Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread Peter R.

Michael Erskine wrote:
The ILECs have been building the POTS network since 1900.  They are 
not incompetent and they understand how to buy power.


Actually, maybe not incompetent but entirely without vision and with an 
eye only to quarterly numbers.


Your best recipe for retaining customers - DSL, wireless or otherwise - 
is to add sticky apps. You have all heard the value add speech before - 
but many of you still do not apply it.


How did AOL keep so many customers? They didn't know how to move their 
address book. Take that as a hint, especially when many of your clients 
use webmail.


There are many companies that will help you sell apps - ZOHO, 
AppExhange, SalesForce.net, Google Apps, Intermedia.Net, SparkGroup, 
Zimbra, OX, esterolos, scalix, and craig's list.


Many of you are residential based -- you need to build a portal and 
build community. If they are coming to your portal for video, 
classifieds, local news, photos, blogging, and messaging -- they likely 
won't leave on price.



Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884 
http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread Peter R.

Smith, Rick wrote:

I can tell you for a fact that Embarq and Verizon have 700 Mhz
and FTTP on their radar BIG time.

It's that whole battle vs. war thing... They're willing to
get their heads handed to them 9 times because that 10th is
their nuke...

OK I've gotta throw away this devil's advocate hat...
EMBARQ? Hesse said that he was betting on the DSL game. Where does 
Embarq do FTTx?


VZ and ATT are spending the money for FTTx - but not in rural America. 
(Maybe that's where 700 comes in, but I think the 700 is going to be 
used for muni wi-fi and to enhance their cellular data services).


- Peter

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread Smith, Rick
Rumors of Embarq pulling fiber in NW NJ. I'm trying to figure this one
out,
since it's home for me :)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:48 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

Smith, Rick wrote:
 I can tell you for a fact that Embarq and Verizon have 700 Mhz
 and FTTP on their radar BIG time.

 It's that whole battle vs. war thing... They're willing to
 get their heads handed to them 9 times because that 10th is
 their nuke...

 OK I've gotta throw away this devil's advocate hat...
EMBARQ? Hesse said that he was betting on the DSL game. Where does 
Embarq do FTTx?

VZ and ATT are spending the money for FTTx - but not in rural America. 
(Maybe that's where 700 comes in, but I think the 700 is going to be 
used for muni wi-fi and to enhance their cellular data services).

- Peter


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.
The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We
want to know your thoughts.


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread Drew Lentz
Just to throw another log on, here's the CTIA's approach:

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--CTIA-The Wireless AssociationR President and
CEO Steve Largent issued the following statement today in response to a
letter from Google to the Federal Communications Commission asking for
special conditions in the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction, and pledging to
bid at least $4.6 billion for that spectrum if Google's conditions are met:

The veil has been lifted. Google's letter to the FCC this morning
highlights the Internet giant's scheme to have the 700 MHz auction rigged
with special conditions in its favor. If Google is willing to commit almost
$5 billion dollars for spectrum that it wants encumbered with various
requirements, then let it win that spectrum in a competitive auction and
choose that business model. Google and its allies, with their collective
market capitalization approaching half a trillion dollars, don't need a
government handout at taxpayers' expense. The competitive wireless industry
welcomes all new entrants, but no company should be able to buy a custom-fit
government regulation that suits their particular business plan. Consumers
should decide if they're right, not the federal government.

CTIA is the international association for the wireless telecommunications
industry, representing carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet
providers.


Drew Lentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

Rumors of Embarq pulling fiber in NW NJ. I'm trying to figure this one
out,
since it's home for me :)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:48 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

Smith, Rick wrote:
 I can tell you for a fact that Embarq and Verizon have 700 Mhz
 and FTTP on their radar BIG time.

 It's that whole battle vs. war thing... They're willing to
 get their heads handed to them 9 times because that 10th is
 their nuke...

 OK I've gotta throw away this devil's advocate hat...
EMBARQ? Hesse said that he was betting on the DSL game. Where does 
Embarq do FTTx?

VZ and ATT are spending the money for FTTx - but not in rural America. 
(Maybe that's where 700 comes in, but I think the 700 is going to be 
used for muni wi-fi and to enhance their cellular data services).

- Peter


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.
The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We
want to know your thoughts.


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to
know your thoughts.


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take on Broadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Drew Lentz
In an article entitled Broadband Baloney in the Wall Street Journal today,
Robert McDowell, a Commissioner on the FCC stated:

Criticisms of our definition of broadband being too lax are already
irrelevant as over 50 million subscribers are in the 1.5 to 3.0
megabits-per-second fast lane.

That my friends, is EXACTLY what the problem is: 1.5 to 3mb FAST LANE
Who are they trying to kid? Then he goes on to say:

Today, video applications are tugging hard on America's broadband
infrastructure. YouTube alone uses as much bandwidth today as the entire
Internet did in 2000. Not surprisingly, our broadband adoption rate
continues to increase concurrently with the proliferation of this latest
killer app.

He talks about how much of a push video is, even citing that it eats up a
large amount of bandwidth, but is insistent on 1.5 to 3 Mb being fast?  I
don't get it.

The article sums up why he thinks that all this talk about us lagging behind
in the broadband proliferation table is Broadband Baloney.. boo I say. The
fact that the WSJ would print this is baloney.

Article is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118524094434875755.html?mod=googlenews_wsj 

Drew Lentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
956.878.0123



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Scottie Arnett
Thats the problem...most of the senate, congress, heck the whole government and 
their appointees do not know the difference in a piece of twine with two cans 
attached and a copper line with telephones attached, much less how the internet 
works and the physics behind it.

They only know how to listen to the people that pad their or their parties back 
pockets. IMHO.

-- Original Message --
From: Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date:  Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:57:57 -0500

In an article entitled Broadband Baloney in the Wall Street Journal today,
Robert McDowell, a Commissioner on the FCC stated:

Criticisms of our definition of broadband being too lax are already
irrelevant as over 50 million subscribers are in the 1.5 to 3.0
megabits-per-second fast lane.

That my friends, is EXACTLY what the problem is: 1.5 to 3mb FAST LANE
Who are they trying to kid? Then he goes on to say:

Today, video applications are tugging hard on America's broadband
infrastructure. YouTube alone uses as much bandwidth today as the entire
Internet did in 2000. Not surprisingly, our broadband adoption rate
continues to increase concurrently with the proliferation of this latest
killer app.

He talks about how much of a push video is, even citing that it eats up a
large amount of bandwidth, but is insistent on 1.5 to 3 Mb being fast?  I
don't get it.

The article sums up why he thinks that all this talk about us lagging behind
in the broadband proliferation table is Broadband Baloney.. boo I say. The
fact that the WSJ would print this is baloney.

Article is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118524094434875755.html?mod=googlenews_wsj 

Drew Lentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
956.878.0123



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]



Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com for information.

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

Oh brother.  Here we go again.

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's 
takeonBroadband..



Thats the problem...most of the senate, congress, heck the whole 
government and their appointees do not know the difference in a piece of 
twine with two cans attached and a copper line with telephones attached, 
much less how the internet works and the physics behind it.


They only know how to listen to the people that pad their or their parties 
back pockets. IMHO.


-- Original Message --
From: Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date:  Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:57:57 -0500

In an article entitled Broadband Baloney in the Wall Street Journal 
today,

Robert McDowell, a Commissioner on the FCC stated:

Criticisms of our definition of broadband being too lax are already
irrelevant as over 50 million subscribers are in the 1.5 to 3.0
megabits-per-second fast lane.

That my friends, is EXACTLY what the problem is: 1.5 to 3mb FAST LANE
Who are they trying to kid? Then he goes on to say:

Today, video applications are tugging hard on America's broadband
infrastructure. YouTube alone uses as much bandwidth today as the entire
Internet did in 2000. Not surprisingly, our broadband adoption rate
continues to increase concurrently with the proliferation of this latest
killer app.

He talks about how much of a push video is, even citing that it eats up a
large amount of bandwidth, but is insistent on 1.5 to 3 Mb being fast?  I
don't get it.

The article sums up why he thinks that all this talk about us lagging 
behind
in the broadband proliferation table is Broadband Baloney.. boo I say. 
The

fact that the WSJ would print this is baloney.

Article is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118524094434875755.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Drew Lentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
956.878.0123



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know 
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The 
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to 
know your thoughts.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]




Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com for information.

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know 
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The 
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to 
know your thoughts.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] self inflicted interference

2007-07-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

Hi All,

I just completely rebuilt a tower site.  It had inconsistent speeds and I'd 
hit the point that I normally change things around.


When I hit 50 people to a tower I'll sectorize it.

On this tower I had an omni at about 25' (the hill is 700 feet over the 
valley) and a 15dB integrated Tranzeo ap at about 15'.


Omni was vertical, sector was horizontal.

I rented a manlift and put an hpol maxrad wisp series 120* adjustable beam 
sector at about 45', a vertical at 37ish and another horizontal at about 30. 
All antennas are also 6 to 8' horizontally separated.  Each on a standoff 
attached to the different legs of the tower.


All antennas are fed with lmr600 and the radios are right beside each other 
at the base of the tower (I'm too chicken to climb so the radios stay where 
I can get to them).


Here's my problem, with all of the radios on and transmitting the speeds are 
worse than before for most customers.


The sector to the west has 2 customers and sits at the 30' level and is 
hpol.  Those two customers get around 4 megs down and up.


The sector to the north east is vertical and a customer at 10ish miles gets 
.7 to 1.5 megs down and .25 to .5 up.


The sector to the south east is hpol and sits at the 45 or 50' level. 
Customers get .6 to 1.5 down and .1 to .5 up.


