Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
I agree that everything written in Forbes post may not be politically 
correct. But his intent was almost heroic.
I think whats important is not the exact content of Forbes post, but the 
concept and purpose.
We can't be afraid to tell our city councils what we think. (What ever that 
is, we each are individuals with our opinions)
So many people JUMP because the so called rich company is comming to town to 
take over.
We can't forget that there are advantages of being local, and locals 
(customers and governments) shouldn't forget it.
But they do, and they need reminding. The Clearwires of the world may have 
funding and scale, but they don't have everything.

We need to sell what we have, to our maximum advantage.

The Teligents and Winstars bankruptcies proved the flaws in the over 
capitolized business models.
And the success of the underfunded small business WISP model, speaks for 
itself, based on the current adoption rate of wireless subscribers accross 
America.
If small providers want to stay in this industry, they are going to need to 
fight to keep that opportunity.
Because there are lots of companies that are strategizing to just try and 
take it from us, if we let them.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:20 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal


Forbes,

My apologies if you find this offensive and my honesty may not win me
any fans here, but your advice includes some dishonest assertions and
your letter to your city council is, in my view, libelous regarding
Clearwire, threatening to your officials, and absolutely asserts false
information (you have zero frequency rights as a first-in operator) and
you have less than zero rights to be protected from any users operating
in their lawfully owned or leased licensed spectrum such as the WCS 2.3
GHz bands or 2.5ish GHz BRS/EBS bands.

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 Forbes Mercy
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:04 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

Hey try this, tell the tower owner that anything from 2.3 to 2.6GHZ can
cause interference and point out that there is very few people there,
then he isn't giving you exclusive so he doesn't jack up the rent and
you just kept Clearwire out.

Oh and one other thing I have studied Clearwire pretty closely and there
is some steps you should take before they come.

1) contact all computer stores and set up resell agreements, tell them
it's exclusive ONLY to wireless which there are hardly any in your town,
that keeps Clearwire out.  It's worth giving a computer store $50 for a
new customer to keep Clearwire out of their place.

2) Contact the tall building owners in town and tell them that this new
company Clearwire is a company in debt to the tune of a billion dollars
and they will likely try to rent space from them.  Tell them that if
they cause interference on your network you can sue them, the building
owner as well as the offending network for that interference.  Both
those points will normally cause them to say no thanks when Clearwire
comes calling.

3) Lastly take away their support, if they are coming to your town they
have already contacted the city and county officials and tried to
arrange for partnerships and attendance at some huge kick off party.
You need to remind officials that this is a redundant service that takes
money straight from their revenue stream.  Clearwire will try to get
resolutions passed supporting them, they are smooth.  Just for your
benefit (in other words don't pass it on to Clearwire) here is the
letter we sent to our civic leaders, the media and the area
organizations:



Dear Council Members and Media,

A new wireless Internet company is coming to Yakima.  They are
Clearwire, an attempt by ATT Wireless inventor Craig McCaw to make a
National wireless network to compete with cell phones.  The difference
between this business venture and the former ATT Wireless is that
Clearwire is supposed to lose money for a tax write-off and then they
sell it.  It's not the sale price they care about, it's the tax
write-off now, they are nearly one billion in debt in a very short time.
The billionaires who start these businesses need huge write-offs for the
huge profits they make in other businesses.  They get other investors to
buy in, and then spend all of their money in hopes of 'stealing' enough
of competitors business by under-pricing their product.  Then they can
raise prices after they have local competition gone and you hooked.
Sound familiar

RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-22 Thread Patrick Leary
Tom, what one thinks is not the same as threats, libel (in my opinion)
and blatant falsehoods (e.g. being the first WISP give a right to
protections). Nothing heroic about that. I would contend it is just the
opposite. I cringe every time I see a WISP do something dishonest or
slimy or just out of gross ignorance of the most basic of legal rules
that govern use of UL frequencies as it only reinforces the perception
still held in some circles that WISPs are out of control or just yahoos
not to be taken seriously. Stuff like only feeds the cause of the
Clearwires and actually HELPS them to succeed at your expense. That's
ironic since I am aware of Clearwire actually behaving much more like
the yahoo WISP perception versus exceptionally professional WISPs in the
same market. I've actually helped certain WISPs successfully defend
against Clearwire by using knowledge of the rules and straight up smart
tactics.
 
Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

I agree that everything written in Forbes post may not be politically 
correct. But his intent was almost heroic.
I think whats important is not the exact content of Forbes post, but the

concept and purpose.
We can't be afraid to tell our city councils what we think. (What ever
that 
is, we each are individuals with our opinions)
So many people JUMP because the so called rich company is comming to
town to 
take over.
We can't forget that there are advantages of being local, and locals 
(customers and governments) shouldn't forget it.
But they do, and they need reminding. The Clearwires of the world may
have 
funding and scale, but they don't have everything.
We need to sell what we have, to our maximum advantage.

