Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
I'm sure much of this will already have been covered (been out for a couple of days). But since it was addressed to me Don't know the details of the truck driver story, but if it wasn't his responsibility all he needs to do is leave the truck blocking the loading dock and walk into the store and ask the manager to call his boss and they can get it sorted from there. As for the pickles, if Walmart decides all they want to pay for a gallon of pickles is 3.97 that is their right. No one is forcing anyone to sell at 3.97. The legislature of CA is costing CA millions of dollars each year, not Walmart. If the legislature wants to pick up the tab for workers who aren't insured by their employer that is their own fault. Are you going to complain about every other business in CA that doesn't insure their employees? A little bit of research on the internet will also fill me in about black helicopters and tinfoil hats... The trick is conveying to your customer what your plan is in terms that they understand. I'm in a primarily residential market and compete with DSL. The selling point of my service, is just that service. I still have to compete with Qwest pricing but I only have to be close on cost to speed and sell them on the service. It isn't that hard to sell service vs the phone company. But I have to disagree with everyone that is on the bitcap bandwagon. I understand fully the issues that come with p2p and streaming video but that is what is driving the internet today. I take pride in providing the internet to my customers and I want to provide the type of internet service I would expect from my connection. The internet is no longer about web pages and email it is about podcasts, video streams and downloaded movies and if we aren't ready to provide that type of service they we are just relagating ourselves to being the new dialup with 128K plans and draconian bandwidth policies. I don't see bit metering (paying by the bit not on a transfer rate) as being a billing model for the future because every other communication model is trending away from it and I doubt the customer will put up with it given a choice. Phone service is abandoning the per minute pricing for pricing plans which are tending toward unlimited minutes (mobile to mobile, home network, after hours). Also as more and more services migrate to the internet people are not going to want to worry about their bit caps. The idea of having to look at the file size of a netflix movie download and they try to figure out how much it is going to cost me to download (above the netflix cost) reminds me all to much of the old dailup days when we were paying by the minute. As a businessman you should be trying to squeeze every last dime out of your customers. The trick is to provide the service that will make them want to pay every last dime of it. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless John J. Thomas wrote: Sam, Walmart has made most of its money by screwing others. Truck driver makes delivery to Walmart ad unload pallets. Goes to have receiving sign for them. Receiving refuses to sign, and says that *after* the truck driver *unloads* the items off the pallets, then he will sign. This is NOT the truck drivers responsibility. Walmart decides that a Gallon jar of pickles shoud cost $3.97-*regardless* of whether the company can make 10 cents on that. Company sells $3.97 jar of pickles and goes bankrupt after that. Walmart is costing the State of California Millions of dollars each year just by telling its employees " we won't give you that benefit, but if you go apply for State assistance, they will." A little bit of research on the Internet will show you to what degree they have gone to to screw others. If that is the way you want to do business, then so be it. Me, my family and anyone else I have influence over won't do business with you-period. You have to structure your pricing in a way that you can successfully market. I have a problem with those people that say "512k unlimited $39.99 per month". Then, when you download a single movie, they cut your service. That is Dishonesty-period. If you tell your clients, 4 Gig for $39.99, then there is no issue. I'm sure MANY are going to jump in and tell me I'm wrong, and they certainly have a right to. At some point, this will have to be the way it works-you can't sell unlimited pipes for $39.99 per month, when you have to pay $100 or more per month-the economics are not there. I applaud Marlon for what he is doing, and I hope that he will review his pricing regularly. If he finds that he can drop the rates a bit, or adjust the limits upward, I'm sure his clients will appreciate it. They should also appreciate that fact that he isn't trying to squeeze every last dime from them. John Thomas -Original Message- From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:49 PM To: 'WISPA
Re: [WISPA] OT: Alaska poses unique challenges
Thanks Patrick. Saw that earlier today and got a chuckle out of it. We do have a lot of Bald Eagles in Alaska, and here's a story worth reading: http://www.photosafaris.com/Articles/AlaskasEagleLady.asp Juneau is one of the cities getting BreezeMAX you know :-) -Dee Alaska Wireless Systems 1(907)240-2183 Cell 1(907)349-2226 Fax 1(907)349-4308 Office www.akwireless.net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:59:40 -0900 Subject: [WISPA] OT: Alaska poses unique challenges > This one's for you Dee! > > > > JUNEAU, Alaska - About 10,000 Juneau residents briefly lost power after > a bald eagle lugging a deer head crashed into transmission lines. "You > have to live in Alaska to have this kind of outage scenario," said Gayle > Wood, an Alaska Electric Light & Power spokeswoman. "This is the story > of the overly ambitious eagle who evidently found a deer head in the > landfill." > > The bird, weighed down by the deer head, apparently failed to clear the > transmission lines, she said. A repair crew found the eagle dead, the > deer head nearby. > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_fe_st/eagle_power_outage > > > > Patrick Leary > > AVP WISP Markets > > Alvarion, Inc. > > o: 650.314.2628 > > c: 760.580.0080 > > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses. > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] OT: Alaska poses unique challenges
This one's for you Dee! JUNEAU, Alaska - About 10,000 Juneau residents briefly lost power after a bald eagle lugging a deer head crashed into transmission lines. "You have to live in Alaska to have this kind of outage scenario," said Gayle Wood, an Alaska Electric Light & Power spokeswoman. "This is the story of the overly ambitious eagle who evidently found a deer head in the landfill." The bird, weighed down by the deer head, apparently failed to clear the transmission lines, she said. A repair crew found the eagle dead, the deer head nearby. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_fe_st/eagle_power_outage Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Man, I's can really read readen, but he a writen! Marlon, ya all wanted to mention Vasoline, but Mercy,he sliped it by with the K-Y! chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:47 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Anyone Mind if I send this out Dear Sirs, Please forgive the tone of this email, but you guys are killin' me. KILLING me I just read your latest proposal for the TV whitespaces. While I fully agree with much of what you've said (no personal portable devices, no auctions, TPC, cognitive radio, NO interference to grandma's TV or wireless mic's etc.) I'm shocked at the other half. What's needed is an unlicensed band that can be deployed similar to that of cable and DSL. That is, mail the customer a pre programmed radio, they plug it in and poof, you have internet. No truck roll. At the very least, we need easy to install and configure devices and LOW, LOW prices for it. Technically, your document is great and makes a tremendous amount of sense. Practically, it'll make any spectrum that's released all but useless. 