Unplug any two radios and speeds hit the 2 to 3 meg, sometimes 4 meg speed 
for all customers on that system.  Plug the other one back in and speeds 
drop back down.


The hpol maxrad antennas have a 30dB fb ratio.  I've not yet looked at the 
patterns lately, as I recall they are pretty good though.  APs are 
Teletronics 11-152s with metal cases.


I've had GREAT luck with ALL of these components at other sites.  Just never 
all at the same time and place like this.  As most of you know, most of my 
coverage areas are VERY low density so I tend to use a lot of omni antennas, 
or am mounted on hills that have no coverage behind them so only one or two 
sectors are used.


The two systems that interfere with each other the most are north east and 
south east.  One's hpol one's vpol.  They are on channel 1 and 9.


To get things working MUCH better than they were before, I've replaced the 
north east and south east radios with Tranzeo ap's.  I also moved the 
southeast antenna (actually put up a new one) back down to the roof of the 
shack.  It's also a Tranzeo ap now.  It, however, now sits in front of, 
though much lower than the west antenna, both are hpol though.  If the 
channels are anywhere near the same for west and southeast the folks to the 
west get really slow speeds.


I also moved the antennas on the tower further apart, they are now at least 
5 or 6 feet apart from each other.  I don't know how much that helped as I 
changed one of the radios to a Tranzeo at that same time.  This helped but 
didn't fix the speed and consistency problem.  That's when I moved the south 
east system back down where I could more easily get to it.


Things still aren't as consistent as they need to be.  If one system gets 
busy the others slow down.  Any ideas?  My first thought is to try a REALLY 
high end access point or two.  You'd think those systems could sit side 
beside when using channels so far apart from each other.  It's like the new 
radios are soo sensitive that they will pick up the noise close to them 
no matter what.  OR, more likely, that the new, cheaper, gear has really 
really sensitive radios but with rotten side band isolation on both tx and 
rx.


Any ideas?  Radios/antennas to try?  Changing the radios is easy.  Getting a 
manlift back out to change the antennas will suck big time (due to the stand 
offs it would be too hard/dangerous to change antennas from the tower).


thanks,
marlon


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread John Scrivner

The bad thing about Google's wholesale push is this:

We asked for bidding credits and CMA sized blocks in the upper and lower 
700 MHz bands in the upcoming auction. If Google gets their way then the 
upper blocks will NOT be CMA sized and will have wholesale requirements 
attached. I can see some of the bigger players sidestepping the larger 
wholesale-crippled spectrum in order to outbid all of us in the lower 
CMA sized blocks. In those blocks there will likely be no wholesale 
requirements. End result? We cannot afford to outbid them and we lose a 
shot at these bands for our own use. I have never seen a wholesale model 
for a communications platform that worked. I doubt it will work this 
time either. I see this as a lose - lose for us if Google gets what they 
want. I hope I am wrong.

Scriv


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

Oh man.  This from anyone in the cellular industry!

sigh

I do, however, agree with his point.  Goggle could just do that if 
they win the spectrum.  This is clearly an attempt to devalue the 
spectrum.  Not that that's a bad thing.  Clearly we've seen that the 
spectrum tax, oh excuse me, auction, is a market place failure as far 
as broadband goes.

marlon

- Original Message - From: Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:24 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion



Just to throw another log on, here's the CTIA's approach:

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--CTIA-The Wireless AssociationR President 
and

CEO Steve Largent issued the following statement today in response to a
letter from Google to the Federal Communications Commission asking for
special conditions in the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction, and 
pledging to
bid at least $4.6 billion for that spectrum if Google's conditions 
are met:


The veil has been lifted. Google's letter to the FCC this morning
highlights the Internet giant's scheme to have the 700 MHz auction 
rigged
with special conditions in its favor. If Google is willing to commit 
almost

$5 billion dollars for spectrum that it wants encumbered with various
requirements, then let it win that spectrum in a competitive auction and
choose that business model. Google and its allies, with their collective
market capitalization approaching half a trillion dollars, don't need a
government handout at taxpayers' expense. The competitive wireless 
industry
welcomes all new entrants, but no company should be able to buy a 
custom-fit
government regulation that suits their particular business plan. 
Consumers

should decide if they're right, not the federal government.

CTIA is the international association for the wireless 
telecommunications

industry, representing carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet
providers.


Drew Lentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

Rumors of Embarq pulling fiber in NW NJ. I'm trying to figure this one
out,
since it's home for me :)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:48 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

Smith, Rick wrote:

I can tell you for a fact that Embarq and Verizon have 700 Mhz
and FTTP on their radar BIG time.

It's that whole battle vs. war thing... They're willing to
get their heads handed to them 9 times because that 10th is
their nuke...

OK I've gotta throw away this devil's advocate hat...

EMBARQ? Hesse said that he was betting on the DSL game. Where does
Embarq do FTTx?

VZ and ATT are spending the money for FTTx - but not in rural America.
(Maybe that's where 700 comes in, but I think the 700 is going to be
used for muni wi-fi and to enhance their cellular data services).

- Peter


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.
The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We
want to know your thoughts.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  
The
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We 
want to

know your thoughts.

Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference

2007-07-24 Thread Blair Davis

Look into some high Q cavity filters.



Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

Hi All,

I just completely rebuilt a tower site.  It had inconsistent speeds 
and I'd hit the point that I normally change things around.


When I hit 50 people to a tower I'll sectorize it.

On this tower I had an omni at about 25' (the hill is 700 feet over 
the valley) and a 15dB integrated Tranzeo ap at about 15'.


Omni was vertical, sector was horizontal.

I rented a manlift and put an hpol maxrad wisp series 120* adjustable 
beam sector at about 45', a vertical at 37ish and another horizontal 
at about 30. All antennas are also 6 to 8' horizontally separated.  
Each on a standoff attached to the different legs of the tower.


All antennas are fed with lmr600 and the radios are right beside each 
other at the base of the tower (I'm too chicken to climb so the radios 
stay where I can get to them).


Here's my problem, with all of the radios on and transmitting the 
speeds are worse than before for most customers.


The sector to the west has 2 customers and sits at the 30' level and 
is hpol.  Those two customers get around 4 megs down and up.


The sector to the north east is vertical and a customer at 10ish miles 
gets .7 to 1.5 megs down and .25 to .5 up.


The sector to the south east is hpol and sits at the 45 or 50' level. 
Customers get .6 to 1.5 down and .1 to .5 up.


Unplug any two radios and speeds hit the 2 to 3 meg, sometimes 4 meg 
speed for all customers on that system.  Plug the other one back in 
and speeds drop back down.


The hpol maxrad antennas have a 30dB fb ratio.  I've not yet looked at 
the patterns lately, as I recall they are pretty good though.  APs are 
Teletronics 11-152s with metal cases.


I've had GREAT luck with ALL of these components at other sites.  Just 
never all at the same time and place like this.  As most of you know, 
most of my coverage areas are VERY low density so I tend to use a lot 
of omni antennas, or am mounted on hills that have no coverage behind 
them so only one or two sectors are used.


The two systems that interfere with each other the most are north east 
and south east.  One's hpol one's vpol.  They are on channel 1 and 9.


To get things working MUCH better than they were before, I've replaced 
the north east and south east radios with Tranzeo ap's.  I also moved 
the southeast antenna (actually put up a new one) back down to the 
roof of the shack.  It's also a Tranzeo ap now.  It, however, now sits 
in front of, though much lower than the west antenna, both are hpol 
though.  If the channels are anywhere near the same for west and 
southeast the folks to the west get really slow speeds.


I also moved the antennas on the tower further apart, they are now at 
least 5 or 6 feet apart from each other.  I don't know how much that 
helped as I changed one of the radios to a Tranzeo at that same time.  
This helped but didn't fix the speed and consistency problem.  That's 
when I moved the south east system back down where I could more easily 
get to it.


Things still aren't as consistent as they need to be.  If one system 
gets busy the others slow down.  Any ideas?  My first thought is to 
try a REALLY high end access point or two.  You'd think those systems 
could sit side beside when using channels so far apart from each 
other.  It's like the new radios are soo sensitive that they will 
pick up the noise close to them no matter what.  OR, more likely, that 
the new, cheaper, gear has really really sensitive radios but with 
rotten side band isolation on both tx and rx.


Any ideas?  Radios/antennas to try?  Changing the radios is easy.  
Getting a manlift back out to change the antennas will suck big time 
(due to the stand offs it would be too hard/dangerous to change 
antennas from the tower).


thanks,
marlon

 

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board 
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA 
lists.  The current Board is taking this under consideration at this 
time.  We want to know your thoughts.
 



--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] PowerStation 2

2007-07-24 Thread Zack Kneisley

Has anyone worked with these Powerstations? doesn't look like anything
strange or unfamiliar, except that it has every feature I can ever remember
wanting.
www.ubnt.com

Any comments good or bad?

Zack

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread W.D.McKinney
- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:38:41 -0800
Subject:
Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion


 The bad thing about Google's wholesale push is this:
 
 We asked for bidding credits and CMA sized blocks in the upper and lower 
 700 MHz bands in the upcoming auction. If Google gets their way then the 
 upper blocks will NOT be CMA sized and will have wholesale requirements 
 attached. I can see some of the bigger players sidestepping the larger 
 wholesale-crippled spectrum in order to outbid all of us in the lower 
 CMA sized blocks. In those blocks there will likely be no wholesale 
 requirements. End result? We cannot afford to outbid them and we lose a 
 shot at these bands for our own use. I have never seen a wholesale model 
 for a communications platform that worked. I doubt it will work this 
 time either. I see this as a lose - lose for us if Google gets what they 
 want. I hope I am wrong.
 Scriv
 
 

Hi John,

Yes indeed, big cash boys will be the driver in 700MHz side, sure wish it was 
designated for the WISP folks directly so that we could see some real 
innovation.

