Re: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems -- SIP / IAX over the Internet

2007-02-06 Thread Peter R.
If you are going to offer Businesses VOIP service, try to build a better 
service than Vonage.


I'm on calls all day with people on Vonage or home-grown VOIP that 
terminate calls via the Internet.

99% of those calls sound like a below average cell phone call.
Jitter and latency beat up the conversation.
Most often, the caller will have no idea that the call quality is less 
than desirable, but to the person on the other end, there are missed 
words, etc.

If you are selling cheap voice, that's fine.
However, most businesses need to have a quality voice service.

There are different levels of VOIP.
1. VOIP inside the office but TDM after the PBX.
2. Hosted VOIP inside the office, but TDM after the PBX - all traffic to 
PBX is on-net (off the Internet).

3. VOIP from phone to phone over the Internet

The last one usually has bad call quality.

I know it costs more to do TDM trunking for LD or to use VOIP Peering 
instead of Internet termination, but if you sell Business Voice service, 
sell a TDM equivalent service.


Why do you think so many national services, like Smoothstone and Cbeyond 
(18k and 29k customers respectively), use MPLS service and provide the 
transit for end-to-end call quality?


At VOIP 2.0, QOS and HD VOIP were hot topics. People are ready for 
something better than Vonage. And businesses are willing to pay for it.


Your business name (brand and reputation) will be linked to any services 
you offer.


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc.
(813) 963-5884


Don Annas wrote:


The SPA942 is a great phone for the money (not quite as nice as the Polycom
501 which isn't much more $.  Regardless of which you use, an Asterisk PBX
is the easiest and best solution for a system that size.  Not only can
connect your SIP handsets and 4 analog sets, you can build an IAX or SIP
trunk to a provider such as Triad Telecom for SIP origination and
termination.  Let me know if you need any help.

- Don

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ryan Spott
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

Sorry to be off topic here folks, but I trust all but one of you. :)

I am looking for a small office VoIP phone system. It needs to support 
at least 4 Analog (outside) phone lines and at least 16 or so SIP based 
phones. Most of the Phones will be on a LAN in the building with about 4 
phones off-site.


I was looking at the LInksys SPA9000 coupled with the SPA400 to do this 
but I am always leery of Linksys stuff.


Can any of you lead me in the right direction? Off list is fine and I 
can put together some synopsis when I get everyones info.


thanks!

ryan
 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Tele-Health Grants

2007-02-06 Thread Peter R.
Certainly, licensed wireless links and managed firewall delivered by 
your team would be cheaper to deliver; faster to deploy; and just as 
reliable as fiber?


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc.


John Scrivner wrote:

I am afraid they will just build fiber business plans and not give 
wireless a second thought. Why should they consider wireless if they 
can get fiber for virtually free? Like I said...Gr.

Scriv


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

2007-02-06 Thread Jory Privett
I use TrixBox all the time.  Lots of features and is easy to setup.  I also 
recommend the GrandStream GXP-2000 Phones.  The Trixbox endpoint manager 
works well with them.


Jory Privett
WCCS

- Original Message - 
From: C. Moses [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems



WWW.TRIXBOX.ORG

IS WORHT A LOOK

Chuck Moses
HIGH DESERT WIRELESS BROADBAND COMMUNICATION
16922 Airport Blvd # 17
Mojave CA 93501
661 824 3431 office
818 406 6818 cell


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Don Annas
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

The SPA942 is a great phone for the money (not quite as nice as the 
Polycom

501 which isn't much more $.  Regardless of which you use, an Asterisk PBX
is the easiest and best solution for a system that size.  Not only can
connect your SIP handsets and 4 analog sets, you can build an IAX or SIP
trunk to a provider such as Triad Telecom for SIP origination and
termination.  Let me know if you need any help.

- Don

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ryan Spott
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

Sorry to be off topic here folks, but I trust all but one of you. :)

I am looking for a small office VoIP phone system. It needs to support
at least 4 Analog (outside) phone lines and at least 16 or so SIP based
phones. Most of the Phones will be on a LAN in the building with about 4
phones off-site.

I was looking at the LInksys SPA9000 coupled with the SPA400 to do this
but I am always leery of Linksys stuff.

Can any of you lead me in the right direction? Off list is fine and I
can put together some synopsis when I get everyones info.

thanks!

ryan
--
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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 2/1/2007


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.25/669 - Release Date: 2/4/2007



--
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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Tropos Networks signed its 500th customer

2007-02-06 Thread Peter R.

http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/21521.html

Tropos Networks signed its 500^th customer - a milestone in the muni 
wireless-mesh-growth battle in which Tropos is battling Cisco for the 
Number One market position.


Win Number 500 is Las Vegas, N.M. - a city of about 15,000 (gee, a 
single hotel in Las Vegas, Nev., can hold that many) in the foothills of 
the gorgeous Sangre de Christo mountains. The N.M. mesh is being ordered 
only for public-safety use at this time. That's fairly usual, but such 
installations typically don't make the big headlines that public- access 
muni networks get.


Tropos heralds the win as the capstone to a year in which its node 
shipments grew by more than 120 percent, comparing the last quarter of 
2006 to the quarter a year earlier. The year 2006 also saw 200 new 
customers out of the 500 total, Tropos adds. The company is predicting 
higher growth this year, in nodes if not total contracts, as it works on 
the major Philadelphia and Anaheim muni networks, for which it's the 
supplier. The company also is widely expected to nail down the contract 
for Atlanta, where EarthLink recently won the nod for a city franchise 
(/TelecomWeb news break/, Jan. 26); Tropos has partnered with EarthLink 
on a string of public access municipal deployments.


The company, citing studies that the number of planned but 
not-yet-deployed municipal Wi-Fi networks grew from 59 in February 2006 
to 135 in September 2006, now says it expects the overall muni mesh 
market to double in 2007, although the company stopped short of 
predicting it would see that kind of growth for itself.


Tropos registered significant growth and completed important 
deployments in 2006, says Ron Sege, president and CEO. We completed 
large, very sophisticated multi-user deployments, such as Corpus 
Christi, and demonstrated that citywide networks could be rolled out 
quickly, completing a 23-square-mile system for Kite Networks in 
Longmont, Colo., in less than 12 weeks.


The company also made public network-utilization statistics from its 
public-access muni meshes. In a 10-to-15-sq.-mi. city, Tropos typically 
sees between 20-percent and 25- percent household penetration. It calls 
that level on par with DSL plus cable broadband penetration. In a mesh 
of that size, the company typically sees 1,550 steady daily users and an 
average of 2,640 users per week.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

2007-02-06 Thread Don Annas
That's the one.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of C. Moses
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:49 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

WWW.TRIXBOX.ORG

IS WORHT A LOOK

Chuck Moses 
HIGH DESERT WIRELESS BROADBAND COMMUNICATION 
16922 Airport Blvd # 17
Mojave CA 93501 
661 824 3431 office
818 406 6818 cell 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Don Annas
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

The SPA942 is a great phone for the money (not quite as nice as the Polycom
501 which isn't much more $.  Regardless of which you use, an Asterisk PBX
is the easiest and best solution for a system that size.  Not only can
connect your SIP handsets and 4 analog sets, you can build an IAX or SIP
trunk to a provider such as Triad Telecom for SIP origination and
termination.  Let me know if you need any help.

- Don

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ryan Spott
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

Sorry to be off topic here folks, but I trust all but one of you. :)

I am looking for a small office VoIP phone system. It needs to support 
at least 4 Analog (outside) phone lines and at least 16 or so SIP based 
phones. Most of the Phones will be on a LAN in the building with about 4 
phones off-site.

I was looking at the LInksys SPA9000 coupled with the SPA400 to do this 
but I am always leery of Linksys stuff.

Can any of you lead me in the right direction? Off list is fine and I 
can put together some synopsis when I get everyones info.

thanks!

ryan
-- 
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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 2/1/2007
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.25/669 - Release Date: 2/4/2007
 


-- 
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/

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.25/669 - Release Date: 2/4/2007
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.27/671 - Release Date: 2/5/2007
 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems -- SIP / IAX overthe Internet

2007-02-06 Thread Don Annas
If you are looking for business class SIP or IAX VoIP services, please feel
free to call us.  We trunk directly to Level 3 communications for
origination/termination and offer tier 1 business class service to many
ITSPs and enterprise clients throughout most of the US.

www.TriadTelecom.com or 336.510.3800 x111 for me

- Don

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems -- SIP / IAX
overthe Internet

If you are going to offer Businesses VOIP service, try to build a better 
service than Vonage.

I'm on calls all day with people on Vonage or home-grown VOIP that 
terminate calls via the Internet.
99% of those calls sound like a below average cell phone call.
Jitter and latency beat up the conversation.
Most often, the caller will have no idea that the call quality is less 
than desirable, but to the person on the other end, there are missed 
words, etc.
If you are selling cheap voice, that's fine.
However, most businesses need to have a quality voice service.

There are different levels of VOIP.
1. VOIP inside the office but TDM after the PBX.
2. Hosted VOIP inside the office, but TDM after the PBX - all traffic to 
PBX is on-net (off the Internet).
3. VOIP from phone to phone over the Internet

The last one usually has bad call quality.

I know it costs more to do TDM trunking for LD or to use VOIP Peering 
instead of Internet termination, but if you sell Business Voice service, 
sell a TDM equivalent service.

Why do you think so many national services, like Smoothstone and Cbeyond 
(18k and 29k customers respectively), use MPLS service and provide the 
transit for end-to-end call quality?

At VOIP 2.0, QOS and HD VOIP were hot topics. People are ready for 
something better than Vonage. And businesses are willing to pay for it.

Your business name (brand and reputation) will be linked to any services 
you offer.

Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc.
(813) 963-5884


Don Annas wrote:

The SPA942 is a great phone for the money (not quite as nice as the Polycom
501 which isn't much more $.  Regardless of which you use, an Asterisk PBX
is the easiest and best solution for a system that size.  Not only can
connect your SIP handsets and 4 analog sets, you can build an IAX or SIP
trunk to a provider such as Triad Telecom for SIP origination and
termination.  Let me know if you need any help.

- Don

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ryan Spott
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

Sorry to be off topic here folks, but I trust all but one of you. :)

I am looking for a small office VoIP phone system. It needs to support 
at least 4 Analog (outside) phone lines and at least 16 or so SIP based 
phones. Most of the Phones will be on a LAN in the building with about 4 
phones off-site.

I was looking at the LInksys SPA9000 coupled with the SPA400 to do this 
but I am always leery of Linksys stuff.

Can any of you lead me in the right direction? Off list is fine and I 
can put together some synopsis when I get everyones info.

thanks!

ryan
  


-- 
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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.27/671 - Release Date: 2/5/2007
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.27/671 - Release Date: 2/5/2007
 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] St. Louis

2007-02-06 Thread Matt Liotta
We are looking for some local people to work with in St. Louis. 
Preferably, it would be an existing WISP, but local contractors would be 
acceptable as well. Let me know if anyone is in that area.


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Please Welcome Our Newest WISPA Principle Member

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
At this time I would like to welcome all of you to WISPA's newest 
Principle Member - Dave Brenton of Rural Tennessee Wireless Broadband. 
Principle Membership in WISPA generally requires that a WISP already 
have an operation running but from this guy's excitement I am sure he 
will be running full steam ahead in a short time. Welcome to the group 
Dave. I have included an introduction from Dave himself below:


Fellow WISPAs, (or should that be WISPers? grin)

My Name is Dave Brenton, and I'm General Manager
of Rural Tennessee Wireless Broadband, LLC.

I had the privilege of meeting some of you at Fall ISPCON
in Santa Clara CA a few months ago, and I must say
that I was *very* impressed. The depth of knowledge 
of the Industry, and the warm welcome I was shown,

has made me more certain than ever we have
made the right decision to enter this business.

Our firm is a NEW startup ISP, with plans to go
operational on or about April 1, 2007. 
We will be Wireless Only, with possible 
dialup provisions as an emergency fall-back.


My life experience has revolved around electronics
and technology since I was a kid. I grew up around 
2 way radio, and eventually became a proud 
computer-head. My professional career spans

over 30 years around microprocessors and
Space Radios. I was doing signal processing
with 1 Mhz microcontrollers for the end users
like JPL and Goddard Space Flight Systems, 
before DPS chips were even close to reality.


Since I have a good deal of Tech Savvy but NO
hands-on ISP experience, I am hoping for as
much help and guidance from the group as 
you a willing to give.


Our plan is aggressive, shooting for more than 1000 
connected users within our first 18 months of operation.  
Our location in north-middle Tennessee is very rural and 
poorly served by the ILECs and Cable Cos. Within this 
county there are more than 3000 households whose only 
option for internet is Dial-up, and.or VSAT.


Within a 25 mile radius there are on the order of another 
10,000 underserved households.


Other than the staggering costs associated with the 
build-out phase of operation, we believe that the

outlook for the project is very pleasing indeed.

I look forward to many conversations with WISPA
members, and hope to be able in time to share my
experience and knowledge back to the group.

Best Wishes to all of you!

