[WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem
Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not share detailed system information with anybody) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
While looking for a Router to handle our dual 100 mbps with BGP , I stumbled into lots of Cisco GSR12000 series routers on ebay, with apparently great pricing and Gigabit Card option...whts the story on this routers? Are they any good? Would it handle a couple of 100 FE circuits with the eventuality of growing into a Gigabit circuit? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
Make sure you're getting more than 256MB of RAM if you're doing full routes to 2 different peers. The GSRs can be really expensive to upgrade if they don't already have what you need. Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:39 AM To: Motorola Canopy User Group; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers While looking for a Router to handle our dual 100 mbps with BGP , I stumbled into lots of Cisco GSR12000 series routers on ebay, with apparently great pricing and Gigabit Card option...whts the story on this routers? Are they any good? Would it handle a couple of 100 FE circuits with the eventuality of growing into a Gigabit circuit? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.1/1607 - Release Date: 8/12/2008 7:19 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Connect Ohio Program? anyone heard of this
Most WISPs just plain suck at marketing, my own certainly included. There are at least 7 WISPs in my county, most have been here for quite a while. When I come across someone that wants service, they are ecstatic that someone is offering this service. I won't tell them that others have been doing it here 3 - 4 years longer than I have been. Also, I'm not exactly sure of their intentions, but there are initiatives out there to get broadband as the US knows it today out to more people. There are also initiatives to raise the bar to 100 - 1000 meg connections. Not much of the US falls into the second category. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] Connect Ohio Program? anyone heard of this Just got done reading an article in my local newspaper here. Apparently there was a meeting here in the county about how we need more broadband options. Funny thing is no one ever called any of the 4 wireless providers in the county here and asked them to attend. And there is a group touring around with the governor called Connect Ohio with a moto of No child left un-connected. Has anyone here heard any of this at all. I've never heard any one mention it but apparently it sounds as if this has been going on for a while. And then at the end of the article there is the local American Red Cross guy saying we are like a third world country, funny thing is they called me up about getting service in at that Red Cross Chapter and they were supposed to get hooked up but never did cause they canceled the install! Article is attached. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Connect Ohio Program? anyone heard of this
Part-15 has arranged with the FCC to have their WISP locator on the FCC's site (I forget where) in their explanation of broadband and where to get it. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Connect Ohio Program? anyone heard of this One of the things I had envisioned when I created the WISPA Promo committee, was just this. Promoting our wisps to the localities and helping reinforce their market position. Problem is, we have not had enough help to get their yet. Our membership isn't all that big, so the volunteer pool is small. If anyone wants to get a group going that would help promote local wisps land their muni deals, they should speak up. Maybe we can get a program going with enough volunteers. George Brian Webster wrote: This sounds more like an awareness and image problem for the local WISP industry. Some of it could be lack of effective marketing. It might be a good idea for every WISP to contact their local/county Planning and economic development offices and introduce themselves, show them the coverage area and explain what it is you do. Typically anything like this project will deal with these local offices. If they know you exist, you might have a better chance of being part of the solution. It is amazing how much of a vacuum those organizations live in sometimes :-) Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 9:55 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Connect Ohio Program? anyone heard of this Just got done reading an article in my local newspaper here. Apparently there was a meeting here in the county about how we need more broadband options. Funny thing is no one ever called any of the 4 wireless providers in the county here and asked them to attend. And there is a group touring around with the governor called Connect Ohio with a moto of No child left un-connected. Has anyone here heard any of this at all. I've never heard any one mention it but apparently it sounds as if this has been going on for a while. And then at the end of the article there is the local American Red Cross guy saying we are like a third world country, funny thing is they called me up about getting service in at that Red Cross Chapter and they were supposed to get hooked up but never did cause they canceled the install! Article is attached. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com _ From: NewsBank -- service provider for Telegraph-Forum Archives [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 9:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Telegraph-Forum Document Telegraph-Forum (Bucyrus, OH) Telegraph-Forum (Bucyrus, OH) July 24, 2008 What can better broadband mean to Crawford County? By Gary Ogle Telegraph-Forum GALION -- A high-tech future demands high speed Internet. A large group of community leaders from Crawford County dreamed and discussed Wednesday afternoon about what better broadband service could mean to the people they help, the people they hire, the people they serve and those they educate. One of the biggest problems, North Central State's Don Plotts said, is getting people to understand they need technology. The session at Galion Community Hospital, part of Gov. Ted Strickland's Connect Ohio initiative to accelerate technology and close the digital divide, was led by Sage Cutler and Gary Lambert of Connect Ohio. People from all facets of Crawford County, described as leaders in the eCommunity, were invited to discuss how their companies and organizations use broadband now and how it could impact them in the future. This is the second benchmark work session in the state, Cutler said. Gallia County was the first and all 88 counties in the state will begin the process within the next two years. Cutler said Crawford County was selected to be among the first because there were some other broadband initiatives (here). Those in attendance included government officials from across the county, representatives of business and industry, education, health care and community organizations. Part of the process was to divide them into nine sectors as defined by their profession or the organization they represented. Wednesday's meeting had participants in seven of the nine sectors. Each sector discussed where it was at locally regarding broadband use, its application and implication, and what could be improved in the near future with better broadband resources. Cutler explained that Connect Ohio is a public/private partnership. It's not costing the counties a
Re: [WISPA] Connect Ohio Program? anyone heard of this
This is the ConnectKentucky group expanding their reach to Ohio, then the rest of the nation. It is a cleverly crafted organization finely tuned to remove money from government projects and place same in their own. I believe they were recently tossed out of the good graces with the KY governor. Review some of the maps they have created and charged the states very good $$ for. Very inaccurate and not representative. Ohio just pledged $ 10MM to this I believe. In KY they spent a boatload of money, and STIFLED broadband expansion in 3 counties and did nothing in the others. After detailed review of KY they decided that the 3 counties that had BB needed more. They got state funding, did a bid and awarded it to a non-wireless company. That company took 1 year to get the 1st site up and it worked poorly. All the while, the local WISPS said they were not going to expand in their market areas because they felt they could not compete with a state funded competitor. Today, the new network is not built out, the local WISPS are not interested any longer and not growing. So in KY a boatload of money spent, all kids were left behind, and private sector growth has been stifled. Now Connected Nation wants to take this model to the rest of the US. Doesn't sound like a good proposal to me. Mike Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 Cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments?
