Re: [WISPA] County
I know we checked into 4.9 use by a WISP, where a WISP told the local authorities he already had 4.9 online, all he had to do was flip a switch and they could share it. The FCC laughed, and said only till they got caught, and they were sure that I would start the complaint ball rolling.; Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] County > Welcome to politics... I would bet they have some sweetheart deal with the > Sheriff's Office, probably buddies with the Sheriff himself. I wouldn't > doubt if they started reselling bandwidth on 4.9ghz PTMP. > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] County
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: >In a contract, there is offer, acceptance, consideration and >performance. Consideration doesn't have to be monetary. If the >Sheriff paid $1000/month for transport and charged $1000/month for >rent, it wouldn't change anything. Each side is getting something >of value. Transport, rent, dollars, it is all consideration. We've done this with some of the networks that were built for the mobility solutions I've deployed. The local ISP is handling the maintenance of the network for a $1500 or so monthly fee and they are paying a $1500/month access fee for the use of the network. The city/county governments will allow other ISPs on the network for the same $1500/month access fee given the same limitations the existing ISP lives with. Others have set the mantenance/rental so high it will NEVER make it feasible for other ISPs to rent access. Maybe not a "fair" business practice, but it is a smart one. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] County
In a contract, there is offer, acceptance, consideration and performance. Consideration doesn't have to be monetary. If the Sheriff paid $1000/month for transport and charged $1000/month for rent, it wouldn't change anything. Each side is getting something of value. Transport, rent, dollars, it is all consideration. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] County Yes, but he is on their tower for free in exchange for transporting traffic. Travis Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: We pay rent to one county to be in their building and on their tower. The sheriff's office might be on some paperwork somewhere. Not unheard of. - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:29 PM Subject: [WISPA] County Hi, I discovered today that one of my competitors that has setup several (6+) new licensed links (using 11ghz, 18ghz and 23ghz) in the last year is using the local Sheriff's office as the contact and registered owner in the FCC database. I'm sure the Sheriff's office is using the links for their public safety service (because that's how they are registered on the FCC site), but I also know this competitor has setup at least one link that is not in an area where the Sheriff's office would need any type of service (and therefore is only using it for their own traffic). First, I assume this is legal because the Sheriff's office is probably paying for all this equipment. However, because they are a "public" office, I assume that anyone that wanted to use that transport should be allowed, since they are allowing this other provider that is installing them? Also, I would assume this would hold true for several towers (owned by the same county) that this competitor is on for free. If they allowed this person on the towers (in exchange for moving traffic), I would think they would have to allow me on as well? Thoughts? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] County
Yes, but he is on their tower for free in exchange for transporting traffic. Travis Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: We pay rent to one county to be in their building and on their tower. The sheriff's office might be on some paperwork somewhere. Not unheard of. - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:29 PM Subject: [WISPA] County Hi, I discovered today that one of my competitors that has setup several (6+) new licensed links (using 11ghz, 18ghz and 23ghz) in the last year is using the local Sheriff's office as the contact and registered owner in the FCC database. I'm sure the Sheriff's office is using the links for their public safety service (because that's how they are registered on the FCC site), but I also know this competitor has setup at least one link that is not in an area where the Sheriff's office would need any type of service (and therefore is only using it for their own traffic). First, I assume this is legal because the Sheriff's office is probably paying for all this equipment. However, because they are a "public" office, I assume that anyone that wanted to use that transport should be allowed, since they are allowing this other provider that is installing them? Also, I would assume this would hold true for several towers (owned by the same county) that this competitor is on for free. If they allowed this person on the towers (in exchange for moving traffic), I would think they would have to allow me on as well? Thoughts? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] County
Welcome to politics... I would bet they have some sweetheart deal with the Sheriff's Office, probably buddies with the Sheriff himself. I wouldn't doubt if they started reselling bandwidth on 4.9ghz PTMP. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] County Hi, I discovered today that one of my competitors that has setup several (6+) new licensed links (using 11ghz, 18ghz and 23ghz) in the last year is using the local Sheriff's office as the contact and registered owner in the FCC database. I'm sure the Sheriff's office is using the links for their public safety service (because that's how they are registered on the FCC site), but I also know this competitor has setup at least one link that is not in an area where the Sheriff's office would need any type of service (and therefore is only using it for their own traffic). First, I assume this is legal because the Sheriff's office is probably paying for all this equipment. However, because they are a "public" office, I assume that anyone that wanted to use that transport should be allowed, since they are allowing this other provider that is installing them? Also, I would assume this would hold true for several towers (owned by the same county) that this competitor is on for free. If they allowed this person on the towers (in exchange for moving traffic), I would think they would have to allow me on as well? Thoughts? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] County
We pay rent to one county to be in their building and on their tower. The sheriff's office might be on some paperwork somewhere. Not unheard of. - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:29 PM Subject: [WISPA] County > Hi, > > I discovered today that one of my competitors that has setup several > (6+) new licensed links (using 11ghz, 18ghz and 23ghz) in the last year > is using the local Sheriff's office as the contact and registered owner > in the FCC database. > > I'm sure the Sheriff's office is using the links for their public safety > service (because that's how they are registered on the FCC site), but I > also know this competitor has setup at least one link that is not in an > area where the Sheriff's office would need any type of service (and > therefore is only using it for their own traffic). > > First, I assume this is legal because the Sheriff's office is probably > paying for all this equipment. However, because they are a "public" > office, I assume that anyone that wanted to use that transport should be > allowed, since they are allowing this other provider that is installing > them? > > Also, I would assume this would hold true for several towers (owned by > the same county) that this competitor is on for free. If they allowed > this person on the towers (in exchange for moving traffic), I would > think they would have to allow me on as well? > > Thoughts? > > Travis > Microserv > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection
I got to agree with you Marty... These cell towers are going to accomplish nothing but allow high powered cell phones to come to town, and likely more of a threat than a help. They are designed for cell phone equipment, the only ones able to afford the rent, and likely using broadband as a means to justify what they really want. The Loudon hill sides are rolling, and I'd think the answer lies in using the hills, not the towers. But whether towers should be allowed or not, for what ever reason, thats a whole nother topic. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Marty Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:04 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection Just to clarify this comment- "Instead, what may happen is that "cell phones will become our competitors; they usually don't deploy on anything less than high tower." I was not quoted exactly correct. My concern is that the cell phone focused towers would compete with towers that would actually help broadband providers like Roadstarafter all, how many towers will they allow? Marty -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:19 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection By Therese Howe (Created: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:08 AM EST) | Text Size | print | e-mail | comment (0) Focus on the county's broadband debate has shifted westward, where residents will be asked to answer the question of whether they're willing to trade their views for high-speed Internet service. Almost a year after supervisors scrapped a proposal to build a $320 million fiber-optic network that would serve the entire county, the county is now reframing the broadband access debate to focus on wireless as the potential answer to increase the availability of high-speed Internet service, particularly in the west. Anyone with a stake in the issue-from residents who have been unable to get broadband to companies offering to build towers from which wireless service could be provided, to the county's current wireless providers-is invited to provide input Jan. 23 when the board of supervisors' Economic Development Committee is scheduled to take up the topic. At that meeting, county Broadband Services Manager Scott Bashore will provide a recap of the county's broadband efforts, leading up to why "wireless makes the most sense for western Loudoun," said Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run), who chairs the committee. The county has set a goal of expanding broadband availability in the county to 90 percent from its current 86 percent, according to Bashore, who adds that the service is primarily offered in the east, where the majority of the county's population resides. Bashore also is working on updating the county's Strategic Land Use Plan for Telecommunications Facilities, which was last changed in 2002. "The original intent was for it to be good for about five years, so we're on track with updating it," Bashore said, adding that in the past four years, the market has changed with new towers being built and fewer national telecommunications