Dave Brenton

General Manager
Rural Tennessee Wireless Broadband
Bringing FAST Internet to the rest of us (sm)
Dover TN
(931) 232-0914 office
(931) 627-1142 cell


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. 

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

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 Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
 
 Jack:
 
 Consider...
 
 To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll

 stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
is 
 the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been 
 steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels 
 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels 
 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful 
 terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power  
 license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do

 the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they  
 are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much

 on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space

 may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
 sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
 decade or so).
 
 Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as  
 advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast  
 spectrum.
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Steve
 
 
 
 On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:
 
 Likelihood of unlicensed???

 My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
 broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
 space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
 effectively.

 -- 
 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
 
 
 
 ---
 
 Steve Stroh
 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com
 
 
 
 

-- 
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/





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(43).











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] St. Louis

2007-02-06 Thread Rick Harnish
Try Mike Delp with Wisper.  Victoria Proffer was a member of this list, but
I haven't seen her for awhile.  Both are old timers and well respected in
the industry.  Mike's email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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 Matt Liotta
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:57 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] St. Louis

We are looking for some local people to work with in St. Louis. 
Preferably, it would be an existing WISP, but local contractors would be 
acceptable as well. Let me know if anyone is in that area.

-Matt
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying in the TV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
As I was saying, the FCC is getting a bit edgy about WISPs deciding for
themselves what rules are important. I believe they were set off in this
case (or made to respond) because former FCC policy chief, Robert Canary
(now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
are not obligated to file Form 477.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: S.Y.W.S.S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:11 AM
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com
Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs...

This just in from the FCC.

Apparently the WISP community is discussing both obligations under CALEA
and obligations to file FCC Form 477.  I am in the Commission's Wireline
Competition Bureau and what I know about is the FCC Form 477.  CALEA
matters are handled by the Commission's Public Safety  Homeland
Security Bureau.  That Bureau's website is http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/ and
they have a page about CALEA at http://www.fcc.gov/calea/, which lists
the FCC staff working on CALEA matters and their phone numbers and
provides general information about CALEA.  

As required by law, FCC Form 477 has been reviewed and approved by the
President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  The Commission's
legal right to ask for the information in FCC Form 477 is set out in the
last section (at pages 16-17) of the FCC Form 477 Instructions at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477instr.pdf.  

As I wrote to you yesterday, the definition of facilities-based for
the purposes of FCC Form 477 -- and I emphasize, for the specific
purposes of FCC Form 477 -- includes the following (see the next-to-last
paragraph on page 1 of the FCC Form 477 Instructions):  

For the purposes of Form 477, an entity is a 'facilities-based'
provider of broadband connections to end user locations if it . . .
provisions/equips a broadband wireless channel to the end user location
over . . . unlicensed spectrum.

- Original Message - 
From: Robert Canary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs...


 Yes we have read all that, and it still brings us back to square one.
 
 You still have not answered the question.  In stead your going back to

 the FCC and asking them again.
 
 Show us were the FCC can change a congressional decision to declare a 
 facility based operator as any term that meets their agenda.  The 
 mandates in question specifically reference the Telco Act. and within 
 that Telco Act reference, it specifically defines a facility-based 
 provider.  The color of law does not give way to the FCC wishing to 
 consider all entities as a facility-based provider simply because they

 want to do so, or because it will make everyones life easier.
 
 The question on the table still remains unanswered.  Where and when
did 
 congress redefine the term facility-based provider?
 
 The answer:  They have not.
 
 Thus I can still only conclude there is no requirement for a WISP to 
 hand over sensitive marketing material.
 
 I challenge the same lawyer (or any for that matter) to produce it. 
 Show us where congress has changed the definition.
 
 I like your post its a good summary.
 
 BTW, Interesting acronym on the signature...
 
 S.Y.W.S.S. wrote:
 OK, here is what I received from the FCC today about facilities based
 and being required to file form 477
 
 Now, about your questions.  First, on the general question of whether
 WISPs are required to file FCC Form 477, I believe that various WISP
 list-serve discussions chewed this over at length about a year ago,
that
 at least one WISP association had their attorney look at the issue,
and
 that he informed the WISP association that WISPs are, indeed,
required
 to file FCC Form 477.
 
 (1) Do you have ANY paying customers for a broadband Internet-access
 service that you offer for sale to the general public?  (Here,
 broadband means that the customer is paying for a service that
 delivers information to him, from the Internet, at speeds faster than
 200 kbps.  From the page at website-address here it
 appears you offer several residential grade and several business
 grade Internet-access services that the customer can reasonably
expect
 to be faster than 200 kbps.)
 
 (2) If you do have any such paying customers, are ANY of the
broadband
 Internet-access connections to those customers delivered -- at the
point
 the connection reaches the customer's home or business location, and
 ignoring any aspect of necessary backhaul arrangements -- over
 unlicensed spectrum using network-side antenna equipment that your
 company owns?
 
 The Form 477 Instructions (at p. 1 and also at p. 15) are quite
 specific:
 For the purposes of Form 477, an entity is a 'facilities-based'
 provider of broadband connections to end user locations 

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Dawn DiPietro

All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look 
bad.

Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. 


The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

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 Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
 


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll
   



 


stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
   

is 
 

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been 
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels 
70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels 
52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful 
terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power  
license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do
   



 

the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they  
are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much
   



 


on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space
   



 

may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
decade or so).


Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as  
advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast  
spectrum.



Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

   


Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
effectively.


--
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
 



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.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] Tele-Health Grants

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
As I have stated before, the health care providers in this area have it 
in their minds (and their policy manuals) that wireless of any kind will 
not be suitable for their needs, period. It has nothing to do with 
technical reality. It has to do with perception and corporate policy. 
Basically health care interests here are not just saying no, they are 
saying hell no. It is a hard sell for me at this point and the only 
vendor who has supplied me with any backup is one I do not even buy 
from, Bridgewave. They sent me technical DOCs, testimonials, etc. from 
health care interests. I passed it along to the health care providers in 
this area and you could hear crickets, right before the next hell no. 
This is frustrating to say the least. If Alvarion or anyone else wants 
to help me I am sure I would take the help. It is in all your best 
interests since I am not the only wireless provider effected by this 
black-balling of our industry by health care interests in my region.

Scriv


Peter R. wrote:

Certainly, licensed wireless links and managed firewall delivered by 
your team would be cheaper to deliver; faster to deploy; and just as 
reliable as fiber?


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc.


John Scrivner wrote:

I am afraid they will just build fiber business plans and not give 
wireless a second thought. Why should they consider wireless if they 
can get fiber for virtually free? Like I said...Gr.

Scriv




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying in the TV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread George Rogato

Patrick Leary wrote:
 because former FCC policy chief, Robert Canary

(now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
are not obligated to file Form 477.


You sure?

I thought Robert Canary was a long time wisp?


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Tele-Health Grants

2007-02-06 Thread George Rogato
I believe you John that they are scared of wireless and are shunning 
wireless.


But I can't help but think that every hospital I go in has lots of wireless.
I was up in Oregon Health Sciences and they must have had a cisco ap 
every 30' of cieling space.




John Scrivner wrote:
As I have stated before, the health care providers in this area have it 
in their minds (and their policy manuals) that wireless of any kind will 
not be suitable for their needs, period. It has nothing to do with 
technical reality. It has to do with perception and corporate policy. 
Basically health care interests here are not just saying no, they are 
saying hell no. It is a hard sell for me at this point and the only 
vendor who has supplied me with any backup is one I do not even buy 
from, Bridgewave. They sent me technical DOCs, testimonials, etc. from 
health care interests. I passed it along to the health care providers in 
this area and you could hear crickets, right before the next hell no. 
This is frustrating to say the least. If Alvarion or anyone else wants 
to help me I am sure I would take the help. It is in all your best 
interests since I am not the only wireless provider effected by this 
black-balling of our industry by health care interests in my region.

Scriv






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Mario Pommier

can you elaborate on HAD offers ...  please?
Thanks.

Mario

Steve Stroh wrote:


You've HAD offers that have been refused...


Thanks,

Steve


On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:10 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

WISPA has been working on this for a couple of years now.  
Independently and with Cisco, New America, Media Access Project and 
I've recently had talks with the 802.22 (ieee white spaces standards 
group) folks.


As always, we need more bodies to go a better job.

laters,
marlon



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com




--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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for an 
illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?


laters,
Marlon
(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



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

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 Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll



stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner

is

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels
70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels
52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful
terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power
license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do



the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they
are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much



on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space



may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another
decade or so).

Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as
advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast
spectrum.


Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:


Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most
effectively.

--
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




---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com






--
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/





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(43).

Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying in the TV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Patrick,

If I am not mistaken I think you meant Robert Pepper.
Please correct me if I am wrong. It has been known to happen once or 
twice. ;-)


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


George Rogato wrote:


Patrick Leary wrote:
 because former FCC policy chief, Robert Canary


(now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
are not obligated to file Form 477.



You sure?

I thought Robert Canary was a long time wisp?




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] St. Louis

2007-02-06 Thread W.D.McKinney
Of course, Scriv isn't to far from St. Louis either.

-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: Rick Harnish
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List'
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:13:25 -0900
Subject:
RE: [WISPA] St. Louis


 Try Mike Delp with Wisper.  Victoria Proffer was a member of this list, but
 I haven't seen her for awhile.  Both are old timers and well respected in
 the industry.  Mike's email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 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 Matt Liotta
 Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:57 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] St. Louis
 
 We are looking for some local people to work with in St. Louis. 
 Preferably, it would be an existing WISP, but local contractors would be 
 acceptable as well. Let me know if anyone is in that area.
 
 -Matt
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] St. Louis

2007-02-06 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

And John is close to there.  So is Butch Evans.

Marlon
(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



- Original Message - 
From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:13 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] St. Louis


Try Mike Delp with Wisper.  Victoria Proffer was a member of this list, 
but

I haven't seen her for awhile.  Both are old timers and well respected in
the industry.  Mike's email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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 Matt Liotta
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:57 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] St. Louis

We are looking for some local people to work with in St. Louis.
Preferably, it would be an existing WISP, but local contractors would be
acceptable as well. Let me know if anyone is in that area.

-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying in the TV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner

Patrick,
We have an ex-FCC guy telling people NOT to file form 477? What is going 
on? Why would this guy be saying such things? Can you give us some 
background on this guy and why he is doing this?

Scriv


As I was saying, the FCC is getting a bit edgy about WISPs deciding for
themselves what rules are important. I believe they were set off in this
case (or made to respond) because former FCC policy chief, Robert Canary
(now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
are not obligated to file Form 477.

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
Feel free to complain all you like. It is advocating breaking the rules 
which will lead to problems. I do not like some rules either but you 
have to follow the rules or face losing your right to be in business.

Scriv



Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry 
look bad.

Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the


usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

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 Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
 


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll
  



 


stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
  


is  

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been 
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  
Channels 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  
Channels 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  
powerful terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with 
low-power  license-exempt usage, it's quite another for 
communications use to do
  



 

the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears 
they  are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but 
very much
  



 


on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space
  



 

may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
decade or so).


Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about 
as  advocates for license-exempt use of white space television 
broadcast  spectrum.



Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

  


Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
effectively.


--
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




---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Mac Dearman
That is a very true statement Dawn and the reason why I wouldn't be against
paying something for the area or paying for using the spectrum. It would
make everyone accountable for what they do/how they maintain/adhere to the
agreement associated with the spectrum. This is the Golden Egg of wireless
and it is something (if it really happens) that all of us as ISPs should
police and protect. I wouldn't be against a HUGE fine for those who do not
utilize/abuse the spectrum as well.

Mac Dearman

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:26 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look 
bad.
Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:

I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. 

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

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 Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
  

Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll



  

stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner


is 
  

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been 
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels 
70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels 
52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful 
terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power  
license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do



  

the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they  
are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much



  

on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space



  

may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
decade or so).

Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as  
advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast  
spectrum.


Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:



Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
effectively.

-- 
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
  


---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com







  


-- 
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] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying inthe TV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread Frank Muto
Dr. Robert Pepper joined Cisco in July 2005 from the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) where most recently he had been Chief, Policy Development. 
...

www.pulver.com/consumertech/schedule_fjsc1133872246.html



Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA












- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying 
inthe TV whitespace thread)




Patrick,

If I am not mistaken I think you meant Robert Pepper.
Please correct me if I am wrong. It has been known to happen once or 
twice. ;-)


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


George Rogato wrote:


Patrick Leary wrote:
 because former FCC policy chief, Robert Canary


(now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
are not obligated to file Form 477.



You sure?

I thought Robert Canary was a long time wisp?




--
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] St. Louis

2007-02-06 Thread V Proffer

I am still here :-)
Just building away...
V. Proffer
314-974-5600
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - 
From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:13 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] St. Louis


Try Mike Delp with Wisper.  Victoria Proffer was a member of this list, 
but

I haven't seen her for awhile.  Both are old timers and well respected in
the industry.  Mike's email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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 Matt Liotta
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:57 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] St. Louis

We are looking for some local people to work with in St. Louis.
Preferably, it would be an existing WISP, but local contractors would be
acceptable as well. Let me know if anyone is in that area.

