Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ?
Yeah, being on time is nice. And we've already filed a couple of times on this issue over the years that it's been around. It all takes time and I don't always have as much as it takes to learn the issues, talk to others, work with others (like NAF, MAP, Cisco, Intel, ieee, etc.). If you'd like to join the fcc committee. grin marlon - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:10 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Is it enough ? maybe WISPA needs to be describing these better, in advance as opposed to the last minute... if all our comments were the FIRST posted, wouldn't that look better? What's out there that we should be looking at NOW as opposed to later... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 9:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ? The cut and paste is ok, but that's just more junk for people to read. The FCC has told me that the association needs to file, but that should also be backed up with individual filings. Even if it's just to say that you agree. What I wish is that more people knew the issue better so that they could file on their own in their own words. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] Is it enough ? Other people in 04-186 are posting fully written positions. Other WISPs are just filing I agree with WISPA... comments. I don't think that's enough! I think, AT THE WORST, that you should cut and paste WISPA's filing if that's what you agree with. At the LEAST fully state your position! We look like easily corralled cows following the leader into the corner. -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] tv whitespaces filings
Filing complete. '2007225311218 Although, I avoided proposed rules details, as it was already well expressed by other WISPA filers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 12:19 PM Subject: [WISPA] tv whitespaces filings Good grief guys, there are only 12 new filings in the last week or so!! Why, in the name of God, would the FCC give a rats behind about our industry if we can't be bothered to talk to them? Listen, the new rules get made according to the WRITTEN record! Our trips to the FCC are great and we both learn a lot, but when it comes time to make regulations they go to the paperwork that's been filed! EVERYONE here needs to file personally. Here's my confirmation :'2007223682035 Just go to this link: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Put 04-186 in the top left box and follow the instructions to voice your opinions on what the FCC should do with the soon to be opened up tv bands! All you have to do is till them to make the bands unlicensed, no auctions, no registration etc. Say more if you want, but we really need to drive home the unlicensed idea. Get off your hind ends guys! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ?
In defense of WISPA and those who have previously filed, I do not think you can state this as a last minute cause for response. This has been an ongoing [beneficial] cause for the WISP. The 04-186 NPRM was first filed by the FCC's OET on 5/13/2004 with a First Order Report w/Further NPRM filed on 10/18/2006, not discounting the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) listed below. If you look at the first NPRM and in the first paragraph(¶) towards the end it states, ...allowing unlicensed operation in the TV bands could benefit wireless internet service providers (WISPS) by improving the service range of their existing operations, thereby allowing WISPS to reach new customers. My gosh, this is directly aimed at WISP's! In addition to a Notice of Inquiry on 12/11/2002 - From footnote from the 1st NPRM - See Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket No. 02-380, 17 FCC Rcd 25632 (2002). The Commission also sought comment on the possibility of allowing unlicensed devices to operate in the 3650-3700 MHz band with only the minimum restrictions necessary to prevent interference to authorized users of the band. However, the matter of unlicensed operation in the 3650-3700 MHz band is now being addressed in a separate proceeding. See Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket NO. 04-151, FCC 04-100 (re]. April 23,2004). In ¶ 10, of the 1st NPRM, you will notice that the FCC does acknowledge WISP commenter's; In addition, a number of WISPS filed comments expressing their support for making spectrum in the TV bands available for unlicensed use. These parties generally submit that use of TV frequencies could improve signal coverage.(23). Footnote (23) - See, for example, Cliff LeBoeuf comments at 1, C. Crowley comments at 1, David Blood comments at 1, A M Techtel Communications comments at 2, John Hokenson comments at 1, Air Networking comments at 1, Redline Communications at 5-6, Kevin Rice comments at I, Lakeland Communication, Inc. comments at 1-2, Old Colorado city Communications at 6, Mutual Data Services, Inc. comments at 1, New Gen Wireless, Inc. comments at 1, Big Tube Wireless, LLC comments at 1, Keith Schmidt comments at 1, Chase 3000 comments at 2, Jason Hunt comments at 1, R.W. Shepardson comments at 1, David Lindley comments at 1, Eje Gustafsson comments at 1, Mark Worstall comments at 1, Netrepid comments at 1, Mother Lode Internet comments at 1, REC Networks comments at 1, Alvarion, Inc. comments at 1, Roy Preston comments at 1, David Robertson comments at 1, Kerry Penland comments at 1, Marlon K. Schafer comments at 1, and ScotI Sniven comments at 1. Only 75 commenter's are listed as filing Comments to the 1st NPRM and 26 filing Reply Comments, see Appendix A. Now, the FCC is using data from 1997 under the guidelines of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), See Appendix C. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.m The RFA defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small organization, and small business concern under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.m Under the Small Business Act, a small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and (3) meets may additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Appendix C Section A. paragraph 2 of the RFA states in the behalf of WISP's; These proposals, if adopted, will prove beneficial to manufacturers and users of unlicensed technology, including those who provide services to rural communities. Specifically, we note that a growing number of wireless internet service providers (WISPS) are using unlicensed devices within wireless networks to serve the needs of consumers. WISPS around the country are providing an alternative high-speed connection in areas where cable or DSL services have been slow to arrive. The additional frequency bands where operation is proposed will help to foster a viable last mile solution for delivering Internet services, other data applications, or even video and voice services to underserved, rural, or isolated communities. In addition, TV frequencies, which are below 900 MHZ, have less signal attenuation through foliage and walls than frequencies above 900 MHz currently used by WISPS, thus affording improved signal coverage. DO you not think this is this worth the time to state your OWN case and those of others in the WISP industry? The FCC is giving the WISP industry a huge OPPORTUNITY to speak their peace and step up to the plate and be heard. This FCC OET NPRM is asking for your input directly and specifically. Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] maybe WISPA needs to be describing
Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ?
Great post Frank! thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ? In defense of WISPA and those who have previously filed, I do not think you can state this as a last minute cause for response. This has been an ongoing [beneficial] cause for the WISP. The 04-186 NPRM was first filed by the FCC's OET on 5/13/2004 with a First Order Report w/Further NPRM filed on 10/18/2006, not discounting the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) listed below. If you look at the first NPRM and in the first paragraph(¶) towards the end it states, ...allowing unlicensed operation in the TV bands could benefit wireless internet service providers (WISPS) by improving the service range of their existing operations, thereby allowing WISPS to reach new customers. My gosh, this is directly aimed at WISP's! In addition to a Notice of Inquiry on 12/11/2002 - From footnote from the 1st NPRM - See Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket No. 02-380, 17 FCC Rcd 25632 (2002). The Commission also sought comment on the possibility of allowing unlicensed devices to operate in the 3650-3700 MHz band with only the minimum restrictions necessary to prevent interference to authorized users of the band. However, the matter of unlicensed operation in the 3650-3700 MHz band is now being addressed in a separate proceeding. See Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket NO. 04-151, FCC 04-100 (re]. April 23,2004). In ¶ 10, of the 1st NPRM, you will notice that the FCC does acknowledge WISP commenter's; In addition, a number of WISPS filed comments expressing their support for making spectrum in the TV bands available for unlicensed use. These parties generally submit that use of TV frequencies could improve signal coverage.(23). Footnote (23) - See, for example, Cliff LeBoeuf comments at 1, C. Crowley comments at 1, David Blood comments at 1, A M Techtel Communications comments at 2, John Hokenson comments at 1, Air Networking comments at 1, Redline Communications at 5-6, Kevin Rice comments at I, Lakeland Communication, Inc. comments at 1-2, Old Colorado city Communications at 6, Mutual Data Services, Inc. comments at 1, New Gen Wireless, Inc. comments at 1, Big Tube Wireless, LLC comments at 1, Keith Schmidt comments at 1, Chase 3000 comments at 2, Jason Hunt comments at 1, R.W. Shepardson comments at 1, David Lindley comments at 1, Eje Gustafsson comments at 1, Mark Worstall comments at 1, Netrepid comments at 1, Mother Lode Internet comments at 1, REC Networks comments at 1, Alvarion, Inc. comments at 1, Roy Preston comments at 1, David Robertson comments at 1, Kerry Penland comments at 1, Marlon K. Schafer comments at 1, and ScotI Sniven comments at 1. Only 75 commenter's are listed as filing Comments to the 1st NPRM and 26 filing Reply Comments, see Appendix A. Now, the FCC is using data from 1997 under the guidelines of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), See Appendix C. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.m The RFA defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small organization, and small business concern under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.m Under the Small Business Act, a small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and (3) meets may additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Appendix C Section A. paragraph 2 of the RFA states in the behalf of WISP's; These proposals, if adopted, will prove beneficial to manufacturers and users of unlicensed technology, including those who provide services to rural communities. Specifically, we note that a growing number of wireless internet service providers (WISPS) are using unlicensed devices within wireless networks to serve the needs of consumers. WISPS around the country are providing an alternative high-speed connection in areas where cable or DSL services have been slow to arrive. The additional frequency bands where operation is proposed will help to foster a viable last mile solution for delivering Internet services, other data applications, or even video and voice services to underserved, rural, or isolated communities. In addition, TV frequencies, which are below 900 MHZ, have less signal attenuation through foliage and walls than frequencies above 900 MHz currently used by WISPS, thus affording improved signal coverage. DO you not think this is this worth the time to state your OWN case and those of others in the WISP industry? The FCC is giving the WISP industry a huge OPPORTUNITY to speak their peace and step up to the plate and be heard. This FCC OET NPRM is asking for your
Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ?
