Blake,
First, I did not realize you were a tower leasor guy :-)
Yes, I agree your first three comments are the most relevant to tower
leasors.
But my post was not about what was important to tower companies, it was
about what was important to the WISP leasee using unlicensed spectrum, which
is different than the need of tenants that use licensed spectrum. License
Spectrum has predictabilty and upfront defined needs. Unlicensed needs
flexibilty. Licensed has plenty of time for planning and change. Unlicensed
requires immediate (timely) response to adapt. Tower companies generally do
not move fast, and they typcally do not sign contracts with out limits set
on what will get deployed. WISPS need contracts for gear that would
potentially be installed but could have various substitutions. Tower
companies are used to Telcos that know exactly what they needs based on the
template used at 1000s of other towers.
When I lease, I want to buy the right to the whole spectrum range, with
exclusive use of it, which I eventually get, or I do not use the tower.
Tower companies are typically very sceptical about doing a lease of that
type that will limit themselves in future transactions, or their abilty to
get re-use out of the spectrum to maximize their revenue opportunities.
When I lease, I build as I go, becaue their is a finite amount of spectrum,
and I don't know where my clients will end up being located and what type of
link will be needed, until after the fact. So I might throw up a couple APs
initially, but that will vary over time as required to deliver the product
my subscribers demand. Tower companies on the other hand tend to want an
equipment list in advance of the agreement, but the equipment list doesn;t
exist at the time the lease needs to be signed because the customers aren;t
had yet, because the tower rights have not been secured yet. So What has to
happen is a lease needs to be signed based on spectrum that needs to be
used, and/or broad generic description of gear.
Any freqency specific stuff is normally covered by our
first in, last out clause.
Thats great, as long as you are willing to grant first in access, based on
what is contracted that would eventually be installed by the individual that
bought the right. How do you measure non-interference if one's gear is not
yet installed?
If we add a customer to the tower
that causes inteference to an existing customer, they need
to fix the problem, otherwise, find another
tower.
Yes, but thats not good enough, the damage is already done once the
interference occurs. A WISPs wants more certainty that best practices will
be taken that will improve changes that interference will be avoided. For
example if I own 5.8 rights, not allowing someone to try 5.8G prevents the
interference from happening in the first place. Without exclusivity, one
can not determine what interference would happen in the future when channels
need moving around or power increased, because environmental noise forces
channels changes on sectors. Typical Non-Interferemce clauses were
generally written with static noise conditions in mind, not constant
changing conditions.
What it boils down to is that a tower owner needs to either accept that they
are better off leasing to only one leeasee from the tower per band, and then
its real easy for everyone, or have a specific plan or agreement between all
parties, how the multiple providers will co-exist. For example, on the one
or two cases where we were not given exclusivity or could not afford to buy
it because it was not needed, we've added clauses such that tower owner was
required to notify us of any co-tenants that were going to deploy in our
channel range. We've had cases were we've lost customers because we thought
we had noise we could do nothing about, thinking it was in the environment
since no one else supposedly was on our tower, but then learned months later
it was a co-located tenant stomping on us.
These are some of the issues that I was referring to. I have no idea how
your company works, and what policies you have, but my guess is that if you
are a smaller tower company, you's probably do do a better job, just because
you's be less likely to be limited by generic policies, and willing to take
the time to work out a agreement to meet the tenant's need.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Blake Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Crown Castle / Global signal
Not sure where this is coming from. As a tower
owner, these are the concerns we have with
leasing space to WISPS.
1. Is the WISP going to be around next month.
2. Who is the WISP going to use for install?
3. What eqipment is going on the tower.
Any freqency specific stuff is normally covered by our
first in, last out clause. If we add a customer to the tower
that causes inteference to an existing customer, they need
to fix the problem, otherwise, find another
tower.
Simple....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Crown Castle / Global signal
The bigger problem is not costs. Its understandable that the spot goes to
the higher bidder. The problem is the understanding of how to lease tower
space when its for unlicensed spectrum apposed to licensed spectrum. The
tower guys dominently license to license spectrum holders. To teach them
what WISPs needs for use of Unlicensed on the tower, is a long
educational process to the tower managers. In Unlicensed you need more
than just the channel you are broadcasting on, to maintain future
reliabilty and growth.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
