Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
I agree that everything written in Forbes post may not be politically correct. But his intent was almost heroic. I think whats important is not the exact content of Forbes post, but the concept and purpose. We can't be afraid to tell our city councils what we think. (What ever that is, we each are individuals with our opinions) So many people JUMP because the so called rich company is comming to town to take over. We can't forget that there are advantages of being local, and locals (customers and governments) shouldn't forget it. But they do, and they need reminding. The Clearwires of the world may have funding and scale, but they don't have everything. We need to sell what we have, to our maximum advantage. The Teligents and Winstars bankruptcies proved the flaws in the over capitolized business models. And the success of the underfunded small business WISP model, speaks for itself, based on the current adoption rate of wireless subscribers accross America. If small providers want to stay in this industry, they are going to need to fight to keep that opportunity. Because there are lots of companies that are strategizing to just try and take it from us, if we let them. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:20 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Forbes, My apologies if you find this offensive and my honesty may not win me any fans here, but your advice includes some dishonest assertions and your letter to your city council is, in my view, libelous regarding Clearwire, threatening to your officials, and absolutely asserts false information (you have zero frequency rights as a first-in operator) and you have less than zero rights to be protected from any users operating in their lawfully owned or leased licensed spectrum such as the WCS 2.3 GHz bands or 2.5ish GHz BRS/EBS bands. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Hey try this, tell the tower owner that anything from 2.3 to 2.6GHZ can cause interference and point out that there is very few people there, then he isn't giving you exclusive so he doesn't jack up the rent and you just kept Clearwire out. Oh and one other thing I have studied Clearwire pretty closely and there is some steps you should take before they come. 1) contact all computer stores and set up resell agreements, tell them it's exclusive ONLY to wireless which there are hardly any in your town, that keeps Clearwire out. It's worth giving a computer store $50 for a new customer to keep Clearwire out of their place. 2) Contact the tall building owners in town and tell them that this new company Clearwire is a company in debt to the tune of a billion dollars and they will likely try to rent space from them. Tell them that if they cause interference on your network you can sue them, the building owner as well as the offending network for that interference. Both those points will normally cause them to say no thanks when Clearwire comes calling. 3) Lastly take away their support, if they are coming to your town they have already contacted the city and county officials and tried to arrange for partnerships and attendance at some huge kick off party. You need to remind officials that this is a redundant service that takes money straight from their revenue stream. Clearwire will try to get resolutions passed supporting them, they are smooth. Just for your benefit (in other words don't pass it on to Clearwire) here is the letter we sent to our civic leaders, the media and the area organizations: Dear Council Members and Media, A new wireless Internet company is coming to Yakima. They are Clearwire, an attempt by ATT Wireless inventor Craig McCaw to make a National wireless network to compete with cell phones. The difference between this business venture and the former ATT Wireless is that Clearwire is supposed to lose money for a tax write-off and then they sell it. It's not the sale price they care about, it's the tax write-off now, they are nearly one billion in debt in a very short time. The billionaires who start these businesses need huge write-offs for the huge profits they make in other businesses. They get other investors to buy in, and then spend all of their money in hopes of 'stealing' enough of competitors business by under-pricing their product. Then they can raise prices after they have local competition gone and you hooked. Sound familiar
RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
Tom, what one thinks is not the same as threats, libel (in my opinion) and blatant falsehoods (e.g. being the first WISP give a right to protections). Nothing heroic about that. I would contend it is just the opposite. I cringe every time I see a WISP do something dishonest or slimy or just out of gross ignorance of the most basic of legal rules that govern use of UL frequencies as it only reinforces the perception still held in some circles that WISPs are out of control or just yahoos not to be taken seriously. Stuff like only feeds the cause of the Clearwires and actually HELPS them to succeed at your expense. That's ironic since I am aware of Clearwire actually behaving much more like the yahoo WISP perception versus exceptionally professional WISPs in the same market. I've actually helped certain WISPs successfully defend against Clearwire by using knowledge of the rules and straight up smart tactics. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal I agree that everything written in Forbes post may not be politically correct. But his intent was almost heroic. I think whats important is not the exact content of Forbes post, but the concept and purpose. We can't be afraid to tell our city councils what we think. (What ever that is, we each are individuals with our opinions) So many people JUMP because the so called rich company is comming to town to take over. We can't forget that there are advantages of being local, and locals (customers and governments) shouldn't forget it. But they do, and they need reminding. The Clearwires of the world may have funding and scale, but they don't have everything. We need to sell what we have, to our maximum advantage. The Teligents and Winstars bankruptcies proved the flaws in the over capitolized business models. And the success of the underfunded small business WISP model, speaks for itself, based on the current adoption rate of wireless subscribers accross America. If small providers want to stay in this industry, they are going to need to fight to keep that opportunity. Because there are lots of companies that are strategizing to just try and take it from us, if we let them. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:20 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Forbes, My apologies if you find this offensive and my honesty may not win me any fans here, but your advice includes some dishonest assertions and your letter to your city council is, in my view, libelous regarding Clearwire, threatening to your officials, and absolutely asserts false information (you have zero frequency rights as a first-in operator) and you have less than zero rights to be protected from any users operating in their lawfully owned or leased licensed spectrum such as the WCS 2.3 GHz bands or 2.5ish GHz BRS/EBS bands. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Hey try this, tell the tower owner that anything from 2.3 to 2.6GHZ can cause interference and point out that there is very few people there, then he isn't giving you exclusive so he doesn't jack up the rent and you just kept Clearwire out. Oh and one other thing I have studied Clearwire pretty closely and there is some steps you should take before they come. 1) contact all computer stores and set up resell agreements, tell them it's exclusive ONLY to wireless which there are hardly any in your town, that keeps Clearwire out. It's worth giving a computer store $50 for a new customer to keep Clearwire out of their place. 2) Contact the tall building owners in town and tell them that this new company Clearwire is a company in debt to the tune of a billion dollars and they will likely try to rent space from them. Tell them that if they cause interference on your network you can sue them, the building owner as well as the offending network for that interference. Both those points will normally cause them to say no thanks when Clearwire comes calling. 3) Lastly take away their support, if they are coming to your town they have already contacted the city and county officials and tried to arrange for partnerships and attendance at some huge kick off party. You need to remind officials that this is a redundant service that takes money straight from their revenue stream. Clearwire will try to get resolutions passed supporting them, they are smooth
[WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
Council rejects wireless proposal By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED] COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal to deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday night vote. Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of the proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited the council chambers immediately following the council vote. Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier wireless division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did summarize her reaction in one word: “Disappointed.” Linda Aerni, president of Community Internet and Wire Free Nebraska Inc., and Paul Schumacher, a business partner of Aerni, celebrated the decision. Aerni said the council did a good job of processing a lot of technological information and made the right decision for the city. “The council voted the right way, not holding the city to a 10-year obligation,” she said. “Technology has changed so much, even in the last month.” When asked if Community Internet is considering deploying a network on its own, Aerni said “of course.” “Community Internet has already deployed wireless Internet outside Columbus,” she said. Schumacher said there was no need to rush into any agreement, and if and when Community Internet does decide to implement a network, “the city wouldn't be in the middle of it.” A report by Robert Tupper, chief telecommunications engineer for RVW Inc., and Donn C. Swedenburg, telecommunications specialist for RVW, may have influenced the council's decision. The proposed contract stipulated no other devices that may degrade Frontier's network “as determined by Frontier” could be attached to city property. The report stated “the characteristics of unlicensed operation present many challenges.” According to Federal Communication Commission regulations, devices for operation of an unlicensed band, such as Frontier proposed, “must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.” Tupper said deployment of two wireless, broadband, mesh networks was possible but may not be feasible. “Co-existing within the 2.4 gHz spectrum is the toughest coordination,” he said. “I am not going to say it can be done. I am not going to say it can't be done.” Whether it can or can't, it would “be difficult to have two widely deployed mesh networks ... from an economics standpoint,” Tupper said. Councilman Chuck Whitney objected to Frontier's sole discretion to determine interference and network pricing differences between Frontier and non-Frontier customers. “If I am a Frontier customer I pay $9.99 a month and a customer of Community Internet/Megavision would pay $9.99 per day,” Whitney said. “There can be no discrimination in pricing.” Mayor Mike Moser said the council made the right decision regarding the Frontier proposal. “I think the council came up with right decision. There were a lot of unknowns, and before entering into a contract, all the blanks should be filled in,” Moser said. “I didn't feel the city was getting enough out of it to make it work. “If somebody else comes up with plan they can bring it to city the to look at it, but it is not something we are actively looking for at this moment. The ultimate result was where it should be gone.” -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
I'm glad they recognized there would be a problem giving one person an exclusive contract to serve the entire city, via city property. I'm especially glad they got down to the technical details of unlicensed frequency, in a public way. Of course it helps when there is a councilman who understands the issues. As it stands now, there does not need to be exclusive contracts, just let the wisps deploy at will. Dawn DiPietro wrote: Council rejects wireless proposal By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED] COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal to deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday night vote. Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of the proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited the council chambers immediately following the council vote. Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier wireless division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did summarize her reaction in one word: “Disappointed.” Linda Aerni, president of Community Internet and Wire Free Nebraska Inc., and Paul Schumacher, a business partner of Aerni, celebrated the decision. Aerni said the council did a good job of processing a lot of technological information and made the right decision for the city. “The council voted the right way, not holding the city to a 10-year obligation,” she said. “Technology has changed so much, even in the last month.” When asked if Community Internet is considering deploying a network on its own, Aerni said “of course.” “Community Internet has already deployed wireless Internet outside Columbus,” she said. Schumacher said there was no need to rush into any agreement, and if and when Community Internet does decide to implement a network, “the city wouldn't be in the middle of it.” A report by Robert Tupper, chief telecommunications engineer for RVW Inc., and Donn C. Swedenburg, telecommunications specialist for RVW, may have influenced the council's decision. The proposed contract stipulated no other devices that may degrade Frontier's network “as determined by Frontier” could be attached to city property. The report stated “the characteristics of unlicensed operation present many challenges.” According to Federal Communication Commission regulations, devices for operation of an unlicensed band, such as Frontier proposed, “must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.” Tupper said deployment of two wireless, broadband, mesh networks was possible but may not be feasible. “Co-existing within the 2.4 gHz spectrum is the toughest coordination,” he said. “I am not going to say it can be done. I am not going to say it can't be done.” Whether it can or can't, it would “be difficult to have two widely deployed mesh networks ... from an economics standpoint,” Tupper said. Councilman Chuck Whitney objected to Frontier's sole discretion to determine interference and network pricing differences between Frontier and non-Frontier customers. “If I am a Frontier customer I pay $9.99 a month and a customer of Community Internet/Megavision would pay $9.99 per day,” Whitney said. “There can be no discrimination in pricing.” Mayor Mike Moser said the council made the right decision regarding the Frontier proposal. “I think the council came up with right decision. There were a lot of unknowns, and before entering into a contract, all the blanks should be filled in,” Moser said. “I didn't feel the city was getting enough out of it to make it work. “If somebody else comes up with plan they can bring it to city the to look at it, but it is not something we are actively looking for at this moment. The ultimate result was where it should be gone.” -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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] Council rejects wireless proposal
Wow...impressive! A city counsel that didn't fall for the snake oil salesman... Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Council rejects wireless proposal By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED] COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal to deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday night vote. Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of the proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited the council chambers immediately following the council vote. Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier wireless division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did summarize her reaction in one word: Disappointed. Linda Aerni, president of Community Internet and Wire Free Nebraska Inc., and Paul Schumacher, a business partner of Aerni, celebrated the decision. Aerni said the council did a good job of processing a lot of technological information and made the right decision for the city. The council voted the right way, not holding the city to a 10-year obligation, she said. Technology has changed so much, even in the last month. When asked if Community Internet is considering deploying a network on its own, Aerni said of course. Community Internet has already deployed wireless Internet outside Columbus, she said. Schumacher said there was no need to rush into any agreement, and if and when Community Internet does decide to implement a network, the city wouldn't be in the middle of it. A report by Robert Tupper, chief telecommunications engineer for RVW Inc., and Donn C. Swedenburg, telecommunications specialist for RVW, may have influenced the council's decision. The proposed contract stipulated no other devices that may degrade Frontier's network as determined by Frontier could be attached to city property. The report stated the characteristics of unlicensed operation present many challenges. According to Federal Communication Commission regulations, devices for operation of an unlicensed band, such as Frontier proposed, must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. Tupper said deployment of two wireless, broadband, mesh networks was possible but may not be feasible. Co-existing within the 2.4 gHz spectrum is the toughest coordination, he said. I am not going to say it can be done. I am not going to say it can't be done. Whether it can or can't, it would be difficult to have two widely deployed mesh networks ... from an economics standpoint, Tupper said. Councilman Chuck Whitney objected to Frontier's sole discretion to determine interference and network pricing differences between Frontier and non-Frontier customers. If I am a Frontier customer I pay $9.99 a month and a customer of Community Internet/Megavision would pay $9.99 per day, Whitney said. There can be no discrimination in pricing. Mayor Mike Moser said the council made the right decision regarding the Frontier proposal. I think the council came up with right decision. There were a lot of unknowns, and before entering into a contract, all the blanks should be filled in, Moser said. I didn't feel the city was getting enough out of it to make it work. If somebody else comes up with plan they can bring it to city the to look at it, but it is not something we are actively looking for at this moment. The ultimate result was where it should be gone. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
Sounds like they had some pretty valid reasons to reject the proposal. It sounded pretty onerous. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:30 AM Subject: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Council rejects wireless proposal By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED] COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal to deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday night vote. Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of the proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited the council chambers immediately following the council vote. Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier wireless division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did summarize her reaction in one word: “Disappointed.” Linda Aerni, president of Community Internet and Wire Free Nebraska Inc., and Paul Schumacher, a business partner of Aerni, celebrated the decision. Aerni said the council did a good job of processing a lot of technological information and made the right decision for the city. “The council voted the right way, not holding the city to a 10-year obligation,” she said. “Technology has changed so much, even in the last month.” When asked if Community Internet is considering deploying a network on its own, Aerni said “of course.” “Community Internet has already deployed wireless Internet outside Columbus,” she said. Schumacher said there was no need to rush into any agreement, and if and when Community Internet does decide to implement a network, “the city wouldn't be in the middle of it.” A report by Robert Tupper, chief telecommunications engineer for RVW Inc., and Donn C. Swedenburg, telecommunications specialist for RVW, may have influenced the council's decision. The proposed contract stipulated no other devices that may degrade Frontier's network “as determined by Frontier” could be attached to city property. The report stated “the characteristics of unlicensed operation present many challenges.” According to Federal Communication Commission regulations, devices for operation of an unlicensed band, such as Frontier proposed, “must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.” Tupper said deployment of two wireless, broadband, mesh networks was possible but may not be feasible. “Co-existing within the 2.4 gHz spectrum is the toughest coordination,” he said. “I am not going to say it can be done. I am not going to say it can't be done.” Whether it can or can't, it would “be difficult to have two widely deployed mesh networks ... from an economics standpoint,” Tupper said. Councilman Chuck Whitney objected to Frontier's sole discretion to determine interference and network pricing differences between Frontier and non-Frontier customers. “If I am a Frontier customer I pay $9.99 a month and a customer of Community Internet/Megavision would pay $9.99 per day,” Whitney said. “There can be no discrimination in pricing.” Mayor Mike Moser said the council made the right decision regarding the Frontier proposal. “I think the council came up with right decision. There were a lot of unknowns, and before entering into a contract, all the blanks should be filled in,” Moser said. “I didn't feel the city was getting enough out of it to make it work. “If somebody else comes up with plan they can bring it to city the to look at it, but it is not something we are actively looking for at this moment. The ultimate result was where it should be gone.” -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum. But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City agreements to be exclusive. In Montgomery County MD, the City promised free access to all County Governement structures, to third party providers, in exchange for restrictions of new tower building. Changing it to exclusive after teh fact would be deceptive and in contrast to previous law. They would need to remove the ban on tower building and reduce the $17,000 Special Exception fee, if they changed directions and attempted exclusivity. There are FCC laws that protect unlicensed spectrum for public use, and protect entities from breaking competition and exclsuively supporting one ISP over another ISP. In the public sector MTU world, property owners are not supposed to give one ISP preferencial terms over another preventing consumers access to telecommunications. EXCLUSIVITY is a dirty word for any colocation agreement. For Governments to ignore their own rulings, and lead the way to give exclusivity is just wrong. Instead they should be allocating spectrum for city's use, for their exclusive projects. The Bells complained about governments helping fund third parties giving them an upper hand above the monopoly telecoms that have invested in the existing networks. Giving exclusivity is even worse. Its not giving an advantage (financially) its preventing the others from playing at all! People forget that City assets, ultimately belong to the people who pay the taxes. Its not the same thing as Private property owners of MTU buildings who should ahve fewer restrictions than public property. We need to remember we are not a dictatorship governement. I am NOT agaisnt Muni networks anymore. But I am definately against exclusivity. If teh city want to give an easement and public marketing support in exchange for investment from a third party, so be it. But they do not have the ethical right to deny those asements from additional third parties who are willing to invest. These proposals of exclusivity are being initiated because they are administered from clueless polititions who have zero experience in FCC and the Internet world. It is my opinion that the WORST thing for ISPs, Vendors, Cities, and Consumers is to give exclusivity. It undoes everything that every telecommunications act has ever attempted to do. There is absolutely no downside to keeping unlicensed open, and public easements open to as many competitors as possible. Interference, can be controlled so many ways other than via exclusiveity, and exclusivity won;t solve the problem anyway, as the City does not own the air and all the public property. All exclusivity does is prevents putting togeather the shared benefits of public and private assets, which public assets are jsut not owned by a single intity. exclusivity should be the number one topic that WISPs are fighting against. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:27 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Most of the Muni contracts I have worked on so far are exclusive. An RFP would have been a better way to resolve the issue. Just letting anyone use city property is a sure way for failure. I'm not so sure letting wisp's deploy at will for Muni wifi is such a great idea. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal I'm glad they recognized there would be a problem giving one person an exclusive contract to serve the entire city, via city property. I'm especially glad they got down to the technical details of unlicensed frequency, in a public way. Of course it helps when there is a councilman who understands the issues. As it stands now, there does not need to be exclusive contracts, just let the wisps deploy at will. Dawn DiPietro wrote: Council rejects wireless proposal By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED] COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal to deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday night vote. Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of the proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited the council chambers immediately following the council vote. Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier wireless division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did summarize her reaction in one word: Disappointed. Linda Aerni, president of Community
Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal - exclusive