Patrick, you've been awfully quiet on this one. What are Alvarion's thoughts? Have you guys filed on this matter? Tranzeo, same question Any other vendor members care to chime in here? thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ? In defense of WISPA and those who have previously filed, I do not think you can state this as a last minute cause for response. This has been an ongoing [beneficial] cause for the WISP. The 04-186 NPRM was first filed by the FCC's OET on 5/13/2004 with a First Order Report w/Further NPRM filed on 10/18/2006, not discounting the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) listed below. If you look at the first NPRM and in the first paragraph(¶) towards the end it states, ...allowing unlicensed operation in the TV bands could benefit wireless internet service providers (WISPS) by improving the service range of their existing operations, thereby allowing WISPS to reach new customers. My gosh, this is directly aimed at WISP's! In addition to a Notice of Inquiry on 12/11/2002 - From footnote from the 1st NPRM - See Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket No. 02-380, 17 FCC Rcd 25632 (2002). The Commission also sought comment on the possibility of allowing unlicensed devices to operate in the 3650-3700 MHz band with only the minimum restrictions necessary to prevent interference to authorized users of the band. However, the matter of unlicensed operation in the 3650-3700 MHz band is now being addressed in a separate proceeding. See Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket NO. 04-151, FCC 04-100 (re]. April 23,2004). In ¶ 10, of the 1st NPRM, you will notice that the FCC does acknowledge WISP commenter's; In addition, a number of WISPS filed comments expressing their support for making spectrum in the TV bands available for unlicensed use. These parties generally submit that use of TV frequencies could improve signal coverage.(23). Footnote (23) - See, for example, Cliff LeBoeuf comments at 1, C. Crowley comments at 1, David Blood comments at 1, A M Techtel Communications comments at 2, John Hokenson comments at 1, Air Networking comments at 1, Redline Communications at 5-6, Kevin Rice comments at I, Lakeland Communication, Inc. comments at 1-2, Old Colorado city Communications at 6, Mutual Data Services, Inc. comments at 1, New Gen Wireless, Inc. comments at 1, Big Tube Wireless, LLC comments at 1, Keith Schmidt comments at 1, Chase 3000 comments at 2, Jason Hunt comments at 1, R.W. Shepardson comments at 1, David Lindley comments at 1, Eje Gustafsson comments at 1, Mark Worstall comments at 1, Netrepid comments at 1, Mother Lode Internet comments at 1, REC Networks comments at 1, Alvarion, Inc. comments at 1, Roy Preston comments at 1, David Robertson comments at 1, Kerry Penland comments at 1, Marlon K. Schafer comments at 1, and ScotI Sniven comments at 1. Only 75 commenter's are listed as filing Comments to the 1st NPRM and 26 filing Reply Comments, see Appendix A. Now, the FCC is using data from 1997 under the guidelines of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), See Appendix C. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.m The RFA defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small organization, and small business concern under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.m Under the Small Business Act, a small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and (3) meets may additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Appendix C Section A. paragraph 2 of the RFA states in the behalf of WISP's; These proposals, if adopted, will prove beneficial to manufacturers and users of unlicensed technology, including those who provide services to rural communities. Specifically, we note that a growing number of wireless internet service providers (WISPS) are using unlicensed devices within wireless networks to serve the needs of consumers. WISPS around the country are providing an alternative high-speed connection in areas where cable or DSL services have been slow to arrive. The additional frequency bands where operation is proposed will help to foster a viable last mile solution for delivering Internet services, other data applications, or even video and voice services to underserved, rural, or isolated communities. In addition, TV frequencies, which are below 900 MHZ, have less signal attenuation through foliage and walls than frequencies above 900 MHz currently used by WISPS, thus affording improved signal coverage. DO you not think this is this worth the time to state your OWN case and those of others in
Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ?
