Re: [WISPA] good snmp client?
Thanks guys for the input. I tested cacti, was an easy install, but the setup seemed so counterintuitive for me that I had to look for another alternative. Currently I am having success with zabbix www.zabbix.com which compiled and installed without a hitch. Much easier IMO to manage. creates all the nice graphs I want, capable of producing network maps. seems capable of scaling nicely. so far so good Steve -- W.D.McKinney wrote: - Original Message - From: Frank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:52:55 -0900 Subject: RE: [WISPA] good snmp client? MRTG for trending/graphing: http://oss.oetiker.ch/mrtg/ Hi Frank, For anyone that used MRTG in the past, I highly recommend RRDtool instead. See http://oss.oetiker.ch/rrdtool/ We use this and Cacti and it's more up-to-date than MRTG. Runs well on linux. -Dee Frank Keeney Pasadena Networks, LLC Antennas, Cables and Equipment: http://www.wlanparts.com -Original Message- From: steve Hi, I'm wondering what people are using for snmp monitoring of the network. I've got about a dozen devices so far, and more to come with expansion and am looking for a nice snmp poller that would preferably run on linux (debian) and give me nice looking reports with either web interface or client software. Thanks! Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi
Marlon, You want to know what else is funny? How you just pick and choose what you want to hear. Regards, Dawn Marlon K. Schafer wrote: MessageFunny how so few press outlets will ever talk about anything at all negative about muni networks. This is clearly biased, but it's still a breath of fresh air to me! marlon - Original Message - From: Cameron To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:28 PM Subject: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi FYI http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/10/municipal_wi-fi_survey/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi
Marlon, You cannot lump all municipal networks together which you do on a regular basis. According to a recent study only about 50% of muni networks provide access to the public. In the same report it mentions that there are less and less municipalities taking on this responsibility and outsourcing it to companies that do this work day in and day out. So yes this article is accurate but not for the reasons you may think.Of course I could be wrong about what you are thinking. ;-) Regards, Dawn DiPietro Dawn DiPietro wrote: Marlon, You want to know what else is funny? How you just pick and choose what you want to hear. Regards, Dawn Marlon K. Schafer wrote: MessageFunny how so few press outlets will ever talk about anything at all negative about muni networks. This is clearly biased, but it's still a breath of fresh air to me! marlon - Original Message - From: Cameron To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:28 PM Subject: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi FYI http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/10/municipal_wi-fi_survey/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Form FCC477
We will be filing ours again also. 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 Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:11 PM To: Joe Laura; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477 I'm not particularly worried about my info getting into anyone's hands. I've got nothing to hide. We'll fill it out again. I'm far more worried about the fines than competitors learning anything useful from the 477. Someone else brought up a great point. You can't market your company and stay hidden. If anyone's looking at your area for anything at all they'll find out all about you anyway. Unless you don't want customers to ever hear about you :-). laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Joe Laura [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Ya, I just got a notice as well. I wonder what the response rate will be this time around? Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: Cliff Leboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Hehe!!! I just received my reminder that my new 'confidential' FCC 477 form will be due shortly. Cliff LeBoeuf www.cssla.com www.triparish.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA 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] SmartPhone Happiness...
I have no idea, but there's a frial trial period. I'm still waiting on my E70, but I plan on trying it out as soon as it gets here. I was just curious if anyone else had played with it yet. On 1/25/07, paul hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope. Does it add a tab key as this seems to be the only thing missing from the free Putty. -Original Message- From: Chad Halsted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 January 2007 01:41 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness... have you tried mobile ssh? On 1/24/07, paul hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm running putty on my E70. Is great to be on a roof with mobile in one hand whilst you pan your StarOS or Mikrotik cpe ;) Only down side seems to be the lack of a tab key. -Original Message- From: Chad Halsted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2007 19:32 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness... Matt, Have you had a chance to play with SSH utilities. I'm looking for the same phone and have heard others using it to SSH into their Star-OS boxes with good success. Mobile SSH has a free trial and should work with the E70. On 1/22/07, Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was finally time to replace my Nokia 6800 with 600 hours and a broken screen from being dropped too many times, so I decided to get a Nokia E70 phone. It has been a little bit of a challenge, but it is pretty close to cell phone nirvana. It has been able to do I have wanted to accomplish with a PDA or cell phone combined. The first main issue was getting the phone contacts/calendar/notes synchronized with my PC. My previous phone was extremely flaky when used with the Nokia PC Suite software, and only connected about one in every 10 times. I had to install, reinstall, run a registry cleaner and then reinstall the software but I was finally able to get a reliable connection between my PC and phone. Once accomplished, I was able to get all of my items synced up in a repeatable, reliable fashion. With all their available resources, I am amazed that Nokia was not able to this process worked out better. The second item was seeing how Internet access worked on the phone. GPRS seems to work fine, but I was more interested in the wifi connectivity feature of the phone. The E70 will browse for an available access point and the process for connecting is pretty straightforward. I have to pass on huge props for the Internet browser on the E70. I would prefer using the smaller screen E70 browser than the browser on all of the PocketPCs that I have used. It is that good. It was reliable, viewable, easy to navigate and there have been no weird format surprises. All told - the Internet access components work very well. I have not gotten the instant messaging to work yet, but it looks like other have, so I will still have that to work on. The last and most interesting piece was the struggle to get VOIP working on a cell phone. My cell coverage at my house and many other places in my service area is very spotty, so I have been looking forward to having a phone that could roam to wifi and keep my roaming minutes down to a minimum. I was able to find a couple of links to guides on how to set the phone up with an asterisk voip server and was finally able to get it to connect to my office voip phone system. After all the hassles and reported problems on user forums, I was very pleasantly surprised by the performance of the voip part of the E70. It is actually clearer than regular cell calls, with just a little bit of breakup when the wifi signal gets low. Best of all, my outgoing calls all go through my office system when I am in range of a wifi access point, meaning less minutes on my cell phone plan. I should also be able to use the voip when I go to remote tower sites that used to not work at all on the regular cell network or incurred roaming charges. All in all, I am very impressed with the E70. I am going to officially retire my iPaqs to other tasks and use this as my primary PIM/phone/voip phone. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com PS - I purchased my E70 from Tiger Direct for about $435, but they are also available at voip-supply.com for $385. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Chad Halsted The Computer Works Conway, AR www.tcworks.net -- 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/ -- Chad Halsted The Computer
Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477
Actually, once they post on this public, archived listserv that they will not file, it becomes a permanent record and their business becomes everyone's business. You want WISPA to be taken seriously? You don't post on the list and say I ain't filing. It reflects poorly. You don't want to file - don't file, but shut up about it. - Peter George Rogato wrote: I am not saying to anyone else tyhat they should or shouldn't, thats your business not mine. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi
Yeah, we all tend to do that from time to time eh? grin marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi Marlon, You want to know what else is funny? How you just pick and choose what you want to hear. Regards, Dawn Marlon K. Schafer wrote: MessageFunny how so few press outlets will ever talk about anything at all negative about muni networks. This is clearly biased, but it's still a breath of fresh air to me! marlon - Original Message - From: Cameron To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:28 PM Subject: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi FYI http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/10/municipal_wi-fi_survey/ -- 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] Form FCC477
I have filled all previous requests, and plan on filing this one too. I was just 'poking fun' at the CONFIDENTIAL issue at hand... Cliff LeBoeuf www.cssla.com www.triparish.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Actually, once they post on this public, archived listserv that they will not file, it becomes a permanent record and their business becomes everyone's business. You want WISPA to be taken seriously? You don't post on the list and say I ain't filing. It reflects poorly. You don't want to file - don't file, but shut up about it. - Peter George Rogato wrote: I am not saying to anyone else tyhat they should or shouldn't, thats your business not mine. -- 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] Form FCC477
Sort of odd that last time I filed and I received no such notice to renew. Forbes I'm not particularly worried about my info getting into anyone's hands. I've got nothing to hide. We'll fill it out again. I'm far more worried about the fines than competitors learning anything useful from the 477. Someone else brought up a great point. You can't market your company and stay hidden. If anyone's looking at your area for anything at all they'll find out all about you anyway. Unless you don't want customers to ever hear about you :-). laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Joe Laura [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Ya, I just got a notice as well. I wonder what the response rate will be this time around? Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: Cliff Leboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Hehe!!! I just received my reminder that my new 'confidential' FCC 477 form will be due shortly. Cliff LeBoeuf www.cssla.com www.triparish.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.11/652 - Release Date: 1/25/2007 winmail.dat-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi
I'm merely pointing out that all is not wine and roses in the muni market. Yet, for some strange reason, we never hear about the problems. The Wall Street Journal had a write-up about the Grant Co. network out here. Did they print ONE word when the state auditor caught them giving over $1,000,000 in cash and labor to one of my competitors? Did they write up anything about the big companies that never did pay hundreds (yes hundreds, more than a couple) of thousands in bills? Has anyone wrote one peep about the fact that the network still spends millions per year more than it's generating? Nope, not a word. Not one single word. A little bit has made it into the local press but that's it. Nothing that *I've* seen even on a regional scale. But you'll see plenty about Google, Yahoo, and MS building data centers out here. Whoopee. 5000 computers and I'll bet 5 technicians. The dirty little secret there is that the PUD gave them $.01 (yeah, that's right ONE PENNY) per kwh power rate. So the electric rate payers are putting in a network BELOW cost to them (MS said build it for $x or we'll just do it ourselves, guess fiber availability wasn't really the issue to MS was it?), AND the loose money every month on the network AND the electricity. Boy, is there a lot of great talk, press and excited people around about it though! Look, fiber is great. People out here have the network with the capacity that will have been needed in 10 to 15 years. The problem is, it costs too much to do it first. And, as that article pointed out, things change far too fast for government. I know that people out here felt about the electric dams like I feel about the fiber project. Well, kinda. To me the dams make a ton of sense. So does broadband! A hybrid network would have been MUCH more cost effective though. Think about what technologies do what things the best? I love the way that these people talk We built a fiber network to monitor and manage our electrical systems, we're just using some excess capacity for the good of the community. OK, I can live with that. But did anyone see what happened to many of the transmission towers, poles etc. out in the mid west? Did you guys see the pics that Matt Larson tossed out for folks to see? What good is that fiber network to anyone when it's all mangled on the ground? And just HOW much data is needed to manage a substation or 20? Those used to be all taken care of by RF links. Surely that could still be done today and they'd have LESS risk of LARGE outages with wireless than with fiber. AND RF systems are cheap compared to stringing fiber over any distance. Even if you already have the poles etc. So what's the real reason for all that fiber? I suggest that it's NOT about electric system monitoring. That's just a convenient, public palatable, excuse. What should be done, out here or in the big cities, is a hybrid network. Use the best technology for the specific customers you are looking to hit. CATV or Sat. TV is GREAT for streaming video or audio to people. Heck, I'll bet you it's cheaper to broadcast TV over open air than it is to build a fiber network for the same thing... grin Light data and voice work great over wireless. Big data pipes are naturals for fiber. The ultimate network for me would be one that seamlessly combines sat tv with my broadband. But so far, none of the sat companies are interested in talking. It's too bad, we could install sat tv AND wireless or fiber all at the same time. Walk in the park. The real problem here is that we have a group of late 60's early 70's graduates of business schools. They seem to have all been taught that the public is stupid (too often that looks to be proven right, look at how seldom we vote out rotten legislators) and gullible. They also seem to think that the only way to accomplish things is to take it all. You only cooperate with those that you are forced to cooperate with. AND you have to be all things to all people. I think it's really about power and control. There are those out there that think that they know what's good and proper for us than we do. If they control our power, knowledge, entertainment, communications etc. we'll have to do what we're told. Either because we don't know any better or because we'll not survive if we don't. Don't laugh, look at how quickly the main stream media is loosing customers. They like to say that people don't read news papers anymore. They like to say that people don't watch TV news as much. That's just plain not true. People ARE seeking that information, they just do more and more of it online. News papers could very well have online versions of their printed news. In fact, many if not most, do. And people still don't choose their news there. Why is that? Because more and more people (according to studies I've heard of) don't believe that they are getting the
Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477
