They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum.

But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City agreements to be exclusive. In Montgomery County MD, the City promised free access to all County Governement structures, to third party providers, in exchange for restrictions of new tower building. Changing it to exclusive after teh fact would be deceptive and in contrast to previous law. They would need to remove the ban on tower building and reduce the $17,000 Special Exception fee, if they changed directions and attempted exclusivity.

There are FCC laws that protect unlicensed spectrum for public use, and protect entities from breaking competition and exclsuively supporting one ISP over another ISP. In the public sector MTU world, property owners are not supposed to give one ISP preferencial terms over another preventing consumers access to telecommunications. EXCLUSIVITY is a dirty word for any colocation agreement. For Governments to ignore their own rulings, and lead the way to give "exclusivity" is just wrong. Instead they should be allocating spectrum for city's use, for their exclusive projects.

The Bells complained about governments helping fund third parties giving them an upper hand above the monopoly telecoms that have invested in the existing networks. Giving exclusivity is even worse. Its not giving an advantage (financially) its preventing the others from playing at all! People forget that City assets, ultimately belong to the people who pay the taxes. Its not the same thing as Private property owners of MTU buildings who should ahve fewer restrictions than public property. We need to remember we are not a dictatorship governement.

I am NOT agaisnt Muni networks anymore. But I am definately against exclusivity. If teh city want to give an easement and public marketing support in exchange for investment from a third party, so be it. But they do not have the ethical right to deny those asements from additional third parties who are willing to invest. These proposals of exclusivity are being initiated because they are administered from clueless polititions who have zero experience in FCC and the Internet world.

It is my opinion that the WORST thing for ISPs, Vendors, Cities, and Consumers is to give "exclusivity." It undoes everything that every telecommunications act has ever attempted to do. There is absolutely no downside to keeping unlicensed open, and public easements open to as many competitors as possible. Interference, can be controlled so many ways other than via exclusiveity, and exclusivity won;t solve the problem anyway, as the City does not own the air and all the public property. All exclusivity does is prevents putting togeather the shared benefits of public and private assets, which public assets are jsut not owned by a single intity.

"exclusivity" should be the number one topic that WISPs are fighting against.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

Most of the Muni contracts I have worked on so far are exclusive. An RFP
would have been a better way to resolve the issue. Just letting anyone
use city property is a sure way for failure. I'm not so sure letting
wisp's "deploy at will" for Muni wifi is such a great idea. Brad

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:25 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

I'm glad they recognized there would be a problem giving one person an
exclusive contract to serve the entire city, via city property.

I'm especially glad they got down to the technical details of unlicensed

frequency, in a public way.

Of course it helps when there is a councilman who understands the

As it stands now, there does not need to be exclusive contracts, just
let the wisps deploy at will.

Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Council rejects wireless proposal

By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal

to deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday

Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of
proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited
council chambers immediately following the council vote.

Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier
division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did
summarize her reaction in one word: "Disappointed."

Linda Aerni, president of Community Internet and Wire Free Nebraska
Inc., and Paul Schumacher, a business partner of Aerni, celebrated the


Aerni said the council did a good job of processing a lot of
technological information and made the right decision for the city.

"The council voted the right way, not holding the city to a 10-year
obligation," she said. "Technology has changed so much, even in the

When asked if Community Internet is considering deploying a network on

its own, Aerni said "of course."

"Community Internet has already deployed wireless Internet outside
Columbus," she said.

Schumacher said there was no need to rush into any agreement, and if
when Community Internet does decide to implement a network, "the city
wouldn't be in the middle of it."

A report by Robert Tupper, chief telecommunications engineer for RVW
Inc., and Donn C. Swedenburg, telecommunications specialist for RVW,
have influenced the council's decision.

The proposed contract stipulated no other devices that may degrade
Frontier's network "as determined by Frontier" could be attached to

The report stated "the characteristics of unlicensed operation present

many challenges." According to Federal Communication Commission
regulations, devices for operation of an unlicensed band, such as
Frontier proposed, "must accept any interference received, including
interference that may cause undesired operation."

Tupper said deployment of two wireless, broadband, mesh networks was
possible but may not be feasible.

"Co-existing within the 2.4 gHz spectrum is the toughest
he said. "I am not going to say it can be done. I am not going to say
can't be done."

Whether it can or can't, it would "be difficult to have two widely
deployed mesh networks ... from an economics standpoint," Tupper said.

Councilman Chuck Whitney objected to Frontier's sole discretion to
determine interference and network pricing differences between
and non-Frontier customers.

"If I am a Frontier customer I pay $9.99 a month and a customer of
Community Internet/Megavision would pay $9.99 per day," Whitney said.
"There can be no discrimination in pricing."

Mayor Mike Moser said the council made the right decision regarding
Frontier proposal.

"I think the council came up with right decision. There were a lot of
unknowns, and before entering into a contract, all the blanks should
filled in," Moser said. "I didn't feel the city was getting enough out

of it to make it work.

"If somebody else comes up with plan they can bring it to city the to
look at it, but it is not something we are actively looking for at
moment. The ultimate result was where it should be gone."

George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA
WISPA Wireless List:



This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses(190).

This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses(42).

This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.

WISPA Wireless List:


WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to