Re: [WISPA] PtP Flat Panel and MiMo Dish Antennas

[Tom DeReggi]

Jawad,

There are numerous factors to consider when selecting antenna.

First- legality and certification... If desiring to be legal regarding FCC 
certified, you must use an antenna type or equivellent that has been certified 
by the manufacturer. It allows for substitutions of lesser gain of same class. 
So if certified with dish use same seris dish. If panel line certified use a 
panel within that line. 

Second- Cosmetics and windload and mounting and space requirements...  Some 
antennas have mounts for wide diameter masts and some dont. Almost always the 
DISH mounts can accommodate larger diameter poles.  But then the dishes are 
almost always uglier.  Panels often requrie less depth behind antenna. 
Sometimes PAnels have less pivots ability without banging into wall behind it 
or pole if mounted to a horizontal mast.  

Third- Cost. Ubiquiti 30DB PArabolics are cheaper than most Panels of similar 
gain. Its usually my first chocie antenna.

Panels- Usually panels are nice antennas, so nothing wrong with using a panel 
over a parabolic, if the panel gets you the gain you were looking for. I'll use 
panels alot for urban areas, where I'm just shooting less than a mile or half 
mile.

If space and cosmetics is not an issue, I almost always use a Prabolic on both 
ends. This gives me flexibilty to use 5.3/4 or 5.8.  In high noise 
environments, and high modulations, 2ft dishes are sometimes minimum spec for 
5.3/4G even if only 2 miles or so. If I'm definately using 5.8Ghz, then its 
more flexible to use a lower gain panel by default.  On my towers with limited 
space, I'd rather use a small panel to conserve space. More so when considering 
that you dont want one antenna to block the beamwidth of another. 
 
My point here is that ther are many factors influencing antenna selection, 
before we even talk about RF characteristics and performance. Most of those 
factors are more important than the performance factor.

Beamwidth may be a factor dependant on how you plan to use it. For example if 
it is a near-LOS or Non-LOS install, it should be noted that a wider beamwidth 
antenna will pickup more reflections from more places and may result in a 
higher gain received because of it. (or I should say less fade from the NLOS).  
A 21db panel can be perfect for NLOS. A 21-23 panel will ahve a bout a 11deg 
beam si it can be used for PTMP, where the few CPE with all be straight in 
front of you.  Parabolics would be closer to 6deg and sometimes to little to 
operate in a PTMP fassion.  In some cases, higher gain of the PArabolic helped 
NLOS more, because it blasted through the obstacles better, apposed to helpful 
reflections.

As far as Port to Port isolation.. That is a good question Using two 
radios such as a Full Duplex link with two cards, or using 802.11a cards, large 
port to port isolation is super super important. Want 35-40db if possible.  
However, when we did sometests with Ubiquiti MIMO we found that the Port to 
Port isolations was much less relevent.  Lets look at the example of having a 
link, and swapping the AP antenna out with three antennas
Ubiquit large sector 20db(2.5ft), Ubiquiti small sector 19db (1ft+), Nano 16db 
(< foot).  In a noise free invironment, I found the link to perform near 
identical with each of the antenna choices, all operating on full modulation. 
Ubiquiti claimed the Port isolation to be like 28db, 22db, and 16db, for each 
of the antennas, or something near that range.  Something about the MIMO 
chipset, it does not care as much.  It blew my mind that a NANO antenna worked 
as well. 

I'd still suggest selecting antennas with large port to port  isolation, just 
because I'm old school, and it is a measure of antenna quality, and in theory 
it makes sense to have isolation.  But it may not matter as much as we think 
with some MIMO gear like Ubiquiti.  

I have a 14 mile link running on a ARC Wireless Panel on each side paired with 
ROckets, which is passing 80mbps flawlessly. (no noise on the path though). The 
ARQ antenna spec almost 40db port to port isolation.  I've got similar results 
with the ubiquiti integrated panel bridge. I just dont like to use the panel 
because it only supports less than 2" dia pipe.

I've been using the 26db Ubiquiti integrated parabolics with great success, and 
they are super cheap, usually less than the panel antenna alone of another 
brand. But the mounts are flemsy. If I have something important, I'd probably 
spent the extra dolars on the panel, jsut so I had a nice solid mount.

I often prefer parabolics because they are less susceptable to wierd 
interference issues at the antenna. I can give an example of one cheap panel I 
used... If I toughed the back of it, the link improved. If I stood close behind 
it the link approved. If I didn;t link got packet loss. What ever the 
interference was, the panel backplate was intercepting it. I never had that 
type problem with a parabolic, because the parabolic dish is 

Re: [WISPA] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training

[Tom DeReggi]

HA HA HA

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Gino Villarini" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training


> Hey PR was the star of the show! LOL!
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> g...@aeronetpr.com
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> 787.273.4143
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 6:35 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training
>
> yeah, that will be helpful if Slides are published on WISPA web site 
> somewhere.
> The slides had some useful links to FCC Knowledge base documents.
> I made the mistake of logging in at the last minute assuming gotomeeting 
> wouldn;t require any updates since I've used it before, but missed the 
> first half, as it took 20 minutes or so to finish all the softwre updates 
> before I could join. Next  time, I know to login 20 minutes early :-)
>
> Overall it was a nice "educational" session on 5.4G.
>
> Its always discouraging though, because it reminds us that most of the 
> gear many of us use and like to use would never get certified for 5.4 or 
> 5,3 under the current software models.
> It was clarified that nothing prohibits software developers from using 
> their own software on certified hardware components, but reminds us that 
> that does not authorize the use of self software that does not follow the 
> rules. One rule being software cant have access to any driver setting that 
> could be changed to disable compliance, such as ability to change country 
> code.
> More or less indirectly making the use of Open Source illegal in its 
> current state, unless first compiled with options removed that allow 
> changing driver settings that could compromise compliance.
>
> Note that does not mean that Mikrotik/UBNT is illegal operating at 5.8G if 
> certified for 5.8Ghz use. But it means it wont be certified for 5.4G, 
> unless software is restricted further.
>
> One of the interesting points was that not only is it illegal to use a 
> higher gain antenna than ceertified with, but ALSO illegal to use a LOWER 
> gain antenna than certified with. This has to do with DFS certified by 
> minimim antenna gain.
>
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181)" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:04 AM
> Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] FCC 5.4 gig training
>
>
>> Just wondering  How many are going to join the "What's legal, what's
>> not" webinar today?
>>
>> marlon
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[RickG]