-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.24/592 - Release Date: 
12/18/2006 1:45 PM





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying inthe TV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
So who is Robert Canary then? Patrick, any idea? And how do you know 
that this particular person is being talked about in the FCC? What about 
the other quotes you were making? What is being said by who at the FCC? 
Who at the FCC is talking to you about these things? If you are hearing 
it third person then who at the FCC is talking to the third person? I 
appreciate you sharing what you have heard. I just want to know a little 
more about who is saying it.

Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:

Dr. Robert Pepper joined Cisco in July 2005 from the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) where most recently he had been Chief, 
Policy Development. ...

www.pulver.com/consumertech/schedule_fjsc1133872246.html



Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA












- Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just 
saying inthe TV whitespace thread)




Patrick,

If I am not mistaken I think you meant Robert Pepper.
Please correct me if I am wrong. It has been known to happen once or 
twice. ;-)


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


George Rogato wrote:


Patrick Leary wrote:
 because former FCC policy chief, Robert Canary


(now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
are not obligated to file Form 477.




You sure?

I thought Robert Canary was a long time wisp?




--
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] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves:

1. The FCC is not a baby sitter. 
2. Mature operators (and industries as a whole) follow the rules as a
matter of course and expected cost of business.
3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially
benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should
thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum.
4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain
about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc.

As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've certainly
been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs are
now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount to its
approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but one
rule: Don't exceed the power limitations. Everything else has become
fair game.

Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if not
actual, that abuse is reaching new levels:
 
- many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz to carry some
commercial traffic (Hey, there's excess capacity so what's the big deal,
right?...)
- use of STA's to commercially use spectrum is openly being advocated
(this is partially responsible for an over 6 month wait in STA filings)
- illegal vendors now operate in the clear with prominent U.S.
distribution (They must be legal if they have a store front and it only
hurts other vendors anyway...)
- build your own base station type Google ads are rampant

Call me an alarmist, but this accelerating trend is disturbing and such
attitudes easily even have the potential to infect safety issues (hey,
OSHA rules must not be that big a deal either).

We must all appreciate that many violating the rules do so out of
ignorance, but that as an excuse. Groups like WISPA should take firm
stands on subjects like this. You should strongly encourage compliance,
lead the way and educate. You should fight the ignorance that allows for
relativism and creative interpretation of the rules. You should also
not cave to the hard luck excuses that I'm a small guy and can't afford
to follow the rules. (Your response to such should be to point to
funding sources/advice or otherwise tell them that there is a minimum
cost to legally participate in this business and that following FCC
rules is a minimum expectation as responsible stewards of the public's
free spectrum.) And finally, WISPs should not treat knowingly illegal
operators as equals because in fact they are liabilities to you and the
industry at large.

And yes, of course I have skin in the game but that in no way alters
anything here or devalues my comments. If anything, as a legal vendor
with a long professional reputation of compliance and scores of legal
operator partners, and as an individual who has been beating this drum
for 7 years, it should only increase the weight of my comments.

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 Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:26 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look

bad.
Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:

I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. 

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

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 Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt
white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
  

Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll



  

stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner


is 
  

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been 

Re: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems -- SIP / IAX overthe Internet

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
It would be best if these direct advertisements were directed to the 
party requesting the information as opposed to being published straight 
to our list. Don has apologized and will move any further direct 
questions regarding VOIP services to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If anyone has 
direct information or questions to share regarding VOIP please consider 
signing up for this list at 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/VOIP. If anyone wishes to 
advertise directly to the WISPA lists then the only approved method is 
by joining as a Vendor Member through http://signup.wispa.org.

Thank you,
John Scrivner
President
WISPA


Don Annas wrote:


If you are looking for business class SIP or IAX VoIP services, please feel
free to call us.  We trunk directly to Level 3 communications for
origination/termination and offer tier 1 business class service to many
ITSPs and enterprise clients throughout most of the US.

www.TriadTelecom.com or 336.510.3800 x111 for me

- Don

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems -- SIP / IAX
overthe Internet

If you are going to offer Businesses VOIP service, try to build a better 
service than Vonage.


I'm on calls all day with people on Vonage or home-grown VOIP that 
terminate calls via the Internet.

99% of those calls sound like a below average cell phone call.
Jitter and latency beat up the conversation.
Most often, the caller will have no idea that the call quality is less 
than desirable, but to the person on the other end, there are missed 
words, etc.

If you are selling cheap voice, that's fine.
However, most businesses need to have a quality voice service.

There are different levels of VOIP.
1. VOIP inside the office but TDM after the PBX.
2. Hosted VOIP inside the office, but TDM after the PBX - all traffic to 
PBX is on-net (off the Internet).

3. VOIP from phone to phone over the Internet

The last one usually has bad call quality.

I know it costs more to do TDM trunking for LD or to use VOIP Peering 
instead of Internet termination, but if you sell Business Voice service, 
sell a TDM equivalent service.


Why do you think so many national services, like Smoothstone and Cbeyond 
(18k and 29k customers respectively), use MPLS service and provide the 
transit for end-to-end call quality?


At VOIP 2.0, QOS and HD VOIP were hot topics. People are ready for 
something better than Vonage. And businesses are willing to pay for it.


Your business name (brand and reputation) will be linked to any services 
you offer.


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc.
(813) 963-5884


Don Annas wrote:

 


The SPA942 is a great phone for the money (not quite as nice as the Polycom
501 which isn't much more $.  Regardless of which you use, an Asterisk PBX
is the easiest and best solution for a system that size.  Not only can
connect your SIP handsets and 4 analog sets, you can build an IAX or SIP
trunk to a provider such as Triad Telecom for SIP origination and
termination.  Let me know if you need any help.

- Don

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ryan Spott
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

Sorry to be off topic here folks, but I trust all but one of you. :)

I am looking for a small office VoIP phone system. It needs to support 
at least 4 Analog (outside) phone lines and at least 16 or so SIP based 
phones. Most of the Phones will be on a LAN in the building with about 4 
phones off-site.


I was looking at the LInksys SPA9000 coupled with the SPA400 to do this 
but I am always leery of Linksys stuff.


Can any of you lead me in the right direction? Off list is fine and I 
can put together some synopsis when I get everyones info.


thanks!

ryan


   



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] - Hello Group! - Can we talk towers?

2007-02-06 Thread Dave Brenton
Hello WISPA!

It's great to be aboard.

I have several questions about towers, but I'm going to 
try to hold it to TWO, starting out.

1) Does anyone on the list have experience with the FCC/FAA maze?
   Our Network Operations Center will be at the base of an 
   as-yet-to-be-constructed 300 foot Commercial Grade 
   Communications Tower.

   In attempting to get the FCC/FAA Permit(s) to place this 
   tower I've run into a Catch-22, or so it would seem.

  The FAA Forms want an FCC Registration Number, and of course
   the FCC Forms want an FAA Registration Number.

   So.   Who's on first?

I've searched and searched and cannot find a step-by-step or
flowchart explaining the procedure to get the permit process 
started, let alone completed.

Anyone with some experience with this matter will be 
a hero forever with me.

BTW to avoid the questions I explain right now that - -
NO we don't NEED a 300 Footer for our wireless coverage,
but... I live in the middle of Cell-Hell and I'm willing to
speculate the one or more of the Cell Providers in this 
area will Co-Locate once an actual structure is in place.
Also the extra altitude will make if practical to Back-Haul
bandwidth for many-many miles thus reducing our wire-line
costs to a minimum.

2) Who's brands of towers are ya'll using?
 I need some guidance for smaller towers
100-150 ft range, self supporting and guyed.

I have heard of some brands, but I also have concerns
about Wind Tolerance, since we are in an area that
does produce tornados from time to time.
I'd prefer to spend the money on a product that will
hold up and I'm not uncomfortable Climbing, IF I Must.

That's plenty for a first go.

Thanks loads,


Dave Brenton

General Manager
Rural Tennessee Wireless Broadband
Bringing FAST Internet to the rest of us (sm)
Dover TN
(931) 232-0914 office
(931) 627-1142 cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] - Hello Group! - Can we talk towers?

2007-02-06 Thread Forbes Mercy
Dave,

Not to rain on your parade but the cost of a Wireless tower should be around 
$5,000-$10,000, the cost of a Cell qualified tower $50,000 to $100,000 by the 
time you are finished.  Engineering is the biggest costs, foundations, wind 
loading, lighting, etc. etc.  Then you might get $2000 a month tops but I'm 
seeing more cell leases in the $1000 range which offers an awfully long ROI in 
return for a lot of money up front.  Oh and don't forget the required 
communications hut they will require (they won't want your building) that piles 
it on.   In your case it sounds like the FAA might want to get involved which 
means a public comment period and a whole lot of paperwork.

I chose to put up a 100 foot monopole, or I should say I have one laying on the 
ground waiting for the year's worth of permits and the excavation of an 
inverted T frame concrete foundation that was engineered 15 feet deep.   To 
think how much of this over $100K NOC I built that could have expanded my 
customer base with $700 wood poles and lots of AP's and CPE actually returning 
my income.  I know I'm not answering your question but all I'm saying is if you 
haven't gotten too far into this process it's a tall order and essentially a 
new business.

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Brenton
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] - Hello Group! - Can we talk towers?

Hello WISPA!

It's great to be aboard.

I have several questions about towers, but I'm going to 
try to hold it to TWO, starting out.

1) Does anyone on the list have experience with the FCC/FAA maze?
   Our Network Operations Center will be at the base of an 
   as-yet-to-be-constructed 300 foot Commercial Grade 
   Communications Tower.

   In attempting to get the FCC/FAA Permit(s) to place this 
   tower I've run into a Catch-22, or so it would seem.

  The FAA Forms want an FCC Registration Number, and of course
   the FCC Forms want an FAA Registration Number.

   So.   Who's on first?

I've searched and searched and cannot find a step-by-step or
flowchart explaining the procedure to get the permit process 
started, let alone completed.

Anyone with some experience with this matter will be 
a hero forever with me.

BTW to avoid the questions I explain right now that - -
NO we don't NEED a 300 Footer for our wireless coverage,
but... I live in the middle of Cell-Hell and I'm willing to
speculate the one or more of the Cell Providers in this 
area will Co-Locate once an actual structure is in place.
Also the extra altitude will make if practical to Back-Haul
bandwidth for many-many miles thus reducing our wire-line
costs to a minimum.

2) Who's brands of towers are ya'll using?
 I need some guidance for smaller towers
100-150 ft range, self supporting and guyed.

I have heard of some brands, but I also have concerns
about Wind Tolerance, since we are in an area that
does produce tornados from time to time.
I'd prefer to spend the money on a product that will
hold up and I'm not uncomfortable Climbing, IF I Must.

That's plenty for a first go.

Thanks loads,


Dave Brenton

General Manager
Rural Tennessee Wireless Broadband
Bringing FAST Internet to the rest of us (sm)
Dover TN
(931) 232-0914 office
(931) 627-1142 cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date: 2/6/2007
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date: 2/6/2007
 
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying inthe TV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
Major brain cramp on my part. I misrecalled the name. Damn, that's major
chemo brain. Sorry all. I retract earnestly that this came from a former
senior official at the FCC. 

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 George Rogato
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:59 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying
inthe TV whitespace thread)

Patrick Leary wrote:
  because former FCC policy chief, Robert Canary
 (now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
 are not obligated to file Form 477.

You sure?

I thought Robert Canary was a long time wisp?


-- 
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(43).











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] OTARD and Wireless Broadband

2007-02-06 Thread Kelly Shaw
Folks,
 
http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/otard.html
 
I just heard about a local Virginia WISP who used the OTARD rule to site a
tower.  
 
Has anyone else used this ruling to apply to Wireless Broadband where a
tower is placed on a property owner's land and then service offered to the
property owner on a secondary basis?
 
I see various writeups on the topic on the 'net, but can't find one that
specifically differentiates between the siting of an antenna versus a
tower with and antenna on it.
 
Kelly Shaw
Pure Internet, Inc.
www.pure.net
 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need to
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.

Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an ace
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

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 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for an

illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?

laters,
Marlon
(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



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

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 Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:

 Jack:

 Consider...

 To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll

 stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
is
 the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been
 steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels
 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels
 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful
 terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power
 license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do

 the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they
 are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much

 on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space

 may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum
 sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another
 decade or so).

 Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as
 advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast
 spectrum.


 Thanks,

 Steve



 On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

 Likelihood of unlicensed???

 My guess is that the established communications carriers and the
 broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this
 space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most
 effectively.

 -- 
 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



 ---

 Steve Stroh
 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com





-- 
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: 

RE: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying inthe TV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
I was wrong. Big wrong. Huge wrong. Regrettfully and stupidly wrong.

