Re: [WISPA] County

2008-11-15 Thread Travis Johnson




Yes, but he is on their tower for free in exchange for transporting
traffic.

Travis

Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:

  We pay rent to one county to be in their building and on their tower.
The sheriff's office might be on some paperwork somewhere.  Not unheard of.
- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "WISPA General List" 
wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:29 PM
Subject: [WISPA] County


  
  
Hi,

I discovered today that one of my competitors that has setup several
(6+) new licensed links (using 11ghz, 18ghz and 23ghz) in the last year
is using the local Sheriff's office as the contact and registered owner
in the FCC database.

I'm sure the Sheriff's office is using the links for their public safety
service (because that's how they are registered on the FCC site), but I
also know this competitor has setup at least one link that is not in an
area where the Sheriff's office would need any type of service (and
therefore is only using it for their own traffic).

First, I assume this is legal because the Sheriff's office is probably
paying for all this equipment. However, because they are a "public"
office, I assume that anyone that wanted to use that transport should be
allowed, since they are allowing this other provider that is installing
them?

Also, I would assume this would hold true for several towers (owned by
the same county) that this competitor is on for free. If they allowed
this person on the towers (in exchange for moving traffic), I would
think they would have to allow me on as well?

Thoughts?

Travis
Microserv



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/

Re: [WISPA] County

2008-11-15 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
In a contract, there is offer, acceptance, consideration and performance.
Consideration doesn't have to be monetary.  
If the Sheriff paid $1000/month for transport and charged $1000/month for rent, 
it wouldn't change anything.
Each side is getting something of value.  Transport, rent, dollars, it is all 
consideration.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Travis Johnson 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:26 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] County


  Yes, but he is on their tower for free in exchange for transporting traffic.

  Travis

  Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: 
We pay rent to one county to be in their building and on their tower.
The sheriff's office might be on some paperwork somewhere.  Not unheard of.
- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List 
wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:29 PM
Subject: [WISPA] County


  Hi,

I discovered today that one of my competitors that has setup several
(6+) new licensed links (using 11ghz, 18ghz and 23ghz) in the last year
is using the local Sheriff's office as the contact and registered owner
in the FCC database.

I'm sure the Sheriff's office is using the links for their public safety
service (because that's how they are registered on the FCC site), but I
also know this competitor has setup at least one link that is not in an
area where the Sheriff's office would need any type of service (and
therefore is only using it for their own traffic).

First, I assume this is legal because the Sheriff's office is probably
paying for all this equipment. However, because they are a public
office, I assume that anyone that wanted to use that transport should be
allowed, since they are allowing this other provider that is installing
them?

Also, I would assume this would hold true for several towers (owned by
the same county) that this competitor is on for free. If they allowed
this person on the towers (in exchange for moving traffic), I would
think they would have to allow me on as well?

Thoughts?

Travis
Microserv



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 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] County

2008-11-15 Thread Butch Evans
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:

In a contract, there is offer, acceptance, consideration and 
performance. Consideration doesn't have to be monetary. If the 
Sheriff paid $1000/month for transport and charged $1000/month for 
rent, it wouldn't change anything. Each side is getting something 
of value.  Transport, rent, dollars, it is all consideration.

We've done this with some of the networks that were built for the 
mobility solutions I've deployed.  The local ISP is handling the 
maintenance of the network for a $1500 or so monthly fee and they 
are paying a $1500/month access fee for the use of the network. The 
city/county governments will allow other ISPs on the network for the 
same $1500/month access fee given the same limitations the existing 
ISP lives with.  Others have set the mantenance/rental so high it 
will NEVER make it feasible for other ISPs to rent access.  Maybe 
not a fair business practice, but it is a smart one.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * Wired or Wireless Networks   *




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] County

2008-11-15 Thread Blake Bowers
I know we checked into 4.9 use by a WISP, where a WISP told
the local authorities he already had 4.9 online, all he had to do was
flip a switch and they could share it.

The FCC laughed, and said only till they got caught, and they were
sure that I would start the complaint ball rolling.;


Don't take your organs to heaven,
heaven knows we need them down here!
Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.

- Original Message - 
From: Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] County


 Welcome to politics... I would bet they have some sweetheart deal with the
 Sheriff's Office, probably buddies with the Sheriff himself. I wouldn't
 doubt if they started reselling bandwidth on 4.9ghz PTMP.





