Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[George Rogato]

For sure congress doesn't have much of a clue. But the FCC understands 
very well.

Scottie Arnett wrote:
> I don't want to seem like a chronic complainer as I usually do on the WISPA 
> listbut this has been my SPEW all along for years! The FCC and Washington 
> have NO Intelligible IDEA  about Internet Technology and how it works! Out of 
> most of our House and Senate reps, I bet 90% do not even know how to operate 
> a PC...they hire "underlings" to do that and the "underlings" try to tell 
> them what they need to know.
> 
> One thing I agree with Obama on, is he is setting up a technology committee. 
> I hope they know WTF they are talking about...maybe finally!
> 
> Scott 
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Thu, 21 May 2009 17:20:10 -0400
> 
>> People read the comments, its scary, like this one...
>>
>>
>> "Internet providing is like having an infinite tank of free water. ISP's pay
>> for the pipes to get it to your house. You pay them based on the size of the
>> pipe. Now they want to charge you based on the amount of free water you use
>> each month. Does that seem logical or fair?"
>>
>>
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>> WAVELINC
>> P.O. Box 126
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> 419-562-6405
>> www.wavelinc.com
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Matt
>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:01 AM
>> To: WISPA General List; motor...@wispa.org
>> Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps
>>
>> Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
>> impose download caps as well.
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost
>>
>> Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water, electric,
>> gas, telephone and etc.
>>
>> Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> 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]
>>
>>
> 
> Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth.
> Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information.
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Just for a laugh

[Marlon K. Schafer]

OK THAT is funny!
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Dennis Burgess - Linktechs" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just for a laugh


> http://www.break.com/pictures/internet-building727205.html
>
> How about the link :)
>
> * ---
> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
> WISPA Board Member - wispa.org 
> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
> WISPA Vendor Member*
> *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net
> 
> */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/*
> 
>
> The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the 
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended 
> only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which
> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 
> Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of 
> any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other 
> than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material 
> from any computer.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dennis Burgess - Linktechs wrote:
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability

[Marlon K. Schafer]

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:49 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability


> With all the hype being generated by the stimulus bill, we have been 
> approached by a multitude of third party financial organizations that have 
> a renewed interest in potentially financing rural broadband...now, 
> specifically, for WISPs, in the past, equipment leasing has been a very 
> popular option for financing, but in looking at our numbers over the past 
> year, I've noticed a marked decline in the amount of leasing that we do - 
> that said, I have the following questions for the listserv about financing
>
> Assuming that WISPs are still need to buy equipment...
>
> 1. Are you able to just purchase equipment out of cash-flow organically 
> generated from operations

Much more so than we were able to in the past.

> 2. Have you gone to more traditional forms of money (e.g., bank / SBA / 
> RUS loans)?

We almost always went bank loans instead of leasing.  Leasing is a major 
PITA as far as I'm concerned.  I've never had one, well maybe one, that 
ended the way it was supposed to and without a TON of work on my side.

One of the most successful mechanisms I've used is customer loans.  They 
give me the money I need to get to their area and I give them free internet 
till it's paid back plus 10% interest (not per year, just 10%).  They get 
internet sooner, I get customers sooner.  Win win.

> 3. Are you doing more vendor leasing programs (e.g., Motorola 3% financing 
> deal)

Nope.  Never have done that.  Not yet anyway.

> 4. Have you not been able to borrow money due to the credit crunch (e.g., 
> not deploying as aggressively)

That's always been a problem for us.  We started deeply in debt and our 
hardware sucks for collateral.  The up side to that is that I've had to have 
VERY solid business cases in place to get loans.  That's helped keep my from 
borrowing myself out of business.  Something I've seen more than one company 
do.

> 5. Are you holding off on deployments because of the economy

No way.  Out here things are booming!

> 6. Have you gone to Agility... Louie the loanshark =)

Not yet.  Been tempted though!

>
> Or any other thoughts / comments on this topic?

Many of the markets I have left to cover don't lend them selves to loans at 
all well.  They are too small and the money can either go into equipment and 
other overhead or to loan payment.  It'll be hard to do both and make any 
money.
marlon

>
> -Charles
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Matt I think that's a great idea.  What a bone headed idea.  What was that 
about politicians and common sense?  lol

Tom/Steve, any suggestions about how to smack this idea back into the hole 
it came from?

thanks,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Matt" 
To: "WISPA General List" ; 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:00 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps


> Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
> impose download caps as well.
>
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost
>
> Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water, 
> electric,
> gas, telephone and etc.
>
> Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.
>
> Matt
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Thanking Marlon and multipath experience

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Glad to be of help Forbes!  Once in a while I make a lucky guess.  grin

OK, design note time.

I work to keep all of my links in the -65 to -75 range.  If you look up the 
specs for your radios you will likely find that this is well above the 
lowest receive signal level, but not too far above it.

Why is this important?  As I've been taught over the years (Thanks Jaime, 
Bob and others) most knife edged refraction (a bounced signal off of an 
object) will be about 30 dB down below the original signal level.

So if your radio has a max sensitivity of -94 and you have a -65 signal 
you'll be almost out of the possibility of the receive radio even picking up 
your refracted signal.  Think of the refraction as a reflection or echo.  An 
echo makes it really hard to understand someone.  Multipath is the same 
thing.  But if you can make the echo so quiet that you can't hear is it 
won't hurt anything, even if it's there.

MOST of my towers put out LESS than 1 WATT!  A few are still close to 4 
watts, but changes in AP's allow me to run ever lower tx powers.  Believe it 
or not I have customers getting over 2 megs of service from systems that are 
less than 2 watts and at ranges of 18 miles!  Yes I can prove this if anyone 
wants to come visit

If you are picking up your towers at levels above -60 to -65 you'll have a 
LOT more trouble on your network.  Especially tower to tower.  Turn the 
danged things down.  If you need more power at a customer's place install a 
bigger antenna!

Over the years I've run into many companies that try to use a bigger stick. 
They systems never work well for long.  The more customers go on it the 
worse that problem gets too.  I fact I have started pulling customers from a 
competitor in the area.  He's running a system near me that looks to be 
running about 42 watts (remember we're only allowed 4).  Why am I 
getting his customers?  Because his system doesn't work right.  Much of that 
is due to his design flaws.

OK, next question is, how do I know what he's running?  All you need to know 
is what gain the antenna is at your end, what the receive signal is and how 
far the transmitter is away from you.  From there it's easy with a formula. 
At 42dB I have him at about a 15dB antenna and 1 or so watt TX power.  A 
VERY common config sold by some distributors.  It's too bad, these never 
work well long term and rotten wisp networks give us all a bad name.

Anyway, Forbes, try turning that power down.  WAY down.  I'll bet you can go 
back to g mode and have even more stability than you have now.

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Forbes Mercy" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:47 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Thanking Marlon and multipath experience


I admit that most of you can dance around me in the field of RF.  I'm more 
of an installer and management type.  Today I had a Nano CPE with a -48 dbi 
signal which, as you know, is amazing; it should be it was a block away from 
the tower.  The problem is the customer had long outages and erratic 
service.  Aiming away from the tower kept the great connection but still 
crappy pings.

Marlon suggested Multipath as a possibility and advised to turn the radio to 
"B" only and reduce the power on the radio. I had heard of Multipath but 
never experienced it. We changed both settings and while the signal stayed 
at -48dbi the time-outs and erratic pings went away.  90% of our system is 
two or more miles from towers, so we never had this problem before. This 
particular town is the only place where the towers are on buildings all 
within ½ mile of nearly everyone


It answered a lot of problems for others in town we have been battling 
supposed interference with and I just wanted to publically thank Marlon for 
exposing me to a side of RF I hadn't even thought of.  This is what makes 
WISPA worth it to me.

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1956 - Release Date: 02/16/09 
18:31:00





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability

[RickG]

Well, Agility will but what out for the terms! -RickG

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Tom DeReggi  wrote:
> I've never found a lender willing to lend against using the in-place used
> equipment as colladeral.
> It is the biggest double standard.
> I find it highly ironic that they'll use a car for colladeral that looses
> 50% of its value the day it leaves the lot, and has a rate of failure and
> risk of damage higher than just about any product on the market, and it has
> a huge cash burn (gas :-). but yet lendors won't put equivellent value on
> wireless gear, that holds its value, Ebay boasting easilly 50% after 3-4
> years of use, even after fully depreciated.
> I'll never understand the lending market.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability
>
>
>> Answers in-line.
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Charles Wu" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:49 AM
>> Subject: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability
>>
>>
>>> With all the hype being generated by the stimulus bill, we have been
>>> approached by a multitude of third party financial organizations that
>>> have
>>> a renewed interest in potentially financing rural broadband...now,
>>> specifically, for WISPs, in the past, equipment leasing has been a very
>>> popular option for financing, but in looking at our numbers over the past
>>> year, I've noticed a marked decline in the amount of leasing that we do -
>>> that said, I have the following questions for the listserv about
>>> financing
>>>
>>> Assuming that WISPs are still need to buy equipment...
>>>
>>> 1. Are you able to just purchase equipment out of cash-flow organically
>>> generated from operations
>>
>> Other than originally starting with our own personal seed money, that's
>> what
>> we've done.
>>
>>> 2. Have you gone to more traditional forms of money (e.g., bank / SBA /
>>> RUS loans)?
>>
>> I could not qualify for any of them.
>>
>>> 3. Are you doing more vendor leasing programs (e.g., Motorola 3%
>>> financing
>>> deal)
>>
>> Never sought any.
>>
>>> 4. Have you not been able to borrow money due to the credit crunch (e.g.,
>>> not deploying as aggressively)
>>
>> My corporation hasn't ever been able to obtain hard money credit.    In
>> fact, the "credit crunch" start last Fall raised my "30+ day past due"
>> amount from a piddly $1200 to at one time to almost $13,000 in just four
>> months.   That almost put us under, and we're still barely scraping by
>> until
>> our seasonally variable cash flow revives come August, with still several
>> thousand on the books that's very slowly getting chipped away at.
>>
>>> 5. Are you holding off on deployments because of the economy
>>
>> No, we're holding off due to lack of cash flow.   We have plenty of people
>> waiting for us to build infrastructure out to them.
>>
>>> 6. Have you gone to Agility... Louie the loanshark =)
>>
>> After much discussion, being some of the first people Agility contacted,
>> we
>> have not done any business with them.   In my estimation, they wanted
>> control over our business and day to day decisions, which we concluded was
>> both unwarranted and unwise.
>>
>>>
>>> Or any other thoughts / comments on this topic?
>>>
>>
>> WISP equipment is not really a "commodity" in that there is almost no
>> market
>> for it outside of the "maker-vendor" relationship.  Other than Ebay, and a
>> couple of people who attempt to do it piecemeal, there is no "market"
>> which
>> stabilizes the value of used equipment, making them a commodity you can
>> borrow against.
>>
>> Perhaps it would be more useful, if vendors had the ability to get capital
>> and create stable working and short term credit relationships with their
>> buyers, kind of like the used car market.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Charles
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> -