"no body was scrambling to build private networks to connect to them"
But those were early days. If left alone, we may have had something more
advanced and even better. At the very least, we wouldn't be in the mess
we're in now. ;)

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:

>  Yes may be true .. but I think it would be naive this think so..
> The evolution of the telecom and internet, I believe are inter-related,
> think of it this way.. if there was no internet, then why would folks need
> your wireless connection ?
> Least we forget before the internet, there were the BBS operators.. and a
> couple of very large ones.. CompuServe ? Prodigy ? IBM ? etc etc. those
> .no body was scrambling to build private networks to connect to them :)
>
> So my question to the wireless folks is .. if there was no Internet Boom,
> which had a significant relationship with the Telcom Boom.. where would you
> all be today ?
>
> The Wire line ISP's learned the hardway...that their ability to continue
> offering services was tied to 'Regulations'... and forces were already in
> play which the ISP's in general choose to ignore (it does not affect us..)
> and the outcome of those decision ended up being their demise.
>
> At the end of the day, we are all in the same boat.. (providing
> communication services) to our customers.. I believe it would be prudent to
> really think things thru before you / us / we / just take a blanket position
> on Regulation or DeRegulation.
>
> :)
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, Fl 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net
>
>
> On 7/17/2011 3:50 PM, RickG wrote:
>
> Bingo! It had nothing to do with the wireless business.
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>
>> At 7/17/2011 01:44 PM, RickG wrote:
>> >So it wasnt "the 1996 Telecom Act that allowed us (ISP's) to be able
>> >to go into the business of providing
>> >internet access and other communication services"
>>
>>  It didn't allow entry into the internet business per se.
>>
>> It allowed entry into the DSL business.
>> It allowed entry into the local dial tone business.  This is worth
>> good money to some ISPs today, and it was necessary to prevent the
>> PSTN from melting down during the dial-up boom in 1997-2000.  The
>> Bell alternative was to price ISPs too high to create congestion.
>> It led to EELs, which allow some ISP-CLECs to reach non-local
>> commercial customers at much lower rates than Special Access.
>>
>>  --
>>  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>>  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>>  +1 617 795 2701 <%2B1%20617%20795%202701>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -RickG
>
>
> 
> 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/
>



-- 
-RickG



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] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Yes may be true .. but I think it would be naive this think so..
The evolution of the telecom and internet, I believe are inter-related, 
think of it this way.. if there was no internet, then why would folks 
need your wireless connection ?
Least we forget before the internet, there were the BBS operators.. and 
a couple of very large ones.. CompuServe ? Prodigy ? IBM ? etc etc. 
those .no body was scrambling to build private networks to connect 
to them :)


So my question to the wireless folks is .. if there was no Internet 
Boom, which had a significant relationship with the Telcom Boom.. where 
would you all be today ?


The Wire line ISP's learned the hardway...that their ability to continue 
offering services was tied to 'Regulations'... and forces were already 
in play which the ISP's in general choose to ignore (it does not affect 
us..) and the outcome of those decision ended up being their demise.


At the end of the day, we are all in the same boat.. (providing 
communication services) to our customers.. I believe it would be prudent 
to really think things thru before you / us / we / just take a blanket 
position on Regulation or DeRegulation.


:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net


On 7/17/2011 3:50 PM, RickG wrote:

Bingo! It had nothing to do with the wireless business.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Fred Goldstein > wrote:


At 7/17/2011 01:44 PM, RickG wrote:
>So it wasnt "the 1996 Telecom Act that allowed us (ISP's) to be able
>to go into the business of providing
>internet access and other communication services"

It didn't allow entry into the internet business per se.

It allowed entry into the DSL business.
It allowed entry into the local dial tone business.  This is worth
good money to some ISPs today, and it was necessary to prevent the
PSTN from melting down during the dial-up boom in 1997-2000.  The
Bell alternative was to price ISPs too high to create congestion.
It led to EELs, which allow some ISP-CLECs to reach non-local
commercial customers at much lower rates than Special Access.

 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com

 ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701 





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/




--
-RickG




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] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Mike Hammett]

Well, it allows for VoIP, which we should all be doing to help our 
bottom lines.


it also helps many WISPs obtain their connection to the net, but they 
should be doing something Bell-less anyway.


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



On 7/17/2011 2:50 PM, RickG wrote:

Bingo! It had nothing to do with the wireless business.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Fred Goldstein > wrote:


At 7/17/2011 01:44 PM, RickG wrote:
>So it wasnt "the 1996 Telecom Act that allowed us (ISP's) to be able
>to go into the business of providing
>internet access and other communication services"

It didn't allow entry into the internet business per se.

It allowed entry into the DSL business.
It allowed entry into the local dial tone business.  This is worth
good money to some ISPs today, and it was necessary to prevent the
PSTN from melting down during the dial-up boom in 1997-2000.  The
Bell alternative was to price ISPs too high to create congestion.
It led to EELs, which allow some ISP-CLECs to reach non-local
commercial customers at much lower rates than Special Access.

 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com

 ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701 





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/




--
-RickG





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] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[RickG]

Bingo! It had nothing to do with the wireless business.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

> At 7/17/2011 01:44 PM, RickG wrote:
> >So it wasnt "the 1996 Telecom Act that allowed us (ISP's) to be able
> >to go into the business of providing
> >internet access and other communication services"
>
> It didn't allow entry into the internet business per se.
>
> It allowed entry into the DSL business.
> It allowed entry into the local dial tone business.  This is worth
> good money to some ISPs today, and it was necessary to prevent the
> PSTN from melting down during the dial-up boom in 1997-2000.  The
> Bell alternative was to price ISPs too high to create congestion.
> It led to EELs, which allow some ISP-CLECs to reach non-local
> commercial customers at much lower rates than Special Access.
>
>  --
>  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>  +1 617 795 2701
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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/
>



-- 
-RickG



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] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/17/2011 01:44 PM, RickG wrote:
>So it wasnt "the 1996 Telecom Act that allowed us (ISP's) to be able 
>to go into the business of providing
>internet access and other communication services"

It didn't allow entry into the internet business per se.