33' minimum antenna heights? Pre programmed exclusion zones? No accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage? Geolocation of EVERY CPE device? You've, via your standards proposal, eliminated 90% of the customers and 99% of the operators from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. And who's going to want another ugly old TV antenna install at their houses? People are taking down those old ugly 30 to 100' crank up towers beside their houses, not putting them back up! There is NO need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. You say it's needed to help deal with local interference issues etc. But that's not likely the case. If WE can't hear the broadcasting system, neither can anyone else in the area and we'll not likely interfere either. Especially at the very low signal levels you have built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. I'd be all in favor of a beacon system in which any cpe would be able to identify the owner of the ap. Then the people that need to figure out anything on a cpe side can come to me to get the data on who's where. I'll already have a name and address, I don't need GPS too. Speaking of GPS. Why in the world do you guys think that we can put in dual antenna systems for EVERY customer? We'll need the rec. antenna AND a GPS one for each cpe under your plan. The spectrum needs to be unlicensed (registered I could live with but don't like it, just more paperwork), it needs to be really inexpensive to deploy and it needs to be totally customizable based on LOCAL conditions. One of the very reasons to use sub GHz bands is the penetration through trees. Now you guys are suggesting that we get up there over much of the foliage in EVERY installation? No thanks. We'll go high when we need to, otherwise we want to stay out of site, out of the wind and easy to get to when there's snow on the roof! The Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to help you with your standard. As it is, it looks like this standard was developed by and for companies that are interested in high margin devices rather than high volume devices. Our industry has plenty of high margin products to choose from already. Backhaul products are stable and plentiful. Everything from wireless, to copper to fiber is an option in the right conditions. What we need mostly right now is medium speed cheap products that will go through walls and trees etc. If our customers wanted us to put in towers that would get them up over most of the tree canopy we'd already be doing it. People want the internet but they aren't willing to pay $500 for it in any kind of marketable numbers. Thank you for you time, Marlon K. Schafer WISPA FCC committee chairman (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- 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] Mikrotik issues with VLANs
Recently, we decided to run VLANs off of one of the Mikrotik routers to provide better port density. Basically routed vlans to a Cisco 2950 switch (one VLAN per AP). To our disappointment, we found that this scenario yielded packet loss even pinging between a hardwired radio and the Mikrotik. We assumed that this bust be a bad cable or defective switch so we setup another in the lab with the same results. Has anyone else used the Mikrotik with VLANs into a Cisco switch. To take it a step further, if you have time, try pinging a device with a flood ping at 20 ms from the MTIK or the ping ip command from your Cisco switch with about 5,000 36 packets and I suspect you’ll see the same thing. Any suggestions/ideas are appreciated as always :-) - Don -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 1/28/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOMEMarty& Roadstar!
...nose ;) This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOMEMarty& Roadstar!
Beats putting that feature up my... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOMEMarty& Roadstar! Welcome Marty, it will be an honor to meet you now that Patrick has laid such high expectations! :) Patrick, you just earned the job of official WISPA Welcome Wagon Liaison. Put that feather in your cap :) Respectfully, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOME Marty& Roadstar! Dear WISPA members and friends (which includes many of you), I just learned some very good news -- Marty Dougherty, CEO and founder of Roadstar Internet (http://www.roadstarinternet.com/index.php), based in Loundon County, VA recently joined WISPA as a paid member WISP. This is great news and here's why: Marty operates a high profile and large WISP network that connects over 1,000 homes and business primarily in the challenging "exurb" edges of the rolling Northern Virginia country side (all forests, fields, and foothills). Roadstar was the first WISP ever visited by a FCC chairman when former Chairman Powell toured the NOC and a few customers with a large entourage and press back around 2002. Since then Marty, like many of you, has been a frequent face at the FCC and he regularly hosts dignitaries from here and abroad. Marty also has another "incumbent" asset, shall we say, he used to work in the telco space. So his insight is fantastic. As well, Marty has a some staff that he is willing to have assist WISPA, such as is newly hired PR person who is the former editor of the Loudon Business newspaper. Folks, Marty is like you in that he "boot-strapped" this business from his own pocket and literally from the garage-turned-office from behind his house. He has repeatedly turned down major investment offers so he can continue to grow under his control. Also like many of you he began with 802.11b, then migrated to another brand, and eventually settled (so far!) on BreezeACCESS VL. Maybe most importantly, Marty is a great person like so many of you. I count him as a friend and I am proud to have contributed to earning his business. Please welcome him and make use of his many talents...I know we do (he is typically a top choice for beta testing and other advice). Thanks Rick and John, in advance, for humoring me as I introduce Marty. Sincerely, Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Here is a good link for those who which to understand the issue more fully. The authors are as qualified as you get and professionally known (I don't know Andrew though) by a number of us here so we can vouch for them. http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/reclaiming_the_vast_wastel and_why_unlicensed_use_of_white_space_in_the_tv_bands_will_not_cause_int erference_ Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the "white space" does not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600 MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few other small channels reserved for things like public safety. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WIS
[WISPA] dragonwave airpair IP
Hi, Can someone with a Dragonwave AirPair setup contact me offlist? I'm having a slight issue with the IP addressing of these units. Thanks, Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOME Marty& Roadstar!