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 John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying
inthe TV whitespace thread)

Patrick,
We have an ex-FCC guy telling people NOT to file form 477? What is going

on? Why would this guy be saying such things? Can you give us some 
background on this guy and why he is doing this?
Scriv

As I was saying, the FCC is getting a bit edgy about WISPs deciding for
themselves what rules are important. I believe they were set off in
this
case (or made to respond) because former FCC policy chief, Robert
Canary
(now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
are not obligated to file Form 477.

  

-- 
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(43).











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] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying intheTV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
Again, I was very mistaken. Dr. Pepper is not involved at all, nor has
he made ANY posts on the subject to any of these lists. He is a long
time and highly respected leader there who basically set the tone of the
commission policy wise for years.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Frank Muto
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:35 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying
intheTV whitespace thread)

Dr. Robert Pepper joined Cisco in July 2005 from the Federal
Communications 
Commission (FCC) where most recently he had been Chief, Policy
Development. 
...
www.pulver.com/consumertech/schedule_fjsc1133872246.html



Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA












- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying 
inthe TV whitespace thread)


 Patrick,

 If I am not mistaken I think you meant Robert Pepper.
 Please correct me if I am wrong. It has been known to happen once or 
 twice. ;-)

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro


 George Rogato wrote:

 Patrick Leary wrote:
  because former FCC policy chief, Robert Canary

 (now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that
WISPs
 are not obligated to file Form 477.


 You sure?

 I thought Robert Canary was a long time wisp?



 -- 
 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/





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] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying inthe TV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Patrick,

It happens to the best of us. We still love you. Not all of us in that 
way of course. ;-)


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:


I was wrong. Big wrong. Huge wrong. Regrettfully and stupidly wrong.

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 John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying
inthe TV whitespace thread)

Patrick,
We have an ex-FCC guy telling people NOT to file form 477? What is going

on? Why would this guy be saying such things? Can you give us some 
background on this guy and why he is doing this?

Scriv

 


As I was saying, the FCC is getting a bit edgy about WISPs deciding for
themselves what rules are important. I believe they were set off in
   


this
 


case (or made to respond) because former FCC policy chief, Robert
   


Canary
 


(now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
are not obligated to file Form 477.



   



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying intheTV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
I repeat: Dr. Robert Pepper made no posts. I was grossly mistaken.
Robert Canary made the posts. Let's kill the thread and if I had the
ability I'd delete them from the server.

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 John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying
intheTV whitespace thread)

So who is Robert Canary then? Patrick, any idea? And how do you know 
that this particular person is being talked about in the FCC? What about

the other quotes you were making? What is being said by who at the FCC? 
Who at the FCC is talking to you about these things? If you are hearing 
it third person then who at the FCC is talking to the third person? I 
appreciate you sharing what you have heard. I just want to know a little

more about who is saying it.
Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:

 Dr. Robert Pepper joined Cisco in July 2005 from the Federal 
 Communications Commission (FCC) where most recently he had been Chief,

 Policy Development. ...
 www.pulver.com/consumertech/schedule_fjsc1133872246.html



 Frank Muto
 Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA












 - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:13 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just 
 saying inthe TV whitespace thread)


 Patrick,

 If I am not mistaken I think you meant Robert Pepper.
 Please correct me if I am wrong. It has been known to happen once or 
 twice. ;-)

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro


 George Rogato wrote:

 Patrick Leary wrote:
  because former FCC policy chief, Robert Canary

 (now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that
WISPs
 are not obligated to file Form 477.



 You sure?

 I thought Robert Canary was a long time wisp?



 -- 
 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/





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] - Hello Group! - Can we talk towers?

2007-02-06 Thread Blake Bowers

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaaEXT/portal.jsp

Will get you going for the FAA airspace determination.

That is your first step.


- Original Message - 
From: Dave Brenton [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: [WISPA] - Hello Group! - Can we talk towers?



Hello WISPA!

It's great to be aboard.

I have several questions about towers, but I'm going to 
try to hold it to TWO, starting out.


1) Does anyone on the list have experience with the FCC/FAA maze?
  Our Network Operations Center will be at the base of an 
  as-yet-to-be-constructed 300 foot Commercial Grade 
  Communications Tower.


  In attempting to get the FCC/FAA Permit(s) to place this 
  tower I've run into a Catch-22, or so it would seem.


 The FAA Forms want an FCC Registration Number, and of course
  the FCC Forms want an FAA Registration Number.

  So.   Who's on first?

I've searched and searched and cannot find a step-by-step or
flowchart explaining the procedure to get the permit process 
started, let alone completed.


Anyone with some experience with this matter will be 
a hero forever with me.


BTW to avoid the questions I explain right now that - -
NO we don't NEED a 300 Footer for our wireless coverage,
but... I live in the middle of Cell-Hell and I'm willing to
speculate the one or more of the Cell Providers in this 
area will Co-Locate once an actual structure is in place.

Also the extra altitude will make if practical to Back-Haul
bandwidth for many-many miles thus reducing our wire-line
costs to a minimum.

2) Who's brands of towers are ya'll using?
I need some guidance for smaller towers
   100-150 ft range, self supporting and guyed.

I have heard of some brands, but I also have concerns
about Wind Tolerance, since we are in an area that
does produce tornados from time to time.
I'd prefer to spend the money on a product that will
hold up and I'm not uncomfortable Climbing, IF I Must.

That's plenty for a first go.

Thanks loads,


Dave Brenton

General Manager
Rural Tennessee Wireless Broadband
Bringing FAST Internet to the rest of us (sm)
Dover TN
(931) 232-0914 office
(931) 627-1142 cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] - Hello Group! - Can we talk towers?

2007-02-06 Thread Mario Pommier
1.  I know an engineer who may be able to help you on this one.  Knows 
FAA personnel if I recall correctly from when he helped us with out 
antenna.  He's  a certified engineer in NYS, AFAIK, but also does work 
in CT, VT, FL.
2. Same engineer, had us install a solid-rod Pyrod tower.  He designed 
the whole thing with the tower crew he uses for everything.  It was guyed.

If this helps I can arrange for him to consult with you.
OFF-list for rates, etc.
Thanks.

Mario

Dave Brenton wrote:

Hello WISPA!

It's great to be aboard.

I have several questions about towers, but I'm going to 
try to hold it to TWO, starting out.


1) Does anyone on the list have experience with the FCC/FAA maze?
   Our Network Operations Center will be at the base of an 
   as-yet-to-be-constructed 300 foot Commercial Grade 
   Communications Tower.


   In attempting to get the FCC/FAA Permit(s) to place this 
   tower I've run into a Catch-22, or so it would seem.


  The FAA Forms want an FCC Registration Number, and of course
   the FCC Forms want an FAA Registration Number.

   So.   Who's on first?

I've searched and searched and cannot find a step-by-step or
flowchart explaining the procedure to get the permit process 
started, let alone completed.


Anyone with some experience with this matter will be 
a hero forever with me.


BTW to avoid the questions I explain right now that - -
NO we don't NEED a 300 Footer for our wireless coverage,
but... I live in the middle of Cell-Hell and I'm willing to
speculate the one or more of the Cell Providers in this 
area will Co-Locate once an actual structure is in place.

Also the extra altitude will make if practical to Back-Haul
bandwidth for many-many miles thus reducing our wire-line
costs to a minimum.

2) Who's brands of towers are ya'll using?
 I need some guidance for smaller towers
100-150 ft range, self supporting and guyed.

I have heard of some brands, but I also have concerns
about Wind Tolerance, since we are in an area that
does produce tornados from time to time.
I'd prefer to spend the money on a product that will
hold up and I'm not uncomfortable Climbing, IF I Must.

That's plenty for a first go.

Thanks loads,


Dave Brenton

General Manager
Rural Tennessee Wireless Broadband
Bringing FAST Internet to the rest of us (sm)
Dover TN
(931) 232-0914 office
(931) 627-1142 cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Tele-Health Grants

2007-02-06 Thread Carl A jeptha

Hi John,
Just a thought, go and dig up all the horror stories about the back hoe 
operators that dig up lines and truck drivers that run over poles. And 
send that to them. I am lucky the fibre that I use belongs to the 
utility and my NOC is at their Water tower that they need to monitor, so 
I have redundancy built in. I can't say the same for the hospital half a 
block away.


You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha



John Scrivner wrote:
As I have stated before, the health care providers in this area have 
it in their minds (and their policy manuals) that wireless of any kind 
will not be suitable for their needs, period. It has nothing to do 
with technical reality. It has to do with perception and corporate 
policy. Basically health care interests here are not just saying no, 
they are saying hell no. It is a hard sell for me at this point and 
the only vendor who has supplied me with any backup is one I do not 
even buy from, Bridgewave. They sent me technical DOCs, testimonials, 
etc. from health care interests. I passed it along to the health care 
providers in this area and you could hear crickets, right before the 
next hell no. This is frustrating to say the least. If Alvarion or 
anyone else wants to help me I am sure I would take the help. It is in 
all your best interests since I am not the only wireless provider 
effected by this black-balling of our industry by health care 
interests in my region.

Scriv


Peter R. wrote:

Certainly, licensed wireless links and managed firewall delivered by 
your team would be cheaper to deliver; faster to deploy; and just as 
reliable as fiber?


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc.


John Scrivner wrote:

I am afraid they will just build fiber business plans and not give 
wireless a second thought. Why should they consider wireless if they 
can get fiber for virtually free? Like I said...Gr.

Scriv




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority 
of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?


Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop. 
The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe 
I made a mistake buying from your company?


By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need 
to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and 
other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right 
to sling mud or FUD.

Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need to
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.

Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an ace
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

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 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for an


illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?

laters,
Marlon
(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



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

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 Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
 


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll
   



 


stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
   


is
 


the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels
70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels
52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful
terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power
license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do
   



 


the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they
are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much
   



 


on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space
   



 


may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another
decade or so).

Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as
advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast
spectrum.


Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

   


Likelihood of 

Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying inthe TV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
I think you need to take a little more time before you hit the send 
button. I have seen two posts from you in the last few hours that made 
me want to switch vendors. Calm heads need to prevail. Your's has not 
been very calm.

Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


I was wrong. Big wrong. Huge wrong. Regrettfully and stupidly wrong.

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 John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying
inthe TV whitespace thread)

Patrick,
We have an ex-FCC guy telling people NOT to file form 477? What is going

on? Why would this guy be saying such things? Can you give us some 
background on this guy and why he is doing this?

Scriv

 


As I was saying, the FCC is getting a bit edgy about WISPs deciding for
themselves what rules are important. I believe they were set off in
   


this
 


case (or made to respond) because former FCC policy chief, Robert
   


Canary
 


(now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
are not obligated to file Form 477.



   


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying intheTV whitespace thread)

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
I am calm John. I'm just not fond of the steepening slippery slope nor
the oh-no-bigee tolerance of it from many WISP leaders. Friends can
differ in opinion. Perhaps I do my employer a disservice by daring to
mention it, but what of the industry at large?

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 John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying
intheTV whitespace thread)

I think you need to take a little more time before you hit the send 
button. I have seen two posts from you in the last few hours that made 
me want to switch vendors. Calm heads need to prevail. Your's has not 
been very calm.
Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:

I was wrong. Big wrong. Huge wrong. Regrettfully and stupidly wrong.

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 John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ...from the FCC (reinforces what I was just saying
inthe TV whitespace thread)

Patrick,
We have an ex-FCC guy telling people NOT to file form 477? What is
going

on? Why would this guy be saying such things? Can you give us some 
background on this guy and why he is doing this?
Scriv

  

As I was saying, the FCC is getting a bit edgy about WISPs deciding
for
themselves what rules are important. I believe they were set off in


this
  

case (or made to respond) because former FCC policy chief, Robert


Canary
  

(now with Cisco), has been posting on the isp-wireless list that WISPs
are not obligated to file Form 477.

 



-- 
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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Scriv,

The squeaky wheel gets the attention. Not the kind of attention this 
industry needs. Some seem so adamant about these rules you have to 
wonder if they are following them or not. Even if this is not the case, 
why add doubt?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

John Scrivner wrote:

Feel free to complain all you like. It is advocating breaking the 
rules which will lead to problems. I do not like some rules either but 
you have to follow the rules or face losing your right to be in business.

Scriv



Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry 
look bad.

Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the



usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

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 Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt 
white


space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
 


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll
  




 


stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
  



is 

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  
been steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  
Channels 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  
Channels 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  
powerful terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with 
low-power  license-exempt usage, it's quite another for 
communications use to do
  




 

the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears 
they  are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but 
very much
  




 


on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space
  




 

may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
decade or so).


Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about 
as  advocates for license-exempt use of white space television 
broadcast  spectrum.



Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

 


Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
effectively.


--
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





---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com




  




 





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Consumers Demand ISP with Zero Child Porn Tollerance

2007-02-06 Thread Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor

Team,

There's an anti child porn movement brewing right now where consumers
are boycotting any isp that doesnt cooperate with the feds. If your
wisp has a zero tollerance policy for child abuse, put yourself on the
map at http://www.child-safe-isp.com hopefully, the good guys will
steal all the business away from the big guys...