The Teligents and Winstars bankruptcies proved the flaws in the over 
capitolized business models.
And the success of the underfunded small business WISP model, speaks for

itself, based on the current adoption rate of wireless subscribers
accross 
America.
If small providers want to stay in this industry, they are going to need
to 
fight to keep that opportunity.
Because there are lots of companies that are strategizing to just try
and 
take it from us, if we let them.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:20 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal


Forbes,

My apologies if you find this offensive and my honesty may not win me
any fans here, but your advice includes some dishonest assertions and
your letter to your city council is, in my view, libelous regarding
Clearwire, threatening to your officials, and absolutely asserts false
information (you have zero frequency rights as a first-in operator) and
you have less than zero rights to be protected from any users operating
in their lawfully owned or leased licensed spectrum such as the WCS 2.3
GHz bands or 2.5ish GHz BRS/EBS bands.

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 Forbes Mercy
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:04 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

Hey try this, tell the tower owner that anything from 2.3 to 2.6GHZ can
cause interference and point out that there is very few people there,
then he isn't giving you exclusive so he doesn't jack up the rent and
you just kept Clearwire out.

Oh and one other thing I have studied Clearwire pretty closely and there
is some steps you should take before they come.

1) contact all computer stores and set up resell agreements, tell them
it's exclusive ONLY to wireless which there are hardly any in your town,
that keeps Clearwire out.  It's worth giving a computer store $50 for a
new customer to keep Clearwire out of their place.

2) Contact the tall building owners in town and tell them that this new
company Clearwire is a company in debt to the tune of a billion dollars
and they will likely try to rent space from them.  Tell them that if
they cause interference on your network you can sue them, the building
owner as well as the offending network for that interference.  Both
those points will normally cause them to say no thanks when Clearwire
comes calling.

3) Lastly take away their support, if they are coming to your town they
have already contacted the city and county officials and tried to
arrange for partnerships and attendance at some huge kick off party.
You need to remind officials that this is a redundant service that takes
money straight from their revenue stream.  Clearwire will try to get
resolutions passed supporting them, they are smooth

Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread George Rogato
I'm glad they recognized there would be a problem giving one person an 
exclusive contract to serve the entire city, via city property.


I'm especially glad they got down to the technical details of unlicensed 
frequency, in a public way.


Of course it helps when there is a councilman who understands the issues.

As it stands now, there does not need to be exclusive contracts, just 
let the wisps deploy at will.



Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Council rejects wireless proposal

By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal 
to deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday night 
vote.


Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of the 
proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited the 
council chambers immediately following the council vote.


Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier wireless 
division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did 
summarize her reaction in one word: “Disappointed.”


Linda Aerni, president of Community Internet and Wire Free Nebraska 
Inc., and Paul Schumacher, a business partner of Aerni, celebrated the 
decision.


Aerni said the council did a good job of processing a lot of 
technological information and made the right decision for the city.


“The council voted the right way, not holding the city to a 10-year 
obligation,” she said. “Technology has changed so much, even in the last 
month.”


When asked if Community Internet is considering deploying a network on 
its own, Aerni said “of course.”


“Community Internet has already deployed wireless Internet outside 
Columbus,” she said.


Schumacher said there was no need to rush into any agreement, and if and 
when Community Internet does decide to implement a network, “the city 
wouldn't be in the middle of it.”


A report by Robert Tupper, chief telecommunications engineer for RVW 
Inc., and Donn C. Swedenburg, telecommunications specialist for RVW, may 
have influenced the council's decision.


The proposed contract stipulated no other devices that may degrade 
Frontier's network “as determined by Frontier” could be attached to city 
property.


The report stated “the characteristics of unlicensed operation present 
many challenges.” According to Federal Communication Commission 
regulations, devices for operation of an unlicensed band, such as 
Frontier proposed, “must accept any interference received, including 
interference that may cause undesired operation.”


Tupper said deployment of two wireless, broadband, mesh networks was 
possible but may not be feasible.


“Co-existing within the 2.4 gHz spectrum is the toughest coordination,” 
he said. “I am not going to say it can be done. I am not going to say it 
can't be done.”


Whether it can or can't, it would “be difficult to have two widely 
deployed mesh networks ... from an economics standpoint,” Tupper said.


Councilman Chuck Whitney objected to Frontier's sole discretion to 
determine interference and network pricing differences between Frontier 
and non-Frontier customers.


“If I am a Frontier customer I pay $9.99 a month and a customer of 
Community Internet/Megavision would pay $9.99 per day,” Whitney said. 
“There can be no discrimination in pricing.”


Mayor Mike Moser said the council made the right decision regarding the 
Frontier proposal.


“I think the council came up with right decision. There were a lot of 
unknowns, and before entering into a contract, all the blanks should be 
filled in,” Moser said. “I didn't feel the city was getting enough out 
of it to make it work.


“If somebody else comes up with plan they can bring it to city the to 
look at it, but it is not something we are actively looking for at this 
moment. The ultimate result was where it should be gone.”


--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

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] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread Brad Belton
Wow...impressive!  A city counsel that didn't fall for the snake oil
salesman...

Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:31 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

Council rejects wireless proposal

By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal 
to deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday night 
vote.

Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of the 
proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited the 
council chambers immediately following the council vote.

Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier wireless 
division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did 
summarize her reaction in one word: Disappointed.

Linda Aerni, president of Community Internet and Wire Free Nebraska 
Inc., and Paul Schumacher, a business partner of Aerni, celebrated the 
decision.

Aerni said the council did a good job of processing a lot of 
technological information and made the right decision for the city.

The council voted the right way, not holding the city to a 10-year 
obligation, she said. Technology has changed so much, even in the last 
month.

When asked if Community Internet is considering deploying a network on 
its own, Aerni said of course.

Community Internet has already deployed wireless Internet outside 
Columbus, she said.

Schumacher said there was no need to rush into any agreement, and if and 
when Community Internet does decide to implement a network, the city 
wouldn't be in the middle of it.

A report by Robert Tupper, chief telecommunications engineer for RVW 
Inc., and Donn C. Swedenburg, telecommunications specialist for RVW, may 
have influenced the council's decision.

The proposed contract stipulated no other devices that may degrade 
Frontier's network as determined by Frontier could be attached to city 
property.

The report stated the characteristics of unlicensed operation present 
many challenges. According to Federal Communication Commission 
regulations, devices for operation of an unlicensed band, such as 
Frontier proposed, must accept any interference received, including 
interference that may cause undesired operation.

Tupper said deployment of two wireless, broadband, mesh networks was 
possible but may not be feasible.

Co-existing within the 2.4 gHz spectrum is the toughest coordination, 
he said. I am not going to say it can be done. I am not going to say it 
can't be done.

Whether it can or can't, it would be difficult to have two widely 
deployed mesh networks ... from an economics standpoint, Tupper said.

Councilman Chuck Whitney objected to Frontier's sole discretion to 
determine interference and network pricing differences between Frontier 
and non-Frontier customers.

If I am a Frontier customer I pay $9.99 a month and a customer of 
Community Internet/Megavision would pay $9.99 per day, Whitney said. 
There can be no discrimination in pricing.

Mayor Mike Moser said the council made the right decision regarding the 
Frontier proposal.

I think the council came up with right decision. There were a lot of 
unknowns, and before entering into a contract, all the blanks should be 
filled in, Moser said. I didn't feel the city was getting enough out 
of it to make it work.

If somebody else comes up with plan they can bring it to city the to 
look at it, but it is not something we are actively looking for at this 
moment. The ultimate result was where it should be gone.
-- 
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] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sounds like they had some pretty valid reasons to reject the proposal.  It 
sounded pretty onerous.


Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:30 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal



Council rejects wireless proposal

By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal to 
deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday night 
vote.


Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of the 
proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited the 
council chambers immediately following the council vote.


Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier wireless 
division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did summarize 
her reaction in one word: “Disappointed.”


Linda Aerni, president of Community Internet and Wire Free Nebraska Inc., 
and Paul Schumacher, a business partner of Aerni, celebrated the decision.


Aerni said the council did a good job of processing a lot of technological 
information and made the right decision for the city.


“The council voted the right way, not holding the city to a 10-year 
obligation,” she said. “Technology has changed so much, even in the last 
month.”


When asked if Community Internet is considering deploying a network on its 
own, Aerni said “of course.”


“Community Internet has already deployed wireless Internet outside 
Columbus,” she said.


Schumacher said there was no need to rush into any agreement, and if and 
when Community Internet does decide to implement a network, “the city 
wouldn't be in the middle of it.”


A report by Robert Tupper, chief telecommunications engineer for RVW Inc., 
and Donn C. Swedenburg, telecommunications specialist for RVW, may have 
influenced the council's decision.


The proposed contract stipulated no other devices that may degrade 
Frontier's network “as determined by Frontier” could be attached to city 
property.


The report stated “the characteristics of unlicensed operation present 
many challenges.” According to Federal Communication Commission 
regulations, devices for operation of an unlicensed band, such as Frontier 
proposed, “must accept any interference received, including interference 
that may cause undesired operation.”


Tupper said deployment of two wireless, broadband, mesh networks was 
possible but may not be feasible.


“Co-existing within the 2.4 gHz spectrum is the toughest coordination,” he 
said. “I am not going to say it can be done. I am not going to say it 
can't be done.”


Whether it can or can't, it would “be difficult to have two widely 
deployed mesh networks ... from an economics standpoint,” Tupper said.


Councilman Chuck Whitney objected to Frontier's sole discretion to 
determine interference and network pricing differences between Frontier 
and non-Frontier customers.


“If I am a Frontier customer I pay $9.99 a month and a customer of 
Community Internet/Megavision would pay $9.99 per day,” Whitney said. 
“There can be no discrimination in pricing.”


Mayor Mike Moser said the council made the right decision regarding the 
Frontier proposal.


“I think the council came up with right decision. There were a lot of 
unknowns, and before entering into a contract, all the blanks should be 
filled in,” Moser said. “I didn't feel the city was getting enough out of 
it to make it work.


“If somebody else comes up with plan they can bring it to city the to look 
at it, but it is not something we are actively looking for at this moment. 
The ultimate result was where it should be gone.”