Welcome Marty, it will be an honor to meet you now that Patrick has laid such high expectations! :) Patrick, you just earned the job of official WISPA Welcome Wagon Liaison. Put that feather in your cap :) Respectfully, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOME Marty& Roadstar! Dear WISPA members and friends (which includes many of you), I just learned some very good news -- Marty Dougherty, CEO and founder of Roadstar Internet (http://www.roadstarinternet.com/index.php), based in Loundon County, VA recently joined WISPA as a paid member WISP. This is great news and here's why: Marty operates a high profile and large WISP network that connects over 1,000 homes and business primarily in the challenging "exurb" edges of the rolling Northern Virginia country side (all forests, fields, and foothills). Roadstar was the first WISP ever visited by a FCC chairman when former Chairman Powell toured the NOC and a few customers with a large entourage and press back around 2002. Since then Marty, like many of you, has been a frequent face at the FCC and he regularly hosts dignitaries from here and abroad. Marty also has another "incumbent" asset, shall we say, he used to work in the telco space. So his insight is fantastic. As well, Marty has a some staff that he is willing to have assist WISPA, such as is newly hired PR person who is the former editor of the Loudon Business newspaper. Folks, Marty is like you in that he "boot-strapped" this business from his own pocket and literally from the garage-turned-office from behind his house. He has repeatedly turned down major investment offers so he can continue to grow under his control. Also like many of you he began with 802.11b, then migrated to another brand, and eventually settled (so far!) on BreezeACCESS VL. Maybe most importantly, Marty is a great person like so many of you. I count him as a friend and I am proud to have contributed to earning his business. Please welcome him and make use of his many talents...I know we do (he is typically a top choice for beta testing and other advice). Thanks Rick and John, in advance, for humoring me as I introduce Marty. Sincerely, Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Here is a good link for those who which to understand the issue more fully. The authors are as qualified as you get and professionally known (I don't know Andrew though) by a number of us here so we can vouch for them. http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/reclaiming_the_vast_wastel and_why_unlicensed_use_of_white_space_in_the_tv_bands_will_not_cause_int erference_ Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the "white space" does not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600 MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few other small channels reserved for things like public safety. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many o
[WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOME Marty & Roadstar!
Dear WISPA members and friends (which includes many of you), I just learned some very good news -- Marty Dougherty, CEO and founder of Roadstar Internet (http://www.roadstarinternet.com/index.php), based in Loundon County, VA recently joined WISPA as a paid member WISP. This is great news and here's why: Marty operates a high profile and large WISP network that connects over 1,000 homes and business primarily in the challenging "exurb" edges of the rolling Northern Virginia country side (all forests, fields, and foothills). Roadstar was the first WISP ever visited by a FCC chairman when former Chairman Powell toured the NOC and a few customers with a large entourage and press back around 2002. Since then Marty, like many of you, has been a frequent face at the FCC and he regularly hosts dignitaries from here and abroad. Marty also has another "incumbent" asset, shall we say, he used to work in the telco space. So his insight is fantastic. As well, Marty has a some staff that he is willing to have assist WISPA, such as is newly hired PR person who is the former editor of the Loudon Business newspaper. Folks, Marty is like you in that he "boot-strapped" this business from his own pocket and literally from the garage-turned-office from behind his house. He has repeatedly turned down major investment offers so he can continue to grow under his control. Also like many of you he began with 802.11b, then migrated to another brand, and eventually settled (so far!) on BreezeACCESS VL. Maybe most importantly, Marty is a great person like so many of you. I count him as a friend and I am proud to have contributed to earning his business. Please welcome him and make use of his many talents...I know we do (he is typically a top choice for beta testing and other advice). Thanks Rick and John, in advance, for humoring me as I introduce Marty. Sincerely, Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Here is a good link for those who which to understand the issue more fully. The authors are as qualified as you get and professionally known (I don't know Andrew though) by a number of us here so we can vouch for them. http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/reclaiming_the_vast_wastel and_why_unlicensed_use_of_white_space_in_the_tv_bands_will_not_cause_int erference_ Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the "white space" does not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600 MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few other small channels reserved for things like public safety. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of th
Re: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL
I have not and will not be concerned about the phone company. We all should be streaming our businesses to have multiple revenue streams to adjust to the influx of customers coming and going from DSL and Cable. I don't know what it is like in your areas, but just because they are here doesn't mean any of the following. 1. their networks are capable even after upgrading. 2. they have any clue on costomer service and the needs of their valued customers 3. the customer is typically sick of the out of town influence 4. they cannot stay on a price point without stuffing all the inclusives down the customers throat. 5. they can never have the quality control that we have when we manage our networks becuase we care down to the placement of the ethernet in the home for the customers 6. computers are always going to create the need for us to repair them. AT&T can't manage a phone let alone a computer 7. When you get so big as they are money is everything. We alwasy maintain customer relationships are everything. 