I spoke with several equipment vendors and CLECs (local and nation-wide). Their statements combined with my own experiments is what brought me to that conclusion. Some didn't offer T.38 at all because of it's unreliability. Some offered it, but had a very short list of ATAs that they would even talk to you about. Some of them were even referencing private network connections instead of public Internet. Yes, the network can be a source of issue, but T.38 is similar to WiMAX as it concerns us. They are all 802.16 (or T.38), but their implementations are all different and thus not interoperable. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Mike, Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but it's not the VoIP...it's your network Properly deployed...VoIP works fine (however, network construction standards are MUCH STRICTER than what most data-only WISP networks currently support) -Charles Charles Wu President [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 773-457-0718 * office: 773-667-4585 x2500 16W235 83rd Street, Suite A, Burr Ridge, IL 60527 * tel: 773.667.4585 fax: 773.326.4641 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Well, it doesn't run well enough to be a service I'm willing to associate with my company at this point. I've done G.711 and T.38 with many softswitches and many ATAs. It's too finicky. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Fax is a requirement and most certainly can work with VoIP. As we found out T.38 and G711 are mutually exclusive. T.38 is meant to work over G729 as G711 is supposed actually carry faxes successfully. -Matt On Aug 10, 2008, at 9:22 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Fax machines don't run over VoIP either. They just don't, T.38 doesn't really work. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Businesses cannot run on cell phones. Nor can fax machines. Voip is cheaper than cell service. The quality is better. People like their old numbers and don't want to port them to cell. Voip does not run out of batteries or fade in and out if you go to the basement. Voip doesn't have the arguable threat of causing you brain cancer. Real telephones are more comfortable to use. Lots of reasons. - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? We're just getting started with it. We're going mostly with (keeping another company or two in mind if things don't work out for us) Netsapians. So far they've been good to work with and they have a product that I think I can sell. I still think, in the end, voip will be about as big as muni wifi. That is to say, MOST people will go cell phone for voice. Not voip in any form from any company. Why do most of us need multiple personal phone lines Businesses will likely be different. But I'm not sure that the price wars are over. Doesn't look like there's gonna be much money in MOST services on the internet. The money for those on this list will continue to be transport. marlon - Original Message - From: John McDowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Motorola Canopy User Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 12:59 PM Subject: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Anyone care to give some pithy comments on white label voip product launches? Who did you choose? How many customers do you have? How are you billing? -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing,
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
A GSR is a plenty powerful enough router to handle multiple FE and GigE circuits, but they are prone to failure just as anything else is. Make sure you've got spares on hand and like Dylan mentioned make sure it has at least 512MB RAM. BTW, one of our GigE upstream providers has been running a GSR and it has demonstrated a poorer overall available uptime than the 3GHz MikroTik we have peered with it. YMMV Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:49 AM To: WISPA General List; Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers Make sure you're getting more than 256MB of RAM if you're doing full routes to 2 different peers. The GSRs can be really expensive to upgrade if they don't already have what you need. Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:39 AM To: Motorola Canopy User Group; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers While looking for a Router to handle our dual 100 mbps with BGP , I stumbled into lots of Cisco GSR12000 series routers on ebay, with apparently great pricing and Gigabit Card option...whts the story on this routers? Are they any good? Would it handle a couple of 100 FE circuits with the eventuality of growing into a Gigabit circuit? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.1/1607 - Release Date: 8/12/2008 7:19 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
Hi, We just recently installed one of these (12008) to take a full OC3 feed. We had to ugprade the memory (on the CPU card AND on the OC3 card), but even then it was cheap. The only catch for most people is they are 240VAC... and they take up about 10u of rack space. Travis Microserv Gino Villarini wrote: While looking for a Router to handle our dual 100 mbps with BGP , I stumbled into lots of Cisco GSR12000 series routers on ebay, with apparently great pricing and Gigabit Card option...whts the story on this routers? Are they any good? Would it handle a couple of 100 FE circuits with the eventuality of growing into a Gigabit circuit? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls for us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the right to determine who collocates and what their fair value is for collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up a LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his operation at our site for $10 per month. You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed store that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a WISP, or a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service or operator. In fact, this particular ordinance did not apply to just towers. It included any placement of any radiating device in any spectrum. That means if you deploy a mesh network in this town you are required to obtain permits for each and every node you place. With respect to OTARD, I have had quite a bit of experience with it over the years. I have challenged CCR's from condos and townhomes as well as township ordinances for anything from yagi antennas for 2-way clients to reach a repeater, to 10 foot satellite dishes, to DBS and even satellite Internet services. Each was successfully resolved because of the strength of OTARD. However, OTARD does nothing for you and I as the operator of a commercial antenna, no matter it's size or intent. OTARD applies only to the end user. Now that this has reared its ugly head for the second time to me I see a trend. We solved the issue by not building in that location. We moved outside of town and received a county level permit with no questions asked. For the record, this was not NY, Chicago
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
Thanks for the input, actually our core router is a Mikrotik Appliace (same as the power router). We have 2 100 mbps upstream links with the same provider and we could not get BGP aggregation working correctly against the provider Cisco. So we are looking into putting a cisco in between both units, this could change IF our upstream provider could provide us a Gig port in the near future Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers Hi, We just recently installed one of these (12008) to take a full OC3 feed. We had to ugprade the memory (on the CPU card AND on the OC3 card), but even then it was cheap. The only catch for most people is they are 240VAC... and they take up about 10u of rack space. Travis Microserv Gino Villarini wrote: While looking for a Router to handle our dual 100 mbps with BGP , I stumbled into lots of Cisco GSR12000 series routers on ebay, with apparently great pricing and Gigabit Card option...whts the story on this routers? Are they any good? Would it handle a couple of 100 FE circuits with the eventuality of growing into a Gigabit circuit? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem
There are about 4 parts of federal code that allows the use, but it does not get you out of the process. Planning cannot deny you but you still have to apply for the conditional use permit. They will have a hearing for the public to have a chance to comment, but at the end of the day you will get the permit. I go through the whole 9 yards on a regular basis. Just make sure you show up to the hearing (my mistake last time, since I had been getting stuff rubber stamped) so that you can answer all the questions of the planning commission and argue for no conditions. - Original Message - From: Isp Operator [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:37 AM Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not share detailed system information with anybody) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
Hi Gino, GSRs are overkill for what you are doing. In the Cisco world, a couple of mid-range VXRs would be a better solution. Or you could use a couple of ImageStream Rebel or Gateway routers for a fraction of the price. Either way, I'd use two routers in a redundant configuration with BGP and VRRP/HSRP for link and hardware failover. Regards, Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:49 AM To: WISPA General List; Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers Make sure you're getting more than 256MB of RAM if you're doing full routes to 2 different peers. The GSRs can be really expensive to upgrade if they don't already have what you need. Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:39 AM To: Motorola Canopy User Group; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers While looking for a Router to handle our dual 100 mbps with BGP , I stumbled into lots of Cisco GSR12000 series routers on ebay, with apparently great pricing and Gigabit Card option...whts the story on this routers? Are they any good? Would it handle a couple of 100 FE circuits with the eventuality of growing into a Gigabit circuit? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.1/1607 - Release Date: 8/12/2008 7:19 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, especially RF emissions are federally regulated and wholly prempts local officials. It is actually easier if you call your facility cellular like in most cases because federal code can get most of this off your back. The building code/engineering folks will still require soils analysis and structural engineering but much of the other stuff including visual impacts cannot be applied. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls for us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the right to determine who collocates and what their fair value is for collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up a LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his operation at our site for $10 per month. You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed store that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a WISP, or a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service or operator. In fact, this particular ordinance did not apply to just towers. It included any placement of any radiating device in any spectrum. That means if you deploy a mesh network in this town you are required to obtain permits for each and every node you place. With respect to OTARD, I have had quite a bit of
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
Yeah that's what I was leaning to ...maybe we could talk offlist Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers Hi Gino, GSRs are overkill for what you are doing. In the Cisco world, a couple of mid-range VXRs would be a better solution. Or you could use a couple of ImageStream Rebel or Gateway routers for a fraction of the price. Either way, I'd use two routers in a redundant configuration with BGP and VRRP/HSRP for link and hardware failover. Regards, Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:49 AM To: WISPA General List; Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers Make sure you're getting more than 256MB of RAM if you're doing full routes to 2 different peers. The GSRs can be really expensive to upgrade if they don't already have what you need. Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:39 AM To: Motorola Canopy User Group; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers While looking for a Router to handle our dual 100 mbps with BGP , I stumbled into lots of Cisco GSR12000 series routers on ebay, with apparently great pricing and Gigabit Card option...whts the story on this routers? Are they any good? Would it handle a couple of 100 FE circuits with the eventuality of growing into a Gigabit circuit? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.1/1607 - Release Date: 8/12/2008 7:19 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls for us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the right to determine who collocates and what their fair value is for collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up a LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his operation at our site for $10 per month. You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed store that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a WISP, or a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service or operator. In fact, this particular ordinance did not apply to just towers. It included any placement of any radiating device in any spectrum. That means if you deploy a mesh network in this town you are required to obtain permits for each and every node you place. With respect to OTARD, I have had quite a bit of experience with it over the years. I have challenged CCR's from condos and townhomes as well as township ordinances for anything from yagi antennas for 2-way clients to reach a repeater, to 10 foot satellite dishes, to DBS and even satellite Internet services. Each was successfully resolved because of the strength of OTARD. However, OTARD does nothing for you and I as the
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
You could also do a 6500 or 7600 with dual Supervisors power supplies. Mine carries full routes, dual GigE to the world, supports GigE, FE, ATM OC3, DS3, Packet Over Sonet (over OC3 or OC12), 48 96- port ethernet blades, and the list goes on. They have AC or DC power supplies. And they are big. Every port can either be switched or routed. -- Bryan On Aug 12, 2008, at 7:45 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Hi Gino, GSRs are overkill for what you are doing. In the Cisco world, a couple of mid-range VXRs would be a better solution. Or you could use a couple of ImageStream Rebel or Gateway routers for a fraction of the price. Either way, I'd use two routers in a redundant configuration with BGP and VRRP/HSRP for link and hardware failover. Regards, Jeff WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls for us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the right to determine who collocates and what their fair value is for collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up a LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his operation at our site for $10 per month. You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed store that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a WISP, or a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service or operator. In fact, this particular ordinance did not apply to just towers. It included any placement of any radiating device in any spectrum. That means if you deploy a mesh network in this town you are required to obtain permits for each and every node you place. With respect to OTARD, I have had quite a bit of experience with it over the
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls for us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the right to determine who collocates and what their fair value is for collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up a LPTV station, or a competitive WISP,
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