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[RickG]

I'm glad you said "hope". We can all hope but dont hold your breath. I
dont trust anything politicians do, especially these days. All they
are after is votes and their agendas (order of which to be
determined). The only "change" now is that they dont care what the
"average Joe" thinks. I dont mean this to be negative, just realistic.
My hope is that we get tired of bending over and kick them all out of
DC. I'd like to see the states take back more power.
My .02 -RickG

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Scottie Arnett  wrote:
> I don't want to seem like a chronic complainer as I usually do on the WISPA 
> listbut this has been my SPEW all along for years! The FCC and Washington 
> have NO Intelligible IDEA  about Internet Technology and how it works! Out of 
> most of our House and Senate reps, I bet 90% do not even know how to operate 
> a PC...they hire "underlings" to do that and the "underlings" try to tell 
> them what they need to know.
>
> One thing I agree with Obama on, is he is setting up a technology committee. 
> I hope they know WTF they are talking about...maybe finally!
>
> Scott
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Thu, 21 May 2009 17:20:10 -0400
>
>>People read the comments, its scary, like this one...
>>
>>
>>"Internet providing is like having an infinite tank of free water. ISP's pay
>>for the pipes to get it to your house. You pay them based on the size of the
>>pipe. Now they want to charge you based on the amount of free water you use
>>each month. Does that seem logical or fair?"
>>
>>
>>
>>Kurt Fankhauser
>>WAVELINC
>>P.O. Box 126
>>Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>419-562-6405
>>www.wavelinc.com
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>Behalf Of Matt
>>Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:01 AM
>>To: WISPA General List; motor...@wispa.org
>>Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps
>>
>>Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
>>impose download caps as well.
>>
>>http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost
>>
>>Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water, electric,
>>gas, telephone and etc.
>>
>>Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>>
>>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]
>>
>>
>
> Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth.
> Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information.
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability

[Scottie Arnett]

Me either Tom. I got the same reply from my local bank on borrowing against my 
equipment. It was "Can't do it! No resale value on tech equipment." Jeesh!

Scott

-- Original Message --
From: "Tom DeReggi" 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Thu, 21 May 2009 19:27:09 -0400

>I've never found a lender willing to lend against using the in-place used 
>equipment as colladeral.
>It is the biggest double standard.
>I find it highly ironic that they'll use a car for colladeral that looses 
>50% of its value the day it leaves the lot, and has a rate of failure and 
>risk of damage higher than just about any product on the market, and it has 
>a huge cash burn (gas :-). but yet lendors won't put equivellent value on 
>wireless gear, that holds its value, Ebay boasting easilly 50% after 3-4 
>years of use, even after fully depreciated.
>I'll never understand the lending market.
>
>Tom DeReggi
>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: 
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability
>
>
>> Answers in-line.
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Charles Wu" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:49 AM
>> Subject: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability
>>
>>
>>> With all the hype being generated by the stimulus bill, we have been
>>> approached by a multitude of third party financial organizations that 
>>> have
>>> a renewed interest in potentially financing rural broadband...now,
>>> specifically, for WISPs, in the past, equipment leasing has been a very
>>> popular option for financing, but in looking at our numbers over the past
>>> year, I've noticed a marked decline in the amount of leasing that we do -
>>> that said, I have the following questions for the listserv about 
>>> financing
>>>
>>> Assuming that WISPs are still need to buy equipment...
>>>
>>> 1. Are you able to just purchase equipment out of cash-flow organically
>>> generated from operations
>>
>> Other than originally starting with our own personal seed money, that's 
>> what
>> we've done.
>>
>>> 2. Have you gone to more traditional forms of money (e.g., bank / SBA /
>>> RUS loans)?
>>
>> I could not qualify for any of them.
>>
>>> 3. Are you doing more vendor leasing programs (e.g., Motorola 3% 
>>> financing
>>> deal)
>>
>> Never sought any.
>>
>>> 4. Have you not been able to borrow money due to the credit crunch (e.g.,
>>> not deploying as aggressively)
>>
>> My corporation hasn't ever been able to obtain hard money credit.In
>> fact, the "credit crunch" start last Fall raised my "30+ day past due"
>> amount from a piddly $1200 to at one time to almost $13,000 in just four
>> months.   That almost put us under, and we're still barely scraping by 
>> until
>> our seasonally variable cash flow revives come August, with still several
>> thousand on the books that's very slowly getting chipped away at.
>>
>>> 5. Are you holding off on deployments because of the economy
>>
>> No, we're holding off due to lack of cash flow.   We have plenty of people
>> waiting for us to build infrastructure out to them.
>>
>>> 6. Have you gone to Agility... Louie the loanshark =)
>>
>> After much discussion, being some of the first people Agility contacted, 
>> we
>> have not done any business with them.   In my estimation, they wanted
>> control over our business and day to day decisions, which we concluded was
>> both unwarranted and unwise.
>>
>>>
>>> Or any other thoughts / comments on this topic?
>>>
>>
>> WISP equipment is not really a "commodity" in that there is almost no 
>> market
>> for it outside of the "maker-vendor" relationship.  Other than Ebay, and a
>> couple of people who attempt to do it piecemeal, there is no "market" 
>> which
>> stabilizes the value of used equipment, making them a commodity you can
>> borrow against.
>>
>> Perhaps it would be more useful, if vendors had the ability to get capital
>> and create stable working and short term credit relationships with their
>> buyers, kind of like the used car market.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Charles
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Scottie Arnett]

I don't want to seem like a chronic complainer as I usually do on the WISPA 
listbut this has been my SPEW all along for years! The FCC and Washington 
have NO Intelligible IDEA  about Internet Technology and how it works! Out of 
most of our House and Senate reps, I bet 90% do not even know how to operate a 
PC...they hire "underlings" to do that and the "underlings" try to tell them 
what they need to know.

One thing I agree with Obama on, is he is setting up a technology committee. I 
hope they know WTF they are talking about...maybe finally!

Scott 

-- Original Message --
From: "Kurt Fankhauser" 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Thu, 21 May 2009 17:20:10 -0400

>People read the comments, its scary, like this one...
>
>
>"Internet providing is like having an infinite tank of free water. ISP's pay
>for the pipes to get it to your house. You pay them based on the size of the
>pipe. Now they want to charge you based on the amount of free water you use
>each month. Does that seem logical or fair?"
>
>
>
>Kurt Fankhauser
>WAVELINC
>P.O. Box 126
>Bucyrus, OH 44820
>419-562-6405
>www.wavelinc.com
> 
> 
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Matt
>Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:01 AM
>To: WISPA General List; motor...@wispa.org
>Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps
>
>Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
>impose download caps as well.
>
>http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost
>
>Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water, electric,
>gas, telephone and etc.
>
>Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.
>
>Matt
>
>
>
>
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>
> 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>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]
>
>

Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] NEED Router w/ T3 and Ethernet

[Josh Luthman]

I was going to suggest IS for this but Jeff beat me to it.

On 5/21/09, Jeff Broadwick  wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> Left you a message.
>
> I can get something out to you tomorrow for Saturday delivery if needed.
>
> Jeff
> ImageStream
> 574-220-7826 cell
> 800-813-5123 x106
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Chris T.
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:43 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] NEED Router w/ T3 and Ethernet
>
> Hi, so it seems we got in a jam and now we need a router with T3 (clear
> channel) and Ethernet. Anyone have one in stock to overnight?
>
> Adam Goodman
> 801.971.1856
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

[Tom DeReggi]

Brad said...

"Again, in the end the property owner will prevail as they should.  It is
after all their property and they should have final say what happens to
their property.  If their decisions are poor and result in lost lease
revenue than they'll be gone soon enough and maybe the new owner will see
the benefit to allowing the right additional providers into the property.
The market always works these issues out themselves."

No it does not. It should work it self out, but it doesn't. Because people 
in control of multi-million if not billion dollar property understand 
prooperty not broadband, and they greedilly milk every dollar they can, 
because it is what their core business trains them to do. The property 
owners have little to loose to experiement with the broadband market and 
push the limits even if result to failure. Broadband is not relevent enough 
to their bottom line to matter.  The truth is at the end of the day when a 
tenant has a choice to incur a $100,000 expense to move offices, or an exta 
$100 to change broadband providers to accommodate the landlord, the tenant 
always gives in.  The prospective broadband providers are the ones that 
loose in the end. Industry Progress is delayed.

The comment that after all its there property is not a fully accurate 
statement.  The real owner is the state. They prove that everytime they send 
the property tax bill, and prove that they can seize your property within 
weeks, if you fail to pay that property tax bill.  Ultimately, the state 
indirectly holds title to your land and used space within their state. It is 
the state that prevents the building of new towers, and states the 
acceptable use of areas within that state. Which includes access to reach 
the space above tenant buildings.  A teannt building is consuming valuable 
space that is required to reach the area above buildings. When the building 
is there, a tower can't be built. Therefore it should be fully within the 
state's power to ask to easement on that structure that is preventing access 
to the air space. Just like a state can demand right of ways for their roads 
and utilities, those same provisions should be extended to gain access to 
teh space above buildings.