--
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] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread Tom DeReggi
They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some 
people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity and 
intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum.


But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City 
agreements to be exclusive.  In Montgomery County MD, the City promised free 
access to all County Governement structures, to third party providers, in 
exchange for restrictions of new tower building.  Changing it to exclusive 
after teh fact would be deceptive and in contrast to previous law.  They 
would need to remove the ban on tower building and reduce the $17,000 
Special Exception fee, if they changed directions and attempted exclusivity.


There are FCC laws that protect unlicensed spectrum for public use, and 
protect entities from breaking competition and exclsuively supporting one 
ISP over another ISP. In the public sector MTU world, property owners are 
not supposed to give one ISP preferencial terms over another preventing 
consumers access to telecommunications. EXCLUSIVITY is a dirty word for any 
colocation agreement.
For Governments to ignore their own rulings, and lead the way to give 
exclusivity is just wrong.  Instead they should be allocating spectrum for 
city's use, for their exclusive projects.


The Bells complained about governments helping fund third parties giving 
them an upper hand above the monopoly telecoms that have invested in the 
existing networks.  Giving exclusivity is even worse. Its not giving an 
advantage (financially) its preventing the others from playing at all! 
People forget that City assets, ultimately belong to the people who pay the 
taxes. Its not the same thing as Private property owners of MTU buildings 
who should ahve fewer restrictions than public property.  We need to 
remember we are not a dictatorship governement.


I am NOT agaisnt Muni networks anymore. But I am definately against 
exclusivity. If teh city want to give an easement and public marketing 
support in exchange for investment from a third party, so be it. But they do 
not have the ethical right to deny those asements from additional third 
parties who are willing to invest.   These proposals of exclusivity are 
being initiated because they are administered from clueless polititions who 
have zero experience in FCC and the Internet world.


It is my opinion that the WORST thing for ISPs, Vendors, Cities, and 
Consumers is to give exclusivity. It undoes everything that every 
telecommunications act has ever attempted to do.  There is absolutely no 
downside to keeping unlicensed open, and public easements open to as many 
competitors as possible.  Interference, can be controlled so many ways other 
than via exclusiveity, and exclusivity won;t solve the problem anyway, as 
the City does not own the air and all the public property.  All exclusivity 
does is prevents putting togeather the shared benefits of public and private 
assets, which public assets are jsut not owned by a single intity.


exclusivity should be the number one topic that WISPs are fighting 
against.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal


Most of the Muni contracts I have worked on so far are exclusive. An RFP
would have been a better way to resolve the issue. Just letting anyone
use city property is a sure way for failure. I'm not so sure letting
wisp's deploy at will for Muni wifi is such a great idea. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:25 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

I'm glad they recognized there would be a problem giving one person an
exclusive contract to serve the entire city, via city property.

I'm especially glad they got down to the technical details of unlicensed

frequency, in a public way.

Of course it helps when there is a councilman who understands the
issues.

As it stands now, there does not need to be exclusive contracts, just
let the wisps deploy at will.


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Council rejects wireless proposal

By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal



to deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday

night

vote.

Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of

the

proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited

the

council chambers immediately following the council vote.

Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier

wireless

division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did
summarize her reaction in one word: Disappointed.

Linda Aerni, president of Community

Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal - exclusive

2006-12-21 Thread Tom DeReggi
Exclusivity is an old issue and was already to supposed to be banned. 
Exclusive marketing agreements was fine. Even exclusive frequency was OK, as 
you can't can;t sell it twice, or fit 2 gallons of water in a 1 gallon 
bucket.  But NOT exclusive provider.
Any contract writer knew Exclusive Provider had to be excluded from their 
agreements, or they risked it invalidating the agreement.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal - exclusive


Are Exclusive MDU Access Agreements on Thin Regulatory Ice? 
/2006issues/nov06issues/kandutsch_nov.pdf

/By Carl E. Kandutsch, Ph.D., J.D/
Good arguments can be made for and against exclusive, perpetual access. 
Will the use of exclusive access agreements between owners of 
multi-dwelling unit (MDU) properties and communications providers be 
banned or restricted in the foreseeable future?

http://www.broadbandproperties.com/2006issues/nov06issues/kandutsch_nov.pdf
--
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] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread Tom DeReggi

I can't agree more George.

Ps. I would have voted for you.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal



Tom DeReggi wrote:
They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some 
people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity 
and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum.


But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City 
agreements to be exclusive.


EXACTLY, this has been the problem all along.

Whats going to happen when Earthlink gets exclusivity in any of these
cities or towns we are in. Is the city now going to stop us from
operating in their area?

Of course they are.

Nice thing about this city council, is that one of the councilors was a
wisp. Not sure if he's non profit or what, but he understands and he was
able to explain the situation to the other councilors.

I'm afraid that in most all councils, they are not educated, aware, or
understand the reasons against exclusivity.

I think all the wisps in wispa and else where, ought to go to their city
council, address the council at one of the regular meetings. At the
beginning of the meetings generally there is a time for public comments
that you can talk to the council about stuff not on the agenda  and tell
them what you have to say.