Alvarion, Inc. is listed as a Reply Commenter. Frank - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ? Patrick, you've been awfully quiet on this one. What are Alvarion's thoughts? Have you guys filed on this matter? Tranzeo, same question Any other vendor members care to chime in here? thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ? In defense of WISPA and those who have previously filed, I do not think you can state this as a last minute cause for response. This has been an ongoing [beneficial] cause for the WISP. The 04-186 NPRM was first filed by the FCC's OET on 5/13/2004 with a First Order Report w/Further NPRM filed on 10/18/2006, not discounting the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) listed below. If you look at the first NPRM and in the first paragraph(¶) towards the end it states, ...allowing unlicensed operation in the TV bands could benefit wireless internet service providers (WISPS) by improving the service range of their existing operations, thereby allowing WISPS to reach new customers. My gosh, this is directly aimed at WISP's! In addition to a Notice of Inquiry on 12/11/2002 - From footnote from the 1st NPRM - See Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket No. 02-380, 17 FCC Rcd 25632 (2002). The Commission also sought comment on the possibility of allowing unlicensed devices to operate in the 3650-3700 MHz band with only the minimum restrictions necessary to prevent interference to authorized users of the band. However, the matter of unlicensed operation in the 3650-3700 MHz band is now being addressed in a separate proceeding. See Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket NO. 04-151, FCC 04-100 (re]. April 23,2004). In ¶ 10, of the 1st NPRM, you will notice that the FCC does acknowledge WISP commenter's; In addition, a number of WISPS filed comments expressing their support for making spectrum in the TV bands available for unlicensed use. These parties generally submit that use of TV frequencies could improve signal coverage.(23). Footnote (23) - See, for example, Cliff LeBoeuf comments at 1, C. Crowley comments at 1, David Blood comments at 1, A M Techtel Communications comments at 2, John Hokenson comments at 1, Air Networking comments at 1, Redline Communications at 5-6, Kevin Rice comments at I, Lakeland Communication, Inc. comments at 1-2, Old Colorado city Communications at 6, Mutual Data Services, Inc. comments at 1, New Gen Wireless, Inc. comments at 1, Big Tube Wireless, LLC comments at 1, Keith Schmidt comments at 1, Chase 3000 comments at 2, Jason Hunt comments at 1, R.W. Shepardson comments at 1, David Lindley comments at 1, Eje Gustafsson comments at 1, Mark Worstall comments at 1, Netrepid comments at 1, Mother Lode Internet comments at 1, REC Networks comments at 1, Alvarion, Inc. comments at 1, Roy Preston comments at 1, David Robertson comments at 1, Kerry Penland comments at 1, Marlon K. Schafer comments at 1, and ScotI Sniven comments at 1. Only 75 commenter's are listed as filing Comments to the 1st NPRM and 26 filing Reply Comments, see Appendix A. Now, the FCC is using data from 1997 under the guidelines of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), See Appendix C. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.m The RFA defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small organization, and small business concern under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.m Under the Small Business Act, a small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and (3) meets may additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Appendix C Section A. paragraph 2 of the RFA states in the behalf of WISP's; These proposals, if adopted, will prove beneficial to manufacturers and users of unlicensed technology, including those who provide services to rural communities. Specifically, we note that a growing number of wireless internet service providers (WISPS) are using unlicensed devices within wireless networks to serve the needs of consumers. WISPS around the country are providing an alternative high-speed connection in areas where cable or DSL services have been slow to arrive. The additional frequency bands where operation is proposed will help to foster a viable last mile solution for delivering Internet services, other data applications, or even video and voice services to underserved, rural, or isolated communities. In addition, TV frequencies, which are below 900
RE: [WISPA] Is it enough ?