More importantly you need to have 256MB of line card memory on each card if you plan on running full tables. Make sure you get the GRP-B route processors with ECC memory. -Matt On Aug 12, 2008, at 8:48 AM, Dylan Bouterse wrote: Make sure you're getting more than 256MB of RAM if you're doing full routes to 2 different peers. The GSRs can be really expensive to upgrade if they don't already have what you need. Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:39 AM To: Motorola Canopy User Group; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers While looking for a Router to handle our dual 100 mbps with BGP , I stumbled into lots of Cisco GSR12000 series routers on ebay, with apparently great pricing and Gigabit Card option...whts the story on this routers? Are they any good? Would it handle a couple of 100 FE circuits with the eventuality of growing into a Gigabit circuit? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.1/1607 - Release Date: 8/12/2008 7:19 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Rapid Link, and is believed to be clean. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
I am not sure, but I think something may have been amended in the section of federal code that helps cell towers stomp on the local planning and zoning. It seems that cell towers might have to offer collocation. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging,
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
I don't think it is possible to buy VXRs with the right engine to handle full tables that are cheaper than GSRs. -Matt On Aug 12, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Hi Gino, GSRs are overkill for what you are doing. In the Cisco world, a couple of mid-range VXRs would be a better solution. Or you could use a couple of ImageStream Rebel or Gateway routers for a fraction of the price. Either way, I'd use two routers in a redundant configuration with BGP and VRRP/HSRP for link and hardware failover. Regards, Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:49 AM To: WISPA General List; Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers Make sure you're getting more than 256MB of RAM if you're doing full routes to 2 different peers. The GSRs can be really expensive to upgrade if they don't already have what you need. Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:39 AM To: Motorola Canopy User Group; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers While looking for a Router to handle our dual 100 mbps with BGP , I stumbled into lots of Cisco GSR12000 series routers on ebay, with apparently great pricing and Gigabit Card option...whts the story on this routers? Are they any good? Would it handle a couple of 100 FE circuits with the eventuality of growing into a Gigabit circuit? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.1/1607 - Release Date: 8/12/2008 7:19 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Rapid Link, and is believed to be clean. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
The only 6500/7600 that can support full tables requires a sup720-3bxl, which itself is much more expensive than a complete GSR. -Matt On Aug 12, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Bryan Scott wrote: You could also do a 6500 or 7600 with dual Supervisors power supplies. Mine carries full routes, dual GigE to the world, supports GigE, FE, ATM OC3, DS3, Packet Over Sonet (over OC3 or OC12), 48 96- port ethernet blades, and the list goes on. They have AC or DC power supplies. And they are big. Every port can either be switched or routed. -- Bryan On Aug 12, 2008, at 7:45 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Hi Gino, GSRs are overkill for what you are doing. In the Cisco world, a couple of mid-range VXRs would be a better solution. Or you could use a couple of ImageStream Rebel or Gateway routers for a fraction of the price. Either way, I'd use two routers in a redundant configuration with BGP and VRRP/HSRP for link and hardware failover. Regards, Jeff WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Rapid Link, and is believed to be clean. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem
So what exactly are the zoning rules for structures in that area- specifically towers? You did not tell us this. Many times any structure of a certain height of any type need a variance or use permit to be there- in our area it is 35 ft. Even applies to a house. Of course if you were a Ham operator and this was a Ham tower and only Ham antennas were on it, you could try the Federal pre-emption PRB-1. But all this does is help force them to create less stringent rules for that tower. For example, after enlisting the help of an attorney, one local Ham got most of the Counties/Cities here to raise that to 70' as long as proper engineering was done and a few other requirements were ment, such as lot size,etc. Raph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isp Operator Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:38 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not share detailed system information with anybody) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
I ought to pull out our arguments we have used and put them on the wiki. There are four bits of federal code that you can use. Two of them apply to cell phone towers, but since we are part of the femtocell structure now, we are in that business if we want to be. OTARD covers two way broadband devices in addition to the original TV dish intent. It gives a one meter antenna size including the MAST which of course has to be a ROHN 45G. And then there is the Ham radio antenna provision. We are using the same frequencies. And can initially plan to do only ham operations. Perhaps after the tower is up we may use the same gear and same frequencies for other things. RF emissions and visual impacts are not something the locals can do much about. 100% sure about RF, not 100% sure about visual impacts. I go and visit the planning folks and the building inspectors and sometimes planning commissioners and county commissioners, city attorneys and mayors prior to doing anything. I try to sell the fact that I am bringing good things to the community etc etc. With the planner and building inspectors I ask them to tell me what they want to see prior and during the application. Let them school me for a while. After I get a relationship started, I try to gently inform them that there are some federal preemptions but they don't need to be too concerned about that. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I am not sure, but I think something may have been amended in the section of federal code that helps cell towers stomp on the local planning and zoning. It seems that cell towers might have to offer collocation. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections
Re: [WISPA] new site install pictures
Really nice work Kurt! I need you to come down to Kentucky and do that for me on a few tower! -RickG On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey guys I just got some pictures uploaded of one of my AP sites if you want to check it out. Hopefully someone starting out can benefit from it as this is 4 years of knowledge from being on the lists here and picking up on better ways of how to do installs. Got any questions just ask. I'd appreciate some comments as well. :) http://www.wavelinc.com/towers/DSGE_Tower/ Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] coax cables
I'm running coax down my tower and came across and RG8/U. Can this be used on 5GHz? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