I'm not saying that you all should go and complain, but rather go and
introduce yourself and tell them who you are what you do and the service
you provide, amount of employees that you have and a maybe even general
idea of how much you gross and put back into the local economy.

I've had to go in front of the council a couple of times, and it's
usually an easy and positive thing. If they like what you are saying or
even if just one of them likes what they are hearing, they will engage
you into even more conversation where you can pump your wisp even more!

It's really up to us, the small operator to take the bull by the horns
and make some hay. Otherwise, the consultants are going to come in and
sell them on someone else.




--
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] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread George Rogato
The complication in all this muni on a lightpole, is the cell phone 
companies. I imagine there will be a day when the wisp meets the cell 
phone guys and realizes our limitations.




Brad Larson wrote:

Tom, I don't think asking to be exclusive on light poles is a bad thing.
It's usually done in exchange for public safety or public workers riding
the network for free. Like I said in a previous post, I just can't see
multiple vendors stacking wifi mesh solutions on every other light pole.
Who will invest if that's the case? Again, I'm still on the fence with
these Muni wified mesh networks and their viability. Time will tell. How
many of you have exclusive rooftop or tower rights? The same can be said
about light poles when Earthlink or another service provider is
deploying and sometimes paying to be there. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:02 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some

people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity
and 
intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum.


But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City 
agreements to be exclusive.  In Montgomery County MD, the City promised
free 
access to all County Governement structures, to third party providers,
in 
exchange for restrictions of new tower building.  Changing it to
exclusive 
after teh fact would be deceptive and in contrast to previous law.  They


would need to remove the ban on tower building and reduce the $17,000 
Special Exception fee, if they changed directions and attempted

exclusivity.

There are FCC laws that protect unlicensed spectrum for public use, and 
protect entities from breaking competition and exclsuively supporting
one 
ISP over another ISP. In the public sector MTU world, property owners
are 
not supposed to give one ISP preferencial terms over another preventing 
consumers access to telecommunications. EXCLUSIVITY is a dirty word for
any 
colocation agreement.
For Governments to ignore their own rulings, and lead the way to give 
exclusivity is just wrong.  Instead they should be allocating spectrum
for 
city's use, for their exclusive projects.


The Bells complained about governments helping fund third parties giving

them an upper hand above the monopoly telecoms that have invested in the

existing networks.  Giving exclusivity is even worse. Its not giving an 
advantage (financially) its preventing the others from playing at all! 
People forget that City assets, ultimately belong to the people who pay
the 
taxes. Its not the same thing as Private property owners of MTU
buildings 
who should ahve fewer restrictions than public property.  We need to 
remember we are not a dictatorship governement.


I am NOT agaisnt Muni networks anymore. But I am definately against 
exclusivity. If teh city want to give an easement and public marketing 
support in exchange for investment from a third party, so be it. But
they do 
not have the ethical right to deny those asements from additional third 
parties who are willing to invest.   These proposals of exclusivity are 
being initiated because they are administered from clueless polititions
who 
have zero experience in FCC and the Internet world.


It is my opinion that the WORST thing for ISPs, Vendors, Cities, and 
Consumers is to give exclusivity. It undoes everything that every 
telecommunications act has ever attempted to do.  There is absolutely no


downside to keeping unlicensed open, and public easements open to as
many 
competitors as possible.  Interference, can be controlled so many ways
other 
than via exclusiveity, and exclusivity won;t solve the problem anyway,
as 
the City does not own the air and all the public property.  All
exclusivity 
does is prevents putting togeather the shared benefits of public and
private 
assets, which public assets are jsut not owned by a single intity.


 exclusivity should be the number one topic that WISPs are fighting 
against.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal


Most of the Muni contracts I have worked on so far are exclusive. An RFP
would have been a better way to resolve the issue. Just letting anyone
use city property is a sure way for failure. I'm not so sure letting
wisp's deploy at will for Muni wifi is such a great idea. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:25 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

I'm glad they recognized there would be a problem

Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread Tom DeReggi

I just can't see
several mesh muni projects per city being successful.


Maybe not. But thats not the governemnt's problem. The government only needs 
to back and market one of them. I'm not agaisnt that.
Maybe I want to deploy for a diffferent reason than FREE public broadband? 
There could be many reasons for wifi isntalled in cities, and not in good 
judgement to limit what innovations could occur in the future.


What I hate to see is when governments are up for sale. I was always a 
Microsoft fan, until they proved they could buy the governement.
I don't think the public and governement should be up for sale. At least not 
for the few million that gets offered, by the winning bidder.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal


They get exclusive rights to light poles for a mesh deployment. I'm not
at all advocating these projects but at the same time I just can't see
several mesh muni projects per city being successful. I agree that there
are way too many consultants jumping into the game. I heard about a
consultant today saying that 900 Mhz can go thru 6 miles of trees and do
voip for more than 25 calls per sector. I won't name the vendor but
I've heard the same from their reps. I thought maybe our industry would
start to mature a little more in 2006 but I guess it's still a waiting
game. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

Tom DeReggi wrote:

They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how

some

people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the

legallity

and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum.