It allowed entry into the DSL business.
It allowed entry into the local dial tone business.  This is worth 
good money to some ISPs today, and it was necessary to prevent the 
PSTN from melting down during the dial-up boom in 1997-2000.  The 
Bell alternative was to price ISPs too high to create congestion.
It led to EELs, which allow some ISP-CLECs to reach non-local 
commercial customers at much lower rates than Special Access.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




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] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Mike Hammett]

Only a handful of companies (that have a significant market presence) 
took to the spirit of TA96.  They piggybacked on the RBOCs while they 
build out their own infrastructure.


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



On 7/17/2011 12:44 PM, RickG wrote:
So it wasnt "the 1996 Telecom Act that allowed us (ISP's) to be able 
to go into the business of providing

internet access and other communication services"

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Mike Hammett 
mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net>> wrote:


No policy that I'm aware of prevented anyone from being an ISP. 
It was a cost issue.


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


On 7/16/2011 8:03 PM, RickG wrote:

"it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government
"allows" us to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or
no, regulation or no, there should be no question that we are
allowed to make a living the way we want to regardless.

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Faisal Imtiaz
mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>> wrote:

I am going to address your points backwards:-

You wrote ---
And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's
appointees were
advocates for free markets and for competition and
deregulation. Not
particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our
enemy. The
current administration's people at the FCC are IN NO WAY our
friend, for
any way, manner, or purpose, and everything they want is bad
for us and
the country. STop talking political party talking points, and
get some
reality.
-

We have been wireline ISP's first, since 2000, if you really
believe
what you wrote (above) then you are truly mis-informed...
The simple facts are ... it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act)
that

allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of
providing
internet access and other communication services . and it
is THE
DEREGULATION over the past 5 years, that has been KILLING the
ISP's  off.
You forget, that if you don't have the ability to connect to
other
networks in a fair and equitable manner, you are not going to
be able to
continue in this business.
Get a grip of reality and the full picture.. you are playing
with a DUAL
EDGE sword here...

---You wrote-

You seem to think that the answer is to find the right pol to
influence and
the right committee members to lobby and the right allies to
obstruct X or
advance Y, but those are expediency, not principle.   They
should be TACTICS
to a principled purpose, one that will attract others, on the
basis of its
soundness and validity.


Not sure where you are coming up with this from ...however
each and
every one has his own right to interpret the events .

You wrote -

Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan.   Not even
ideological.
It's simple straightforward business principles.   Principle
Numero Uno is
"have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing
convoluted or
difficult about that.


hehe.. when you start off a paragraph with "this
administration"  or do
a follow up with "the previous administration".. that is as
partisan as
one can get

I agree with your 'Principle Numero Uno', but you are harking
at the
wrong organization.. it is not in  WISPA's charter or
mission, maybe
should be a member of the SBA association, or FISPA or
COMPTEL ... but
then again you will have to get your head straight about how
the US Gov.
has operated for the last 200 years

WISPA's mission has been to address issues related to
Wireless, (not
business, not telephone service, not hosted services, etc etc)...
While I understand your frustration with the Gov., and do
agree with
some of your points, but what you keep putting forward on the
WISPA
forums is  more like 'Don Quixote Tilting  at the windmills"


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom


On 7/16/2011 12:59 AM, MDK wrote:
> A "plan of action"?  If I said "

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Mike Hammett]

I had dial-up before 1996.  Reading the lists over the years, people 
were starting to do wireless then.  Fiber networks were already starting 
to be deployed.


TA96 just changed the costs of doing so and forced the Bells to share 
their copper.


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



On 7/17/2011 12:44 PM, RickG wrote:
So it wasnt "the 1996 Telecom Act that allowed us (ISP's) to be able 
to go into the business of providing

internet access and other communication services"

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Mike Hammett 
mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net>> wrote:


No policy that I'm aware of prevented anyone from being an ISP. 
It was a cost issue.


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


On 7/16/2011 8:03 PM, RickG wrote:

"it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government
"allows" us to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or
no, regulation or no, there should be no question that we are
allowed to make a living the way we want to regardless.

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Faisal Imtiaz
mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>> wrote:

I am going to address your points backwards:-

You wrote ---
And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's
appointees were
advocates for free markets and for competition and
deregulation. Not
particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our
enemy. The
current administration's people at the FCC are IN NO WAY our
friend, for
any way, manner, or purpose, and everything they want is bad
for us and
the country. STop talking political party talking points, and
get some
reality.
-

We have been wireline ISP's first, since 2000, if you really
believe
what you wrote (above) then you are truly mis-informed...
The simple facts are ... it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act)
that

allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of
providing
internet access and other communication services . and it
is THE
DEREGULATION over the past 5 years, that has been KILLING the
ISP's  off.
You forget, that if you don't have the ability to connect to
other
networks in a fair and equitable manner, you are not going to
be able to
continue in this business.
Get a grip of reality and the full picture.. you are playing
with a DUAL
EDGE sword here...

---You wrote-

You seem to think that the answer is to find the right pol to
influence and
the right committee members to lobby and the right allies to
obstruct X or
advance Y, but those are expediency, not principle.   They
should be TACTICS
to a principled purpose, one that will attract others, on the
basis of its
soundness and validity.


Not sure where you are coming up with this from ...however
each and
every one has his own right to interpret the events .

You wrote -

Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan.   Not even
ideological.
It's simple straightforward business principles.   Principle
Numero Uno is
"have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing
convoluted or
difficult about that.


hehe.. when you start off a paragraph with "this
administration"  or do
a follow up with "the previous administration".. that is as
partisan as
one can get

I agree with your 'Principle Numero Uno', but you are harking
at the
wrong organization.. it is not in  WISPA's charter or
mission, maybe
should be a member of the SBA association, or FISPA or
COMPTEL ... but
then again you will have to get your head straight about how
the US Gov.
has operated for the last 200 years

WISPA's mission has been to address issues related to
Wireless, (not
business, not telephone service, not hosted services, etc etc)...
While I understand your frustration with the Gov., and do
agree with
some of your points, but what you keep putting forward on the
WISPA
forums is  more like 'Don Quixote Tilting  at the windmills"


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom


On 7/16

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Bruce Robertson]

Well, I've been an ISP since 1993, so I guess not!  :-)

On 07/17/2011 10:44 AM, RickG wrote:
So it wasnt "the 1996 Telecom Act that allowed us (ISP's) to be able 
to go into the business of providing

internet access and other communication services"

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Mike Hammett 
mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net>> wrote:


No policy that I'm aware of prevented anyone from being an ISP. 
It was a cost issue.