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] County

2008-11-14 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
We pay rent to one county to be in their building and on their tower.
The sheriff's office might be on some paperwork somewhere.  Not unheard of.
- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List 
wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:29 PM
Subject: [WISPA] County


 Hi,

 I discovered today that one of my competitors that has setup several
 (6+) new licensed links (using 11ghz, 18ghz and 23ghz) in the last year
 is using the local Sheriff's office as the contact and registered owner
 in the FCC database.

 I'm sure the Sheriff's office is using the links for their public safety
 service (because that's how they are registered on the FCC site), but I
 also know this competitor has setup at least one link that is not in an
 area where the Sheriff's office would need any type of service (and
 therefore is only using it for their own traffic).

 First, I assume this is legal because the Sheriff's office is probably
 paying for all this equipment. However, because they are a public
 office, I assume that anyone that wanted to use that transport should be
 allowed, since they are allowing this other provider that is installing
 them?

 Also, I would assume this would hold true for several towers (owned by
 the same county) that this competitor is on for free. If they allowed
 this person on the towers (in exchange for moving traffic), I would
 think they would have to allow me on as well?

 Thoughts?

 Travis
 Microserv


 
 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] County

2008-11-14 Thread Kurt Fankhauser
Welcome to politics... I would bet they have some sweetheart deal with the
Sheriff's Office, probably buddies with the Sheriff himself. I wouldn't
doubt if they started reselling bandwidth on 4.9ghz PTMP.

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] County

Hi,

I discovered today that one of my competitors that has setup several 
(6+) new licensed links (using 11ghz, 18ghz and 23ghz) in the last year 
is using the local Sheriff's office as the contact and registered owner 
in the FCC database.

I'm sure the Sheriff's office is using the links for their public safety 
service (because that's how they are registered on the FCC site), but I 
also know this competitor has setup at least one link that is not in an 
area where the Sheriff's office would need any type of service (and 
therefore is only using it for their own traffic).

First, I assume this is legal because the Sheriff's office is probably 
paying for all this equipment. However, because they are a public 
office, I assume that anyone that wanted to use that transport should be 
allowed, since they are allowing this other provider that is installing 
them?

Also, I would assume this would hold true for several towers (owned by 
the same county) that this competitor is on for free. If they allowed 
this person on the towers (in exchange for moving traffic), I would 
think they would have to allow me on as well?

Thoughts?

Travis
Microserv




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] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection

2007-01-11 Thread Marty Dougherty
Just to clarify this comment- Instead, what may happen is that cell
phones will become our competitors; they usually don't deploy on
anything less than 
high tower. 

I was not quoted exactly correct. My concern is that the cell phone
focused towers would compete with towers that would actually help
broadband providers like Roadstarafter all, how many towers will
they allow?

Marty



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection

County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection

By Therese Howe
(Created: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:08 AM EST)

| Text Size | print | e-mail | comment (0)
Focus on the county's broadband debate has shifted westward, where 
residents will be asked to answer the question of whether they're 
willing to trade their views for high-speed Internet service.

Almost a year after supervisors scrapped a proposal to build a $320 
million fiber-optic network that would serve the entire county, the 
county is now reframing the broadband access debate to focus on wireless

as the potential answer to increase the availability of high-speed 
Internet service, particularly in the west.

Anyone with a stake in the issue-from residents who have been unable to 
get broadband to companies offering to build towers from which wireless 
service could be provided, to the county's current wireless providers-is

invited to provide input Jan. 23 when the board of supervisors' Economic

Development Committee is scheduled to take up the topic.

At that meeting, county Broadband Services Manager Scott Bashore will 
provide a recap of the county's broadband efforts, leading up to why 
wireless makes the most sense for western Loudoun, said Supervisor 
Lori Waters (R-Broad Run), who chairs the committee.

The county has set a goal of expanding broadband availability in the 
county to 90 percent from its current 86 percent, according to Bashore, 
who adds that the service is primarily offered in the east, where the 
majority of the county's population resides.

Bashore also is working on updating the county's Strategic Land Use Plan

for Telecommunications Facilities, which was last changed in 2002.

The original intent was for it to be good for about five years, so 
we're on track with updating it, Bashore said, adding that in the past 
four years, the market has changed with new towers being built and fewer

national telecommunications carriers offering service.

Part of the impetus behind the county's efforts has been the upswing in 
the number of applications for towers and monopoles to provide cellular 
and high-speed Internet services.

I thought it was important to get ahead of the game before dealing with

these applications for individual monopoles. We need to take a look at 
the big picture ... and know where it fits in the plan rather than 
piecemeal, Waters said.

Among the proposals are two submitted by Community Wireless Structures, 
a Falls Church company that builds 100- to 200-foot structures from 
which carriers such as Verizon and Cingular can provide cellular and 
wireless Internet service.

One proposal, for a 120-foot pole south of Leesburg in Virts Corner, was

forwarded on Tuesday to the board of supervisors' Feb. 6 meeting for 
action. Supervisors hope to see the company accede to residents' 
requests for a pole disguised as a tree rather than the company's 
proposed graduated paint monopole.

The second proposal was filed Dec. 29 and is more expansive, calling for

six sites in northwestern Loudoun that have one or two poles of 100 or 
150 feet high. The company has leased locations at White's Ferry, 
Taylorstown, Round Hill, on Mountain Road on the east side of Short Hill

Mountain, at the intersection of Rts. 9 and 287, and on the east side of

Rt. 287 near Lovettsville.

We know whenever solutions are proposed, they encounter local 
opposition, said Bob Gordon, an attorney who is a partner in the 
company, adding that the concern all boils down to visual impact.

To provide information to the public and increase public awareness of 
the project, the company has created a Web site, 
www.getloudounonline.org, that solicits input from residents and offers 
information on upcoming public hearings. The company expects the first 
to occur in the spring before the county's planning commission, then in 
the summer before the board of supervisors.

We want to hear from people who are still on dial-up and tired of it or

are very frustrated because when they're driving, the cell phone blinks 
out, Gordon said. We feel there's a silent majority, but do they care 
enough to get to the public hearings?

As the county gears up to handle the monopole applications and prepares 
to address the broader question of expanding broadband availability, 
current wireless providers such as Marty Dougherty's 

RE: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection

2007-01-11 Thread Marty Dougherty
Another angle-
http://www.loudountimesmirror.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=17690001BRD=2553
PAG=461dept_id=506035rfi=6


Six 140-foot monopoles have been proposed in northwestern Loudoun County
to increase wireless Internet and cellular access in rural Loudoun.

Low population density in the west fails to entice traditional cable and
DSL providers, leaving many residents without hi-speed Internet service
and with spotty cell service.

The company that filed the application with the county, Falls
Church-based Community Wireless Structures, wants to build the monopoles
to co-locate various wireless companies' antennas - lowering providers'
initial investment and bringing wider coverage and more options for
residents. 


But even CWS officials admit that getting rural Loudounites to support
six 140-foot poles will take a special effort.

Connecting in Loudoun

Broadband technology, loosely defined, is an Internet connection that
processes data at 200 kilobyte/sec and faster. Fiber-optic cable is the
fastest way to receive broadband now.

Final approval of the structures rests with the Board of Supervisors,
and two public hearings must be held - in front of the Planning
Commission as well as the board. The dates have not been set, but CWS
hopes for mid-year hearings.

In anticipation of opposition, the company has launched a Web site with
maps of the proposed sites and detailed information on the benefits of
wireless.

I don't want to seem too glib or cavalier, but people fight and fight
[monopoles] and after they're built, people stop seeing them, said Bob
Gordon, CWS's attorney and an investor in the company.

The current Board of Supervisors has made it a priority to expand
broadband coverage in order to attract businesses, promote teleworking
and improve emergency communications.

Scott Bashore, the newly hired head of Loudoun County's Broadband
Services department, has determined that wireless Internet remains the
most feasible way to expand broadband in the county's west.

The debate now focuses on the delivery mode: a network of a few tall
towers - 140 feet - or many small towers - 60 to 70 feet, some of which
could be installed on existing structures, such as water towers and
flagpoles.

Several companies, such as Loudoun Wireless and Roadstar, have been
providing wireless Internet service in western Loudoun for several
years.

Marty Dougherty, founder and CEO of Roadstar, said his Leesburg-based
company already provides 2,000 homes in western Loudoun with wireless
broadband service. He said he has been consistently left out of the
current debate on county policy.

We are being ignored, and I think the reason is -- the answers are not
easy and [county officials] want easy answers, Dougherty said. He said
there's no silver-bullet solution. Because of Loudoun's hills and dense
tree cover, he said, even the taller towers won't be able to deliver
wireless Internet to all residents.

There is no way that radio waves can travel through the earth. Even the
Board of Supervisors can't change that, Dougherty said.

He supports a network of many different providers, with shorter poles to
customize wireless delivery to each western community.

Gordon disagrees. He said fewer taller towers would minimize the visual
impact and offer wider coverage to lure bigger providers to invest. He
also added that short towers aren't easy to get approved.

Western Loudoun is littered with the graves of applications for short
towers.

For details on the location of Community Wireless Structures' six
proposed monopoles, go to www.getLoudounonline.com .



Contact the reporter at [EMAIL PROTECTED]


CTimes Community Newspapers 2007

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection

County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection

By Therese Howe
(Created: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:08 AM EST)

| Text Size | print | e-mail | comment (0)
Focus on the county's broadband debate has shifted westward, where 
residents will be asked to answer the question of whether they're 
willing to trade their views for high-speed Internet service.

Almost a year after supervisors scrapped a proposal to build a $320 
million fiber-optic network that would serve the entire county, the 
county is now reframing the broadband access debate to focus on wireless

as the potential answer to increase the availability of high-speed 
Internet service, particularly in the west.

Anyone with a stake in the issue-from residents who have been unable to 
get broadband to companies offering to build towers from which wireless 
service could be provided, to the county's current wireless providers-is

invited to provide input Jan. 23 when the board of supervisors' Economic

Development Committee is scheduled to take up the topic.

At that meeting, county Broadband Services Manager 

Re: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection

2007-01-11 Thread Tom DeReggi

I got to agree with you Marty...
These cell towers are going to accomplish nothing but allow high powered 
cell phones to come to town, and likely more of a threat than a help.
They are designed for cell phone equipment, the only ones able to afford the 
rent, and likely using broadband as a means to justify what they really 
want.
The Loudon hill sides are rolling, and I'd think the answer lies in using 
the hills, not the towers.


But whether towers should be allowed or not, for what ever reason, thats a 
whole nother topic.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Marty Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection



Just to clarify this comment- Instead, what may happen is that cell
phones will become our competitors; they usually don't deploy on
anything less than
high tower.

I was not quoted exactly correct. My concern is that the cell phone
focused towers would compete with towers that would actually help
broadband providers like Roadstarafter all, how many towers will
they allow?

Marty



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection

County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection

By Therese Howe
(Created: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:08 AM EST)

| Text Size | print | e-mail | comment (0)
Focus on the county's broadband debate has shifted westward, where
residents will be asked to answer the question of whether they're
willing to trade their views for high-speed Internet service.

Almost a year after supervisors scrapped a proposal to build a $320
million fiber-optic network that would serve the entire county, the
county is now reframing the broadband access debate to focus on wireless

as the potential answer to increase the availability of high-speed
Internet service, particularly in the west.

Anyone with a stake in the issue-from residents who have been unable to
get broadband to companies offering to build towers from which wireless
service could be provided, to the county's current wireless providers-is

invited to provide input Jan. 23 when the board of supervisors' Economic

Development Committee is scheduled to take up the topic.

At that meeting, county Broadband Services Manager Scott Bashore will
provide a recap of the county's broadband efforts, leading up to why
wireless makes the most sense for western Loudoun, said Supervisor
Lori Waters (R-Broad Run), who chairs the committee.

The county has set a goal of expanding broadband availability in the
county to 90 percent from its current 86 percent, according to Bashore,
who adds that the service is primarily offered in the east, where the
majority of the county's population resides.

Bashore also is working on updating the county's Strategic Land Use Plan

for Telecommunications Facilities, which was last changed in 2002.

The original intent was for it to be good for about five years, so
we're on track with updating it, Bashore said, adding that in the past
four years, the market has changed with new towers being built and fewer

national telecommunications carriers offering service.

Part of the impetus behind the county's efforts has been the upswing in
the number of applications for towers and monopoles to provide cellular
and high-speed Internet services.

I thought it was important to get ahead of the game before dealing with

these applications for individual monopoles. We need to take a look at
the big picture ... and know where it fits in the plan rather than
piecemeal, Waters said.

Among the proposals are two submitted by Community Wireless Structures,
a Falls Church company that builds 100- to 200-foot structures from
which carriers such as Verizon and Cingular can provide cellular and
wireless Internet service.

One proposal, for a 120-foot pole south of Leesburg in Virts Corner, was

forwarded on Tuesday to the board of supervisors' Feb. 6 meeting for
action. Supervisors hope to see the company accede to residents'
requests for a pole disguised as a tree rather than the company's
proposed graduated paint monopole.

The second proposal was filed Dec. 29 and is more expansive, calling for

six sites in northwestern Loudoun that have one or two poles of 100 or
150 feet high. The company has leased locations at White's Ferry,
Taylorstown, Round Hill, on Mountain Road on the east side of Short Hill

Mountain, at the intersection of Rts. 9 and 287, and on the east side of

Rt. 287 near Lovettsville.

We know whenever solutions are proposed, they encounter local
opposition, said Bob Gordon, an attorney who is a partner in the
company, adding that the concern all boils down to visual impact.

To provide information