carriers offering service. Part of the impetus behind the county's efforts has been the upswing in the number of applications for towers and monopoles to provide cellular and high-speed Internet services. "I thought it was important to get ahead of the game before dealing with these applications for individual monopoles. We need to take a look at the big picture ... and know where it fits in the plan rather than piecemeal," Waters said. Among the proposals are two submitted by Community Wireless Structures, a Falls Church company that builds 100- to 200-foot structures from which carriers such as Verizon and Cingular can provide cellular and wireless Internet service. One proposal, for a 120-foot pole south of Leesburg in Virts Corner, was forwarded on Tuesday to the board of supervisors' Feb. 6 meeting for action. Supervisors hope to see the company accede to residents' requests for a pole disguised as a tree rather than the company's proposed graduated paint monopole. The second proposal was filed Dec. 29 and is more expansive, calling for six sites in northwestern Loudoun that have one or two poles of 100 or 150 feet high. The company has leased locations at White's Ferry, Taylorstown, Round Hill, on Mountain Road on the east side of Short Hill Mountain, at the intersection of Rts. 9 and 287, and on the east side of Rt. 287 near Lovettsville. "We know whenever solutions are proposed, they encounter local
RE: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection
Another angle- http://www.loudountimesmirror.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=17690001&BRD=2553 &PAG=461&dept_id=506035&rfi=6 Six 140-foot monopoles have been proposed in northwestern Loudoun County to increase wireless Internet and cellular access in rural Loudoun. Low population density in the west fails to entice traditional cable and DSL providers, leaving many residents without hi-speed Internet service and with spotty cell service. The company that filed the application with the county, Falls Church-based Community Wireless Structures, wants to build the monopoles to co-locate various wireless companies' antennas - lowering providers' initial investment and bringing wider coverage and more options for residents. But even CWS officials admit that getting rural Loudounites to support six 140-foot poles will take a special effort. Connecting in Loudoun Broadband technology, loosely defined, is an Internet connection that processes data at 200 kilobyte/sec and faster. Fiber-optic cable is the fastest way to receive broadband now. Final approval of the structures rests with the Board of Supervisors, and two public hearings must be held - in front of the Planning Commission as well as the board. The dates have not been set, but CWS hopes for mid-year hearings. In anticipation of opposition, the company has launched a Web site with maps of the proposed sites and detailed information on the benefits of wireless. "I don't want to seem too glib or cavalier, but people fight and fight [monopoles] and after they're built, people stop seeing them," said Bob Gordon, CWS's attorney and an investor in the company. The current Board of Supervisors has made it a priority to expand broadband coverage in order to attract businesses, promote teleworking and improve emergency communications. Scott Bashore, the newly hired head of Loudoun County's Broadband Services department, has determined that wireless Internet remains the most feasible way to expand broadband in the county's west. The debate now focuses on the delivery mode: a network of a few tall towers - 140 feet - or many small towers - 60 to 70 feet, some of which could be installed on existing structures, such as water towers and flagpoles. Several companies, such as Loudoun Wireless and Roadstar, have been providing wireless Internet service in western Loudoun for several years. Marty Dougherty, founder and CEO of Roadstar, said his Leesburg-based company already provides 2,000 homes in western Loudoun with wireless broadband service. He said he has been consistently left out of the current debate on county policy. "We are being ignored, and I think the reason is -- the answers are not easy and [county officials] want easy answers," Dougherty said. He said there's no silver-bullet solution. Because of Loudoun's hills and dense tree cover, he said, even the taller towers won't be able to deliver wireless Internet to all residents. "There is no way that radio waves can travel through the earth. Even the Board of Supervisors can't change that," Dougherty said. He supports a network of many different providers, with shorter poles to customize wireless delivery to each western community. Gordon disagrees. He said fewer taller towers would minimize the visual impact and offer wider coverage to lure bigger providers to invest. He also added that short towers aren't easy to get approved. "Western Loudoun is littered with the graves of applications for short towers." For details on the location of Community Wireless Structures' six proposed monopoles, go to www.getLoudounonline.com . Contact the reporter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTimes Community Newspapers 2007 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:19 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection By Therese Howe (Created: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:08 AM EST) | Text Size | print | e-mail | comment (0) Focus on the county's broadband debate has shifted westward, where residents will be asked to answer the question of whether they're willing to trade their views for high-speed Internet service. Almost a year after supervisors scrapped a proposal to build a $320 million fiber-optic network that would serve the entire county, the county is now reframing the broadband access debate to focus on wireless as the potential answer to increase the availability of high-speed Internet service, particularly in the west. Anyone with a stake in the issue-from residents who have been unable to get broadband to companies offering to build towers from which wireless service could be provided, to the county's current wireless providers-is invited to provide input Jan. 23 when the board of supervisors' Economic Development Committee is scheduled to take up the topic. At that meeting, county Broadband Services M