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


On 7/16/2011 8:03 PM, RickG wrote:

"it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government
"allows" us to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or
no, regulation or no, there should be no question that we are
allowed to make a living the way we want to regardless.

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Faisal Imtiaz
mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>> wrote:

I am going to address your points backwards:-

You wrote ---
And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's
appointees were
advocates for free markets and for competition and
deregulation. Not
particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our
enemy. The
current administration's people at the FCC are IN NO WAY our
friend, for
any way, manner, or purpose, and everything they want is bad
for us and
the country. STop talking political party talking points, and
get some
reality.
-

We have been wireline ISP's first, since 2000, if you really
believe
what you wrote (above) then you are truly mis-informed...
The simple facts are ... it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act)
that

allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of
providing
internet access and other communication services . and it
is THE
DEREGULATION over the past 5 years, that has been KILLING the
ISP's  off.
You forget, that if you don't have the ability to connect to
other
networks in a fair and equitable manner, you are not going to
be able to
continue in this business.
Get a grip of reality and the full picture.. you are playing
with a DUAL
EDGE sword here...

---You wrote-

You seem to think that the answer is to find the right pol to
influence and
the right committee members to lobby and the right allies to
obstruct X or
advance Y, but those are expediency, not principle.   They
should be TACTICS
to a principled purpose, one that will attract others, on the
basis of its
soundness and validity.


Not sure where you are coming up with this from ...however
each and
every one has his own right to interpret the events .

You wrote -

Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan.   Not even
ideological.
It's simple straightforward business principles.   Principle
Numero Uno is
"have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing
convoluted or
difficult about that.


hehe.. when you start off a paragraph with "this
administration"  or do
a follow up with "the previous administration".. that is as
partisan as
one can get

I agree with your 'Principle Numero Uno', but you are harking
at the
wrong organization.. it is not in  WISPA's charter or
mission, maybe
should be a member of the SBA association, or FISPA or
COMPTEL ... but
then again you will have to get your head straight about how
the US Gov.
has operated for the last 200 years

WISPA's mission has been to address issues related to
Wireless, (not
business, not telephone service, not hosted services, etc etc)...
While I understand your frustration with the Gov., and do
agree with
some of your points, but what you keep putting forward on the
WISPA
forums is  more like 'Don Quixote Tilting  at the windmills"


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom


On 7/16/2011 12:59 AM, MDK wrote:
> A "plan of action"?  If I said "this is what WISPA should
do" and laid it
> out in detail, all you'd do is say "who are you?  Why
should we hacve to do
> what you say?"
>
> Frankly,

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[RickG]

So it wasnt "the 1996 Telecom Act that allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go
into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> **
> No policy that I'm aware of prevented anyone from being an ISP.  It was a
> cost issue.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> On 7/16/2011 8:03 PM, RickG wrote:
>
> "it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
> allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
> internet access and other communication services"
>
> With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government "allows" us
> to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or no, regulation or no,
> there should be no question that we are allowed to make a living the way we
> want to regardless.
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>
>> I am going to address your points backwards:-
>>
>> You wrote ---
>> And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's appointees were
>> advocates for free markets and for competition and deregulation. Not
>> particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our enemy. The
>> current administration's people at the FCC are IN NO WAY our friend, for
>> any way, manner, or purpose, and everything they want is bad for us and
>> the country. STop talking political party talking points, and get some
>> reality.
>>  -
>>
>> We have been wireline ISP's first, since 2000, if you really believe
>> what you wrote (above) then you are truly mis-informed...
>> The simple facts are ... it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
>>
>> allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
>> internet access and other communication services . and it is THE
>> DEREGULATION over the past 5 years, that has been KILLING the ISP's  off.
>> You forget, that if you don't have the ability to connect to other
>> networks in a fair and equitable manner, you are not going to be able to
>> continue in this business.
>> Get a grip of reality and the full picture.. you are playing with a DUAL
>> EDGE sword here...
>>
>> ---You wrote-
>>
>> You seem to think that the answer is to find the right pol to influence
>> and
>> the right committee members to lobby and the right allies to obstruct X or
>> advance Y, but those are expediency, not principle.   They should be
>> TACTICS
>> to a principled purpose, one that will attract others, on the basis of its
>> soundness and validity.
>>
>>  
>> Not sure where you are coming up with this from ...however each and
>> every one has his own right to interpret the events .
>>
>> You wrote -
>>
>> Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan.   Not even ideological.
>> It's simple straightforward business principles.   Principle Numero Uno is
>> "have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing convoluted or
>> difficult about that.
>>
>>  
>> hehe.. when you start off a paragraph with "this administration"  or do
>> a follow up with "the previous administration".. that is as partisan as
>> one can get
>>
>> I agree with your 'Principle Numero Uno', but you are harking at the
>> wrong organization.. it is not in  WISPA's charter or mission, maybe
>> should be a member of the SBA association, or FISPA or COMPTEL ... but
>> then again you will have to get your head straight about how the US Gov.
>> has operated for the last 200 years
>>
>> WISPA's mission has been to address issues related to Wireless, (not
>> business, not telephone service, not hosted services, etc etc)...
>> While I understand your frustration with the Gov., and do agree with
>> some of your points, but what you keep putting forward on the WISPA
>> forums is  more like 'Don Quixote Tilting  at the windmills"
>>
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet&  Telecom
>>
>>
>>  On 7/16/2011 12:59 AM, MDK wrote:
>> > A "plan of action"?  If I said "this is what WISPA should do" and laid
>> it
>> > out in detail, all you'd do is say "who are you?  Why should we hacve to
>> do
>> > what you say?"
>> >
>> > Frankly, I have no idea why you're having difficulty.  You see, when you
>> > have proper business principles as your guiding mechanism, what you
>> should
>> > do is crystal clear.   Nobody needs to write out a plan of action, it
>> > becomes self evident - you always advocate FOR the proper and best
>> thing.
>> > And, after being consistent, year after year, and when stuff like this
>> comes
>> > up, which becomes so blatantly obviously a result of failure to follow
>> true
>> > principle, again, nothing is obscure or difficult.
>> >
>> > Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan.   Not even
>> ideological.
>> > It's simple straightforward business principles.   Principle Numero Un

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Mike Hammett]

Thanks for the history lesson, Fred!  I'm glad I pointed you this way 
from the replacement ISP-CLEC.


These regulations certainly spurred the ecosystems that enable us to 
deploy cost effectively today.


