RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
I actually talked to the guys that are involved with this. Several things now, is that they want to know if it is feasible, that is the 60 grand. Second, they want someone to do it, but mostly it is going to be some big company, and they don't think that they can get a local company to do it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Jack, you are correct, St. Louis County is a different entity and does not have jurisdiction in St. Louis City. County is a large government with a lot of cities/towns in its area, and St. Louis City is not part of that. I am not sure of the specifics of the proposal being referred to but I have a lot of good links to follow up on. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces The guys in the St. Louis area can correct me if I'm wrong but if my memory is correct, St. Louis County does not include the City of St. Louis (yeah, I know it sounds funny). As I recall, the two governments are distinctly different. This proposal may apply only to the area in the County outside of the City boundaries and not the City itself. Can anyone local to the area clarify? Thanks, jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON - Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it would cost - to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age, said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart. The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after determining what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and ATT also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both like the idea of regional Wi-Fi. We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this, said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. Approaching it on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things. Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he is still looking into the issue and trying to gauge its importance to Madison and St. Clair counties. I think it's exciting, though, he said. I see the long-term benefit, but we still need to explore it. Leezer said he has not officially met with anyone from the city of St. Louis or Franklin and Jefferson counties yet. We are going to walk, before we run, he said. We want to do this. If someone else wants to join us, they will be welcomed. The city of St. Louis has been working for some months to set up a citywide network. Ahead of the curve The chance to be on the cutting edge of technology
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Dennis, The reason given in the article for this was so the vendor could incur the cost of building the network. For coverage of the whole county to become a reality they need a company with the resources to do this. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: I actually talked to the guys that are involved with this. Several things now, is that they want to know if it is feasible, that is the 60 grand. Second, they want someone to do it, but mostly it is going to be some big company, and they don't think that they can get a local company to do it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Jack, you are correct, St. Louis County is a different entity and does not have jurisdiction in St. Louis City. County is a large government with a lot of cities/towns in its area, and St. Louis City is not part of that. I am not sure of the specifics of the proposal being referred to but I have a lot of good links to follow up on. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces The guys in the St. Louis area can correct me if I'm wrong but if my memory is correct, St. Louis County does not include the City of St. Louis (yeah, I know it sounds funny). As I recall, the two governments are distinctly different. This proposal may apply only to the area in the County outside of the City boundaries and not the City itself. Can anyone local to the area clarify? Thanks, jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON - Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it would cost - to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age, said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart. The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after determining what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and ATT also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both like the idea of regional Wi-Fi. We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this, said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. Approaching it on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things. Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he is still looking into the issue and trying to gauge its importance to Madison and St. Clair counties. I think it's exciting, though, he said. I see the long-term benefit, but we still need to explore it. Leezer said he has not officially met with anyone from the city of St. Louis or Franklin and Jefferson counties yet. We are going to walk, before we run, he said. We want
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Dennis, Thanks for taking the time to talk to the local government officials. I can understand them paying 60 grand to see if it's feasible. I'm sorry that they don't believe that a local WISP could do it. In an ideal world, there would be a local WISP who is open-minded enough and business-creative enough to step up and do it. Having a good business model would, of course, be a necessity. On the other hand, it will be a LARGE project and it's possible that a local WISP, no matter how business-savvy, may not have the financial resources to take this on. jack Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: I actually talked to the guys that are involved with this. Several things now, is that they want to know if it is feasible, that is the 60 grand. Second, they want someone to do it, but mostly it is going to be some big company, and they don't think that they can get a local company to do it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Jack, you are correct, St. Louis County is a different entity and does not have jurisdiction in St. Louis City. County is a large government with a lot of cities/towns in its area, and St. Louis City is not part of that. I am not sure of the specifics of the proposal being referred to but I have a lot of good links to follow up on. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces The guys in the St. Louis area can correct me if I'm wrong but if my memory is correct, St. Louis County does not include the City of St. Louis (yeah, I know it sounds funny). As I recall, the two governments are distinctly different. This proposal may apply only to the area in the County outside of the City boundaries and not the City itself. Can anyone local to the area clarify? Thanks, jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON - Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it would cost - to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age, said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart. The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after determining what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and ATT also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both like the idea of regional Wi-Fi. We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this, said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. Approaching it on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things. Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he is still looking into the issue and trying to gauge its
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Jack Unger wrote: To answer your second question, yes - if Dennis paid me to appear at his City Council meeting to lobby for his company I would be happy to do that. The only requirement would be that I talk with Dennis first to be sure that I was knowledgeable enough about his company to represent it correctly. If he told me about (or if I detected) areas within his company that could benefit from strengthening then I would want to confidentially discuss those areas with him and suggest ways he could address those areas and/or build those strengths. Given a strong and honest City Council presentation, backed up by the support and credibility of WISPA then it's certainly possible that the outcome could be different. jack I know you would, Jack. I've thought about this for awhile now. I would like us, WISPA, as an organization be able to do this to help support our wisps.. The only thing hindering us, is that we don't have enough people-time to get simple things like this going. I would pay to have someone come to my council and lobby for me. If a wisp has a shot at winning or losing a muni contract in their back yard I would think it would be money well spent. Maybe this is something we can work on... Any volunteers? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
All, If you are speaking of downtown St. Louis. They already chose ATT. But on the other hand if you are speaking of St. Louis County then that is an awful lot to take on considering they want the vendor to eat the cost of the hardware. Regards, Dawn DiPietro George Rogato wrote: Jack Unger wrote: To answer your second question, yes - if Dennis paid me to appear at his City Council meeting to lobby for his company I would be happy to do that. The only requirement would be that I talk with Dennis first to be sure that I was knowledgeable enough about his company to represent it correctly. If he told me about (or if I detected) areas within his company that could benefit from strengthening then I would want to confidentially discuss those areas with him and suggest ways he could address those areas and/or build those strengths. Given a strong and honest City Council presentation, backed up by the support and credibility of WISPA then it's certainly possible that the outcome could be different. jack I know you would, Jack. I've thought about this for awhile now. I would like us, WISPA, as an organization be able to do this to help support our wisps.. The only thing hindering us, is that we don't have enough people-time to get simple things like this going. I would pay to have someone come to my council and lobby for me. If a wisp has a shot at winning or losing a muni contract in their back yard I would think it would be money well spent. Maybe this is something we can work on... Any volunteers? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
All, Also I forgot to mention they want to cover the whole county. But if you read the article you already knew that and I apologize. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, If you are speaking of downtown St. Louis. They already chose ATT. But on the other hand if you are speaking of St. Louis County then that is an awful lot to take on considering they want the vendor to eat the cost of the hardware. Regards, Dawn DiPietro George Rogato wrote: Jack Unger wrote: To answer your second question, yes - if Dennis paid me to appear at his City Council meeting to lobby for his company I would be happy to do that. The only requirement would be that I talk with Dennis first to be sure that I was knowledgeable enough about his company to represent it correctly. If he told me about (or if I detected) areas within his company that could benefit from strengthening then I would want to confidentially discuss those areas with him and suggest ways he could address those areas and/or build those strengths. Given a strong and honest City Council presentation, backed up by the support and credibility of WISPA then it's certainly possible that the outcome could be different. jack I know you would, Jack. I've thought about this for awhile now. I would like us, WISPA, as an organization be able to do this to help support our wisps.. The only thing hindering us, is that we don't have enough people-time to get simple things like this going. I would pay to have someone come to my council and lobby for me. If a wisp has a shot at winning or losing a muni contract in their back yard I would think it would be money well spent. Maybe this is something we can work on... Any volunteers? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
A few years ago I ran up a network design that would cover over 80% of my whole country. Redundant feeds, high speed backhauls etc. It would have cost around $1million. AND that would have purchased the first 500 cpe units. It doesn't have to cost as much as people somehow seem to keep spending. Even if I really screwed up and missed my prices and we had to DOUBLE the cost, it's still no where near what seems to be being spent as is. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Dennis, The reason given in the article for this was so the vendor could incur the cost of building the network. For coverage of the whole county to become a reality they need a company with the resources to do this. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: I actually talked to the guys that are involved with this. Several things now, is that they want to know if it is feasible, that is the 60 grand. Second, they want someone to do it, but mostly it is going to be some big company, and they don't think that they can get a local company to do it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Jack, you are correct, St. Louis County is a different entity and does not have jurisdiction in St. Louis City. County is a large government with a lot of cities/towns in its area, and St. Louis City is not part of that. I am not sure of the specifics of the proposal being referred to but I have a lot of good links to follow up on. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces The guys in the St. Louis area can correct me if I'm wrong but if my memory is correct, St. Louis County does not include the City of St. Louis (yeah, I know it sounds funny). As I recall, the two governments are distinctly different. This proposal may apply only to the area in the County outside of the City boundaries and not the City itself. Can anyone local to the area clarify? Thanks, jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON - Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it would cost - to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age, said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart. The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after determining what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and ATT also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Hey Gang, After reading this thread for a few hours, I told myself I would shut up and just go away, but I must say, after pacing around the house for awhile and reviewing all of the things that I know in my mind?, I must say something?(Not that anyone gives a rats behind?). Look, what Patrick has posted to this list(As much as I hate to say it, and not because it's Patrick, its because of the actual subject?) is TRUE!. If You are looking to find some truth to his statements?, just wander over to DSL Reports WISP forum( http://www.dslreports.com/forum/wisp ) and review some of the posts that have been made there over the years?. At least every other day or so, someone posts a question about how far they can hook up a client using a 1 watt amp with a 15.5dBi omni. When I first started in this business, if the salesperson at Ecomm, Winncomm etc. didn't know You?, and You asked for a 1 watt amp?, they wouldn't sell it?, or at least You had to answer a LOT of questions as to what You were going to use it for?. Today, all someone has to do is go to ebay, or call any of the popular vendors and in most cases?, it is on a UPS truck in 24hrs headed for Your address. I am NOT blaming any vendor for this mess any more than I am blaming the FCC or our industry as a police force, it just needs to be said that it IS heading in the wrong direction quickly(I think Patrick's mention of the slippery slope is accurate?). To add to the mess is a list of consultants that have popped up as of late?. In 2000, if You typed in WISP as a search word?, You got almost NO hits. Today, when You repeat this, the result is CRAZY! ( Results 1 - 10 of about 3,430,000 for WISP-From Google!) . The current trend in the WISP business is headed right towards the same debacle as the CB radio craze of the 70's? (I guess I am showing my age, LOL!). That problem ended because the spectrum was so wasted that You couldn't even talk to someone down the street, and cell phone and other communications technologies replaced the medium. While I do not know anyone in a high position in the FCC at the time, I am almost positive that more than one FCC meeting had people with their arms in the air going, OMG!, What are we going to do??. IMHO.ahh, You know what?, scratch my opinion, lets just say that in my experience, I know where this entire deal is headed unless something major happens?, it will be a wasteland that is sooo bad, You won't even have to put Your coffee in the microwave to heat it up, just open the protective steel front doors on Your house and set it outside for a few seconds and it is ready!( OK, a little overboard, but I think You all get my point?). I have been in this business since 2000. When I started lighting up PoP's in 2001, a site survey yielded nothing, nada, zip zilch zero as far as other AP's or competitors 802.11b AP's. Now, at those same PoP's, I can find on average at least 8 to 10 active AP's. I know all of You have seen this?. While some are just home user AP's, they are there non the less!. Heck, the other day an AP showed up with a -58!!!. I traced it down to a home user that had a 13.5dBi omni on his/her roof. While I have no idea why they did that?(My guess is to provide better coverage in their house and back yard or maybe share their cable connection?), it is insane that a consumer was allowed to purchase that stuff!. If any of You think that we do not have an issue with people violating FCC rules?, You had better think again!. It is not just WISP's but all types of people that include consumers, municipal, school and business IT depts. and a few consultants who yesterday where saying Wendys drive thru, can I take Your order please? and now today they are spouting out, I are a wi-fi consultant. I just find it odd that the alarm bells are not ringing in more heads than just a few of us?. Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts. I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was talking about consultants etc. You are correct in that many people who are consultants don't know the real world implications. Us WISPs have first hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands, hardware, etc is capable of. A recent study was commissioned in St. Louis. This was a feasibility study that netted some consultant over $90,000 bucks from the way I read it. What was this for? To see if the city of St. Louis can put in a wireless network covering downtown. H. My first thought on this was So the consultant needs to conduct a study on IF you can do this? Does he not know what he is doing? I can tell you I can do it, might take me a bit to do the necessary research, but hell for that price, I will do the research, finding bandwidth, contracts, and power/data agreements. This is the kind of thing that us, using license exempt bands nee to fight. We need to make it public,
RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Tim , Great post. I concur 100% with your statements, that's why I would prefer, instead of more unlicensed space, a Wisp Only band with coordination from a centralized organization and payable dues per pop/channel or something similaronly for bona-fide wireless operators 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 Behalf Of Tim Wolfe Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Hey Gang, After reading this thread for a few hours, I told myself I would shut up and just go away, but I must say, after pacing around the house for awhile and reviewing all of the things that I know in my mind?, I must say something?(Not that anyone gives a rats behind?). Look, what Patrick has posted to this list(As much as I hate to say it, and not because it's Patrick, its because of the actual subject?) is TRUE!. If You are looking to find some truth to his statements?, just wander over to DSL Reports WISP forum( http://www.dslreports.com/forum/wisp ) and review some of the posts that have been made there over the years?. At least every other day or so, someone posts a question about how far they can hook up a client using a 1 watt amp with a 15.5dBi omni. When I first started in this business, if the salesperson at Ecomm, Winncomm etc. didn't know You?, and You asked for a 1 watt amp?, they wouldn't sell it?, or at least You had to answer a LOT of questions as to what You were going to use it for?. Today, all someone has to do is go to ebay, or call any of the popular vendors and in most cases?, it is on a UPS truck in 24hrs headed for Your address. I am NOT blaming any vendor for this mess any more than I am blaming the FCC or our industry as a police force, it just needs to be said that it IS heading in the wrong direction quickly(I think Patrick's mention of the slippery slope is accurate?). To add to the mess is a list of consultants that have popped up as of late?. In 2000, if You typed in WISP as a search word?, You got almost NO hits. Today, when You repeat this, the result is CRAZY! ( Results 1 - 10 of about 3,430,000 for WISP-From Google!) . The current trend in the WISP business is headed right towards the same debacle as the CB radio craze of the 70's? (I guess I am showing my age, LOL!). That problem ended because the spectrum was so wasted that You couldn't even talk to someone down the street, and cell phone and other communications technologies replaced the medium. While I do not know anyone in a high position in the FCC at the time, I am almost positive that more than one FCC meeting had people with their arms in the air going, OMG!, What are we going to do??. IMHO.ahh, You know what?, scratch my opinion, lets just say that in my experience, I know where this entire deal is headed unless something major happens?, it will be a wasteland that is sooo bad, You won't even have to put Your coffee in the microwave to heat it up, just open the protective steel front doors on Your house and set it outside for a few seconds and it is ready!( OK, a little overboard, but I think You all get my point?). I have been in this business since 2000. When I started lighting up PoP's in 2001, a site survey yielded nothing, nada, zip zilch zero as far as other AP's or competitors 802.11b AP's. Now, at those same PoP's, I can find on average at least 8 to 10 active AP's. I know all of You have seen this?. While some are just home user AP's, they are there non the less!. Heck, the other day an AP showed up with a -58!!!. I traced it down to a home user that had a 13.5dBi omni on his/her roof. While I have no idea why they did that?(My guess is to provide better coverage in their house and back yard or maybe share their cable connection?), it is insane that a consumer was allowed to purchase that stuff!. If any of You think that we do not have an issue with people violating FCC rules?, You had better think again!. It is not just WISP's but all types of people that include consumers, municipal, school and business IT depts. and a few consultants who yesterday where saying Wendys drive thru, can I take Your order please? and now today they are spouting out, I are a wi-fi consultant. I just find it odd that the alarm bells are not ringing in more heads than just a few of us?. Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts. I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was talking about consultants etc. You are correct in that many people who are consultants don't know the real world implications. Us WISPs have first hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands, hardware, etc is capable of. A recent study was commissioned in St. Louis.
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
I wouldn't bypass the feasibility study, just the $90,000 to perform it. The feasibility study may also be to see who is already there and what impact it would have on existing providers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:11 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts. I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was talking about consultants etc. You are correct in that many people who are consultants don't know the real world implications. Us WISPs have first hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands, hardware, etc is capable of. A recent study was commissioned in St. Louis. This was a feasibility study that netted some consultant over $90,000 bucks from the way I read it. What was this for? To see if the city of St. Louis can put in a wireless network covering downtown. H. My first thought on this was So the consultant needs to conduct a study on IF you can do this? Does he not know what he is doing? I can tell you I can do it, might take me a bit to do the necessary research, but hell for that price, I will do the research, finding bandwidth, contracts, and power/data agreements. This is the kind of thing that us, using license exempt bands nee to fight. We need to make it public, that this is a misuse of taxpayer's dollars. We need to ensure that this is shown to cut out the small business, in favor of large, non-local companies doing the work. A few other things that would help us WISPs out, someone in the FCC ready to listen to our findings of non-complaint gear/overpowered radios, someone that can actually say, you get me these things, the proof to say, and then we will do something with it. Don't happen very often. If someone calls the FCC, how many times have you heard anything back on them? I have heard interference stories, even from cell companies, (recent on the lists). The story about the IT Person telling the WISP to use 4.9, is a prime example of something that the FCC should be ON THE BALL about. And also some clarification on band usages, power limits, etc, where several questions and things are open to interpretation, not closed down enough to be solid in court or anywhere. Just a few thoughts. Dennis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces George, Thats a good point. WISPs are maturing and as they grow they start to demand name brand type gear that will let them scale, which inadvertently is usually certified. Thus larger providers using certified gear. With no disrespect meant, I could argue that some of WISP's straying to non-certified gear, could be more of a science project, or trials to test the viabilty of that type product line, and as those trials become successful, they likely will certify gear or buy versions that are certified. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Well this was an exiting day on the lists. I would find it hard to believe that the wisp industry is in worse shape now than before concerning abuse. 5 years ago when most were new and choices were far and few between, there was a lot of pringles type wisps. Hey, they were the inovators. But it's hard to believe that with the advent of cheap gear from many new players, I'd have ahard time believing that the vast majority of wisp gear is an fcc certified system or kit type product, such as a star or mt. I think we're building a mountain out of a mole hill in even suggesting that this an issue that has to be delt with. The industry has matured in a very positive way over the past few years. George This is NOT an official wispa stance or position, just my own. Patrick Leary wrote: Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves: 1. The FCC is not a baby sitter. 2. Mature operators (and industries as a whole) follow the rules as a matter of course and expected cost of business. 3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum. 4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc. As someone who has argued for WISP
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
What bothers me the most is the perception of many residential consumers. I can;t count how many sales leads I'm getting now, where the prospect is calling asking to buy service that they can just connect to without an installtion. And when I say its over $19 and has an Install fee, they immediately say, Oh, I'll just go back to using one of the unsecured access points, or Harry Homeowner HotSpots in the community. And they actually can. Maybe a large nu,mber of these are their neighrbor with a 100ms Linksys, but I'm guessing more and more are installing that Omni with AMP, because as a novice, it sounds like what they are supposed to do, without understanding the impact. I think whats important to realize is that it does little good to complain about things we can;t control, but it does a lot of good to change the things that we can control. Live by example. (Thats sometimes hard to do, all things concidered). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tim Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Hey Gang, After reading this thread for a few hours, I told myself I would shut up and just go away, but I must say, after pacing around the house for awhile and reviewing all of the things that I know in my mind?, I must say something?(Not that anyone gives a rats behind?). Look, what Patrick has posted to this list(As much as I hate to say it, and not because it's Patrick, its because of the actual subject?) is TRUE!. If You are looking to find some truth to his statements?, just wander over to DSL Reports WISP forum( http://www.dslreports.com/forum/wisp ) and review some of the posts that have been made there over the years?. At least every other day or so, someone posts a question about how far they can hook up a client using a 1 watt amp with a 15.5dBi omni. When I first started in this business, if the salesperson at Ecomm, Winncomm etc. didn't know You?, and You asked for a 1 watt amp?, they wouldn't sell it?, or at least You had to answer a LOT of questions as to what You were going to use it for?. Today, all someone has to do is go to ebay, or call any of the popular vendors and in most cases?, it is on a UPS truck in 24hrs headed for Your address. I am NOT blaming any vendor for this mess any more than I am blaming the FCC or our industry as a police force, it just needs to be said that it IS heading in the wrong direction quickly(I think Patrick's mention of the slippery slope is accurate?). To add to the mess is a list of consultants that have popped up as of late?. In 2000, if You typed in WISP as a search word?, You got almost NO hits. Today, when You repeat this, the result is CRAZY! ( Results 1 - 10 of about 3,430,000 for WISP-From Google!) . The current trend in the WISP business is headed right towards the same debacle as the CB radio craze of the 70's? (I guess I am showing my age, LOL!). That problem ended because the spectrum was so wasted that You couldn't even talk to someone down the street, and cell phone and other communications technologies replaced the medium. While I do not know anyone in a high position in the FCC at the time, I am almost positive that more than one FCC meeting had people with their arms in the air going, OMG!, What are we going to do??. IMHO.ahh, You know what?, scratch my opinion, lets just say that in my experience, I know where this entire deal is headed unless something major happens?, it will be a wasteland that is sooo bad, You won't even have to put Your coffee in the microwave to heat it up, just open the protective steel front doors on Your house and set it outside for a few seconds and it is ready!( OK, a little overboard, but I think You all get my point?). I have been in this business since 2000. When I started lighting up PoP's in 2001, a site survey yielded nothing, nada, zip zilch zero as far as other AP's or competitors 802.11b AP's. Now, at those same PoP's, I can find on average at least 8 to 10 active AP's. I know all of You have seen this?. While some are just home user AP's, they are there non the less!. Heck, the other day an AP showed up with a -58!!!. I traced it down to a home user that had a 13.5dBi omni on his/her roof. While I have no idea why they did that?(My guess is to provide better coverage in their house and back yard or maybe share their cable connection?), it is insane that a consumer was allowed to purchase that stuff!. If any of You think that we do not have an issue with people violating FCC rules?, You had better think again!. It is not just WISP's but all types of people that include consumers, municipal, school and business IT depts. and a few consultants who yesterday where saying Wendys drive thru, can I take Your order please?
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Live by example, gee does that I mean I cannot have that beer now (it is still morning here) :-) Serious, I have no ant. pointing over the biggest town in our county, to much noise. Local grocery store chain in the summer time powers up their wireless cash register for the outside garden dept. Nothing wrong with using two omnis to make the connection is there You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Tom DeReggi wrote: What bothers me the most is the perception of many residential consumers. I can;t count how many sales leads I'm getting now, where the prospect is calling asking to buy service that they can just connect to without an installtion. And when I say its over $19 and has an Install fee, they immediately say, Oh, I'll just go back to using one of the unsecured access points, or Harry Homeowner HotSpots in the community. And they actually can. Maybe a large nu,mber of these are their neighrbor with a 100ms Linksys, but I'm guessing more and more are installing that Omni with AMP, because as a novice, it sounds like what they are supposed to do, without understanding the impact. I think whats important to realize is that it does little good to complain about things we can;t control, but it does a lot of good to change the things that we can control. Live by example. (Thats sometimes hard to do, all things concidered). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tim Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Hey Gang, After reading this thread for a few hours, I told myself I would shut up and just go away, but I must say, after pacing around the house for awhile and reviewing all of the things that I know in my mind?, I must say something?(Not that anyone gives a rats behind?). Look, what Patrick has posted to this list(As much as I hate to say it, and not because it's Patrick, its because of the actual subject?) is TRUE!. If You are looking to find some truth to his statements?, just wander over to DSL Reports WISP forum( http://www.dslreports.com/forum/wisp ) and review some of the posts that have been made there over the years?. At least every other day or so, someone posts a question about how far they can hook up a client using a 1 watt amp with a 15.5dBi omni. When I first started in this business, if the salesperson at Ecomm, Winncomm etc. didn't know You?, and You asked for a 1 watt amp?, they wouldn't sell it?, or at least You had to answer a LOT of questions as to what You were going to use it for?. Today, all someone has to do is go to ebay, or call any of the popular vendors and in most cases?, it is on a UPS truck in 24hrs headed for Your address. I am NOT blaming any vendor for this mess any more than I am blaming the FCC or our industry as a police force, it just needs to be said that it IS heading in the wrong direction quickly(I think Patrick's mention of the slippery slope is accurate?). To add to the mess is a list of consultants that have popped up as of late?. In 2000, if You typed in WISP as a search word?, You got almost NO hits. Today, when You repeat this, the result is CRAZY! ( Results 1 - 10 of about 3,430,000 for WISP-From Google!) . The current trend in the WISP business is headed right towards the same debacle as the CB radio craze of the 70's? (I guess I am showing my age, LOL!). That problem ended because the spectrum was so wasted that You couldn't even talk to someone down the street, and cell phone and other communications technologies replaced the medium. While I do not know anyone in a high position in the FCC at the time, I am almost positive that more than one FCC meeting had people with their arms in the air going, OMG!, What are we going to do??. IMHO.ahh, You know what?, scratch my opinion, lets just say that in my experience, I know where this entire deal is headed unless something major happens?, it will be a wasteland that is sooo bad, You won't even have to put Your coffee in the microwave to heat it up, just open the protective steel front doors on Your house and set it outside for a few seconds and it is ready!( OK, a little overboard, but I think You all get my point?). I have been in this business since 2000. When I started lighting up PoP's in 2001, a site survey yielded nothing, nada, zip zilch zero as far as other AP's or competitors 802.11b AP's. Now, at those same PoP's, I can find on average at least 8 to 10 active AP's. I know all of You have seen this?. While some are just home user AP's, they are there non the less!. Heck, the other day an AP showed up with a -58!!!. I traced it down to a home user that had a 13.5dBi omni on his/her roof. While I
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Tom, I'm just wondering who should perform the necessary feasibility study for free? jack Tom DeReggi wrote: I wouldn't bypass the feasibility study, just the $90,000 to perform it. The feasibility study may also be to see who is already there and what impact it would have on existing providers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:11 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts. I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was talking about consultants etc. You are correct in that many people who are consultants don't know the real world implications. Us WISPs have first hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands, hardware, etc is capable of. A recent study was commissioned in St. Louis. This was a feasibility study that netted some consultant over $90,000 bucks from the way I read it. What was this for? To see if the city of St. Louis can put in a wireless network covering downtown. H. My first thought on this was So the consultant needs to conduct a study on IF you can do this? Does he not know what he is doing? I can tell you I can do it, might take me a bit to do the necessary research, but hell for that price, I will do the research, finding bandwidth, contracts, and power/data agreements. This is the kind of thing that us, using license exempt bands nee to fight. We need to make it public, that this is a misuse of taxpayer's dollars. We need to ensure that this is shown to cut out the small business, in favor of large, non-local companies doing the work. A few other things that would help us WISPs out, someone in the FCC ready to listen to our findings of non-complaint gear/overpowered radios, someone that can actually say, you get me these things, the proof to say, and then we will do something with it. Don't happen very often. If someone calls the FCC, how many times have you heard anything back on them? I have heard interference stories, even from cell companies, (recent on the lists). The story about the IT Person telling the WISP to use 4.9, is a prime example of something that the FCC should be ON THE BALL about. And also some clarification on band usages, power limits, etc, where several questions and things are open to interpretation, not closed down enough to be solid in court or anywhere. Just a few thoughts. Dennis earlier discussions pruned -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
There is one thing that I failed to mention, and I thought it very important to point it out?. While I do see all of this happening at some locations, I must say that it has not hampered my ability to deploy or to operate my business?.. There is a HUGE difference between a hack and a professional. There are hacks in any business and these people are never around for long, as there are no shortcuts in this business no matter who tells You otherwise. The ability to engineer around these obstacles is a known thing, and all of us professionals know this fact. I personally consider someone running outside the regulations to be a hack. Just like a cloud of gnats that are in Your face when working on a tower or an install, these gnats eventually die or get blown away by the winds of change, and they really are only a temporary annoyance?. I made my original post to point out some of the shortcomings in the current system. While these shortcomings are there?, they are no different than any other business that You run?. Lets face it, if we could all run and cry about things we didn't like to the Govt. agency responsible for our line of work and get them to make changes that only benefited our line of work?, the stock and investment markets would be a perfect place?. The price of crude oil would be constant, all mutual funds would have a guaranteed rate of return and that entire business would be a utopia of sorts?. We all know that will never happen, and that industry itself has fallen once or twice (Think-Great Depression), but it is still here, as there are some really smart professionals out there that see all of the current setbacks and figure ways around them. Our business is no different. While it may seem as though I am trying to correct my first post?(I am man enough to pull my own foot out of my mouth), I am really not. I re-read what I sent out, and I just wanted to make sure that everyone who read it took it in the right context and did not interpret it as a doomsday message? (It really was not meant to be a Chicken Little The sky is falling type post but it sure did look like one?). I am just trying to point out some of the things that are happening in our business, and those road blocks are happening in EVERY business. If it were so horrible, most of us smart guys would have sold out a long time ago while the going was good. The WISP business is here to stay and the things that I mentioned in my first post are real, but they are not insurmountable. Tim Wolfe wrote: Hey Gang, After reading this thread for a few hours, I told myself I would shut up and just go away, but I must say, after pacing around the house for awhile and reviewing all of the things that I know in my mind?, I must say something?(Not that anyone gives a rats behind?). Look, what Patrick has posted to this list(As much as I hate to say it, and not because it's Patrick, its because of the actual subject?) is TRUE!. If You are looking to find some truth to his statements?, just wander over to DSL Reports WISP forum( http://www.dslreports.com/forum/wisp ) and review some of the posts that have been made there over the years?. At least every other day or so, someone posts a question about how far they can hook up a client using a 1 watt amp with a 15.5dBi omni. When I first started in this business, if the salesperson at Ecomm, Winncomm etc. didn't know You?, and You asked for a 1 watt amp?, they wouldn't sell it?, or at least You had to answer a LOT of questions as to what You were going to use it for?. Today, all someone has to do is go to ebay, or call any of the popular vendors and in most cases?, it is on a UPS truck in 24hrs headed for Your address. I am NOT blaming any vendor for this mess any more than I am blaming the FCC or our industry as a police force, it just needs to be said that it IS heading in the wrong direction quickly(I think Patrick's mention of the slippery slope is accurate?). To add to the mess is a list of consultants that have popped up as of late?. In 2000, if You typed in WISP as a search word?, You got almost NO hits. Today, when You repeat this, the result is CRAZY! ( Results 1 - 10 of about 3,430,000 for WISP-From Google!) . The current trend in the WISP business is headed right towards the same debacle as the CB radio craze of the 70's? (I guess I am showing my age, LOL!). That problem ended because the spectrum was so wasted that You couldn't even talk to someone down the street, and cell phone and other communications technologies replaced the medium. While I do not know anyone in a high position in the FCC at the time, I am almost positive that more than one FCC meeting had people with their arms in the air going, OMG!, What are we going to do??. IMHO.ahh, You know what?, scratch my opinion, lets just say that in my experience, I know where this entire deal is headed unless something major happens?, it will be a wasteland
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
I didn't say free, I said Not $90,000. What should it cost to do a feasibilty study for a city? Why does every city need to start from Ground Zero? I'd rather $10,000-$20,000 go into a study with a competent engineer like you, and the other $$70-80,000 go into actually paying an integrator to build the network. Or better yet, keep the government out of it, and let the Local WISP that already knows the environment and how to do it, be on the top of the list to get the job. My understanding is that Downtown St Louis aint that big (But haven't been there), whats there to study? Here's a MESH budget for you $10,000 to get an OEM StarOS system FCC certified. $10,000 for a study (Maybe use OSLR for the MESH). $30,000 for 60 AP repeaters ($500 each w/ antennas, mounts, and CM9s). (Remember the CM9s support 2.4G-6G on the fly, so the integrator would have the flexibilty to adjust as they identified the obstacles that needed consideration) $40,000 to install and troubleshoot (5 hours per Access Point @ $100 per hour, plus an extra $10,000 for the final over view and documenting of what was found) If the network didn't work, you'd know exactly why, and you'd have only spent the $90,000 to get equivellent data as the Feasibilty study. If the network did work, you'd be done. If the network partially worked, you'd be half way there, and would have a clear picture on whta moneys was needed to finish the job. I could replicate this model using Alvarion, with their new low cost Comnet program, in a PtP platform. (Although would be less flexible on which spectrum appropriate, so maybe would need an exchange program from a distributor if channels needed varying). And maybe the end project would cost a tad bit more, if more super cells were needed than expected intially. The point is, to many people spend time trying to predict, rather than just going and finsing out what the situation really is. No better way to know for sure, than to put up gear and listen. Now what about support Local WISP, already has paid executives and local isntallers. Local WISP already has support department. Sure local WISP will want grant to help increase his staff size to handle demand, but thats an understandable cost, and a shared cost. The biggest costs are the learning curve and the management costs, but none of that would need to be paid, as the WISP already has that knowledge and experience, and peices in place, so the local governement would only be paying for just the new working staff (The hands on the end of the arms). Sure, I understand, my approach is not realistic based on the Politicaly correct proceedures a governement needs to follow in an award/bid situation using others(taxpayers) money. Sure you could argue that those that do not plan in advance pay for it later. But its likely a local WISP already did the bulk of the planning years ago. I'm just saying that its IRONIC that a network can be built for near the price of a feasibilty study, if the politics was not involved. The truth is, Muni Wireless is expensive to launch, because they generally duplicate the effort that is already available locally, select an out of state provider not familiar with the local land, and they have unknowlegeable people needing to make decission on how to use knowledgeable industry bidders. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Tom, I'm just wondering who should perform the necessary feasibility study for free? jack Tom DeReggi wrote: I wouldn't bypass the feasibility study, just the $90,000 to perform it. The feasibility study may also be to see who is already there and what impact it would have on existing providers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:11 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts. I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was talking about consultants etc. You are correct in that many people who are consultants don't know the real world implications. Us WISPs have first hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands, hardware, etc is capable of. A recent study was commissioned in St. Louis. This was a feasibility study that netted some consultant over $90,000 bucks from the way I read it. What was this for? To see if the city of St. Louis can put in a wireless network covering downtown. H. My first thought on this was So the consultant
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
