Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts. I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was talking about "consultants" etc. You are correct in that many people who are consultants don't know the real world implications. Us WISPs have first hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands, hardware, etc is capable of.
A recent "study" was commissioned in St. Louis. This was a feasibility study that netted some "consultant" over $90,000 bucks from the way I read it. What was this for? To see if the city of St. Louis can put in a wireless network covering downtown. Hmmmm. My first thought on this was.... "So the consultant needs to conduct a study on IF you can do this?" Does he not know what he is doing? I can tell you I can do it, might take me a bit to do the necessary research, but hell for that price, I will do the research, finding bandwidth, contracts, and power/data agreements. This is the kind of thing that us, using license exempt bands nee to fight. We need to make it public, that this is a misuse of taxpayer's dollars. We need to ensure that this is shown to cut out the small business, in favor of large, non-local companies doing the work. A few other things that would help us WISPs out, someone in the FCC ready to listen to our findings of non-complaint gear/overpowered radios, someone that can actually say, you get me these things, the proof to say, and then we will do something with it. Don't happen very often. If someone calls the FCC, how many times have you heard anything back on them? I have heard interference stories, even from cell companies, (recent on the lists). The story about the IT Person telling the WISP to use 4.9, is a prime example of something that the FCC should be ON THE BALL about. And also some clarification on band usages, power limits, etc, where several questions and things are open to "interpretation", not closed down enough to be "solid" in court or anywhere. Just a few thoughts. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces George, Thats a good point. WISPs are maturing and as they grow they start to demand name brand type gear that will let them scale, which inadvertently is usually certified. Thus larger providers using certified gear. With no disrespect meant, I could argue that some of WISP's straying to non-certified gear, could be more of a science project, or trials to test the viabilty of that type product line, and as those trials become successful, they likely will certify gear or buy versions that are certified. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces > Well this was an exiting day on the lists. > > I would find it hard to believe that the wisp industry is in worse shape > now than before concerning abuse. > > 5 years ago when most were new and choices were far and few between, there > was a lot of "pringles" type wisps. Hey, they were the inovators. > > But it's hard to believe that with the advent of cheap gear from many new > players, I'd have ahard time believing that the vast majority of wisp gear > is an fcc certified system or kit type product, such as a star or mt. > > I think we're building a mountain out of a mole hill in even suggesting > that this an issue that has to be delt with. The industry has matured in a > very positive way over the past few years. > > George > > This is NOT an official wispa stance or position, just my own. > > Patrick Leary wrote: >> Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves: >> >> 1. The FCC is not a baby sitter. 2. Mature operators (and industries as a >> whole) follow the rules as a >> matter of course and expected cost of business. >> 3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially >> benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should >> thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum. >> 4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain >> about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc. >> >> As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've certainly >> been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs are >> now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount to its >> approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but one >> rule: "Don't exceed the power limitations." Everything else has become >> fair game. >> >> Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if not >> actual, that abuse is reaching new levels: >> - many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz to carry some >> commercial traffic (Hey, there's excess capacity so what's the big deal, >> right?...) >> - use of STA's to commercially use spectrum is openly being advocated >> (this is partially responsible for an over 6 month wait in STA filings) >> - illegal vendors now operate in the clear with prominent U.S. >> distribution (They must be legal if they have a store front and it only >> hurts other vendors anyway...) >> - "build your own base station" type Google ads are rampant >> >> Call me an alarmist, but this accelerating trend is disturbing and such >> attitudes easily even have the potential to infect safety issues (hey, >> OSHA rules must not be that big a deal either). >> >> We must all appreciate that many violating the rules do so out of >> ignorance, but that as an excuse. Groups like WISPA should take firm >> stands on subjects like this. You should strongly encourage compliance, >> lead the way and educate. You should fight the ignorance that allows for >> relativism and "creative interpretation" of the rules. You should also >> not cave to the hard luck excuses that "I'm a small guy and can't afford >> to follow the rules." (Your response to such should be to point to >> funding sources/advice or otherwise tell them that there is a minimum >> cost to legally participate in this business and that following FCC >> rules is a minimum expectation as responsible stewards of the public's >> free spectrum.) And finally, WISPs should not treat knowingly illegal >> operators as equals because in fact they are liabilities to you and the >> industry at large. >> >> And yes, of course I have skin in the game but that in no way alters >> anything here or devalues my comments. If anything, as a legal vendor >> with a long professional reputation of compliance and scores of legal >> operator partners, and as an individual who has been beating this drum >> for 7 years, it should only increase the weight of my comments. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Patrick Leary >> AVP WISP Markets >> Alvarion, Inc. >> o: 650.314.2628 >> c: 760.580.0080 >> Vonage: 650.641.1243 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro >> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:26 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces >> >> All, >> >> Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look >> >> bad. >> Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules. >> >> Regards, >> Dawn DiPietro >> >> >> Patrick Leary wrote: >> >> >>>I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that >>>the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of >>>WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the >>>lines of "Damn it, these things are not guidelines." >>> >>>>From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the >>>usual, "if you just stay within the power no one cares" to now where >>>people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access >>>to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist. >>> >>>Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that >>>will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. >>>The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and >>>discouraging the slippery slope. >>> >>>Patrick Leary >>>AVP WISP Markets >>>Alvarion, Inc. >>>o: 650.314.2628 >>>c: 760.580.0080 >>>Vonage: 650.641.1243 >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>Behalf Of Jack Unger >>>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces >>> >>>Steve, >>> >>>I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt >> >> white >> >>>space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does. >>> >>>jack >>> >>> >>>Steve Stroh wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Jack: >>>> >>>>Consider... >>>> >>>>To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a "we'll >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity" manner >>>> >>> >>>is >>> >>>>the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has been >>>>steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of Channels >>>>70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of Channels >>>>52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for powerful >>>>terrestrial broadcasting to "share" spectrum with low-power >>>>license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they >>>>are "bending" towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>may serve to "pollute" the remaining television broadcast spectrum >>>>sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another >>>>decade or so). >>>> >>>>Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as >>>>advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast >>>>spectrum. >>>> >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>> >>>>Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Likelihood of unlicensed??? >>>>> >>>>>My guess is that the established communications carriers and the >>>>>broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this space. >>>>>I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most effectively. >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >>>>>Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 >>>>>Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >>>>>True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting >>>>>Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html >>>>>Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com >>>>> >>>> >>>>--- >>>> >>>>Steve Stroh >>>>425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > 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/ -- 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/