The world is three dimenional, why should there only be provisions to reach 
areas horizontally. Verticle can't be left behind. or we waste space in a 3 
deminsion world.  Why is it OK to go verticle down into the earth, but not 
verticely up?

I am fully for making ISPs responsible for "real" costs associated with wear 
and tear on space they gain easements for.  But restricting access is wrong.

What people forget is that when someone buys land they have not bought the 
right to a specific height into the sky.  Do builders have the right to 
build a building that blocks my LOS or Blocks my beautiful view? The answer 
is no, building codes can restrict how high buildings are allowed to be 
built. And if someone builts one high blocking my vioew and blocking my 
airway LOS, it is there obligation to help me get around the evil 
obstruction that they put in front of me, by giving me access to their roof. 
to accomplish it..

Now, whether I ahve the right to come intop their house, to serve inside 
their building, well thats a different arguement. That is combated by saying 
tenants are entitled to basic utilities. And I think broadband should have 
equal rights to electric, water, and phone. What makes the electric any more 
important than broadband? A builder is REQUIRED to install electric in 
commercial buildings just like they are required to install sprinklers for 
fire safety.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Brad Belton" 
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits


> Your argument makes the assumption there are no other options for a tenant
> other than the property in question.
>
> This is really no different than restaurants that allow smoking vs.
> restaurants that don't allow smoking.  If you want to smoke you will dine 
> at
> restaurants that allow smoking and the ones that forbid smoking won't get
> your business.  This works for the non-smokers too.  Personally I'm a
> non-smoker and dine at either smoking or non-smoking restaurants, but we 
> all
> know people that are adamant on both sides of the issue.
>
> Regarding your tenant lease renewal example, doubt the property owner will
> make publicly known (regardless as to the reason) why he chooses not to
> renew a tenant's lease.  Is there a law I'm unaware of that forces a
> landlord to give reason for not renewing a lease?  Eviction, sure, but not
> for renewals.  Have you ever read a lease agreement closely?  They are
> always heavily weighted towards the landlord vs. the tenant as they should
> be.  Again, there is nothing forcing a tenant to lease there as they can
> always lease elsewhere.
>
> There are many 

Re: [WISPA] Just for a laugh

[Jeff Broadwick]

Me too!  Try this one out:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/

Put something in, hit enter and then click GO beneath the link that appears.

Jeff
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - Linktechs
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just for a laugh

Well at least I got one! 

* ---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member -
wispa.org  Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP
Support Services WISPA Vendor Member*
*Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net
 */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/*


The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only
for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may
contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s)
is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the sender and
delete the material from any computer.

 



Josh Luthman wrote:
> Hahaha
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Dennis Burgess - Linktechs <
> dmburg...@linktechs.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> http://www.break.com/pictures/internet-building727205.html
>>
>> How about the link :)
>>
>> * ---
>> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
>> WISPA Board Member - wispa.org 
>> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>> WISPA Vendor Member*
>> *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net
>> 
>> */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/*
>> 
>>
>> The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the
>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended
only
>> for the person(s) or entity/entities to which
>> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.
>> Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of
any
>> action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other
than
>> the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you
>> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
>> from any computer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Burgess - Linktechs wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>


>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>>


>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>


>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] NEED Router w/ T3 and Ethernet

[Jeff Broadwick]

Hi Adam,

Left you a message.

I can get something out to you tomorrow for Saturday delivery if needed.

Jeff
ImageStream
574-220-7826 cell
800-813-5123 x106 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chris T.
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] NEED Router w/ T3 and Ethernet

Hi, so it seems we got in a jam and now we need a router with T3 (clear
channel) and Ethernet. Anyone have one in stock to overnight?

Adam Goodman
801.971.1856






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability

[Tom DeReggi]

I've never found a lender willing to lend against using the in-place used 
equipment as colladeral.
It is the biggest double standard.
I find it highly ironic that they'll use a car for colladeral that looses 
50% of its value the day it leaves the lot, and has a rate of failure and 
risk of damage higher than just about any product on the market, and it has 
a huge cash burn (gas :-). but yet lendors won't put equivellent value on 
wireless gear, that holds its value, Ebay boasting easilly 50% after 3-4 
years of use, even after fully depreciated.
I'll never understand the lending market.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability


> Answers in-line.
>
>
> 
> 
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Charles Wu" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:49 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability
>
>
>> With all the hype being generated by the stimulus bill, we have been
>> approached by a multitude of third party financial organizations that 
>> have
>> a renewed interest in potentially financing rural broadband...now,
>> specifically, for WISPs, in the past, equipment leasing has been a very
>> popular option for financing, but in looking at our numbers over the past
>> year, I've noticed a marked decline in the amount of leasing that we do -
>> that said, I have the following questions for the listserv about 
>> financing
>>
>> Assuming that WISPs are still need to buy equipment...
>>
>> 1. Are you able to just purchase equipment out of cash-flow organically
>> generated from operations
>
> Other than originally starting with our own personal seed money, that's 
> what
> we've done.
>
>> 2. Have you gone to more traditional forms of money (e.g., bank / SBA /
>> RUS loans)?
>
> I could not qualify for any of them.
>
>> 3. Are you doing more vendor leasing programs (e.g., Motorola 3% 
>> financing
>> deal)
>
> Never sought any.
>
>> 4. Have you not been able to borrow money due to the credit crunch (e.g.,
>> not deploying as aggressively)
>
> My corporation hasn't ever been able to obtain hard money credit.In
> fact, the "credit crunch" start last Fall raised my "30+ day past due"
> amount from a piddly $1200 to at one time to almost $13,000 in just four
> months.   That almost put us under, and we're still barely scraping by 
> until
> our seasonally variable cash flow revives come August, with still several
> thousand on the books that's very slowly getting chipped away at.
>
>> 5. Are you holding off on deployments because of the economy
>
> No, we're holding off due to lack of cash flow.   We have plenty of people
> waiting for us to build infrastructure out to them.
>
>> 6. Have you gone to Agility... Louie the loanshark =)
>
> After much discussion, being some of the first people Agility contacted, 
> we
> have not done any business with them.   In my estimation, they wanted
> control over our business and day to day decisions, which we concluded was
> both unwarranted and unwise.
>
>>
>> Or any other thoughts / comments on this topic?
>>
>
> WISP equipment is not really a "commodity" in that there is almost no 
> market
> for it outside of the "maker-vendor" relationship.  Other than Ebay, and a
> couple of people who attempt to do it piecemeal, there is no "market" 
> which
> stabilizes the value of used equipment, making them a commodity you can
> borrow against.
>
> Perhaps it would be more useful, if vendors had the ability to get capital
> and create stable working and short term credit relationships with their
> buyers, kind of like the used car market.
>
>
>
>> -Charles
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailma

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Tom DeReggi]

Dont put words into their mouth. It didn't say "regulate ISPs and broadband 
providers". It said "regulate monopolies" that are providing like utility 
services.
When monopolies  get rid of regulation, they should also get rid of their 
special priveledges, that utility status entitles them to.

The important message is that regulation is not the answer. regulation is 
only necessary, when the governing bodies failed the public and allowed 
monopolyism to be the goal.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Kunze" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps


> Oops, sorry for the blank reply, I hit the wrong keys.
>
> On 5/21/2009 8:00 AM, Matt wrote:
>> Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you
>> cannot impose download caps as well.
>
> Personally, I can't EVEN imagine that such a law could stand up to basic
> reasoning.
>
> But think about it.  If such a law was attempted, where would they draw
> the line?  Telling any ISP that they can't use bandwidth management
> techniques is about like telling Comcast that they must lift bandwidth
> limits on cable service.  Since cable has an ENORMOUS amount of
> potential bandwidth, the same problem occurs; a few abusive users suck
> the life out of the entire network because everyone gets a gig of 
> bandwidth.
>
> I tell my customers that "unlimited" doesn't exist and never has.  They
> try to argue that "their other service was unlimited".  When it is
> revealed that said "other service" had a fraction of the bandwidth that
> I'm now delivering to them, it becomes apparent that the previous
> service was in fact severely limited by its inherent slow speed.
> Dial-up was of course the first so called "unlimited" service, yet was
> in fact the most severely limited.
>
> The way I deal with it is to show them my service/consumption matrix.
> For example, if I deliver 4meg symmetrical and they sign up for
> residential service, they are expected to have roughly the same duty
> cycle as the rest of the residential group, within reason.  If they sign
> up for residential and throttle it to 100% 24/7, that's not residential
> usage; at the end of the month they'll find that their speed has been
> reduced to about what they'd get from typical DSL which in turn keeps
> such a customer's monthly throughput within my guidelines for
> residential service.  This way I keep abusers from abusing.  And even in
> the very few cases I've seen it happen, the customer is more than happy
> to continue on like that.  Conversely, if their usage falls back to the
> roughly 5% duty cycle normally seen on residential customers, they'll
> find that their speed went back to 4 meg.
>
> I give them one or the other, but not both.  My explanation has always
> been well understood.  "Unlimited" doesn't exist.  Unless of course I'm
> talking to the 95% of people with "common sense"!
>
> 
>
> Rk
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] NEED Router w/ T3 and Ethernet

[Jayson Baker]

We have a Tasman DS3 router... new in box, about 4 years old.  Really, not
sure what it is, but I know it has a DS3 port and a Ethernet port.

Interested?

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Chris T.  wrote:

> Hi, so it seems we got in a jam and now we need a router with T3 (clear
> channel) and Ethernet. Anyone have one in stock to overnight?
>
> Adam Goodman
> 801.971.1856
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Just for a laugh

[Dennis Burgess - Linktechs]

Well at least I got one! 

* ---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
WISPA Board Member - wispa.org 
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
WISPA Vendor Member*
*Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net 

*/LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* 


The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only 
for the person(s) or entity/entities to which 
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any 
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action 
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the 
intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you 
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from 
any computer.