But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City
agreements to be exclusive.


EXACTLY, this has been the problem all along.

Whats going to happen when Earthlink gets exclusivity in any of these
cities or towns we are in. Is the city now going to stop us from
operating in their area?

Of course they are.

Nice thing about this city council, is that one of the councilors was a
wisp. Not sure if he's non profit or what, but he understands and he was
able to explain the situation to the other councilors.

I'm afraid that in most all councils, they are not educated, aware, or
understand the reasons against exclusivity.

I think all the wisps in wispa and else where, ought to go to their city
council, address the council at one of the regular meetings. At the
beginning of the meetings generally there is a time for public comments
that you can talk to the council about stuff not on the agenda  and tell
them what you have to say.

I'm not saying that you all should go and complain, but rather go and
introduce yourself and tell them who you are what you do and the service
you provide, amount of employees that you have and a maybe even general
idea of how much you gross and put back into the local economy.

I've had to go in front of the council a couple of times, and it's
usually an easy and positive thing. If they like what you are saying or
even if just one of them likes what they are hearing, they will engage
you into even more conversation where you can pump your wisp even more!

It's really up to us, the small operator to take the bull by the horns
and make some hay. Otherwise, the consultants are going to come in and
sell them on someone else.




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(190).











This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(42).











This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer 
viruses.





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives

Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread Tom DeReggi

Brad,

There is a BIG difference.  On tower agreements we do it with 
non-interference clauses,or we buy up all the finite resources (in some 
cases spectrum). Could you image what would happen if we went to a tower 
owner and requested to be the ONLY provider to rent space on the tower? It 
would never happen.


Do you think I like the fact that Clearwire is comming to town and 
overlaying a network on top of mine, possibly some of the same towers?
Why must I have competition and not the governement? Its a double standard. 
I didn't have the right to buy exclusivity. I bought exclusive rights to use 
spectrum ranges that I use, but thats a different animal, and that does not 
stop copetition, that just help minimize my interference.


The way the Munis are writing it, is exclusive provider.  Even if I went out 
and won an auction on licensed spectrum and could guarantee that I wouldn't 
interfere with the other unlicenced WISP, I would not be allowed to buy the 
easement to the poles.


Plus it does not matter what is best for unlicensed. unlicensed radio gear 
needs does not override what is right from the perspective of the 
constitution, and the American way of Free competition.


Does the Muni network really need, 900, 2.4, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, to pull off its 
free public network? I think not. The intent is not to prevent interference, 
the intent is to give exclusive provider. Someone buying the right to access 
the public, and therefore consumers losing choice.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal


Tom, I don't think asking to be exclusive on light poles is a bad thing.
It's usually done in exchange for public safety or public workers riding
the network for free. Like I said in a previous post, I just can't see
multiple vendors stacking wifi mesh solutions on every other light pole.
Who will invest if that's the case? Again, I'm still on the fence with
these Muni wified mesh networks and their viability. Time will tell. How
many of you have exclusive rooftop or tower rights? The same can be said
about light poles when Earthlink or another service provider is
deploying and sometimes paying to be there. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:02 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some

people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity
and
intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum.

But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City
agreements to be exclusive.  In Montgomery County MD, the City promised
free
access to all County Governement structures, to third party providers,
in
exchange for restrictions of new tower building.  Changing it to
exclusive
after teh fact would be deceptive and in contrast to previous law.  They

would need to remove the ban on tower building and reduce the $17,000
Special Exception fee, if they changed directions and attempted
exclusivity.

There are FCC laws that protect unlicensed spectrum for public use, and
protect entities from breaking competition and exclsuively supporting
one
ISP over another ISP. In the public sector MTU world, property owners
are
not supposed to give one ISP preferencial terms over another preventing
consumers access to telecommunications. EXCLUSIVITY is a dirty word for
any
colocation agreement.
For Governments to ignore their own rulings, and lead the way to give
exclusivity is just wrong.  Instead they should be allocating spectrum
for
city's use, for their exclusive projects.

The Bells complained about governments helping fund third parties giving

them an upper hand above the monopoly telecoms that have invested in the

existing networks.  Giving exclusivity is even worse. Its not giving an
advantage (financially) its preventing the others from playing at all!
People forget that City assets, ultimately belong to the people who pay
the
taxes. Its not the same thing as Private property owners of MTU
buildings
who should ahve fewer restrictions than public property.  We need to
remember we are not a dictatorship governement.

I am NOT agaisnt Muni networks anymore. But I am definately against
exclusivity. If teh city want to give an easement and public marketing
support in exchange for investment from a third party, so be it. But
they do
not have the ethical right to deny those asements from additional third
parties who are willing to invest.   These proposals of exclusivity are
being initiated because they are administered from clueless polititions
who
have zero experience in FCC and the Internet world.

It is my opinion that the WORST thing

RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread Forbes Mercy
.  In other 
markets the building, not Clearwire that houses their transmitters has been 
sued.  I think Yakima County may have seen they were opening a Pandora’s Box of 
potential legal issues by partnering with them.  I would also like to think 
they were showing some loyalty to local business as well.

