RE: [WISPA] fcc committee survey
For personal use only- not for resale. And for non commercial use only. If the test is such a joke, and if you want to experiment then by all means, knock yourself out, get a Ham (not HAM) license and experiment. Maybe you will help develop some new technology. But don't in a minute think that there is any comparison whatsoever between Amateur Radio and Wireless ISPs other than the obvious. Some Hams became WISPS- thet really helped the industry gain some credible experience. I came from both Ham and 2-way commercial roots, with a little IT and Voice thrown in along the way. Some WISP operators became Hams... Probably to satisfy the desire to experiment. Mike- Hams are not homebuilding or piecing together networks, installing them in high places and offering their use for money like WISPS are. There's a lot of difference. And for Jeromie- be careful what you wish for. The FCC *could* outlaw for-profit use of Part 15 spectrum altogether. The WiMax and Cellco boys would LOVE to see that, so don't wish for a license unless you really really want one and are ready to pay 10 times the price for gear plus deal with 10 times the paperwork. I don't foresee an available licensed band though anytime soon. WISPS cannot even follow what few rules there are now. Why in the world would FCC think that we could follow more stringent ones? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey I hate it when someone says me too, but...me too. ;-) A lot of the things the FCC has are just silly... like PC with wireless vs. our stuff. Why a HAM can take a test any joke can pass and then manufacture gear himself, but we cannot use piece-it-together gear. I don't care so much about the telco network. If we get all of the other things we want (heck, even a subset) on the wireless side, the telco is irrelevant. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey I was going to offlist this, but, I might as well put my foot where my mouth is. In my opinion the top things I want addressed would be: I would like to see a WISP License like a Ham License. Its very simple in idea but I think it would truly change the industry. Any one wanting to be a wisp would get access to what ever spectrum can be pulled from the FCC, including all the bands available right now. The license would allow us to produce gear in the same way a ham can solder up a radio and be legal. The test would need to include a lot of things the ham tests do, a lot of things that the CWNP. All installers would need to be certified if they assemble the unit, else, the assembler will need to be. They will need ot put their license # on the unit as well as a unit number or such. That unit number+license will need to be filed with the fcc, but not its location of operation, or, nothing more specific then the county/city it operates in. This has the side effect of giving the FCC some hard numbers with out giving away personal company information. This would be best as a retroactive ruling with grace on old installs. I am not trying to be political but if they can give grace to illegal aliens then they can to wisps too, both are breaking the law and both are being productive so both should get the same treatment. Clearer component cert: IE, what/why is there a difference from a embedded board to a PC or laptop. Laptops ship with built in antennas but no way are all certified mini pci cards tested with that antenna. I would like to see very clear rulings on matching parts. Part of the same, I would like to the allowance of changing cables with out breaking cert. Abandon the USF, or at least reform it drastically. That rural telcos should not get away with cherry picking while getting USF (I know Qwest is doing this too, just picked up a dozen people they will not serve) but its my local that upsets me the most with it. I want dry line tariffs reinstated and enforced. Both Qwest and my local rural telco refuse to sell copper on the grounds they do not have to. I think its stupid that a copper company will not sell copper. Personally I would break the physical company off from the services company, but I know I am dreaming. VZ was at least honest and said they did not want to and so would not. VZ is abandoning copper as fast as they can, so lets make them sell it to some one and not rip it out of the ground. If nothing else it should become city property for them to lease to anyone at the same rates. On 8/3/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, The FCC Committee would like
Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey
So? That just gives the WISP extra incentive to make sure things work... they could lose their livelihood. Hams have and do install equipment wherever we install gear. They have gone further than we have in that they have satellites. I know plenty of Hams. I actually took all of the practice tests and was working on Morse Code before I put it aside to work on something that will make me money instead of just cost me money. :-) I certainly intend to pursue that again once my livelihood has been established. I know that Amateur operators have made a pile of innovations. Just about anyone can pass the most basic Amateur test and thus be permitted to manufacture almost any device he so chooses, whether its garbage or not. At least with WISPs, those that are DIY are (largely or completely) using FCC certified components. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:51 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] fcc committee survey For personal use only- not for resale. And for non commercial use only. If the test is such a joke, and if you want to experiment then by all means, knock yourself out, get a Ham (not HAM) license and experiment. Maybe you will help develop some new technology. But don't in a minute think that there is any comparison whatsoever between Amateur Radio and Wireless ISPs other than the obvious. Some Hams became WISPS- thet really helped the industry gain some credible experience. I came from both Ham and 2-way commercial roots, with a little IT and Voice thrown in along the way. Some WISP operators became Hams... Probably to satisfy the desire to experiment. Mike- Hams are not homebuilding or piecing together networks, installing them in high places and offering their use for money like WISPS are. There's a lot of difference. And for Jeromie- be careful what you wish for. The FCC *could* outlaw for-profit use of Part 15 spectrum altogether. The WiMax and Cellco boys would LOVE to see that, so don't wish for a license unless you really really want one and are ready to pay 10 times the price for gear plus deal with 10 times the paperwork. I don't foresee an available licensed band though anytime soon. WISPS cannot even follow what few rules there are now. Why in the world would FCC think that we could follow more stringent ones? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey I hate it when someone says me too, but...me too. ;-) A lot of the things the FCC has are just silly... like PC with wireless vs. our stuff. Why a HAM can take a test any joke can pass and then manufacture gear himself, but we cannot use piece-it-together gear. I don't care so much about the telco network. If we get all of the other things we want (heck, even a subset) on the wireless side, the telco is irrelevant. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey I was going to offlist this, but, I might as well put my foot where my mouth is. In my opinion the top things I want addressed would be: I would like to see a WISP License like a Ham License. Its very simple in idea but I think it would truly change the industry. Any one wanting to be a wisp would get access to what ever spectrum can be pulled from the FCC, including all the bands available right now. The license would allow us to produce gear in the same way a ham can solder up a radio and be legal. The test would need to include a lot of things the ham tests do, a lot of things that the CWNP. All installers would need to be certified if they assemble the unit, else, the assembler will need to be. They will need ot put their license # on the unit as well as a unit number or such. That unit number+license will need to be filed with the fcc, but not its location of operation, or, nothing more specific then the county/city it operates in. This has the side effect of giving the FCC some hard numbers with out giving away personal company information. This would be best as a retroactive ruling with grace on old installs. I am not trying to be political but if they can give grace to illegal aliens then they can to wisps too, both are breaking the law and both are being productive so both should get the same treatment. Clearer component cert: IE, what/why is there a difference from a embedded board to a PC or laptop. Laptops ship with built in antennas but no way are all certified mini pci cards tested with that antenna. I would like to see very clear rulings on matching parts. Part
Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey
Can you double-check that Larry? It's my understanding that USF is ONLY for dialtone (well, voice as cell phone companies get it too). Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:43 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] fcc committee survey For what is worth, I believe that the USF ALREADY includes broadband services. My understanding is that in order to qualify for USF funding for your broadband services, you must also be conducting business as a ILEC or CLEC in that service area. In other words, telephone companies that service rural area can draw USF funds in order to pay for broadband deployments. However, non-telephone companies cannot tap those same funds to provide broadband services. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:09 PM To: Principal WISPA Member List Cc: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] fcc committee survey Hi All, The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd like us to PROACTIVELY work on. Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try to create movement on. Examples might be: Certified components vs. certified systems. Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig. Expand USF to include broadband services. ? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] fcc committee survey
Hi All, The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd like us to PROACTIVELY work on. Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try to create movement on. Examples might be: Certified components vs. certified systems. Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig. Expand USF to include broadband services. ? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey
#1 Certified Components!!! Being able to mix-n-match parts to make it work HERE is my biggest issue! Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd like us to PROACTIVELY work on. Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try to create movement on. Examples might be: Certified components vs. certified systems. Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig. Expand USF to include broadband services. ? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] fcc committee survey
For what is worth, I believe that the USF ALREADY includes broadband services. My understanding is that in order to qualify for USF funding for your broadband services, you must also be conducting business as a ILEC or CLEC in that service area. In other words, telephone companies that service rural area can draw USF funds in order to pay for broadband deployments. However, non-telephone companies cannot tap those same funds to provide broadband services. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:09 PM To: Principal WISPA Member List Cc: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] fcc committee survey Hi All, The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd like us to PROACTIVELY work on. Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try to create movement on. Examples might be: Certified components vs. certified systems. Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig. Expand USF to include broadband services. ? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey
Amen - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey #1 Certified Components!!! Being able to mix-n-match parts to make it work HERE is my biggest issue! Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd like us to PROACTIVELY work on. Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try to create movement on. Examples might be: Certified components vs. certified systems. Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig. Expand USF to include broadband services. ? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey
I was going to offlist this, but, I might as well put my foot where my mouth is. In my opinion the top things I want addressed would be: I would like to see a WISP License like a Ham License. Its very simple in idea but I think it would truly change the industry. Any one wanting to be a wisp would get access to what ever spectrum can be pulled from the FCC, including all the bands available right now. The license would allow us to produce gear in the same way a ham can solder up a radio and be legal. The test would need to include a lot of things the ham tests do, a lot of things that the CWNP. All installers would need to be certified if they assemble the unit, else, the assembler will need to be. They will need ot put their license # on the unit as well as a unit number or such. That unit number+license will need to be filed with the fcc, but not its location of operation, or, nothing more specific then the county/city it operates in. This has the side effect of giving the FCC some hard numbers with out giving away personal company information. This would be best as a retroactive ruling with grace on old installs. I am not trying to be political but if they can give grace to illegal aliens then they can to wisps too, both are breaking the law and both are being productive so both should get the same treatment. Clearer component cert: IE, what/why is there a difference from a embedded board to a PC or laptop. Laptops ship with built in antennas but no way are all certified mini pci cards tested with that antenna. I would like to see very clear rulings on matching parts. Part of the same, I would like to the allowance of changing cables with out breaking cert. Abandon the USF, or at least reform it drastically. That rural telcos should not get away with cherry picking while getting USF (I know Qwest is doing this too, just picked up a dozen people they will not serve) but its my local that upsets me the most with it. I want dry line tariffs reinstated and enforced. Both Qwest and my local rural telco refuse to sell copper on the grounds they do not have to. I think its stupid that a copper company will not sell copper. Personally I would break the physical company off from the services company, but I know I am dreaming. VZ was at least honest and said they did not want to and so would not. VZ is abandoning copper as fast as they can, so lets make them sell it to some one and not rip it out of the ground. If nothing else it should become city property for them to lease to anyone at the same rates. On 8/3/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd like us to PROACTIVELY work on. Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try to create movement on. Examples might be: Certified components vs. certified systems. Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig. Expand USF to include broadband services. ? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey
I hate it when someone says me too, but...me too. ;-) A lot of the things the FCC has are just silly... like PC with wireless vs. our stuff. Why a HAM can take a test any joke can pass and then manufacture gear himself, but we cannot use piece-it-together gear. I don't care so much about the telco network. If we get all of the other things we want (heck, even a subset) on the wireless side, the telco is irrelevant. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey I was going to offlist this, but, I might as well put my foot where my mouth is. In my opinion the top things I want addressed would be: I would like to see a WISP License like a Ham License. Its very simple in idea but I think it would truly change the industry. Any one wanting to be a wisp would get access to what ever spectrum can be pulled from the FCC, including all the bands available right now. The license would allow us to produce gear in the same way a ham can solder up a radio and be legal. The test would need to include a lot of things the ham tests do, a lot of things that the CWNP. All installers would need to be certified if they assemble the unit, else, the assembler will need to be. They will need ot put their license # on the unit as well as a unit number or such. That unit number+license will need to be filed with the fcc, but not its location of operation, or, nothing more specific then the county/city it operates in. This has the side effect of giving the FCC some hard numbers with out giving away personal company information. This would be best as a retroactive ruling with grace on old installs. I am not trying to be political but if they can give grace to illegal aliens then they can to wisps too, both are breaking the law and both are being productive so both should get the same treatment. Clearer component cert: IE, what/why is there a difference from a embedded board to a PC or laptop. Laptops ship with built in antennas but no way are all certified mini pci cards tested with that antenna. I would like to see very clear rulings on matching parts. Part of the same, I would like to the allowance of changing cables with out breaking cert. Abandon the USF, or at least reform it drastically. That rural telcos should not get away with cherry picking while getting USF (I know Qwest is doing this too, just picked up a dozen people they will not serve) but its my local that upsets me the most with it. I want dry line tariffs reinstated and enforced. Both Qwest and my local rural telco refuse to sell copper on the grounds they do not have to. I think its stupid that a copper company will not sell copper. Personally I would break the physical company off from the services company, but I know I am dreaming. VZ was at least honest and said they did not want to and so would not. VZ is abandoning copper as fast as they can, so lets make them sell it to some one and not rip it out of the ground. If nothing else it should become city property for them to lease to anyone at the same rates. On 8/3/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd like us to PROACTIVELY work on. Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try to create movement on. Examples might be: Certified components vs. certified systems. Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig. Expand USF to include broadband services. ? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http