 



Josh Luthman wrote:
> Hahaha
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Dennis Burgess - Linktechs <
> dmburg...@linktechs.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> http://www.break.com/pictures/internet-building727205.html
>>
>> How about the link :)
>>
>> * ---
>> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
>> WISPA Board Member - wispa.org 
>> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>> WISPA Vendor Member*
>> *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net
>> 
>> */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/*
>> 
>>
>> The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the
>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only
>> for the person(s) or entity/entities to which
>> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.
>> Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any
>> action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
>> the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you
>> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
>> from any computer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Burgess - Linktechs wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] NEED Router w/ T3 and Ethernet

[Chris T.]

Hi, so it seems we got in a jam and now we need a router with T3 (clear
channel) and Ethernet. Anyone have one in stock to overnight?

Adam Goodman
801.971.1856





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Charles Wu]

>People read the comments, its scary, like this one...

>"Internet providing is like having an infinite tank of free water. ISP's pay
>for the pipes to get it to your house. You pay them based on the size of the
>pipe. Now they want to charge you based on the amount of free water you use
>each month. Does that seem logical or fair?"

Technically...if you're the size of Comcast/AT&T/Verizon...bandwidth is free 
because everything is "on-net" or done through peering arrangement

But it still doesn't address the cost of transport (which is ultimately the 
dilemma we all face)

Perhaps the better way to market is unlimited free all you can eat Internet

Fine print: BYOT (Bring Your Own Transport) -- just figure out a way to get 
from Hole-in-the-ground-surrounded-by-trees, Kansas to Equinix Chicago and you 
can have all the Internet Bandwidth you'd ever need...oh? you need transport, 
well sir, that'll be $900 setup fee, $59.95 / month and $1 / GB =)

-Charles



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Kurt Fankhauser]

People read the comments, its scary, like this one...


"Internet providing is like having an infinite tank of free water. ISP's pay
for the pipes to get it to your house. You pay them based on the size of the
pipe. Now they want to charge you based on the amount of free water you use
each month. Does that seem logical or fair?"



Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:01 AM
To: WISPA General List; motor...@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
impose download caps as well.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost

Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water, electric,
gas, telephone and etc.

Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.

Matt




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Firmware

[Adam Kennedy]

I'd be interested in that as well.


On 5/21/09 5:13 PM, "Cameron Kilton"  wrote:

> Anybody got a copy of the new VL firmware 5.5 from Alvarion, it's
> supposed to do wonders for the 900 band and has a filter built into it
> now. :)
> 
> Thank You,
> Cameron Kilton
> 
> 
> 
> --
> --
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --
> --
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
Adam Kennedy
Senior Network Administrator
Cyberlink Technologies, Inc.
Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352
Fax: 574-855-5761




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Alvarion VL Firmware

[Cameron Kilton]

Anybody got a copy of the new VL firmware 5.5 from Alvarion, it's
supposed to do wonders for the 900 band and has a filter built into it
now. :)

Thank You,
Cameron Kilton




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Just for a laugh

[Josh Luthman]

Hahaha

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Dennis Burgess - Linktechs <
dmburg...@linktechs.net> wrote:

> http://www.break.com/pictures/internet-building727205.html
>
> How about the link :)
>
> * ---
> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
> WISPA Board Member - wispa.org 
> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
> WISPA Vendor Member*
> *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net
> 
> */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/*
> 
>
> The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only
> for the person(s) or entity/entities to which
> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.
> Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any
> action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
> the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
> from any computer.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dennis Burgess - Linktechs wrote:
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Local County Fair

[Adam Kennedy]

Something easy would be to use OpenDNS on that machine.seems to work
fairly well.


On 5/20/09 12:44 PM, "Vickie Edwards"  wrote:

> I think that would be a better idea... redirect those domains to a
> splash screen saying that the connection is for demo purposes only.
> Maybe allow something like Hulu to go through, so that you could show
> streaming speed (not YouTube, obviously), but keep the social networking
> sites blocked.
> 
> Also, I'd suggest posting a sign asking people to limit their time to 10
> minutes since it's a demo, and require that children be accompanied by a
> parent or guardian. After all, you don't want them to discover that YOU
> are letting their precious snowflakes view adult content on the demo
> machines - that would be a business killer.
> 
>  
> InLine>
> vickie edwards, MPA | Grant Specialist
> InLine Connections> Solutions Through Technology
> 600 Lakeshore Pkwy
> Birmingham AL, 35209
> 205-278-8106 [p]
> 205-941-1934[f]
> vedwa...@inline.com
> www.InLine.com
> All Quotes from InLine are only valid for 30 days. This message and any
> attached files may contain confidential information and are intended solely
> for the message recipient. If you are not the message recipient you are
> notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
> reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
> transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information
> could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete,
> or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
> errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result
> of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy
> version.
> 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:41 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Local County Fair
> 
> Or just block myspace, facebook, twitter, etc. on those computers
> 
> 
> On 5/19/09 6:21 PM, "Marlon K. Schafer"  wrote:
> 
>> You might try just doing free wifi hotspots for people around the
> fair.
>> Force them to a splash page that tells them you are giving the
> wireless away
>> and that you can provide it to their homes (for a fee) as well.
>> 
>> Beyond that, you might try getting a flyer in all of the fair stuff
> etc.
>> 
>> I'd also not be afraid of keeping the kids off of the computers.  At
> least
>> make them have a parent with them.  That'll keep the crowds down so
> that the
>> adults will be able to get to you etc.
>> 
>> have fun!
>> marlon
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Steve Barnes" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:28 AM
>> Subject: [WISPA] Local County Fair
>> 
>> 
>>> Being a very Rural WISP 90% of my clients and potential clients will
>>> attend the local County 4-H fair.  For years I have had a booth in
> the
>>> commercial building.  I setup a really sharp booth (trade-show type)
> and a
>>> fancy computer that I sell in my shop and 2 small systems as WIFI
> demo
>>> units.
>>> 
>>> What I end up with is from 12 noon to 9:00 in the evening I have to
> have
>>> staff there to baby sit the 4-H kids who are board and want to sit
> and
>>> play on YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace. The last 2 years we have not
> sold
>>> a single computer, and have setup few wireless clients.
>>> 
>>> It is great PR.  People ask questions when they can get to you
> through all
>>> the Kids.
>>> 
>>> Anyone else do anything like this.  What do you do.  Is there a good
> Kiosk
>>> system that you can put up to help people get info.  I need a better
> plan
>>> that I don't have to baby sit 9 hours a day. I don't have the time to
> do
>>> this myself this year (have my own kids in 4-H with horses and other
>>> animals).
>>> 
>>> Any Ideas.
>>> 
>>> Steve Barnes
>>> RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> -
>>> ---
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
> 
> -
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>> 
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> 
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
>> --
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
> 
> --
>> --
>>  
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
Adam Kennedy
Senior Network Administrator
Cyberlink Technologies, Inc.
Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352
F

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Steve Barnes]

Well my electric does that too.  But in march is my make up month and if my 
usage is less than what I have paid I get a free month if it s more then I get 
a bill for the difference.  This year I had to make up $435 in the month of 
march.

But that is still a budget so if we did that with wireless then every year we 
would get the option to raise their bill guess who would find a new service.

Steve Barnes
RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of D. Ryan Spott
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

My electric bill is the same every month regardless of how much I use. 
My wife used to work for the electric company and discovered that you 
can do bill averaging for the year, based on last years bill. That means 
that high usage for AC or whatever in whatever month does not kill you 
that month. Makes it easier to budget.

Each bill shows what you are paying and what the actual charge is.
So it might look something like this:
Jan Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Feb Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Mar Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Apr Actual: $75 payment: $100.
May Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Jun Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Jul Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Aug Actual: $400 payment: $100. _> AC unit comes on full blast.

They re-analyze your usage for the next years monthly payments at the 
end of the year.

Works pretty well.. Now if only bandwidth usage did that sort of 
thing!... wait! K12 does that!

ryan

Josh Luthman wrote:
> One of our utility bills is the same cost every month of the year.  Don't
> know if it is "unlimited" or not, though.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, D. Ryan Spott  wrote:
>
>   
>> My water utility offers unlimited service (at least for now). However,
>> they only provide a 1" pipe to me.
>>
>> I am happy to provide unlimited service to my customers. 3mbps pipe for
>> a while.. then a 56kbps pipe as much as they want!
>>
>> That's right folks! I am offering a 56kbps pipe UNLIMITED! :)
>>
>> ryan
>>
>> Steve Barnes wrote:
>> 
>>> This Congressman is an idiot.  His own statements makes no sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 "They are providing a utility and frankly you should not be able to
 
>> impose cascading rate >increases without justifying them," Massa said. "What
>> Time Warner is saying is not true and >their own SEC filings show that. This
>> is AIG-style greed."
>> 
>>> (They are providing a utility)  What utility is there that you pay the
>>>   
>> same fee no matter how much you use it.  Water, telephone, cellular, Gas,
>> Electric. I would love to pay $39.99 a month for my gas bill no matter how
>> much of it I use.  Sure my bill this month was $13.  But in Jan when it was
>> $185. Guess the Gas company is just AIG-style Greedy.
>> 
>>> Guess there is another Option we could get the government to take over
>>>   
>> all the upstream providers and give us unlimited bandwidth at no cost.  Then
>> I could afford to build up and not worry about bandwidth costs.
>> 
>>> Steve Barnes
>>> RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>   
>> Behalf Of Matt
>> 
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:01 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List; motor...@wispa.org
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps
>>>
>>> Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
>>> impose download caps as well.
>>>
>>> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost
>>>
>>> Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water,
>>>   
>> electric,
>> 
>>> gas, telephone and etc.
>>>
>>> Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> h

Re: [WISPA] Just for a laugh

[Dennis Burgess - Linktechs]

http://www.break.com/pictures/internet-building727205.html

How about the link :)

* ---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
WISPA Board Member - wispa.org 
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
WISPA Vendor Member*
*Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net 

*/LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* 


The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only 
for the person(s) or entity/entities to which 
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any 
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action 
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the 
intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you 
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from 
any computer.

