Brad,

There is a BIG difference. On tower agreements we do it with non-interference clauses,or we buy up all the finite resources (in some cases spectrum). Could you image what would happen if we went to a tower owner and requested to be the ONLY provider to rent space on the tower? It would never happen.

Do you think I like the fact that Clearwire is comming to town and overlaying a network on top of mine, possibly some of the same towers? Why must I have competition and not the governement? Its a double standard. I didn't have the right to buy exclusivity. I bought exclusive rights to use spectrum ranges that I use, but thats a different animal, and that does not stop copetition, that just help minimize my interference.

The way the Munis are writing it, is exclusive provider. Even if I went out and won an auction on licensed spectrum and could guarantee that I wouldn't interfere with the other unlicenced WISP, I would not be allowed to buy the easement to the poles.

Plus it does not matter what is best for unlicensed. unlicensed radio gear needs does not override what is right from the perspective of the constitution, and the American way of Free competition.

Does the Muni network really need, 900, 2.4, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, to pull off its free public network? I think not. The intent is not to prevent interference, the intent is to give exclusive provider. Someone buying the right to access the public, and therefore consumers losing choice.

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


----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal


Tom, I don't think asking to be exclusive on light poles is a bad thing.
It's usually done in exchange for public safety or public workers riding
the network for free. Like I said in a previous post, I just can't see
multiple vendors stacking wifi mesh solutions on every other light pole.
Who will invest if that's the case? Again, I'm still on the fence with
these Muni wified mesh networks and their viability. Time will tell. How
many of you have exclusive rooftop or tower rights? The same can be said
about light poles when Earthlink or another service provider is
deploying and sometimes paying to be there. Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:02 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

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" <wireless@wispa.org>
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-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
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
issues.

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
night
vote.

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

Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier
wireless
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

decision.

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
last
month."

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
and
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,
may
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
city
property.

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
coordination,"
he said. "I am not going to say it can be done. I am not going to say
it
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
Frontier
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
the
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
be
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
this
moment. The ultimate result was where it should be gone."

--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/
--
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(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: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
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(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: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to