone should get paid except for me. That nobody should have to foot the bill upfront, except me. That they shouldn't have to take risk in their business venture, but I should to be a part of it. That their part of the partnership has more value than mine. And that by being a small provider I am in some way inadequate or less desirable to do business with than the next guy. And that as a Small guy I am a liabilty, not an asset. It doesn't matter what side of the fense I sit. If I'm the customer, the provider doesn't want to take the risk, If I'm the provider, the customer doesn't want to take the risk. Its always me that bends to make it all work. I'm tired of bending, because I have recognized my worth, and no longer should have to. If I have primarilly download data, they want to sell me transit. If I primarilly have upload data they want to turn me into a peer and charge me to send them traffic. Either way they want to get paid. I just get tired of hearing the message. I need to establish business ventures that guarantee that I get paid. Nobody has directly said these things to me, but its inferred by their daily actions. And when I say "I", I don't only mean "me", I mean small WISP. There is so much potential in the small WISP market, if it was only recognized. The same arguement applies to bankers and financers to. They are looking for the sure thing. Well business isn't a sure thing. Think about it for a second. Even our own government shares this view. If there is any organization in the country that should be investing and partnering in Wireless companies, its the federal governement, or local governements for economic development. Even they are getting on the bandwagon crying "No Tax Dollars Used", make the WISPs come up with the cash to provide the FREE network to consumers. What do you do when your own governement says" Come Earthlink, Come AOL, Come Verizon, you are our only hope, we need your money?" Its not jeolousy, envy, or hatred of the big guys, Its jsut the small guy get overlooked to easilly. I'm just tired of hearing it. Small business is an intricate part of American economy, and we have an aweful lot to offer the world in value. Small Business is NOT a bad word. Small businesses should be helping small businesses succeed. I simply believe that it is my job to stand up for what we WISPs have to offer. And prove our value. I've taken the first step by investing everything I own in being a small WISP, because I see the value. I think the rest of the world should also recognize the value. I don't want to appologize for WISPs because most are still small. I want to demand that they are recognized for full value. You bring the arguement up, "its hard to hire sales people", well I have the same problem, I have to find a way to do it to succeed. Does that mean I turn away $50 residential subs when I'm searching for the big $800 a month subs? I think WISPS need to start setting the presidence of their value. They need to start demanding what should be comming to them, "opportunity to participate". There are two types of players in this business. There are
[WISPA] Little Guy and Marketing
Tom, I hope you feel better. I just want to add some insight on a few points And that by being a small provider I am in some way inadequate or less desirable to do business with than the next guy. And that as a Small guy I am a liabilty, not an asset. It doesn't matter what side of the fense I sit. If I'm the customer, the provider doesn't want to take the risk, If I'm the provider, the customer doesn't want to take the risk. Being small isn't the problem. Acting small might be. (I'm not directing this at anyone, BTW). There is a phenomenon in sales whereby businesses mainly do business with companies their own size. It is a growth and perception problem. (I think Gerber rambles on about in E-Myth Mastery). > You bring the argument up, "its hard to hire sales people", well I have the same problem, I have to find a way to do it to > succeed. Does that mean I turn away $50 residential subs when I'm searching for the big $800 a month subs? Hiring salespeople is especially hard for small businesses. It's cyclic. How do you pay a salesperson with small margins? Well, one way is to chase bigger elephants. An aside to this is if that isn't a skill you possess, outsource it or hire a consultant to perform the skill. Positioning is the image consumers have of you and your "brand". There is only room in a consumers mind for one position. So if you are positioned as the small, home-grown WISP, you can't get big projects. When you market yourself as a world-class, best-of-breed, technology shop, Microsoft Gold Partner, Goldmine Authorized, Linux Certified, CCNA, blah, blah, blah. On your next project: Shout about it. Tell everyone what a breeze it was; quote the client as pleased and happy; talk about it like it was an everyday transaction. Want to get $800 accounts? Show the value. Plan for it. And execute. If you are closing $800 accounts, it isn't the market. Back to perception: A guy owns a 25 person biz; he has your Resi connection for $50. You call him up to sell him an $800 connection at his office. How do explain the difference? What is the Value presented? What is the STORY you tell him about the Productivity he will get from your service? He is having the same issues as you: he can't hire a sales guy; he can't afford a full-time IT guy; his copier is on the fritz; can he meet payroll. I'm probably not wording this perfectly, but I hope the message is at least understood. Marketing requires a clear, concise, simple message to be put in front of a target audience. It is about Positioning, Perception, Branding and Storytelling. see: Marketing Basics 2: Differences between Marketing and Selling http://www.isp-planet.com/marketing/2006/marketing_vs_selling.html There is so much potential in the small WISP market, if it was only recognized. You need to get away from "small" and "WISP". Selling the Invisible with connotations like small and WISP is hard. The market is unfamiliar with "ISP", let alone WISP. Give them a phrase that they can understand and wrap their head around. Wireless Broadband Service Provider is close. Maybe Wireless Broadband Network Provider. Perception is all. What do you do when your own governement says "Come Earthlink, Come AOL, Come Verizon, you are our only hope, we need your money?" I will mention it one more time: Perception. These companies are thought of as successful, big, moneyed, publicly traded enterprises. They have systems and processes in place. They can scale. They can "handle it". We are living in a society that wants little risk. (That's why we do not see or hear the wounded from the Mideast.) To mitigate the risk, people go with what they know; what their friends use; what they perceive as best. In my experience, most small businesses in Tampa Bay have not heard of the independent ISPs in town. Marketing problem. Hence, why Remarkable, Sneezers, Guerrilla Marketing and WOMA are so important to competitors. [Side note: But there is a rule that small biz has to get a percentage of funds granted to large biz for any project. Check with the SBA.] Small Business is NOT a bad word. Small businesses should be helping small businesses succeed. Most small businesses shop at Sam's and Wal-Mart. No one is helping the small business. He has to help himself. Let me tell you a quick story: We have a convenience store 4 blocks from my house, next to a small bar, a pizza joint and a Latin restaurant. This convenience store looks stale. Dreary. He sells subs. I think he spends more time and effort trying to sell pre-prepared food than on milk (often out of date), coffee (hardly ever fresh), snacks (no selection), and ice. The 2 owners are often sitting outside reading the paper. They are maybe 500 feet from a Walgreens (24-hours) and a Kash'n'Karry (supermarket chain). I like to give the convenience store my money, but he does nothing to earn it. Out of date milk on 2 out of 3 visits.