Any partnership with Clearwire will immediately open the city to criticism of 
disloyalty to local businesses plus the potential of legal issues if you house 
their gear.  My VERY partial advice, stay clear of Clearwire, if you need a 
Wireless partner to deploy downtown or anywhere just share some block grant or 
loan funds with us and we will deploy and maintain it ALL with local people 
making local wages and shopping here.  We were the first local Internet Company 
in Yakima; my company has spent more money on “Buy Local” ads then most other 
merchants in Yakima.  I support when you welcome a national company that offers 
something we don’t have here but you would be welcoming a company that directly 
takes dollars out of your pockets.  Clearwire just like AOL contribute not one 
cent back to the community, its population or its merchants, which is the whole 
point, isn’t it?

Thank you for your valuable time,
Forbes Mercy
President - Northwest Info Net, Inc. (www.nwinfo.net)
President - Washington Broadband, Inc. (www.wabroadband.com)
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: 509-853-0852
fax: 509-853-0856


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

Brad,

There is a BIG difference.  On tower agreements we do it with 
non-interference clauses,or we buy up all the finite resources (in some 
cases spectrum). Could you image what would happen if we went to a tower 
owner and requested to be the ONLY provider to rent space on the tower? It 
would never happen.

Do you think I like the fact that Clearwire is comming to town and 
overlaying a network on top of mine, possibly some of the same towers?
Why must I have competition and not the governement? Its a double standard. 
I didn't have the right to buy exclusivity. I bought exclusive rights to use 
spectrum ranges that I use, but thats a different animal, and that does not 
stop copetition, that just help minimize my interference.

The way the Munis are writing it, is exclusive provider.  Even if I went out 
and won an auction on licensed spectrum and could guarantee that I wouldn't 
interfere with the other unlicenced WISP, I would not be allowed to buy the 
easement to the poles.

Plus it does not matter what is best for unlicensed. unlicensed radio gear 
needs does not override what is right from the perspective of the 
constitution, and the American way of Free competition.

Does the Muni network really need, 900, 2.4, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, to pull off its 
free public network? I think not. The intent is not to prevent interference, 
the intent is to give exclusive provider. Someone buying the right to access 
the public, and therefore consumers losing choice.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal


Tom, I don't think asking to be exclusive on light poles is a bad thing.
It's usually done in exchange for public safety or public workers riding
the network for free. Like I said in a previous post, I just can't see
multiple vendors stacking wifi mesh solutions on every other light pole.
Who will invest if that's the case? Again, I'm still on the fence with
these Muni wified mesh networks and their viability. Time will tell. How
many of you have exclusive rooftop or tower rights? The same can be said
about light poles when Earthlink or another service provider is
deploying and sometimes paying to be there. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:02 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some

people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity
and
intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum.

But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City
agreements to be exclusive.  In Montgomery County MD, the City promised
free
access to all County Governement structures, to third party providers,
in
exchange for restrictions of new tower building.  Changing it to
exclusive
after teh fact would be deceptive and in contrast to previous law.  They

would need to remove the ban on tower building and reduce the $17,000
Special Exception fee, if they changed directions and attempted
exclusivity.

There are FCC laws

RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread Patrick Leary
Forbes,

My apologies if you find this offensive and my honesty may not win me
any fans here, but your advice includes some dishonest assertions and
your letter to your city council is, in my view, libelous regarding
Clearwire, threatening to your officials, and absolutely asserts false
information (you have zero frequency rights as a first-in operator) and
you have less than zero rights to be protected from any users operating
in their lawfully owned or leased licensed spectrum such as the WCS 2.3
GHz bands or 2.5ish GHz BRS/EBS bands.

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 Forbes Mercy
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:04 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

Hey try this, tell the tower owner that anything from 2.3 to 2.6GHZ can
cause interference and point out that there is very few people there,
then he isn't giving you exclusive so he doesn't jack up the rent and
you just kept Clearwire out.

Oh and one other thing I have studied Clearwire pretty closely and there
is some steps you should take before they come.

1) contact all computer stores and set up resell agreements, tell them
it's exclusive ONLY to wireless which there are hardly any in your town,
that keeps Clearwire out.  It's worth giving a computer store $50 for a
new customer to keep Clearwire out of their place.

2) Contact the tall building owners in town and tell them that this new
company Clearwire is a company in debt to the tune of a billion dollars
and they will likely try to rent space from them.  Tell them that if
they cause interference on your network you can sue them, the building
owner as well as the offending network for that interference.  Both
those points will normally cause them to say no thanks when Clearwire
comes calling.

3) Lastly take away their support, if they are coming to your town they
have already contacted the city and county officials and tried to
arrange for partnerships and attendance at some huge kick off party.
You need to remind officials that this is a redundant service that takes
money straight from their revenue stream.  Clearwire will try to get
resolutions passed supporting them, they are smooth.  Just for your
benefit (in other words don't pass it on to Clearwire) here is the
letter we sent to our civic leaders, the media and the area
organizations:



Dear Council Members and Media,

 A new wireless Internet company is coming to Yakima.  They are
Clearwire, an attempt by ATT Wireless inventor Craig McCaw to make a
National wireless network to compete with cell phones.  The difference
between this business venture and the former ATT Wireless is that
Clearwire is supposed to lose money for a tax write-off and then they
sell it.  It's not the sale price they care about, it's the tax
write-off now, they are nearly one billion in debt in a very short time.
The billionaires who start these businesses need huge write-offs for the
huge profits they make in other businesses.  They get other investors to
buy in, and then spend all of their money in hopes of 'stealing' enough
of competitors business by under-pricing their product.  Then they can
raise prices after they have local competition gone and you hooked.
Sound familiar, yes meet Charter Cable, 18 billion (with a B)  in debt
they just had to sell two more billion just to make payments, it's Paul
Allen's write-off and a good one for his Microsoft stock that keeps
paying huge profits.  Charter's stock was around $30 at the IPO but was
as low as a dollar last year.  Both Charter and Qwest (-$22 billion) are
good stocks now because they are prime to sell.

Clearwire went into the Tri-Cities last year; they rented a huge barge
on the Columbia, and loaded it with fireworks, had all the government
officials and media they could find attend then gave quite a show at a
cost of about $250,000.  Incidentally that would be my cost for seamless
Internet Downtown.  A flashy and expensive party, the problem was that
there were already three high-speed locally owned Wireless Internet
Companies in town.  Essentially what city officials were saying was we
don't like local companies but when a big new flashy national company
comes to town we're there.   Nearly as insulting as what happened in
New Orleans when a Local Wireless Provider worked nearly 24 hours a day
after Katrina putting up free kiosks for people to call home (the
pictures you saw on the news were from his equipment).   The Mayor was
so impressed with the capabilities that he immediately spent millions to
build a city wide Wireless network promptly taking nearly all of the
Wireless ISP's customers, there's gratitude.  Please try to remember
that when Earthlink or Google try to pitch

Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread Tom DeReggi
What is Alvarion going to do, when Earthlink wins all the Muni jobs 
selecting Motorola gear?
I believe the WISPs with Clue, (the ones selecting Alvarion :-) should have 
the opportunity to also try and get a peice of the pie.


The there can only be one is best left for Science Fiction Movies.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal


They get exclusive rights to light poles for a mesh deployment. I'm not
at all advocating these projects but at the same time I just can't see
several mesh muni projects per city being successful. I agree that there
are way too many consultants jumping into the game. I heard about a
consultant today saying that 900 Mhz can go thru 6 miles of trees and do
voip for more than 25 calls per sector. I won't name the vendor but
I've heard the same from their reps. I thought maybe our industry would
start to mature a little more in 2006 but I guess it's still a waiting
game. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

Tom DeReggi wrote:

They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how

some

people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the

legallity

and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum.

But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City
agreements to be exclusive.


EXACTLY, this has been the problem all along.

Whats going to happen when Earthlink gets exclusivity in any of these
cities or towns we are in. Is the city now going to stop us from
operating in their area?

Of course they are.

Nice thing about this city council, is that one of the councilors was a
wisp. Not sure if he's non profit or what, but he understands and he was
able to explain the situation to the other councilors.

I'm afraid that in most all councils, they are not educated, aware, or
understand the reasons against exclusivity.

I think all the wisps in wispa and else where, ought to go to their city
council, address the council at one of the regular meetings. At the
beginning of the meetings generally there is a time for public comments
that you can talk to the council about stuff not on the agenda  and tell
them what you have to say.

I'm not saying that you all should go and complain, but rather go and
introduce yourself and tell them who you are what you do and the service
you provide, amount of employees that you have and a maybe even general
idea of how much you gross and put back into the local economy.

I've had to go in front of the council a couple of times, and it's
usually an easy and positive thing. If they like what you are saying or
even if just one of them likes what they are hearing, they will engage
you into even more conversation where you can pump your wisp even more!

It's really up to us, the small operator to take the bull by the horns
and make some hay. Otherwise, the consultants are going to come in and
sell them on someone else.




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(190).











This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(42).











This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer 
viruses.





--
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] Council rejects wireless proposal

2006-12-21 Thread Blake Bowers

I have to agree.  If one just absolutely feels the need
to gripe about their competition, one must be honest,
and be able to back up what they say.  


Many however, will not buy from someone who
badmouths their competition - no matter whether true
or not.  

Whatever happened to just being better than the 
competition?


And exclusive rights?   I figure that will end up 
in court, just as Cable TV and Telephone did.





- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal


Forbes,

My apologies if you find this offensive and my honesty may not win me
any fans here, but your advice includes some dishonest assertions and
your letter to your city council is, in my view, libelous regarding
Clearwire, threatening to your officials, and absolutely asserts false
information (you have zero frequency rights as a first-in operator) and
you have less than zero rights to be protected from any users operating
in their lawfully owned or leased licensed spectrum such as the WCS 2.3
GHz bands or 2.5ish GHz BRS/EBS bands.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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