[WISPA] Why ILEC regulation is different from Cable and WISP regulation... WAS: Re: FCC DSL - WBIA ACTIONRecommendation
Charles, Given your position on this issue, I have to believe that your comments are partially tongue-in-cheek. The telcos have had a government-mandated monopoly for over 50 years where they were allowed to collect monopolistic profits to build the grand network that they possess today. They own their cable plants as a direct result of the money that the public contributed (and continue to contribute in most areas) to them; not because they were one of the competitors offering a top-notch service. The ILECs continue to control last-mile access to consumers not because it is impossible for competitors to mirror their connectivity, but because it is cost-prohibitive to build that infrastructure when the expected gross return hovers around $300/year [1]. ILECs aren't comparable to cable providers for three reasons: 1) cable providers generally built their networks from capitol generated from their operations without financial assistance from the government and were not granted taxation authority to subsidize network construction a la USF; 2) Cable providers' services have not been a nearly required utility for the past 50 years. 3) Cable providers have cost-analogous competition in virtually every market from Satellite based television providers, video rental stores, online information services, etc. ILECs aren't comparable to WISPs for the same reasons above and for these additional reasons: 1) WISPs for the most part haven't had any assistance from the public sector that wasn't available to any other business at the time; 2) WISPs could have a viable competitor enter their market at any time for a relatively low start-up cost. The only potentially limiting factor is tower locations and as many of you know, if one municipality rejects you, you just beam it in from outside the town [2]; 3) Most WISPs have little power to eliminate competition by undercharging because they don't have the ability to generate monopolistic profits from other operations. guestimation The ILECs are deathly afraid that the government will not allow them to exclusively exploit their monopoly-gained infrastructure because they know that their operation is so incredibly inefficient and out-dated that they can't compete with other carriers even when they are on slightly-elevated ground. If $14.95/month business 1.5MB DSL isn't desperate dumping to eliminate competition, I don't know what is. They couldn't do this without their monopoly phone line revenue from the past 75 years. How much do they charge for a T-1? $700/month? Is it really that much different? /guestimation Allowing ILECs to prevent competitors from using their newly-built infrastructure in 2004 was a shaky proposition because they usually possess the ability to build that infrastructure as a direct result of their previous monopoly. Allowing ILECs to prevent others from using their existing infrastructure that was paid for as a direct result of their monopoly amounts to nothing less than government corporate welfare which will lead to fewer choices for consumers [3] and higher prices [4] for the services that they have the privilege of ordering from the duopoly. - Tony P.S. Anyone want to bid on this with me? Oh, you don't have enough capital? I can't imagine why... http://news.com.com/2061-10800_3-5819312.html [1] Assuming $50/month revenue and a 50% chance that they choose a competitor. Yes, I know that we can bundle services to get this number to $100 or more, but that generally hasn't happened and it's simpler to just talk about Internet-based services. Additionally, the _net_ return from an individual consumer probably hovers around $200/year. Can you even build wireless connectivity for this kind of return while running the inefficient operations that the ILECs have? [2] Maybe this part of WISP operations should be regulated. I can see some benefit to having an equal-access-to-towers regulation that covers all structures in an economically- or politically-limited tower environment. [3] Most ISPs rely on ILEC connectivity for either last-mile access to their customers or for their interconnectivity to the Internet. If the ILECs are allowed to discontinue or artificially inflate the cost of these services we will see a similar loss-of-competition that occurred three years ago with competing DSL providers. [4] They will probably look lower though. I am amazed by how foolish most consumers act. Many actually believe that $14.95/month DSL + $50/month (required) phone line is a better deal than $35/month Internet and $25/month (optional) phone line. Maybe a consistent pricing system is a better way for government to foster broadband development. On 8/4/2005 12:07 PM, Charles Wu created: Here's the issue If you vote to regulate the bells, then you (as WISPs) must also be ready to ultimately submit yourself (or at least your facilities based network infrastructure) to regulation sometime in the near future - to requote
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) for a shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a couple of years. For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards. Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If you get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. It's just that simple. I honestly see few down sides to this idea. I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. So far it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm more than a bit shocked. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Marlon and Lonnie, First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every ounce of spectrum that we can. I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy toys won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull some ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good Radio Waves unit, but still. I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do the rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that gives us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad things is a good thing to try to do. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
I have some experience at 6, 11, 13, 18 23 GHz, more at 6, 11 13. These were all carrier links never used a 6' dish unless it was a short path, less than 8 mi., usually 6 or less. WE built 40 dB fade margin into every path. tried to keep the radiated signal beem as narrow as possible, larger antennas, greater gain, they don't burn out. Downside is stiffer towers, very expensive. However, at 6 and 11 you can get 672 Mb/s and that's good. I don't have the money right now or I would have a two hop system to Southfield MI where a meg is around 100-125. My point, the licensed spectrum is excellent, no interference, and w/ enough fade margin it rocks. Lonnie and Marlon - I support everything they say, nearly. We need to use whatever we can get our hands on, that lifts our advantage. So keep it up guys. Original message Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:03:55 -0700 From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) for a shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a couple of years. For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards. Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If you get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. It's just that simple. I honestly see few down sides to this idea. I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. So far it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm more than a bit shocked. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Marlon and Lonnie, First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every ounce of spectrum that we can. I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue.