Exclusivity is an old issue and was already to supposed to be banned. Exclusive marketing agreements was fine. Even exclusive frequency was OK, as you can't can;t sell it twice, or fit 2 gallons of water in a 1 gallon bucket. But NOT exclusive provider. Any contract writer knew Exclusive Provider had to be excluded from their agreements, or they risked it invalidating the agreement. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal - exclusive Are Exclusive MDU Access Agreements on Thin Regulatory Ice? /2006issues/nov06issues/kandutsch_nov.pdf /By Carl E. Kandutsch, Ph.D., J.D/ Good arguments can be made for and against exclusive, perpetual access. Will the use of exclusive access agreements between owners of multi-dwelling unit (MDU) properties and communications providers be banned or restricted in the foreseeable future? http://www.broadbandproperties.com/2006issues/nov06issues/kandutsch_nov.pdf -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
I can't agree more George. Ps. I would have voted for you. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Tom DeReggi wrote: They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum. But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City agreements to be exclusive. EXACTLY, this has been the problem all along. Whats going to happen when Earthlink gets exclusivity in any of these cities or towns we are in. Is the city now going to stop us from operating in their area? Of course they are. Nice thing about this city council, is that one of the councilors was a wisp. Not sure if he's non profit or what, but he understands and he was able to explain the situation to the other councilors. I'm afraid that in most all councils, they are not educated, aware, or understand the reasons against exclusivity. I think all the wisps in wispa and else where, ought to go to their city council, address the council at one of the regular meetings. At the beginning of the meetings generally there is a time for public comments that you can talk to the council about stuff not on the agenda and tell them what you have to say. I'm not saying that you all should go and complain, but rather go and introduce yourself and tell them who you are what you do and the service you provide, amount of employees that you have and a maybe even general idea of how much you gross and put back into the local economy. I've had to go in front of the council a couple of times, and it's usually an easy and positive thing. If they like what you are saying or even if just one of them likes what they are hearing, they will engage you into even more conversation where you can pump your wisp even more! It's really up to us, the small operator to take the bull by the horns and make some hay. Otherwise, the consultants are going to come in and sell them on someone else. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
The complication in all this muni on a lightpole, is the cell phone companies. I imagine there will be a day when the wisp meets the cell phone guys and realizes our limitations. Brad Larson wrote: Tom, I don't think asking to be exclusive on light poles is a bad thing. It's usually done in exchange for public safety or public workers riding the network for free. Like I said in a previous post, I just can't see multiple vendors stacking wifi mesh solutions on every other light pole. Who will invest if that's the case? Again, I'm still on the fence with these Muni wified mesh networks and their viability. Time will tell. How many of you have exclusive rooftop or tower rights? The same can be said about light poles when Earthlink or another service provider is deploying and sometimes paying to be there. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum. But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City agreements to be exclusive. In Montgomery County MD, the City promised free access to all County Governement structures, to third party providers, in exchange for restrictions of new tower building. Changing it to exclusive after teh fact would be deceptive and in contrast to previous law. They would need to remove the ban on tower building and reduce the $17,000 Special Exception fee, if they changed directions and attempted exclusivity. There are FCC laws that protect unlicensed spectrum for public use, and protect entities from breaking competition and exclsuively supporting one ISP over another ISP. In the public sector MTU world, property owners are not supposed to give one ISP preferencial terms over another preventing consumers access to telecommunications. EXCLUSIVITY is a dirty word for any colocation agreement. For Governments to ignore their own rulings, and lead the way to give exclusivity is just wrong. Instead they should be allocating spectrum for city's use, for their exclusive projects. The Bells complained about governments helping fund third parties giving them an upper hand above the monopoly telecoms that have invested in the existing networks. Giving exclusivity is even worse. Its not giving an advantage (financially) its preventing the others from playing at all! People forget that City assets, ultimately belong to the people who pay the taxes. Its not the same thing as Private property owners of MTU buildings who should ahve fewer restrictions than public property. We need to remember we are not a dictatorship governement. I am NOT agaisnt Muni networks anymore. But I am definately against exclusivity. If teh city want to give an easement and public marketing support in exchange for investment from a third party, so be it. But they do not have the ethical right to deny those asements from additional third parties who are willing to invest. These proposals of exclusivity are being initiated because they are administered from clueless polititions who have zero experience in FCC and the Internet world. It is my opinion that the WORST thing for ISPs, Vendors, Cities, and Consumers is to give exclusivity. It undoes everything that every telecommunications act has ever attempted to do. There is absolutely no downside to keeping unlicensed open, and public easements open to as many competitors as possible. Interference, can be controlled so many ways other than via exclusiveity, and exclusivity won;t solve the problem anyway, as the City does not own the air and all the public property. All exclusivity does is prevents putting togeather the shared benefits of public and private assets, which public assets are jsut not owned by a single intity. exclusivity should be the number one topic that WISPs are fighting against. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:27 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Most of the Muni contracts I have worked on so far are exclusive. An RFP would have been a better way to resolve the issue. Just letting anyone use city property is a sure way for failure. I'm not so sure letting wisp's deploy at will for Muni wifi is such a great idea. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal I'm glad they recognized there would be a problem
Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
I just can't see several mesh muni projects per city being successful. Maybe not. But thats not the governemnt's problem. The government only needs to back and market one of them. I'm not agaisnt that. Maybe I want to deploy for a diffferent reason than FREE public broadband? There could be many reasons for wifi isntalled in cities, and not in good judgement to limit what innovations could occur in the future. What I hate to see is when governments are up for sale. I was always a Microsoft fan, until they proved they could buy the governement. I don't think the public and governement should be up for sale. At least not for the few million that gets offered, by the winning bidder. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:37 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal They get exclusive rights to light poles for a mesh deployment. I'm not at all advocating these projects but at the same time I just can't see several mesh muni projects per city being successful. I agree that there are way too many consultants jumping into the game. I heard about a consultant today saying that 900 Mhz can go thru 6 miles of trees and do voip for more than 25 calls per sector. I won't name the vendor but I've heard the same from their reps. I thought maybe our industry would start to mature a little more in 2006 but I guess it's still a waiting game. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:19 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Tom DeReggi wrote: They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum. But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City agreements to be exclusive. EXACTLY, this has been the problem all along. Whats going to happen when Earthlink gets exclusivity in any of these cities or towns we are in. Is the city now going to stop us from operating in their area? Of course they are. Nice thing about this city council, is that one of the councilors was a wisp. Not sure if he's non profit or what, but he understands and he was able to explain the situation to the other councilors. I'm afraid that in most all councils, they are not educated, aware, or understand the reasons against exclusivity. I think all the wisps in wispa and else where, ought to go to their city council, address the council at one of the regular meetings. At the beginning of the meetings generally there is a time for public comments that you can talk to the council about stuff not on the agenda and tell them what you have to say. I'm not saying that you all should go and complain, but rather go and introduce yourself and tell them who you are what you do and the service you provide, amount of employees that you have and a maybe even general idea of how much you gross and put back into the local economy. I've had to go in front of the council a couple of times, and it's usually an easy and positive thing. If they like what you are saying or even if just one of them likes what they are hearing, they will engage you into even more conversation where you can pump your wisp even more! It's really up to us, the small operator to take the bull by the horns and make some hay. Otherwise, the consultants are going to come in and sell them on someone else. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives
Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
Brad, There is a BIG difference. On tower agreements we do it with non-interference clauses,or we buy up all the finite resources (in some cases spectrum). Could you image what would happen if we went to a tower owner and requested to be the ONLY provider to rent space on the tower? It would never happen. Do you think I like the fact that Clearwire is comming to town and overlaying a network on top of mine, possibly some of the same towers? Why must I have competition and not the governement? Its a double standard. I didn't have the right to buy exclusivity. I bought exclusive rights to use spectrum ranges that I use, but thats a different animal, and that does not stop copetition, that just help minimize my interference. The way the Munis are writing it, is exclusive provider. Even if I went out and won an auction on licensed spectrum and could guarantee that I wouldn't interfere with the other unlicenced WISP, I would not be allowed to buy the easement to the poles. Plus it does not matter what is best for unlicensed. unlicensed radio gear needs does not override what is right from the perspective of the constitution, and the American way of Free competition. Does the Muni network really need, 900, 2.4, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, to pull off its free public network? I think not. The intent is not to prevent interference, the intent is to give exclusive provider. Someone buying the right to access the public, and therefore consumers losing choice. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Tom, I don't think asking to be exclusive on light poles is a bad thing. It's usually done in exchange for public safety or public workers riding the network for free. Like I said in a previous post, I just can't see multiple vendors stacking wifi mesh solutions on every other light pole. Who will invest if that's the case? Again, I'm still on the fence with these Muni wified mesh networks and their viability. Time will tell. How many of you have exclusive rooftop or tower rights? The same can be said about light poles when Earthlink or another service provider is deploying and sometimes paying to be there. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum. But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City agreements to be exclusive. In Montgomery County MD, the City promised free access to all County Governement structures, to third party providers, in exchange for restrictions of new tower building. Changing it to exclusive after teh fact would be deceptive and in contrast to previous law. They would need to remove the ban on tower building and reduce the $17,000 Special Exception fee, if they changed directions and attempted exclusivity. There are FCC laws that protect unlicensed spectrum for public use, and protect entities from breaking competition and exclsuively supporting one ISP over another ISP. In the public sector MTU world, property owners are not supposed to give one ISP preferencial terms over another preventing consumers access to telecommunications. EXCLUSIVITY is a dirty word for any colocation agreement. For Governments to ignore their own rulings, and lead the way to give exclusivity is just wrong. Instead they should be allocating spectrum for city's use, for their exclusive projects. The Bells complained about governments helping fund third parties giving them an upper hand above the monopoly telecoms that have invested in the existing networks. Giving exclusivity is even worse. Its not giving an advantage (financially) its preventing the others from playing at all! People forget that City assets, ultimately belong to the people who pay the taxes. Its not the same thing as Private property owners of MTU buildings who should ahve fewer restrictions than public property. We need to remember we are not a dictatorship governement. I am NOT agaisnt Muni networks anymore. But I am definately against exclusivity. If teh city want to give an easement and public marketing support in exchange for investment from a third party, so be it. But they do not have the ethical right to deny those asements from additional third parties who are willing to invest. These proposals of exclusivity are being initiated because they are administered from clueless polititions who have zero experience in FCC and the Internet world. It is my opinion that the WORST thing
RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
. In other markets the building, not Clearwire that houses their transmitters has been sued. I think Yakima County may have seen they were opening a Pandora’s Box of potential legal issues by partnering with them. I would also like to think they were showing some loyalty to local business as well. Any partnership with Clearwire will immediately open the city to criticism of disloyalty to local businesses plus the potential of legal issues if you house their gear. My VERY partial advice, stay clear of Clearwire, if you need a Wireless partner to deploy downtown or anywhere just share some block grant or loan funds with us and we will deploy and maintain it ALL with local people making local wages and shopping here. We were the first local Internet Company in Yakima; my company has spent more money on “Buy Local” ads then most other merchants in Yakima. I support when you welcome a national company that offers something we don’t have here but you would be welcoming a company that directly takes dollars out of your pockets. Clearwire just like AOL contribute not one cent back to the community, its population or its merchants, which is the whole point, isn’t it? Thank you for your valuable time, Forbes Mercy President - Northwest Info Net, Inc. (www.nwinfo.net) President - Washington Broadband, Inc. (www.wabroadband.com) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 509-853-0852 fax: 509-853-0856 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Brad, There is a BIG difference. On tower agreements we do it with non-interference clauses,or we buy up all the finite resources (in some cases spectrum). Could you image what would happen if we went to a tower owner and requested to be the ONLY provider to rent space on the tower? It would never happen. Do you think I like the fact that Clearwire is comming to town and overlaying a network on top of mine, possibly some of the same towers? Why must I have competition and not the governement? Its a double standard. I didn't have the right to buy exclusivity. I bought exclusive rights to use spectrum ranges that I use, but thats a different animal, and that does not stop copetition, that just help minimize my interference. The way the Munis are writing it, is exclusive provider. Even if I went out and won an auction on licensed spectrum and could guarantee that I wouldn't interfere with the other unlicenced WISP, I would not be allowed to buy the easement to the poles. Plus it does not matter what is best for unlicensed. unlicensed radio gear needs does not override what is right from the perspective of the constitution, and the American way of Free competition. Does the Muni network really need, 900, 2.4, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, to pull off its free public network? I think not. The intent is not to prevent interference, the intent is to give exclusive provider. Someone buying the right to access the public, and therefore consumers losing choice. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Tom, I don't think asking to be exclusive on light poles is a bad thing. It's usually done in exchange for public safety or public workers riding the network for free. Like I said in a previous post, I just can't see multiple vendors stacking wifi mesh solutions on every other light pole. Who will invest if that's the case? Again, I'm still on the fence with these Muni wified mesh networks and their viability. Time will tell. How many of you have exclusive rooftop or tower rights? The same can be said about light poles when Earthlink or another service provider is deploying and sometimes paying to be there. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum. But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City agreements to be exclusive. In Montgomery County MD, the City promised free access to all County Governement structures, to third party providers, in exchange for restrictions of new tower building. Changing it to exclusive after teh fact would be deceptive and in contrast to previous law. They would need to remove the ban on tower building and reduce the $17,000 Special Exception fee, if they changed directions and attempted exclusivity. There are FCC laws
RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
Forbes, My apologies if you find this offensive and my honesty may not win me any fans here, but your advice includes some dishonest assertions and your letter to your city council is, in my view, libelous regarding Clearwire, threatening to your officials, and absolutely asserts false information (you have zero frequency rights as a first-in operator) and you have less than zero rights to be protected from any users operating in their lawfully owned or leased licensed spectrum such as the WCS 2.3 GHz bands or 2.5ish GHz BRS/EBS bands. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Hey try this, tell the tower owner that anything from 2.3 to 2.6GHZ can cause interference and point out that there is very few people there, then he isn't giving you exclusive so he doesn't jack up the rent and you just kept Clearwire out. Oh and one other thing I have studied Clearwire pretty closely and there is some steps you should take before they come. 1) contact all computer stores and set up resell agreements, tell them it's exclusive ONLY to wireless which there are hardly any in your town, that keeps Clearwire out. It's worth giving a computer store $50 for a new customer to keep Clearwire out of their place. 2) Contact the tall building owners in town and tell them that this new company Clearwire is a company in debt to the tune of a billion dollars and they will likely try to rent space from them. Tell them that if they cause interference on your network you can sue them, the building owner as well as the offending network for that interference. Both those points will normally cause them to say no thanks when Clearwire comes calling. 