Re: [WISPA] Little Guy and Marketing
Peter, Very helpful. Thanks for taking the time. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:24 AM Subject: [WISPA] Little Guy and Marketing Tom, I hope you feel better. I just want to add some insight on a few points And that by being a small provider I am in some way inadequate or less desirable to do business with than the next guy. And that as a Small guy I am a liabilty, not an asset. It doesn't matter what side of the fense I sit. If I'm the customer, the provider doesn't want to take the risk, If I'm the provider, the customer doesn't want to take the risk. Being small isn't the problem. Acting small might be. (I'm not directing this at anyone, BTW). There is a phenomenon in sales whereby businesses mainly do business with companies their own size. It is a growth and perception problem. (I think Gerber rambles on about in E-Myth Mastery). > You bring the argument up, "its hard to hire sales people", well I have the same problem, I have to find a way to do it to > succeed. Does that mean I turn away $50 residential subs when I'm searching for the big $800 a month subs? Hiring salespeople is especially hard for small businesses. It's cyclic. How do you pay a salesperson with small margins? Well, one way is to chase bigger elephants. An aside to this is if that isn't a skill you possess, outsource it or hire a consultant to perform the skill. Positioning is the image consumers have of you and your "brand". There is only room in a consumers mind for one position. So if you are positioned as the small, home-grown WISP, you can't get big projects. When you market yourself as a world-class, best-of-breed, technology shop, Microsoft Gold Partner, Goldmine Authorized, Linux Certified, CCNA, blah, blah, blah. On your next project: Shout about it. Tell everyone what a breeze it was; quote the client as pleased and happy; talk about it like it was an everyday transaction. Want to get $800 accounts? Show the value. Plan for it. And execute. If you are closing $800 accounts, it isn't the market. Back to perception: A guy owns a 25 person biz; he has your Resi connection for $50. You call him up to sell him an $800 connection at his office. How do explain the difference? What is the Value presented? What is the STORY you tell him about the Productivity he will get from your service? He is having the same issues as you: he can't hire a sales guy; he can't afford a full-time IT guy; his copier is on the fritz; can he meet payroll. I'm probably not wording this perfectly, but I hope the message is at least understood. Marketing requires a clear, concise, simple message to be put in front of a target audience. It is about Positioning, Perception, Branding and Storytelling. see: Marketing Basics 2: Differences between Marketing and Selling http://www.isp-planet.com/marketing/2006/marketing_vs_selling.html There is so much potential in the small WISP market, if it was only recognized. You need to get away from "small" and "WISP". Selling the Invisible with connotations like small and WISP is hard. The market is unfamiliar with "ISP", let alone WISP. Give them a phrase that they can understand and wrap their head around. Wireless Broadband Service Provider is close. Maybe Wireless Broadband Network Provider. Perception is all. What do you do when your own governement says "Come Earthlink, Come AOL, Come Verizon, you are our only hope, we need your money?" I will mention it one more time: Perception. These companies are thought of as successful, big, moneyed, publicly traded enterprises. They have systems and processes in place. They can scale. They can "handle it". We are living in a society that wants little risk. (That's why we do not see or hear the wounded from the Mideast.) To mitigate the risk, people go with what they know; what their friends use; what they perceive as best. In my experience, most small businesses in Tampa Bay have not heard of the independent ISPs in town. Marketing problem. Hence, why Remarkable, Sneezers, Guerrilla Marketing and WOMA are so important to competitors. [Side note: But there is a rule that small biz has to get a percentage of funds granted to large biz for any project. Check with the SBA.] Small Business is NOT a bad word. Small businesses should be helping small businesses succeed. Most small businesses shop at Sam's and Wal-Mart. No one is helping the small business. He has to help himself. Let me tell you a quick story: We have a convenience store 4 blocks from my house, next to a small bar, a pizza joint and a Latin restaurant. This convenience store looks stale. Dreary. He sells subs. I think he spends more time and effort trying to sell pre-prepared food than on milk (often out of date), coffee (hardly ever fresh), s
