Hey try this, tell the tower owner that anything from 2.3 to 2.6GHZ can cause 
interference and point out that there is very few people there, then he isn't 
giving you exclusive so he doesn't jack up the rent and you just kept Clearwire 
out.

Oh and one other thing I have studied Clearwire pretty closely and there is 
some steps you should take before they come.

1) contact all computer stores and set up resell agreements, tell them it's 
exclusive ONLY to wireless which there are hardly any in your town, that keeps 
Clearwire out.  It's worth giving a computer store $50 for a new customer to 
keep Clearwire out of their place.

2) Contact the tall building owners in town and tell them that this new company 
Clearwire is a company in debt to the tune of a billion dollars and they will 
likely try to rent space from them.  Tell them that if they cause interference 
on your network you can sue them, the building owner as well as the offending 
network for that interference.  Both those points will normally cause them to 
say "no thanks" when Clearwire comes calling.

3) Lastly take away their support, if they are coming to your town they have 
already contacted the city and county officials and tried to arrange for 
partnerships and attendance at some huge kick off party.  You need to remind 
officials that this is a redundant service that takes money straight from their 
revenue stream.  Clearwire will try to get resolutions passed supporting them, 
they are smooth.  Just for your benefit (in other words don't pass it on to 
Clearwire) here is the letter we sent to our civic leaders, the media and the 
area organizations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Council Members and Media,

 A new wireless Internet company is coming to Yakima.  They are Clearwire, an 
attempt by AT&T Wireless inventor Craig McCaw to make a National wireless 
network to compete with cell phones.  The difference between this business 
venture and the former AT&T Wireless is that Clearwire is supposed to lose 
money for a tax write-off and then they sell it.  It’s not the sale price they 
care about, it’s the tax write-off now, they are nearly one billion in debt in 
a very short time.  The billionaires who start these businesses need huge 
write-offs for the huge profits they make in other businesses.  They get other 
investors to buy in, and then spend all of their money in hopes of ‘stealing’ 
enough of competitors business by under-pricing their product.  Then they can 
raise prices after they have local competition gone and you hooked.   Sound 
familiar, yes meet Charter Cable, 18 billion (with a “B”)  in debt they just 
had to sell two more billion just to make payments, it’s Paul Allen’s write-off 
and a good one for his Microsoft stock that keeps paying huge profits.  
Charter’s stock was around $30 at the IPO but was as low as a dollar last year. 
 Both Charter and Qwest (-$22 billion) are good stocks now because they are 
prime to sell.

Clearwire went into the Tri-Cities last year; they rented a huge barge on the 
Columbia, and loaded it with fireworks, had all the government officials and 
media they could find attend then gave quite a show at a cost of about 
$250,000.  Incidentally that would be my cost for seamless Internet Downtown.  
A flashy and expensive party, the problem was that there were already three 
high-speed locally owned Wireless Internet Companies in town.  Essentially what 
city officials were saying was “we don’t like local companies but when a big 
new flashy national company comes to town we’re there”.   Nearly as insulting 
as what happened in New Orleans when a Local Wireless Provider worked nearly 24 
hours a day after Katrina putting up free kiosks for people to call home (the 
pictures you saw on the news were from his equipment).   The Mayor was so 
impressed with the capabilities that he immediately spent millions to build a 
city wide Wireless network promptly taking nearly all of the Wireless ISP’s 
customers, there’s gratitude.  Please try to remember that when Earthlink or 
Google try to pitch a Municipal system.  Just tell them ‘we already have our 
own local people who can do that’, anyway now back to the subject.

My point is Yakima also has three locally owned high speed Wireless companies, 
ours is by far the largest extending from Tieton to Zillah.  We grow as fast as 
we can afford without any government or investor assistance.  We have almost no 
debt and our charges are still lower then Charter Internet.  Last week Yakima 
County sent a clear message to Clearwire by passing a resolution rejecting any 
association with them.  One of the reasons may have been that Clearwire runs on 
the 2.5 GHZ frequency and we run on 2.4 GHZ frequencies.  The FCC is really 
picky about people causing interference and since we were here first we have 
the clear right to our frequency without Clearwire interference.  In other 
markets the building, not Clearwire that houses their transmitters has been 
sued.  I think Yakima County may have seen they were opening a Pandora’s Box of 
potential legal issues by partnering with them.  I would also like to think 
they were showing some loyalty to local business as well.

Any partnership with Clearwire will immediately open the city to criticism of 
disloyalty to local businesses plus the potential of legal issues if you house 
their gear.  My VERY partial advice, stay clear of Clearwire, if you need a 
Wireless partner to deploy downtown or anywhere just share some block grant or 
loan funds with us and we will deploy and maintain it ALL with local people 
making local wages and shopping here.  We were the first local Internet Company 
in Yakima; my company has spent more money on “Buy Local” ads then most other 
merchants in Yakima.  I support when you welcome a national company that offers 
something we don’t have here but you would be welcoming a company that directly 
takes dollars out of your pockets.  Clearwire just like AOL contribute not one 
cent back to the community, its population or its merchants, which is the whole 
point, isn’t it?

Thank you for your valuable time,
Forbes Mercy
President - Northwest Info Net, Inc. (www.nwinfo.net)
President - Washington Broadband, Inc. (www.wabroadband.com)
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: 509-853-0852
fax: 509-853-0856


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal

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/


-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/585 - Release Date: 12/13/2006
 

-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/585 - Release Date: 12/13/2006
 
--
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