--
Robert Q Kim, Wireless Internet Provider
http://evdo-coverage.com/satellite-wireless-internet.html
http://iptv-coverage.com : internet tv
2611 S. Pacific Coast Highway 101
Suite 203
Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007
206 984 0880
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
John,

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the topic.

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the
rules or does not.

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then,
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power.
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it
to stop?

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority 
of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?

Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop.

The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe 
I made a mistake buying from your company?

By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need 
to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and

other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right

to sling mud or FUD.
Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:

I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need
to
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.
 a
Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an
ace
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

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 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for
an

illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?

laters,
Marlon
(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



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628

RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Forbes Mercy
Patrick, 

Does your boss know you are taking on the industry you are trying to sell to?  
I agree with John, know when to back off and realize what a vendor is supposed 
to know buyer is right.   Not to speak for John but you taking on John again 
should really make him want to return equipment and it certainly has affected 
my desire to by Alvarion.   You came after me once and it certainly soured my 
desire to deal with your company as I admitted to Marlon.  I have learned the 
hard way that I can't force my opinion on people and hell I'm an owner not a 
supplier.  I've probably already said too much but I can just feel the same 
thought I had before when I was in your crosshairs and that was 'this is no way 
for a vendor to act'.

Forbes

John, 

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up 
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with 
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with 
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the topic. 

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's 
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the 
rules or does not. 

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal 
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is 
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with 
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs, 
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is 
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the 
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that. 

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your 
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then, 
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power. 
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one 
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from 
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the 
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it 
to stop? 

Patrick 

-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of John Scrivner 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM 
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces 

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority 
of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them? 

Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop. 

The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe 
I made a mistake buying from your company? 

By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need 
to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and 

other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right 

to sling mud or FUD. 
Scriv 


Patrick Leary wrote: 

I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need 
to 
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are 
there just as well. 
 a 
Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay 
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an 
ace 
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it. 
 
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 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM 
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces 
 
Yeah, for sure. 
 
However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How 
many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for 
an 
 
illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC? 
 
laters, 
Marlon 
(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 
 
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM 
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV 

[WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Jack Unger
I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this 
list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I 
won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even more 
disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who I 
greatly respect within our industry.


We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are 
significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express 
ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.


Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more 
time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive 
comments that truly strengthen our industry?


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/


RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Brad Belton
Somebody turn the flip'n moderation back on!

 

Patrick, let's be clear; you're motivation is driven only by pushing more
Alvarion boxes off the shelf.  Don't try to play the white knight here under
the guise of looking out for everyone.  You're a company man simply after
what puts food on your table.  Frankly there is nothing wrong with that, but
for everyone's stomach please just state it for what it really is.

 

John, I'm not sure where you are headed with your comments.  I'm sure the
B100 is a fine PtP radio set and will meet your requirements.  I agree with
Jack Unger's post.threatening to boycott product because of a sales rep's
comments?  

 

Best,

 

 

Brad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

 

Patrick, 

Does your boss know you are taking on the industry you are trying to sell
to?  I agree with John, know when to back off and realize what a vendor is
supposed to know buyer is right.   Not to speak for John but you taking on
John again should really make him want to return equipment and it certainly
has affected my desire to by Alvarion.   You came after me once and it
certainly soured my desire to deal with your company as I admitted to
Marlon.  I have learned the hard way that I can't force my opinion on people
and hell I'm an owner not a supplier.  I've probably already said too much
but I can just feel the same thought I had before when I was in your
crosshairs and that was 'this is no way for a vendor to act'.

Forbes

John, 

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up 
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with 
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with 
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the topic. 

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's 
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the 
rules or does not. 

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal 
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is 
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with 
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs, 
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is 
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the 
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that. 

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your 
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then, 
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power. 
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one 
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from 
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the 
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it 
to stop? 

Patrick 

-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of John Scrivner 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM 
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces 

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority 
of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them? 

Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop. 

The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe 
I made a mistake buying from your company? 

By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need 
to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and 

other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right 

to sling mud or FUD. 
Scriv 

 

Patrick Leary wrote: 

I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need 
to 
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are 
there just as well. 
 a 
Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay 
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an 
ace 
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it. 
 
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] 

RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Brad Belton
Agreed.  Crazy.

Best,


Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:51 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this 
list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I 
won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even more 
disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who I 
greatly respect within our industry.

We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are 
significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express 
ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.

Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more 
time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive 
comments that truly strengthen our industry?

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/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
I got my blood pressure up. I am sorry. Say whatever you like. One 
condition please. Make sure you have some basis in fact for saying 
many or most WISPs do anything illegal or we will have this battle 
another day.

Scriv



Patrick Leary wrote:


John,

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the topic.

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the
rules or does not.

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then,
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power.
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it
to stop?

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority 
of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?


Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop.


The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe 
I made a mistake buying from your company?


By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need 
to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and


other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right


to sling mud or FUD.
Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:

 


I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need
   


to
 


police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.
a
Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an
   


ace
 


in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

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 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for
   


an
 


illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?

laters,
Marlon
(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



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.


Re: [WISPA] OTARD and Wireless Broadband

2007-02-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
Otard rules do not apply to any structure or mast over 10 feet in height (or 
above the roof line)

Towers are not covered. Towers are strictly ruled by local zoning laws.

With the exception of HAM towers, which have some federal guidance, but 
specifically state no commercial use allowed.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Kelly Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: [WISPA] OTARD and Wireless Broadband



Folks,

http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/otard.html

I just heard about a local Virginia WISP who used the OTARD rule to site a
tower.

Has anyone else used this ruling to apply to Wireless Broadband where a
tower is placed on a property owner's land and then service offered to the
property owner on a secondary basis?

I see various writeups on the topic on the 'net, but can't find one that
specifically differentiates between the siting of an antenna versus a
tower with and antenna on it.

Kelly Shaw
Pure Internet, Inc.
www.pure.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/


RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Rick Harnish
Cool it everyone, including you John.  There is no reason that we can't
calmly discuss Illegal vs Legal in an appropriate and professional manner.

I personally feel that it is a sorry dilemma that our industry faces in
that, so many of the areas underserved by broadband are the same areas where
certified solutions are often cost prohibitive to make a sound business
plan.  Most rural low income households that need broadband solutions to
assist educational, economic development and financial gain efforts, often
can't afford to spend much for the high install and maintenance costs that
come with pure certified gear.  

I admire WISP's entrepreneurial spirit in their quest to support the local
economic development of these rural communities when the BIG PLAYERS just
snub their nose at them.  The fact is, a greater service is being done for
the whole country by WISPs, whether certified or not, than will probably
ever be recognized or valuated.  There are very few operators that are in
this industry to get rich, most of us are here to help others sustain a
livable income while keeping the rural way of life and to strengthen the
communities we live in.  

Until the FCC and the Federal Government step up with some backbone and
begin to assist smaller entrepreneurs with funding plans, USF type funding,
training grants, affordable and usable licensed spectrum and other valuable
instruments, I believe that many operators will choose affordable solutions
(which are often uncertified) over the more expensive certified solutions.
Unfortunately, these funding mechanisms are most often reserved for the
companies that bark the loudest, boast a nationwide footprint and contribute
to the campaigns of the politicians that make these decisions.  Does that
mean that the big companies will provide better service or any service for
that matter to the rural areas?  Absolutely not!  Instead, we get decisions
to create monopolies or duopolies which enable the strategy of crushing the
competition, who often have the best customer service and that have taken
the risks of bringing broadband to unprofitable areas.  This only enforces a
monopolistic society and further the separation between poverty and the
rich.

THE MODERATOR HAS SPOKEN!  DEBATE AWAY CALMLY!

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 Brad Belton
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:00 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Agreed.  Crazy.

Best,


Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:51 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this 
list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I 
won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even more 
disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who I 
greatly respect within our industry.

We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are 
significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express 
ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.

Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more 
time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive 
comments that truly strengthen our industry?

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/

-- 
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] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Tom DeReggi

Well said.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:52 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV white spaces


Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves:

1. The FCC is not a baby sitter.
2. Mature operators (and industries as a whole) follow the rules as a
matter of course and expected cost of business.
3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially
benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should
thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum.
4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain
about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc.

As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've certainly
been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs are
now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount to its
approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but one
rule: Don't exceed the power limitations. Everything else has become
fair game.

Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if not
actual, that abuse is reaching new levels:

- many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz to carry some
commercial traffic (Hey, there's excess capacity so what's the big deal,
right?...)
- use of STA's to commercially use spectrum is openly being advocated
(this is partially responsible for an over 6 month wait in STA filings)
- illegal vendors now operate in the clear with prominent U.S.
distribution (They must be legal if they have a store front and it only
hurts other vendors anyway...)
- build your own base station type Google ads are rampant

Call me an alarmist, but this accelerating trend is disturbing and such
attitudes easily even have the potential to infect safety issues (hey,
OSHA rules must not be that big a deal either).

We must all appreciate that many violating the rules do so out of
ignorance, but that as an excuse. Groups like WISPA should take firm
stands on subjects like this. You should strongly encourage compliance,
lead the way and educate. You should fight the ignorance that allows for
relativism and creative interpretation of the rules. You should also
not cave to the hard luck excuses that I'm a small guy and can't afford
to follow the rules. (Your response to such should be to point to
funding sources/advice or otherwise tell them that there is a minimum
cost to legally participate in this business and that following FCC
rules is a minimum expectation as responsible stewards of the public's
free spectrum.) And finally, WISPs should not treat knowingly illegal
operators as equals because in fact they are liabilities to you and the
industry at large.

And yes, of course I have skin in the game but that in no way alters
anything here or devalues my comments. If anything, as a legal vendor
with a long professional reputation of compliance and scores of legal
operator partners, and as an individual who has been beating this drum
for 7 years, it should only increase the weight of my comments.

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 Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:26 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look

bad.
Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

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 Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt

white


space use might actually 

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Tom DeReggi

Scriv and contributers to thread,

I think you are off base on your replies to Patrick.  Patrick made fair 
points. He made a generalized comment based, and did not make specific 
accusation to specific individual. I am personaly aware of many WISPs and 
vendors that bend the rules both intentially and unintentionally.  If there 
is on individual that can point fingers without risk of creating a double 
standard, its Patrick.  Alvarion is one of the few Manufacturers that 
clearly follow the rules.  One of the reasons I like Alvarion product, is 
that I know that if I use it, I don't have to think about the rules anymore, 
as they got it taken care of for me.  As WISPs we have been fighting for 
more leanient rules, but as the rules become more leanient, they become more 
confusing to understand and confirm compliance.  How many cards are spec'd 
at +/- 3db? How many WISPs plug in a Spectrum analyzer after installing a 
base station to confirm proper operation of an AP sector? The FCC has 
trusted us to police ourselves to stay legal. Sometimes WISPs do the things 
they need to do, because they need to do it, but that does not make it 
legal.  Two of the biggest examples are StarOS and Mikrotik, and OEM gear. 
This gear is great flexible gear, that WISPs have lobbied hard for, and 
can't ignore. But when is someone going to take the initiative to Legally 
certify combinations of the gear?  I can barely keep all the power stuff 
straight, and I'm a 6 year veteran. How is the average newbie going to keep 
it straight? With added flexibilty, it created the need for added caution 
and attention.  In general WISPA has promoted compliance and legality, but 
that does not mean everyone follows the direction, not that the industry 
won't slide off path, if we forget to keep on top of compliance.  I have to 
agree in full with Patrick. Maybe compliance may not happen as fast as 
technology and innovation, but at minimum we must be working in the 
direction of compliance.


As mentioned by one of you, its not only WISPs, its also Vendors. But 
protections were already in place to enforce vendor compliance. 
Self-enforcing WISP compliance, is what responsibility we were given.


I like to look at an analagee the FCC uses. For every complaint the FCC 
gets, they predict their are like 5000 others with the same problem that 
didn't. Or for every vote they get, they assume 5000 agree that didn;t vote. 
Something to that nature.  So maybe the same is inferred with compliance? 
For every person that was caught, how many went uncaught?


I'm in no way promoting a higher level of inforcement/policing from the FCC, 
but Its mandatory that we alway challenge ourselves and peers to be 
compliant the best we can.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority of 
BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? These are 
your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?


Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and the 
source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop. The 
majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the vendors 
who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the law. The last 
gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul link which is due 
in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if buying from a vendor 
who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe I made a mistake buying 
from your company?


By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need to 
apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and 
other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right 
to sling mud or FUD.

Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need to
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.

Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an ace
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

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 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for 
an


illegal network and 

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Tom DeReggi

I agree that MOST wisps are likely compliant.
Unfortuneately, it won't stay that way, if we let the industry slowly 
deteriorate and slide.
I think compliance is a message that continually needs to be revisited, 
sorta like speed bumps. Its easy to not realize you are speeding, yet we all 
know where the speedometer is located.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I got my blood pressure up. I am sorry. Say whatever you like. One 
condition please. Make sure you have some basis in fact for saying many 
or most WISPs do anything illegal or we will have this battle another 
day.

Scriv



Patrick Leary wrote:


John,

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the topic.

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the
rules or does not.

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then,
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power.
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it
to stop?