8. ok... you get my point. As for $99 per month for you 256K... i am underpriced that is what the market will do for you. It is an abosolute shame that the large companies have destroyed the margins in this business. They found that they cann't manage the money from the phone services and now when they all had a chance to make some real money the screwed that up too. Give it time and stay the course. They cannot continue to smash the price to floor and make the money they need to stay afloat. Mergers cost money, network upgrades cost money, every time they slip in cheap and press the locals out of business they win again. Spread your streams out and stay the course. Install Dish, sell computers, offer voip, network homes, fix computers, go onsite to fix the phones that the phone companies charge to much for, install cable, etc... shore up your business by spreading your weight out and when the ice gets thin from DSL you won't fall through the ice Sorry so lengthy... but Telco stands for lack of quality and your money is leaving town. Rural America doesn't like. Ross - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL Nice words from AT&T but... I'm in Los Angeles County only 1/2 mile from the city/country line. AT&T doesn't offer DSL here - apparently they don't think there are enough customers to justify the cost of upgrading their network. Will AT&T be required to offer DSL here? It sounds like they will according to the terms of the AT&T purchase of Bell South. I think the Los Angeles market is "at least 80% upgraded for broadband" but will AT&T ever REALLY offer DSL here? I'm not holding my breath. Will there ever be any enforcement of these merger terms? Again, I'm not holding my breath. I don't want to seem (or feel) ungrateful because half the secret of enjoying life is remembering to practice an "attitude of gratitude". I'm grateful that there is a WISP in the area who provides me with 256 kbps symmetrical service for "only" $99.99 per month. jack Peter R. wrote: January 16, 2007 AT&T to offer $20 'naked' DSL service LESLIE CAULEY, USA TODAY Cheaper high-speed Internet service is coming. Within a few months, AT&T is expected to start charging $19.95 a month for "naked" DSL, meaning you don't have to buy any other AT&T service, including phone, to get that rate. It currently charges $45 for a stand-alone broadband subscription. AT&T also is developing $10 DSL for new subscribers who also buy AT&T-branded phone service. AT&T plans to offer both services for at least 30 months. The clock starts as soon as the media giant starts selling them in any of the 22 states where it is the incumbent local phone company, including California, Florida, Illinois and Texas. Why so cheap? Three words: Federal Communications Commission. The FCC, which has broad regulatory control over the U.S. telecommunications industry, recently approved AT&T's acquisition of BellSouth. To get needed votes from the FCC's two Democratic members, AT&T agreed, reluctantly, to offer these DSL bargains. AT&T is required to roll out the $19.95 offer within one year and the $10 rate within six months. Gene Kimmelman, public policy director of Consumers Union, says he expects AT&T to move faster. Under the terms of the FCC agreement, AT&T is required to offer naked DSL for $19.95 in markets that are at least 80 percent upgraded for broadband. That describes many of AT&T's biggest markets, says Kimmelman, who helped negotiate the settlement. Under the deal, AT&T's cheap DSL products will clock in at 768 kilobits per second. While that's slower than the 1.5 megabits to 3 megabits popular with many U.S. consumers, "it's more than good enough" for Internet telephony, Kimmelman says. As such, he thinks t
Re: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL
Nice words from AT&T but... I'm in Los Angeles County only 1/2 mile from the city/country line. AT&T doesn't offer DSL here - apparently they don't think there are enough customers to justify the cost of upgrading their network. Will AT&T be required to offer DSL here? It sounds like they will according to the terms of the AT&T purchase of Bell South. I think the Los Angeles market is "at least 80% upgraded for broadband" but will AT&T ever REALLY offer DSL here? I'm not holding my breath. Will there ever be any enforcement of these merger terms? Again, I'm not holding my breath. I don't want to seem (or feel) ungrateful because half the secret of enjoying life is remembering to practice an "attitude of gratitude". I'm grateful that there is a WISP in the area who provides me with 256 kbps symmetrical service for "only" $99.99 per month. jack Peter R. wrote: January 16, 2007 AT&T to offer $20 'naked' DSL service LESLIE CAULEY, USA TODAY Cheaper high-speed Internet service is coming. Within a few months, AT&T is expected to start charging $19.95 a month for "naked" DSL, meaning you don't have to buy any other AT&T service, including phone, to get that rate. It currently charges $45 for a stand-alone broadband subscription. AT&T also is developing $10 DSL for new subscribers who also buy AT&T-branded phone service. AT&T plans to offer both services for at least 30 months. The clock starts as soon as the media giant starts selling them in any of the 22 states where it is the incumbent local phone company, including California, Florida, Illinois and Texas. Why so cheap? Three words: Federal Communications Commission. The FCC, which has broad regulatory control over the U.S. telecommunications industry, recently approved AT&T's acquisition of BellSouth. To get needed votes from the FCC's two Democratic members, AT&T agreed, reluctantly, to offer these DSL bargains. AT&T is required to roll out the $19.95 offer within one year and the $10 rate within six months. Gene Kimmelman, public policy director of Consumers Union, says he expects AT&T to move faster. Under the terms of the FCC agreement, AT&T is required to offer naked DSL for $19.95 in markets that are at least 80 percent upgraded for broadband. That describes many of AT&T's biggest markets, says Kimmelman, who helped negotiate the settlement. Under the deal, AT&T's cheap DSL products will clock in at 768 kilobits per second. While that's slower than the 1.5 megabits to 3 megabits popular with many U.S. consumers, "it's more than good enough" for Internet telephony, Kimmelman says. As such, he thinks the twin offers could help spur sales of Internet telephony across the United States. "This opens the door for consumers" to pick other local and long-distance providers," Kimmelman says. For years, Kimmelman notes, consumers had to pay double, essentially, if they wanted to buy a high-speed broadband connection from one carrier and phone service from another. He says that let phone companies such as AT&T push broadband sales while preserving their core phone business, which still accounts for the bulk of profit. While AT&T, for example, charges $45 for naked DSL, it sells a bundle that includes phone and DSL for just $28 a month. Cable TV companies do the same thing. If purchased separately, Time Warner charges $45 a month for its high-speed cable modem service and $49.95 for digital phone. A bundle of both - plus TV service - costs $99. Comcast's service is among the priciest: It charges almost $58 a month for stand-alone broadband. Kimmelman, for one, thinks AT&T's new DSL pricing will help "discipline" broadband pricing. Once AT&T's $19.95 rate for naked DSL is broadly available, other broadband providers, including cable, "will be hard-pressed to keep hiding behind a higher price." http://indystar.gns.gannett.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070116/TECH01/609070517/1001/TECH -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Tranzeo 2.4
I am interested. Please hit me off list. > If anyone is running Tranzeo 2.4, I have about 4 of their 17db 90degree > Horizontal sectors collecting dust. As well as a few of the 900MHz radios. > It turns out the big city of Greensboro is not very RF friendly outside of > the 5.3/5.8 range :-) Thanks Chris Cooper Intelliwave -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL
Taxes, fees, and recovery surcharges are extra. Modem is free. Early term is extra. They didn't mention if you had to have a Cingular account. George Rogato wrote: AT&T is required to offer naked DSL for $19.95 in markets that are at least 80 percent upgraded for broadband. That describes many of AT&T's biggest markets, says Kimmelman, who helped negotiate the settlement. Under the deal, AT&T's cheap DSL products will clock in at 768 kilobits per second. So, this means ONLY in the markets that have 80% broadband penetration? And it's only 768k, so upgrades are the norm. Wonder if that icludes takes, modem rental and other fees may apply, as wel as early termination fees? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL
I know it's not the answer your looking for, but I am in a market served by cable and dsl all at just as fast rates and just about the same pricing or less. My advantage is the personalized service. When was the last time the owner of ATT went to the home of a customer and gave them support. Our nitch is being constantly redefined. Today it is service more than availability. At least there is a segment of the market where we win hands down, the quality of service segment. George Chadd Thompson wrote: Almost makes you want to close the doors on the rural market and let the FCC/Gov fund/force ATT or whoever to provide service in these underserved areas. It is going to get to the point where we are only going to be able to compete in areas where DSL/Cable is not available. I am not sure about the rest of you but there are not enough of those customers in our area to survive on that alone. It disgusts me anymore to see this type of stuff, well this and to see how many ISP's are getting huge amount of $$$ from the government to provide service in areas that are already served by one or more ISP's. One of our local ISP's has received a cash cow to deploy fiber over a good portion of Southern IL. I am surprised Scriv hasn't mentioned this as I think it is going to encroach on a few areas he currently serves. Kimmelman, for one, thinks AT&T's new DSL pricing will help "discipline" broadband pricing. Once AT&T's $19.95 rate for naked DSL is broadly available, other broadband providers, including cable, "will be hard-pressed to keep hiding behind a higher price." They need to do something with AT&T to get them to improve service and reduce cost for competing ISP's who are forced to either buy bandwidth from them or pay their outrageous local loop prices. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL
Almost makes you want to close the doors on the rural market and let the FCC/Gov fund/force ATT or whoever to provide service in these underserved areas. It is going to get to the point where we are only going to be able to compete in areas where DSL/Cable is not available. I am not sure about the rest of you but there are not enough of those customers in our area to survive on that alone. It disgusts me anymore to see this type of stuff, well this and to see how many ISP's are getting huge amount of $$$ from the government to provide service in areas that are already served by one or more ISP's. One of our local ISP's has received a cash cow to deploy fiber over a good portion of Southern IL. I am surprised Scriv hasn't mentioned this as I think it is going to encroach on a few areas he currently serves. > > Kimmelman, for one, thinks AT&T's new DSL pricing will help "discipline" > broadband pricing. Once AT&T's $19.95 rate for naked DSL is broadly > available, other broadband providers, including cable, "will be > hard-pressed to keep hiding behind a higher price." > They need to do something with AT&T to get them to improve service and reduce cost for competing ISP's who are forced to either buy bandwidth from them or pay their outrageous local loop prices. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo 2.4
:] ok.. i didn't read all the way first... simple male issue... please contact me offline. - Original Message - From: "Don Annas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:15 PM Subject: [WISPA] Tranzeo 2.4 If anyone is running Tranzeo 2.4, I have about 4 of their 17db 90degree Horizontal sectors collecting dust. As well as a few of the 900MHz radios. It turns out the big city of Greensboro is not very RF friendly outside of the 5.3/5.8 range :-) _ Don Annas 336.510.3800 x111 336.510.3801 fax HYPERLINK "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"[EMAIL PROTECTED] HYPERLINK "http://www.triadtelecom.com/"www.TriadTelecom.com _ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 1/28/2007 -- 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] Tranzeo 2.4
what polarity contact me off line. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Don Annas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:15 PM Subject: [WISPA] Tranzeo 2.4 If anyone is running Tranzeo 2.4, I have about 4 of their 17db 90degree Horizontal sectors collecting dust. As well as a few of the 900MHz radios. It turns out the big city of Greensboro is not very RF friendly outside of the 5.3/5.8 range :-) _ Don Annas 336.510.3800 x111 336.510.3801 fax HYPERLINK "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"[EMAIL PROTECTED] HYPERLINK "http://www.triadtelecom.com/"www.TriadTelecom.com _ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 1/28/2007 -- 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] $20 'naked' DSL
AT&T is required to offer naked DSL for $19.95 in markets that are at least 80 percent upgraded for broadband. That describes many of AT&T's biggest markets, says Kimmelman, who helped negotiate the settlement. Under the deal, AT&T's cheap DSL products will clock in at 768 kilobits per second. So, this means ONLY in the markets that have 80% broadband penetration? And it's only 768k, so upgrades are the norm. Wonder if that icludes takes, modem rental and other fees may apply, as wel as early termination fees? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Tranzeo 2.4
If anyone is running Tranzeo 2.4, I have about 4 of their 17db 90degree Horizontal sectors collecting dust. As well as a few of the 900MHz radios. It turns out the big city of Greensboro is not very RF friendly outside of the 5.3/5.8 range :-) _ Don Annas 336.510.3800 x111 336.510.3801 fax HYPERLINK "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"[EMAIL PROTECTED] HYPERLINK "http://www.triadtelecom.com/"www.TriadTelecom.com _ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 1/28/2007 <> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL
January 16, 2007 AT&T to offer $20 'naked' DSL service LESLIE CAULEY, USA TODAY Cheaper high-speed Internet service is coming. Within a few months, AT&T is expected to start charging $19.95 a month for "naked" DSL, meaning you don't have to buy any other AT&T service, including phone, to get that rate. It currently charges $45 for a stand-alone broadband subscription. AT&T also is developing $10 DSL for new subscribers who also buy AT&T-branded phone service. AT&T plans to offer both services for at least 30 months. The clock starts as soon as the media giant starts selling them in any of the 22 states where it is the incumbent local phone company, including California, Florida, Illinois and Texas. Why so cheap? Three words: Federal Communications Commission. The FCC, which has broad regulatory control over the U.S. telecommunications industry, recently approved AT&T's acquisition of BellSouth. To get needed votes from the FCC's two Democratic members, AT&T agreed, reluctantly, to offer these DSL bargains. AT&T is required to roll out the $19.95 offer within one year and the $10 rate within six months. Gene Kimmelman, public policy director of Consumers Union, says he expects AT&T