We have found that most municipalities have not regulated, beyond a building permit, towers below a certain height. Some were very generous at 100-110 feet, some were a bit stingy at 50 feet, but the majority has been open for anything of 70-80 feet or below. That to me is a reasonable ordinance that does not classify the single use tower for a 2-way/WISP as if we were American Tower. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:28 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem So what exactly are the zoning rules for structures in that area- specifically towers? You did not tell us this. Many times any structure of a certain height of any type need a variance or use permit to be there- in our area it is 35 ft. Even applies to a house. Of course if you were a Ham operator and this was a Ham tower and only Ham antennas were on it, you could try the Federal pre-emption PRB-1. But all this does is help force them to create less stringent rules for that tower. For example, after enlisting the help of an attorney, one local Ham got most of the Counties/Cities here to raise that to 70' as long as proper engineering was done and a few other requirements were ment, such as lot size,etc. Raph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isp Operator Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:38 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not share detailed system information with anybody) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Good bunch of info here. Almost all of can be applied to us. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/local/prb-1_program.html - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem We have found that most municipalities have not regulated, beyond a building permit, towers below a certain height. Some were very generous at 100-110 feet, some were a bit stingy at 50 feet, but the majority has been open for anything of 70-80 feet or below. That to me is a reasonable ordinance that does not classify the single use tower for a 2-way/WISP as if we were American Tower. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:28 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem So what exactly are the zoning rules for structures in that area- specifically towers? You did not tell us this. Many times any structure of a certain height of any type need a variance or use permit to be there- in our area it is 35 ft. Even applies to a house. Of course if you were a Ham operator and this was a Ham tower and only Ham antennas were on it, you could try the Federal pre-emption PRB-1. But all this does is help force them to create less stringent rules for that tower. For example, after enlisting the help of an attorney, one local Ham got most of the Counties/Cities here to raise that to 70' as long as proper engineering was done and a few other requirements were ment, such as lot size,etc. Raph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isp Operator Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:38 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not share detailed system information with anybody) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Actually, visual impact CAN be applied. Lambs Knoll MD is a good example of a recent application where the tower company lost. A municipality can heavily regulate tower placement, and if they show that another site without that visual impact, or even multiple sites without that visual impact can do the same job, then the site with the visual impact can be legally denied. The federal rules about siting state that the municipality cannot capriciously or unreasonably deny an application, but the definition of unreasonably has still never been clarified. Insofar as the taking of a tower, only allowing towers that are capable and available for colocation is accepted as a standard codes restriction, and has been backed up in the court. Having the municipality become the leasing agent has not however. They can also DENY your application to build a tower if suitable colocation oppurtunity exists on existing structures, leaving the onus on you to show why that won't work, and a financial argument won't stand up. Case in point, http://tinyurl.com/5clfkt Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, especially RF emissions are federally regulated and wholly prempts local officials. It is actually easier if you call your facility cellular like in most cases because federal code can get most of this off your back. The building code/engineering folks will still require soils analysis and structural engineering but much of the other stuff including visual impacts cannot be applied. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
And you would be sued, and you would lose. Reasonable accommodations have to be made for collocation. If your competitor is required by the town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him from complying with the city statutes, he has firm legal footing to pursue you. A few quotes for comparable space at other locations and he has you. Of course, this is only where you are required to provide reasonable accommodations - if you build a tower where there are no such requirements tell the guy to pound sand. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions,
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
There are two parts of the telecom act, OTARD and the Ham ruling that should be able to be used to mitigate most of this. Especially of the city attorney doesn't want to do much research. OTARD and the Ham ruling could probably combat the visual impact aspect. I have successfully used the competitive nature of the tower they want me to collocate on to argue that it would give my competitor an advantage over me. Hard to argue that one down. - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Actually, visual impact CAN be applied. Lambs Knoll MD is a good example of a recent application where the tower company lost. A municipality can heavily regulate tower placement, and if they show that another site without that visual impact, or even multiple sites without that visual impact can do the same job, then the site with the visual impact can be legally denied. The federal rules about siting state that the municipality cannot capriciously or unreasonably deny an application, but the definition of unreasonably has still never been clarified. Insofar as the taking of a tower, only allowing towers that are capable and available for colocation is accepted as a standard codes restriction, and has been backed up in the court. Having the municipality become the leasing agent has not however. They can also DENY your application to build a tower if suitable colocation oppurtunity exists on existing structures, leaving the onus on you to show why that won't work, and a financial argument won't stand up. Case in point, http://tinyurl.com/5clfkt Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, especially RF emissions are federally regulated and wholly prempts local officials. It is actually easier if you call your facility cellular like in most cases because federal code can get most of this off your back. The building code/engineering folks will still require soils analysis and structural engineering but much of the other stuff including visual impacts cannot be applied. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and
[WISPA] Warehouse clean up sale
No Offers would be rejected! Prefer to sell in bundles Switch Bundle 1 Milan SM801ST 1 Dlink DSS-16 1 Dell 3424 3 3com XM3300 1 Netgear FVX-538 Dual Wan Router DS-3 Bundle 1 Net to Net 6 port Converter 1 Net to Net 1 port Converter Offlist for more info, Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
They can, and do require collocation. Whats even worse, is many places will REQUIRE that the tower owner provide free space for local government services. Its not legal, but the big boys of the tower industry have agreed thousands of times to this, which only hurts us regional operators. With that said, no fire department has ever had to pay for space on one of our towers. But we do that as a CHOICE, not as a mandate from someone. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls for us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the right to determine who collocates and what their fair value is for collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up a LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his operation at our site for $10 per month. You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed store that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a WISP, or a