If Google wins, the spectrum will be tied up for a long time with little on no 
use right away.

Cheers,
-Dee




Alaska Wireless Systems
1(907)240-2183 Cell
1(907)349-2226 Fax
1(907)349-4308 Office
www.akwireless.net



 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
  Oh man.  This from anyone in the cellular industry!
 
  sigh
 
  I do, however, agree with his point.  Goggle could just do that if 
  they win the spectrum.  This is clearly an attempt to devalue the 
  spectrum.  Not that that's a bad thing.  Clearly we've seen that the 
  spectrum tax, oh excuse me, auction, is a market place failure as far 
  as broadband goes.
  marlon
 
  - Original Message - From: Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:24 AM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion
 
 
  Just to throw another log on, here's the CTIA's approach:
 
  WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--CTIA-The Wireless AssociationR President 
  and
  CEO Steve Largent issued the following statement today in response to a
  letter from Google to the Federal Communications Commission asking for
  special conditions in the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction, and 
  pledging to
  bid at least $4.6 billion for that spectrum if Google's conditions 
  are met:
 
  The veil has been lifted. Google's letter to the FCC this morning
  highlights the Internet giant's scheme to have the 700 MHz auction 
  rigged
  with special conditions in its favor. If Google is willing to commit 
  almost
  $5 billion dollars for spectrum that it wants encumbered with various
  requirements, then let it win that spectrum in a competitive auction and
  choose that business model. Google and its allies, with their collective
  market capitalization approaching half a trillion dollars, don't need a
  government handout at taxpayers' expense. The competitive wireless 
  industry
  welcomes all new entrants, but no company should be able to buy a 
  custom-fit
  government regulation that suits their particular business plan. 
  Consumers
  should decide if they're right, not the federal government.
 
  CTIA is the international association for the wireless 
  telecommunications
  industry, representing carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet
  providers.
 
 
  Drew Lentz
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Smith, Rick
  Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:21 AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion
 
  Rumors of Embarq pulling fiber in NW NJ. I'm trying to figure this one
  out,
  since it's home for me :)
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Peter R.
  Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:48 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion
 
  Smith, Rick wrote:
  I can tell you for a fact that Embarq and Verizon have 700 Mhz
  and FTTP on their radar BIG time.
 
  It's that whole battle vs. war thing... They're willing to
  get their heads handed to them 9 times because that 10th is
  their nuke...
 
  OK I've gotta throw away this devil's advocate hat...
  EMBARQ? Hesse said that he was betting on the DSL game. Where does
  Embarq do FTTx?
 
  VZ and ATT are spending the money for FTTx - but not in rural America.
  (Maybe that's where 700 comes in, but I think the 700 is going to be
  used for muni wi-fi and to enhance their cellular data services).
 
  - Peter


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 

Re: [WISPA] PowerStation 2

2007-07-24 Thread Blair Davis

make sure the firmware is up to date


Zack Kneisley wrote:

Has anyone worked with these Powerstations? doesn't look like anything
strange or unfamiliar, except that it has every feature I can ever 
remember

wanting.
www.ubnt.com

Any comments good or bad?

Zack
 

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board 
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA 
lists.  The current Board is taking this under consideration at this 
time.  We want to know your thoughts.
 



--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Hammett
I'm not sure who isn't listening to whom, but I've said more than once that 
Google is only bidding if the FCC sets up the auction requiring wholesale.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion



Hi,

Maybe you need to read my posts a little better... I think I have said it 
twice already, but I will say it again:


I am not after Google, nor am I saying they are evil. What I am saying 
is there is a grand plan already in place with this 700mhz auction they 
are considering. They have the money and the means to do just about 
anything they want with it. We just need to keep our eyes open. The 
telco's already own a great deal of spectrum, so another 20mhz really 
isn't going to matter much. They don't know what they are doing, why would 
it change now?


And, I'll say it again... The telco's don't scare me. Qwest offers $19.95 
DSL packages right now... our cheapest wireless plan is $39.95, yet we 
continue to take people away from Qwest. Will I ever be as big as they 
are? No. But I will continue to pick up the people that HATE the telco and 
cableco, and that business alone will keep me in business for a long, long 
time. ;)


We understand the phone company sold you DSL for twice what it sold to the 
customer... but again, why does that matter here? The day they started 
doing that was the same day you should have been installing wireless to 
all of your existing customers. We have had Qwest literally take a 
customer away from us while all three of us were conferenced on a call for 
support. That is against their company policy, especially when we called 
their safe line for ISP's. But there isn't a damn thing you can do about 
it, so you just move on. :)


Travis
Microserv

Michael Erskine wrote:

Ten years is a good run, Travis.

I wish you would listen to what I post rather than figure out some 
smart response.
You have whined and whined about Google, yet you feel that the ILECs are 
not

a threat.
Besides the fact that you won a legal battle or two, you have no reason 
not to

appropriate the *facts*.  Yet you choose not to do that.

Ok, help yourself.  Go tilt at the Google windmill but while you do that, 
maybe
you will check six once in a while?  Because 6 is FTTH and 700 MHz in 
the
hands of the ILECs.  You may not believe that, and I personally could 
give a
RATZ hinderst parts one way or the other, but put it in your note book 
and
come back to me in two years...  There are a lot of folks here who will 
tell you
that I am not often wrong ... even though they don't like me worth a 
damn.


Choose your enemies however you want.  Me, I think I will choose mine
with a dash of common sense.

-m-





Travis Johnson wrote:
I figured it out a long time ago wireless internet go around the 
big bad phone company... since 1997. :)


Travis
Microserv

Michael Erskine wrote:

Try filing a suit for taking your customers...   :-\

You won't win that one.  They have the same sort of pockets you fear in 
Google, except that they have already proven they will sell you DSL at 
twice the price they will offer retail...


When we started reselling Verizon DSL we paid them whole sale because 
the FCC said that they had to let us buy at whole sale.  Wholesale to 
us was $23.95.  Retail to their
customers was $14.95 with a one year commitment.  Then the FCC decided 
that they did not have to let us buy at wholesale...


You frigure it out.  ;)

-m-

Travis Johnson wrote:
I don't fear the ILEC's... they are regulated and can be easily sued. 
We have sued Qwest twice and won both times... once for slow delivery 
of new lines and another time for billing errors.


Travis
Microserv

Michael J. Erskine wrote:

Travis Johnson wrote:
Yes, I remember the dark fiber... and so, the question remains, how 
much fiber did they buy? They are now bidding on 700mhz spectrum, 
and could connect everything back to their main datacenters with all 
the dark fiber they purchased previously. ;)


And I never said they were Evil (which is funny that everyone is 
using that term when it is Google's company moto to Do no Evil)... 
all I am saying is we need to keep our eyes open and watch what is 
going on... if the telco's buy the 700mhz, nobody really cares... 
they will use it for cell phone or higher speed mobile services...



No, They will use it to deliver broadband in direct competition to 
you.  The telco's have figured out that their future rests in 
broadband and not POTS.




but if Google buys it, they will offer internet service really, 
really cheap or for free. They are making BILLIONS of dollars profit 
every year without doing anything...



They are organizing data.  They are selling advertizing space.  CBS 
does that.  NBC does that.  CNN does that.  It is 

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Hammett
oh, and hardly any of the auctioned spectrum has or will in the short term 
be used for broadband.  It's used for cellular and other services.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's 
takeonBroadband..



3 mbit is not fast.  The US IS behind other countries, there's no point in 
whining about it.  Yes, there are very substantial reasons why our numbers 
don't look as good as theirs, but there's no need to skew the system to 
make us look better...  just solve the problem.




Fixed wireless is broadband.  WIFI hotspots, cell phones, etc. are not 
broadband (maybe the cell broadband cards).  The reason our numbers are 
climbing is because this has been a problem for some time and we're 
working on fixing it.  It takes a lot to change things like that for the 
third most populous country in the world.




Perhaps it should be measured per household and not per capita, I dunno.



The reason why there's less competition elsewhere is because what is 
present is doing a good enough job!  Their telcos have delivered 15 meg 
DSL for years, while ours don't yet offer it.  That's why cable is taking 
on so well here.  It surely isn't because anything connected to Comcast 
has a good price point (DSL and satellite TV are both better values).




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:57 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take 
onBroadband..



In an article entitled Broadband Baloney in the Wall Street Journal 
today,

Robert McDowell, a Commissioner on the FCC stated:

Criticisms of our definition of broadband being too lax are already
irrelevant as over 50 million subscribers are in the 1.5 to 3.0
megabits-per-second fast lane.

That my friends, is EXACTLY what the problem is: 1.5 to 3mb FAST LANE
Who are they trying to kid? Then he goes on to say:

Today, video applications are tugging hard on America's broadband
infrastructure. YouTube alone uses as much bandwidth today as the entire
Internet did in 2000. Not surprisingly, our broadband adoption rate
continues to increase concurrently with the proliferation of this latest
killer app.

He talks about how much of a push video is, even citing that it eats up a
large amount of bandwidth, but is insistent on 1.5 to 3 Mb being fast?  I
don't get it.

The article sums up why he thinks that all this talk about us lagging 
behind
in the broadband proliferation table is Broadband Baloney.. boo I say. 
The

fact that the WSJ would print this is baloney.

