Re: [WISPA] Used Trazneo CPE's
Dude, I'll take any of em off your hands. Hit me offlist. Kurt Fankhauser wrote: Is anyone interested in some Tranzeo CPE’s? I have TR-CPE200’s 19’s and 15’s. What should I charge for these? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC 114 S. Walnut St. Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Used Trazneo CPE's
Is anyone interested in some Tranzeo CPE’s? I have TR-CPE200’s 19’s and 15’s. What should I charge for these? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC 114 S. Walnut St. Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Canopy 900
Yes, 36 db. Both AP and CPE. 3 to 1 rule DOES NOT APPLY to 900Mhz. When higher than 10db Yagis are used, radio power must be lowered. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization" Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:46 PM Subject: [WISPA] Canopy 900 What is the legal limit for 900? On AP and CPE. Isn't it 36db? This is radio plus antenna =36? -- Brian Rohrbacher Reliable Internet, LLC www.reliableinter.net Cell 269-838-8338 "Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17 -- 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] Canopy 900
What is the legal limit for 900? On AP and CPE. Isn't it 36db? This is radio plus antenna =36? -- Brian Rohrbacher Reliable Internet, LLC www.reliableinter.net Cell 269-838-8338 "Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone know Verilan?
using them currently, then I would suppose your "exclusive" rights would hold up, but am unaware of any legal precedence to show this. Thats correct. Its still a grey area. In our case, they settled before going to court, based on the likeliness we'd win. I also am not aware of any case that did not hold up, based on the fact that the spectrum used was unlicensed spectrum. In all cases that didn't hold, there was some other deficiency that caused it not to hold up. Technicalities like unclearly written contracts or definitions. When attempting to license unlicense spectrum, there are many approaches to do it. There is a subtle difference, but its a big difference, in what ways will hold up or not. FCC rules can't be prejudice between providers of broadband. But it doesn't define unlicensed spectrum as "broadband". The spectrum could be used for any of many purposes. So the rules don't apply. Until they expand OTARD to include shared common area controled by property owners, licensing the exclusive use of unlicensed spectrum from their controlled areas will in fact hold. Of course I can't prove it without going to court. Obviously I can't share detailed information pertaining to our case and agreement, as that would not bewise, as some day I may need to defend our agreements in court. All I can tell you, is if that day comes, we are well prepared to defend our case, and plan to win it. Now you could find a tenant on the 24th floor of the building, and put an AP in their window, and with their permission be able to broadcast, and the landlord or WISP with exclusive rights wouldn't be able to do anything about it. When there is a will there is a way. The point is how much hassle is it, how fast can you move, and which way offers the best overall value proposition. If I can broadcast from the roof, and get 10 extra DBs on a links, to survive interference better, its worth paying for and worth having. There was a company that had a similar contract on the BOA tower in seattle that tried using this without any success as well, when I was with another firm a few years back. Reality is there is no exclusive rights to bands within unlicensed. ( my 2 cents) I fully disagree. You don't license unlicensed spectrum. You license the right to operate equipment of a specific type from the property controlled by property owner. You can't control what spectrum is in the air, but an agreement can clearly control who has the right to put something on a roof and of what type. The landlords won that battle years ago, battling Teligent. And if for any reason I'm wrong, which I'm not, the right agreement would still result in ability to get injunctive relief, until the issue made it through court for a final ruling. Easilly able to keep it tied up in court for years, accomplishing the same benefit to keep the competition from using your broadcast sites, for a long period of time, while you install customers and the opportunity passes them by. There were a number of ISPs that thought, they'd move into my markets, to deploy Wireless. As you will see, not any of them that tried, are still in my markets. They learned it didn't do any good to have wireless gear deployed from the wrong places. Broadcast site was everything, to get coverage. If you didn't ahve coverage, marketing didn't work and sales people got pissed off and quit. I'm banking that my agreements will hold, and I am confident it is what is going to make the biggest difference in me getting the buy out terms, that I am holding out for, when the day comes that I sell. When someone can't steal your assets, they either go away, or they buy them (the assets). When someone controls the market to some extent through a unique asset, it can easilly double their worth. If it went to court, you bet that the Property owners would lobby hard to also protect the right, that they've fought so hard to keep the right to control whats on their roof over the years. Because they resell that right to people like me, and make a small fortune off it. They clearly have made a lot more off my business than I have :-) I'd argue, that it would be worth a couple million (at the right time) to buy me out, even if I didn't include one customer in the sale, based on the fact that I have so many prime locations under contract, that could speed deployment, and by default is creating a ton of intererence, chewing up spectrum, for anyone trying to deploy new in my areas. I'm not attentially doing so (creating interference), I deploy in a way to optimally try to avoid causing interference, I just have deployed a lot of prime sites deployed to expand my network, to optimize my change to have LOS to my customers.. My point is it doesn't matter wether the agreements will hold up in court. Because they exist, and it needs to be proven that they wouldn't hold up in court, before they can be gotten around, and it will cos
Re: [WISPA] Anyone know Verilan?