 



Dennis Burgess - Linktechs wrote:



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Just for a laugh

[Dennis Burgess - Linktechs]

-- 

* ---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
WISPA Board Member - wispa.org 
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
WISPA Vendor Member*
*Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net 

*/LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* 


The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only 
for the person(s) or entity/entities to which 
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any 
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action 
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the 
intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you 
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from 
any computer.

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

[Dennis Burgess - Linktechs]

Now, what about if you can not smoke a cigar in a smoking restaurant? 

* ---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
WISPA Board Member - wispa.org 
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
WISPA Vendor Member*
*Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net 

*/LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* 


The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only 
for the person(s) or entity/entities to which 
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any 
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action 
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the 
intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you 
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from 
any computer.

 



Brad Belton wrote:
> Your argument makes the assumption there are no other options for a tenant
> other than the property in question.  
>
> This is really no different than restaurants that allow smoking vs.
> restaurants that don't allow smoking.  If you want to smoke you will dine at
> restaurants that allow smoking and the ones that forbid smoking won't get
> your business.  This works for the non-smokers too.  Personally I'm a
> non-smoker and dine at either smoking or non-smoking restaurants, but we all
> know people that are adamant on both sides of the issue.
>
> Regarding your tenant lease renewal example, doubt the property owner will
> make publicly known (regardless as to the reason) why he chooses not to
> renew a tenant's lease.  Is there a law I'm unaware of that forces a
> landlord to give reason for not renewing a lease?  Eviction, sure, but not
> for renewals.  Have you ever read a lease agreement closely?  They are
> always heavily weighted towards the landlord vs. the tenant as they should
> be.  Again, there is nothing forcing a tenant to lease there as they can
> always lease elsewhere.
>
> There are many limitations that can prevent the number of providers in one
> property.  Riser space or roof space may be limited among many other
> limitations.  Roof or other building warranties may be voided if the new
> provider is negligent or even if they aren't negligent.  Insurance
> requirements will need to meet the property owner's requirements.  The
> property owner can essentially make it cost prohibitive for you to enter the
> property if they choose to do so.
>
> Again, in the end the property owner will prevail as they should.  It is
> after all their property and they should have final say what happens to
> their property.  If their decisions are poor and result in lost lease
> revenue than they'll be gone soon enough and maybe the new owner will see
> the benefit to allowing the right additional providers into the property.  
>
> The market always works these issues out themselves.
>
> If you are truly offering a better product that is desirable then all of
> this is a moot point.  The problem is today (due to our current government
> nanny state) any Joe Shmo can call themselves a Telco Provider.  Savvy
> property owners should, can and will keep those out that they don't see as a
> benefit.
>
>
> Brad
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:51 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
>
> Your argument assumes issues such as anti-trust don't exist. The  
> market is not always right especially when you have monopoly issues to  
> deal with. In the case of telecom, we have competitive issues that the  
> market has been unable to historically solve. See the breakup of AT&T  
> and more recently the 1996 telecom act.
>
> Now more to your point. The most ideal situation is for property  
> owners to come to mutual acceptable agreements with telecom providers  
> who need to access to their private property. That isn't always  
> possible, but to imply that the property owner will always win is  
> shorted-sighted. There are many cases where both the telecom provider  
> AND the property owner can lose.
>
> One example of just the property owner losing, is the case of placing  
> an antenna in exclusively controlled space where OTARD applies; the  
> property owner regularly loses. If like you suggest a property owner  
> gets rid of a tenant because of a dish, the tenant at no expensive can  
> complain to the FCC. The property owner will then at their own expense  
> have to argue before the FCC that they didn't violate OTARD.  
> Understand the immense downside facing a property owner in this case.  
> FCC rules trump almost all others including contract law. In fact, the  
> only wa

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Rick Kunze]

On 5/21/2009 10:05 AM, D. Ryan Spott wrote:
> My water utility offers unlimited service (at least for now).
> However, they only provide a 1" pipe to me.

Being in an ag region, I use this exact analogy in my explanation of my 
throttling matrix.

I tell them that yea, you could in fact irrigate that 200 acres of 
almonds with your 1" residential service, but expect a lot of dead 
trees.  To do a "business grade" effort, you need that 80HP ditch pump 
and 8" infrastructure.  Which of course comes with the associated higher 
cost.

The farmers all understand that one!

Rk



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Rick Kunze]

Oops, sorry for the blank reply, I hit the wrong keys.

On 5/21/2009 8:00 AM, Matt wrote:
> Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you
> cannot impose download caps as well.

Personally, I can't EVEN imagine that such a law could stand up to basic 
reasoning.

But think about it.  If such a law was attempted, where would they draw 
the line?  Telling any ISP that they can't use bandwidth management 
techniques is about like telling Comcast that they must lift bandwidth 
limits on cable service.  Since cable has an ENORMOUS amount of 
potential bandwidth, the same problem occurs; a few abusive users suck 
the life out of the entire network because everyone gets a gig of bandwidth.

I tell my customers that "unlimited" doesn't exist and never has.  They 
try to argue that "their other service was unlimited".  When it is 
revealed that said "other service" had a fraction of the bandwidth that 
I'm now delivering to them, it becomes apparent that the previous 
service was in fact severely limited by its inherent slow speed. 
Dial-up was of course the first so called "unlimited" service, yet was 
in fact the most severely limited.

The way I deal with it is to show them my service/consumption matrix. 
For example, if I deliver 4meg symmetrical and they sign up for 
residential service, they are expected to have roughly the same duty 
cycle as the rest of the residential group, within reason.  If they sign 
up for residential and throttle it to 100% 24/7, that's not residential 
usage; at the end of the month they'll find that their speed has been 
reduced to about what they'd get from typical DSL which in turn keeps 
such a customer's monthly throughput within my guidelines for 
residential service.  This way I keep abusers from abusing.  And even in 
the very few cases I've seen it happen, the customer is more than happy 
to continue on like that.  Conversely, if their usage falls back to the 
roughly 5% duty cycle normally seen on residential customers, they'll 
find that their speed went back to 4 meg.

I give them one or the other, but not both.  My explanation has always 
been well understood.  "Unlimited" doesn't exist.  Unless of course I'm 
talking to the 95% of people with "common sense"!



Rk



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[D. Ryan Spott]

My electric bill is the same every month regardless of how much I use. 
My wife used to work for the electric company and discovered that you 
can do bill averaging for the year, based on last years bill. That means 
that high usage for AC or whatever in whatever month does not kill you 
that month. Makes it easier to budget.

Each bill shows what you are paying and what the actual charge is.
So it might look something like this:
Jan Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Feb Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Mar Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Apr Actual: $75 payment: $100.
May Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Jun Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Jul Actual: $75 payment: $100.
Aug Actual: $400 payment: $100. _> AC unit comes on full blast.

They re-analyze your usage for the next years monthly payments at the 
end of the year.

Works pretty well.. Now if only bandwidth usage did that sort of 
thing!... wait! K12 does that!

ryan

Josh Luthman wrote:
> One of our utility bills is the same cost every month of the year.  Don't
> know if it is "unlimited" or not, though.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, D. Ryan Spott  wrote:
>
>   
>> My water utility offers unlimited service (at least for now). However,
>> they only provide a 1" pipe to me.
>>
>> I am happy to provide unlimited service to my customers. 3mbps pipe for
>> a while.. then a 56kbps pipe as much as they want!
>>
>> That's right folks! I am offering a 56kbps pipe UNLIMITED! :)
>>
>> ryan
>>
>> Steve Barnes wrote:
>> 
>>> This Congressman is an idiot.  His own statements makes no sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 "They are providing a utility and frankly you should not be able to
 
>> impose cascading rate >increases without justifying them," Massa said. "What
>> Time Warner is saying is not true and >their own SEC filings show that. This
>> is AIG-style greed."
>> 
>>> (They are providing a utility)  What utility is there that you pay the
>>>   
>> same fee no matter how much you use it.  Water, telephone, cellular, Gas,
>> Electric. I would love to pay $39.99 a month for my gas bill no matter how
>> much of it I use.  Sure my bill this month was $13.  But in Jan when it was
>> $185. Guess the Gas company is just AIG-style Greedy.
>> 
>>> Guess there is another Option we could get the government to take over
>>>   
>> all the upstream providers and give us unlimited bandwidth at no cost.  Then
>> I could afford to build up and not worry about bandwidth costs.
>> 
>>> Steve Barnes
>>> RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>   
>> Behalf Of Matt
>> 
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:01 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List; motor...@wispa.org
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps
>>>
>>> Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
>>> impose download caps as well.
>>>
>>> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost
>>>
>>> Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water,
>>>   
>> electric,
>> 
>>> gas, telephone and etc.
>>>
>>> Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wis

Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability

[reader]

Answers in-line.





- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:49 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability


> With all the hype being generated by the stimulus bill, we have been 
> approached by a multitude of third party financial organizations that have 
> a renewed interest in potentially financing rural broadband...now, 
> specifically, for WISPs, in the past, equipment leasing has been a very 
> popular option for financing, but in looking at our numbers over the past 
> year, I've noticed a marked decline in the amount of leasing that we do - 
> that said, I have the following questions for the listserv about financing
>
> Assuming that WISPs are still need to buy equipment...
>
> 1. Are you able to just purchase equipment out of cash-flow organically 
> generated from operations

Other than originally starting with our own personal seed money, that's what 
we've done.

> 2. Have you gone to more traditional forms of money (e.g., bank / SBA / 
> RUS loans)?

I could not qualify for any of them.

> 3. Are you doing more vendor leasing programs (e.g., Motorola 3% financing 
> deal)

Never sought any.

> 4. Have you not been able to borrow money due to the credit crunch (e.g., 
> not deploying as aggressively)

My corporation hasn't ever been able to obtain hard money credit.In 
fact, the "credit crunch" start last Fall raised my "30+ day past due" 
amount from a piddly $1200 to at one time to almost $13,000 in just four 
months.   That almost put us under, and we're still barely scraping by until 
our seasonally variable cash flow revives come August, with still several 
thousand on the books that's very slowly getting chipped away at.