Article is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118524094434875755.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Drew Lentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
956.878.0123



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know 
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The 
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want 
to know your thoughts.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know 
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The 
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to 
know your thoughts.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Hammett

Wholesale to yourself.  :-p

While not a great victory for us, any loss for the telcos is a victory for 
us.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion



The bad thing about Google's wholesale push is this:

We asked for bidding credits and CMA sized blocks in the upper and lower 
700 MHz bands in the upcoming auction. If Google gets their way then the 
upper blocks will NOT be CMA sized and will have wholesale requirements 
attached. I can see some of the bigger players sidestepping the larger 
wholesale-crippled spectrum in order to outbid all of us in the lower CMA 
sized blocks. In those blocks there will likely be no wholesale 
requirements. End result? We cannot afford to outbid them and we lose a 
shot at these bands for our own use. I have never seen a wholesale model 
for a communications platform that worked. I doubt it will work this time 
either. I see this as a lose - lose for us if Google gets what they want. 
I hope I am wrong.

Scriv


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

Oh man.  This from anyone in the cellular industry!

sigh

I do, however, agree with his point.  Goggle could just do that if they 
win the spectrum.  This is clearly an attempt to devalue the spectrum. 
Not that that's a bad thing.  Clearly we've seen that the spectrum tax, 
oh excuse me, auction, is a market place failure as far as broadband 
goes.

marlon

- Original Message - From: Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:24 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion



Just to throw another log on, here's the CTIA's approach:

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--CTIA-The Wireless AssociationR President 
and

CEO Steve Largent issued the following statement today in response to a
letter from Google to the Federal Communications Commission asking for
special conditions in the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction, and 
pledging to
bid at least $4.6 billion for that spectrum if Google's conditions are 
met:


The veil has been lifted. Google's letter to the FCC this morning
highlights the Internet giant's scheme to have the 700 MHz auction 
rigged
with special conditions in its favor. If Google is willing to commit 
almost

$5 billion dollars for spectrum that it wants encumbered with various
requirements, then let it win that spectrum in a competitive auction and
choose that business model. Google and its allies, with their collective
market capitalization approaching half a trillion dollars, don't need a
government handout at taxpayers' expense. The competitive wireless 
industry
welcomes all new entrants, but no company should be able to buy a 
custom-fit
government regulation that suits their particular business plan. 
Consumers

should decide if they're right, not the federal government.

CTIA is the international association for the wireless 
telecommunications

industry, representing carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet
providers.


Drew Lentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

Rumors of Embarq pulling fiber in NW NJ. I'm trying to figure this one
out,
since it's home for me :)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:48 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

Smith, Rick wrote:

I can tell you for a fact that Embarq and Verizon have 700 Mhz
and FTTP on their radar BIG time.

It's that whole battle vs. war thing... They're willing to
get their heads handed to them 9 times because that 10th is
their nuke...

OK I've gotta throw away this devil's advocate hat...

EMBARQ? Hesse said that he was betting on the DSL game. Where does
Embarq do FTTx?

VZ and ATT are spending the money for FTTx - but not in rural America.
(Maybe that's where 700 comes in, but I think the 700 is going to be
used for muni wi-fi and to enhance their cellular data services).

- Peter


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.
The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We
want to know your thoughts.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: 

[WISPA] Vista remote controll

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Hammett
I've used various VNC programs over the years on 2000 and XP.  Vista seems a 
little different.  What do you guys do to control those machines?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread David E. Smith

W.D.McKinney wrote:


If Google wins, the spectrum will be tied up for a long time with little on no 
use right away.


I suspect most of Google's business plan here is get spectrum, lease 
spectrum, earn lots of money with little actual work, and in that case 
it's in their best interest to get a leasing program up and running 
quickly. Kinda makes me wish I had a few billion sitting around; it's a 
good plan if you can finance it. In the meantime, Google has some of the 
smartest cookies on this planet working for them, so getting lease 
operations going should be trivial for them.


I'll concur that it'd be nice if there were some spectrum reserved for 
WISP use, but that apparently isn't meant to be. Google is probably the 
lesser evil in this case, given that our other choice is the telcos (we 
all know how fun they are to work with).


David Smith
MVN.net

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vista remote controll

2007-07-24 Thread David E. Smith

Mike Hammett wrote:

I've used various VNC programs over the years on 2000 and XP.  Vista seems a 
little different.  What do you guys do to control those machines?


If it's Vista Business or Vista Ultimate, the built-in Remote Desktop 
Connection service works just fine.


(Not sure about Vista Home, really, haven't played with it too much.)

David Smith
MVN.net

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vista remote controll

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Hammett
I'd imagine so in the Business and Ultimate versions.  There are a pair of 
Home Basic machines and Remote Desktop doesn't function like VNC in that I 
can't share the desktop with a local user.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vista remote controll



Mike Hammett wrote:
I've used various VNC programs over the years on 2000 and XP.  Vista 
seems a little different.  What do you guys do to control those machines?


If it's Vista Business or Vista Ultimate, the built-in Remote Desktop 
Connection service works just fine.


(Not sure about Vista Home, really, haven't played with it too much.)

David Smith
MVN.net

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know 
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The 
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to 
know your thoughts.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vista remote controll

2007-07-24 Thread David E. Smith

Mike Hammett wrote:
I'd imagine so in the Business and Ultimate versions.  There are a pair 
of Home Basic machines and Remote Desktop doesn't function like VNC in 
that I can't share the desktop with a local user.


Let me take this opportunity to point out the virtues of Windows Anytime 
Upgrade... :)


The added security controls in Vista, and the fact that the Home 
editions are specifically not intended to be servers, could make things 
tricky. I don't have a handy answer for you right off, sorry.


David Smith
MVN.net

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] America's Internet Disconnect

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Hammett
America's Internet Disconnect 
By Michael J. Copps
Wednesday, November 8, 2006; A27 
America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should 
be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. 
Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for 
service that is too slow. It's hurting our economy, and things are only going 
to get worse if we don't do something about it.

The United States is 15th in the world in broadband penetration, according to 
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). When the ITU measured a 
broader digital opportunity index (considering price and other factors) we 
were 21st -- right after Estonia. Asian and European customers get home 
connections of 25 to 100 megabits per second (fast enough to stream 
high-definition video). Here, we pay almost twice as much for connections that 
are one-twentieth the speed.

How have we fallen so far behind? Through lack of competition. As the 
Congressional Research Service puts it, U.S. consumers face a cable and 
telephone broadband duopoly. And that's more like a best-case scenario: Many 
households are hostage to a single broadband provider, and nearly one-tenth 
have no broadband provider at all.

For businesses, it's just as bad. The telecom merger spree has left many office 
buildings with a single provider -- leading to annual estimated overcharges of 
$8 billion. Our broadband infrastructure should be a reason companies want to 
do business in the United States, not just another reason to go offshore.

The stakes for our economy could not be higher. Our broadband failure places a 
ceiling over the productivity of far too much of the country. Should we expect 
small-town businesses to enter the digital economy, and students to enter the 
digital classroom, via a dial-up connection? The Internet can bring 
life-changing opportunities to those who don't live in large cities, but only 
if it is available and affordable.

Even in cities and suburbs, the fact that broadband is too slow, too expensive 
and too poorly subscribed is a significant drag on our economy. Some experts 
estimate that universal broadband adoption would add $500 billion to the U.S. 
economy and create 1.2 million jobs.

Future generations will ultimately pay for our missteps. Albert Einstein 
reportedly quipped that compound interest is the most powerful force in the 
universe. Investment in infrastructure is how a nation harnesses this awesome 
multiplier. Consider that 80 percent of the growth in fiber-to-the-home 
(super-high-speed) subscribers last year was not in the United States but in 
Japan. One does not need Einstein's grasp of mathematics to understand that we 
cannot keep pace on our current trajectory.

I don't claim to have all the answers. But there are concrete steps government 
must take now to reverse our slide into communications mediocrity.

To begin with, the Federal Communications Commission -- of which I am a member 
-- must face up to the problem. Today the agency's reports seem designed mostly 
to obscure the fact that we are falling behind the rest of the world. The FCC 
still defines broadband as 200 kilobits per second, assumes that if one person 
in a Zip code area has access to broadband then everyone does and fails to 
gather any data on pricing.

The FCC needs to start working to lower prices and introduce competition. We 
must start meeting our legislative mandate to get advanced telecommunications 
out to all Americans at reasonable prices; make new licensed and unlicensed 
spectrum available; authorize smart radios that use spectrum more 
efficiently; and do a better job of encouraging third pipe technologies such 
as wireless and broadband over power lines. And we should recommend steps to 
Congress to ensure the FCC's ability to implement long-term solutions.

We need a broadband strategy for America. Other industrialized countries have 
developed national broadband strategies. In the United States we have a 
campaign promise of universal broadband access by 2007, but no strategy for 
getting there. With less than two months to go, we aren't even within shouting 
distance.

The solution to our broadband crisis must ultimately involve public-private 
initiatives like those that built the railroad, highway and telephone systems. 
Combined with an overhaul of our universal service system to make sure it is 
focusing on the needs of broadband, this represents our best chance at 
recapturing our leadership position.

It seems plain enough that our present policies aren't working. Inattention and 
muddling through may be the path of least resistance, but they should not and 
must not represent our national policy on this critical issue.

The writer is a Democratic member of the Federal Communications Commission. 



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread Peter R.

W.D.McKinney wrote:

Yes indeed, big cash boys will be the driver in 700MHz side, sure wish it was 
designated for the WISP folks directly so that we could see some real 
innovation.

If Google wins, the spectrum will be tied up for a long time with little on no 
use right away.

Cheers,
-Dee




Alaska Wireless Systems
You mean like all that deployed 2.x GHz spectrum that Sprint, MCI, ATT 
and BellSouth purchased WAY back when??? That they are only deploying 
now because it was a merger condition.


