12000, 6000, 2000, or whatever number of WISPs is mainly hard to
quantify because there are LOTS of 2 and 3 customer private wireless
networks, where a business will buy a T1, DSL or whatever, and share it
wirelessly with a few nearby business, within or without the terms of
service agreements. Those guys may have bought their equipment from
vendor X, and most likely didn't tell anyone (not even the FCC or the
RUS) about their venture. This adds a new "customer" to Electrocomm's
roll's and one of 12000 "wisps" in the mix of some of these speculative
Another customer of WISP equipment that is not a WISP might be the
colleges and universities. Many colleges use wireless backhauls and
hotspots on campus. Does that make them a WISP?
University of Houston Victoria Campus has some wireless stuff in their
network for their campus. If they have 1000 students who use it, does
that make them a 1000 subscriber wisp? I doubt that they filed a 477. If
they bought from Smartbridges, Hutton, Electrocomm, or whoever Marlon
might have probed, then they are on his radar, but not necessarily a
real privately held, public-serving WISP.
As far as serving the underserved, like the FCC wants us to do, so they
can give out these low-cost loans, if they would simply offer tax breaks
to WISPs who DO register and deliver broadband to customers who live in
areas of less than (x/sq mile) density. Sort of like the USF money, but
with income tax breaks instead of $100+/mo/sub incentive like ATT gets
in some markets. Anyway offering tax breaks to "registered" rural WISPs
would get those 477 forms filled out to show a true(er) number. This
would boost our numbers in the eyes of the elected officials, and be a
boom for free enterprise and all that it stands for, and I think the
broadband subscribers census numbers would put us even or ahead of the
rest of the world.
Sprint/Nextel seem to be stepping up to the plate and helping with our
goal of market penetration
We don't have gigabit fiber to the home like the Japanese, but we also
don't all live in the same skyscraper that we work and shop in either.
If shopping/working/living under a single roof was common, fiber
broadband would make more sense.
We may not have the same market penetration as Australia, but we also
don't have $10+/hr minimum wage. I know that a LOT of people consider
$39/mo for internet a burden, especially in smaller towns, where the
best paying job down at the mill has 40 year old men making $7.50/hr. Of
course, the $30/hr on the oilfield and the $50/hr offshore oilfield jobs
make a difference in the labor pool also, making it hard to get
qualified affordable help to install ISP customers.
If your goal is 100% broadband market penetration for every home in the
US, I suppose we could take the foodstamps approach to it. Add
$500/yr/household tax to the IRS, then distribute $40/mo coupons to
every household. If they want the basic service, the coupon should cover
it. If they want the $80/mo service, it will cost a little more, but
this will ensure that EVERY customer could afford it, and it would cost
everyone the same. This is a ridiculous proposal, but it would truly
"level the playing field". unfortunately it would also bring out every
dirtbag and put them into the ISP business buying the coupon books for
1/10 of their redemption value from crackheads. If you had guaranteed
100% market penetration, how much cheaper could you offer service?
Delivering service to a customer base without a computer in the home
would be EASY if there was a $40 coupon that I could buy from them for $4.
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
There were 12,000 on the rolls. The largest single count was 6000. I
assumed a 75% overlap to be on the safe side.
But with a high of 6000 at ONE company, there's no way to have overlap
on that 6000. The real number in 2004 was somewhere around that 6000
And for your 40% that are gone, how many new are out there that we've
not heard about yet.
How many muni networks are out there? They too are wisps.
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) WISP Operator since
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband
And that was 2004.
I'm not arguing just to argue. This is a soapbox, so delete and move
on if you want.
When you go to the Feds and say that there are 6000 and only 400 have
reported, that doesn't bode well for anyone.
It makes the Feds nervous. It shines an ugly light on this so-called
As Powell has stated it is way easier to deal with 12 companies using
the same platforms than 1000's using many platforms. And Gonzo and
K-Mart feel the same way (since they take their cues from the Roving 3).
And when the gov't wants control and CALEA and surveillance and etc.
and they can't get cooperation from this Industry, what do you think
They will pick up a pen and wipe it out.
But, Marlon, as I mentioned off-list, going through my Florida ISP
database, about 40% are gone and some that are in business are not an
ISP any longer.
Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
Except that the SAME wisps were dealing with the top 5 or 6 vendors,
so your count is quite inflated.
On 4/20/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In case you missed it in an earlier email.
I called the top 5 or 6 vendors in the WISP space and pestered them
they told me how many providers they had on the books as WISPs.
MUCH more accurate than the 477 and a similar or more comprehensive
by the FCC would take someone all over a day or two.
WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com
WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org