With the few exceptions of extreme things like selling Drugs to addicts,
selling Guns to terrorists, selling stolen goods, I find it hard to call any
seller unethical, if there is a willing buyer, and if it is clearly
disclosed what is being sold without attempting to deceive the buyer, and
Not really; it depends on what the mutual fund chooses to invest in.
If the mutual fund invests in businesses that makes
greenhouse-gas-reducing electric vehicles for example, that might be
very acceptable (ethical) to some. On the other hand, investing in a
mutual fund that invests in finance
If you buy a security, the prices rises, you sell the security, you make
money.
You have not added anything of value to the world. Irrespective of the
nature of the company behind the security. Even if you are investing in a
company that rescues slave labor children from sweatshops, if it is
How so?
How does buying ownership in a publicly owned entity inflate the c ost of a
needed commodity?
obviously, there must be a marketplace to buy and sell commodities... And
those who sell, to those who buy, for purposes of buying and selling
commodities for use seems perfectly legitemate
N.B., I never used the word commodity.
However, the commodity exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade do trade in
commodities without adding any value.
You say that a marketplace for the exchange of commodity securities are OK
as long as options and derivatives are excluded? How about just
insert witty tagline here
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
If you buy a security,
If you have the money to buy - pay for in full - oil and wait until winter,
then what business is it of ours? Again, we're discussing OWNERSHIP here,
which is where I drew my line. As for this action, a lot of farmers and
homeowners fill their heating oil tanks at opportune times. I fail to
OK, this thread must die.
But if you need heating oil in the winter, I will be happy to sell you some
;-)
(or corn or wheat or sugar or pork bellies)
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:35 PM
Subject: Re:
Matt Liotta wrote:
On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote:
Well there is a place WISPA could be useful. As an organization, go
and work with the FSS owners to come up with a framework where WISPA
members could more easily gain exceptions to the exclusion zones.
I believe that WiMax is great... greater than equipment we currently use.
I just don't use it at this time because of the cost. I also don't buy into
a lot of the hype people (press, manufacturers, vendors, others) are
pushing. I had a project that required 10 meg of synchronous, committed
What is your opinion about the greatness of WiMax based upon?
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
I believe that WiMax is
Increased spectral efficiency
Advanced antenna support (the only benefit I understand is increased signal
margin)
Higher likelihood of multiple vendors vs. many previous BWA technologies,
though not now
Eventual lower CPE cost, though not now
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing
Here is a list of some of what makes WiMax better than most other WISP
solutions out there:
-Engineered for outdoor broadband wireless delivery
-Strict Interoperability Requirement between all vendors
-Standardized platform which has been accepted globally
-Support for multiple antenna ie. MIMO,
Canopy is outdoor.
I don't want interop as I want to control users to my system.
The coverage, range, throughput has been totally smoke to date. I am still
waiting for 70 Mbps at 70 miles PTMP.
We don't roam, allow roaming or want to allow roaming.
We don't operate in areas where ITU is a
I am not trying to tell people that they should abandon what they
have. I am simply trying to make the case for WiMax in 3.65 GHz space.
I do not think that is in conflict with what you have deployed. Is
Motorola planning to deploy a system for 3.65 GHz? I have not heard
anything about that.
Replies below:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Canopy is outdoor.
And many have done quite well with is. I have some in my own network
now. I will likely deploy more of this myself where it makes sense.
I don't want interop as I want to control users
Mot has been asking their users for opinions as to what they should do
there. They were very interested in whether or not we thought it should be
standards based. I told them that I wanted a closed proprietary system.
- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
What was their feedback?
I could only see canopy 400 working on this bandthey could also port their
wimax solution but thats a different price range
gino
-Original Message-
From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 1:57 PM
To: WISPA General List
There was lots of discussions as to what we wanted to see on the roadmap.
They seemed to be surprised that several of the more vocal attendees didn't
care about a standards based (WiMax) solution. 3X backwards compatible vs
the new (faster, non backward compatible) generation of canopy was a
It does mine.
Inflating the price of a needed commodity - that is, increasing it with no
added value - is unethical, in my estimation.
insert witty tagline here
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List
insert witty tagline here
- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
I do not think we should
Then I guess the precludes any participation in any mutual fund or almost
any type of broker investments.
Oh well...
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on
John,
I support that opinion. I was never for splitting the band. That was
always the worst choice in my opinion.
I was not against WiMax use of it, I was just dead against Full Licensing
of any of it, liek the WIMax guys originally were asking for.
Although a mute point for me, as I'm in a
Every once in a while you read a post, that you say, I'm really glad I read
that.
That was one of them.
Well said.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent:
I agree that CBP should not have been a requirement for the hardware. A
listen before you speak protocol makes some bad assumptions about the
chances of a successful packet delivery. For example, on a longer PTP
link, just because there is noise at the transmitter, it does not mean
that there is
There are cheaper options than 10k per sector but you are correct that's
about the going rate between 10 and 15k per sector. However, this equipment
is not anywhere near the same as the tinker toys as Scriv puts it. This
equipment will last you much longer than the commodity equipment. It's
I know it's done all the time, but I don't believe in wrecking a company
just to sell it (not that I plan on selling my operation).
From a buyer's perspective, I would rather the company hadn't converted
operations lately just so that I could convert to what I wanted without
having just bought
Its irrelevent how long the equipment will last, if the company that deploys
it does not last.
Its all about cash flow and healthy financials, not spec sheets.
10k-15k a sector is Huge.
I hope these manufacturers, make it affordable, before the market is over.
how much more do you
think you
I think it's very important to remember the cost of the CPE in this
equation. The CPE will be the primary driver in your ROI. If you can
spread the fixed cost of the AP over a large number of subs, obviously
the cost to add a user declines each time you add another sub. However,
if the CPE
The WiMAX vendors are focused on the cost of the CPE; not the sector.
CPE can be had for anywhere between $200 and $500 currently depending
on vendor and volume. Vendors are working to get that price down with
a 12 month target of being under $100. The oversubscription you can do
on a
The economics is simple with WiMAX. Either high revenue customers or
lots of customers. If you don't have the volume or the revenue there
are plenty of other cost effective solutions.
-Matt
On Jul 3, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I've been seeing WiMAX CPE for $500 - $1000 in
I agree with what John is saying in most part. The reluctance to fully
support 3.65Ghz may be the cost for some, I know it is me. It is hard to
justify spending 3x to Nx for a 3.65Ghz AP or SM.
Another problem I have with 3.65Ghz is the NLOS problems. Where I operate we
have hills, and lots of
Low CPE cost
Excellent Point. However, its also important to be realistic about how many
subs will occur on a sector.
Our network has an average ratio of CPEs per AP of about 7. CPE cost has
little effect on ROI in that condition.
But yes agreed, if you can get the sub count up per sector
Matt,
Are you finding that the low noise floor (free spectrum) enabling high
modulations are getting you the more CPE per sector, or are you finding that
the WiMax protocol is delivering better results than other proprietary TDD
based systems of equivellent modulations?
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL
I know that a certain number of us ARE going to build a network for the sole
purpose of suckering...errr, selling it to someone else.
Now, I have severe ethical disagreements with this notion. It reminds me
of flipping houses or speculative oil investing, perhaps?
Now, to build a business
Our network has an average ratio of CPEs per AP of about 7. CPE cost has
little effect on ROI in that condition.
Not so sure I understand this statement. If I currently pay $175/ CPE and a
Wimax CPE is $500 That greatly affects my ROI. If your saying from an
earlier thread that once a CPE is
Hmmm, didn't realize flipping houses was an ethical gray area...
(gosh, buy a distressed property, gut and redo the kitchen and bathroom,
give it some landscaping- and make some dough. That is unethical? You know
some of the original colonies of the new world had rules against charging
Id have to say that the current landscape makes the oil investors look
pretty sharp as well. I know the roughnecks around here poured some
serious money into those holes they punched in the ground. I think they
are pumping plenty of dollars back out now.
chris
-Original Message-
From:
Yeah, I got no problem with drilling for oil or any mineral. Actually even
trading in options and derivatives is fine with me. Sub prime predatory
lending is on the other side of the fence along with payday lenders, but we
all have a line that we will not cross. Not my day to judge.
-
Yeahbut,
recognizing an arbitrage opportunity does not trigger my ethical shutdown
circuit.
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and
I do not think we should build our networks for the sole purpose of
suckering, err, selling to someone else. I do believe that I want
anything I build to have value in the event I do sell. That is not
suckering anyone. Why not build something that holds value or
appreciates in value? I know a
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any frequency that is tied to a
particular standard by regulation will do nothing but stifle innovation
in that band.
-Hal
-Original Message-
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
To: WISPA General
I hope all of you will read this post. I have spent a long time
writing it and I think it is very important for us to all think about
the issues involved.
How about if we tie the 3.65 GHz band to one technology with our
wallets instead of making Uncle Sam do it with regulation? We will see
which
$10k for a single AP is why. I can outfit two whole towers with MTI sector
antennas for the price of 1 WiMAX radio.
Gross throughput. My Mikrotik can do 35 megs of throughput vs. 20 (albeit a
larger channel).
I want to use WiMAX as it is more spectrally efficient (most important
advantage
* Harold Bledsoe wrote, On 7/2/2008 3:19 PM:
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any frequency that is tied to a
particular standard by regulation will do nothing but stifle innovation
in that band.
I agree with Hal. As an amateur radio operator as well as someone in
this and the
On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote:
3650 is a real PITA because of the grandfathered FSSes. I think,
though, we might want to think about moving the full 50 mHz to
restricted instead of unrestricted as I don't see unrestricted coming
anytime soon.
Well there is a place
I am reminded of a short story I read many years ago. A salesman for farm
equipment was out calling on customers in middle America and following his
directions found himself turning off the maintained county road into a side
road and was immediately confronted with a wide, very deeply rutted,
That's nice, but in real life the FCC has simply gotten on a tear and
decided that NOTHING qualifies for what they want.
I have no idea what the purpose of this rather odd bit of nonsense is about,
but when it declares that 802.11 does not detect dissimilar systems, then
nothing can EVER be
The RF energy detection mechanism of 802.11a is sort of based on power
level. If the preamble is detected and decoded, then the mechanism is
activated at -82dBm. Otherwise it requires a relatively high energy
level (-62dBm).
Although I agree that even -62dBm seems fair. It would be very useful
The energy level for backoff CAN be adjusted.
The FCC says that NEITHER is acceptable, and even though the atheros
mechanism is just an energy detection, it will not be allowed. This is
what I gathered from an assortment of emails on the topic, some of which
were from the FCC to someone
I would like to see WiMax approved for the entire 50 MHz and do away
with the contention mechanism requirement for the upper 25 MHz as
required under the rules. I know this is a flip-flop of position from
our earlier position but frankly I see this as a god opportunity for
WISPs to move up to the
51 matches
Mail list logo