Come on! If the auction is the same as always the Cellco's will buy it 
and do what they do - sit on it so that no one else can get in the ball 
game.


They complain that no one builds facilities but then the FCC changes the 
rules on exclusive rights. Go figure.


This is just another political positioning play.

- Peter

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Peter R.

Mike Hammett wrote:
3 mbit is not fast.  The US IS behind other countries, there's no 
point in whining about it.  Yes, there are very substantial reasons 
why our numbers don't look as good as theirs, but there's no need to 
skew the system to make us look better...  just solve the problem.




Fixed wireless is broadband.  WIFI hotspots, cell phones, etc. are not 
broadband (maybe the cell broadband cards).  The reason our numbers 
are climbing is because this has been a problem for some time and 
we're working on fixing it.  It takes a lot to change things like that 
for the third most populous country in the world.




Perhaps it should be measured per household and not per capita, I dunno.



The reason why there's less competition elsewhere is because what is 
present is doing a good enough job!  Their telcos have delivered 15 
meg DSL for years, while ours don't yet offer it.  That's why cable is 
taking on so well here.  It surely isn't because anything connected to 
Comcast has a good price point (DSL and satellite TV are both better 
values).




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
If they change the definition to 1MB, EVDO won't count and neither will 
IDSL and DSL Lite. The numbers of BB users in the stats will drop - the 
telcos will look like they have very few BB subs since about 10-20% buy 
Lite (depending who you believe). So the FCC will never voluntarily 
change the definition.


BTW, in countries with deep BB penetration, the regulators are TOUGH - 
as in the FCC Chairman does not have Ivan and Ed's hands up his butt so 
he can talk like Charlie McCarthy.


But ALL of that is beside the point. End of the day, YOU guys have to 
find, acquire and retain profitable customers. No matter what the 
regulatory or competitive environment looks like.


- Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

2007-07-24 Thread Sam Tetherow
The leasing mechanism could be interesting.  You would have to sell over 
a long period or with the right of first refusal on lease termination 
otherwise there would be no serious bidders if you are not guaranteed 
long term access to the spectrum.


What would be really interesting would be if google bought the spectrum 
and then resold non-exclusive right to use so for $x/unit you can 
operate in that space with anyone else that is willing to buy at 
$x/unit.  Not sure if the spectrum holder is allowed to do that or not...


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

David E. Smith wrote:

W.D.McKinney wrote:

If Google wins, the spectrum will be tied up for a long time with 
little on no use right away.


I suspect most of Google's business plan here is get spectrum, lease 
spectrum, earn lots of money with little actual work, and in that 
case it's in their best interest to get a leasing program up and 
running quickly. Kinda makes me wish I had a few billion sitting 
around; it's a good plan if you can finance it. In the meantime, 
Google has some of the smartest cookies on this planet working for 
them, so getting lease operations going should be trivial for them.


I'll concur that it'd be nice if there were some spectrum reserved for 
WISP use, but that apparently isn't meant to be. Google is probably 
the lesser evil in this case, given that our other choice is the 
telcos (we all know how fun they are to work with).


David Smith
MVN.net
 

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board 
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA 
lists.  The current Board is taking this under consideration at this 
time.  We want to know your thoughts.
 




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Clint Ricker

I'll duck after this post, but I by and large tend to agree with the basis
of the article.

Scottie, exactly what regulation would you recommend?

What has regulation solved in the past 11 years?  By and large, I've not
seen a single bit of FCC regulation that has had a net positive impact for
getting access to the consumer, especially post 2000 (it was probably a good
force behind making dialup Internet access widely available and affordable).


We had over 11 years of forced network unbundling for the ILECS (ie where
the ILECs are required to sell the bare copper at cost).  The idea, of
course, was to help service providers get on their feet while they were
building out their own network.  By and large, for a policy standpoint, it
did very little to actually increase network buildout.  Almost all of the
CLECs took the easy money of reselling the Bell networks and ran, making
agreegates of billions of dollars and not really building out any network to
speak of.  (Yes, there are some exceptions, but, this sums up the general
problem).

Forced wholesale access of the physical layer / network layer does
absolutely nothing to increase availability and, in fact, actually hurts
availabilty.  The ISP / CLEC that is basically reselling ILEC copper is not
connecting anyone who wouldn't / couldn't have been connected via the ILEC.
However, because the ILEC is less profitable due to forced reselling, then
they can't buildout as much infrastructure (theoretically).

The only real change in FCC policy in the past 11 years (fundamentally) is
that more people actually have to provide the services that they are
selling.  It's harder now to buy Bell DSL service, stick your own label on
it, and say that you're competing with Ma Bell.  All in all, I think that's
a good thing.

I understand that it isn't necessarily economically efficient to have
multiple sets of copper / coax going to the same house / office building,
and that telecommunication companies often constitute a natural monopoly of
sorts.  Forced selling of the network layer still doesn't get any new people
access to the

Now, if they wanted to successfully regulate the market, force a separation
of the network layer and the physical layer into two separate companies, a
model that is being vaguely adopted for some muni-funded developments.

The fact of the matter is that the US is doing pretty damn well at broadband
deployment, and, corruption aside, most of the current administration's
policies have been fairly benificial towards making broadband more widely
available (with some very major exceptions).  The US is fairly far down on
the list statistically; however, comparing US to Japan or European markets
is not an accurate comparison.  Sure, there is fiber available for

$25/month in many countries...can you profitably deploy fiber in Idaho at

$25ARPU?  Montana?  Kansas?  North Dakota?  Is bad FCC policy to blame?  Or
the fact that this is a big country with a lot of empty space...something
that doesn't affect most of the countries that are beating us in broadband
development.

Is the government policy hurting the independent ISPs?  Really?  Given the
huge regulatory requirements that exist on the ILECs, and the relative
freedom that the independents operate under, I can't really see the
independent industry as being hurt by government policy.

BTW, I do agree that the FCC is in the pocket of the telco's...and so on and
so forth.  However, most of the changes have, nevertheless, been positive
changes.  The industry does need less regulation, IMHO.  As long as there is
interconnection is manditory, there really doesn't need to be much more
regulation.  Don't like ATT?  Build your own network...(as most of you are
doing).  Expand.  Grow.  Acquire customers...you know, compete and all that
sort of good capitalistic stuff...

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies




On 7/24/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Mike Hammett wrote:
 3 mbit is not fast.  The US IS behind other countries, there's no
 point in whining about it.  Yes, there are very substantial reasons
 why our numbers don't look as good as theirs, but there's no need to
 skew the system to make us look better...  just solve the problem.



 Fixed wireless is broadband.  WIFI hotspots, cell phones, etc. are not
 broadband (maybe the cell broadband cards).  The reason our numbers
 are climbing is because this has been a problem for some time and
 we're working on fixing it.  It takes a lot to change things like that
 for the third most populous country in the world.



 Perhaps it should be measured per household and not per capita, I dunno.



 The reason why there's less competition elsewhere is because what is
 present is doing a good enough job!  Their telcos have delivered 15
 meg DSL for years, while ours don't yet offer it.  That's why cable is
 taking on so well here.  It surely isn't because anything connected to
 Comcast has a good price point (DSL and satellite TV are both better
 values).


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney full text (rant)

2007-07-24 Thread Peter R.

Mike Hammett wrote:
Broadband Baloney (Opinion) FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell 
  


According to several recent surveys, the average percentage of U.S. households taking broadband is about 42%; the EU average is 23%. 


And wait until 2009, when our economy comes to a screeching halt. And the EU 
economy will look strong. There are cultural difference why the EU is lower, 
but their cellular usage is much greater.



In the next few years, we will witness a tremendous explosion of 
entrepreneurial brilliance in the broadband market, if the government doesn't 
micromanage.

That explosion will not be here. Likely in all the far flung places that the Fortune 500 is moving HQ's to like India and Dubai. 


But that's just me being grumpy at the whole deal as a former Comptel guys goes 
to the dark side.

- Peter


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Sam Tetherow

Peter R. wrote:

Mike Hammett wrote:
3 mbit is not fast.  The US IS behind other countries, there's no 
point in whining about it.  Yes, there are very substantial reasons 
why our numbers don't look as good as theirs, but there's no need to 
skew the system to make us look better...  just solve the problem.




Fixed wireless is broadband.  WIFI hotspots, cell phones, etc. are 
not broadband (maybe the cell broadband cards).  The reason our 
numbers are climbing is because this has been a problem for some time 
and we're working on fixing it.  It takes a lot to change things like 
that for the third most populous country in the world.




Perhaps it should be measured per household and not per capita, I dunno.



The reason why there's less competition elsewhere is because what is 
present is doing a good enough job!  Their telcos have delivered 15 
meg DSL for years, while ours don't yet offer it.  That's why cable 
is taking on so well here.  It surely isn't because anything 
connected to Comcast has a good price point (DSL and satellite TV are 
both better values).




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
If they change the definition to 1MB, EVDO won't count and neither 
will IDSL and DSL Lite. The numbers of BB users in the stats will drop 
- the telcos will look like they have very few BB subs since about 
10-20% buy Lite (depending who you believe). So the FCC will never 
voluntarily change the definition.


BTW, in countries with deep BB penetration, the regulators are TOUGH - 
as in the FCC Chairman does not have Ivan and Ed's hands up his butt 
so he can talk like Charlie McCarthy.


But ALL of that is beside the point. End of the day, YOU guys have to 
find, acquire and retain profitable customers. No matter what the 
regulatory or competitive environment looks like.


- Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.

