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 counts. 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 mark.

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.

(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
42846865 (icq) WISP Operator since 1999!

----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

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 Industry.

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 will happen?
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.

- Peter

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]> wrote:

In case you missed it in an earlier email.

I called the top 5 or 6 vendors in the WISP space and pestered them till
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 effort
by the FCC would take someone all over a day or two.

That help?

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

Reply via email to