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority of 
BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? These are 
your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?


Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and the 
source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop.


The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the law. 
The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul link which 
is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if buying from a 
vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe I made a mistake 
buying from your company?


By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need to 
apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and


other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right


to sling mud or FUD.
Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:



I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need


to


police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.
a
Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an


ace


in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

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 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b 
for



an


illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?

laters,
Marlon
(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



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 

Re: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Blake Bowers

Agreed.  Seems kind of strong-arm.  Threats against
ones employer because you disagree with an employee, that ain't right.


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product


I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this 
list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I 
won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even more 
disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who I 
greatly respect within our industry.


We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are 
significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express 
ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.


Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more 
time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive 
comments that truly strengthen our industry?


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/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Forbes Mercy
Whoa WHOA I SAY BESSIE!   I never threatened anyone's employer, I was just 
pointing out that if my System Administrator was on here making me look bad I'd 
have a word to say.  I said my piece just like Patrick and John did and you all 
have too.  But threaten Patrick with telling his boss boss?  Not a chance!  I 
was just trying to get him to see it from a different angle because just like 
my response it was purely from here is how I feel statement.  Patrick doesn't 
have that luxury because how he feels is subsequently how his boss feels and 
his boss may not, that was my ONLY point.  Let's keep the imaginations down 
here, I knew as soon as I sent that it would continue what shouldn't have 
continued, ironic this came right after taking away moderation - interesting 
play on words there.  Anyway my one regret to having contributed to this thread 
is the old phrase if you have nothing constructive to add, shut-up.  OH and 
before someone on here says He told me to shut up, NO I DIDN'T!

So shall we go back to talking about making Wireless a more efficient and 
desirable product for the masses now?!

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Agreed.  Seems kind of strong-arm.  Threats against
ones employer because you disagree with an employee, that ain't right.


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product


 I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this 
 list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I 
 won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even more 
 disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who I 
 greatly respect within our industry.
 
 We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are 
 significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express 
 ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.
 
 Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more 
 time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive 
 comments that truly strengthen our industry?
 
 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/


-- 
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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date: 2/6/2007
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date: 2/6/2007
 
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Blake Bowers

The comment was made that people were considering
buying other products than Patricks employers products,  due to Patricks 
comments.


Sounds like a threat.

Voice your opinion again, and I won't buy what you
are selling.  That passes the smell test to me.




- Original Message - 
From: Forbes Mercy [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product


Whoa WHOA I SAY BESSIE!   I never threatened anyone's employer, I was just 
pointing out that if my System Administrator was on here making me look bad 
I'd have a word to say.  I said my piece just like Patrick and John did and 
you all have too.  But threaten Patrick with telling his boss boss?  Not a 
chance!  I was just trying to get him to see it from a different angle 
because just like my response it was purely from here is how I feel 
statement.  Patrick doesn't have that luxury because how he feels is 
subsequently how his boss feels and his boss may not, that was my ONLY 
point.  Let's keep the imaginations down here, I knew as soon as I sent that 
it would continue what shouldn't have continued, ironic this came right 
after taking away moderation - interesting play on words there.  Anyway my 
one regret to having contributed to this thread is the old phrase if you 
have nothing constructive to add, shut-up.  OH and before someone on here 
says He told me to shut up, NO I DIDN'T!


So shall we go back to talking about making Wireless a more efficient and 
desirable product for the masses now?!


Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Brad Belton
Crazy as an astronaut with a BB gun in a diaper on a road trip on a mission
to kill someone.  grin

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Whoa WHOA I SAY BESSIE!   I never threatened anyone's employer, I was just
pointing out that if my System Administrator was on here making me look bad
I'd have a word to say.  I said my piece just like Patrick and John did and
you all have too.  But threaten Patrick with telling his boss boss?  Not a
chance!  I was just trying to get him to see it from a different angle
because just like my response it was purely from here is how I feel
statement.  Patrick doesn't have that luxury because how he feels is
subsequently how his boss feels and his boss may not, that was my ONLY
point.  Let's keep the imaginations down here, I knew as soon as I sent that
it would continue what shouldn't have continued, ironic this came right
after taking away moderation - interesting play on words there.  Anyway my
one regret to having contributed to this thread is the old phrase if you
have nothing constructive to add, shut-up.  OH and before someone on here
says He told me to shut up, NO I DIDN'T!

So shall we go back to talking about making Wireless a more efficient and
desirable product for the masses now?!

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blake Bowers
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Agreed.  Seems kind of strong-arm.  Threats against
ones employer because you disagree with an employee, that ain't right.


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product


 I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this 
 list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I 
 won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even more 
 disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who I 
 greatly respect within our industry.
 
 We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are 
 significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express 
 ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.
 
 Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more 
 time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive 
 comments that truly strengthen our industry?
 
 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/


-- 
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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date: 2/6/2007
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date: 2/6/2007
 
-- 
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] This USA Thing

2007-02-06 Thread Carl A jeptha

PLEASE NOTE VERY CAREFULLY, THAT THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-USA STATEMENT.

For the past few months, I have noticed and commented that this 
organization has become very much USA orientated. I remember when we use 
to get posts from the UK, South America, New Zealand, Australia and 
Africa. We don't get that anymore or hardly any.
I do remember when this organization was put together that it was 
suppose to be international.


But alas that all seems to have gone by the way. It is so sad, because 
as a Canadian I now have to wade thru FFC comments and alot of US 
orientated communications. If this where this organization is going, 
then I believe We must terminate our membership.


--
You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Blake Bowers

You saw that too?  Amazing

Of course, (trying desperatly to wrench this on topic,)
I do understand that she has service through a fully
legal WISP.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ASTRONAUT_ARRESTED?SITE=MOSTPSECTION=HOMETEMPLATE=DEFAULT

for those trying to follow - I guarantee it will leave you shaking your 
head





- Original Message - 
From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product


Crazy as an astronaut with a BB gun in a diaper on a road trip on a mission
to kill someone.  grin

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Whoa WHOA I SAY BESSIE!   I never threatened anyone's employer, I was just
pointing out that if my System Administrator was on here making me look bad
I'd have a word to say.  I said my piece just like Patrick and John did and
you all have too.  But threaten Patrick with telling his boss boss?  Not a
chance!  I was just trying to get him to see it from a different angle
because just like my response it was purely from here is how I feel
statement.  Patrick doesn't have that luxury because how he feels is
subsequently how his boss feels and his boss may not, that was my ONLY
point.  Let's keep the imaginations down here, I knew as soon as I sent that
it would continue what shouldn't have continued, ironic this came right
after taking away moderation - interesting play on words there.  Anyway my
one regret to having contributed to this thread is the old phrase if you
have nothing constructive to add, shut-up.  OH and before someone on here
says He told me to shut up, NO I DIDN'T!

So shall we go back to talking about making Wireless a more efficient and
desirable product for the masses now?!

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blake Bowers
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Agreed.  Seems kind of strong-arm.  Threats against
ones employer because you disagree with an employee, that ain't right.


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product



I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this
list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I
won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even more
disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who I
greatly respect within our industry.

We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are
significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express
ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.

Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more
time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive
comments that truly strengthen our industry?

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/



--
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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date: 2/6/2007


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date: 2/6/2007

--
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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Chadd Thompson
In our area So IL/metro St.Louis there are some large guys who are in no
way shape or form legal, over power limits and the whole 9 yards. I can see
other WISP Omni POP's with signal levels in the -70's from over 20 miles
away using a 9dBi on my end, figure up what the EIRP on that is. The one in
this case is a well know respected WISP that visits the popular lists, I
always hope that he doesn't know that is going on and one of his guys is
responsible but I have never taken the time to call them up and talk to them
about it either.

I don't know of any WISP's in this area about 10 that I know of including
myself who are 100% legal when it comes to using only certified equipment.
Most I think stay within power limits and equivalent antennas

The other issue I see in our area is all the new start up WISP's who know
nothing about the industry, the rules, networking, and don't know squat
about RF. These guys are going to be our Achilles heal IMHO. There are too
many vendors selling stuff and they are not concerned in the least bit
whether the guys they are selling to know anything about Part15 rules. When
I started four years ago it seemed like there were not near as many
uncertified options as there are today so I came into the industry using
certified equipment and knew what the rules were. It's too easy to buy
802.xx equipment throw it up on a pole and sell internet to a few users,
more than likely they are not going to be successful but it still hurts
everyone of us.

I admit I am a glass half empty kind of guy, but I don't think there we are
going to have any usable spectrum within the next one to two years because
of stuff like this.

Chadd


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:16 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
 
 I agree that MOST wisps are likely compliant.
 Unfortuneately, it won't stay that way, if we let the industry slowly
 deteriorate and slide.
 I think compliance is a message that continually needs to be revisited,
 sorta like speed bumps. Its easy to not realize you are speeding, yet we
 all
 know where the speedometer is located.
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
I never used the word most my friend, I said many and being on the
receiving side of these questions and monitoring about 8 lists total I
see them there as well. One makes a phenomenon, several a coincidence,
numerous examples I've personally encountered and from Clearwire-sized
WISPs to the smallest represent a trend that to me qualifies as many.

My posts are often intended to be provocative and to raise the
occasional hair and e-mail by nature is a bit of an amplifier in terms
of tone. I do come across far more strident in e-mail than in person
too. But, we all also know that it takes an awful lot of pushing to move
the WISP market in any one direction; that is doubly hard when pushing
into the wind.

Others are free to disparage and call into question my motives. That's
fine. But regardless of one's opinions about my motives, are the issues
on the table real or imagined? 

As for not buying because you don't like my opinions, that is an
unpleasant consequence, but for every one that has made that decision I
can assure you that there is likely at least two others for whom my
passion and dogged commitment to this market, its vitality, and its
external perception is a positive. 

I don't pick my or reject people as friends because they dare to
confront me or call me to the carpet. I want people to tell me I've got
a booger in my nose. I know the easy thing to do is to ignore the booger
(no one gets in trouble for not saying it). I also don't subscribe to
the philosophy that the customer is always right. I view a big part of
my role to be an educator, to provoke thought, to make my customers
better and more successful. Sometimes that means explaining when they
might be mistaken and why it matters.
 
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 John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

I got my blood pressure up. I am sorry. Say whatever you like. One 
condition please. Make sure you have some basis in fact for saying 
many or most WISPs do anything illegal or we will have this battle 
another day.
Scriv



Patrick Leary wrote:

John,

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met
with
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the
topic.

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the
rules or does not.

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and
deal
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then,
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power.
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it
to stop?

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority

of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?

Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to
stop.

The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe

I made a mistake buying from your company?

By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need

to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9
and

other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on

this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the

RE: [WISPA] All good Forbes, et al

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
I never took your comments as threatening Forbes. Not at all. Everything
you said was totally above board and I appreciate the candor. And I'm
completely cool with blunt language, obviously! :)


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Whoa WHOA I SAY BESSIE!   I never threatened anyone's employer, I was
just pointing out that if my System Administrator was on here making me
look bad I'd have a word to say.  I said my piece just like Patrick and
John did and you all have too.  But threaten Patrick with telling his
boss boss?  Not a chance!  I was just trying to get him to see it from a
different angle because just like my response it was purely from here
is how I feel statement.  Patrick doesn't have that luxury because how
he feels is subsequently how his boss feels and his boss may not, that
was my ONLY point.  Let's keep the imaginations down here, I knew as
soon as I sent that it would continue what shouldn't have continued,
ironic this came right after taking away moderation - interesting play
on words there.  Anyway my one regret to having contributed to this
thread is the old phrase if you have nothing constructive to add,
shut-up.  OH and before someone on here says He told me to shut up,
NO I DIDN'T!

So shall we go back to talking about making Wireless a more efficient
and desirable product for the masses now?!

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blake Bowers
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Agreed.  Seems kind of strong-arm.  Threats against
ones employer because you disagree with an employee, that ain't right.


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product


 I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this 
 list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I

 won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even
more 
 disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who
I 
 greatly respect within our industry.
 
 We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are 
 significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express

 ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.
 
 Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more

 time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive 
 comments that truly strengthen our industry?
 
 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/


-- 
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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date:
2/6/2007
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date:
2/6/2007
 
-- 
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, 

RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
Brad, aren't you describing that woman astronaut busted in FL today!
(was it really wrapped in diaper?)

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 Brad Belton
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:25 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Crazy as an astronaut with a BB gun in a diaper on a road trip on a
mission
to kill someone.  grin

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Whoa WHOA I SAY BESSIE!   I never threatened anyone's employer, I was
just
pointing out that if my System Administrator was on here making me look
bad
I'd have a word to say.  I said my piece just like Patrick and John did
and
you all have too.  But threaten Patrick with telling his boss boss?  Not
a
chance!  I was just trying to get him to see it from a different angle
because just like my response it was purely from here is how I feel
statement.  Patrick doesn't have that luxury because how he feels is
subsequently how his boss feels and his boss may not, that was my ONLY
point.  Let's keep the imaginations down here, I knew as soon as I sent
that
it would continue what shouldn't have continued, ironic this came right
after taking away moderation - interesting play on words there.  Anyway
my
one regret to having contributed to this thread is the old phrase if
you
have nothing constructive to add, shut-up.  OH and before someone on
here
says He told me to shut up, NO I DIDN'T!

