/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message -
From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:08 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
I don't think you would select 11GHz
, 2007 11:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
I TOTALLY disagree with that.
On two fronts.
First, what's wrong with a short licensed link? If that's what I want to
use that's up to me. Maybe I want to put a link that requires 100
Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:08 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller
of post I would have
expected from you in the first place.
Best,
Brad
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11
27, 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Marlon,
11GHz is intended for medium to long range links. That is why they require
a relatively larger antenna to keep the beam narrow to increase the freq
reuse ability. 6GHz requires a 6' minimum antenna
Hey Bob M.
Seeing your on list and talking about short PtP sots.
What do you think about FSO, Plaintree?
Have you installed much and do you like? I'm thinking that I might have
to go that way and figured you could advise.
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:10 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Anything related to 11Ghz, should be WISPs concern. It is my belief that
all serious unlicensed ISPs will at some point start
wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Dylan,
It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the
changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say.
I'm not sure this dish
]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Marlon,
With all due respect... We need solid engineering arguements if we're
going to present an official WISPA position to the FCC. If we submit
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Anything related to 11Ghz, should be WISPs concern. It is my belief that
all serious unlicensed ISPs will at some point start to migrate to Licensed
spectrums for backhauls. 11Ghz is one of the few upgrade options available
I think we should support that effort. On the condition that any devices
that it applies to use automatic transmit power control (ATP).
Thoughts?
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Dylan Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007
On 3/24/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should support that effort. On the condition that any devices
that it applies to use automatic transmit power control (ATP).
Thoughts?
Can you explain why you want to see ATPC in 11 GHz links with 4' dishes?
--
Dylan
Dylan,
It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the
changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say.
I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want
to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be
The statements by Adelstein (*http://tinyurl.com/2jyhdg) *and McDowell (*
http://tinyurl.com/2jg3sx) *make it clear that FiberTower's petition is to
allow 2' dishes. I'm unclear on minimum dish size, having heard 4' from
this list, including a post by Charles Wu. But I just found a 2005 press
Not familiar with 11 GHz, but what speeds and distances are available
with 11 GHz and is the license leasable in different areas?
Dylan Oliver wrote:
The statements by Adelstein (*http://tinyurl.com/2jyhdg) *and McDowell (*
http://tinyurl.com/2jg3sx) *make it clear that FiberTower's petition
Thank you Jack. You said it better than I could have.
:-)
Scriv
Jack Unger wrote:
Dylan,
It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the
changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say.
I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 2:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Not familiar with 11 GHz, but what speeds and distances are available
General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
On 3/24/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should support that effort. On the condition that any devices
that it applies to use
General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Dylan,
It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the
changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say.
I'm
-
From: Dylan Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
On 3/24/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should support that effort
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
It was not just for freq reuse. It was also to encourage the use of
higher freq
first impression, is that the FCC's looking to set prices.
nondiscrimination pops up a lot... blegh!
You mean Al Gore didn't invent all this ? /faint/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:04
http://www.neca.org/wawatch/wwpdf/032207_3.pdf
Sounds like some users are complaining that thee p2p software does not
run as fast as it should. Could be devastating to some of us small
operators if we cannot throttle p2p services back somewhat. We are
still paying over 400$ per T1 circuit.
Prices are creeping up on T1 because ILEC's are unregualted on special
access circuits - the very copper T1 that runs the loop to your door.
ILEC's are unregulated on fiber and special access.
And in 2 markets QWest doesn't have to sell loops at all. If VZ gets its
petition this year, in 6
Good thing backhaul radios are getting cheap! grin
- Original Message -
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Launches Inquiry Into Broadband Market Practices
Prices are creeping up
Thanks Rick. That was painless.
Victoria Proffer
www.stlbroadband.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:34 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due Date Approaching
Also, please note. WISPA had a team at the FCC a year or two ago. That
team specifically met with the Form 477 team. Out of that meeting we now
have FAQ #8 in the instructions. That is SPECIFICALLY for the WISP market.
You only have to fill out a few lines on the form. It's really quite
He is talking about cellular broadband, not UL wireless.
Frank Muto wrote:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110-resp.FCC.020707.Chairman.resp%20to%20our%2013107%20ltr.pdf
See page seven, second to last paragraph;
The Commission is also considering an order that would classify
All,
I got the impression Martin did not have WISP's in mind when he made
this decision.