3) Lastly take away their support, if they are coming to your town they have already contacted the city and county officials and tried to arrange for partnerships and attendance at some huge kick off party. You need to remind officials that this is a redundant service that takes money straight from their revenue stream. Clearwire will try to get resolutions passed supporting them, they are smooth. Just for your benefit (in other words don't pass it on to Clearwire) here is the letter we sent to our civic leaders, the media and the area organizations: Dear Council Members and Media, A new wireless Internet company is coming to Yakima. They are Clearwire, an attempt by ATT Wireless inventor Craig McCaw to make a National wireless network to compete with cell phones. The difference between this business venture and the former ATT Wireless is that Clearwire is supposed to lose money for a tax write-off and then they sell it. It's not the sale price they care about, it's the tax write-off now, they are nearly one billion in debt in a very short time. The billionaires who start these businesses need huge write-offs for the huge profits they make in other businesses. They get other investors to buy in, and then spend all of their money in hopes of 'stealing' enough of competitors business by under-pricing their product. Then they can raise prices after they have local competition gone and you hooked. Sound familiar, yes meet Charter Cable, 18 billion (with a B) in debt they just had to sell two more billion just to make payments, it's Paul Allen's write-off and a good one for his Microsoft stock that keeps paying huge profits. Charter's stock was around $30 at the IPO but was as low as a dollar last year. Both Charter and Qwest (-$22 billion) are good stocks now because they are prime to sell. Clearwire went into the Tri-Cities last year; they rented a huge barge on the Columbia, and loaded it with fireworks, had all the government officials and media they could find attend then gave quite a show at a cost of about $250,000. Incidentally that would be my cost for seamless Internet Downtown. A flashy and expensive party, the problem was that there were already three high-speed locally owned Wireless Internet Companies in town. Essentially what city officials were saying was we don't like local companies but when a big new flashy national company comes to town we're there. Nearly as insulting as what happened in New Orleans when a Local Wireless Provider worked nearly 24 hours a day after Katrina putting up free kiosks for people to call home (the pictures you saw on the news were from his equipment). The Mayor was so impressed with the capabilities that he immediately spent millions to build a city wide Wireless network promptly taking nearly all of the Wireless ISP's customers, there's gratitude. Please try to remember that when Earthlink or Google try to pitch
Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
What is Alvarion going to do, when Earthlink wins all the Muni jobs selecting Motorola gear? I believe the WISPs with Clue, (the ones selecting Alvarion :-) should have the opportunity to also try and get a peice of the pie. The there can only be one is best left for Science Fiction Movies. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:37 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal They get exclusive rights to light poles for a mesh deployment. I'm not at all advocating these projects but at the same time I just can't see several mesh muni projects per city being successful. I agree that there are way too many consultants jumping into the game. I heard about a consultant today saying that 900 Mhz can go thru 6 miles of trees and do voip for more than 25 calls per sector. I won't name the vendor but I've heard the same from their reps. I thought maybe our industry would start to mature a little more in 2006 but I guess it's still a waiting game. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:19 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Tom DeReggi wrote: They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum. But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City agreements to be exclusive. EXACTLY, this has been the problem all along. Whats going to happen when Earthlink gets exclusivity in any of these cities or towns we are in. Is the city now going to stop us from operating in their area? Of course they are. Nice thing about this city council, is that one of the councilors was a wisp. Not sure if he's non profit or what, but he understands and he was able to explain the situation to the other councilors. I'm afraid that in most all councils, they are not educated, aware, or understand the reasons against exclusivity. I think all the wisps in wispa and else where, ought to go to their city council, address the council at one of the regular meetings. At the beginning of the meetings generally there is a time for public comments that you can talk to the council about stuff not on the agenda and tell them what you have to say. I'm not saying that you all should go and complain, but rather go and introduce yourself and tell them who you are what you do and the service you provide, amount of employees that you have and a maybe even general idea of how much you gross and put back into the local economy. I've had to go in front of the council a couple of times, and it's usually an easy and positive thing. If they like what you are saying or even if just one of them likes what they are hearing, they will engage you into even more conversation where you can pump your wisp even more! It's really up to us, the small operator to take the bull by the horns and make some hay. Otherwise, the consultants are going to come in and sell them on someone else. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal
I have to agree. If one just absolutely feels the need to gripe about their competition, one must be honest, and be able to back up what they say. Many however, will not buy from someone who badmouths their competition - no matter whether true or not. Whatever happened to just being better than the competition? And exclusive rights? I figure that will end up in court, just as Cable TV and Telephone did. - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:20 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Forbes, My apologies if you find this offensive and my honesty may not win me any fans here, but your advice includes some dishonest assertions and your letter to your city council is, in my view, libelous regarding Clearwire, threatening to your officials, and absolutely asserts false information (you have zero frequency rights as a first-in operator) and you have less than zero rights to be protected from any users operating in their lawfully owned or leased licensed spectrum such as the WCS 2.3 GHz bands or 2.5ish GHz BRS/EBS bands. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