I've never been a fan of using someone else's network without a 
long-term agreement (IRU, for example).


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



On 7/17/2011 9:35 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

At 7/17/2011 08:30 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
No policy that I'm aware of prevented anyone from being an ISP.  It 
was a cost issue.


Before 1996, there was open entry into the ISP market under Computer 
II/III, but that was largely limited to dial-up, leased lines, and 
telco transport services (such as Frame Relay).  A handful of 
competitive access providers (CAPs, like MFS, Teleport and Brooks) had 
set up shop before TA96, based on a 1985 FCC ruling (among  other 
thing, asserting interstate jurisdiction over fiber optics used to 
carry interstate or mixed-jurisdiction traffic, and thus pre-empting 
state barriers to entry), but only served a relatively few buildings, 
and were with narrow exceptions very unprofitable.


TA96 did not create ISPs; it created CLECs, who in turn made life much 
easier for ISPs.  (Before TA96, a few states had authorized CLECs on 
their own, often on rather limited terms, but TA96 made it a 
requirement.)  It was certainly aimed at opening up markets and 
weakening ILEC monopoly power.  In 1996, the dial-up ISP boom was 
creating congestion on the ILEC networks, and their three-year 
expansion cycle couldn't cope with it.  So they were again petitioning 
the FCC to impose switched access charges on calls to enhanced service 
providers, a/k/a "the Modem Tax".  CLECs rode to the rescue by adding 
inbound dial capacity in a hurry.


Wireless ISPs were theoretically authorized earlier, by relaxed rules 
for 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz unlicensed operation, but the technology was 
not ready for volume deployment until after the turn of the century.


The DC Circuit Court of Appeals remanded some FCC pro-competition 
rules (even after the Supreme Court had approved the most contentious) 
and the post-2001 FCC used that as an excuse to roll back open 
competition.  This mostly hinged on the so-called "necessary" and 
"impair" clauses of TA96.  But I have some recent correspondence from 
the former Senate staff member who helped draft that language, and he 
points out that the current interpretation is far from what was 
intended and far from what it literally says in black letter law. (The 
stricter "necessary" part was only intended to cover intellectual 
property issues in the use of ILEC operational support software, not 
all UNEs.)


FCC policy this past decade was very literally a War on ISPs, with 
CLECs not the direct target so much as an ally of the true enemy, 
ISPs.  The FCC changed the reciprocal compensation rate on ISP-bound 
calls.  It took away DSL line sharing.  It took away ISP wholesale 
access to ILEC fiber networks such as FiOS and uVerse (hence open 
Pronto became closed uVerse).  And it revoked the Computer II rules 
that allowed ISPs on ILEC facilities at all.  WISPs are less impacted, 
of course, than urban wireline ISPs, who are now largely closed off 
from mass markets.


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701





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] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/17/2011 08:30 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
No policy that I'm aware of prevented anyone from being an ISP.  It 
was a cost issue.


Before 1996, there was open entry into the ISP market under Computer 
II/III, but that was largely limited to dial-up, leased lines, and 
telco transport services (such as Frame Relay).  A handful of 
competitive access providers (CAPs, like MFS, Teleport and Brooks) 
had set up shop before TA96, based on a 1985 FCC ruling (among  other 
thing, asserting interstate jurisdiction over fiber optics used to 
carry interstate or mixed-jurisdiction traffic, and thus pre-empting 
state barriers to entry), but only served a relatively few buildings, 
and were with narrow exceptions very unprofitable.


TA96 did not create ISPs; it created CLECs, who in turn made life 
much easier for ISPs.  (Before TA96, a few states had authorized 
CLECs on their own, often on rather limited terms, but TA96 made it a 
requirement.)  It was certainly aimed at opening up markets and 
weakening ILEC monopoly power.  In 1996, the dial-up ISP boom was 
creating congestion on the ILEC networks, and their three-year 
expansion cycle couldn't cope with it.  So they were again 
petitioning the FCC to impose switched access charges on calls to 
enhanced service providers, a/k/a "the Modem Tax".  CLECs rode to the 
rescue by adding inbound dial capacity in a hurry.


Wireless ISPs were theoretically authorized earlier, by relaxed rules 
for 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz unlicensed operation, but the technology was 
not ready for volume deployment until after the turn of the century.


The DC Circuit Court of Appeals remanded some FCC pro-competition 
rules (even after the Supreme Court had approved the most 
contentious) and the post-2001 FCC used that as an excuse to roll 
back open competition.  This mostly hinged on the so-called 
"necessary" and "impair" clauses of TA96.  But I have some recent 
correspondence from the former Senate staff member who helped draft 
that language, and he points out that the current interpretation is 
far from what was intended and far from what it literally says in 
black letter law. (The stricter "necessary" part was only intended to 
cover intellectual property issues in the use of ILEC operational 
support software, not all UNEs.)


FCC policy this past decade was very literally a War on ISPs, with 
CLECs not the direct target so much as an ally of the true enemy, 
ISPs.  The FCC changed the reciprocal compensation rate on ISP-bound 
calls.  It took away DSL line sharing.  It took away ISP wholesale 
access to ILEC fiber networks such as FiOS and uVerse (hence open 
Pronto became closed uVerse).  And it revoked the Computer II rules 
that allowed ISPs on ILEC facilities at all.  WISPs are less 
impacted, of course, than urban wireline ISPs, who are now largely 
closed off from mass markets.


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


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] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Mike Hammett]

Well, I am wireless and am getting into fiber.  As long as WISPA keeps 
working on the air and general ISP issues (which they are working on), I 
can keep building upon my fiber.  All fiber I am after is either via 20 
year IRU or stuff I construct myself.  That keeps me in the game for 
quite a while.


On that coin, I would have the same drive as an RBOC - in keeping from 
being forced to share what I have.


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



On 7/17/2011 9:05 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

That is exactly the type of thinking that I am warning about...
Most WISP's are in the mode of thinking about "We are in the Wireless 
Business"
All of the Wireline ISP/NSP's came to realize "We are in the business 
of providing Communication Services"


The fact that it is wired / wireless makes little difference, and as 
such the regulatory sands are also shifting
As the large ILEC's are changing their thinking, the focus of all 
their push pull is on the wireless side.


Listen to the AT&T Folks, for example, they will tell you point blank 
that they are a "Wireless" company and wireline is a smaller part 
/smaller focus of their business.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email:supp...@snappydsl.net

On 7/17/2011 8:31 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I'm okay with that.  That makes my service that much better and 
easier to sell.  I know you have a wireline portion of your business 
as well, however.