As quoted from the article;
He added it also would “establish a consistent regulatory framework
across broadband platforms.” This is the same rationale Martin has used
to support deregulation of DSL,
And you may be right and that is my point in drawing out this answer Martin
made to the committee. He also states the reclass would eliminate
unnecessary regulatory barriers and clarifications of such, though he does
not provide an example. And if his agenda for this reclass does only effect
Correct me if I am wrong. Wireless Broadband Internet has always been an
information service officiallyright?
Scriv
Frank Muto wrote:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110-resp.FCC.020707.Chairman.resp%20to%20our%2013107%20ltr.pdf
See page seven, second to last paragraph;
The
If there is a true distinction could you please point it out? I would
like to see where the line is drawn and what importance, if any, this
has to do with our industry?
Scriv
Peter R. wrote:
He is talking about cellular broadband, not UL wireless.
Frank Muto wrote:
I am sorry to look stupid here guys but I am missing the point. Please
spell it out for me like I am a pre-schooler. I am not grasping the
finer points being made. What is it about Martin's answer that will have
any effect on us or other licensed wireless broadband industries.
Thanks,
Scriv
Scriv,
The particular paragraph that I pointed out that this was timely because
of the 700MHz Auction. After reading the pdf file that Frank posted it
looks like Martin feels that there is enough UL spectrum in the 5Ghz
range to last WiFi providers far into the future. Martin did comment on
INLINE
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Scriv,
The particular paragraph that I pointed out that this was timely
because of the 700MHz Auction. After reading the pdf file that Frank
posted it looks like Martin feels that there is enough UL spectrum in
the 5Ghz range to last WiFi providers far into the
Harold Feld puts his spin it at http://www.wetmachine.com/item/722
Wireless Broadband As Information Service: Brand X Is Not Enough
Frank Muto
Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
- Original Message -
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scriv,
The
Brian Webster wrote:
http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070201/FREE/70201010/100
1/FREE
This applies to the licensed spectrum holders but could be interesting to
unlicensed as it might make life easier for carriers like Clearwire and
shape the field for competition. A topic
Just think of how much better all of those numbers would be if the other
2600+ wisps out there would fill out that danged 477!
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:19 PM
No...we can't fill that out. Why should we follow the law and allow
regulators to see we are actually filling the digital divide? It is far
better to give them ammo to ignore our efforts and build justification
for federally subsidized funding of rural broadband through telco and
cable. Why
, 2006 11:45 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC meeting with wisps
I had offered some time ago to help set up a WISPA sponsored and
maintained web mapping server. This server could be tied to a database and
have whatever security is desired to maintain data security. Actual
: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:45 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC meeting with wisps
I had offered some time ago to help set up a WISPA sponsored and
maintained web mapping server. This server could be tied to a database and
have whatever security is desired to maintain data
Marlon-
I'll be at the FTC hearings. Not sure yet if it will be idle curiosity or if
one of my clients will be paying me. If you want to discuss anything
beforehand, feel free to call. I'd like to get together for lunch or drinks
when you're in town. Did the Chileans ever get in contact?
Im interested. When are you planning to go?
Chris Cooper
Intelliwave
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:21 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Cc: Principal WISPA Member List
wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message -
From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC meeting with wisps
Im
)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message -
From: Forbes Mercy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC
PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC meeting with wisps
Marlon-
I'll be at the FTC hearings. Not sure yet if it will be idle curiosity or
if one of my clients will be paying me. If you want to discuss
- Original Message -
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Cc: Principal WISPA Member List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC meeting with wisps
How do we get the anti 477
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: Principal WISPA Member List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC meeting with wisps
Those are great points Forbes.
Let me hit on a couple of points. First, we'll be spending some time
training again. There are a lot of new people
Is there a FCC search where I can imput a freq range and get all the
licensees from a particular State ? Including the Regional and National
Licensees
that fall on that freq and state range ?
Yes and no
1. All the information is publically available
2. As much as we'd wish it to be, it's not
Here is the link Gino. I like the specialized searches on the right
best. You can enter as many or as few fields as you want. The data that
can be collected is excellent, and you can even map the results in color
(see the mapping link on top of the search result page.
Also, for spectrum like BRS
We have been advised that providers of internet services are not
required to file form 499. However, we were additionally advised that
providers of transport services are required to file form 499. We
provide transport services in addition to internet services and as such
file form 499. I
FCC Form 499a is the form for USF contributions.