to move faster. Under the terms of the FCC agreement, AT&T is required to offer naked DSL for $19.95 in markets that are at least 80 percent upgraded for broadband. That describes many of AT&T's biggest markets, says Kimmelman, who helped negotiate the settlement. Under the deal, AT&T's cheap DSL products will clock in at 768 kilobits per second. While that's slower than the 1.5 megabits to 3 megabits popular with many U.S. consumers, "it's more than good enough" for Internet telephony, Kimmelman says. As such, he thinks the twin offers could help spur sales of Internet telephony across the United States. "This opens the door for consumers" to pick other local and long-distance providers," Kimmelman says. For years, Kimmelman notes, consumers had to pay double, essentially, if they wanted to buy a high-speed broadband connection from one carrier and phone service from another. He says that let phone companies such as AT&T push broadband sales while preserving their core phone business, which still accounts for the bulk of profit. While AT&T, for example, charges $45 for naked DSL, it sells a bundle that includes phone and DSL for just $28 a month. Cable TV companies do the same thing. If purchased separately, Time Warner charges $45 a month for its high-speed cable modem service and $49.95 for digital phone. A bundle of both - plus TV service - costs $99. Comcast's service is among the priciest: It charges almost $58 a month for stand-alone broadband. Kimmelman, for one, thinks AT&T's new DSL pricing will help "discipline" broadband pricing. Once AT&T's $19.95 rate for naked DSL is broadly available, other broadband providers, including cable, "will be hard-pressed to keep hiding behind a higher price." http://indystar.gns.gannett.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070116/TECH01/609070517/1001/TECH -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Well done, Forbes. Forbes Mercy wrote: Ouch did I really say "embarrassed" instead of embraced" I really should proof this thing better, a few hanging sentences and other grammar goofs. Oh well I did with what time I had so everyone else please don't suggest my need for English 101. Forbes Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful. We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary specifications submitted. Our examples of this would be: 33' minimum antenna heights, pre-programmed exclusion zones, with no accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage. As you know provision of Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device. These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. We had hoped for an in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners. It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario. Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all income level Americans. WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well documented by the FCC. Low signal strength have been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster recitification of problems should one occur. This uses the innovation we have embrassed and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet unlikely, can be quickly qwelled locally. This resolves our need for GPS units and other expensive testing equipment not available to all providers. It also eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE, another expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or unlicensed frequency. Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the spectrum needs to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC. Again we reiterate the need for inexpensive access to deploy thus hope any registration would be within reason. The innovation we have provided meets the President's goal of rural deployment without need for public funds and provides local responsiveness and competition that forces National providers to keep costs affordable. As we have been
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Here is a good link for those who which to understand the issue more fully. The authors are as qualified as you get and professionally known (I don't know Andrew though) by a number of us here so we can vouch for them. http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/reclaiming_the_vast_wastel and_why_unlicensed_use_of_white_space_in_the_tv_bands_will_not_cause_int erference_ Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the "white space" does not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600 MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few other small channels reserved for things like public safety. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful. We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary specifications submitted. Our examples of this would be: 33' minimum antenna heights, pre-programmed exclusion zones, with no accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage. As you know provision of Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device. These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. We had hoped for an in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners. It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario. Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all income level Americans. WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well documented by the FCC. Low signal strength have been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster reciti
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Ouch did I really say "embarrassed" instead of embraced" I really should proof this thing better, a few hanging sentences and other grammar goofs. Oh well I did with what time I had so everyone else please don't suggest my need for English 101. Forbes Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful. We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary specifications submitted. Our examples of this would be: 33' minimum antenna heights, pre-programmed exclusion zones, with no accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage. As you know provision of Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device. These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. We had hoped for an in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners. It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario. Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all income level Americans. WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well documented by the FCC. Low signal strength have been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster recitification of problems should one occur. This uses the innovation we have embrassed and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet unlikely, can be quickly qwelled locally. This resolves our need for GPS units and other expensive testing equipment not available to all providers. It also eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE, another expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or unlicensed frequency. Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the spectrum needs to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC. Again we reiterate the need for inexpensive access to deploy thus hope any registration would be within reason. The innovation we have provided meets the President's goal of rural deployment without need for public funds and provides local responsiveness and competition that forces National providers to keep costs affordable. As we have been in the past, the Wireless Interne