If you have a lease with a landlord that grants you exclusive rights to unlicensed spectrum then that lease precludes the landlord from entering into lease with another entity that wants access to that unlicensed spectrum. While the landlord has no right to control the spectrum they can avoid offering leases based upon use of spectrum. -Matt jeffrey thomas wrote: If your contract with a tower specifies that you hold access rights to spectrum within the bands whether you are USING THEM currently, or not using them currently, then I would suppose your "exclusive" rights would hold up, but am unaware of any legal precedence to show this. There was a company that had a similar contract on the BOA tower in seattle that tried using this without any success as well, when I was with another firm a few years back. Reality is there is no exclusive rights to bands within unlicensed. ( my 2 cents) - Jeff On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:06:23 -0600, "Dylan Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Huh. What's the difference between quasi and true exclusive rights? What *would* hold up? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone know Verilan?
If your contract with a tower specifies that you hold access rights to spectrum within the bands whether you are USING THEM currently, or not using them currently, then I would suppose your "exclusive" rights would hold up, but am unaware of any legal precedence to show this. There was a company that had a similar contract on the BOA tower in seattle that tried using this without any success as well, when I was with another firm a few years back. Reality is there is no exclusive rights to bands within unlicensed. ( my 2 cents) - Jeff On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:06:23 -0600, "Dylan Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Huh. What's the difference between quasi and true exclusive rights? What > *would* hold up? > > Best, > -- > Dylan Oliver > Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone know Verilan?
I do not provide this information publically for several reason, as they are trade secrets. 1) Disclosing property owner partners opens the door for competitors to know where to work first, to attempt compete agaisnt us in a way that does us the most harm. Its the principle of Wendy usually opens up across the street from MCDonalds. If I have a relationship with X, andthey gain a relationship with X, I also llikely lose a relationship or choices with X. We are allies, as long as they are going after other turf working with Y. I've lost as much as 100s of thousands of dollars, by being forced to fullfil first right of refusal agreements, prematurely to twart off my competition, after disclosing such information. The agreements that we have in place is what gives a significant time to market advantage, and disclosing such info publically could effect our company worth as other WISPs establish relationships with those owners, even if in other regions. However, I find that every landlord is a good one to work with, its just an issue of identifying what each others goals are, and catering to them. The diffence is that landlords that don't yet get it, just take a lot longer to work with to teach them to get it. I now can get roof approval on many building in a week compared to 6 months to a year in the past, due to sampelagreements and previous negotiations with landlords. What you will also find is that these terms are not applicable to all properties manages by the managers. The reason is that each building usually has co-owners that may not all be the same. We also find that EVERY contract is different and customer. Based on legal fees that would be taken by management companies, they almost ALWAYS insist on you using their agreement, and then you needto spend time hacking away their default agreement with your needed text. So my agreement in its entirety will rarely do you good. I also find that I have to bend on different arreas for different landlords based on whats important to them. So I could not give you just one sample agreement, I'd have to give you 30 sample agreements. And of course not all 30 have been tested in court. So as I'm not a lawyer, if I were in your shoes I probably wouldn't trust my agreement text. Lastly, I want to point out, many of the agreements are considered confidential property by the landlords, and sharing that info would be copyright violations, and possibly violations of Non-disclosures. My intent previously was to point out the concerns, so you'd think to consider them. However, if there is any specific type of agreement you are wanting to do with a property owner, Off list, I can send you a sample or two, that might be applicable for your purpose. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL & Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dylan Oliver To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone know Verilan? Tom,Thanks for the great message; I always look forward to reading your posts. Would you be willing to distribute an example of an agreement that has worked for you? Do any of the property owners you value so highly operate on a national level? I'd be interested to know which relationships to cultivate, and which are best nipped in the bud .. What, by the way, is the status of the notion that WISPA should provide members a treasure trove of such documents? Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 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] penetration rates
what's your penetration rate? what are the biggest factors affecting adoption of your wireless services? etc. please expound on any market analysis y'all have done. thanks,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] earthlink/philadelphia details
steve stroh has some details on what earthlink is up to in philadelphia: http://www.bwianews.com/2006/02/motorola-earthlink-partnership-for.html what i wonder is what equipment is referred to here: For Earthlink month-to-month customers, Earthlink will supply a Wi-Fi Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) - Wi-Fi client device with high-gain antenna, 200 mW power, built-in encryption and authentication. not many options in this little arena, unless WEP is considered 'encryption'. best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Adding capacity in a crowded area
Hello all, I think that I am running into a few issues that many of us are having and thought it would make sense to start up a discussion about what to do when we run out of capacity. I have two sites that are getting near to or over capacity. The one I am most concerned about is a downtown site that has 85+ customers on a single card. Under other circumstances, I would have sectorized this site a long time ago, but it has visibility to four other sites (running on 1, 4, 5 and 5) and I only have one channel that I can use reliably at this location with an omni (channel 8). I am using the following methods to alleviate the immediate problems: 1) Move all 1meg and high bandwidth users to 5gig AP on the same tower. (This will pull about ten customers off of the AP) 2) Set higher rates (11meg) for customers with a signal stronger than -55. Anyone with a high signal gets set to 11meg, and 2346 RTS setting. These things should help, but will not alleviate the problem. All of the customers at this AP are within 2miles of the AP and 95% of them have excellent line of sight. 70% of the customers at this site have a signal of -60 or better. Noise floor is between -68 to -73 (yes, it is that noisy) on the cleanest channel. I am in H-pol, my competitors are in V-pol, so I have to stick with H-pol. Use of 5.8Ghz is out of the question because of backhauls on this tower and other 5.8Ghz traffic with paths crossing this tower. I can do pretty much whatever I want on the tower. The owner is friendly and it is a big self supporter so that is not a problem. Long term, these are the solutions that I am considering: 1) Sectorize to three 120 degree sectors, with downtilt on them to the point where they only have a 2mile effective radius. PROS: Relatively cheap to implement. No change on customer radios, just reprogramming for new IP addresses. Sectors will see less noise individually and should penetrate trees better. CONS: Raises the noise floor for my other APs (even with downtilt). Somewhat unfriendly to competitors (there are at least 8 2.4ghz sectors run by competitors in the same area). Capacity will be maxed out with this setup. There will be brief customer outages with this scenario, especially for people who are not available for home service calls when we do the transition. 2) Put up three 120 degree sectors of 5.2Ghz StarOS or Tranzeo APs, use Tranzeo CPE for customers. PROS: AP side is cheap to implement. Customer radios will be easy to change. Little or no customer outages during switchover. Doesn't cause more 2.4Ghz noise. Much higher capacity access points. CONS: $250 CPE. Less tree penetration (could be overcome by leaving up the old omni for customers with tree issues). 3) Put up three sectors of Tranzeo 5830 APs running in 5.2Ghz, modded to work with 120 degree sectors PROS: $149 CPE. Customer radios will be easy to change. Little or no customer outages during switchover. Doesn't cause more 2.4Ghz noise. Higher capacity access points (but not as high as #2). Robust MAC designed for outdoor use. CONS: APs are expensive to purchase and require warranty voiding modification. CPEs require new training for techs. APs have a different interface to learn and are not compatible with our preferred system (StarOS). 4) Motorola 5.2Ghz Canopy cluster PROS: $150 CPE. Little or no customer outages during switchover. Doesn't cause more 2.4Ghz noise. Robust MAC designed for outdoor use CONS: Most expensive system to implement. CPEs have limited bandwidth (using Lite). CPEs require new training for techs. APs have a different interface to learn and are not compatible with our preferred system (StarOS). Will use up pretty much all of the 5.2Ghz spectrum. May cause problems for schools in the area using 5.2Ghz Canopy. Oh yeahMotorola sucks - they are tacky and I hate them. I am leaning toward option #2. If I could get Tranzeo 5ghz CPE units for $175, it would be a no-brainer. Same management platform on both AP and CPE sides. No extra training for installers. Option 3 would be doable as well - we have some experience with Trango and it has been pretty good so I don't think it would be too much to ask of our techs to learn it. Only concern there would be finding myself on the bleeding edge with a new, relatively unproven CPE unit. I look forward to comments from any and all about what to do in this situation. I hope that many of us continue to grow to the point where we get to address these things on a regular basis. :^) Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] WISPs in Nashville
http://www.sparkplugbroadband.com/ -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPs in Nashville Brian Rohrbacher wrote: > Tennessee? Yes -- 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] WISPs in Nashville
Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Tennessee? Yes -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pigtail source?
Make them -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WISPs in Nashville
You can contact Bill Butler at http://www.butler.net/ they are doing wireless in some areas of nashville. Ray Hill - Original Message - From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPs in Nashville Tennessee? Matt Liotta wrote: Any WISPs in Nashville? -Matt -- Brian Rohrbacher Reliable Internet, LLC www.reliableinter.net Cell 269-838-8338 "Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/247 - Release Date: 1/31/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WISPs in Nashville
Matt Liotta wrote: Any WISPs in Nashville? Tennessee, Illinois, or some other Nashville? dave -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WISPs in Nashville
Tennessee? Matt Liotta wrote: Any WISPs in Nashville? -Matt -- Brian Rohrbacher Reliable Internet, LLC www.reliableinter.net Cell 269-838-8338 "Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] WISPs in Nashville
Any WISPs in Nashville? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone know Verilan?
Tom,Thanks for the great message; I always look forward to reading your posts. Would you be willing to distribute an example of an agreement that has worked for you? Do any of the property owners you value so highly operate on a national level? I'd be interested to know which relationships to cultivate, and which are best nipped in the bud .. What, by the way, is the status of the notion that WISPA should provide members a treasure trove of such documents? Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- 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 band issue.
John, Well said. I fully agree. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV band issue. I always considered the log periodic to be a type of yagi. I guess my naming could be wrong but the fact is that log periodics do act as directional broadband antennas. They could be made to work as data radio antennas for inband television band data radios. As I stated earlier there are other factors that could make this not such a good option. Obviously the use of a rotor is not going to work well for a point source Internet connection. You do not want Mom turning the rotor for Days of Our Lives when Dad is trying to Google search for Home Beer Making Kits. Also the impedance of a log periodic antenna is either 300 ohms or 75 ohms depending on the design. Most are 300 ohm. The transmission lines used to carry television signals are generally rated at either 300 or 75 ohms. The radios would presumably be 50 ohms. This means that some impedance matching device would be required to mate an existing television antenna system to a data radio. This is not a huge issue but it does show that this is not just a plug and play deal. There are some issues to address when considering using an off-air television antenna in our hopeful future systems where we get to use unused television channel space. I would suggest we move along to bigger issues now like how to get the channels to begin with. We have a big hurdle to cross there. I doubt we see a federal government move to give us this space as unlicensed. I do not think it will happen now. I would also like to see a license system for this spectrum as long as it did not discriminate against the smaller operators. Uncle Sam thinks we should sell off all of our public assets to the highest bidder in massive geographic chunks so no small interests have a chance at buying into this opportunity. It is beyond all reason to me that something as finite and scarce as spectrum should be sold outright when there will eventually be none left unless you hold a license. This is the largest fleecing of America I have ever seen. It makes the Savings and Loan bailout look like a lost receipt for lunch at tax time. Spectrum is just like land. We should have free market access to spectrum for everyone just like our ability to buy land. Uncle Sam wants to sell off half of your home state at a time to anyone with enough cash. Heaven forbid that the other people who might have a use for it in that area cannot once it is gone. This is just plain wrong. It is such a waste and so backward. What is really frightening to me is that even educated people who ought to know better just cannot understand what is at stake here. The economic future of this country rides on our ability to maintain a leadership role in Internet and data communications. Wireless communications are a big part of this world-wide Internet revolution and we are being held at bay by the interests of the NAB and other fat cats who want nothing more than to aid the failing landline ILECs and broadcasters who now use off-air television channels as nothing other than a registration system for who gets to be on which cable system. Off-air television is barely used by anyone. The idea that the NAB has some birthright to this spectrum is starting to seriously grate on my nerves. They need to step back and look at what is being left unused here. It is outrageous how this is being handled. The wool has been completely pulled over the eyes of America. Scriv Ron Wallace wrote: To demure, aren't off-air TV antennas a combination of yagi and log-periodic, forming a broadband multi-element device. A hybrid of sorts?? >-Original Message- >From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:55 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV band issue. > >There is no physics to back up that using a directed television yagi >antenna would be a bad thing. With that said I do not think using >existing TV antennas would be very practical. The 75 ohm impedance for >a 50 ohm radio is a problem. This would require a 50 to 75 ohm balun >connector at the radio to make it work. Existing television yagi >antennas will easily transmit as well as receive within the television >band without any noise problems. If you ever used an old television >tower rotor you know the antennas are fairly directive in nature. I >would likely always install my own antenna unless the customer just >happened to have a great outdoor setup in place. I would not like to >have customers complaining that they lost their Internet when someone in >the house turned the rotor. >:-) >Scriv > > > >Tom DeReggi wrote: > >>> AND many homes already >> >> have the antennas we need installed >> >> Do
Re: [WISPA] Anyone know Verilan?
Good questions... I know nothing about Jeff's case, but... Its not only an issue of wether it would hold up, also wether it just wasn't worth pursuing. There are three problems in successfully sueing someone that I see on that issue. 1) There have to be damages that can be proven. It does no good to win, if you aren't awarded compensation for damages at a value high enough to pay the legal fees. Its very difficult to prove justification for compensation of potential future revenue. Its hard to prove harm, if you've managed to keep your clients, and trying to put a dollar on goodwill and customer confidence lost. If someone had 50 clients, interference happened because of the insodent, and all 50 clients were lost, it would be very easy to prove clients were lost and the value of the loss/damages. However, thats rarely ever the case. Its best to always fight to keep your clients, and fight to stay out of the court room. When we've lost clients to interference (the rare occasion) or I should say custoemer's fear of possible future interference, we rarely are told of there intent to cancel until months down the road, and they rarely fess up to the true cause of why they cancelled, "fear". They don't like to feel like the bad guy when you've given them good service, so they lie. So its not easy getting testimoney from clients stating the damage either. They hold you responsible, and also want to avoid legal distractions. 2) Its not legal to offer exclusivity for providing broadband, according to FCC rules. Often it would get thown out for that. Keep "Exclusivity" out of agreements if at all possible, to prevent misinterpretation, if relating to broadband access. However, it is allowed to give exclusive use of spectrum as its a finite product, and you are selling the space (spectrally), not the oppportunity to reach the tenant. Property owners also have the right to sell licenses for the use of assets for a particular purpose. Just like you can't sell the same physical office space to two tenants at the same. A lot of people don't realize "unlicensed spectrum" does not mean its usable everywhere, and that property owners have the right to license its use (transmittion) from their facilities controlled by them. 3) If an agreement is not clear, and leaves a lot of room for interpretation, it is likely that it may get thrown out. One of the most important parts of the agreement, is the "definitions" section. Any key term principle that is used for criteria to prove default of agreement needs to be defined. A perfect example is the word "client". A client can be defined in many ways. Many Non-competes get thrown out because the word client was not properly defined. The big problem in enforcing spectrum disputes is that, there is rarely an agreement between the legitimate holder of the right to use the spectrum, and the competitor that used the spectrum after the fact and getting sued. There is usually a Property manager in the middle. The Property Manager has different interests to protect than the first ISP. Maybe the second ISP wants to pay more, maybe the Property manager just doesn't want the legal head ache to inforce it something they can't prove or are not educated in, maybe the property manager did not want to give up control of its roof assets, so insisted upon loose language in there agreements between them and WISPs. Often the First WISP has no legal right to sue the second WISP, the first WISP instead only has the right to sue the Property manager that they have an agreement with, and then the property managers responsibility to sue the second ISP. This can be a difficult situation. If the first WISP sues the property manager, its probably the last roof the first WISP will ever colocate antennas on. Property owners talk, and property owners hate to work with troublesome tenants. PLus landlord relationships are so hard to establish, last thing you want to do is tarnish then unless its really necessary. (unless you are getting taken advantage of, and need to prove a point (reputation) to the world thats more important to prove than the relationship with the initial landlord. In that case you hope the landlord does talk.) This brings up a more important issue, should there be a property manager in the picture, and what should you pay for that space. When there is no legal obligation from a property owner, there is rarely money that changes hands. And when the property owner does not have a clue how to manage Spectrum rights and roof space, which is the case 90% of the time, including when they have representation from a specialist in roof management, it can get ugly, and also not worth much to pay for the space. But when you find a landlord, that own prime space, and knows what they are doing from a management perspective, and gives the WISP protection, and likely to enforce terms of the agreement (such as prevent
Re: [WISPA] My Towers Need More CPU - suggestions?
This will be the first of this particular setup. However, I have used the following setups in outdoor environments, with little or no temperature control (NEMA boxes): 1) VIA EPIA motherboards (with fans) 2) ATX formfactor motherboards (with 400mhz to 800mhz CPUs) I have one site that has a fancy enclosure with a heater and external fan. All of my other ones are just plain NEMA boxes. ONE caveat - most of these are in locations where there is no tower climbing involved. They are either at ground level or on a site where I don't have to get a tower crew (grain elevator or hilltop) to get to the units. Matt Lrasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chadd Thompson wrote: Matt, Thanks for the information. Have you used this sort of setup in an outdoor environment? If so did you have to control the temp for it to work ok? Thanks, Chadd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My Towers Need More CPU - suggestions? Here is an example: Here is the list of parts. *BIOSTAR M7VIZ Socket A (Socket 462) VIA KM400 Micro ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail * *$46.49* http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813138231 *AMD Sempron 2200+ Thoroughbred 333MHz FSB 256KB L2 Cache Socket A Processor - Retail * *$78.99* http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819104208 *Rosewill 256MB 184-Pin DDR SDRAM Unbuffered DDR 333 (PC 2700) System Memory - Retail* *$24.30* http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16820223035 *PW-60A 100W 12V DC-DC ATX Converter * *$45.00* http://idotpc.com/TheStore/Peripheral/case/Default_ps_itx.asp?Cate.id=14 *Total Cost (minus DOM) $194.78 After you add miniPCI adapters, it is about the cost of a WAR board, but with a lot more processing power. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] * -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