> 5. Are you holding off on deployments because of the economy

No, we're holding off due to lack of cash flow.   We have plenty of people 
waiting for us to build infrastructure out to them.

> 6. Have you gone to Agility... Louie the loanshark =)

After much discussion, being some of the first people Agility contacted, we 
have not done any business with them.   In my estimation, they wanted 
control over our business and day to day decisions, which we concluded was 
both unwarranted and unwise.

>
> Or any other thoughts / comments on this topic?
>

WISP equipment is not really a "commodity" in that there is almost no market 
for it outside of the "maker-vendor" relationship.  Other than Ebay, and a 
couple of people who attempt to do it piecemeal, there is no "market" which 
stabilizes the value of used equipment, making them a commodity you can 
borrow against.

Perhaps it would be more useful, if vendors had the ability to get capital 
and create stable working and short term credit relationships with their 
buyers, kind of like the used car market.



> -Charles
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Rick Kunze]

On 5/21/2009 8:00 AM, Matt wrote:
> Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
> impose download caps as well.
>
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost
>
> Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water, electric,
> gas, telephone and etc.
>
> Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.
>
> Matt
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[reader]

How about we tell them that it is absolutely none of their freaking 
business...

Politely, of course.







- Original Message - 
From: "Matt" 
To: "WISPA General List" ; 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:00 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps


> Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
> impose download caps as well.
>
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost
>
> Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water, 
> electric,
> gas, telephone and etc.
>
> Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.
>
> Matt
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Josh Luthman]

One of our utility bills is the same cost every month of the year.  Don't
know if it is "unlimited" or not, though.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, D. Ryan Spott  wrote:

> My water utility offers unlimited service (at least for now). However,
> they only provide a 1" pipe to me.
>
> I am happy to provide unlimited service to my customers. 3mbps pipe for
> a while.. then a 56kbps pipe as much as they want!
>
> That's right folks! I am offering a 56kbps pipe UNLIMITED! :)
>
> ryan
>
> Steve Barnes wrote:
> > This Congressman is an idiot.  His own statements makes no sense.
> >
> >
> >> "They are providing a utility and frankly you should not be able to
> impose cascading rate >increases without justifying them," Massa said. "What
> Time Warner is saying is not true and >their own SEC filings show that. This
> is AIG-style greed."
> >>
> >
> > (They are providing a utility)  What utility is there that you pay the
> same fee no matter how much you use it.  Water, telephone, cellular, Gas,
> Electric. I would love to pay $39.99 a month for my gas bill no matter how
> much of it I use.  Sure my bill this month was $13.  But in Jan when it was
> $185. Guess the Gas company is just AIG-style Greedy.
> >
> > Guess there is another Option we could get the government to take over
> all the upstream providers and give us unlimited bandwidth at no cost.  Then
> I could afford to build up and not worry about bandwidth costs.
> >
> > Steve Barnes
> > RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Matt
> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:01 AM
> > To: WISPA General List; motor...@wispa.org
> > Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps
> >
> > Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
> > impose download caps as well.
> >
> > http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost
> >
> > Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water,
> electric,
> > gas, telephone and etc.
> >
> > Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> >
> 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> >
> 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[D. Ryan Spott]

My water utility offers unlimited service (at least for now). However, 
they only provide a 1" pipe to me.

I am happy to provide unlimited service to my customers. 3mbps pipe for 
a while.. then a 56kbps pipe as much as they want!

That's right folks! I am offering a 56kbps pipe UNLIMITED! :)

ryan

Steve Barnes wrote:
> This Congressman is an idiot.  His own statements makes no sense.
>
>   
>> "They are providing a utility and frankly you should not be able to impose 
>> cascading rate >increases without justifying them," Massa said. "What Time 
>> Warner is saying is not true and >their own SEC filings show that. This is 
>> AIG-style greed."
>> 
>
> (They are providing a utility)  What utility is there that you pay the same 
> fee no matter how much you use it.  Water, telephone, cellular, Gas, 
> Electric. I would love to pay $39.99 a month for my gas bill no matter how 
> much of it I use.  Sure my bill this month was $13.  But in Jan when it was 
> $185. Guess the Gas company is just AIG-style Greedy.
>
> Guess there is another Option we could get the government to take over all 
> the upstream providers and give us unlimited bandwidth at no cost.  Then I 
> could afford to build up and not worry about bandwidth costs. 
>
> Steve Barnes
> RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Matt
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:01 AM
> To: WISPA General List; motor...@wispa.org
> Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps
>
> Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
> impose download caps as well.
>
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost
>
> Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water, electric,
> gas, telephone and etc.
>
> Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.
>
> Matt
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

[Matt Liotta]

On May 21, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Brad Belton wrote:

> Your argument makes the assumption there are no other options for a  
> tenant
> other than the property in question.
>
No it doesn't make that assumption. Tenants make long term decisions  
related to property leases. In many cases, the tenant makes  
assumptions and expectations about their use of the property without  
getting those assumptions and expectations in a lease document.  
Further, the property owner does a similar thing and as such has  
certain liabilities that aren't protected in their leases. All of this  
is because generally the people negotiating the leases aren't savvy  
with technology.

A perfect case in point is Wi-Fi. I know of no major REITs that have  
clauses in their leases regarding Wi-Fi or indeed inference issues.  
Yet, every company I know plans to have a Wi-Fi network deployed in  
their leased space. Now if you assume that an MTU is going to have  
multiple tenants that all are going to deploy Wi-Fi in close proximity  
you have a natural interference issue. In fact, with today's 802.11N  
you now have less overlapping channels then you did before. Couple  
this with many "enterprise" Wi-Fi vendors including "rogue" AP  
detection and mitigation features that attempt to disable Wi-Fi APs  
over the air. Clearly a war is brewing between tenants' Wi-Fi networks  
that can only result in multiple tenants becoming unhappy with the  
interference. It will fall to the property owner to resolve the issue.  
Yet the property owner doesn't have any legal standing to force  
tenants to deploy their Wi-Fi networks in any particular way.

> This is really no different than restaurants that allow smoking vs.
> restaurants that don't allow smoking.  If you want to smoke you will  
> dine at
> restaurants that allow smoking and the ones that forbid smoking  
> won't get
> your business.  This works for the non-smokers too.  Personally I'm a
> non-smoker and dine at either smoking or non-smoking restaurants,  
> but we all
> know people that are adamant on both sides of the issue.
>
It is quite different actually. Again, telecom issues are almost never  
dealt with until after the lease has been signed. I can't tell you how  
many deals we get because tenants signed a lease and need telecom  
services delivered, but their preferred vendor is unable to deliver in  
time or in budget due to construction issues.

> Regarding your tenant lease renewal example, doubt the property  
> owner will
> make publicly known (regardless as to the reason) why he chooses not  
> to
> renew a tenant's lease.  Is there a law I'm unaware of that forces a
> landlord to give reason for not renewing a lease?  Eviction, sure,  
> but not
> for renewals.  Have you ever read a lease agreement closely?  They are
> always heavily weighted towards the landlord vs. the tenant as they  
> should
> be.  Again, there is nothing forcing a tenant to lease there as they  
> can
> always lease elsewhere.
>
I shutter to think about the shear number of lease agreements I have  
signed, so I have a pretty good idea about the process and standard  
terms. You argue the tenant will never know. Yet, my experience is  
that landlords are all to eager to tell a tenant why.

> There are many limitations that can prevent the number of providers  
> in one
> property.  Riser space or roof space may be limited among many other
> limitations.  Roof or other building warranties may be voided if the  
> new
> provider is negligent or even if they aren't negligent.  Insurance
> requirements will need to meet the property owner's requirements.  The
> property owner can essentially make it cost prohibitive for you to  
> enter the
> property if they choose to do so.
>
Maybe; I have never seen it with any large REIT. Little property  
owners often try and fail.

> Again, in the end the property owner will prevail as they should.   
> It is
> after all their property and they should have final say what happens  
> to
> their property.  If their decisions are poor and result in lost lease
> revenue than they'll be gone soon enough and maybe the new owner  
> will see
> the benefit to allowing the right additional providers into the  
> property.
>
Depending on what you mean by prevail. I have had my share of property  
owners win the battle and lose the war so to speak.

> The market always works these issues out themselves.
>
No it doesn't. Again, see the Sherman Act for generic anti-trust  
issues and the 1996 Telecom Act for specific competitive issues  
relating to our industry. In both cases, the government was forced to  
act because the market couldn't work it out for themselves.

> If you are truly offering a better product that is desirable then  
> all of
> this is a moot point.  The problem is today (due to our current  
> government
> nanny state) any Joe Shmo can call themselves a Telco Provider.  Savvy
> property owners should, can and will keep those out that they don't  
> 

Re: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Steve Barnes]

This Congressman is an idiot.  His own statements makes no sense.

>"They are providing a utility and frankly you should not be able to impose 
>cascading rate >increases without justifying them," Massa said. "What Time 
>Warner is saying is not true and >their own SEC filings show that. This is 
>AIG-style greed."

(They are providing a utility)  What utility is there that you pay the same fee 
no matter how much you use it.  Water, telephone, cellular, Gas, Electric. I 
would love to pay $39.99 a month for my gas bill no matter how much of it I 
use.  Sure my bill this month was $13.  But in Jan when it was $185. Guess the 
Gas company is just AIG-style Greedy.

Guess there is another Option we could get the government to take over all the 
upstream providers and give us unlimited bandwidth at no cost.  Then I could 
afford to build up and not worry about bandwidth costs. 

Steve Barnes
RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Matt
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:01 AM
To: WISPA General List; motor...@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
impose download caps as well.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost

Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water, electric,
gas, telephone and etc.

Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.

Matt



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

[Brad Belton]

Your argument makes the assumption there are no other options for a tenant
other than the property in question.  

This is really no different than restaurants that allow smoking vs.
restaurants that don't allow smoking.  If you want to smoke you will dine at
restaurants that allow smoking and the ones that forbid smoking won't get
your business.  This works for the non-smokers too.  Personally I'm a
non-smoker and dine at either smoking or non-smoking restaurants, but we all
know people that are adamant on both sides of the issue.

