Re: [WISPA] Speaking of muni, anyone see this one?
Patrick, That's a relief. Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: Jack The few hotspots (for convenience use only, i.e. while relaxing in the park, etc.) in the city are not in any way connected to the 4.9GHz, so the point is moot. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Speaking of muni, anyone see this one? Patrick, The Cheyene network is apparently "shared" between City users and public users. Does Alvarion anticipate any conflict between the FCC's designation of the 4.9 GHz band for public safety and critical infrastructure protection use and Cheyenne's use of 4.9 GHz to backhaul public Internet access traffic? Won't this be seen as boarderline illegal use of 4.9 GHz for public Internet access rather than for legitimate public safety use? Also, does Alvarion anticipate that any WISPs may be outraged that Cities may now enjoy an unfair advantage over private-sector WISPs who will not have access to the 4.9 GHz spectrum to provide public backhaul while being forced to use the more interference-prone 5 GHz spectrum? Does Alavarion see itself as setting a precedent here that will now allow other manufacturers to "push" 4.9 GHz for "shared" public/private backhaul, giving Cities everywhere an unfair advantage over private-sector WISPs? I'm curious about your personal opinions here too, not just the Israeli-corporate position. Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 http://www.alvarion.com/presscenter/pressreleases/7540/ Networks like these are not for public access, but rather to create internal efficiencies. This one is very cool in terms of all the applications the network is supporting. It is for the city of Cheyenne, WY. Citywide. - Patrick Alvarion -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Speaking of muni, anyone see this one?
Jack The few hotspots (for convenience use only, i.e. while relaxing in the park, etc.) in the city are not in any way connected to the 4.9GHz, so the point is moot. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Speaking of muni, anyone see this one? Patrick, The Cheyene network is apparently "shared" between City users and public users. Does Alvarion anticipate any conflict between the FCC's designation of the 4.9 GHz band for public safety and critical infrastructure protection use and Cheyenne's use of 4.9 GHz to backhaul public Internet access traffic? Won't this be seen as boarderline illegal use of 4.9 GHz for public Internet access rather than for legitimate public safety use? Also, does Alvarion anticipate that any WISPs may be outraged that Cities may now enjoy an unfair advantage over private-sector WISPs who will not have access to the 4.9 GHz spectrum to provide public backhaul while being forced to use the more interference-prone 5 GHz spectrum? Does Alavarion see itself as setting a precedent here that will now allow other manufacturers to "push" 4.9 GHz for "shared" public/private backhaul, giving Cities everywhere an unfair advantage over private-sector WISPs? I'm curious about your personal opinions here too, not just the Israeli-corporate position. Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > http://www.alvarion.com/presscenter/pressreleases/7540/ > > Networks like these are not for public access, but rather to create internal > efficiencies. This one is very cool in terms of all the applications the > network is supporting. It is for the city of Cheyenne, WY. Citywide. > > - Patrick > Alvarion -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Speaking of muni, anyone see this one?
Patrick, The Cheyene network is apparently "shared" between City users and public users. Does Alvarion anticipate any conflict between the FCC's designation of the 4.9 GHz band for public safety and critical infrastructure protection use and Cheyenne's use of 4.9 GHz to backhaul public Internet access traffic? Won't this be seen as boarderline illegal use of 4.9 GHz for public Internet access rather than for legitimate public safety use? Also, does Alvarion anticipate that any WISPs may be outraged that Cities may now enjoy an unfair advantage over private-sector WISPs who will not have access to the 4.9 GHz spectrum to provide public backhaul while being forced to use the more interference-prone 5 GHz spectrum? Does Alavarion see itself as setting a precedent here that will now allow other manufacturers to "push" 4.9 GHz for "shared" public/private backhaul, giving Cities everywhere an unfair advantage over private-sector WISPs? I'm curious about your personal opinions here too, not just the Israeli-corporate position. Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 http://www.alvarion.com/presscenter/pressreleases/7540/ Networks like these are not for public access, but rather to create internal efficiencies. This one is very cool in terms of all the applications the network is supporting. It is for the city of Cheyenne, WY. Citywide. - Patrick Alvarion -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/