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the "white space" does not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600 MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few other small channels reserved for things like public safety. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful. We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary specifications submitted. Our examples of this would be: 33' minimum antenna heights, pre-programmed exclusion zones, with no accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage. As you know provision of Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device. These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. We had hoped for an in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners. It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario. Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all income level Americans. WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well documented by the FCC. Low signal strength have been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster recitification of problems should one occur. This uses the innovation we have embrassed and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet unlikely, can be quickly qwelled locally. This resolves our need for GPS units and other expensive testing equipment not available to all providers. It also eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE, another expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or unlicensed frequency. Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the spectrum needs to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC. Again
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful. We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary specifications submitted. Our examples of this would be: 33' minimum antenna heights, pre-programmed exclusion zones, with no accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage. As you know provision of Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device. These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. We had hoped for an in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners. It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario. Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all income level Americans. WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well documented by the FCC. Low signal strength have been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster recitification of problems should one occur. This uses the innovation we have embrassed and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet unlikely, can be quickly qwelled locally. This resolves our need for GPS units and other expensive testing equipment not available to all providers. It also eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE, another expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or unlicensed frequency. Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the spectrum needs to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC. Again we reiterate the need for inexpensive access to deploy thus hope any registration would be within reason. The innovation we have provided meets the President's goal of rural deployment without need for public funds and provides local responsiveness and competition that forces National providers to keep costs affordable. As we have been in the past, the Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to help with how this new standard will 'meet the road' as we have since the inception of the unlicensed process. Our emphasis has always been on economical deployment and exclusion in favor of high profit d
RE: [WISPA] Boeing Fails to Learn from WISPs
Uses our hoppers, I'm happy to say. We had nothing to do with the sale, design or install though, so I can't speak to the architecture. We learned about the project later. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Ireton Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:15 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Boeing Fails to Learn from WISPs If you've ever been to Las Vegas, check out their monorail sometime and I think you'll see the same problem. AP'S and Amplifiers every 300' along the track, obviously the person(s) spec'ing it out, had no prior experience tis' a sad, sad story Mike- Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > 200 lbs of aps and antennas How the hell is THAT possible? > > I'll bet all of my gear weighs in less than that and I've got 6000 > square miles over coverage, not just one puny little airplane! > > Steve, do your old bosses need help over there or what? You need to go > back to work for Boing! > marlon > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Boeing Fails to Learn from WISPs
If done correctly it shouln't wiegh much of anything, Sounds like someone doesn't know how to shape thier bandwidth, ie. the right antenna for the job and space. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 1:34 PM Subject: [WISPA] Boeing Fails to Learn from WISPs Boeing is dropping it's plans to offer wireless access on the new 787 Dreamliner. It will be using a WIRED network instead. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/301086_boeing25.html The reasons given were: 1. Reducing the aircraft weight. 2. Difficulty in getting regulatory approval in a few countries. 3. The "prototype" system might not have delivered the expected performance. Sure, reducing weight on an (already overweight) aircraft is good. Boeing says they are replacing 200 lbs of access points and antennas with 50 lbs of wiring; thereby saving 150 lbs. Sure regulatory approval (2.4 GHz??) might have been a problem in some country - perhaps in Elbonia or Lower Slobovia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbonia My thinking is that Boeing engineers may have simply failed to learn a lesson that some WISPs have known for years. Any knowledgeable WISP could have told Boeing that putting two dozen access points inside an airplane cabin would create so much self-interference that the system would never deliver enough throughput to satisfy customers expectations for speed and performance. jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Boeing Fails to Learn from WISPs
If you've ever been to Las Vegas, check out their monorail sometime and I think you'll see the same problem. AP'S and Amplifiers every 300' along the track, obviously the person(s) spec'ing it out, had no prior experience tis' a sad, sad story Mike- Marlon K. Schafer wrote: 200 lbs of aps and antennas How the hell is THAT possible? I'll bet all of my gear weighs in less than that and I've got 6000 square miles over coverage, not just one puny little airplane! Steve, do your old bosses need help over there or what? You need to go back to work for Boing! marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Marlon, My opinion, but you should polish it considerably. Be more clear Marlon and concise, and totally eliminate the are-you-crazy tone. This letter is suitable if you are an individual, it is not suitable if being sent on behalf of WISPA. While impassioned, it really is not professional and will show WISPA in a bad light. As I said, it is just my opinion my friend. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:47 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Anyone Mind if I send this out Dear Sirs, Please forgive the tone of this email, but you guys are killin' me. KILLING me I just read your latest proposal for the TV whitespaces. While I fully agree with much of what you've said (no personal portable devices, no auctions, TPC, cognitive radio, NO interference to grandma's TV or wireless mic's etc.) I'm shocked at the other half. What's needed is an unlicensed band that can be deployed similar to that of cable and DSL. That is, mail the customer a pre programmed radio, they plug it in and poof, you have internet. No truck roll. At the very least, we need easy to install and configure devices and LOW, LOW prices for it. Technically, your document is great and makes a tremendous amount of sense. Practically, it'll make any spectrum that's released all but useless. 33' minimum antenna heights? Pre programmed exclusion zones? No accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage? Geolocation of EVERY CPE device? You've, via your standards proposal, eliminated 90% of the customers and 99% of the operators from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. And who's going to want another ugly old TV antenna install at their houses? People are taking down those old ugly 30 to 100' crank up towers beside their houses, not putting them back up! There is NO need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. You say it's needed to help deal with local interference issues etc. But that's not likely the case. If WE can't hear the broadcasting system, neither can anyone else in the area and we'll not likely interfere either. Especially at the very low signal levels you have built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. I'd be all in favor of a beacon system in which any cpe would be able to identify the owner of the ap. Then the people that need to figure out anything on a cpe side can come to me to get the data on who's where. I'll already have a name and address, I don't need GPS too. Speaking of GPS. Why in the world do you guys think that we can put in dual antenna systems for EVERY customer? We'll need the rec. antenna AND a GPS one for each cpe under your plan. The spectrum needs to be unlicensed (registered I could live with but don't like it, just more paperwork), it needs to be really inexpensive to deploy and it needs to be totally customizable based on LOCAL conditions. One of the very reasons to use sub GHz bands is the penetration through trees. Now you guys are suggesting that we get up there over much of the foliage in EVERY installation? No thanks. We'll go high when we need to, otherwise we want to stay out of site, out of the wind and easy to get to when there's snow on the roof! The Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to help you with your standard. As it is, it looks like this standard was developed by and for companies that are interested in high margin devices rather than high volume devices. Our industry has plenty of high margin products to choose from already. Backhaul products are stable and plentiful. Everything from wireless, to copper to fiber is an option in the right conditions. What we need mostly right now is medium speed cheap products that will go through walls and trees etc. If our customers wanted us to put in towers that would get them up over most of the tree canopy we'd already be doing it. People want the internet but they aren't willing to pay $500 for it in any kind of marketable numbers. Thank you for you time, Marlon K. Schafer WISPA FCC committee chairman (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious cod
[WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Anyone Mind if I send this out Dear Sirs, Please forgive the tone of this email, but you guys are killin' me. KILLING me I just read your latest proposal for the TV whitespaces. While I fully agree with much of what you've said (no personal portable devices, no auctions, TPC, cognitive radio, NO interference to grandma's TV or wireless mic's etc.) I'm shocked at the other half. What's needed is an unlicensed band that can be deployed similar to that of cable and DSL. That is, mail the customer a pre programmed radio, they plug it in and poof, you have internet. No truck roll. At the very least, we need easy to install and configure devices and LOW, LOW prices for it. Technically, your document is great and makes a tremendous amount of sense. Practically, it'll make any spectrum that's released all but useless. 33' minimum antenna heights? Pre programmed exclusion zones? No accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage? Geolocation of EVERY CPE device? You've, via your standards proposal, eliminated 90% of the customers and 99% of the operators from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. And who's going to want another ugly old TV antenna install at their houses? People are taking down those old ugly 30 to 100' crank up towers beside their houses, not putting them back up! There is NO need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. You say it's needed to help deal with local interference issues etc. But that's not likely the case. If WE can't hear the broadcasting system, neither can anyone else in the area and we'll not likely interfere either. Especially at the very low signal levels you have built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. I'd be all in favor of a beacon system in which any cpe would be able to identify the owner of the ap. Then the people that need to figure out anything on a cpe side can come to me to get the data on who's where. I'll already have a name and address, I don't need GPS too. Speaking of GPS. Why in the world do you guys think that we can put in dual antenna systems for EVERY customer? We'll need the rec. antenna AND a GPS one for each cpe under your plan. The spectrum needs to be unlicensed (registered I could live with but don't like it, just more paperwork), it needs to be really inexpensive to deploy and it needs to be totally customizable based on LOCAL conditions. One of the very reasons to use sub GHz bands is the penetration through trees. Now you guys are suggesting that we get up there over much of the foliage in EVERY installation? No thanks. We'll go high when we need to, otherwise we want to stay out of site, out of the wind and easy to get to when there's snow on the roof! The Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to help you with your standard. As it is, it looks like this standard was developed by and for companies that are interested in high margin devices rather than high volume devices. Our industry has plenty of high margin products to choose from already. Backhaul products are stable and plentiful. Everything from wireless, to copper to fiber is an option in the right conditions. What we need mostly right now is medium speed cheap products that will go through walls and trees etc. If our customers wanted us to put in towers that would get them up over most of the tree canopy we'd already be doing it. People want the internet but they aren't willing to pay $500 for it in any kind of marketable numbers. Thank you for you time, Marlon K. Schafer WISPA FCC committee chairman (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Access US
Victor Mattison said Access US has a $4.3 million wireless Internet deal with the USDA. http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/01/29/story13.html?t=printable http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/01/brick-network-acquired-by-access-us.html -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