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


On 7/16/2011 8:25 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Well...again you have to go further back in history...before telecom 
regulation ..it was a Ma Bell monopoly ..and without 
regulation...there is a very good chance that it will again become a 
Ma Bell monopoly or maybe a duopoly...


Let's not forget that...

Faisal

On Jul 16, 2011, at 9:03 PM, RickG > wrote:



"it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government 
"allows" us to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or 
no, regulation or no, there should be no question that we are 
allowed to make a living the way we want to regardless.


On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Faisal Imtiaz 
mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>> wrote:


I am going to address your points backwards:-

You wrote ---
And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's appointees
were
advocates for free markets and for competition and
deregulation. Not
particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our
enemy. The
current administration's people at the FCC are IN NO WAY our
friend, for
any way, manner, or purpose, and everything they want is bad
for us and
the country. STop talking political party talking points, and
get some
reality.
-

We have been wireline ISP's first, since 2000, if you really
believe
what you wrote (above) then you are truly mis-informed...
The simple facts are ... it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services . and it
is THE
DEREGULATION over the past 5 years, that has been KILLING the
ISP's  off.
You forget, that if you don't have the ability to connect to other
networks in a fair and equitable manner, you are not going to
be able to
continue in this business.
Get a grip of reality and the full picture.. you are playing
with a DUAL
EDGE sword here...

---You wrote-

You seem to think that the answer is to find the right pol to
influence and
the right committee members to lobby and the right allies to
obstruct X or
advance Y, but those are expediency, not principle.   They
should be TACTICS
to a principled purpose, one that will attract others, on the
basis of its
soundness and validity.


Not sure where you are coming up with this from ...however each and
every one has his own right to interpret the events .

You wrote -

Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan.   Not even
ideological.
It's simple straightforward business principles.   Principle
Numero Uno is
"have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing
convoluted or
difficult about that.


hehe.. when you start off a paragraph with "this
administration"  or do
a follow up with "the previous administration".. that is as
partisan as
one

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Faisal Imtiaz]

That is exactly the type of thinking that I am warning about...
Most WISP's are in the mode of thinking about "We are in the Wireless 
Business"
All of the Wireline ISP/NSP's came to realize "We are in the business of 
providing Communication Services"


The fact that it is wired / wireless makes little difference, and as 
such the regulatory sands are also shifting
As the large ILEC's are changing their thinking, the focus of all their 
push pull is on the wireless side.


Listen to the AT&T Folks, for example, they will tell you point blank 
that they are a "Wireless" company and wireline is a smaller part 
/smaller focus of their business.


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net


On 7/17/2011 8:31 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I'm okay with that.  That makes my service that much better and easier 
to sell.  I know you have a wireline portion of your business as well, 
however.

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


On 7/16/2011 8:25 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Well...again you have to go further back in history...before telecom 
regulation ..it was a Ma Bell monopoly ..and without 
regulation...there is a very good chance that it will again become a 
Ma Bell monopoly or maybe a duopoly...


Let's not forget that...

Faisal

On Jul 16, 2011, at 9:03 PM, RickG > wrote:



"it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government 
"allows" us to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or 
no, regulation or no, there should be no question that we are 
allowed to make a living the way we want to regardless.


On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Faisal Imtiaz 
mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>> wrote:


I am going to address your points backwards:-

You wrote ---
And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's appointees were
advocates for free markets and for competition and deregulation. Not
particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our
enemy. The
current administration's people at the FCC are IN NO WAY our
friend, for
any way, manner, or purpose, and everything they want is bad for
us and
the country. STop talking political party talking points, and
get some
reality.
-

We have been wireline ISP's first, since 2000, if you really believe
what you wrote (above) then you are truly mis-informed...
The simple facts are ... it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services . and it is THE
DEREGULATION over the past 5 years, that has been KILLING the
ISP's  off.
You forget, that if you don't have the ability to connect to other
networks in a fair and equitable manner, you are not going to be
able to
continue in this business.
Get a grip of reality and the full picture.. you are playing
with a DUAL
EDGE sword here...

---You wrote-

You seem to think that the answer is to find the right pol to
influence and
the right committee members to lobby and the right allies to
obstruct X or
advance Y, but those are expediency, not principle.   They
should be TACTICS
to a principled purpose, one that will attract others, on the
basis of its
soundness and validity.


Not sure where you are coming up with this from ...however each and
every one has his own right to interpret the events .

You wrote -

Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan.   Not even
ideological.
It's simple straightforward business principles.   Principle
Numero Uno is
"have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing
convoluted or
difficult about that.


hehe.. when you start off a paragraph with "this administration"
 or do
a follow up with "the previous administration".. that is as
partisan as
one can get

I agree with your 'Principle Numero Uno', but you are harking at the
wrong organization.. it is not in  WISPA's charter or mission, maybe
should be a member of the SBA association, or FISPA or COMPTEL
... but
then again you will have to get your head straight about how the
US Gov.
has operated for the last 200 years

WISPA's mission has been to address issues related to Wireless, (not
business, not telephone service, not hosted services, etc etc)...
While I understand your frustration

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/17/2011 07:22 AM, Scott Reed wrote:

Well, yeah, necessarily.  Where I lived the service got worse.


I presume you mean that ironically, as a sample of one does not 
indicate a general case.


Service got considerably better for my employer at the time, where I 
worked in telecommunications.  Competition helps.  And for the first 
couple of years, the still-fettered Bells tried pretty hard to do a 
good job with the businesses they were given.



On 7/16/2011 10:08 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

At 7/16/2011 09:41 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
I also noticed that the breakup of Ma Bell degraded service in 
many areas.  A monopoly by market demand is not necessarily 
bad.  A monopoly by regulation is bad.


Well, not necessarily.  Ma Bell's service was never consistent 
before the breakup, but their P.R. was good.


The monopoly occurred "naturally" from the time the Bell patents 
expired (1893) until the last competitors were gone in the 
1930s.  There were CLECs galore (called "independents" at the time, 
but not the geographic-monopoly independents of later years) in the 
1893-1920 era.  Bell bought Pupin's patent on the loading coil in 
the 1890s, which gave them a monopoly on long distance (>10 miles 
or so), but local service was competitive in many 
places.  Independents pioneered dial; Bell was all-manual until the 
1920s.  However, the economics of natural monopoly are real.  The 
larger market share means a lower unit cost, so the big guy almost 
always wins.  So by 1934, when the Communications Act was passed, 
the monopoly already existed; FCC and state rules simply locked it 
in place (made it de jure).


The idea of TA96 was to de-monopolize.  Since the natural monopoly 
still exists, unbundling is a way to open the market, but the 2001 
FCC turned against it and the current one remains opposed, law notwithstanding.


The public Internet only exists because the FCC in 1966 started the 
Computer Inquiries, which created a bright line distinction between 
carriage ("basic service") and content ("enhanced service"), 
especially in 1980's Computer II. The ILECs hated that.  The FCC 
also rammed sharing and resale down their throats around 1976 -- 
before that, you couldn't lease a line between two companies unless 
one of them was a licensed common carrier (e.g., Western Union, one 
of Ma Bell's few authorized wholesale resellers).  How could you 
have an ISP without those rules?  However, in 2005 the FCC revoked 
the Computer Inquiry rules, in response to a Verizon request, which 
is what led to the whole Network Neutrality kerfuffle.


The "no regulation" approach would most likely involve granting 
ILECs full property rights on their networks, so they would have 
unregulated monopolies. Who does that benefit?  It's a banana 
republic situation.  Every civilized country regulates its 
monopolies or keeps them under public ownership.  Of course 
property rights are themselves an artificial legal construct, so I 
suppose a Somali-level approach would be that you could string 
wires, but you'd need to hire warlords to guard them, and could 
steal whatever your warlords were able to rassle from 
competitors.  Ironically, Somalia does have a competitive mobile 
phone sector, since there is no government to regulate it and the 
warlord armies do guard their towers, but no wireline sector to speak of.


WISPs are less dependent on wireline rules than wireline ISPs, who 
are largely hurting due to malevolent FCC policies.  But they still 
depend on spectrum regulatory policies. which the FCC makes 
consistent with the law.  And many depend on wireline backhaul, 
where regulation is the only thing that keeps the monopolies from 
gouging worse than they do.  (I've got an article in the works 
about how the real digital divide is the way the ILECs have kept 
the fiber dividend -- the low per-bit cost of capacity on fiber -- 
away from their monopoly ratepayers, even though it operates in 
competitive markets.



On 7/16/2011 9:25 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Well...again you have to go further back in history...before 
telecom regulation ..it was a Ma Bell monopoly ..and without 
regulation...there is a very good chance that it will again 
become a Ma Bell monopoly or maybe a duopoly...


Let's not forget that...

Faisal

On Jul 16, 2011, at 9:03 PM, RickG 
<rgunder...@gmail.com> wrote:



"it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government 
"allows" us to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act 
or no, regulation or no, there should be no question that we are 
allowed to make a living the way we want to regardless.


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 

---

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Mike Hammett]

I'm okay with that.  That makes my service that much better and easier 
to sell.  I know you have a wireline portion of your business as well, 
however.


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



On 7/16/2011 8:25 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Well...again you have to go further back in history...before telecom 
regulation ..it was a Ma Bell monopoly ..and without 
regulation...there is a very good chance that it will again become a 
Ma Bell monopoly or maybe a duopoly...


Let's not forget that...

Faisal

On Jul 16, 2011, at 9:03 PM, RickG > wrote:



"it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government 
"allows" us to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or no, 
regulation or no, there should be no question that we are allowed to 
make a living the way we want to regardless.


On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote:


I am going to address your points backwards:-

You wrote ---
And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's appointees were
advocates for free markets and for competition and deregulation. Not
particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our
enemy. The
current administration's people at the FCC are IN NO WAY our
friend, for
any way, manner, or purpose, and everything they want is bad for
us and
the country. STop talking political party talking points, and get
some
reality.
-

We have been wireline ISP's first, since 2000, if you really believe
what you wrote (above) then you are truly mis-informed...
The simple facts are ... it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services . and it is THE
DEREGULATION over the past 5 years, that has been KILLING the
ISP's  off.
You forget, that if you don't have the ability to connect to other
networks in a fair and equitable manner, you are not going to be
able to
continue in this business.
Get a grip of reality and the full picture.. you are playing with
a DUAL
EDGE sword here...

---You wrote-

You seem to think that the answer is to find the right pol to
influence and
the right committee members to lobby and the right allies to
obstruct X or
advance Y, but those are expediency, not principle.   They should
be TACTICS
to a principled purpose, one that will attract others, on the
basis of its
soundness and validity.


Not sure where you are coming up with this from ...however each and
every one has his own right to interpret the events .

You wrote -

Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan.   Not even
ideological.
It's simple straightforward business principles.   Principle
Numero Uno is
"have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing
convoluted or
difficult about that.


hehe.. when you start off a paragraph with "this administration"
 or do
a follow up with "the previous administration".. that is as
partisan as
one can get

I agree with your 'Principle Numero Uno', but you are harking at the
wrong organization.. it is not in  WISPA's charter or mission, maybe
should be a member of the SBA association, or FISPA or COMPTEL
... but
then again you will have to get your head straight about how the
US Gov.
has operated for the last 200 years

WISPA's mission has been to address issues related to Wireless, (not
business, not telephone service, not hosted services, etc etc)...
While I understand your frustration with the Gov., and do agree with
some of your points, but what you keep putting forward on the WISPA
forums is  more like 'Don Quixote Tilting  at the windmills"


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom


On 7/16/2011 12:59 AM, MDK wrote:
> A "plan of action"?  If I said "this is what WISPA should do"
and laid it
> out in detail, all you'd do is say "who are you?  Why should we
hacve to do
> what you say?"
>
> Frankly, I have no idea why you're having difficulty.  You see,
when you
> have proper business principles as your guiding mechanism, what
you should
> do is crystal clear.   Nobody needs to write out a plan of
action, it
> becomes self evident - you always advocate FOR the proper and
best thing.
> And, after being consistent, year after year, and when stuff
li

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Mike Hammett]

No policy that I'm aware of prevented anyone from being an ISP.  It was 
a cost issue.


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



On 7/16/2011 8:03 PM, RickG wrote:

"it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government 
"allows" us to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or no, 
regulation or no, there should be no question that we are allowed to 
make a living the way we want to regardless.


