Re: [WISPA] [AFMUG] COVID-19 and WISPAmerica

[Keefe John via Wireless]

"The WISP industry is a strong and resilient one. We’re dedicated and
fearless. Attending WISPAMERICA sends a strong signal to others in the
communications industry, policymakers and your communities that you will
remain strong even in light of the day’s loud and oftentimes distracting
news coverage and circumstances. The novel coronavirus is not to be sniffed
at, but its risks are manageable – WISPs will not let these events paralyze
their service to customers and the community at large."


Keefe John
CEO
Ethoplex
Direct: 262.345.5200

Ethoplex Business Internet
http://www.ethoplex.com/
Signal Residential Internet
http://www.signalisp.com/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/keefejohn/


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 2:09 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

>
> https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0Hvia4VtxJ1AjJZaTv40aive3k79kdTmOfjt_vGkGz7o4XuY4ZnRO02-Y#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 2:59 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
>> https://www.flattenthecurve.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:58 AM Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>
>>> I’m sorry folks but this conference really should be canceled for the
>>> safety of everyone.
>>>
>>> Thank you to Sonar For their brave decision yesterday to pull out.
>>>
>>> I know this would be a hardship for WISPA’s finances so I think we
>>> should all pull together to make sure WISPA doesn’t suffer financially.  We
>>> need WISPA and our members to be healthy and strong both physically and
>>> financially.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-03-11/coronavirus-advice-from-bioethicists-cancel-that-conference
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/E3URhJx0NSw
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> -Sean
>>>
>>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> a...@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> a...@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting

[Keefe John via Wireless]

Also check out Vitelity and Bandwidth.

Keefe

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019, 7:40 AM Claude Aiken via Wireless 
wrote:

> Wise man…
>
>
>
> *From:* Mark Radabaugh 
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 8:39 AM
> *To:* Claude Aiken ; WISPA General List <
> wireless@wispa.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting
>
>
>
> I just don’t put my phone number on the post :-)
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2019, at 8:35 AM, Claude Aiken via Wireless 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> There are a number of WISPA vendor members who offer white-label VoIP
> service. I won’t list them here because inevitably I’ll leave someone off
> and I’ll get an angry phone call!
>
>
>
> I discussed this in the most recent ISP Radio in the latter half of the
> show, and it was item #6 on the top 10 list on our most recent webinar.
>
>
>
> We didn’t offer a webinar particularly on phone, but if there is enough
> interest we may want to take a look at it.
>
>
>
> *From:* James Wilson 
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 8:15 AM
> *To:* Claude Aiken 
> *Cc:* t...@cherrycapitalconnection.com; WISPA General List <
> wireless@wispa.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting
>
>
>
>   We attended the Government Subsidized Overbuilding webinar but didn't
> hear anything about a phone service seminar.
>
>
>
>   For anyone else that is trying to keep up:
>
>
>
>   NANP is this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Numbering_Plan
>
>
>
>   N11 is this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N11_code
>
>
>
>   I think that Ooma was offering this a year or two ago at WISPA in
> Memphis.  We'll check on it.
>
>
>
>   Please let us know if there are others that may be better.  We're not
> exactly in the phone business and just recommend to our customers to use a
> smartphone with WiFi calling.  But it looks like we're going to have to
> offer phone service not to get further overbuilt on!
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> -James Wilson
>
>
>
> RidgeComms
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:52 AM Claude Aiken  wrote:
>
> Yes, N11.
>
>
>
> *From:* t...@cherrycapitalconnection.com 
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 7:51 AM
> *To:* Claude Aiken ; 'WISPA General List' <
> wireless@wispa.org>; 'James Wilson' 
> *Subject:* RE: [WISPA] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting
>
>
>
> Claude X11 or should the reference be N11
>
>
>
> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org  *On
> Behalf Of *Claude Aiken via Wireless
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 21, 2019 10:08 PM
> *To:* James Wilson ; WISPA General List <
> wireless@wispa.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting
>
>
>
> As long as it is phone service that reaches NANP numbers including X11
> numbers, it counts as long as it is offered by YOUR company. Can be white
> label.
>
>
>
> Yes, has to be reflected on 477.
>
>
>
> We did a webinar last week on this topic, hope to post for members soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Original message 
>
> From: James Wilson via Wireless 
>
> Date: 7/21/19 9:55 PM (GMT-05:00)
>
> To: WISPA General List 
>
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting
>
>
>
> Is there some information about what is considered phone service?
>
>
>
> Can we just offer something like Ooma?  Does this phone service need to be
> reflected in FCC 477?
>
>
>
> Is there a place to go for further information?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 8:52 AM Mark Radabaugh via Wireless <
> wireless@wispa.org> wrote:
>
> There are two upcoming items on the FCC’s August 1st meeting on items that
> will effect all WISP’s.Please review the documents below.
>
>
>
> Short summary:
>
>
>
> 477 Order - will revamp the 477 data collection process and information.
> Personally this is a good thing.
>
>
>
> RDOF - This is the next $20,400,000,000 (20.4 Billion Dollars) that will
> be spend to overbuild your network if you are not currently providing 25/3
> service & phone.
>
>
>
> WISPA has time to meet with the commissioners and discuss up to the 25th.
>   A lot of effort has already gone into making sure that both of these are
> fair and open to all providers, not just the Telco’s.   There is no way to
> stop the feds from spending this money - it’s coming regardless of what we
> do.   Both political parties, the administration, and the FCC all want to
> spend money on rural broadband.
>
>
>
> *YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR PART* to either position yourself to receive this
> funding, or prevent your competitors from getting it and overbuilding you.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Mark Radabaugh
>
> WISPA Policy Committee Chair
>
> 419-261-5996
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> *From: *"Coran, Steve via PolicyCommittee" 
>
> *Subject: [PolicyCommittee] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting*
>
> *Date: *July 11, 2019 at 5:48:29 PM EDT
>
> *To: *"'policycommit...@wispa.org'" 
>
> *Reply-To: *"Coran, Steve" , <
> policycommit...@wispa.org>
>
>
>
> Just released, below are links to draft items of interest for the FCC’s
> August 1 open meeting.  We have the opport

Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting

[Keefe John via Wireless]

Agreed on the bond issue.

If we fail to see movement on the Letter of Credit we could approach the
SBA about offering a solution.  They already have an export Letter of
Credit program.  Could something be modified or created for broadband
purposes?

A coalition of WISPs who'd like to participate in this funding program is
essential.  Can WISPA send out a survey so we can get accurate numbers on
how many WISPs would participate in this funding program?  It might be
powerful to say "We have 500 members interested in participating in FCC
funding programs, however, only 20 were able to participate in CAF II due
to X, Y, and Z."

It is worth at least making it known in our filings that requiring audited
financials makes these programs inaccessible to many of our members.
What's their rationale in requiring audited financials instead of tax
returns and transcripts.  Tax returns are good enough for lending from
other agencies, such as the SBA. How does the FCC determine what
constitutes a financially sound company anyways?  Are there guidelines or
is it arbitrary?

How about an exemption to the audited financials for companies who've
recently gone through the underwriting process to obtain financing via
another government agency like the USDA or SBA.  Surely these are
creditworthy companies in the eyes of the Federal government.

Best,

Keefe John
CEO
Ethoplex
Direct: 262.345.5200

Ethoplex Business Internet
http://www.ethoplex.com/
Signal Residential Internet
http://www.signalisp.com/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/keefejohn/


On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:45 AM L. Elizabeth Bowles 
wrote:

> From my perspective, taking another run at eliminating the letter of
> credit requirement should be a priority. It is a huge barrier to smaller
> companies seeking this funding, and the policy the FCC is trying to
> accomplish can be met with a bond.
>
> I agree we need a coalition of small WISPs to advocate for this, but we
> also should leverage the experience of the WISPs who have already received
> CAF funding - that first-hand perspective will be helpful in showing that
> the LOC is burdensome in reality, not just hypothetically.
>
> As for the audited financials, I don’t think any energy should be spent on
> trying to eliminate that requirement because we are likely to fail. USDA
> also requires audited financials for many of its grants and loans, and
> worse, they require the last two years. It is hella expensive, but I don’t
> think we will win this argument, and any energy spent would be better spent
> elsewhere.
>
> Best,
> Elizabeth
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 12, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Claude Aiken  wrote:
>
> We pushed for reducing these burdens (audited financials and LoC) last
> time. Before WISPA's advocacy, LoC must have been procured from a Top 100
> bank, and audited financials had to be submitted before bidding began. We
> were able to get both of those changed to allow more financial entities to
> provide thr LoC (FCC said no on the performance bond), and get audited
> financials submitted only by winners.
>
> We will try again this time, and will likely get a coalition of smaller
> providers associations together to try to push this.
>
> For my edification, are you suggesting we de-prioritize spectrum advocacy
> in favor of this?
>
> Claude Aiken
> President & CEO
> WISPA
>
> --
> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org  on behalf
> of Keefe John via Wireless 
> *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2019 9:03:18 AM
> *To:* Mark Radabaugh; WISPA General List; policycommit...@wispa.org
> *Cc:* Ken Hohhof via Members
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting
>
> More funding is always welcome!
>
> What can be done to ensure access to this funding by all WISPs?  The CAF
> II rules were so onerous that only a tiny percentage of WISPA members were
> able to participate.  This needs to change.  WISPA's #1 priority should be
> crafting rules that allow ALL WISPs to have a chance to participate.
>
> The two biggest barriers to entry are:
>
> Letter of Credit - These are very difficult to obtain, especially for the
> majority of our members.  Can we propose a bond as an alternative?
>
> Audited Financial Statements - Audited financial statements cost $10,000 -
> $50,000 per year or more.  This is a huge hurdle for the majority of
> WISPs.  Can we propose CPA-prepared financial statements and/or IRS tax
> return transcripts for small entities?
>
> Keefe John
> CEO
> Ethoplex
> Direct: 262.345.5200
> 
> Ethoplex Business Internet
> http://www.ethoplex.com/
> Signal Residential Internet
> http://www.signalisp.com/
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/keefejohn/
>
>
> On Fri, Jul

Re: [WISPA] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting

[Keefe John via Wireless]

More funding is always welcome!

What can be done to ensure access to this funding by all WISPs?  The CAF II
rules were so onerous that only a tiny percentage of WISPA members were
able to participate.  This needs to change.  WISPA's #1 priority should be
crafting rules that allow ALL WISPs to have a chance to participate.

The two biggest barriers to entry are:

Letter of Credit - These are very difficult to obtain, especially for the
majority of our members.  Can we propose a bond as an alternative?

Audited Financial Statements - Audited financial statements cost $10,000 -
$50,000 per year or more.  This is a huge hurdle for the majority of
WISPs.  Can we propose CPA-prepared financial statements and/or IRS tax
return transcripts for small entities?

Keefe John
CEO
Ethoplex
Direct: 262.345.5200

Ethoplex Business Internet
http://www.ethoplex.com/
Signal Residential Internet
http://www.signalisp.com/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/keefejohn/


On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 7:52 AM Mark Radabaugh via Wireless <
wireless@wispa.org> wrote:

> There are two upcoming items on the FCC’s August 1st meeting on items that
> will effect all WISP’s.Please review the documents below.
>
> Short summary:
>
> 477 Order - will revamp the 477 data collection process and information.
> Personally this is a good thing.
>
> RDOF - This is the next $20,400,000,000 (20.4 Billion Dollars) that will
> be spend to overbuild your network if you are not currently providing 25/3
> service & phone.
>
> WISPA has time to meet with the commissioners and discuss up to the 25th.
>   A lot of effort has already gone into making sure that both of these are
> fair and open to all providers, not just the Telco’s.   There is no way to
> stop the feds from spending this money - it’s coming regardless of what we
> do.   Both political parties, the administration, and the FCC all want to
> spend money on rural broadband.
>
> *YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR PART* to either position yourself to receive this
> funding, or prevent your competitors from getting it and overbuilding you.
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Radabaugh
> WISPA Policy Committee Chair
> 419-261-5996
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Coran, Steve via PolicyCommittee" 
> *Subject: **[PolicyCommittee] Draft Items for August 1 FCC Meeting*
> *Date: *July 11, 2019 at 5:48:29 PM EDT
> *To: *"'policycommit...@wispa.org'" 
> *Reply-To: *"Coran, Steve" , <
> policycommit...@wispa.org>
>
> Just released, below are links to draft items of interest for the FCC’s
> August 1 open meeting.  We have the opportunity to meet with the
> Commissioners until the afternoon of July 25.  Would appreciate the
> Committee’s input on these soon.  Just released, and I have not had a
> chance to review these yet.
>
> DRAFT Form 477 Order + FNPRM:
> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-358433A1.pdf
> DRAFT RDOF NPRM: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-358432A1.pdf
>
> Stephen E. Coran
> Lerman Senter PLLC <http://www.lermansenter.com/> *|*2001 L Street, NW,
> Suite 400 *|* Washington, DC 20036
> 202-416-6744 (o) *|* 202-669-3288 (m) *| *sco...@lermansenter.com  
> *|*@stevecoran
> – twitter
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Keefe John]

We should open up the 4.9 band.  Hardly  gov't agencies use it.

Keefe


On 6/7/2017 4:34 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system 
> planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion.  The coordination from the SAS 
> would protect existing users and links.  I would expect to see a professional 
> installer requirement similar to CBRS rules.   Part 101 is a small part of 
> the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200.   There are plenty 
> of other users that would need to be protected as well.  Whatever happens 
> here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum.
>
> My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space.   There are 
> other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS 
> type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, 
> but they all have some form of incumbent.  The TV Whitespace rules are 
> largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the 
> rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be 
> shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be 
> supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways 
> to reach customers.
>
> Mark Radabaugh
> Amplex
> 22690 Pemberville Rd
> Luckey, OH 43447
> 419-261-5996
>
>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote:
>>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have
>>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care?
>>
>> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band
>> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links.
>>
>> ~Seth
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Keefe John]

Count me in. The channel sizes available in 6 GHz don't allow enough bandwidth 
for current applications. I hardly see 6 GHz PCNs anymore.

Keefe

On June 2, 2017 4:12:45 PM CDT, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to
>explore unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum.The
>idea is to increase the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to
>bring in UNII rules, along with additional mitigations currently under
>study (e.g., sensing, database) to protect incumbents.  As there are no
>federal users (other than PTP) this would not require the ESC system of
>CBRS and is potentially considerably simpler to implement.
> 
>The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high
>power/capacity/range band.   The downside is some potential loss of
>geographic exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links
>in exchange for greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing
>mechanisms over time.
>
>I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the
>membership and for those who use them if there would be significant
>opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint.
>
>Mark
>
>Mark Radabaugh
>WISPA FCC Committee Chair
>419-261-5996

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] home alarm distributor

[Keefe John]

ADI

On May 25, 2017 8:08:14 PM CDT, Jeff Evans  wrote:
>Not really wisp related, but
>
>Can anyone recommend a good distributor of home alarm equipment,
>looking 
>for disty that will recommend, support, and possibly help with design 
>suggestions.
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>-- 
>
>Jeff Evans, Managing Member
>PennWisp, LLC
>www.pennwisp.com
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] source for lightweight NPRM

[Keefe John]

It is funny that NPRM also means Notice of Proposed Rule Making.


On 2/10/2017 1:20 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

Send me a quote offlist

From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>> 
on behalf of Patti Bradley >


*//*

*/Gino Villarini/*

President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

Reply-To: WISPA General List >

Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:02 PM
To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] source for lightweight NPRM

I carry a non pen.   You can contact me Gino

Bursma Distributing

 " Bursma delivers"

 Patti Bradley

 Bursma Distributing

pbrad...@bursma.com 

www.bursma.com 

 (800) 777-2604

 (616) 389-6378  direct line

 (616) 831-0080 x6378 PH

   eFax number:



*16165886002*

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqCTtY3m-1bKFHqfhukUEdfHPSQG2WdNzG-gdEHRJMGtqAR6rDImage 
result for wispa member logo


http://s3.amazonaws.com/cambiumstatic/assets/556e46f33596e1dd1833c775/cambium-networks-logo-with-title.png

*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org  
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini

*Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2017 12:55 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* [WISPA] source for lightweight NPRM

We are needing 200 lightweight NPRM for cambium epmp devices, whos a 
good source ?


/*Gino Villarini*/

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Insurance once again

[Keefe John]

This happens all the time.  No matter what your 'agent' says, make sure 
the carrier actually covers ISPs and tower climbers.


These two companies FOR SURE cover this:

Chubb
Hanover

Keefe


On 2/3/2017 12:07 PM, Marco Coelho wrote:


Apparently Liberty Mutual has misplaced their testes and has sent us a 
non-renewal notice with reason code being they no longer insure ISPs.  
No losses for a decade.


Any suggestions out there?  We're talking about bulidings, towers, 
liability, etc.


Thanks in advance.




--
Marco C. Coelho
Argon Technologies Inc.
POB 875
Greenville, TX 75403-0875
903-455-5036


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless