Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-18 Thread Tom DeReggi
Although I see your point, how would it be inforced? When they didn't make 
quota, do the ones that did get installed jsut get shut off when spectrum 
gets returned.

Allocating spectrum based on empty promises is not good practice either.
What they aught to do is have the selling price and give a discount in the 
form of rebates at time quotas are met.
The problem with charging based on number's served is that spectrum is not 
necessarilly going to be used for a volume market, other reasons may be jsut 
as valuable.
For example public safety may serve fewer people but have just a value to 
consumer well being.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Imagine what would happen if the FCC sold the license not to the highest 
bidder, but the one that was contractually forced to serve the most 
customers. Either way the company in question would require billions to 
win, but the later option might actually result in more customers being 
served, the money being spent on deployment, and the ability for 
innovative companies to raise money contingent on their business model 
winning.


-Matt

Rich Comroe wrote:
Amen.  Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the 
highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to policy 
designed to serve the public.  This had a major role in the US cellular 
industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any American any 
good).  Why can't our government understand this?  European 3G spectrum 
auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it into bankruptcy and 
spliting the company such that the telecom half didn't sink with the 
cellular half ... or at least that's how I understood it).  The FCC 
should be managing spectrum for the benefit of the American people, not 
managing spectrum to maximize government revenue.  But that's just me.


Rich

- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Finally, a big company that's got the brains to tell the government to 
stick their high price spectrum tax where the sun don't shine!


marlon

- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale



DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3

Thank you.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884  efax 530-323-7025
http://4isps.com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-18 Thread Rich Comroe
Way back in the time known as BC ... (that's Before Cellular), the FCC 
authorized different frequency coordinators in various markets to manage 
licenses.  An applicant applied to the frequency coordinator for the 
frequency, lat, lon, and power of a desired station, the frequency 
coordinator checked for conflict with other licensed stations, and the FCC 
actually issued the licenses for a fee.   The terms of the license 
required implementation within a year (IIRC), and the license holder was 
required to submit at some interval (yearly?) how many transceivers were 
served to the coordinator to keep its database up to date.  It was (IMHO) 
rational, and served the market of radio users.  Doesn't sound that far off 
from what Matt describes.


Cellular changed all that.  In the early 80s the FCC feared an avalanche of 
applications for a limited number of licenses.  Cellular design dictated 
that the licenses be regional, permitting the operator to place stations at 
will within the served area.  But it was made clear that all licensed 
systems would have to follow the standard (AMPS) and be interoperable. 
They tried a lottery, hoping market pressures would force the multiple 
applicants to consolidate down to fewer applications (that deals, perhaps 
monitary in nature, would be made among the applicants keeping the FCC out 
of it).


Later when the first PCS licenses were issued it's my impression that an 
accounting type mentality had taken over at the FCC ... let's grant the 
license to the highest bidder ... and to maximize the monitary value, they 
made it clear that any carrier winning the license could put up whatever 
technology they wanted!  Interoperability in the interest of the nation's 
good was dismissed in favor of maximizing government revenue ... and the 
first PCS auction amazed everyone how much government revenue could be 
extracted in return for licenses.  Consumer service (coverage) for digital 
cellular plummeted as subscribers could receive no service from roughly 4 
out of 5 deployed towers, the US digital cellular standard was abandonned, 
and the rest of the world looked elsewhere for digital cellular leadership 
(adopting GSM, largely because of the simple fact that European licensing 
strategies were much more rational, which promoted their industry and their 
technology).


All in all I don't consider Matt's idea hair-brained at all, but merely a 
return to a more rational time when the FCC's mandate was to simply serve 
the nation's spectrum needs (rather than serving the Treasury Dept).


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Although I see your point, how would it be inforced? When they didn't make 
quota, do the ones that did get installed jsut get shut off when spectrum 
gets returned.

Allocating spectrum based on empty promises is not good practice either.
What they aught to do is have the selling price and give a discount in the 
form of rebates at time quotas are met.
The problem with charging based on number's served is that spectrum is not 
necessarilly going to be used for a volume market, other reasons may be 
jsut as valuable.
For example public safety may serve fewer people but have just a value to 
consumer well being.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Imagine what would happen if the FCC sold the license not to the highest 
bidder, but the one that was contractually forced to serve the most 
customers. Either way the company in question would require billions to 
win, but the later option might actually result in more customers being 
served, the money being spent on deployment, and the ability for 
innovative companies to raise money contingent on their business model 
winning.


-Matt

Rich Comroe wrote:
Amen.  Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the 
highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to policy 
designed to serve the public.  This had a major role in the US cellular 
industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any American any 
good).  Why can't our government understand this?  European 3G spectrum 
auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it into bankruptcy and 
spliting the company such that the telecom half didn't sink with the 
cellular half ... or at least that's how I understood it).  The FCC 
should be managing spectrum for the benefit of the American people, not 
managing spectrum to maximize government revenue.  But that's just me.


Rich

- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA

RE: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-18 Thread David Weddell
I am always amazed at the ideas that come out of this list. I totally agree
with Rich here about how the federal government keeps finding ways to slow
down the entrepreneurial spirit with their greed. It is like the frog story.
(When you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out of your pot. If you
put it in cool water and slowly turn up the heat, it will just sit there and
get cooked.) When you back up and take a look at the big picture and see how
we got to the level of auctioning air, it is apparent that the more we
accept from the government, the more they want in return. So, what is the
answer?? How do make progress in our industry and lose spectrum at the same
time because we don't have deep pockets?

Thanks for the post on FCC history Rich. Matt, I think you have a good start
to a good idea. Imagine accountability in our govt, schools, etc. 

Regards,
David Weddell
Director of Sales
 
260 827 2551 Office
800 363 4881  Ext 2551
260 273 7547 Cell
 
www.onlyinternet.net
www.oibw.net
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rich Comroe
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 12:13 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

Way back in the time known as BC ... (that's Before Cellular), the FCC 
authorized different frequency coordinators in various markets to manage 
licenses.  An applicant applied to the frequency coordinator for the 
frequency, lat, lon, and power of a desired station, the frequency 
coordinator checked for conflict with other licensed stations, and the FCC 
actually issued the licenses for a fee.   The terms of the license 
required implementation within a year (IIRC), and the license holder was 
required to submit at some interval (yearly?) how many transceivers were 
served to the coordinator to keep its database up to date.  It was (IMHO) 
rational, and served the market of radio users.  Doesn't sound that far off 
from what Matt describes.

Cellular changed all that.  In the early 80s the FCC feared an avalanche of 
applications for a limited number of licenses.  Cellular design dictated 
that the licenses be regional, permitting the operator to place stations at 
will within the served area.  But it was made clear that all licensed 
systems would have to follow the standard (AMPS) and be interoperable. 
They tried a lottery, hoping market pressures would force the multiple 
applicants to consolidate down to fewer applications (that deals, perhaps 
monitary in nature, would be made among the applicants keeping the FCC out 
of it).

Later when the first PCS licenses were issued it's my impression that an 
accounting type mentality had taken over at the FCC ... let's grant the 
license to the highest bidder ... and to maximize the monitary value, they 
made it clear that any carrier winning the license could put up whatever 
technology they wanted!  Interoperability in the interest of the nation's 
good was dismissed in favor of maximizing government revenue ... and the 
first PCS auction amazed everyone how much government revenue could be 
extracted in return for licenses.  Consumer service (coverage) for digital 
cellular plummeted as subscribers could receive no service from roughly 4 
out of 5 deployed towers, the US digital cellular standard was abandonned, 
and the rest of the world looked elsewhere for digital cellular leadership 
(adopting GSM, largely because of the simple fact that European licensing 
strategies were much more rational, which promoted their industry and their 
technology).

All in all I don't consider Matt's idea hair-brained at all, but merely a 
return to a more rational time when the FCC's mandate was to simply serve 
the nation's spectrum needs (rather than serving the Treasury Dept).

Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


 Although I see your point, how would it be inforced? When they didn't make

 quota, do the ones that did get installed jsut get shut off when spectrum 
 gets returned.
 Allocating spectrum based on empty promises is not good practice either.
 What they aught to do is have the selling price and give a discount in the

 form of rebates at time quotas are met.
 The problem with charging based on number's served is that spectrum is not

 necessarilly going to be used for a volume market, other reasons may be 
 jsut as valuable.
 For example public safety may serve fewer people but have just a value to 
 consumer well being.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:23 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


 Imagine what would happen

Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-17 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
Finally, a big company that's got the brains to tell the government to stick 
their high price spectrum tax where the sun don't shine!


marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale



DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3

Thank you.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884  efax 530-323-7025
http://4isps.com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-17 Thread Rich Comroe
Amen.  Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the highest 
income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to policy designed to 
serve the public.  This had a major role in the US cellular industry losing 
the worldwide lead (which didn't do any American any good).  Why can't our 
government understand this?  European 3G spectrum auctions nearly broke the 
back of BT (forced it into bankruptcy and spliting the company such that the 
telecom half didn't sink with the cellular half ... or at least that's how I 
understood it).  The FCC should be managing spectrum for the benefit of the 
American people, not managing spectrum to maximize government revenue.  But 
that's just me.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Finally, a big company that's got the brains to tell the government to 
stick their high price spectrum tax where the sun don't shine!


marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale



DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3

Thank you.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884  efax 530-323-7025
http://4isps.com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-17 Thread Matt Liotta
Imagine what would happen if the FCC sold the license not to the highest 
bidder, but the one that was contractually forced to serve the most 
customers. Either way the company in question would require billions to 
win, but the later option might actually result in more customers being 
served, the money being spent on deployment, and the ability for 
innovative companies to raise money contingent on their business model 
winning.


-Matt

Rich Comroe wrote:
Amen.  Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the 
highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to 
policy designed to serve the public.  This had a major role in the US 
cellular industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any 
American any good).  Why can't our government understand this?  
European 3G spectrum auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it 
into bankruptcy and spliting the company such that the telecom half 
didn't sink with the cellular half ... or at least that's how I 
understood it).  The FCC should be managing spectrum for the benefit 
of the American people, not managing spectrum to maximize government 
revenue.  But that's just me.


Rich

- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Finally, a big company that's got the brains to tell the government 
to stick their high price spectrum tax where the sun don't shine!


marlon

- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale



DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3 



Thank you.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884  efax 530-323-7025
http://4isps.com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-17 Thread John Scrivner
The answer is base station licenses for those who need / want spectrum 
with  interference protection and higher power. With this model you 
could apply for a base station license (in other words 1 tower location 
worth of spectrum in one geographic area), pay an annual fee and have 
exclusive use of a small bit of spectrum to allow you to offer services 
without fear of interference and with higher power which would give you 
enough coverage area to serve 100% of the potential customers around 
your base station. This is the answer.

Scriv


Rich Comroe wrote:

Amen.  Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the 
highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to 
policy designed to serve the public.  This had a major role in the US 
cellular industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any 
American any good).  Why can't our government understand this?  
European 3G spectrum auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it 
into bankruptcy and spliting the company such that the telecom half 
didn't sink with the cellular half ... or at least that's how I 
understood it).  The FCC should be managing spectrum for the benefit 
of the American people, not managing spectrum to maximize government 
revenue.  But that's just me.


Rich

- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Finally, a big company that's got the brains to tell the government 
to stick their high price spectrum tax where the sun don't shine!


marlon

- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale



DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3 



Thank you.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884  efax 530-323-7025
http://4isps.com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-17 Thread Carl A Jeptha
Bunch of Commie bums, What happened to the great capitalist dream?? 
 :-P


John as a Rotarian you know, If you help them with the right tools and 
no handouts the community will succeed. And that is what the FCC must be 
doing. Competition is good, keep the playing field level and may the 
best man win.


Here's a question, All the incumbents bought alot of spectrum now the 
other day, they are all now buying more spectrum.
Where does the money come from, whose money are they spending And 
then they squat on the spectrum.


You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
office 905 349-2084
Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900
skype cajeptha



John Scrivner wrote:
The answer is base station licenses for those who need / want spectrum 
with  interference protection and higher power. With this model you 
could apply for a base station license (in other words 1 tower 
location worth of spectrum in one geographic area), pay an annual fee 
and have exclusive use of a small bit of spectrum to allow you to 
offer services without fear of interference and with higher power 
which would give you enough coverage area to serve 100% of the 
potential customers around your base station. This is the answer.

Scriv


Rich Comroe wrote:

Amen.  Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the 
highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to 
policy designed to serve the public.  This had a major role in the US 
cellular industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any 
American any good).  Why can't our government understand this?  
European 3G spectrum auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it 
into bankruptcy and spliting the company such that the telecom half 
didn't sink with the cellular half ... or at least that's how I 
understood it).  The FCC should be managing spectrum for the benefit 
of the American people, not managing spectrum to maximize government 
revenue.  But that's just me.


Rich

- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Finally, a big company that's got the brains to tell the government 
to stick their high price spectrum tax where the sun don't shine!


marlon

- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale



DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3 



Thank you.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884  efax 530-323-7025
http://4isps.com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-16 Thread Peter R.
DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale  


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3

Thank you.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884  efax 530-323-7025
http://4isps.com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/