RE: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection
Just to clarify this comment- "Instead, what may happen is that "cell phones will become our competitors; they usually don't deploy on anything less than high tower." I was not quoted exactly correct. My concern is that the cell phone focused towers would compete with towers that would actually help broadband providers like Roadstarafter all, how many towers will they allow? Marty -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:19 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection By Therese Howe (Created: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:08 AM EST) | Text Size | print | e-mail | comment (0) Focus on the county's broadband debate has shifted westward, where residents will be asked to answer the question of whether they're willing to trade their views for high-speed Internet service. Almost a year after supervisors scrapped a proposal to build a $320 million fiber-optic network that would serve the entire county, the county is now reframing the broadband access debate to focus on wireless as the potential answer to increase the availability of high-speed Internet service, particularly in the west. Anyone with a stake in the issue-from residents who have been unable to get broadband to companies offering to build towers from which wireless service could be provided, to the county's current wireless providers-is invited to provide input Jan. 23 when the board of supervisors' Economic Development Committee is scheduled to take up the topic. At that meeting, county Broadband Services Manager Scott Bashore will provide a recap of the county's broadband efforts, leading up to why "wireless makes the most sense for western Loudoun," said Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run), who chairs the committee. The county has set a goal of expanding broadband availability in the county to 90 percent from its current 86 percent, according to Bashore, who adds that the service is primarily offered in the east, where the majority of the county's population resides. Bashore also is working on updating the county's Strategic Land Use Plan for Telecommunications Facilities, which was last changed in 2002. "The original intent was for it to be good for about five years, so we're on track with updating it," Bashore said, adding that in the past four years, the market has changed with new towers being built and fewer national telecommunications carriers offering service. Part of the impetus behind the county's efforts has been the upswing in the number of applications for towers and monopoles to provide cellular and high-speed Internet services. "I thought it was important to get ahead of the game before dealing with these applications for individual monopoles. We need to take a look at the big picture ... and know where it fits in the plan rather than piecemeal," Waters said. Among the proposals are two submitted by Community Wireless Structures, a Falls Church company that builds 100- to 200-foot structures from which carriers such as Verizon and Cingular can provide cellular and wireless Internet service. One proposal, for a 120-foot pole south of Leesburg in Virts Corner, was forwarded on Tuesday to the board of supervisors' Feb. 6 meeting for action. Supervisors hope to see the company accede to residents' requests for a pole disguised as a tree rather than the company's proposed graduated paint monopole. The second proposal was filed Dec. 29 and is more expansive, calling for six sites in northwestern Loudoun that have one or two poles of 100 or 150 feet high. The company has leased locations at White's Ferry, Taylorstown, Round Hill, on Mountain Road on the east side of Short Hill Mountain, at the intersection of Rts. 9 and 287, and on the east side of Rt. 287 near Lovettsville. "We know whenever solutions are proposed, they encounter local opposition," said Bob Gordon, an attorney who is a partner in the company, adding that the concern "all boils down to visual impact." To provide information to the public and increase public awareness of the project, the company has created a Web site, www.getloudounonline.org, that solicits input from residents and offers information on upcoming public hearings. The company expects the first to occur in the spring before the county's planning commission, then in the summer before the board of supervisors. "We want to hear from people who are still on dial-up and tired of it or are very frustrated because when they're driving, the cell phone blinks out," Gordon said. "We feel there's a silent majority, but do they care enough to get to the public hearings?" As the county gears up to handle the monopole applications and prepares to address the broader question of expanding broadband availability, current wireless providers such as Marty D