The FCC has determined that Internet is an Information Service not a
telecom service and has thus unregulated all parts of it. (See Brand-X
case for a more detailed explanation).
Transport, Voice, and Inter-connected VoIP Providers must pay
Message -
From: Mark Del Bianco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Docket 06-74
Tom-
It would be a great idea. The comment period is
closed now, but it may be re-opened if ATT puts
another set
after the merger.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Mark Del Bianco
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Docket 06-74
Marlon-
I'm
146.146.12 (net
meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam-
Original Message - From: "Peter R." To:
"Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" Cc: "WISPA
General List" Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006
9:34 AMSubject: R
Tom DeReggi wrote:
As condition of merger, Why not require ATT and BS to offer
settlement-free peering, to all ISPs below a certain size,
without a minimum commit, or to a non-profit entity that allows
settlement-free peering? So that the merger helps small ISP continue
to gain access to the
Definately good news and a victory. But 2009? We know now wide scale rural
broadband expansion will be delayed a minimum of two years :-(, and that we
don't have to worry about our 900Mhz networks becoming obsolete before the
next two years :-).
Now we jsut have to wonder wether licensed
Um, can you save us some time and tell us what the issue is?
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)
The ATT-BellSouth Merger is docket # 06-74
If you have a suggestion for merger conditions, like, say, give up the
2.x spectrum, then you may want to add your comments today.
- Peter
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
Um, can you save us some time and tell us what the issue is?
Marlon
PROTECTED]
To: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Docket 06-74
The ATT-BellSouth Merger is docket # 06-74
If you have a suggestion for merger conditions, like, say, give up
y own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net
meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam- Original Message - From: "Peter R." To: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" Cc: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:34 AMSubject: Re: [WISPA] F
Congratulations Scriv, I know you will show us the way.-Original Message-From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:20 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC wireless auction raises almost $13.9 blnThe band is 2110 to 2120 MHz and 1710
Scriv, very good news and congrats. BTW, I'm still waiting for your update
on your BreezeAccess VL upgrade? Brad
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:35 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC wireless
)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA
: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:35 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC wireless auction raises almost $13.9 bln
We won an AWS license in our area!
:-)
Scriv
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
FCC wireless auction raises almost $13.9 bln
Last Update: 5:13 PM ET Sep 18, 2006
(Adds quote in third
Funny how the press post wrong info... out exp. License is for SJ Puerto
Rico, not for Sunnyvalley CA.
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
We need to file on this guys.
If anyone cares to help
Also, please send me your ideas so I can get something started.
Hopefully in the next week or two I'll be able to put together some initial
thoughts.
Marlon
(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
(408)
1. The Test-Bed could be used to effectuate many goals, including
testing dynamic spectrum access techniques, developing new technologies
for public safety,
and streamlining spectrum coordination processes between federal and
non-federal users.
We seek comment on these goals, as well as
Hi,
This really isn't that hard. Put a fully manageable switch in front of
your backbone router to the internet and mirror the port(s). Done.
We do this already to gather stats and find infected customers.
Travis
Microserv
Dylan Oliver wrote:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6067971.html
I haven't seen any of the technical specifications that this would
call for. Sure, easy enough to mirror a port.
Are the requirements just that? So that law enforcement can come plug
in and 'tap' your network? Or do they require access from anywhere so
that they can, at any instance get that
So how does this affect rural America?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:35 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] FCC/Verizon forbearence ruling
All,
Verizon successfully wins the forbearence
Chris,
As quoted from Michael Copps Statement;
Universal Service: By failing to act, the contribution base for
universal service could be put in jeopardy. Rural America relies on the
universal service fund to ensure they have telecommunications on a par
with the rest of the country. Without
The FCC's Martin is giving away the store and is allowing a complete
meltdown of the TA 96 Act. By far, this does not enhance competition as
mandated by Sec 10 of the TA 96 Act. I'll agree completely with this
statement below:
The chairman's action yesterday represents the height of
Mac,
You always seem to get right, Mac. Good to hear. And I agree with your approach, ya'll.-Original Message-From: Mac Dearman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2006 06:40 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC meeting in Jackson, MS Today I thought I would let
General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/broadband_data_faq.pdf
20. Are there penalties for not filing Form 477?
Entities that are required to file Form 477 but fail to do so may be subject
to the
enforcement provisions of the Communications Act
.
