Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
I think you are missing the point here. We're talking about a mechanism to bring broadband to the entire country! Not just a small expansion for you. Also, most rural telco's will die if they loose these funds. Sure they're milking the system but they'll still fail without it. Like it or not, they are important especially for the next several years. You need backhaul right??? grin Even they need time to change business models, products, infrastructure etc. That help? 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: KyWiFi LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform I agree, I would think that 12 months is plenty long enough, definitely not more than 36 months. Take our company for example, we deployed 7 broadcast sites in our first 12 months of operation and we were profitable by month number 8 or 9 and this was WITHOUT any free money. If a company in this line of work cannot achieve a profit in their first year or two of operation, I don't see them being around long term. Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform 10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see how a network can not be profitable in that time frame with free monies. Jeromie Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. WISPA USF Reform Position Paper WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut. Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms. We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and would not likely survive without them. Leaving such business practices in place permanently is not good public policy though. WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be instituted. Expand the program to include all communications companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure. Once that system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though. If it doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the results of the network they built. Somewhere between 10 and 20 years should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or construction. The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit line item for
Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
I'm not quite sure how to answer this one in this context. Just went by snippets I'd heard over the years on that one. I'll give you a couple of specific local examples though. Years ago I looked into what it would take to sell access to the school. erate is set up so that one company provides all telecom needs to the school. Voice, data etc. The only companies that can do that are the ilec or a clec. clec status runs $10,000 plus from what I've always been told. That puts the rate of return on the school's system somewhere in never never land if all you want is to provide bandwidth. It's sad, we offer 8 meg connections here for $75 per month and they don't buy from me because the government won't pay that bill but will pay for the t-1 that they have now. Unless they have a 10 meg fiber feed like I do then they are paying hundreds per month like I am. Second is our local hospital with their telemedicine program. I used to sell the hospital internet. They couldn't use my internet for their telemedicine program for security reasons. It just HAD to be a ptp connection to the big hospital. I even tried to split the costs of the t-1 with them as they were only configured to use 348k anyhow. Well, now the telemedicine program is somehow able to sell them internet as part of the same government funded system! It's ok to put internet over the telemedicine system but not telemedicine over the internet. Gotta love it. In both cases there are LOCAL assets available to the government supported agencies and they can't use them because of the design of the grants etc. This needs to be changed. 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: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] USF fund reform Marlon- This paper mentions Wispa's desire to see changes in the erate program. Im familiar with the issues involved with erate in Ohio. What types of competitive issues are other wisps facing in efforts to win erate contracts? Chris Intelliwave -- 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] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
Believe me, I'm all in favor of more efficient radio systems. Anything like those slow, use up the whole band, FHSS radios really needs to go away j/k hehehehe Anyhow Brad, what's wrong with BOTH? More spectrum AND more efficient radios. I think the sad truth of the matter is that most manufactures are likely to stick to the current 20 mhz channel sizes unless forced to do something else. They'll just keep giving us more and more speed from that 20 mhz. Good or bad, cars are built to the size of the road and vise verse today. Same for trains, ships via the panama canal etc. I'd love to be wrong. But so far it's looking like everyone wants that stupid triple play thing and that means bandwidth. Lots of it. And bandwidth takes channel size. laters, 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: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:12 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 A typical BTA for a MMDS or ITFS build may only be 24 Mhz. Half of what you're saying isn't enough (50 Mhz). Some projects I'm working on have a whopping total of 10 mhz. I remember Patrick disagreeing with the contention based protocal in 3650 not the amount of spectrum. Like I said before, the alternative is for more efficient radio systems and not gear that takes up a 20 mhz channel to get you 6-10 meg's like most systems being deployed today in the name of cheap, interference resilient, or whatever other name you put on the product. I would aurgue the point that the FCC wants more efficient use of our unlicensed bands now and in the future. Brad -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? thanks, 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 -- 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] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
Whoa there Haas! I NEVER said that wifi would be a good thing at 3650. I agree with you that YOU guys should give us much more efficient radios when/if we get that band opened up. However, I DO like the contention based mechanism. And most wisps do when they understand what it means (licensed quality without the licensed price). You guys should combine APC, DFS and SDR in this band and give us the best of all available systems AND we get to keep our protection from Tsunami style radios. WiFi's 22 mhz wide channel is out dated at best and should be changed. It should be flexible, use less where you need the scalability and more where you need the speed (backhaul vs. distribution etc.). The point I'm trying to make with these comments is that the FCC is on the right track. But the industry is growing so far and so fast that there needs to be even more. 5 years from when it's introduced will see 3650 swamped in some markets. Maybe less. If we don't start thinking that way now, what will people do while we take another 5 years to find more spectrum? 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: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:24 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Mark, Well said. I agree with about everything you said. You're on the mark. Keep in mind the telco's don't have 6 month ROI's either. Some are better than others but past three years for them seems to be the norm. Obviously they have the deeper pockets. The whole reason I brought the word efficient up was because many WISP's believed wifi based 3650 was a great idea where others including me see it as more of the same (waste of valuable spectrum). Therefore, Marlon like others, say 50 mhz isn't enough. I'm saying with the right technology that will do 14-18 meg's in a 5 Mhz channel 50 Mhz is breath of fresh air! Let's not waste it or look foolish.. like Steve Stroh said, So, stating only 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much empathy at the FCC. Brad -Original Message- From: Mark Koskenmaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 I don't think any of us are opposed to more efficient, and frankly, it seems that more efficient is coming down the pike. The evolution of data vs spectrum use in terms of efficiency has made quantum leaps in a relatively short period of time. I've discussed this for as long as I've been on these lists... Ubiquitous last mile acceptance (not deployment) does not revolve around spectrum efficiency or even all that much on specific technology, as much is it revolves around it being at a price consumers will pay. How many wireless networks have been built that don't reach a single residence, but instead, operate at prices that exclude widespread *acceptance*? We're ALL deployers with the notion of build it, and they will come to a larger or smaller degree. Some of us don't build until they come, but in all cases, consumer ACCEPTANCE of the cost and a willingness to pay it, is the the single determining factor when it comes to success as ubiquitous broadband.Years ago, Patrick Leary and I debated the notion of residental broadband. I said that residental broadband is the key to WISP success. Patrick used to say that ubiquitous wireless broadband was not even to be considered. That until and or unless the cost our services is such it becomes nothing more than an incidental to daily life, broadband by WISP's is just a tiny market without a serious future, has been my contention. It remains so. The telcos understood this, and built upon the notion that the consumer's end cost barrier to start had to be minimal. They bought CPE by the millions and they're priced at less what it costs to get a nice pair of shoes.Even they understood the notion of cost barrier to acceptance. Which brings us full circle. How does a WISP deploy with ACCPTANCE rates that qualify it to be 'ubiquitous', without commodity prices to the consumer?Many answer this by using low-cost gear at the consumer end. Which, of course, brings us to the chicken and egg debate... How do we get advanced technnologically, spectrum-efficient, multiple capability gear which can be deployed at cost points that win the acceptance war? It seems it's slowly happening because of WISP growth previous to this point. I am convinced that in 10 years, we're going to be offering today's wired speeds to our customers, for purposes we haven't even
RE: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up
I need to chime in. it seems Airaya is using common AP PCBs with their own firmware, but I doubt that Firmware truly breaks 11a protocol. I have yet to see a regular 11a or 11b PCB that has custom firmware that breaks the 11a PHY MAC. I do have seem custom PCB like the Trango, WaveIP and Alvarion, that they use 11a chips but they implement their own PHY MAC but thats on custom PCB with 11a RF chips only. I doubt that Airaya can modify 11a PHY MAC on a off the shelf PCB. Anyone with more info? Input ? Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Thanks for the list. I've passed it on to Mike at Airaya for comment. One of MY big selling points on the Airaya gear is that it's NOT 802.11a like the others (Tranzeo, MT, StarOS, etc.) that you're likely thinking of. It uses the 802.11a CHIP to keep costs down but they've put their own firmware on the radio. I'm running these units in a rotten environment and they work better than my Trango distribution system at the same tower sites. Fewer ping losses, higher speeds etc. laters, 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: Matt Glaves To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 2:10 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Im not stuck in the 1950s. Im not looking for vacuum tubes and 100lb power supplies to justify my purchases. I could go to a number of other vendors and get the same 802.11a setup for $700 or less. The pictures speak volumes and it seems a fair number of the subscribers on this list got a lot of information on the product from the pictures alone. Others asked for my list and I sent it. I dont need Airaya suing me, so Ill let their hardware do the talking. I know for a fact I have cost them a number of future sales based the responses Im receiving from other members who were considering their product for future deployments. I sent you the same list of 15 or so items so you can make your own call. Here is one that I really love: https://secure.airaya.com/proddetail.asp?prod=AI108-4958-O-050 http://www.connectronics.com/airaya/index.html http://shop.wirelessguys.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.346/it.A/id.2395/.f Notice where it says AES encryption? Its listed on every PDF and vendor page I have seen for the unit. It was a deciding factor in my selection of this unit. It will be a really great feature when it is actually implemented. You get WEP for now. Would have been nice if there was an asterisk there telling you AES Support Coming in Quarter 3 2006. Matt From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:38 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Times are changing. If you want devices with lots of chips and blinky lights you'll have to pay extra. Everything it done at the board level these days. And everyone is using the same basic chip set these days. Airaya writes their own mac level firmware for them. I have 4 links. 2 of the original version (prior to what you've got there) give me a little bit of trouble on a tough link (fresnel zone). The new radios haven't skipped a beat though. I love my Airaya radios. They've been a great value. I'm curious, you've not said why you don't like them. Is there something about the performance? Software? Setup? Gotta be something other than what's in those pics. laters, 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: Matt Glaves To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:46 PM Subject: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Hey Folks, Last month I posted to the list asking about low cost 5Ghz bridges and a few folks responded that I should check out Airaya. I decided to give them a try based on some really excellent discounts from one of our vendors. In short, I hate them J If youre interested in why, feel free to hit me off list.. We bought two complete links and before installing the first one I cracked it open and took a picture of its high tech innards to share with this list. I hope this helps those looking at sub $3k PTP bridges.
[WISPA] Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform
- Original Message - From: Brett Glass [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Cc: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform Some comments: WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. A 501(c)(6) nonprofit corporation cannot be owned by anyone. WISPA's board does act as if it owns the group, though, so this fact may be lost on them. Also, several of the members of that board claimed that they would step down after the organization was founded and then did not. Sigh. The MEMBERSHIP owns the corp. We can modify or change it anytime that the membership votes to do so. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Even to ask this question shows a fundamential misunderstanding of the concept of universal service. Agreed. That's why I was shocked to find out that USF had funded 68,000 laptops for school kids. That number came up in Senate testimony about USF reform. Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? But of course! Remember, it was designed to replace cross-subsidies within the Bell System -- the original incumbents. Even most wireless carriers do not get USF funding. As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? Congress wants campaign contributions and votes. Anything else is incidental. WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Incorrect grammar (embarrassing). Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. Poor writing style and no citations of sources. The same is true for the rest of the document. I'd be embarrassed to be a member of a group that submitted any such document. Feel free to provide better wording at any time. The intent of releasing that doccument before submission was to get constructive input. marlon --Brett Glass ** ISPCON Spring 2006 - May 16 - 18 - Baltimore, MD www.ispcon.com ** ** THE EVENT for ISPs, WISPS, CLECs and WebHosts ** ** Going Wireless? Visit ISPCON before the leap! ** ___ The ISP-WIRELESS Discussion List ___ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-wireless/archives/ To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
Years ago I looked into what it would take to sell access to the school. erate is set up so that one company provides all telecom needs to the school. Voice, data etc. The only companies that can do that are the ilec or a clec. This is not true in Illinois. We have what is called a SPIN number which allows us to sell Internet to schools even if they get other services from other providers. I am not an ILEC or a CLEC. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform
The unfortunate dialog below is a perfect demonstration of why Matt was correct in saying this document should have never been circulated outside of WISPA until it was in its final form. What led to the Senate Commerce Committee position paper idea? Who is asking for this paper? What are the criteria for how this is to be drafted? Are there actual size constraints (number of words, content allowed, etc.)? When is it due? How can we draft a position paper on USF when none of us even understand the inner-workings of this very complex aspect of the telecommunications infrastructure? Marlon I say this with the utmost personal respect and admiration for you but I mean this, what makes you think that being the FCC Committee Chairman gives you the power to completely run the Congressional Lobbying efforts of this organization? These are not the same thing. It is time for us to have another teleconference and do what we all agreed we were going to do. We need to learn and understand USF before we start telling people what we want from this. I say we cannot have a position paper sent out with the WISPA name on it until we know what we asking for. I am not happy with having WISPA documentation like this becoming fodder for the Brett Glass' of the world on public list forums outside of WISPA. We need to discuss how anything with a WISPA name attached is handled by this group going forward. Public dissemination of WISPA internal documents is no longer good practice as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think? Scriv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: - Original Message - From: Brett Glass [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Cc: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform Some comments: WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. A 501(c)(6) nonprofit corporation cannot be owned by anyone. WISPA's board does act as if it owns the group, though, so this fact may be lost on them. Also, several of the members of that board claimed that they would step down after the organization was founded and then did not. Sigh. The MEMBERSHIP owns the corp. We can modify or change it anytime that the membership votes to do so. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Even to ask this question shows a fundamential misunderstanding of the concept of universal service. Agreed. That's why I was shocked to find out that USF had funded 68,000 laptops for school kids. That number came up in Senate testimony about USF reform. Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? But of course! Remember, it was designed to replace cross-subsidies within the Bell System -- the original incumbents. Even most wireless carriers do not get USF funding. As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? Congress wants campaign contributions and votes. Anything else is incidental. WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Incorrect grammar (embarrassing). Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. Poor writing style and no citations of sources. The same is true for the rest of the document. I'd be embarrassed to be a member of a group that submitted any such document. Feel free to provide better wording at any time. The intent of releasing that doccument before submission was to get constructive input. marlon --Brett Glass ** ISPCON Spring 2006 - May 16 - 18 - Baltimore, MD www.ispcon.com ** ** THE EVENT for ISPs, WISPS, CLECs and WebHosts ** ** Going Wireless? Visit ISPCON before the leap! ** ___ The ISP-WIRELESS Discussion List ___ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-wireless/archives/ To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform
I assumed this previous post was on an internal WISPA list server and was never meant to be publicly disseminated. I apologize to Marlon for making this private internal debate a public issue. I am not looking for any public discussion of these internal WISPA discussions. This topic needs to go into WISPA membership only list discussion areas now and the topic is closed for public discussion. Topic closed. Deepest regrets, John Scrivner John Scrivner wrote: The unfortunate dialog below is a perfect demonstration of why Matt was correct in saying this document should have never been circulated outside of WISPA until it was in its final form. What led to the Senate Commerce Committee position paper idea? Who is asking for this paper? What are the criteria for how this is to be drafted? Are there actual size constraints (number of words, content allowed, etc.)? When is it due? How can we draft a position paper on USF when none of us even understand the inner-workings of this very complex aspect of the telecommunications infrastructure? Marlon I say this with the utmost personal respect and admiration for you but I mean this, what makes you think that being the FCC Committee Chairman gives you the power to completely run the Congressional Lobbying efforts of this organization? These are not the same thing. It is time for us to have another teleconference and do what we all agreed we were going to do. We need to learn and understand USF before we start telling people what we want from this. I say we cannot have a position paper sent out with the WISPA name on it until we know what we asking for. I am not happy with having WISPA documentation like this becoming fodder for the Brett Glass' of the world on public list forums outside of WISPA. We need to discuss how anything with a WISPA name attached is handled by this group going forward. Public dissemination of WISPA internal documents is no longer good practice as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think? Scriv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: - Original Message - From: Brett Glass [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Cc: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform Some comments: WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. A 501(c)(6) nonprofit corporation cannot be owned by anyone. WISPA's board does act as if it owns the group, though, so this fact may be lost on them. Also, several of the members of that board claimed that they would step down after the organization was founded and then did not. Sigh. The MEMBERSHIP owns the corp. We can modify or change it anytime that the membership votes to do so. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Even to ask this question shows a fundamential misunderstanding of the concept of universal service. Agreed. That's why I was shocked to find out that USF had funded 68,000 laptops for school kids. That number came up in Senate testimony about USF reform. Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? But of course! Remember, it was designed to replace cross-subsidies within the Bell System -- the original incumbents. Even most wireless carriers do not get USF funding. As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? Congress wants campaign contributions and votes. Anything else is incidental. WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Incorrect grammar (embarrassing). Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. Poor writing style and no citations of sources. The same is true for the rest of the document. I'd be embarrassed to be a member of a group that submitted any such document. Feel free to provide better wording at any time. The intent of releasing that doccument before submission was to get constructive input. marlon --Brett Glass ** ISPCON Spring 2006 - May 16 - 18 - Baltimore, MD www.ispcon.com ** ** THE EVENT for ISPs, WISPS, CLECs and WebHosts ** ** Going Wireless? Visit ISPCON before the leap! ** ___ The ISP-WIRELESS Discussion List ___ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [WISPA] What list is public and which is private???
John, I have this problem all the time trying to figure which is the general and which is the members only we need to change one so it is more apparent which we are replying to. My thoughts, Tim Kerns CV-Access, Inc. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform I assumed this previous post was on an internal WISPA list server and was never meant to be publicly disseminated. I apologize to Marlon for making this private internal debate a public issue. I am not looking for any public discussion of these internal WISPA discussions. This topic needs to go into WISPA membership only list discussion areas now and the topic is closed for public discussion. Topic closed. Deepest regrets, John Scrivner -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.384 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation
Look at Cisco Catalyst 500 series or HP Procurve series. John -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:50 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation I need a recommendation for a 12 port switch that handles a high amount of packet per second and has qos for voip. Cost isn't an issue. Anyone have a suggestion? Thanks George -- 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] USF fund reform
In some rural areas, it can be tough to do it in 1 to 5 years. What if you need to provide service to the 2 houses that are 15 miles from your current tower and there is 0 potential for growth? This would allow you to charge enough for long enough that you don't have to lose money. How about 5-10 years for build out? I can't think of too many scenarios where you couldn't do it in 10 years. John -Original Message- From: Jeromie Reeves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:30 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform 10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see how a network can not be profitable in that time frame with free monies. Jeromie Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. WISPA USF Reform Position Paper WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut. Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms. We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and would not likely survive without them. Leaving such business practices in place permanently is not good public policy though. WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be instituted. Expand the program to include all communications companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure. Once that system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though. If it doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the results of the network they built. Somewhere between 10 and 20 years should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or construction. The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit line item for companies but rather be a short term capitalization/construction fund that will end and leave the company standing (or not) on its own two feet at a set specific date. We believe that opening up USF to all operators would likely cause multiple networks to be built at the same time and the most efficient ones would survive. If, after USF was discontinued some areas were left with no viable options for service those specific cases could be addressed under some more targeted program. Funds should be collected and distributed based on customers serviced. This would help prevent speculation with the funds, rather the funds would reward those that have already stepped up to the plate. Tying fund distribution with the FCC form 477 would also likely help lead to more accurate market data availability. WISPA also believes that USF's goals should be readdressed. We don't believe that using USF funds to provide laptop computers to 68,000 7th and 8th graders in Massachusetts is a proper use of the program. We would also like to see some changes in the way that USF is distributed. The E-Rate program excludes almost all entrepreneurial providers. In some areas the local WISP offers greater service levels for less cost than the local hospital or school is paying via the E-Rate programs. We're not allowed to
Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
Are you willing to put up a tower to serve 2 customers? Only if you think you can get your money back. John -Original Message- From: KyWiFi LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 01:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform I agree, I would think that 12 months is plenty long enough, definitely not more than 36 months. Take our company for example, we deployed 7 broadcast sites in our first 12 months of operation and we were profitable by month number 8 or 9 and this was WITHOUT any free money. If a company in this line of work cannot achieve a profit in their first year or two of operation, I don't see them being around long term. Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform 10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see how a network can not be profitable in that time frame with free monies. Jeromie Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. WISPA USF Reform Position Paper WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut. Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms. We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and would not likely survive without them. Leaving such business practices in place permanently is not good public policy though. WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be instituted. Expand the program to include all communications companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure. Once that system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though. If it doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the results of the network they built. Somewhere between 10 and 20 years should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or construction. The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit line item for companies but rather be a short term capitalization/construction fund that will end and leave the company standing (or not) on its own two feet at a set specific date. We believe that opening up USF to all operators would likely cause multiple networks to be built at the same time and the most efficient ones would survive. If, after USF was discontinued some areas were left with no viable options for service those specific cases could be addressed under some more targeted program. Funds should be collected and distributed based on customers serviced. This would help prevent
Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation
Generally, you want QOS classifying as close the edges as you can get it. Then you want your switches to honor the TOS/COS tags, then you want your edge router to police/queue/fragment to your upstream. John -Original Message- From: Rick Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 04:09 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation I can't see how having a QOS switch could hurt...with VOIP, QOS in as many places as possible can only help... Paul Hendry wrote: Is the switch likely to be the bottle neck in your network? Surely you want QoS enabled routers where bandwidth isn't plentiful. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: 29 March 2006 03:50 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation Thanks matt and larry. I have a 2512 procurve that we like and a Dell switch as well. Who makes the Dell switches for Dell? Guess what I really want is to make sure that those little voice packets get the priority :) George Matt Liotta wrote: We've found that you don't really need a QoS capable switch. What is more important is for the appropriate COS and TOS bits to be set by the VoIP device(s) in question and have a switch capable of doing the right thing with those packets. Every enterprise grade switch we have looked at seems to do the right thing when the bits are set. We've been happy with Dell switchs for example. -Matt George Rogato wrote: I need a recommendation for a 12 port switch that handles a high amount of packet per second and has qos for voip. Cost isn't an issue. Anyone have a suggestion? Thanks George -- 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] USF fund reform
Generally speaking no. However, if the 2 customers are commercial customers paying a few hundred or a few thousand dollars per month, then yes, if the numbers work out to our benefit. Cost is what makes or breaks a deal so everything has to be analyzed properly. In most cases, a $400 telephone pole deployment will suffice in place of a tower. Our company has recently started to deploy roof top repeaters to pick up additional customers. Under our business model, we can normally justify the cost of the repeater even if we are just picking up 1 additional residential customer. In most cases, that 1 customer is willing to cover part or all of the cost of the roof top repeater and its installation on a neighbor's home/barn/silo. What are the current requirements in order for a telco to receive USF money? Are they required to provide service to a specific % of the population in the areas where they receive USF money? A good friend of mine was once quoted $11,000 by the local telco to run a phone line to his home (he lives a half mile or so off his road in a rural area). I would think that the telco must provide service to 100% of the population in the areas for which they receive the USF money but this is evidently not how it is structured. Also, how is the USF money currently shared amongst multiple telcos in the same area/city? How much USF money is there? What determines the amount each telco receives? -Shannon - Original Message - From: John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform Are you willing to put up a tower to serve 2 customers? Only if you think you can get your money back. John -Original Message- From: KyWiFi LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 01:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform I agree, I would think that 12 months is plenty long enough, definitely not more than 36 months. Take our company for example, we deployed 7 broadcast sites in our first 12 months of operation and we were profitable by month number 8 or 9 and this was WITHOUT any free money. If a company in this line of work cannot achieve a profit in their first year or two of operation, I don't see them being around long term. Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform 10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see how a network can not be profitable in that time frame with free monies. Jeromie Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. WISPA USF Reform Position Paper WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. This same telco has