I know it has been brought up before, but I'll bring it up again, the 
majority of my customers are plenty happy at 1mbit service.  How do I  
know this?  The upgrade is only $10/month to go from 380K to 2M on my 
system, but less than 10% of my customers have opted for the higher cost 
plan ($40/mo instead of $30/mo).  In fact if I remove business accounts 
from the equation then less that 5% opt for the 2 meg plan.


What is even more telling is that 15% of my customer base is unwilling 
to pay $5/month more to upgrade from 128K to 380K


Are we ranked so low because we actually only provide service that is 
requested by our customers instead of over providing?  I wonder of the 
14 other countries above us if their consumers were given the ability to 
halve their ISP bill for half the speed if they would be willing to 
still pay the higher rate.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Hammett
I guess I'm the opposite.  I have plans that currently range from 256 to 
2048.  Most customers pick the 2048, with 256 coming in second.  There are 
some on other plans, but they were the fastest at the time.  Prices range 
from $25 for 256 to $55 for 2048.  Business accounts are 50% higher $ and 
all picked the fastest at the time.


As the users get around the net more, they will use it more.  It's a cycle. 
Faster Internet causes more demanding applications causes faster Internet 
causesOnce I solve a pile of unrelated issues I have, I foresee 
going to 3 megs, then 5, then 7.5, then 10.  I should have that completed in 
12 - 18 months.  I only have 20 customers now, so its hard to upgrade 
quickly.   ;-)



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's 
takeonBroadband..




Peter R. wrote:

Mike Hammett wrote:
3 mbit is not fast.  The US IS behind other countries, there's no point 
in whining about it.  Yes, there are very substantial reasons why our 
numbers don't look as good as theirs, but there's no need to skew the 
system to make us look better...  just solve the problem.




Fixed wireless is broadband.  WIFI hotspots, cell phones, etc. are not 
broadband (maybe the cell broadband cards).  The reason our numbers are 
climbing is because this has been a problem for some time and we're 
working on fixing it.  It takes a lot to change things like that for the 
third most populous country in the world.




Perhaps it should be measured per household and not per capita, I dunno.



The reason why there's less competition elsewhere is because what is 
present is doing a good enough job!  Their telcos have delivered 15 meg 
DSL for years, while ours don't yet offer it.  That's why cable is 
taking on so well here.  It surely isn't because anything connected to 
Comcast has a good price point (DSL and satellite TV are both better 
values).




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
If they change the definition to 1MB, EVDO won't count and neither will 
IDSL and DSL Lite. The numbers of BB users in the stats will drop - the 
telcos will look like they have very few BB subs since about 10-20% buy 
Lite (depending who you believe). So the FCC will never voluntarily 
change the definition.


BTW, in countries with deep BB penetration, the regulators are TOUGH - as 
in the FCC Chairman does not have Ivan and Ed's hands up his butt so he 
can talk like Charlie McCarthy.


But ALL of that is beside the point. End of the day, YOU guys have to 
find, acquire and retain profitable customers. No matter what the 
regulatory or competitive environment looks like.


- Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.

I know it has been brought up before, but I'll bring it up again, the 
majority of my customers are plenty happy at 1mbit service.  How do I 
know this?  The upgrade is only $10/month to go from 380K to 2M on my 
system, but less than 10% of my customers have opted for the higher cost 
plan ($40/mo instead of $30/mo).  In fact if I remove business accounts 
from the equation then less that 5% opt for the 2 meg plan.


What is even more telling is that 15% of my customer base is unwilling to 
pay $5/month more to upgrade from 128K to 380K


Are we ranked so low because we actually only provide service that is 
requested by our customers instead of over providing?  I wonder of the 14 
other countries above us if their consumers were given the ability to 
halve their ISP bill for half the speed if they would be willing to still 
pay the higher rate.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know 
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The 
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to 
know your thoughts.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Clint Ricker

Sam, I agree with your observation 100%.  Given most of the oversubscription
models in place in the industry, it is not even a matter of having
cheapskate customers.  Internet access (broadly speaking) is NOT very
bandwidth intensive.

Filesharing, video, etc... is bandwidth intensive.  Other than that, it's
all overkill.  Voice? 30Kb/s per line.  Web surfing?  100K once every couple
of minutes.  Email?  A brief surge of 100K a few times a day.  For most
users, 256Kb/s will provide the same user experience as 100Mb/s.

People pay 6Mb/s connections for the same reasons they pay for faster cars,
even though the speed limit is the same for a Ford Pinto as a Ferrari.  Not
an entirely apt analogy, but pretty much sums it up.

Honestly, I'd pay a lot more money for a connection with nearly 100% uptime
and consistently low latency...you know, like a T1 :).  Having a good
quality broadband connection would do MUCH more for business and Internet
usage than having a higher capacity connection--after all, our fear of voice
over IP is not that we are going to run out of bandwidth, but that the
connection is going to drop.  Our reluctance to rely too heavily on
Internet-based applications, be it voice, video, or office applications, is
MUCH more the worry that our Internet connection will be out right when we
need to access it (or receive that important call) than the worry that our
tubes are too small and will get clogged.



-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

On 7/24/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Peter R. wrote:
 Mike Hammett wrote:
 3 mbit is not fast.  The US IS behind other countries, there's no
 point in whining about it.  Yes, there are very substantial reasons
 why our numbers don't look as good as theirs, but there's no need to
 skew the system to make us look better...  just solve the problem.



 Fixed wireless is broadband.  WIFI hotspots, cell phones, etc. are
 not broadband (maybe the cell broadband cards).  The reason our
 numbers are climbing is because this has been a problem for some time
 and we're working on fixing it.  It takes a lot to change things like
 that for the third most populous country in the world.



 Perhaps it should be measured per household and not per capita, I
dunno.



 The reason why there's less competition elsewhere is because what is
 present is doing a good enough job!  Their telcos have delivered 15
 meg DSL for years, while ours don't yet offer it.  That's why cable
 is taking on so well here.  It surely isn't because anything
 connected to Comcast has a good price point (DSL and satellite TV are
 both better values).



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com
 If they change the definition to 1MB, EVDO won't count and neither
 will IDSL and DSL Lite. The numbers of BB users in the stats will drop
 - the telcos will look like they have very few BB subs since about
 10-20% buy Lite (depending who you believe). So the FCC will never
 voluntarily change the definition.

 BTW, in countries with deep BB penetration, the regulators are TOUGH -
 as in the FCC Chairman does not have Ivan and Ed's hands up his butt
 so he can talk like Charlie McCarthy.

 But ALL of that is beside the point. End of the day, YOU guys have to
 find, acquire and retain profitable customers. No matter what the
 regulatory or competitive environment looks like.

 - Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.

I know it has been brought up before, but I'll bring it up again, the
majority of my customers are plenty happy at 1mbit service.  How do I
know this?  The upgrade is only $10/month to go from 380K to 2M on my
system, but less than 10% of my customers have opted for the higher cost
plan ($40/mo instead of $30/mo).  In fact if I remove business accounts
from the equation then less that 5% opt for the 2 meg plan.

What is even more telling is that 15% of my customer base is unwilling
to pay $5/month more to upgrade from 128K to 380K

Are we ranked so low because we actually only provide service that is
requested by our customers instead of over providing?  I wonder of the
14 other countries above us if their consumers were given the ability to
halve their ISP bill for half the speed if they would be willing to
still pay the higher rate.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to
know your thoughts.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



Would you like to see your advertisement 

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Sam Tetherow
I'd be curious to know if your percentages will scale.  I know the first 
100 or so customers I had were opting for the higher speeds as a rule, 
but at the 600 mark the trend for me is $30 for 380K in the residential 
space.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Mike Hammett wrote:
I guess I'm the opposite.  I have plans that currently range from 256 
to 2048.  Most customers pick the 2048, with 256 coming in second.  
There are some on other plans, but they were the fastest at the time.  
Prices range from $25 for 256 to $55 for 2048.  Business accounts are 
50% higher $ and all picked the fastest at the time.


As the users get around the net more, they will use it more.  It's a 
cycle. Faster Internet causes more demanding applications causes 
faster Internet causesOnce I solve a pile of unrelated issues 
I have, I foresee going to 3 megs, then 5, then 7.5, then 10.  I 
should have that completed in 12 - 18 months.  I only have 20 
customers now, so its hard to upgrade quickly.   ;-)



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com





Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Martin's 700 proposal

2007-07-24 Thread Peter R.

from his congressional visit:

I have recently proposed rules for the 700 MHz auction that I
believe will facilitate a national wireless broadband service. A
coalition of companies that support a national wireless broadband
alternative, Intel, Skype, Yahoo, Google, DIRECTV, and
EchoStar, urged the Commission to structure the auction in such a
manner that it would maximize the opportunity for a national
wireless broadband service to emerge. They urged the
Commission to make available at least one 11MHz paired block,
offered over large geographic areas, with combinatorial bidding so
that a national service could be established. I put forward a
proposal that would meet these requirements.
My proposal would provide significant opportunities for small and
rural carriers to obtain spectrum at auction as well. The proposed
band plan would provide for a variety of geographic license areas
and spectrum block sizes. I am also proposing stringent build-out
requirements – the strictest build-out the Commission has ever
proposed – to help ensure that the rural and underserved areas of
the country will benefit from the provision of new services that this
spectrum will facilitate. These build-out requirements include
interim benchmarks and tough penalties. We also would permit
higher power limits in rural areas, which will reduce the number of
towers necessary to serve consumers and lower the cost of buildout.
Meeting the needs of public safety is critically important. During a
crisis, public safety officials need to be able to communicate with
one another. We are all aware of problems that have been created
by the lack of interoperability for public safety during recent crises
like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. To that end, my proposal for the
upcoming auction would help create a truly national interoperable
broadband network for public safety agencies to use during times
of emergency. I believe this proposal could offer many public
safety benefits and is consistent with public safety’s views on
achieving an interoperable broadband network.
Many national and local public safety organizations have
expressed support for a public-private partnership approach in
which a national commercial licensee would work together with a
national public safety licensee to build such a shared network. We
must efficiently and effectively manage the 700 MHz spectrum
allocated to both commercial users and public safety by Congress.
My proposal will help the Commission ensure that public safety
keeps pace with the advances in communications and gives first
responders the broadband communications capabilities they need
to protect safety of life and property of the American public.
Finally, I have also proposed that the license winner for about onethird
of the spectrum be required to provide a platform that is more
open to devices and applications. This auction provides an
opportunity to have a significant effect on the next phase of
wireless broadband innovation. A network more open to devices
and applications can help ensure that the fruits of innovation on the
edges of the network swiftly pass into the hands of consumers.
Consumers would be able to use the wireless device of their choice
and download whatever software they want.

