Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

2005-10-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
Depends on the value of the roof top.  Basically if they are asking for 
this, it is because in the past, 90% of their tenants never paid their roof 
rent because of bankruptcies and such. They just want to be certain that 
they can count on you succeeding, so they get paid.  By giving them a 
business plan, it shows that you have thought about how you will succeed, 
and are aware how much sales you need to make to pay the roof fees. 
However, if they ask for it, they should also not have a problem signing a 
non-compete or non-disclosure relating to your business plan.  Be certain 
this is the reason, before you give them business plans.  Otherwise, they 
could use the business plan against you to justify demanding a larger rent. 
Another way to handle the problem, is to say your business plan is none of 
their business, and confidential information, however you understand their 
concern, and instead you are willing to mkae provisions to protect that the 
Landlord gets paid.  For example, you could give them a deposit, or pre-pay 
the lease for the first 6 months, or something like that.


When you go to lease an apartment or office space, they don't have a right 
to see your business plan or financials. However, they do have the right to 
confirm your ability to pay the rent.  A roof top leasor is no different. 
Their space has value, and they do not want to chew up time and legal hours 
righting contracts for short term relationships. Nor do they want to give 
their tenants recommendations to a provider that will fail in 6 months. 
There is an implied indorsement the second the landlord allows you on his 
roof.


Personally, I would not give them a business plan, but it is you 
responsibilty to prove your ability to be a good tenant, and you need to 
find a way to do that, if the roof space you are applying for is of value to 
you.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Dan Metcalf [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:10 PM
Subject: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?


Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop 
provider,
they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial 
statement

before going forward ---

Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't

Thanks

Dan



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf

Of Tony Weasler
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3

On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created:
 To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated
 between L3 and Cogent.

 I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that.

Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated:

Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as
permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both
Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously
existing interconnection agreement.
http://status.cogentco.com/

 There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is
 blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent
 pays $$ for.)

 There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday.
 To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone.
 When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer
 labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to
 Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the
 traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our
 network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send 
 the

 data, once we enter Cogent's network.  Unless you are referring that
 Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is
 highly unlikely.  If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's
 link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction
 across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's
 network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to 
 Verio,

 it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's
 network from us as their client.

This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side.  It could be because
Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of
them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.)  It could be because
Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from
reaching them over their Verio transit circuits.  One of the two
scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3.  I didn't
see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174.  I
saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018.  Does
that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't
reaching L3 for other reasons?  The former is probably correct, but
that's not something that can be easily demonstrated.  I 

Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

2005-10-06 Thread A. Huppenthal




if need be, post a bond.


Aubrey Wells wrote:

  How is it none of their business? The business plan is none of their
business, but the financials certainly are. Just like any other lease
agreement you enter in to (car, house, apartment, whatever) they want to
make sure you can pay up before they give you the lease.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Rick Smith
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?


None of their business.   We had a request like this, and claimed that
it was unfair business practice, and the landlord dropped their request
for such information.
Probably ended up costing us that extra $100 / month but our financial
statements are no one's business. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Dan Metcalf
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:11 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop
provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and
financial statement before going forward ---

Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't

Thanks

Dan


  
  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Tony Weasler
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3

On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created:


  
To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated 
between L3 and Cogent.

  
  I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that.
  

Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated:

"Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as 
permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both 
Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously 
existing interconnection agreement."
http://status.cogentco.com/



  
There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent 
traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.)

  
  There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday.
To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone.
When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer 
labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to 
Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the 
traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our 
network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send
  

  
  
  
  

  the data, once we enter Cogent's network.  Unless you are referring 
that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which
  

  
  
  
  

  is highly unlikely.  If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through 
Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that 
direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further 
into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked
  

  
  
  
  

  traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at 
the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client.
  

This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side.  It could be because 
Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of 
them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.)  It could be because 
Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from 
reaching them over their Verio transit circuits.  One of the two 
scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3.  I didn't

  
  
  
  
see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174.  I 
saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018.  Does

  
  
  
  
that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't 
reaching L3 for other reasons?  The former is probably correct, but 
that's not something that can be easily demonstrated.  I couldn't find

  
  
  
  
a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables 
from the inside.  Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link

  
  
  
  
to other peers, however.  I see direct announcements for AS174 and an 
announcement for Sprint-Verio-Cogent, but not an ATT-Cogent path.

I think that both carriers are at fault.  Both companies should have 
resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their 
customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers.  I

  
  
  
  
replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public 
statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people 
on the list should have a more complete story [1].  You could be 
entirely correct about there having been a contract violation.  I am 

RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

2005-10-06 Thread JohnnyO
Hey Matt - give me a call tomorrow morning please - 1-800-774-0320

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?


We have certainly had landlords question us financially, but none have 
ever asked for a business plan.

-Matt

Dan Metcalf wrote:

Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop 
provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and 
financial statement before going forward ---

Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't

Thanks

Dan


  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Tony Weasler
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3

On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created:


To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated 
between L3 and Cogent.


I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that.
  

Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated:

Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as 
permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both 
Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously 
existing interconnection agreement. http://status.cogentco.com/



There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is
blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent

pays $$ for.)


There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make 
more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, 
the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to 
verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the 
actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for

that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it 
does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we 
enter Cogent's network.  Unless you are referring that Cogent is 
blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly 
unlikely.  If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link,

we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across

Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's 
network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to 
Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to

Cogent's network from us as their client.
  

This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side.  It could be because 
Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of 
them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.)  It could be because 
Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from 
reaching them over their Verio transit circuits.  One of the two 
scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3.  I didn't

see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174.  I 
saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018.  Does

that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't 
reaching L3 for other reasons?  The former is probably correct, but 
that's not something that can be easily demonstrated.  I couldn't find

a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables 
from the inside.  Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link

to other peers, however.  I see direct announcements for AS174 and an 
announcement for Sprint-Verio-Cogent, but not an ATT-Cogent path.

I think that both carriers are at fault.  Both companies should have 
resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their 
customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers.  I

replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public 
statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people 
on the list should have a more complete story [1].  You could be 
entirely correct about there having been a contract violation.  I am 
confident that a considerable amount of money will be wasted trying to

determine that.

I fear that because of the the popularity of this issue it will reach 
the ears of the less clueful xEOs at carrier organizations and that 
the current SFI structure could be at risk of being 're-evaluated' in 
favor of paid interconnection.  Most of the scenarios that I can think

of involving compensation for interconnection lead to higher wholesale

prices of bandwidth and additional overall system complexity.




It appears that Cogent is unwilling to use this route because it 
would force them to pay (Verio) per Mb/s for the information sent 
to/from L3's network.  The de-peering was consistent with the 
peering agreement between L3 and Cogent according to 
http://status.cogentco.com/


It stated that, but it is not in actuallity.
  

So why would Cogent lie about

RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

2005-10-06 Thread C. Moses
NDA or not.NO WAY to the biz plan would be my vote

Chuck Moses
High Desert Wireless Broadband Communication
16922 Airport Blvd # 3
Mojave CA 93501
661 824 3431  office
818 406 6818  cell

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dan Metcalf
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:22 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?

Did you do an NDA? What type of financial documents did provide?

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
 Of Matt Liotta
 Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:16 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
 
 We have certainly had landlords question us financially, but none have
 ever asked for a business plan.
 
 -Matt
 
 Dan Metcalf wrote:
 
 Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop
 provider,
 they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial
 statement
 before going forward ---
 
 Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't
 
 Thanks
 
 Dan
 
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf
 Of Tony Weasler
 Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3
 
 On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created:
 
 
 To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated
 between L3 and Cogent.
 
 
 I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that.
 
 
 Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated:
 
 Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as
 permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both
 Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously
 existing interconnection agreement.
 http://status.cogentco.com/
 
 
 
 There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is
 blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent
 pays $$ for.)
 
 
 There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday.
 To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone.
 When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer
 labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to
 Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the
 traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our
 network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send
the
 data, once we enter Cogent's network.  Unless you are referring that
 Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is
 highly unlikely.  If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's
 link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction
 across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's
 network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to
Verio,
 it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's
 network from us as their client.
 
 
 This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side.  It could be because
 Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of
 them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.)  It could be because
 Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from
 reaching them over their Verio transit circuits.  One of the two
 scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3.  I didn't
 see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174.  I
 saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018.  Does
 that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't
 reaching L3 for other reasons?  The former is probably correct, but
 that's not something that can be easily demonstrated.  I couldn't find
 a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables
 from the inside.  Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link
 to other peers, however.  I see direct announcements for AS174 and an
 announcement for Sprint-Verio-Cogent, but not an ATT-Cogent path.
 
 I think that both carriers are at fault.  Both companies should have
 resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their
 customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers.  I
 replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public
 statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people
 on the list should have a more complete story [1].  You could be
 entirely correct about there having been a contract violation.  I am
 confident that a considerable amount of money will be wasted trying to
 determine that.
 
 I fear that because of the the popularity of this issue it will reach
 the ears of the less clueful xEOs at carrier organizations and that
 the current SFI structure could be at risk of being 're-evaluated' in
 favor of paid interconnection.  Most of the scenarios that I can think
 of involving compensation for interconnection lead to higher wholesale
 prices of bandwidth and additional