On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote:


I am going to address your points backwards:-

You wrote ---
And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's appointees were
advocates for free markets and for competition and deregulation. Not
particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our enemy. The
current administration's people at the FCC are IN NO WAY our
friend, for
any way, manner, or purpose, and everything they want is bad for
us and
the country. STop talking political party talking points, and get some
reality.
-

We have been wireline ISP's first, since 2000, if you really believe
what you wrote (above) then you are truly mis-informed...
The simple facts are ... it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services . and it is THE
DEREGULATION over the past 5 years, that has been KILLING the
ISP's  off.
You forget, that if you don't have the ability to connect to other
networks in a fair and equitable manner, you are not going to be
able to
continue in this business.
Get a grip of reality and the full picture.. you are playing with
a DUAL
EDGE sword here...

---You wrote-

You seem to think that the answer is to find the right pol to
influence and
the right committee members to lobby and the right allies to
obstruct X or
advance Y, but those are expediency, not principle.   They should
be TACTICS
to a principled purpose, one that will attract others, on the
basis of its
soundness and validity.


Not sure where you are coming up with this from ...however each and
every one has his own right to interpret the events .

You wrote -

Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan.   Not even
ideological.
It's simple straightforward business principles.   Principle
Numero Uno is
"have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing
convoluted or
difficult about that.


hehe.. when you start off a paragraph with "this administration"
 or do
a follow up with "the previous administration".. that is as
partisan as
one can get

I agree with your 'Principle Numero Uno', but you are harking at the
wrong organization.. it is not in  WISPA's charter or mission, maybe
should be a member of the SBA association, or FISPA or COMPTEL ... but
then again you will have to get your head straight about how the
US Gov.
has operated for the last 200 years

WISPA's mission has been to address issues related to Wireless, (not
business, not telephone service, not hosted services, etc etc)...
While I understand your frustration with the Gov., and do agree with
some of your points, but what you keep putting forward on the WISPA
forums is  more like 'Don Quixote Tilting  at the windmills"


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom


On 7/16/2011 12:59 AM, MDK wrote:
> A "plan of action"?  If I said "this is what WISPA should do"
and laid it
> out in detail, all you'd do is say "who are you?  Why should we
hacve to do
> what you say?"
>
> Frankly, I have no idea why you're having difficulty.  You see,
when you
> have proper business principles as your guiding mechanism, what
you should
> do is crystal clear.   Nobody needs to write out a plan of
action, it
> becomes self evident - you always advocate FOR the proper and
best thing.
> And, after being consistent, year after year, and when stuff
like this comes
> up, which becomes so blatantly obviously a result of failure to
follow true
> principle, again, nothing is obscure or difficult.
>
> Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan.   Not even
ideological.
> It's simple straightforward business principles.   Principle
Numero Uno is
> "have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing
convoluted or
> difficult abo

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

[Scott Reed]

Well, yeah, necessarily.  Where I lived the service got worse.

On 7/16/2011 10:08 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

At 7/16/2011 09:41 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
I also noticed that the breakup of Ma Bell degraded service in many 
areas.  A monopoly by market demand is not necessarily bad.  A 
monopoly by regulation is bad.


Well, not necessarily.  Ma Bell's service was never consistent before 
the breakup, but their P.R. was good.


The monopoly occurred "naturally" from the time the Bell patents 
expired (1893) until the last competitors were gone in the 1930s.  
There were CLECs galore (called "independents" at the time, but not 
the geographic-monopoly independents of later years) in the 1893-1920 
era.  Bell bought Pupin's patent on the loading coil in the 1890s, 
which gave them a monopoly on long distance (>10 miles or so), but 
local service was competitive in many places.  Independents pioneered 
dial; Bell was all-manual until the 1920s.  However, the economics of 
natural monopoly are real.  The larger market share means a lower unit 
cost, so the big guy almost always wins.  So by 1934, when the 
Communications Act was passed, the monopoly already existed; FCC and 
state rules simply locked it in place (made it de jure).


The idea of TA96 was to de-monopolize.  Since the natural monopoly 
still exists, unbundling is a way to open the market, but the 2001 FCC 
turned against it and the current one remains opposed, law 
notwithstanding.


The public Internet only exists because the FCC in 1966 started the 
Computer Inquiries, which created a bright line distinction between 
carriage ("basic service") and content ("enhanced service"), 
especially in 1980's Computer II. The ILECs hated that.  The FCC also 
rammed sharing and resale down their throats around 1976 -- before 
that, you couldn't lease a line between two companies unless one of 
them was a licensed common carrier (e.g., Western Union, one of Ma 
Bell's few authorized wholesale resellers).  How could you have an ISP 
without those rules?  However, in 2005 the FCC revoked the Computer 
Inquiry rules, in response to a Verizon request, which is what led to 
the whole Network Neutrality kerfuffle.


The "no regulation" approach would most likely involve granting ILECs 
full property rights on their networks, so they would have unregulated 
monopolies. Who does that benefit?  It's a banana republic situation.  
Every civilized country regulates its monopolies or keeps them under 
public ownership.  Of course property rights are themselves an 
artificial legal construct, so I suppose a Somali-level approach would 
be that you could string wires, but you'd need to hire warlords to 
guard them, and could steal whatever your warlords were able to rassle 
from competitors.  Ironically, Somalia does have a competitive mobile 
phone sector, since there is no government to regulate it and the 
warlord armies do guard their towers, but no wireline sector to speak of.


WISPs are less dependent on wireline rules than wireline ISPs, who are 
largely hurting due to malevolent FCC policies.  But they still depend 
on spectrum regulatory policies. which the FCC makes consistent with 
the law.  And many depend on wireline backhaul, where regulation is 
the only thing that keeps the monopolies from gouging worse than they 
do.  (I've got an article in the works about how the real digital 
divide is the way the ILECs have kept the fiber dividend -- the low 
per-bit cost of capacity on fiber -- away from their monopoly 
ratepayers, even though it operates in competitive markets.



On 7/16/2011 9:25 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Well...again you have to go further back in history...before telecom 
regulation ..it was a Ma Bell monopoly ..and without 
regulation...there is a very good chance that it will again become a 
Ma Bell monopoly or maybe a duopoly...


Let's not forget that...

Faisal

On Jul 16, 2011, at 9:03 PM, RickG > wrote:



"it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government 
"allows" us to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or 
no, regulation or no, there should be no question that we are 
allowed to make a living the way we want to regardless.



 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701





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/


--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Adm