Regarding your tenant lease renewal example, doubt the property owner will
make publicly known (regardless as to the reason) why he chooses not to
renew a tenant's lease.  Is there a law I'm unaware of that forces a
landlord to give reason for not renewing a lease?  Eviction, sure, but not
for renewals.  Have you ever read a lease agreement closely?  They are
always heavily weighted towards the landlord vs. the tenant as they should
be.  Again, there is nothing forcing a tenant to lease there as they can
always lease elsewhere.

There are many limitations that can prevent the number of providers in one
property.  Riser space or roof space may be limited among many other
limitations.  Roof or other building warranties may be voided if the new
provider is negligent or even if they aren't negligent.  Insurance
requirements will need to meet the property owner's requirements.  The
property owner can essentially make it cost prohibitive for you to enter the
property if they choose to do so.

Again, in the end the property owner will prevail as they should.  It is
after all their property and they should have final say what happens to
their property.  If their decisions are poor and result in lost lease
revenue than they'll be gone soon enough and maybe the new owner will see
the benefit to allowing the right additional providers into the property.  

The market always works these issues out themselves.

If you are truly offering a better product that is desirable then all of
this is a moot point.  The problem is today (due to our current government
nanny state) any Joe Shmo can call themselves a Telco Provider.  Savvy
property owners should, can and will keep those out that they don't see as a
benefit.


Brad





-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:51 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

Your argument assumes issues such as anti-trust don't exist. The  
market is not always right especially when you have monopoly issues to  
deal with. In the case of telecom, we have competitive issues that the  
market has been unable to historically solve. See the breakup of AT&T  
and more recently the 1996 telecom act.

Now more to your point. The most ideal situation is for property  
owners to come to mutual acceptable agreements with telecom providers  
who need to access to their private property. That isn't always  
possible, but to imply that the property owner will always win is  
shorted-sighted. There are many cases where both the telecom provider  
AND the property owner can lose.

One example of just the property owner losing, is the case of placing  
an antenna in exclusively controlled space where OTARD applies; the  
property owner regularly loses. If like you suggest a property owner  
gets rid of a tenant because of a dish, the tenant at no expensive can  
complain to the FCC. The property owner will then at their own expense  
have to argue before the FCC that they didn't violate OTARD.  
Understand the immense downside facing a property owner in this case.  
FCC rules trump almost all others including contract law. In fact, the  
only way to overturn an FCC decision regarding OTARD is an act of  
Congress. The best part of OTARD is that while the case is pending the  
property owner losing some of their property rights related to the  
tenant in question.

At the end of the day, the problem with property owners is that they  
let in the monopolies for free and charge the competitors. Tenants  
should have access to competitive telecom providers. The property  
owner should receive compensation from telecom providers for access to  
their property. But, because the property owner can't get away with  
charging the monopoly they stick it to the competitive providers. This  
ensures that only the monopolies win.

What we need is some basic market regulation. Property owners should  
be able to charge fair and reasonable access fees AND the monopolies  
should be required to pay them. At the same time, if the monopolies  
are going to be required to pay for access then all the other  
providers should be given access assuming they pay the same fees. This  
gives tenants choice, property owners compensation, and telecom  
providers an even playing field.

-Matt

On May 21, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Brad Belton wrote:

> Hello Mike,
>
> Still doesn'

Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

[Matt Liotta]

Your argument assumes issues such as anti-trust don't exist. The  
market is not always right especially when you have monopoly issues to  
deal with. In the case of telecom, we have competitive issues that the  
market has been unable to historically solve. See the breakup of AT&T  
and more recently the 1996 telecom act.

Now more to your point. The most ideal situation is for property  
owners to come to mutual acceptable agreements with telecom providers  
who need to access to their private property. That isn't always  
possible, but to imply that the property owner will always win is  
shorted-sighted. There are many cases where both the telecom provider  
AND the property owner can lose.

One example of just the property owner losing, is the case of placing  
an antenna in exclusively controlled space where OTARD applies; the  
property owner regularly loses. If like you suggest a property owner  
gets rid of a tenant because of a dish, the tenant at no expensive can  
complain to the FCC. The property owner will then at their own expense  
have to argue before the FCC that they didn't violate OTARD.  
Understand the immense downside facing a property owner in this case.  
FCC rules trump almost all others including contract law. In fact, the  
only way to overturn an FCC decision regarding OTARD is an act of  
Congress. The best part of OTARD is that while the case is pending the  
property owner losing some of their property rights related to the  
tenant in question.

At the end of the day, the problem with property owners is that they  
let in the monopolies for free and charge the competitors. Tenants  
should have access to competitive telecom providers. The property  
owner should receive compensation from telecom providers for access to  
their property. But, because the property owner can't get away with  
charging the monopoly they stick it to the competitive providers. This  
ensures that only the monopolies win.

What we need is some basic market regulation. Property owners should  
be able to charge fair and reasonable access fees AND the monopolies  
should be required to pay them. At the same time, if the monopolies  
are going to be required to pay for access then all the other  
providers should be given access assuming they pay the same fees. This  
gives tenants choice, property owners compensation, and telecom  
providers an even playing field.

-Matt

On May 21, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Brad Belton wrote:

> Hello Mike,
>
> Still doesn't mean the property owner can't keep you out.
>
> Again, bottom line after all is said and done the property owner WILL
> prevail one way or another.  Again, it is his private property and  
> should be
> this way.
>
> If the property "A" doesn't have covered parking, but property "B"  
> does and
> covered parking is important to you then lease from property "B".   
> This is
> no different than if a property has Mike's Internet or not.  If you  
> desire
> Mike's Internet then find a property that has Mike's Internet or a  
> property
> that will allow Mike's Internet to be installed.  Otherwise lease  
> elsewhere.
> If this happens often enough than I guarantee the property owner  
> will find a
> way to get Mike's Internet, so that they can close on more leasing
> opportunities.
>
> This isn't rocket science.  The market always works these issues out  
> in the
> end.
>
> There is no law stating the property owner has to lease to you or  
> renew a
> tenant lease.  So, they may get to hang that DSS dish eye sore off  
> the front
> of the building on their balcony for a while, but when their lease  
> comes up
> they'll be gone and so will that dish.
>
> In the end the property owner will prevail as they should.  You will  
> always
> attract more bees with honey vs. vinegar.  Trying to force yourself  
> into a
> property citing FCC rules etc, etc will be your first and last  
> mistake with
> a landlord.  Word spreads quickly of such tactics around town and  
> within
> BOMA.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:02 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
>
> I'd have a more authoritative source, but "The normal FCC website is
> temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties. We are  
> working to
> restore the full FCC website back to normal as soon as possible."
>
> Residential telecom was banned on March 21st, 2008.  Commercial  
> telecom was
> banned October 12, 2000.  The October 12, 2000 ruling also put fixed
> wireless under OTARD's umbrella.
>
>
> http://www.wcsr.com/resources/pdfs/telecomm032608.pdf
>
> http://www.dlapiper.com/us/publications/detail.aspx?pub=3094
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 21

[WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability

[Charles Wu]

With all the hype being generated by the stimulus bill, we have been approached 
by a multitude of third party financial organizations that have a renewed 
interest in potentially financing rural broadband...now, specifically, for 
WISPs, in the past, equipment leasing has been a very popular option for 
financing, but in looking at our numbers over the past year, I've noticed a 
marked decline in the amount of leasing that we do - that said, I have the 
following questions for the listserv about financing

Assuming that WISPs are still need to buy equipment...

1.  Are you able to just purchase equipment out of cash-flow organically 
generated from operations
2.  Have you gone to more traditional forms of money (e.g., bank / SBA / 
RUS loans)?
3.  Are you doing more vendor leasing programs (e.g., Motorola 3% financing 
deal)
4.  Have you not been able to borrow money due to the credit crunch (e.g., 
not deploying as aggressively)
5.  Are you holding off on deployments because of the economy
6.  Have you gone to Agility... Louie the loanshark =)

Or any other thoughts / comments on this topic?

-Charles



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

[Brad Belton]

Hello Mike,

Still doesn't mean the property owner can't keep you out.  

Again, bottom line after all is said and done the property owner WILL
prevail one way or another.  Again, it is his private property and should be
this way.  

If the property "A" doesn't have covered parking, but property "B" does and
covered parking is important to you then lease from property "B".  This is
no different than if a property has Mike's Internet or not.  If you desire
Mike's Internet then find a property that has Mike's Internet or a property
that will allow Mike's Internet to be installed.  Otherwise lease elsewhere.
If this happens often enough than I guarantee the property owner will find a
way to get Mike's Internet, so that they can close on more leasing
opportunities.

This isn't rocket science.  The market always works these issues out in the
end.

There is no law stating the property owner has to lease to you or renew a
tenant lease.  So, they may get to hang that DSS dish eye sore off the front
of the building on their balcony for a while, but when their lease comes up
they'll be gone and so will that dish.

In the end the property owner will prevail as they should.  You will always
attract more bees with honey vs. vinegar.  Trying to force yourself into a
property citing FCC rules etc, etc will be your first and last mistake with
a landlord.  Word spreads quickly of such tactics around town and within
BOMA. 

Best,


Brad




-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:02 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

I'd have a more authoritative source, but "The normal FCC website is 
temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties. We are working to 
restore the full FCC website back to normal as soon as possible."