So shall we go back to talking about making Wireless a more efficient
and
desirable product for the masses now?!

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blake Bowers
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Agreed.  Seems kind of strong-arm.  Threats against
ones employer because you disagree with an employee, that ain't right.


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product


 I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this 
 list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I

 won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even
more 
 disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who
I 
 greatly respect within our industry.
 
 We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are 
 significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express

 ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.
 
 Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more

 time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive 
 comments that truly strengthen our industry?
 
 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/


-- 
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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date:
2/6/2007
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date:
2/6/2007
 
-- 
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/





This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(190).







 
 

[WISPA] Re: Hard truths (was TV white spaces)

2007-02-06 Thread Steve Stroh


John:

It's a hard truth that any industry association defacto represents  
their ENTIRE industry... not just the ones who deign to become dues- 
paying members of that industry association. In the eyes of  
lawmakers, regulators, the public, investors, analysts, etc., if  
WISPA purports to represent the WISP industry, it must be prepared to  
speak about, and be knowledgeable of, the ENTIRE WISP industry, even  
those participants of an industry that a formal association such as  
WISPA would simply rather NOT even acknowledge the existence of.


It's NOT one vendor's job, no matter how fundamentally important to a  
particular industry, to try to police the other vendors in an  
industry. If government will not police the bad players, then it  
falls to industry groups such as WISPA, and WISPA could easily do  
such a thing by maintaining an annually updated recommended systems  
list available to all. For a vendor's products to be on that list  
would be somewhat rigorous, having to document that their system  
meets all relevant regulations. A favorite product doesn't make the  
list? Maybe there's a reason why, and a prospective user of such a  
system is given considerable pause.


In my opinion, based on nearly TEN years of following the WISP  
industry nearly from its inception, I think Patrick considerably  
understates the case about many... (I won't go quite as far as to say  
most) WISPs not being compliant with FCC rules, even the recently  
liberalized rules that permit mixing and matching of antennas. One  
can gather ample evidence of this just from comments made on this list.


Finally... if there is ANYONE the WISP industry that has earned the  
right to speak such hard truths, it is Patrick Leary. Patrick has  
been a TIRELESS, FEARLESS, INCREDIBLY VALUABLE advocate for the WISP  
industry, especially in its formative years. He has personally  
advocated on behalf of the WISP industry to government personnel as  
high as FCC Chairman Powell, as well as promoting the WISP industry  
to investors, legislators, officials of other countries... and by  
dint of his personal influence, Alvarion itself, and by that example,  
a number of other vendors that build products for the WISP industry.


Don't like to hear such hard truths? Don't listen then. You all have  
the ability to filter out dissenting voices such as Patrick, and me.  
But if you all believe what you claim, that you're trying to build an  
association that truly represents the WISP industry and what it  
ultimately has the potential to become... the hard, unpleasant truths  
have to be addressed and dealt with... not just ignore them and hope  
they won't be noticed. They WILL be noticed, and are now being  
noticed by the WISP industry's increasingly serious competition -  
newly-clueful telcos with new Broadband Wireless technology, cellular  
carriers, municipal wireless / Wi-Fi vendors and operators, satellite  
service providers, and new entrants such as Clearwire. Such entities  
may not be a threat to the WISP industry as a whole quite yet...  
but it wasn't too long ago that WISPs weren't a threat to them either.


There are days when I just shake my head alternately in wonderment  
and dismay at the WISP industry. This is one of them.



Thanks,

Steve


On Feb 6, 2007, at Feb 6  12:47 PM, John Scrivner wrote:

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the  
majority of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with  
uncertified gear? These are your peers. Do you like being  
stereotyped with them?


Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal  
and the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it  
to stop. The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do  
right. It is the vendors who are the real problem. The majority of  
vendors ignore the law. The last gear purchase I made was for an  
Alvarion B100 backhaul link which is due in here today. It is  
certified but now I wonder if buying from a vendor who stereotypes  
the industry is a good idea. Maybe I made a mistake buying from  
your company?


By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you  
need to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away  
from 4.9 and other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to  
watch your tack on this public list. Being a paid vendor member  
does not give you the right to sling mud or FUD.

Scriv



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.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] St. Louis

2007-02-06 Thread Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless
I am in the South St. Louis Area.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:57 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] St. Louis

We are looking for some local people to work with in St. Louis. 
Preferably, it would be an existing WISP, but local contractors would be 
acceptable as well. Let me know if anyone is in that area.

-Matt
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


OT...RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Brad Belton
Just keeping up with current events...  Yes, SHE was wearing a diaper so as
to refrain from having to stop during her 900 mile drive from Houston to
Orlando.  lol 

Then again what car or truck with a factory sized fuel tank has the legs to
go 900 miles on one tank?   Pretty funny story though.

Keep in mind she was working in the International Space Station only a few
months ago.  She clearly just snapped.

Best,

Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Brad, aren't you describing that woman astronaut busted in FL today!
(was it really wrapped in diaper?)

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 Brad Belton
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:25 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Crazy as an astronaut with a BB gun in a diaper on a road trip on a
mission
to kill someone.  grin

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Whoa WHOA I SAY BESSIE!   I never threatened anyone's employer, I was
just
pointing out that if my System Administrator was on here making me look
bad
I'd have a word to say.  I said my piece just like Patrick and John did
and
you all have too.  But threaten Patrick with telling his boss boss?  Not
a
chance!  I was just trying to get him to see it from a different angle
because just like my response it was purely from here is how I feel
statement.  Patrick doesn't have that luxury because how he feels is
subsequently how his boss feels and his boss may not, that was my ONLY
point.  Let's keep the imaginations down here, I knew as soon as I sent
that
it would continue what shouldn't have continued, ironic this came right
after taking away moderation - interesting play on words there.  Anyway
my
one regret to having contributed to this thread is the old phrase if
you
have nothing constructive to add, shut-up.  OH and before someone on
here
says He told me to shut up, NO I DIDN'T!

So shall we go back to talking about making Wireless a more efficient
and
desirable product for the masses now?!

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blake Bowers
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Agreed.  Seems kind of strong-arm.  Threats against
ones employer because you disagree with an employee, that ain't right.


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product


 I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this 
 list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I

 won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even
more 
 disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who
I 
 greatly respect within our industry.
 
 We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are 
 significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express

 ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.
 
 Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more

 time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive 
 comments that truly strengthen our industry?
 
 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/


-- 
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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date:
2/6/2007
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date:
2/6/2007
 
-- 
WISPA Wireless 

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread cw
I don't know how you expect the industry to police itself when the FCC acts 
deaf. Next time you encounter a damnit remark, add state government to the 
list of not playing nice. Our footprint is the Florida Keys. Last year the 
department of transportation decided to erect giant poles down the center of 
our one highway to put up signs to tell us whether our highway was busy or 
not and suggest no alternate route when it was (it's our only road).


They used 5.8GHz DSSS and 2.4GHz DSSS both for the poles to talk to each 
other. Grid antennas polluted the spectrum even more. Because of the narrow 
geographic nature of the islands and the highway being in the center, one 
can't even use a 5.8GHz cordless phone inside their home anymore. When we 
called Tallahassee to complain, the head of the DoT IT dept wanted to know 
why we weren't using 4.9GHz for the buoy link the signs killed.


WISPs aren't the only ones shitting in their nests. Every day they pile it 
higher and one just has to figure out another way around the edges. - cw


Patrick Leary wrote:

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.

- Original Message - 
I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that

the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: OT...RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

2007-02-06 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Alien takeover?  :-) 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:10 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: OT...RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Just keeping up with current events...  Yes, SHE was wearing a diaper so as
to refrain from having to stop during her 900 mile drive from Houston to
Orlando.  lol 

Then again what car or truck with a factory sized fuel tank has the legs to
go 900 miles on one tank?   Pretty funny story though.

Keep in mind she was working in the International Space Station only a few
months ago.  She clearly just snapped.

Best,

Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Brad, aren't you describing that woman astronaut busted in FL today!
(was it really wrapped in diaper?)

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 Brad Belton
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:25 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Crazy as an astronaut with a BB gun in a diaper on a road trip on a mission
to kill someone.  grin

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Whoa WHOA I SAY BESSIE!   I never threatened anyone's employer, I was
just
pointing out that if my System Administrator was on here making me look bad
I'd have a word to say.  I said my piece just like Patrick and John did and
you all have too.  But threaten Patrick with telling his boss boss?  Not a
chance!  I was just trying to get him to see it from a different angle
because just like my response it was purely from here is how I feel
statement.  Patrick doesn't have that luxury because how he feels is
subsequently how his boss feels and his boss may not, that was my ONLY
point.  Let's keep the imaginations down here, I knew as soon as I sent that
it would continue what shouldn't have continued, ironic this came right
after taking away moderation - interesting play on words there.  Anyway my
one regret to having contributed to this thread is the old phrase if you
have nothing constructive to add, shut-up.  OH and before someone on here
says He told me to shut up, NO I DIDN'T!

So shall we go back to talking about making Wireless a more efficient and
desirable product for the masses now?!

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blake Bowers
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product

Agreed.  Seems kind of strong-arm.  Threats against ones employer because
you disagree with an employee, that ain't right.


- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Disagree with me and I won't buy your product


 I've been following the increasingly threatening discussions on this 
 list that are saying (I'm paraphrasing here) - Disagree with me and I

 won't buy your product. These threats are IMHO, out of line. Even
more 
 disturbing, these comments are coming from people that I know and who
I 
 greatly respect within our industry.
 
 We all have a right to express ourselves on issues that we feel are 
 significant. Further, we all have an OBLIGATION to responsibly express

 ourselves on issues of the day and issues that face our industry.
 
 Instead of posting threats, can't we all resolve to take a little more

 time to compose and post thoughtful, well-reasoned, and constructive 
 comments that truly strengthen our industry?
 
 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/


-- 
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 

RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
All too true and I hate that for you -- as if your business is not tough
enough to manage. Surely the work of some trusted consultant. That's
why I cringe when I hear someone talks about cities or states going to
the historic consultants to get design, etc. help. The only qualified
consultants I have even met in this business are a select crop of
actual WISPs, a tiny smattering of VARs, and the vendors that live in
the space.

Patrick Leary

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of cw
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

I don't know how you expect the industry to police itself when the FCC
acts 
deaf. Next time you encounter a damnit remark, add state government to
the 
list of not playing nice. Our footprint is the Florida Keys. Last year
the 
department of transportation decided to erect giant poles down the
center of 
our one highway to put up signs to tell us whether our highway was busy
or 
not and suggest no alternate route when it was (it's our only road).

They used 5.8GHz DSSS and 2.4GHz DSSS both for the poles to talk to each

other. Grid antennas polluted the spectrum even more. Because of the
narrow 
geographic nature of the islands and the highway being in the center,
one 
can't even use a 5.8GHz cordless phone inside their home anymore. When
we 
called Tallahassee to complain, the head of the DoT IT dept wanted to
know 
why we weren't using 4.9GHz for the buoy link the signs killed.

WISPs aren't the only ones shitting in their nests. Every day they pile
it 
higher and one just has to figure out another way around the edges. - cw

Patrick Leary wrote:
 No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and
deal
 with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
 more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services
with
 wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
 large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
 that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
 competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand
that.
 
- Original Message - 
I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration
of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something
that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.
-- 
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] Re: Hard truths (was TV white spaces)

2007-02-06 Thread Rich Comroe
Amen, and well said.  There is a lot that an industry org can do in this 
respect.  I'm familiar with APCO and find many similarities.  (key: APCO = 
Association of Publicsafety Communications Officials ... www.apcointl.org)  
Here's some examples.  
  1.. Speak for the industry to the FCC.  APCO's board forms committees that 
respond under APCO's name to all FCC inquiries.  Wispa seems to be doing 
alright in this regard by volunteer effort rather than organization.
  2.. Set positions to its membership on FCC issues.  I hear the wispa 
leadership expressing their opinions on things like the FCC forms.  Are they 
speaking for themselves, or are they speaking an officially formulated position 
for wispa?  If wispa has set a position on these FCC forms, are their positions 
found on a website?  Does wispa have a procedure to formulate an official 
position?  I sense wispa's growing into this role.
  3.. I think Steve Stroh is right on the money regarding recommended 
systems.  APCO for example plays a major role in this regard.  Wispa could 
create official positions on what equipment is approved (legal), what is not, 
etc.  APCO goes further, establishing a role of influence regarding desired.  
For example, while there's no way to deny how much the standards such as 
802.11h  WiMAX may influence wisps, but is there any formulating participation 
under wispa's name?  APCO goes much further taking a leadership role in the 
formulation of equipment standards for their recommended use.  Every city is 
free to purchase and deploy any equipment they choose.  But APCO established a 
position on interoperability 10 years ago (I was a participant) and ultimately 
I think the new Democratic congress will budget some federal money for 
inon-interoperable deployed systems to be replaced with APCO's recommendation 
as one of the previously unfunded recommendations of the 9/11 committee.  The 
moral of this story is that when there's federal money being earmarked for 
broadband it's vital that wispa have a position (not just voices of volunteer 
membership).
I recognize that this isn't necessarily a fair comparison.  APCO had a source 
of income to draw on (frequency coordinator for public safety systems) beyond 
simple membership dues.  It's tough when participation of all members is 
essentially unpaid overtime.  Wispa is more like ASNA in this respect (American 
SMR Network Association ... an industry association of Specialized Mobile Radio 
operators ... very much like wisps).  I just wanted to chime-in support of 
Steve's observations of what he suggests wispa might do in regards to setting 
positions on equipment.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Steve Stroh 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:12 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Re: Hard truths (was TV white spaces)



  John:

  It's a hard truth that any industry association defacto represents  
  their ENTIRE industry... not just the ones who deign to become dues- 
  paying members of that industry association. In the eyes of  
  lawmakers, regulators, the public, investors, analysts, etc., if  
  WISPA purports to represent the WISP industry, it must be prepared to  
  speak about, and be knowledgeable of, the ENTIRE WISP industry, even  
  those participants of an industry that a formal association such as  
  WISPA would simply rather NOT even acknowledge the existence of.