The upcoming auction provides a rare chance to promote a more
open platform without disrupting existing networks or business
plans. I have not, however, proposed to apply these same
principles to the entire 700 MHz band or to other existing
networks. Nor have I proposed to apply network neutrality
obligations or mandatory wholesale requirements for this block or
any other block.
In addition, the Commission recognizes that spectrum is a unique
public asset, and that we must obtain a fair return on this asset for
the American people. To ensure that a fair price is paid, I have
proposed a reserve price for this block of spectrum, as well as an
overall reserve price for the entire auction. If the reserve price is
not met, the spectrum would be re-auctioned without the
requirement for open devices and applications. These reserve
prices, which are based on the winning bids for spectrum in our
recent AWS-1 auction, will safeguard the value of the spectrum.

--


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884 
http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Peter R.

Clint Ricker wrote:
I'll duck after this post, but I by and large tend to agree with the 
basis of the article. 

Scottie, exactly what regulation would you recommend? 
STRUCTURAL SEPARATION like BT is experiencing in the UK, which would 
never happen here.


What has regulation solved in the past 11 years?  By and large, I've 
not seen a single bit of FCC regulation that has had a net positive 
impact for getting access to the consumer, especially post 2000 (it 
was probably a good force behind making dialup Internet access widely 
available and affordable).
It was not FCC regulation; it was the TA96 that was tattered and torn by 
lobbying and litigating.

The FCC SHOULD have advanced its policy and then set to forcing it.
Instead it went to bed with 2 of the industries it is supposed to 
regulate (media  telco).


The FCC could easily have forced CLEC's to build out at the same time it 
forced the ILEC's to unbundle.


Let me extrapolate this for you:

In the NFL cities you would have endless construction as fiber is laid 
to all the MTU's.

But in all other markets, not so much competition.
And then you would have VZ selling off its rural ... oh, wait, they do 
that now because they don't want to invest the money.
They make a good rate of return (as attested to by their increasing 
profits -- not revenues). They get USF and other funding to provide 
service in rural areas, but do not want to live up to the promises that 
they made back in 1997-1999.


Do you think I care about the 15th or 21st or whatever study number? No.

All I care about is the divide between us and and the rest of the world.
Whether you admit it or not, economically broadband is a utility. It is 
the utility for home-based workers, entrepreneurs, the Creative Class, 
and innovation. As more and more people get PC access and get online, 
more and more ideas, projects, and innovation happens. I want that to 
happen in the US. Not in India. Not in China or Korea, but here in America.


We have a shortage of doctors in America. A shortage of teachers.
Some of this can be solved via broadband like tele-medicine and distance 
learning.


Forced wholesale access of the physical layer / network layer does 
absolutely nothing to increase availability and, in fact, actually 
hurts availabilty.
You are incorrect there. The plant company would need to keep building 
out to increase revenue.

The Application side would want that as well.

  The ISP / CLEC that is basically reselling ILEC copper is not 
connecting anyone who wouldn't / couldn't have been connected via the 
ILEC.  However, because the ILEC is less profitable due to forced 
reselling, then they can't buildout as much infrastructure 
(theoretically).
Sure it is. CLEC's and ISP's are always stealing clients from each other 
and ILEC's. Sometimes they steal them from cable. But more than just the 
red ocean is the blue ocean when a new idea like Metro E over copper or 
VDSL or HPNA or BPL comes along and stretches the use of the copper and 
brings consumers new apps and new access. (Covad is rolling out 15MB DSL 
- are any ILECs? NO).


The fact of the matter is that the US is doing pretty damn well at 
broadband deployment, and, corruption aside, most of the current 
administration's policies have been fairly benificial towards making 
broadband more widely available (with some very major exceptions).  
I actually don't think that more DSLAM's are being deployed. I see how 
often a business comes up as Unqualified, even when DSL is available in 
that area. That's due to CAPEX being spent to over-build DSL penetrated 
areas with fiber.


That's not a helpful strategy.

Qwest is no longer the ILEC in Omaha. That's the first MSA. VZ has asked 
for forbearance in 6 MSA's, due in 80 days.


In 80 days, you won't be able to buy access from VZ unless they want to 
sell it to you. Why? The stats say cable has beat them out. And I think 
it is almost on purpose, so the ILEC can get out from under regulation 
and do what it wants.


Do you think that the CLECs are actually hurting the ILECs? Or the ISP's?

ISP's have less than 1% of the DSL in the US.  FISPA members at one time 
had 3% of the BellSouth market in 2001.
CLEC's in their hey day had a whopping 15% of the market (2001 I 
think).  Not any more.


The largest CLEC has less than 100,000 customers. And even with the 
Super CLEC's - all 3 of them - approaching $1B in revenue, their debt is 
3/4 of that number and they pay more than 50% of revenue to the ILEC. 
How does that hurt the ILEC? They make money from CLEC's. They don't 
make a dime from cable.



-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies


- Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread David E. Smith

Clint Ricker wrote:


People pay 6Mb/s connections for the same reasons they pay for faster cars,
even though the speed limit is the same for a Ford Pinto as a Ferrari.  Not
an entirely apt analogy, but pretty much sums it up.


As long as we're going with car analogies, I think a big truck or SUV 
comparison would be more appropriate. A lot of folks buy Jeep even 
though they never leave the city, but a few folks buy it because they 
NEED the off-road stability and the cargo capacity.


To stretch the Jeep thing a bit further, many of those Jeeps now are 
mediocre off-road cars, or even outright BAD at that. People have been 
buying them for image (look I own a big jeep), not because they 
actually need that vehicle's unique capabilities. A lot of the Jeep 
product line has been re-tooled and re-marketed so that they look like 
awesome Jeeps but can't do what made them famous.


The Internet version of that would be a PtMP tower that's a bit 
overloaded, and has a couple folks that use their connection for some 
bandwidth-intensive or packet-intensive purpose. (VOIP, peer-to-peer 
software, application or site hosting, doesn't matter.) Everyone else 
bought the image, they bought the substance, and you'd better be able to 
deliver. Like the folks that complain about throwing an axle in their 
shiny new Jeep because it can't cope with being off-road, these folks 
will (rightly) complain that they're not getting the Internet service 
they thought they would.


If you say you're gonna give someone X megs of Internet, be sure you can 
give them that pretty consistently, all the time, or that they 
understand exactly what they are (and aren't) getting. Whether it's the 
Internet or a Jeep, the folks that need something specific really NEED 
it, probably know other people with similar needs, and tend to be very loud.


David Smith
MVN.net

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Scottie Arnett


Scottie, exactly what regulation would you recommend?

I think the FCC had it going going in the right direction with Computer
Inquires I, II, and III. Problem was, they never enforced these! The even
took out the office in early 2000 that investigated the companies that
broke the rules.

I am thinking out loud and not actually thinking this through, but here is
my idea. Do as they started with Computer Inquires...All ILEC's and Cable
Co's should not be allowed in the ISP business. They can start their own ISP
as a separate entity, but the parent ILEC/CC will have to sell to all ISP's,
including their own at a wholesale rate for use of their transport. There
should be no cross subsidization from one to the other. Of course I am
limiting this to the ILECs/CC that have received some kind of government
subsidization (whether it be grants, tax cuts,etc...) to build out their
networks for Cable TV and telephone. For us WISP's, give us all the tax
cuts, grants, etc...that they have gave the CC and telcos. Why should we not
get subsidization when they have and refuse anyone access to their networks?
Give me a couple of million dollars and I will have my county and the next
county covered with wireless within two years and providing access to some
people that have never had anything but dial-up and about 26k dial-up at
that.

I live in an area full of Cooperatives. Cooperatives do not have to follow
many of the Tele Act of 1996 rules (rural exemptions). I live in TN where, I
actually lost count, but there are approximately 20 +/- telephone
cooperatives. So I do not and have not got to do many of the things you guys
have got to do. Now that talk all this BS about bridging the digital divide,
but they still let these cooperatives get away with monopolies and not
having to follow half the rules that the rest of the US ILEC's have to
follow. As long as this goes on, rural America may see 20 Meg speeds by the
end of the next century. We never had ISDN here until around 2001 and DSL
around 2003 and of course it was done by the co-op telcos that were given
almost every penny to do it by the USDA.

Ah, I am through with my rant. I could complain and gripe all day. I spend a
lot of time on http://www.cybertelecom.org/ and teletruth.org that goes much
deeper into the points I stated above.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clint Ricker
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's
takeonBroadband..


I'll duck after this post, but I by and large tend to agree with the basis
of the article.

Scottie, exactly what regulation would you recommend?

What has regulation solved in the past 11 years?  By and large, I've not
seen a single bit of FCC regulation that has had a net positive impact for
getting access to the consumer, especially post 2000 (it was probably a good
force behind making dialup Internet access widely available and affordable).


We had over 11 years of forced network unbundling for the ILECS (ie where
the ILECs are required to sell the bare copper at cost).  The idea, of
course, was to help service providers get on their feet while they were
building out their own network.  By and large, for a policy standpoint, it
did very little to actually increase network buildout.  Almost all of the
CLECs took the easy money of reselling the Bell networks and ran, making
agreegates of billions of dollars and not really building out any network to
speak of.  (Yes, there are some exceptions, but, this sums up the general
problem).

Forced wholesale access of the physical layer / network layer does
absolutely nothing to increase availability and, in fact, actually hurts
availabilty.  The ISP / CLEC that is basically reselling ILEC copper is not
connecting anyone who wouldn't / couldn't have been connected via the ILEC.
However, because the ILEC is less profitable due to forced reselling, then
they can't buildout as much infrastructure (theoretically).

The only real change in FCC policy in the past 11 years (fundamentally) is
that more people actually have to provide the services that they are
selling.  It's harder now to buy Bell DSL service, stick your own label on
it, and say that you're competing with Ma Bell.  All in all, I think that's
a good thing.

I understand that it isn't necessarily economically efficient to have
multiple sets of copper / coax going to the same house / office building,
and that telecommunication companies often constitute a natural monopoly of
sorts.  Forced selling of the network layer still doesn't get any new people
access to the

Now, if they wanted to successfully regulate the market, force a separation
of the network layer and the physical layer into two separate companies, a
model that is being vaguely adopted for some muni-funded developments.

The fact of the matter is that the US is doing pretty damn well at broadband
deployment, and, 

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Tom DeReggi

Its not approriate to start changing the definition of Broadband.
200mbps symetrical enables a specific set of core Internet based 
applications.


Maybe we need a new word, to define Broadband capable of handling Next 
Generation Internet Applicationa Super Broadband? :-)
I'd also argue that next generation Broadband should not be measured and 
defined by just transfer speed.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take 
onBroadband..



In an article entitled Broadband Baloney in the Wall Street Journal 
today,

Robert McDowell, a Commissioner on the FCC stated:

Criticisms of our definition of broadband being too lax are already
irrelevant as over 50 million subscribers are in the 1.5 to 3.0
megabits-per-second fast lane.

That my friends, is EXACTLY what the problem is: 1.5 to 3mb FAST LANE
Who are they trying to kid? Then he goes on to say:

Today, video applications are tugging hard on America's broadband
infrastructure. YouTube alone uses as much bandwidth today as the entire
Internet did in 2000. Not surprisingly, our broadband adoption rate
continues to increase concurrently with the proliferation of this latest
killer app.

He talks about how much of a push video is, even citing that it eats up a
large amount of bandwidth, but is insistent on 1.5 to 3 Mb being fast?  I
don't get it.

The article sums up why he thinks that all this talk about us lagging 
behind
in the broadband proliferation table is Broadband Baloney.. boo I say. 
The

fact that the WSJ would print this is baloney.

Article is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118524094434875755.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Drew Lentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
956.878.0123



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know 
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The 
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to 
know your thoughts.


--
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: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007 
8:33 AM






Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] New America Foundation Paper - Open Access for the 700 MHz Auction

2007-07-24 Thread Jack Unger


http://www.newamerica.net/files/openaccess700mhz.pdf


REPORT CONCLUSION FOLLOWS
*
In conclusion, I reiterate that the open-access policy would
likely be doomed to fail and the competitive benefits of the
policy would not then be realized if the open-access license
were controlled by an entity that was affiliated with a
vertically integrated retail provider. No blocking and no
locking are likely to be toothless without the third leg of the
stool: no retail. If the FCC is serious about open access, it
should set aside a modest amount of spectrum in the 700
MHz Auction for a wholesale-only provider.
*

--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com





Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner'stakeonBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Hammett

So what BT is doing in the UK?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC 
Commissioner'stakeonBroadband..





Scottie, exactly what regulation would you recommend?

I think the FCC had it going going in the right direction with Computer
Inquires I, II, and III. Problem was, they never enforced these! The even
took out the office in early 2000 that investigated the companies that
broke the rules.

I am thinking out loud and not actually thinking this through, but here is
my idea. Do as they started with Computer Inquires...All ILEC's and Cable
Co's should not be allowed in the ISP business. They can start their own ISP
as a separate entity, but the parent ILEC/CC will have to sell to all ISP's,
including their own at a wholesale rate for use of their transport. There
should be no cross subsidization from one to the other. Of course I am
limiting this to the ILECs/CC that have received some kind of government
subsidization (whether it be grants, tax cuts,etc...) to build out their
networks for Cable TV and telephone. For us WISP's, give us all the tax
cuts, grants, etc...that they have gave the CC and telcos. Why should we not
get subsidization when they have and refuse anyone access to their networks?
Give me a couple of million dollars and I will have my county and the next
county covered with wireless within two years and providing access to some
people that have never had anything but dial-up and about 26k dial-up at
that.

I live in an area full of Cooperatives. Cooperatives do not have to follow
many of the Tele Act of 1996 rules (rural exemptions). I live in TN where, I
actually lost count, but there are approximately 20 +/- telephone
cooperatives. So I do not and have not got to do many of the things you guys
have got to do. Now that talk all this BS about bridging the digital divide,
but they still let these cooperatives get away with monopolies and not
having to follow half the rules that the rest of the US ILEC's have to
follow. As long as this goes on, rural America may see 20 Meg speeds by the
end of the next century. We never had ISDN here until around 2001 and DSL
around 2003 and of course it was done by the co-op telcos that were given
almost every penny to do it by the USDA.

Ah, I am through with my rant. I could complain and gripe all day. I spend a
lot of time on http://www.cybertelecom.org/ and teletruth.org that goes much
deeper into the points I stated above.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clint Ricker
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's
takeonBroadband..


I'll duck after this post, but I by and large tend to agree with the basis
of the article.

Scottie, exactly what regulation would you recommend?

What has regulation solved in the past 11 years?  By and large, I've not
seen a single bit of FCC regulation that has had a net positive impact for
getting access to the consumer, especially post 2000 (it was probably a good
force behind making dialup Internet access widely available and affordable).


We had over 11 years of forced network unbundling for the ILECS (ie where
the ILECs are required to sell the bare copper at cost).  The idea, of
course, was to help service providers get on their feet while they were
building out their own network.  By and large, for a policy standpoint, it
did very little to actually increase network buildout.  Almost all of the
CLECs took the easy money of reselling the Bell networks and ran, making
agreegates of billions of dollars and not really building out any network to
speak of.  (Yes, there are some exceptions, but, this sums up the general
problem).

Forced wholesale access of the physical layer / network layer does
absolutely nothing to increase availability and, in fact, actually hurts
availabilty.  The ISP / CLEC that is basically reselling ILEC copper is not
connecting anyone who wouldn't / couldn't have been connected via the ILEC.
However, because the ILEC is less profitable due to forced reselling, then
they can't buildout as much infrastructure (theoretically).

The only real change in FCC policy in the past 11 years (fundamentally) is
that more people actually have to provide the services that they are
selling.  It's harder now to buy Bell DSL service, stick your own label on
it, and say that you're competing with Ma Bell.  All in all, I think that's
a good thing.

I understand that it isn't necessarily economically efficient to have
multiple sets of copper / coax going to the same house / office building,
and that telecommunication companies often constitute a natural monopoly of
sorts.  Forced selling of the network layer still doesn't get any 

[WISPA] Public Safety

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Hammett
What all bands does the public safety industry use?

150 MHz
450 MHz
800 MHz
4.9 GHz

4.9 is exclusively public safety.
Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it 
to public safety.
The others are general commercial bands.

Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz.  I'm all about giving them what they 
need, but how much do they need?  This would be the third band they could do 
their nationwide inter-operable network in.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Scottie Arnett
  Forced wholesale access of the physical layer / network layer does
  absolutely nothing to increase availability and, in fact, actually
  hurts availabilty.
 You are incorrect there. The plant company would need to keep building
 out to increase revenue.
 The Application side would want that as well.


I think you missed my point here.  My point is that forcing telcos to resell
their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people.
If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as
easily gotten it from ATT.

I definitely agree that seperating the physical layer and the network layer
would be a great way of regulating and getting good competition; it forces
each component to become more efficient and breaks up the vertical monopoly
(which is, in the end, more damaging than the horizontal monopoly).
However, I think the idea of forcing ILECs to (when all is said and done)
allow resell of their retail products is just stupid.  It doesn't increase
broadband penetration at all



   The ISP / CLEC that is basically reselling ILEC copper is not
  connecting anyone who wouldn't / couldn't have been connected via the
  ILEC.  However, because the ILEC is less profitable due to forced
  reselling, then they can't buildout as much infrastructure
  (theoretically).
 Sure it is. CLEC's and ISP's are always stealing clients from each other
 and ILEC's. Sometimes they steal them from cable. But more than just the
 red ocean is the blue ocean when a new idea like Metro E over copper or
 VDSL or HPNA or BPL comes along and stretches the use of the copper and
 brings consumers new apps and new access. (Covad is rolling out 15MB DSL
 - are any ILECs? NO).


In most cases, the gov't has made subsidizations to the ILEC to build out their 
infrastructure's, no matter what has happened, forced competition or not! They 
refuse to do it in this case because they have to share their network. 

Look at  http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm and the deal SBC, 
Verizon, BellSouth and US West were supposed to do! The point is that the FCC 
were either paid off to forget this point or they must have just had a brain 
lapse?

Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com for information.

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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