The guys in the St. Louis area can correct me if I'm wrong but if my memory is correct, St. Louis County does not include the City of St. Louis (yeah, I know it sounds funny). As I recall, the two governments are distinctly different. This proposal may apply only to the area in the County outside of the City boundaries and not the City itself. Can anyone local to the area clarify? Thanks, jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON — Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed — and how much it would cost — to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age, said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart. The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process — after determining what infrastructure is needed — would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and ATT also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both like the idea of regional Wi-Fi. We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this, said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. Approaching it on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things. Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he is still looking into the issue and trying to gauge its importance to Madison and St. Clair counties. I think it's exciting, though, he said. I see the long-term benefit, but we still need to explore it. Leezer said he has not officially met with anyone from the city of St. Louis or Franklin and Jefferson counties yet. We are going to walk, before we run, he said. We want to do this. If someone else wants to join us, they will be welcomed. The city of St. Louis has been working for some months to set up a citywide network. Ahead of the curve The chance to be on the cutting edge of technology is something that appeals to St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley, who is pushing the proposal. If you want to attract businesses, you need the right kind of infrastructure, Dooley said. This is the infrastructure of the future. We are going to need it one day, so why not be ahead of the curve. The St. Louis area suffered the country's second-worst number of job losses for the year that ended in November, about 3,300 jobs. While some experts have challenged those numbers, many still worry about the region's perceived struggle to attract, and keep, businesses. The county is considering a wireless system that would offer residents and businesses a tiered level of service. Customers could get a low-end service for a small fee and a faster, more expensive, service for a higher price. Dooley said he would like to have it in place within the next three years. Installation of such a system can be pricey. Typically the hardware costs about $50,000 a square mile in low-density areas and $150,000 a square mile for urban areas. Leezer said it's too early to say how much any system would cost the county. But he did say that it would likely be a public-private
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON — Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed — and how much it would cost — to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age, said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart. The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process — after determining what infrastructure is needed — would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and ATT also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both like the idea of regional Wi-Fi. We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this, said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. Approaching it on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things. Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he is still looking into the issue and trying to gauge its importance to Madison and St. Clair counties. I think it's exciting, though, he said. I see the long-term benefit, but we still need to explore it. Leezer said he has not officially met with anyone from the city of St. Louis or Franklin and Jefferson counties yet. We are going to walk, before we run, he said. We want to do this. If someone else wants to join us, they will be welcomed. The city of St. Louis has been working for some months to set up a citywide network. Ahead of the curve The chance to be on the cutting edge of technology is something that appeals to St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley, who is pushing the proposal. If you want to attract businesses, you need the right kind of infrastructure, Dooley said. This is the infrastructure of the future. We are going to need it one day, so why not be ahead of the curve. The St. Louis area suffered the country's second-worst number of job losses for the year that ended in November, about 3,300 jobs. While some experts have challenged those numbers, many still worry about the region's perceived struggle to attract, and keep, businesses. The county is considering a wireless system that would offer residents and businesses a tiered level of service. Customers could get a low-end service for a small fee and a faster, more expensive, service for a higher price. Dooley said he would like to have it in place within the next three years. Installation of such a system can be pricey. Typically the hardware costs about $50,000 a square mile in low-density areas and $150,000 a square mile for urban areas. Leezer said it's too early to say how much any system would cost the county. But he did say that it would likely be a public-private partnership in which the vendor would incur most, if not all, costs. We are not looking at having taxpayers fund this, he said. Philadelphia used a similar system for its Wi-Fi. EarthLink paid the city for the right to build and maintain a citywide system, which included installing transmittal devices on about 4,000 of the city's street lamp pole arms and providing residents and visitors with 22 area hot spots. EarthLink
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Whats the prupose of the feasibilty study? Sounds like grant money. Would the Earthlink, Google, or ATT use their own feasibilty study? Or is this a non-technical feasibity study? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON — Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed — and how much it would cost — to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age, said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart. The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process — after determining what infrastructure is needed — would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and ATT also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both like the idea of regional Wi-Fi. We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this, said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. Approaching it on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things. Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he is still looking into the issue and trying to gauge its importance to Madison and St. Clair counties. I think it's exciting, though, he said. I see the long-term benefit, but we still need to explore it. Leezer said he has not officially met with anyone from the city of St. Louis or Franklin and Jefferson counties yet. We are going to walk, before we run, he said. We want to do this. If someone else wants to join us, they will be welcomed. The city of St. Louis has been working for some months to set up a citywide network. Ahead of the curve The chance to be on the cutting edge of technology is something that appeals to St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley, who is pushing the proposal. If you want to attract businesses, you need the right kind of infrastructure, Dooley said. This is the infrastructure of the future. We are going to need it one day, so why not be ahead of the curve. The St. Louis area suffered the country's second-worst number of job losses for the year that ended in November, about 3,300 jobs. While some experts have challenged those numbers, many still worry about the region's perceived struggle to attract, and keep, businesses. The county is considering a wireless system that would offer residents and businesses a tiered level of service. Customers could get a low-end service for a small fee and a faster, more expensive, service for a higher price. Dooley said he would like to have it in place within the next three years. Installation of such a system can be pricey. Typically the hardware costs about $50,000 a square mile in low-density areas and $150,000 a square mile for urban areas. Leezer said it's too early to say how much any system would cost the county.