Unlike me, you probably did yours correctly and on time! hehehehe - Original Message - From: Forbes Mercy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:21 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Sort of odd that last time I filed and I received no such notice to renew. Forbes I'm not particularly worried about my info getting into anyone's hands. I've got nothing to hide. We'll fill it out again. I'm far more worried about the fines than competitors learning anything useful from the 477. Someone else brought up a great point. You can't market your company and stay hidden. If anyone's looking at your area for anything at all they'll find out all about you anyway. Unless you don't want customers to ever hear about you :-). laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Joe Laura [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Ya, I just got a notice as well. I wonder what the response rate will be this time around? Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: Cliff Leboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Hehe!!! I just received my reminder that my new 'confidential' FCC 477 form will be due shortly. Cliff LeBoeuf www.cssla.com www.triparish.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.11/652 - Release Date: 1/25/2007 -- 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] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi
I wish I could do that! I always hear what I dont want to ;) On 1/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, we all tend to do that from time to time eh? grin marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi Marlon, You want to know what else is funny? How you just pick and choose what you want to hear. Regards, Dawn Marlon K. Schafer wrote: MessageFunny how so few press outlets will ever talk about anything at all negative about muni networks. This is clearly biased, but it's still a breath of fresh air to me! marlon - Original Message - From: Cameron To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:28 PM Subject: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi FYI http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/10/municipal_wi-fi_survey/ -- 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] Form FCC477
Peter, You are right. (At this time people should not state publically on this list if they aren't going to file) Also, I previously spoke spontaniously without thinking the issue through, without any concept of time and due dates. I wasn't putting two and two togeather to realize the filing deadline was due more or less now, before court cases would even be battled. I will be filing, because its my obligation to, and no proven reason not to. I honestly feel that. Actually, when I think about it, we should be applauding the FCC, for taking a stand to keep information confidential. With that said, I do think it is appropriate to discuss how the Freedom of Information Act will effect the FCC to be able to maintain confidentiality. I think it also appropriate to discuss the pros and cons of filing, based on how that court battle ends up. Right now, the FCC has held firm, and we should support them back, for supporting us. But this is a serious issue. If the information that I file, gets given to a company Like Verizon, it could give them the advantage to put me out of business in a couple months, if they wanted to. If you do not think the Telcos are watching the WISP industry closely, you are fooling yourself. As a business owner, I have the right to protect the success of my business, and I have the right to protect my confidential information. I have the right to withhold information, take my stand publically, and legal fight to protect my company's interest if there is reason to do so. If my detailed information from the Report was disclosed, and it led to a competive disadvantage in my markets, I'd sue the FCC. I'd argue that it would be a Wireless Trade Association's responsibilities (such as WISPAs) to lead the fight to protect WISP's confidential information. WISPA needs to send out a consolidated united message, that if our information is disclosed, that we will feel betrayed and will take legal action as an industry to protect our interests, or not cooperate. That is being taken seriously, showing the power we have in numbers. What you will find is that initially the FCC may hold firm and not disclose information now. But when it becomes to much of a hassle and to costly to defend, they might give in. What would prevent them from giving in, is knowing that they would be opening a whole nother can of worms, headached, and costs with the WISPs that trusted the FCC. Again, I am way ahead of myself on this post. I'm just talking What Ifs. To date there is no evidence that the FCC will disclose information, and they currently have refused to disclose it. I think we should all file, but when we file, we should each include a letter with our filing, stating that information is confidential information, that we are aware of the current case requesting information to be disclosed, and expressing our concerns and the importance that our information stays confidential. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Actually, once they post on this public, archived listserv that they will not file, it becomes a permanent record and their business becomes everyone's business. You want WISPA to be taken seriously? You don't post on the list and say I ain't filing. It reflects poorly. You don't want to file - don't file, but shut up about it. - Peter George Rogato wrote: I am not saying to anyone else tyhat they should or shouldn't, thats your business not mine. -- 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] Form FCC477
Don't misinterpret this as suggesting not to file, as I believe one should file for various reasons. But I disagree with statements and the reason to file are different. First, At a FCC/WISP meeting, I remember a very enlightening presentation from Patrick Leary. The key statement was Where Wireless goes, DSL follows. Its more true than we can imagine. Only thing is, In upcomming years its going to be, Where Small Wireless providers go, FIOS and/or ILEC WIMAX deployments follow. Nobody appreciate an unserved market, until you see your competition wanting it and profiting from it. History has proved, you kill your competition before they grow strong enough to be a threat. They won;t take the small WISP approach to go where no one has served yet. They will take the Mcdonalds/Wendy's approach of using our data to find the most profitable areas to serve, where they can take the business from WISPs. Executive's Ego's are involved, and they don't like to see others outshining them Provide Form477 info publically, so competitors can see it in detail, It will be damaging. (Unless of course the informatioin disclosed shows no real threat in terms of volume) The reason Form 477 should be filed is that its not meant for public eyes. Its meant for the FCC, so they can make intelligent decission with that inforamtion, to foster growth in the industry for consumers benefit. The FCC already knows WISPs are a major player now in theory. But they need proof to backup opinion. Form 477 helps provide that. There is not a viable compromise on this issue. We need the FCC to have this information, and we need the info to be held in confidence. The Law and Fines are irrelevent as the goal is NOT to not file. The goal is to support confidentiality. Just my 2 cents. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Forbes Mercy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:21 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Sort of odd that last time I filed and I received no such notice to renew. Forbes I'm not particularly worried about my info getting into anyone's hands. I've got nothing to hide. We'll fill it out again. I'm far more worried about the fines than competitors learning anything useful from the 477. Someone else brought up a great point. You can't market your company and stay hidden. If anyone's looking at your area for anything at all they'll find out all about you anyway. Unless you don't want customers to ever hear about you :-). laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Joe Laura [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Ya, I just got a notice as well. I wonder what the response rate will be this time around? Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: Cliff Leboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Hehe!!! I just received my reminder that my new 'confidential' FCC 477 form will be due shortly. Cliff LeBoeuf www.cssla.com www.triparish.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.11/652 - Release Date: 1/25/2007 -- 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/
[WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI
So I was a bit curious as to who this Center for Public Integrity (CPI) was and who funded them and what their intent was. I looked them up and gave the guy a call that is in charge of the lawsuit for CPI against the FCC. We had a long chat and he referred me to their website and what they are trying to do: http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/ Basically, according to the director of this project, they are trying to mirror the other media provider information by providing a list by zip code of who gives service in an area. We discussed how inaccurate the list is for say cable where my town supposedly has five cable providers when in fact we have two and only one by the zip code I searched. I then asked if that is all the information they want from the FCC Form 477. He said Yes all we really want is the provider name. So I asked why his FOI and lawsuit states ALL data provided in the Form 477. I explained that our competition already has enough of an advantage but if they had their hands on the number of customers, their speeds, etc. by zip code they would know where to spend money to go after us specifically. Essentially telling our competition everything about us without even the tease of an offer to by protected by an non disclosure agreement (NDA). I think even Telco and Cable agree with us on this potential which is why they have joined with the FCC opposing the full disclosure request. His answer (CPI) was that they don't expect to get the whole database and in the end will likely compromise for just the names. I told him I have no problem giving my name or having the FCC do that but why ask for everything, I said, it demonstrates intent to disclose so much more that could damage us. He said he knows that but it was their decision to start there and work back to what they want. I explained how when you negotiate you don't ask for, let's say buying a car, for $2000 off when you only want $500 off. By doing so the salesman, in this case the FCC, has no motivation to work with you because you made an unreasonable request. Why not just file the Freedom of Information (FOI) request for just the provider names? He said, it's nice to hear a grass roots provider view but we felt this was the best bargaining method. He made clear they are not funded by a Corporation and are certainly not trying to help anyone but consumers. I see one of two motivations for this: 1) They are being pushed by their attorney to go too far which sounds about right for a lawyer who knows he/they will get a lot more money for drawing out negotiations when he could just make a reasonable request or, 2) CPI feels they will get more donors and media attention by being able to make the claim they are trying to protect the public in a big media splash saying we just want their names while really asking for the whole cake. They are a DC organization so you can never really trust their intent. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. www.wabroadband.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI
Forbes, Did you happen to ask them if they ever sold any of their data to commercial organizations? That might also indicate their intent and why they are pushing so hard...just a thought. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Forbes Mercy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 1:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI So I was a bit curious as to who this Center for Public Integrity (CPI) was and who funded them and what their intent was. I looked them up and gave the guy a call that is in charge of the lawsuit for CPI against the FCC. We had a long chat and he referred me to their website and what they are trying to do: http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/ Basically, according to the director of this project, they are trying to mirror the other media provider information by providing a list by zip code of who gives service in an area. We discussed how inaccurate the list is for say cable where my town supposedly has five cable providers when in fact we have two and only one by the zip code I searched. I then asked if that is all the information they want from the FCC Form 477. He said Yes all we really want is the provider name. So I asked why his FOI and lawsuit states ALL data provided in the Form 477. I explained that our competition already has enough of an advantage but if they had their hands on the number of customers, their speeds, etc. by zip code they would know where to spend money to go after us specifically. Essentially telling our competition everything about us without even the tease of an offer to by protected by an non disclosure agreement (NDA). I think even Telco and Cable agree with us on this potential which is why they have joined with the FCC opposing the full disclosure request. His answer (CPI) was that they don't expect to get the whole database and in the end will likely compromise for just the names. I told him I have no problem giving my name or having the FCC do that but why ask for everything, I said, it demonstrates intent to disclose so much more that could damage us. He said he knows that but it was their decision to start there and work back to what they want. I explained how when you negotiate you don't ask for, let's say buying a car, for $2000 off when you only want $500 off. By doing so the salesman, in this case the FCC, has no motivation to work with you because you made an unreasonable request. Why not just file the Freedom of Information (FOI) request for just the provider names? He said, it's nice to hear a grass roots provider view but we felt this was the best bargaining method. He made clear they are not funded by a Corporation and are certainly not trying to help anyone but consumers. I see one of two motivations for this: 1) They are being pushed by their attorney to go too far which sounds about right for a lawyer who knows he/they will get a lot more money for drawing out negotiations when he could just make a reasonable request or, 2) CPI feels they will get more donors and media attention by being able to make the claim they are trying to protect the public in a big media splash saying we just want their names while really asking for the whole cake. They are a DC organization so you can never really trust their intent. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. www.wabroadband.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 -- 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] Form FCC477 - I called CPI
disclaimerIANAL/disclaimer The problem is, that if they win the suite, I think it would be for all the information. Regardless of what their intent it, once that case is made, the information is there for anyone. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Forbes Mercy wrote: So I was a bit curious as to who this Center for Public Integrity (CPI) was and who funded them and what their intent was. I looked them up and gave the guy a call that is in charge of the lawsuit for CPI against the FCC. We had a long chat and he referred me to their website and what they are trying to do: http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/ Basically, according to the director of this project, they are trying to mirror the other media provider information by providing a list by zip code of who gives service in an area. We discussed how inaccurate the list is for say cable where my town supposedly has five cable providers when in fact we have two and only one by the zip code I searched. I then asked if that is all the information they want from the FCC Form 477. He said Yes all we really want is the provider name. So I asked why his FOI and lawsuit states ALL data provided in the Form 477. I explained that our competition already has enough of an advantage but if they had their hands on the number of customers, their speeds, etc. by zip code they would know where to spend money to go after us specifically. Essentially telling our competition everything about us without even the tease of an offer to by protected by an non disclosure agreement (NDA). I think even Telco and Cable agree with us on this potential which is why they have joined with the FCC opposing the full disclosure request. His answer (CPI) was that they don't expect to get the whole database and in the end will likely compromise for just the names. I told him I have no problem giving my name or having the FCC do that but why ask for everything, I said, it demonstrates intent to disclose so much more that could damage us. He said he knows that but it was their decision to start there and work back to what they want. I explained how when you negotiate you don't ask for, let's say buying a car, for $2000 off when you only want $500 off. By doing so the salesman, in this case the FCC, has no motivation to work with you because you made an unreasonable request. Why not just file the Freedom of Information (FOI) request for just the provider names? He said, it's nice to hear a grass roots provider view but we felt this was the best bargaining method. He made clear they are not funded by a Corporation and are certainly not trying to help anyone but consumers. I see one of two motivations for this: 1) They are being pushed by their attorney to go too far which sounds about right for a lawyer who knows he/they will get a lot more money for drawing out negotiations when he could just make a reasonable request or, 2) CPI feels they will get more donors and media attention by being able to make the claim they are trying to protect the public in a big media splash saying we just want their names while really asking for the whole cake. They are a DC organization so you can never really trust their intent. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. www.wabroadband.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
off topic -- Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
I see your point, Sam. Perhaps products like Linksys Routers could be a better example, or how about YouTube? for the argument, or even our residential customers (this oen rings a bell for many of us in this tech service industry, going all the way back to dialup days). I'm not sure about Walmart or MacDonalds not profiting at the expense of the customer (or others) argument: - McD's hamburgers aren't that healthy according to what health folks say, and common folks who eat there regularly prove. - Walmart's employee practices don't seem to be that just either, according to what analysts say. Mario Sam Tetherow wrote: There actually are some of us out here that don't have this luxury in our markets. My total market is approximately 3000 people (not households) and I have to go 45 miles in any direction to find another town with more than 80 people in it. I'm not saying this in a 'woe is me' tone, just stating a fact. Some of us operate in the well under 10,000 people areas where 'finding a higher ARPU customer' is not really a viable option. We have to be all things in order to have enough customers to pay the bills. The top 10% of my market would get me less than 100 customers and they would have an average income of less than $100K. As a slightly off-topic aside: (those that don't want to listen to my ramblings can safely stop here :) I do find the Walmart reference interesting. Since I have started this business I have tried to read as much as I can in terms of business, marketing and sales books. Having come from a purely tech background it astounds me how clueless I really was until I started a business. One of the things that I have struggled with is the price point vs service aspect of the business. Obviously being the cheapest option has it's sales advantages, especially in the residential best effort internet business. But as we all know, being the cheapest makes it a bit harder to pay the bills. When I read business and marketing books they all espouse the higher end customer is the better customer view. I understand this view, you have a valued customer who is willing to pay a reasonable price for quality service. You look at brands like Lexus and Bose and think, these are the people I need to be like. These companies have made millionaires. But what I find interesting is that companies like Walmart and McDonalds who do live in the quantity, not quality world have made billionaires. The trick seems to be, if you can somehow manages to be the cheapest and do it right you can make a boat load of money and it doesn't have to be at the expense of the customer. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: John J. Thomas wrote: But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig, then he has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for unlimited access, he has no reason to slow down. Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? John Well, the reality is this: you can't compete with it. And why try? Why not move upstream to a larger ARPU customer? Cable ILEC can handle and deliver service to the masses cheaply - for now. But there is a segment of every population that needs more than the cheap dumb pipe attached to the cheap dumb support. That is the GAP. That is where the money is. That is where your market is. But it may mean selling beyond just a pipe. I've been preaching this for years - and clients that have listened - narrowed their focus; but the shotgun (marketing) away; have done well. See articles here: http://www.rad-info.net/newsletters/walmart16.htm And there:http://www.rad-info.net/newsletters/winninger.htm Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. (813) 963-5884 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI
Excellent job. Forbes, you are to be commended for going directly to the source to register your opinion personally and to get the skinny. Beats the heck out of a continued speculative thread with much rumor, angst, and anger, but no action. Taking personal initiative like that is how real change begins. Thank you for your effort. 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 Forbes Mercy Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI So I was a bit curious as to who this Center for Public Integrity (CPI) was and who funded them and what their intent was. I looked them up and gave the guy a call that is in charge of the lawsuit for CPI against the FCC. We had a long chat and he referred me to their website and what they are trying to do: http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/ Basically, according to the director of this project, they are trying to mirror the other media provider information by providing a list by zip code of who gives service in an area. We discussed how inaccurate the list is for say cable where my town supposedly has five cable providers when in fact we have two and only one by the zip code I searched. I then asked if that is all the information they want from the FCC Form 477. He said Yes all we really want is the provider name. So I asked why his FOI and lawsuit states ALL data provided in the Form 477. I explained that our competition already has enough of an advantage but if they had their hands on the number of customers, their speeds, etc. by zip code they would know where to spend money to go after us specifically. Essentially telling our competition everything about us without even the tease of an offer to by protected by an non disclosure agreement (NDA). I think even Telco and Cable agree with us on this potential which is why they have joined with the FCC opposing the full disclosure request. His answer (CPI) was that they don't expect to get the whole database and in the end will likely compromise for just the names. I told him I have no problem giving my name or having the FCC do that but why ask for everything, I said, it demonstrates intent to disclose so much more that could damage us. He said he knows that but it was their decision to start there and work back to what they want. I explained how when you negotiate you don't ask for, let's say buying a car, for $2000 off when you only want $500 off. By doing so the salesman, in this case the FCC, has no motivation to work with you because you made an unreasonable request. Why not just file the Freedom of Information (FOI) request for just the provider names? He said, it's nice to hear a grass roots provider view but we felt this was the best bargaining method. He made clear they are not funded by a Corporation and are certainly not trying to help anyone but consumers. I see one of two motivations for this: 1) They are being pushed by their attorney to go too far which sounds about right for a lawyer who knows he/they will get a lot more money for drawing out negotiations when he could just make a reasonable request or, 2) CPI feels they will get more donors and media attention by being able to make the claim they are trying to protect the public in a big media splash saying we just want their names while really asking for the whole cake. They are a DC organization so you can never really trust their intent. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. www.wabroadband.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 -- 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.
Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:23:19 -0500, Tom DeReggi wrote Don't misinterpret this as suggesting not to file, as I believe one should file for various reasons. But I disagree with statements and the reason to file are different. First, At a FCC/WISP meeting, I remember a very enlightening presentation from Patrick Leary. The key statement was Where Wireless goes, DSL follows. Its more true than we can imagine. Only thing is, In upcomming years its going to be, Where Small Wireless providers go, FIOS and/or ILEC WIMAX deployments follow. Nobody appreciate an unserved market, until you see your competition wanting it and profiting from it. History has proved, you kill your competition before they grow strong enough to be a threat. They won;t take the small WISP approach to go where no one has served yet. They will take the Mcdonalds/Wendy's approach of using our data to find the most profitable areas to serve, where they can take the business from WISPs. Executive's Ego's are involved, and they don't like to see others outshining them Provide Form477 info publically, so competitors can see it in detail, It will be damaging. (Unless of course the informatioin disclosed shows no real threat in terms of volume) You know, I see the same pattern too. In 1999 here, there was no telco DSL in 90% (terms of population) of the area I now am covering or soon to cover. Between 1999 and now, a wireless provider in the area applied for the low interest loans (and was approved) for a large amount of it. Amazingly enough, DSL sprouted up all over the place where Qwest had said we have no plans to put it in, in all those places where public money had become available and was requested by said WISP (not me). City A has all of 1300 people, and city W has 700 people and found themselves with DSLAMS installed and stringing new cables all over town. The project was huge and kept the telco guys here for months, in a town of a few hundred people. Just up the road is a town of 6000 people, but no public funds were applied for for this town. NO DSL in that town. They're all served by Qwest. Still no plans to put in DSL in said town of 6000 people, either. Heck, they've got remote DSLAM's to serve 20 and 50 customers spread across the countryside out in the boonies... In the area were loans were approved to provide broadband The reason Form 477 should be filed is that its not meant for public eyes. Its meant for the FCC, so they can make intelligent decission with that inforamtion, to foster growth in the industry for consumers benefit. The FCC already knows WISPs are a major player now in theory. But they need proof to backup opinion. Form 477 helps provide that. But if we look at this differently, the data becomes a snapshot of growth. Ready-made demographics and marketing research, all done by each of us, spending big bucks to do real life marketing, which, if it ends up being publicly available, provides a road map to every Cableco and ILEC and CLEC to show them right where they need to go. They're too big to see life on the ground, but that information, once accumulated for a 2 or more years becomes a great roadmap that analyists can use with incredible efficiency to tell them exactly where we've cultivated markets and for them to move in on... There is not a viable compromise on this issue. We need the FCC to have this information, and we need the info to be held in confidence. The Law and Fines are irrelevent as the goal is NOT to not file. The goal is to support confidentiality. RIght... the question is: Why should having a dumb pipe delivering bits to customers make me required to risk my information in the first place? It may seem against our interests, but I really think we should be on the offensive against CPI on this in terms of It's not really a federal case... The nation's future does not revolve around you or anyone else knowing this. Mark -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI
My sentiments exactly! Excellent initiative Forbes. 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: Friday, January 26, 2007 1:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI Excellent job. Forbes, you are to be commended for going directly to the source to register your opinion personally and to get the skinny. Beats the heck out of a continued speculative thread with much rumor, angst, and anger, but no action. Taking personal initiative like that is how real change begins. Thank you for your effort. 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 Forbes Mercy Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI So I was a bit curious as to who this Center for Public Integrity (CPI) was and who funded them and what their intent was. I looked them up and gave the guy a call that is in charge of the lawsuit for CPI against the FCC. We had a long chat and he referred me to their website and what they are trying to do: http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/ Basically, according to the director of this project, they are trying to mirror the other media provider information by providing a list by zip code of who gives service in an area. We discussed how inaccurate the list is for say cable where my town supposedly has five cable providers when in fact we have two and only one by the zip code I searched. I then asked if that is all the information they want from the FCC Form 477. He said Yes all we really want is the provider name. So I asked why his FOI and lawsuit states ALL data provided in the Form 477. I explained that our competition already has enough of an advantage but if they had their hands on the number of customers, their speeds, etc. by zip code they would know where to spend money to go after us specifically. Essentially telling our competition everything about us without even the tease of an offer to by protected by an non disclosure agreement (NDA). I think even Telco and Cable agree with us on this potential which is why they have joined with the FCC opposing the full disclosure request. His answer (CPI) was that they don't expect to get the whole database and in the end will likely compromise for just the names. I told him I have no problem giving my name or having the FCC do that but why ask for everything, I said, it demonstrates intent to disclose so much more that could damage us. He said he knows that but it was their decision to start there and work back to what they want. I explained how when you negotiate you don't ask for, let's say buying a car, for $2000 off when you only want $500 off. By doing so the salesman, in this case the FCC, has no motivation to work with you because you made an unreasonable request. Why not just file the Freedom of Information (FOI) request for just the provider names? He said, it's nice to hear a grass roots provider view but we felt this was the best bargaining method. He made clear they are not funded by a Corporation and are certainly not trying to help anyone but consumers. I see one of two motivations for this: 1) They are being pushed by their attorney to go too far which sounds about right for a lawyer who knows he/they will get a lot more money for drawing out negotiations when he could just make a reasonable request or, 2) CPI feels they will get more donors and media attention by being able to make the claim they are trying to protect the public in a big media splash saying we just want their names while really asking for the whole cake. They are a DC organization so you can never really trust their intent. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. www.wabroadband.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 -- 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).
Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:15:04 -0800, Forbes Mercy wrote So I was a bit curious as to who this Center for Public Integrity (CPI) was and who funded them and what their intent was. I looked them up and gave the guy a call that is in charge of the lawsuit for CPI against the FCC. We had a long chat and he referred me to their website and what they are trying to do: http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/ Basically, according to the director of this project, they are trying to mirror the other media provider information by providing a list by zip code of who gives service in an area. We discussed how inaccurate the list is for say cable where my town supposedly has five cable providers when in fact we have two and only one by the zip code I searched. I then asked if that is all the information they want from the FCC Form 477. He said Yes all we really want is the provider name. So I asked why his FOI and lawsuit states ALL data provided in the Form 477. I explained that our competition already has enough of an advantage but if they had their hands on the number of customers, their speeds, etc. by zip code they would know where to spend money to go after us specifically. Essentially telling our competition everything about us without even the tease of an offer to by protected by an non disclosure agreement (NDA). I think even Telco and Cable agree with us on this potential which is why they have joined with the FCC opposing the full disclosure request. His answer (CPI) was that they don't expect to get the whole database and in the end will likely compromise for just the names. I told him I have no problem giving my name or having the FCC do that but why ask for everything, I said, it demonstrates intent to disclose so much more that could damage us. He said he knows that but it was their decision to start there and work back to what they want. I explained how when you negotiate you don't ask for, let's say buying a car, for $2000 off when you only want $500 off. By doing so the salesman, in this case the FCC, has no motivation to work with you because you made an unreasonable request. Why not just file the Freedom of Information (FOI) request for just the provider names? He said, it's nice to hear a grass roots provider view but we felt this was the best bargaining method. He made clear they are not funded by a Corporation and are certainly not trying to help anyone but consumers. I see one of two motivations for this: 1) They are being pushed by their attorney to go too far which sounds about right for a lawyer who knows he/they will get a lot more money for drawing out negotiations when he could just make a reasonable request or, 2) CPI feels they will get more donors and media attention by being able to make the claim they are trying to protect the public in a big media splash saying we just want their names while really asking for the whole cake. They are a DC organization so you can never really trust their intent. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. www.wabroadband.com I tried emailing them, but they don't respond to emails that say I don't like what you're trying to do, why are you doing this? It's harder to turn away a phone call, I guess. Did you suggest to any of them that they ask US for information or try negotiating with trade groups for info? Mark -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi
You know a paper like the Wall Street Journal is more interested in who 'ripped off the public' or 'got lucky' so someone could get rich then someone who actually worked for what they got. I submitted an article once about the 'write-off Billionaires of Seattle' showing the huge losses by Charter and Clearwire. I demonstrated the negative cash flow that showed both a deception to the stock buyers/investors but the inability to support payments by their lack of income and how 'showing a profit' is simply shuffling your debt into a different category. Not even a 'drop dead' from them, or a 'thanks for the heads up'. That is why I think us honest businessmen have such a hard time understanding how people's idea of making money is not hard work but how easily they can rip off someone for a big score. Maybe they just think bigger then us and feel fully justified in what they do but anyone who has to lobby congress to get special treatment because what they are doing is not in the public's interest has my suspicion especially when it gets the praise of the WSJ who loves a good scam when they see it. Equal reporting or Media Integrity is an oxymoron. Forbes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi I'm merely pointing out that all is not wine and roses in the muni market. Yet, for some strange reason, we never hear about the problems. The Wall Street Journal had a write-up about the Grant Co. network out here. Did they print ONE word when the state auditor caught them giving over $1,000,000 in cash and labor to one of my competitors? Did they write up anything about the big companies that never did pay hundreds (yes hundreds, more than a couple) of thousands in bills? Has anyone wrote one peep about the fact that the network still spends millions per year more than it's generating? Nope, not a word. Not one single word. A little bit has made it into the local press but that's it. Nothing that *I've* seen even on a regional scale. But you'll see plenty about Google, Yahoo, and MS building data centers out here. Whoopee. 5000 computers and I'll bet 5 technicians. The dirty little secret there is that the PUD gave them $.01 (yeah, that's right ONE PENNY) per kwh power rate. So the electric rate payers are putting in a network BELOW cost to them (MS said build it for $x or we'll just do it ourselves, guess fiber availability wasn't really the issue to MS was it?), AND the loose money every month on the network AND the electricity. Boy, is there a lot of great talk, press and excited people around about it though! Look, fiber is great. People out here have the network with the capacity that will have been needed in 10 to 15 years. The problem is, it costs too much to do it first. And, as that article pointed out, things change far too fast for government. I know that people out here felt about the electric dams like I feel about the fiber project. Well, kinda. To me the dams make a ton of sense. So does broadband! A hybrid network would have been MUCH more cost effective though. Think about what technologies do what things the best? I love the way that these people talk We built a fiber network to monitor and manage our electrical systems, we're just using some excess capacity for the good of the community. OK, I can live with that. But did anyone see what happened to many of the transmission towers, poles etc. out in the mid west? Did you guys see the pics that Matt Larson tossed out for folks to see? What good is that fiber network to anyone when it's all mangled on the ground? And just HOW much data is needed to manage a substation or 20? Those used to be all taken care of by RF links. Surely that could still be done today and they'd have LESS risk of LARGE outages with wireless than with fiber. AND RF systems are cheap compared to stringing fiber over any distance. Even if you already have the poles etc. So what's the real reason for all that fiber? I suggest that it's NOT about electric system monitoring. That's just a convenient, public palatable, excuse. What should be done, out here or in the big cities, is a hybrid network. Use the best technology for the specific customers you are looking to hit. CATV or Sat. TV is GREAT for streaming video or audio to people. Heck, I'll bet you it's cheaper to broadcast TV over open air than it is to build a fiber network for the same thing... grin Light data and voice work great over wireless. Big data pipes are naturals for fiber. The ultimate network for me would be one that seamlessly combines sat tv with my broadband. But so far, none of the sat companies are interested in talking. It's too bad, we could install sat tv AND wireless or fiber all at the same time.
Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
They have made billions by serving billions of customers. Walmart and McDonalds only work on scale -- huge scale. Lexus and Bose are not mass market. And neither are many of you on this list. In the DSL arena, the combined 300 ISPs selling in BellSouth territory in its hey-day never had more than 3% marketshare. Today, they have less than 1%. So you are not going to be Walmart. You CAN be Nordstroms. You can be Bose. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. Sam Tetherow wrote: As a slightly off-topic aside: (those that don't want to listen to my ramblings can safely stop here :) You look at brands like Lexus and Bose and think, these are the people I need to be like. These companies have made millionaires. But what I find interesting is that companies like Walmart and McDonalds who do live in the quantity, not quality world have made billionaires. The trick seems to be, if you can somehow manages to be the cheapest and do it right you can make a boat load of money and it doesn't have to be at the expense of the customer. Sam Tetherow Sandhills 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] Service Offerings - Competing
I understand that I don't have the market to be a Walmart, it was just a general observation (and hence tagged as off topic). Kind of like noting that Warren Buffet, who is considered one of the top investers in the nation, made his billions in the market but refuses to deal with tech stocks, but the one person in the US who is richer than him is Bill Gates who made his billions exclusively in the tech market. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: They have made billions by serving billions of customers. Walmart and McDonalds only work on scale -- huge scale. Lexus and Bose are not mass market. And neither are many of you on this list. In the DSL arena, the combined 300 ISPs selling in BellSouth territory in its hey-day never had more than 3% marketshare. Today, they have less than 1%. So you are not going to be Walmart. You CAN be Nordstroms. You can be Bose. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. Sam Tetherow wrote: As a slightly off-topic aside: (those that don't want to listen to my ramblings can safely stop here :) You look at brands like Lexus and Bose and think, these are the people I need to be like. These companies have made millionaires. But what I find interesting is that companies like Walmart and McDonalds who do live in the quantity, not quality world have made billionaires. The trick seems to be, if you can somehow manages to be the cheapest and do it right you can make a boat load of money and it doesn't have to be at the expense of the customer. Sam Tetherow Sandhills 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] Form FCC477 - I called CPI
It doesn;t matter what their intent is. Them winning will set a presidence, making it easier for others that may have mal-intent. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Forbes Mercy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 1:15 PM Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI So I was a bit curious as to who this Center for Public Integrity (CPI) was and who funded them and what their intent was. I looked them up and gave the guy a call that is in charge of the lawsuit for CPI against the FCC. We had a long chat and he referred me to their website and what they are trying to do: http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/ Basically, according to the director of this project, they are trying to mirror the other media provider information by providing a list by zip code of who gives service in an area. We discussed how inaccurate the list is for say cable where my town supposedly has five cable providers when in fact we have two and only one by the zip code I searched. I then asked if that is all the information they want from the FCC Form 477. He said Yes all we really want is the provider name. So I asked why his FOI and lawsuit states ALL data provided in the Form 477. I explained that our competition already has enough of an advantage but if they had their hands on the number of customers, their speeds, etc. by zip code they would know where to spend money to go after us specifically. Essentially telling our competition everything about us without even the tease of an offer to by protected by an non disclosure agreement (NDA). I think even Telco and Cable agree with us on this potential which is why they have joined with the FCC opposing the full disclosure request. His answer (CPI) was that they don't expect to get the whole database and in the end will likely compromise for just the names. I told him I have no problem giving my name or having the FCC do that but why ask for everything, I said, it demonstrates intent to disclose so much more that could damage us. He said he knows that but it was their decision to start there and work back to what they want. I explained how when you negotiate you don't ask for, let's say buying a car, for $2000 off when you only want $500 off. By doing so the salesman, in this case the FCC, has no motivation to work with you because you made an unreasonable request. Why not just file the Freedom of Information (FOI) request for just the provider names? He said, it's nice to hear a grass roots provider view but we felt this was the best bargaining method. He made clear they are not funded by a Corporation and are certainly not trying to help anyone but consumers. I see one of two motivations for this: 1) They are being pushed by their attorney to go too far which sounds about right for a lawyer who knows he/they will get a lot more money for drawing out negotiations when he could just make a reasonable request or, 2) CPI feels they will get more donors and media attention by being able to make the claim they are trying to protect the public in a big media splash saying we just want their names while really asking for the whole cake. They are a DC organization so you can never really trust their intent. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. www.wabroadband.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 -- 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] Service Offerings - Competing
Sam Tetherow wrote: Some of us operate in the well under 10,000 people areas where 'finding a higher ARPU customer' is not really a viable option. We have to be all things in order to have enough customers to pay the bills. This is how my market is, the biggest customer would be the hospital and then the next would be the local real estate office. Other than City Hall. Actually the biggest buyer of phone services is me. Not a lot of cherries to pick and we take em green just to stay in business. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