John Thomas
-Original Message-
From: Frank Muto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 06:20 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/broadband_data_faq.pdf
20. Are there penalties for not filing
, 2006 06:20 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/broadband_data_faq.pdf
20. Are there penalties for not filing Form 477?
Entities that are required to file Form 477 but fail to do so may be subject
to the
enforcement provisions
- Original Message -
From: John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
There has been so much talk about this, I might be inclined to help the
FCC find those WISPs
John J. Thomas wrote:
There has been so much talk about this, I might be inclined to help the FCC find those
WISPs that are snubbing their noses at the law. This is a professional list and those
here should be abiding by the law. I wonder if it would be a good thing to kick
out those that
AMEN !
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
Do you report people to the authorities for not wearing their seat
belts
to that. If the FCC wants you, they will eventually find you.
John Thomas
-Original Message-
From: Frank Muto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 06:20 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
http://www.fcc.gov/broadband
I 2nd that one Bob ! - Noone likes a lil tattle tale - I think John Thomas just let his alligator mouth overload his mockinbird butt on this one. Definitely lost my respect.
JohnnyO
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 18:49 -0500, Bob Moldashel wrote:
John J. Thomas wrote:
There has been so much talk
: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
Kurt,
With all due respect I would like to ask that you not post suggestions
that are blatantly against FCC regulations. In both of your messages I
included below it appears you are advocating the complete disregarding
of FCC regulations. I like to think
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
- Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
Oh Marlon, Marlon, Marlon..
Hey Scott
Kurt,
With all due respect I would like to ask that you not post suggestions
that are blatantly against FCC regulations. In both of your messages I
included below it appears you are advocating the complete disregarding
of FCC regulations. I like to think of the WISPA list as a professional
OK...OK.
I agree that all should probably file. I have several partners so I am
not the only one to decide so I will leave it at that as it pertains to
my WISP entity.
BUT...What is the penalty for not filing Does anyone know???
Can we get an official statement for this
, 2006 5:20 PM
To: WISPA General List; Marlon Schafer (509-982-2181)
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
OK...OK.
I agree that all should probably file. I have several partners so I am
not the only one to decide so I will leave it at that as it pertains to
my WISP entity
WIPS hummm ? this is the new business I am in...I'm sure glad I
know how to spell.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 6:04 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due
- Original Message -
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; Marlon Schafer
(509-982-2181) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
OK...OK.
I agree that all should probably file. I
Hey Scott,
By no means am I attempting to dig this up again but there are 2 trains
of thought that have been brought out on this list. One is to file and
let the Commission know they exist and the other is to fly under the
radar. Some say letting the FCC (and others) know they exist could
2006 21:28:06 -0500
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
Hey Scott,
By no means am I attempting to dig this up again but there are 2 trains
of thought that have been brought out on this list. One is to file and
let the Commission know they exist and the other
-4340 VoIP
www.oibw.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Frank Muto
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
http://www.fcc.gov/broadband
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:20 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
Kurt,
With all due respect I would like to ask that you not post suggestions
that are blatantly against FCC regulations. In both of your messages I
included below it appears you
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
Hey Scott,
By no means am I attempting to dig this up again but there are 2 trains
of thought that have been brought out on this list. One is to file and
let the Commission know they exist and the other is to fly under
just fill the damn thing out and start making the system WORK FOR US.
Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
Someone needs to start an online poll in which we can go on and
anonymously vote on weather we fill this form out or not. Does the FCC
say how many of these forms are being turned in?
Kurt
time or two but after that
it shouldn't be too hard.
Thoughts?
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Rick Harnish
To: 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
I believe I heard a stat that 475 WISPs filled them out last
Checking now.
thanks
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; Marlon Schafer
(509-982-2181) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
OK...OK
- Original Message -
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
Hey Scott,
By no means am I attempting to dig this up again but there are 2 trains
Mac, JohnnyO, Joe Laura or Joe Miller, can you make this meeting?
Rick Harnish
President
OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc.
260-827-2482 Office
260-307-4000 Cell
260-918-4340 VoIP
www.oibw.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
I can be there - I have to pick up a RohnSSV tower just south of Jackson... Would be a perfect opportunity to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. I'd really like to attend this.
JohnnyO
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:20 -0500, Rick Harnish wrote:
Mac, JohnnyO, Joe Laura or Joe Miller, can you make this
501 - 600 of 655 matches
Mail list logo