Residential telecom was banned on March 21st, 2008.  Commercial telecom was 
banned October 12, 2000.  The October 12, 2000 ruling also put fixed 
wireless under OTARD's umbrella.


http://www.wcsr.com/resources/pdfs/telecomm032608.pdf

http://www.dlapiper.com/us/publications/detail.aspx?pub=3094


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



--
From: "Tom DeReggi" 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:30 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

> Care to explain how that is illegal?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Mike Hammett" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
>
>
>> Actually, there was a law passed a couple years ago that prevented this
>> very
>> thing.  They cannot stop Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Level 3, or Joe's
>> Crab Shack Internet Service from installing cables from outside into 
>> their
>> suite.  They can make it costly and they can make it a PITA, but they 
>> must
>> allow their installation.
>>
>> The flip side of this issue is property own only allowing Bob's Telecom,
>> which is excessively priced because Bob and Jim (your landlord) are
>> brothers.  That is illegal.  Same situation as we're talking about here.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Brad Belton" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:11 PM
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
>>
>>> Hello Mike,
>>>
>>> Have to step in here and disagree.  Private property.  If they don't 
>>> want
>>> you they can keep you out one way or another.  This may not sit well 
>>> with
>>> some, but it is the proper thing to do.  The market will always sort
>>> these
>>> type of issues out themselves without third party or government
>>> intervention.
>>>
>>> This is no different than comparing any property amenity.  Property "A"
>>> has
>>> XYZ vs. Property "B" doesn't.  Some will find the XYZ amenity important
>>> and
>>> opt for Property "A" over "B".  If enough people do then you can bet
>>> Property "B" will find a way to add XYZ or a comparable amenity.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>> Brad
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of John Thomas
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:26 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Service Limits
>>>
>>> I realize that is the way it is supposed to happen, but that hasn't
>>> happened here.
>>> We have Office space in Bishop Ranch, San Ramon CA. We are not allowed
>>> in the MPOE, and apparently others aren't either. We have been able to
>>> get T-1s pulled in, and then we gave handed the authorized personnel the
>>> other end of our Cat 5 to punch down and connect our Service Providers
>>> T-1's. When we asked Time Warner about the fiber, they sent us a m

[WISPA] Congressman Wants to Ban Download Caps

[Matt]

Supposedly you cannot throttle p2p and now there trying to say you cannot
impose download caps as well.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/#previouspost

Perhaps this should be amended to include utilities such as water, electric,
gas, telephone and etc.

Wispa really should officially comment on this bill.

Matt



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

[Mike Hammett]

I'd have a more authoritative source, but "The normal FCC website is 
temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties. We are working to 
restore the full FCC website back to normal as soon as possible."

Residential telecom was banned on March 21st, 2008.  Commercial telecom was 
banned October 12, 2000.  The October 12, 2000 ruling also put fixed 
wireless under OTARD's umbrella.


http://www.wcsr.com/resources/pdfs/telecomm032608.pdf

http://www.dlapiper.com/us/publications/detail.aspx?pub=3094


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



--
From: "Tom DeReggi" 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:30 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

> Care to explain how that is illegal?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Mike Hammett" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
>
>
>> Actually, there was a law passed a couple years ago that prevented this
>> very
>> thing.  They cannot stop Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Level 3, or Joe's
>> Crab Shack Internet Service from installing cables from outside into 
>> their
>> suite.  They can make it costly and they can make it a PITA, but they 
>> must
>> allow their installation.
>>
>> The flip side of this issue is property own only allowing Bob's Telecom,
>> which is excessively priced because Bob and Jim (your landlord) are
>> brothers.  That is illegal.  Same situation as we're talking about here.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Brad Belton" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:11 PM
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
>>
>>> Hello Mike,
>>>
>>> Have to step in here and disagree.  Private property.  If they don't 
>>> want
>>> you they can keep you out one way or another.  This may not sit well 
>>> with
>>> some, but it is the proper thing to do.  The market will always sort
>>> these
>>> type of issues out themselves without third party or government
>>> intervention.
>>>
>>> This is no different than comparing any property amenity.  Property "A"
>>> has
>>> XYZ vs. Property "B" doesn't.  Some will find the XYZ amenity important
>>> and
>>> opt for Property "A" over "B".  If enough people do then you can bet
>>> Property "B" will find a way to add XYZ or a comparable amenity.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>> Brad
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of John Thomas
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:26 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Service Limits
>>>
>>> I realize that is the way it is supposed to happen, but that hasn't
>>> happened here.
>>> We have Office space in Bishop Ranch, San Ramon CA. We are not allowed
>>> in the MPOE, and apparently others aren't either. We have been able to
>>> get T-1s pulled in, and then we gave handed the authorized personnel the
>>> other end of our Cat 5 to punch down and connect our Service Providers
>>> T-1's. When we asked Time Warner about the fiber, they sent us a map,
>>> showing fiber at the sidewalk, less than 100 feet away, and they claimed
>>> that Bishop Ranch wouldn't lt them in the MPOE, so they couldn't
>>> deliver. Maybe someone has bogus information?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
 If you want their service, they can't restrict you, AFAIK.


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



 --
 From: "John Thomas" 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:57 PM
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test
>>> tomeplease...> As they say, your mileage may vary   We have a 2xT1
>>> that
>>> we pay $560

> per month for, and the routing/peering at TW Telecom is good, but then
> again, we are in the San Francisco Bay Area. If the building owners
> would have let TW Telecom into this buildings MPOE's we would have a 
> 10
> meg fiber circuit and be paying about $700 for it. The fiber is at the
> curb, but Bishop Ranch won't let TW Telecom in
>
> John
>
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>
>> Personally, I wouldn't go with TW Telecom for bandwidth. They tend to
>> be overly pricy and their peering is too selective. In a case where
>> the city you are located in doesn't have good peering such as Orlando
>> you need to carefully select your upstream. In the case of TW 
>> Telecom,
>> they have hardly any peers in Atlanta, which is the closest major
>> peering point to you. This causes most of your US based traffic to
>> flow throug

Re: [WISPA] new WISPA website

[Cameron Kilton]

I'm a big fan of e107. www.e107.org.

-Cameron

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:05 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] new WISPA website

Yes it is WordPress.  There are a few scripts added such as the Footer
Ad
Rotator which are not WordPress, I'm not sure what language it was
written
in.  

Rick

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Adam Greene
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] new WISPA website

Hi guys! Nice new website! Congratulations!

Just curious ... what is the backend? Wordpress? ... or another content
management system? We're looking to upgrade our own website and are
evaluating a number of options 

Thanks!
Adam








WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.36/2125 - Release Date:
05/21/09
06:22:00





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] new WISPA website

[Rick Harnish]

Yes it is WordPress.  There are a few scripts added such as the Footer Ad
Rotator which are not WordPress, I'm not sure what language it was written
in.  

Rick

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Adam Greene
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] new WISPA website

Hi guys! Nice new website! Congratulations!

Just curious ... what is the backend? Wordpress? ... or another content
management system? We're looking to upgrade our own website and are
evaluating a number of options 

Thanks!
Adam







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.36/2125 - Release Date: 05/21/09
06:22:00




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] new WISPA website

[Adam Greene]

Hi guys! Nice new website! Congratulations!

Just curious ... what is the backend? Wordpress? ... or another content 
management system? We're looking to upgrade our own website and are evaluating 
a number of options 

Thanks!
Adam






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

[Brad Belton]

Hello Mike,

The bottom line - the end game - after all is said and done, the property
owner will have his way and he should.  After all it is his private property
and if he doesn't want to offer XYZ amenity then he shouldn't be forced to.
It should be his decision and only his decision and the market will reward
or punish him as such.

There is nothing forcing a particular tenant to lease space in Bishop Ranch.
I would venture to guess there are other office parks in California, right?
The tenant has options and that is what makes capitalism work so well.

BTW, Bishop Ranch looks like an awesome development.

Best,


Brad



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:31 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

Care to explain how that is illegal?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits


> Actually, there was a law passed a couple years ago that prevented this 
> very
> thing.  They cannot stop Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Level 3, or Joe's
> Crab Shack Internet Service from installing cables from outside into their
> suite.  They can make it costly and they can make it a PITA, but they must
> allow their installation.
>
> The flip side of this issue is property own only allowing Bob's Telecom,
> which is excessively priced because Bob and Jim (your landlord) are
> brothers.  That is illegal.  Same situation as we're talking about here.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Brad Belton" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:11 PM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
>
>> Hello Mike,
>>
>> Have to step in here and disagree.  Private property.  If they don't want
>> you they can keep you out one way or another.  This may not sit well with
>> some, but it is the proper thing to do.  The market will always sort 
>> these
>> type of issues out themselves without third party or government
>> intervention.
>>
>> This is no different than comparing any property amenity.  Property "A"
>> has
>> XYZ vs. Property "B" doesn't.  Some will find the XYZ amenity important
>> and
>> opt for Property "A" over "B".  If enough people do then you can bet
>> Property "B" will find a way to add XYZ or a comparable amenity.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Brad
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of John Thomas
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:26 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Service Limits
>>
>> I realize that is the way it is supposed to happen, but that hasn't
>> happened here.
>> We have Office space in Bishop Ranch, San Ramon CA. We are not allowed
>> in the MPOE, and apparently others aren't either. We have been able to
>> get T-1s pulled in, and then we gave handed the authorized personnel the
>> other end of our Cat 5 to punch down and connect our Service Providers
>> T-1's. When we asked Time Warner about the fiber, they sent us a map,
>> showing fiber at the sidewalk, less than 100 feet away, and they claimed
>> that Bishop Ranch wouldn't lt them in the MPOE, so they couldn't
>> deliver. Maybe someone has bogus information?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> If you want their service, they can't restrict you, AFAIK.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "John Thomas" 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:57 PM
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test
>> tomeplease...> As they say, your mileage may vary   We have a 2xT1
>> that
>> we pay $560
>>>
 per month for, and the routing/peering at TW Telecom is good, but then
 again, we are in the San Francisco Bay Area. If the building owners
 would have let TW Telecom into this buildings MPOE's we would have a 10
 meg fiber circuit and be paying about $700 for it. The fiber is at the
 curb, but Bishop Ranch won't let TW Telecom in

 John


 Matt Liotta wrote:

> Personally, I wouldn't go with TW Telecom for bandwidth. They tend to
> be overly pricy and their peering is too selective. In a case where
> the city you are located in doesn't have good peering such as Orlando
> you need to carefully select your upstream. In the case of TW Telecom,
> they have hardly any peers in Atlanta, which is the closest major
> peering point to you. This causes most of your US based traffic to
> flow through Ashburn or Dallas.
>
> -Matt
>
> On May 14, 2009,