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
http://www.westendword.com/moxie/news/county-looks-at-implement.shtml http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2006/12/25/story13.html Elected officeholders,their staff, and local business leaders are not normally technology experts. They need help to understand how to proceed to build and manage a wireless network. There are big bucks and big reputations at stake and they want as much assurance as possible that the network will actually work. If Earthlink, Google, and ATT did their own studies then somebody who is technically knowledgable (a consultant?) would have to evaluate the results (often comparing apples to oranges) and provide an analysis for the political and business leaders. Better to do one study up front and then have the vendors reply with their ability to meet the needs and requirements specified in the upfront study. The vendors WILL have to do their own research to supplement the study - at least they should if they want to understand what they will actually have to do to deliver the results outlined in the study. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: Whats the prupose of the feasibilty study? Sounds like grant money. Would the Earthlink, Google, or ATT use their own feasibilty study? Or is this a non-technical feasibity study? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON — Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed — and how much it would cost — to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age, said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart. The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process — after determining what infrastructure is needed — would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and ATT also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both like the idea of regional Wi-Fi. We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this, said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. Approaching it on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things. Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he is still looking into the issue and trying to gauge its importance to Madison and St. Clair counties. I think it's exciting, though, he said. I see the long-term benefit, but we still need to explore it. Leezer said he has not officially met with anyone from the city of St. Louis or Franklin and Jefferson counties yet. We are going to walk, before we run, he said. We want to do this. If someone else wants to join us, they will be welcomed. The city of St. Louis has been working for some months to set up a citywide network. Ahead of the curve The chance to be on the cutting edge of technology is something that appeals to St. Louis
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
George, Thats a good point. WISPs are maturing and as they grow they start to demand name brand type gear that will let them scale, which inadvertently is usually certified. Thus larger providers using certified gear. With no disrespect meant, I could argue that some of WISP's straying to non-certified gear, could be more of a science project, or trials to test the viabilty of that type product line, and as those trials become successful, they likely will certify gear or buy versions that are certified. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Well this was an exiting day on the lists. I would find it hard to believe that the wisp industry is in worse shape now than before concerning abuse. 5 years ago when most were new and choices were far and few between, there was a lot of pringles type wisps. Hey, they were the inovators. But it's hard to believe that with the advent of cheap gear from many new players, I'd have ahard time believing that the vast majority of wisp gear is an fcc certified system or kit type product, such as a star or mt. I think we're building a mountain out of a mole hill in even suggesting that this an issue that has to be delt with. The industry has matured in a very positive way over the past few years. George This is NOT an official wispa stance or position, just my own. Patrick Leary wrote: Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves: 1. The FCC is not a baby sitter. 2. Mature operators (and industries as a whole) follow the rules as a matter of course and expected cost of business. 3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum. 4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc. As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've certainly been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs are now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount to its approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but one rule: Don't exceed the power limitations. Everything else has become fair game. Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if not actual, that abuse is reaching new levels: - many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz to carry some commercial traffic (Hey, there's excess capacity so what's the big deal, right?...) - use of STA's to commercially use spectrum is openly being advocated (this is partially responsible for an over 6 month wait in STA filings) - illegal vendors now operate in the clear with prominent U.S. distribution (They must be legal if they have a store front and it only hurts other vendors anyway...) - build your own base station type Google ads are rampant Call me an alarmist, but this accelerating trend is disturbing and such attitudes easily even have the potential to infect safety issues (hey, OSHA rules must not be that big a deal either). We must all appreciate that many violating the rules do so out of ignorance, but that as an excuse. Groups like WISPA should take firm stands on subjects like this. You should strongly encourage compliance, lead the way and educate. You should fight the ignorance that allows for relativism and creative interpretation of the rules. You should also not cave to the hard luck excuses that I'm a small guy and can't afford to follow the rules. (Your response to such should be to point to funding sources/advice or otherwise tell them that there is a minimum cost to legally participate in this business and that following FCC rules is a minimum expectation as responsible stewards of the public's free spectrum.) And finally, WISPs should not treat knowingly illegal operators as equals because in fact they are liabilities to you and the industry at large. And yes, of course I have skin in the game but that in no way alters anything here or devalues my comments. If anything, as a legal vendor with a long professional reputation of compliance and scores of legal operator partners, and as an individual who has been beating this drum for 7 years, it should only increase the weight of my comments. Sincerely, 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 Dawn DiPietro Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:26 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces All, Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look bad.
RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts. I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was talking about consultants etc. You are correct in that many people who are consultants don't know the real world implications. Us WISPs have first hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands, hardware, etc is capable of. A recent study was commissioned in St. Louis. This was a feasibility study that netted some consultant over $90,000 bucks from the way I read it. What was this for? To see if the city of St. Louis can put in a wireless network covering downtown. H. My first thought on this was So the consultant needs to conduct a study on IF you can do this? Does he not know what he is doing? I can tell you I can do it, might take me a bit to do the necessary research, but hell for that price, I will do the research, finding bandwidth, contracts, and power/data agreements. This is the kind of thing that us, using license exempt bands nee to fight. We need to make it public, that this is a misuse of taxpayer's dollars. We need to ensure that this is shown to cut out the small business, in favor of large, non-local companies doing the work. A few other things that would help us WISPs out, someone in the FCC ready to listen to our findings of non-complaint gear/overpowered radios, someone that can actually say, you get me these things, the proof to say, and then we will do something with it. Don't happen very often. If someone calls the FCC, how many times have you heard anything back on them? I have heard interference stories, even from cell companies, (recent on the lists). The story about the IT Person telling the WISP to use 4.9, is a prime example of something that the FCC should be ON THE BALL about. And also some clarification on band usages, power limits, etc, where several questions and things are open to interpretation, not closed down enough to be solid in court or anywhere. Just a few thoughts. Dennis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces George, Thats a good point. WISPs are maturing and as they grow they start to demand name brand type gear that will let them scale, which inadvertently is usually certified. Thus larger providers using certified gear. With no disrespect meant, I could argue that some of WISP's straying to non-certified gear, could be more of a science project, or trials to test the viabilty of that type product line, and as those trials become successful, they likely will certify gear or buy versions that are certified. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Well this was an exiting day on the lists. I would find it hard to believe that the wisp industry is in worse shape now than before concerning abuse. 5 years ago when most were new and choices were far and few between, there was a lot of pringles type wisps. Hey, they were the inovators. But it's hard to believe that with the advent of cheap gear from many new players, I'd have ahard time believing that the vast majority of wisp gear is an fcc certified system or kit type product, such as a star or mt. I think we're building a mountain out of a mole hill in even suggesting that this an issue that has to be delt with. The industry has matured in a very positive way over the past few years. George This is NOT an official wispa stance or position, just my own. Patrick Leary wrote: Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves: 1. The FCC is not a baby sitter. 2. Mature operators (and industries as a whole) follow the rules as a matter of course and expected cost of business. 3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum. 4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc. As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've certainly been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs are now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount to its approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but one rule: Don't exceed the power limitations. Everything else has become fair game. Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if not actual, that abuse is reaching new levels: - many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz
