Thanks for the clarifications. That all makes sense to me.

I can say that in some cases (not in your obviously) a muni-deployment can still be a network you own and operate. I have spoken to people in my town and in others who want a wireless network but do not want to own it, operate it, or compete with the local providers in any way. They all say they are willing to help when I talk to them. I guess my vision of muni is just different than many other people's idea. If "you" build it, own it and operate it then how is that a bad thing?

I know your particular Atlanta muni-network is a problem as they wish to compete with you. I am not seeing that in my town though. I see a town who likes to have my services available to them for better communications and cost savings.

I am just drawing attention to the fact that muni-wireless does not always have to be a bad thing for a WISP and in fact can be a good opportunity if they become part of the effort early on and stave off the competitive approach many communities have opted to take..

Matt Liotta wrote:

John Scrivner wrote:

I have not been contacted and really have never heard what you are talking about. Can you tell us more about what you are seeing and who is reporting this?

There doesn't seem to be anybody going on record yet, but there have been negative reports coming out of Anaheim, Philadelphia, San Diego, New Orleans, and Mountain View that I have personally heard from people working on the project.

I can agree with the "most suited" statement. I have no idea why a WISP would turn down a chance to be part of a muni project. In my home town the only muni project is my company's effort and we work well with the city government. Turning away from that chance is turning down free access to money, tower space and opportunity.

Acting as a consultant for another operator doesn't give you free access to money or tower space. It gives the other opportunity your expertise in exchange for money. Why help a competitor kill your business? For example, Earthlink has gone on record stating that plan to use their "distribution" network (Canopy) to sell T1 replacement services. That is in direct competition to any existing fixed wireless network from both a business as well as spectrum standpoint.

I do not know what the Atlanta RFP is. Who is involved? What is this opportunity? Who is ignoring you? I am sure others want to learn more about this too.

The Atlanta RFP is for muni wireless. Many major companies from AT&T to Sprint and IBM to HP along with Earthlink are expecting to somehow be involved and/or bid. Without stating directly to who we are or are not talking to, I can say that we see this as a possible threat to our business. We certainly don't want to see another operator placing hundreds of Canopy and Tropos units throughout our market and selling competitive services to what we offer.

Personally, I see the recruitment efforts as acknowledgment that running a large wireless network isn't as simple as the radio vendors make it out to be. Further, I don't see how Earthlink becoming a successful wireless network operator is a good thing for any of us. Unless of course one of our respective companies is actually operating part or all of the network.


WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to