actually. Don't laugh. We should talk. In my new life as a company, I've got a Director of Sales on board that's a (very) politically connected guy in Northern NJ as well as Washington. I'm bringing him up to speed slowly, as I need him to get selling :) BUT, one of the things I will do soon is get him on board here. This guy's a heavy hitter and we actually have a very good friend of ours that's a congressman in DC.. More soon. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ? Yeah, being on time is nice. And we've already filed a couple of times on this issue over the years that it's been around. It all takes time and I don't always have as much as it takes to learn the issues, talk to others, work with others (like NAF, MAP, Cisco, Intel, ieee, etc.). If you'd like to join the fcc committee. grin marlon - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:10 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Is it enough ? maybe WISPA needs to be describing these better, in advance as opposed to the last minute... if all our comments were the FIRST posted, wouldn't that look better? What's out there that we should be looking at NOW as opposed to later... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 9:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ? The cut and paste is ok, but that's just more junk for people to read. The FCC has told me that the association needs to file, but that should also be backed up with individual filings. Even if it's just to say that you agree. What I wish is that more people knew the issue better so that they could file on their own in their own words. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] Is it enough ? Other people in 04-186 are posting fully written positions. Other WISPs are just filing I agree with WISPA... comments. I don't think that's enough! I think, AT THE WORST, that you should cut and paste WISPA's filing if that's what you agree with. At the LEAST fully state your position! We look like easily corralled cows following the leader into the corner. -- 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/ -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] tv whitespaces filings
2007225610045 Tom DeReggi wrote: Filing complete. '2007225311218 Although, I avoided proposed rules details, as it was already well expressed by other WISPA filers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 12:19 PM Subject: [WISPA] tv whitespaces filings Good grief guys, there are only 12 new filings in the last week or so!! Why, in the name of God, would the FCC give a rats behind about our industry if we can't be bothered to talk to them? Listen, the new rules get made according to the WRITTEN record! Our trips to the FCC are great and we both learn a lot, but when it comes time to make regulations they go to the paperwork that's been filed! EVERYONE here needs to file personally. Here's my confirmation :'2007223682035 Just go to this link: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Put 04-186 in the top left box and follow the instructions to voice your opinions on what the FCC should do with the soon to be opened up tv bands! All you have to do is till them to make the bands unlicensed, no auctions, no registration etc. Say more if you want, but we really need to drive home the unlicensed idea. Get off your hind ends guys! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ?
That's good, and developing a political network in D.C. is imperative, but it's not a part time job. WISPA needs to eventually outsource this job out. It's a daily grind on the Hill to get in the right doors and see the right people. This does not come cheap and one way or another WISPA needs this. They have done a good job getting the ball rolling, but they can not dedicate the proper time to walk the halls and be in the right places when called on, at times... at the spur of the moment. WISPA needs two directions at this time and that is developing a recruitment of members and a D.C. team. But first, in order to pay for the D.C. team, WISPA needs members, paying members, that will support their industry into a viable force of competition. The principle members and leadership are not in a position to back away from building their business, but are providing the interim support needed to launch WISPA into strong and influential association for WISP's. WISPA will also need a front line of Execs, those that can call on their own networks in drawing on support, that is financial support, along with influence in D.C. Just like launching a new business and looking for funding, it's the money spent on the recruitment of those that can bring on the cash support. Frank Muto President FSM Marketing Group, Inc. Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] actually. Don't laugh. We should talk. In my new life as a company, I've got a Director of Sales on board that's a (very) politically connected guy in Northern NJ as well as Washington. I'm bringing him up to speed slowly, as I need him to get selling :) BUT, one of the things I will do soon is get him on board here. This guy's a heavy hitter and we actually have a very good friend of ours that's a congressman in DC.. More soon. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Is it enough ? Yeah, being on time is nice. And we've already filed a couple of times on this issue over the years that it's been around. It all takes time and I don't always have as much as it takes to learn the issues, talk to others, work with others (like NAF, MAP, Cisco, Intel, ieee, etc.). If you'd like to join the fcc committee. grin marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] tv whitespaces filings
Portative filed. : **2007225097486** David Hulsebus Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Good grief guys, there are only 12 new filings in the last week or so!! Why, in the name of God, would the FCC give a rats behind about our industry if we can't be bothered to talk to them? Listen, the new rules get made according to the WRITTEN record! Our trips to the FCC are great and we both learn a lot, but when it comes time to make regulations they go to the paperwork that's been filed! EVERYONE here needs to file personally. Here's my confirmation :'2007223682035 Just go to this link: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Put 04-186 in the top left box and follow the instructions to voice your opinions on what the FCC should do with the soon to be opened up tv bands! All you have to do is till them to make the bands unlicensed, no auctions, no registration etc. Say more if you want, but we really need to drive home the unlicensed idea. Get off your hind ends guys! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
