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