  It's NOT one vendor's job, no matter how fundamentally important to a  
  particular industry, to try to police the other vendors in an  
  industry. If government will not police the bad players, then it  
  falls to industry groups such as WISPA, and WISPA could easily do  
  such a thing by maintaining an annually updated recommended systems  
  list available to all. For a vendor's products to be on that list  
  would be somewhat rigorous, having to document that their system  
  meets all relevant regulations. A favorite product doesn't make the  
  list? Maybe there's a reason why, and a prospective user of such a  
  system is given considerable pause.

  In my opinion, based on nearly TEN years of following the WISP  
  industry nearly from its inception, I think Patrick considerably  
  understates the case about many... (I won't go quite as far as to say  
  most) WISPs not being compliant with FCC rules, even the recently  
  liberalized rules that permit mixing and matching of antennas. One  
  can gather ample evidence of this just from comments made on this list.

  Finally... if there is ANYONE the WISP industry that has earned the  
  right to speak such hard truths, it is Patrick Leary. Patrick has  
  been a TIRELESS, FEARLESS, INCREDIBLY VALUABLE advocate for the WISP  
  industry, especially in its formative years. He has personally  
  advocated on behalf of the WISP industry to government personnel as  
  high as FCC Chairman Powell, as well as promoting the WISP industry  
  to investors, legislators, officials of other countries... and 

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Rich Comroe
DOT is ***supposed*** to switch to DSRC for this.  DSRC was allocated 75MHz at 
5.9Ghz just above the U-NII band based on roadway  highway needs such as this 
DOT application.  I participated in DSRC formulation enough to know that DOT 
had been experimenting with UL for years for highway signage applications in 
anticipation of DSRC.  I believe there's a good case to be made that they 
should migrate away from UL as soon as DSRC equipment is available ... but alas 
I don't think it's available yet.  This would be an appropriate topic for a 
wispa position.
  - Original Message - 
  From: cw 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


  I don't know how you expect the industry to police itself when the FCC acts 
  deaf. Next time you encounter a damnit remark, add state government to the 
  list of not playing nice. Our footprint is the Florida Keys. Last year the 
  department of transportation decided to erect giant poles down the center of 
  our one highway to put up signs to tell us whether our highway was busy or 
  not and suggest no alternate route when it was (it's our only road).

  They used 5.8GHz DSSS and 2.4GHz DSSS both for the poles to talk to each 
  other. Grid antennas polluted the spectrum even more. Because of the narrow 
  geographic nature of the islands and the highway being in the center, one 
  can't even use a 5.8GHz cordless phone inside their home anymore. When we 
  called Tallahassee to complain, the head of the DoT IT dept wanted to know 
  why we weren't using 4.9GHz for the buoy link the signs killed.

  WISPs aren't the only ones shitting in their nests. Every day they pile it 
  higher and one just has to figure out another way around the edges. - cw

  Patrick Leary wrote:
   No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
   with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
   more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
   wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
   large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
   that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
   competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.
   
  - Original Message - 
  I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
  the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
  WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
  lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.
  
  From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
  usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
  people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
  to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.
  
  Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
  will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
  The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
  discouraging the slippery slope.
  -- 
  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] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread George Rogato

Well this was an exiting day on the lists.

I would find it hard to believe that the wisp industry is in worse shape 
now than before concerning abuse.


5 years ago when most were new and choices were far and few between, 
there was a lot of pringles type wisps. Hey, they were the inovators.


But it's hard to believe that with the advent of cheap gear from many 
new players, I'd have ahard time believing that the vast majority of 
wisp gear is an fcc certified system or kit type product, such as a star 
or mt.


I think we're building a mountain out of a mole hill in even suggesting 
that this an issue that has to be delt with. The industry has matured in 
a very positive way over the past few years.


George

This is NOT an official wispa stance or position, just my own.

Patrick Leary wrote:

Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves:

1. The FCC is not a baby sitter. 
2. Mature operators (and industries as a whole) follow the rules as a

matter of course and expected cost of business.
3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially
benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should
thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum.
4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain
about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc.

As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've certainly
been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs are
now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount to its
approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but one
rule: Don't exceed the power limitations. Everything else has become
fair game.

Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if not
actual, that abuse is reaching new levels:
 
- many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz to carry some

commercial traffic (Hey, there's excess capacity so what's the big deal,
right?...)
- use of STA's to commercially use spectrum is openly being advocated
(this is partially responsible for an over 6 month wait in STA filings)
- illegal vendors now operate in the clear with prominent U.S.
distribution (They must be legal if they have a store front and it only
hurts other vendors anyway...)
- build your own base station type Google ads are rampant

Call me an alarmist, but this accelerating trend is disturbing and such
attitudes easily even have the potential to infect safety issues (hey,
OSHA rules must not be that big a deal either).

We must all appreciate that many violating the rules do so out of
ignorance, but that as an excuse. Groups like WISPA should take firm
stands on subjects like this. You should strongly encourage compliance,
lead the way and educate. You should fight the ignorance that allows for
relativism and creative interpretation of the rules. You should also
not cave to the hard luck excuses that I'm a small guy and can't afford
to follow the rules. (Your response to such should be to point to
funding sources/advice or otherwise tell them that there is a minimum
cost to legally participate in this business and that following FCC
rules is a minimum expectation as responsible stewards of the public's
free spectrum.) And finally, WISPs should not treat knowingly illegal
operators as equals because in fact they are liabilities to you and the
industry at large.

And yes, of course I have skin in the game but that in no way alters
anything here or devalues my comments. If anything, as a legal vendor
with a long professional reputation of compliance and scores of legal
operator partners, and as an individual who has been beating this drum
for 7 years, it should only increase the weight of my comments.

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 Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:26 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look

bad.
Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:



I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. 


The WISP industry must do a better 

Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces

2007-02-06 Thread Tom DeReggi

George,

Thats a good point. WISPs are maturing and as they grow they start to demand 
name brand type gear that will let them scale, which inadvertently is 
usually certified.
Thus larger providers using certified gear.  With no disrespect meant, I 
could argue that some of WISP's straying to non-certified gear, could be 
more of a science project, or trials to test the viabilty of that type 
product line, and as those trials become successful, they likely will 
certify gear or buy versions that are certified.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV 
whitespaces




Well this was an exiting day on the lists.

I would find it hard to believe that the wisp industry is in worse shape 
now than before concerning abuse.


5 years ago when most were new and choices were far and few between, there 
was a lot of pringles type wisps. Hey, they were the inovators.


But it's hard to believe that with the advent of cheap gear from many new 
players, I'd have ahard time believing that the vast majority of wisp gear 
is an fcc certified system or kit type product, such as a star or mt.


I think we're building a mountain out of a mole hill in even suggesting 
that this an issue that has to be delt with. The industry has matured in a 
very positive way over the past few years.


George

This is NOT an official wispa stance or position, just my own.

Patrick Leary wrote:

Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves:

1. The FCC is not a baby sitter. 2. Mature operators (and industries as a 
whole) follow the rules as a

matter of course and expected cost of business.
3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially
benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should
thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum.
4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain
about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc.

As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've certainly
been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs are
now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount to its
approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but one
rule: Don't exceed the power limitations. Everything else has become
fair game.

Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if not
actual, that abuse is reaching new levels:
 - many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz to carry some
commercial traffic (Hey, there's excess capacity so what's the big deal,
right?...)
- use of STA's to commercially use spectrum is openly being advocated
(this is partially responsible for an over 6 month wait in STA filings)
- illegal vendors now operate in the clear with prominent U.S.
distribution (They must be legal if they have a store front and it only
hurts other vendors anyway...)
- build your own base station type Google ads are rampant

Call me an alarmist, but this accelerating trend is disturbing and such
attitudes easily even have the potential to infect safety issues (hey,
OSHA rules must not be that big a deal either).

We must all appreciate that many violating the rules do so out of
ignorance, but that as an excuse. Groups like WISPA should take firm
stands on subjects like this. You should strongly encourage compliance,
lead the way and educate. You should fight the ignorance that allows for
relativism and creative interpretation of the rules. You should also
not cave to the hard luck excuses that I'm a small guy and can't afford
to follow the rules. (Your response to such should be to point to
funding sources/advice or otherwise tell them that there is a minimum
cost to legally participate in this business and that following FCC
rules is a minimum expectation as responsible stewards of the public's
free spectrum.) And finally, WISPs should not treat knowingly illegal
operators as equals because in fact they are liabilities to you and the
industry at large.

And yes, of course I have skin in the game but that in no way alters
anything here or devalues my comments. If anything, as a legal vendor
with a long professional reputation of compliance and scores of legal
operator partners, and as an individual who has been beating this drum
for 7 years, it should only increase the weight of my comments.

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 Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:26 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look

bad.

RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces

2007-02-06 Thread Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless
Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts.

I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was talking
about consultants etc.  You are correct in that many people who are
consultants don't know the real world implications.  Us WISPs have first
hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands, hardware, etc
is capable of.  

A recent study was commissioned in St. Louis. This was a feasibility study
that netted some consultant over $90,000 bucks from the way I read it.
What was this for?  To see if the city of St. Louis can put in a wireless
network covering downtown.   H.  My first thought on this was

So the consultant needs to conduct a study on IF you can do this?   Does
he not know what he is doing? I can tell you I can do it, might take me a
bit to do the necessary research, but hell for that price, I will do the
research, finding bandwidth, contracts, and power/data agreements.  

This is the kind of thing that us, using license exempt bands nee to fight.
We need to make it public, that this is a misuse of taxpayer's dollars.  We
need to ensure that this is shown to cut out the small business, in favor of
large, non-local companies doing the work.  

A few other things that would help us WISPs out, someone in the FCC ready to
listen to our findings of non-complaint gear/overpowered radios, someone
that can actually say, you get me these things, the proof to say, and then
we will do something with it.  Don't happen very often.  If someone calls
the FCC, how many times have you heard anything back on them?  I have heard
interference stories, even from cell companies, (recent on the lists).

The story about the IT Person telling the WISP to use 4.9, is a prime
example of something that the FCC should be ON THE BALL about.  And also
some clarification on band usages, power limits, etc, where several
questions and things are open to interpretation, not closed down enough to
be solid in court or anywhere.


Just a few thoughts.

Dennis




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:05 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV
whitespaces

George,

Thats a good point. WISPs are maturing and as they grow they start to demand

name brand type gear that will let them scale, which inadvertently is 
usually certified.
Thus larger providers using certified gear.  With no disrespect meant, I 
could argue that some of WISP's straying to non-certified gear, could be 
more of a science project, or trials to test the viabilty of that type 
product line, and as those trials become successful, they likely will 
certify gear or buy versions that are certified.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV 
whitespaces


 Well this was an exiting day on the lists.

 I would find it hard to believe that the wisp industry is in worse shape 
 now than before concerning abuse.

 5 years ago when most were new and choices were far and few between, there

 was a lot of pringles type wisps. Hey, they were the inovators.

 But it's hard to believe that with the advent of cheap gear from many new 
 players, I'd have ahard time believing that the vast majority of wisp gear

 is an fcc certified system or kit type product, such as a star or mt.

 I think we're building a mountain out of a mole hill in even suggesting 
 that this an issue that has to be delt with. The industry has matured in a

 very positive way over the past few years.

 George

 This is NOT an official wispa stance or position, just my own.

 Patrick Leary wrote:
 Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves:

 1. The FCC is not a baby sitter. 2. Mature operators (and industries as a

 whole) follow the rules as a
 matter of course and expected cost of business.
 3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially
 benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should
 thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum.
 4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain
 about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc.

 As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've certainly
 been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs are
 now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount to its
 approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but one
 rule: Don't exceed the power limitations. Everything else has become
 fair game.

 Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if not
 actual, that abuse is reaching new levels:
  - many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz