Nope. I still won't fill it out. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Thomas Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 2:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Pete, you hit on an interesting idea. What if the FCC were to pay the ISP say $500 each year to fill out the 477? Would more ISP's participate? John Pete Davis wrote: > 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 > http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/wireless/sprint-wimax-24mpbs-55month-open-acc ess-yes-please-229995.php > > > 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. > > pd > > > 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. >> >> laters, >> Marlon >> (509) 982-2181 >> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services >> 42846865 (icq) WISP Operator since >> 1999! >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam >> >> >> >> ----- 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. >>>> >>>> Lonnie >>>> >>>> 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? >>>>> Marlon >>>> >>> -- >>> 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/