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Nope. Trying to hide behind the HAM radio provisions will get you caught. I know first hand of a tower in Alabama constructed under PRB-1. About a year after it was constructed, a VHF antenna was installed for a commercial antenna. Soon after, the zoning folks got wind. The tower owner was given a fine, and had to remove the commercial customer from the tower. How do I know? We installed the DB224 VHF antenna. It does not matter that the frequencies are the same, it matters the intent of the use. HAM radio versus commercial. And OTARD only applies to the end user. Right from the FCC. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I ought to pull out our arguments we have used and put them on the wiki. There are four bits of federal code that you can use. Two of them apply to cell phone towers, but since we are part of the femtocell structure now, we are in that business if we want to be. OTARD covers two way broadband devices in addition to the original TV dish intent. It gives a one meter antenna size including the MAST which of course has to be a ROHN 45G. And then there is the Ham radio antenna provision. We are using the same frequencies. And can initially plan to do only ham operations. Perhaps after the tower is up we may use the same gear and same frequencies for other things. RF emissions and visual impacts are not something the locals can do much about. 100% sure about RF, not 100% sure about visual impacts. I go and visit the planning folks and the building inspectors and sometimes planning commissioners and county commissioners, city attorneys and mayors prior to doing anything. I try to sell the fact that I am bringing good things to the community etc etc. With the planner and building inspectors I ask them to tell me what they want to see prior and during the application. Let them school me for a while. After I get a relationship started, I try to gently inform them that there are some federal preemptions but they don't need to be too concerned about that. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I am not sure, but I think something may have been amended in the section of federal code that helps cell towers stomp on the local planning and zoning. It seems that cell towers might have to offer collocation. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
None of that can be applied. Strictly HAM radio stuff, non-commercial. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Good bunch of info here. Almost all of can be applied to us. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/local/prb-1_program.html - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem We have found that most municipalities have not regulated, beyond a building permit, towers below a certain height. Some were very generous at 100-110 feet, some were a bit stingy at 50 feet, but the majority has been open for anything of 70-80 feet or below. That to me is a reasonable ordinance that does not classify the single use tower for a 2-way/WISP as if we were American Tower. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:28 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem So what exactly are the zoning rules for structures in that area- specifically towers? You did not tell us this. Many times any structure of a certain height of any type need a variance or use permit to be there- in our area it is 35 ft. Even applies to a house. Of course if you were a Ham operator and this was a Ham tower and only Ham antennas were on it, you could try the Federal pre-emption PRB-1. But all this does is help force them to create less stringent rules for that tower. For example, after enlisting the help of an attorney, one local Ham got most of the Counties/Cities here to raise that to 70' as long as proper engineering was done and a few other requirements were ment, such as lot size,etc. Raph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isp Operator Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:38 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not share detailed system information with anybody)
Re: [WISPA] coax cables
No Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:33:57 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] coax cables I'm running coax down my tower and came across and RG8/U. Can this be used on 5GHz? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U
I hate radios at the top of the tower so I'd like to run coax cables to an enclosure at the bottom and add amps to make up for the loss. I'm looking for a 9 mile link. The drop is 150 feet. At any rate, I found an old RG8/U cable. Will that work on 5GHz? I also have LMR400? If not, what would you recommend? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] coax cables
It can but the loss is high and the braid is much less. Stick with LMRs 400 *,5 '22@ )+_3 2,/(:4 32* 4:+3( Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:33:57 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] coax cables I'm running coax down my tower and came across and RG8/U. Can this be used on 5GHz? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the construction of the tower, namely permitting and engineering studies required are part of the Rent. Just like a building, I wouldn't rent it less than it costs to construct it. That doesn't make sense. At $1000/mo, it would take nearly 68 months to pay for costs. A 5-year lease is 60 months. I am not a lawyer, and I would definitely involve one if the situation arose. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem And you would be sued, and you would lose. Reasonable accommodations have to be made for collocation. If your competitor is required by the town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him from complying with the city statutes, he has firm legal footing to pursue you. A few quotes for comparable space at other locations and he has you. Of course, this is only where you are required to provide reasonable accommodations - if you build a tower where there are no such requirements tell the guy to pound sand. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of
Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U
RG8 is totally wrong. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U I hate radios at the top of the tower so I'd like to run coax cables to an enclosure at the bottom and add amps to make up for the loss. I'm looking for a 9 mile link. The drop is 150 feet. At any rate, I found an old RG8/U cable. Will that work on 5GHz? I also have LMR400? If not, what would you recommend? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U
I thought so. Thats why I asked. So, LMR400 or 600? -RickG On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RG8 is totally wrong. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U I hate radios at the top of the tower so I'd like to run coax cables to an enclosure at the bottom and add amps to make up for the loss. I'm looking for a 9 mile link. The drop is 150 feet. At any rate, I found an old RG8/U cable. Will that work on 5GHz? I also have LMR400? If not, what would you recommend? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
OTARD and PRB1 do not pertain to AP or backhaul locations Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:43:37 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem There are two parts of the telecom act, OTARD and the Ham ruling that should be able to be used to mitigate most of this. Especially of the city attorney doesn't want to do much research. OTARD and the Ham ruling could probably combat the visual impact aspect. I have successfully used the competitive nature of the tower they want me to collocate on to argue that it would give my competitor an advantage over me. Hard to argue that one down. - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Actually, visual impact CAN be applied. Lambs Knoll MD is a good example of a recent application where the tower company lost. A municipality can heavily regulate tower placement, and if they show that another site without that visual impact, or even multiple sites without that visual impact can do the same job, then the site with the visual impact can be legally denied. The federal rules about siting state that the municipality cannot capriciously or unreasonably deny an application, but the definition of unreasonably has still never been clarified. Insofar as the taking of a tower, only allowing towers that are capable and available for colocation is accepted as a standard codes restriction, and has been backed up in the court. Having the municipality become the leasing agent has not however. They can also DENY your application to build a tower if suitable colocation oppurtunity exists on existing structures, leaving the onus on you to show why that won't work, and a financial argument won't stand up. Case in point, http://tinyurl.com/5clfkt Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, especially RF emissions are federally regulated and wholly prempts local officials. It is actually easier if you call your facility cellular like in most cases because federal code can get most of this off your back. The building code/engineering folks will still require soils analysis and structural engineering but much of the other stuff including visual impacts cannot be applied. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Reasonable is more often than not going to be based on what a similiar tower would lease similiar space in a similiar area. And its always a good idea to involve an attorney any more. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the construction of the tower, namely permitting and engineering studies required are part of the Rent. Just like a building, I wouldn't rent it less than it costs to construct it. That doesn't make sense. At $1000/mo, it would take nearly 68 months to pay for costs. A 5-year lease is 60 months. I am not a lawyer, and I would definitely involve one if the situation arose. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem And you would be sued, and you would lose. Reasonable accommodations have to be made for collocation. If your competitor is required by the town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him from complying with the city statutes, he has firm legal footing to pursue you. A few quotes for comparable space at other locations and he has you. Of course, this is only where you are required to provide reasonable accommodations - if you build a tower where there are no such requirements tell the guy to pound sand. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion,
Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U
LMR 400 will work. If you really want to lower your loss, use eliptical waveguide, but be prepared for a very high cost. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U I thought so. Thats why I asked. So, LMR400 or 600? -RickG On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RG8 is totally wrong. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U I hate radios at the top of the tower so I'd like to run coax cables to an enclosure at the bottom and add amps to make up for the loss. I'm looking for a 9 mile link. The drop is 150 feet. At any rate, I found an old RG8/U cable. Will that work on 5GHz? I also have LMR400? If not, what would you recommend? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Hey Joe, What happened when you went before the city council and lined out the fee's vs. your expected income? Is there possibly a DSL or cable competitor already there that didn't want any competition etc.? laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls for us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the right to determine who collocates and what their fair value is for collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up a LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his operation at our site for $10 per month. You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed store that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a WISP, or a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service or operator. In fact, this particular ordinance did not apply to just towers. It included any placement of any radiating device in any spectrum. That means if you deploy a mesh network in this town you are required to obtain permits for each and every node you place. With respect to OTARD, I have had quite a bit of experience with it over the years. I have challenged CCR's from condos and townhomes as well as township ordinances for anything from yagi antennas for 2-way clients to reach a repeater, to 10 foot satellite
Re: [WISPA] Connect Ohio Program? anyone heard of this
If I know Chip his name's not rining a bell right now. But I've talked to or met a LOT of people over the years and I tend to forget names far too quickly. All programs like this give me the heeby geebies. At least so far they do. One good note is that it's about time Government started proactively collecting 477 type data if they want it. It's really non of their business as long as I'm paying my taxes, but I really hate having to do the work for them when they want to know something. marlon - Original Message - From: Stuart Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Connect Ohio Program? anyone heard of this connectohio is headed by apparently Chip Spann out of Kentucky of all places and wants to know all kinds of information about your business and is getting paid to collect it. He says he knows Marlon, Patrick and a few others. I've got the forms from him, but never filled them out, didn't give me a good vibe. -- Original Message -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:08:20 -0700 It's all about grant money Kurt. Somehow, once we actually start fixing these problems they start to forget that we're out there. Wanna have some fun? Call the governor's office and relate these things/stories and see what they have to say. grin marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 6:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] Connect Ohio Program? anyone heard of this Just got done reading an article in my local newspaper here. Apparently there was a meeting here in the county about how we need more broadband options. Funny thing is no one ever called any of the 4 wireless providers in the county here and asked them to attend. And there is a group touring around with the governor called Connect Ohio with a moto of No child left un-connected. Has anyone here heard any of this at all. I've never heard any one mention it but apparently it sounds as if this has been going on for a while. And then at the end of the article there is the local American Red Cross guy saying we are like a third world country, funny thing is they called me up about getting service in at that Red Cross Chapter and they were supposed to get hooked up but never did cause they canceled the install! Article is attached. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com _ From: NewsBank -- service provider for Telegraph-Forum Archives [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 9:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Telegraph-Forum Document Telegraph-Forum (Bucyrus, OH) Telegraph-Forum (Bucyrus, OH) July 24, 2008 What can better broadband mean to Crawford County? By Gary Ogle Telegraph-Forum GALION -- A high-tech future demands high speed Internet. A large group of community leaders from Crawford County dreamed and discussed Wednesday afternoon about what better broadband service could mean to the people they help, the people they hire, the people they serve and those they educate. One of the biggest problems, North Central State's Don Plotts said, is getting people to understand they need technology. The session at Galion Community Hospital, part of Gov. Ted Strickland's Connect Ohio initiative to accelerate technology and close the digital divide, was led by Sage Cutler and Gary Lambert of Connect Ohio. People from all facets of Crawford County, described as leaders in the eCommunity, were invited to discuss how their companies and organizations use broadband now and how it could impact them in the future. This is the second benchmark work session in the state, Cutler said. Gallia County was the first and all 88 counties in the state will begin the process within the next two years. Cutler said Crawford County was selected to be among the first because there were some other broadband initiatives (here). Those in attendance included government officials from across the county, representatives of business and industry, education, health care and community organizations. Part of the process was to divide them into nine sectors as defined by their profession or the organization they represented. Wednesday's meeting had participants in seven of the nine sectors. Each sector discussed where it was at locally regarding broadband use, its application and implication, and what could be improved in the near future with better broadband resources. Cutler explained that Connect Ohio is a public/private partnership. It's not costing the counties a thing, Cutler said. That's going to be the cost the providers themselves invest. The concept is that by detailing the needs and potential for effective
Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U
Yes. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:06:08 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U I thought so. Thats why I asked. So, LMR400 or 600? -RickG On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RG8 is totally wrong. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U I hate radios at the top of the tower so I'd like to run coax cables to an enclosure at the bottom and add amps to make up for the loss. I'm looking for a 9 mile link. The drop is 150 feet. At any rate, I found an old RG8/U cable. Will that work on 5GHz? I also have LMR400? If not, what would you recommend? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Fw: Hutton Communications Expo, Phoenix! REMINDER
I'm trying to decide if I want to go to this. Anyone else planning on being there? marlon - Original Message - From: Hutton Marketing Team To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:35 AM Subject: Hutton Communications Expo, Phoenix! REMINDER Hutton EXPO 08 Phoenix REMINDER! Upcoming Events Hutton EXPO 08 Phoenix Dear Marlon Schafer, REMINDER to join Hutton Communications at the The Premier Wireless Learning Experience, the new Hutton EXPO 08 in Phoenix, Arizona September 9-10. Don't miss out on this no cost opportunity to learn and network with today's industry leaders. Time is running out and seating is limited so SIGN UP TODAY! ***All HCX 08 Phoenix attendees will be entered into a drawing to win an AMAZON KINDLE! Sincerely, Hutton Marketing Team REGISTER HERE Where When Renaissance Glendale 9495 W. Coyotes Blvd. Glendale, AZ 85305 Sept 9-10 9:00AM-7:00PM Reservations Call: 1-800-468-3571 Group Rate: $179 until August 16 so CALL today! *Make sure to tell them you are with Hutton Communciations Expo Hutton EXPO 08 Phoenix, Arizona Hutton EXPO 08 will consist of two days in-depth product training and intense technical sessions presented by our Team Hutton suppliers. On the first evening there will be an exhibits tradeshow showcasing Hutton suppliers' latest and greatest products in wireless technology. Hutton EXPO 08 is a great opportunity to meet suppliers face-to-face. You will greatly enhance your technical product knowledge and get better acquainted with your Hutton sales representative. Enjoy the the first evening's networking opportunities with beverages and hors d'oeuvres. Breakfast, lunch, and refreshments will be served daily. Supplier Training Training scheduled to be provided by the following suppliers: a.. Airaya b.. Andrew a CommScope Company c.. Anritsu d.. Bird Electronics e.. BridgeWave f.. Cellular Specialties g.. Ceragon Networks h.. Dekolink i.. EION j.. Exalt k.. Inscape Data l.. Motorola Wi4 m.. Nera n.. Proxim Wireless o.. RF Neulink p.. Tranzeo Sign up for two sessions in the morning and two sessions in the evening for both days. The second afternoon sessions are Roundtable discussions where you can hear a panel of experts discussing real world applications and answering questions. These are hosted by one of Hutton's Field Application Engineers. And don't forget to attend an incredible networking event at the exhibits showcase the first evening. Better Hurry! Sign up today! REGISTER HERE Click here for more INFORMATION Hutton EXPO 08 Phoenix Featured Presenter: Inscape Data Inscape Data's long range wireless technology effectively enables a wide range of communication applications, and the video surveillance is one of the most critical applications. Using Inscape Data's long range wireless and video security total turnkey solutions, system integrators, governments, and schools are able to economically and flexibly deploy their data, voice, and video communications from backhaul to the last mile applications. Questions about the EXPO? Contact the Hutton EXPO 08 Coordinator Katie Whitaker 2520 Marsh Lane Carrollton, Texas 75006 972-417-0151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forward email This email was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] by [EMAIL PROTECTED] Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribeT | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by Hutton Communications, Inc | 2520 Marsh Lane | Carrollton | TX | 75006
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
There were many good on-list responses to your post so I'll be short here with my comments. Local jurisdictions can't prohibit your tower but your tower is subject to their local zoning rules and regulations. Co-location requirements are often made to minimize the number of towers in an area in order to avoid ruining the beauty or the character of the area with too many towers. Local officials (just like people everywhere these days) don't know the difference between wireless technologies (Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, cellular... it's all wireless). Educate these local officials about the financial and service differences between your small local company and a large deep-pocketed cellphone company. If you don't educate them about these differences, no one else will. If this tower and this business is truly important to you, don't try to cheap it out. Find a local land use attorney, spend the money to hire them and then use them to push back and help you educate the county planning department. You should only need to do this once before the planning department starts to understand your operation and cooperate with you. If you still get resistance, be ready to go to your local County Commissioners to ask for their support for your efforts to bridge the digital divide and provide broadband Internet access to the people who voted to elect them and who trusted them to do what is right for the local citizens. I hope you find this information useful. jack Isp Operator wrote: Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not share detailed system information with anybody) -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Cisco Press Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs NEXT ONLINE TRAINING AUGUST 18-19 2008 http://www.linktechs.net/askwi.asp FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger Phone 818-227-4220 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/Uuse TUE, AUG 12, 2008»
Use LDF4.5 Heliax for this run. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:55:16 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U I hate radios at the top of the tower so I'd like to run coax cables to an enclosure at the bottom and add amps to make up for the loss. I'm looking for a 9 mile link. The drop is 150 feet. At any rate, I found an old RG8/U cable. Will that work on 5GHz? I also have LMR400? If not, what would you recommend? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FCC ULC
How accurate is the FCC ULC? I am searching by call sign for grandfathered earth stations and all four of the call signs come back not found. Jerry Richardson VP Operations 925-260-4119 P Please consider the environment before printing this email image001.jpg WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
All of it can be applied where it is talking about how to work with the locals. I have had great success with many jurisdictions doing many of the things specified on that page. - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] None of that can be applied. Strictly HAM radio stuff, non-commercial. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Good bunch of info here. Almost all of can be applied to us. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/local/prb-1_program.html WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC ULC
* Jerry Richardson wrote, On 8/12/2008 11:55 AM: How accurate is the FCC ULC? I am searching by call sign for grandfathered earth stations and all four of the call signs come back not found. It's not in there except a reference to the grandfathered PDF. The International Bureau is where the FSSes are dealt with. Leon Jerry Richardson VP Operations 925-260-4119 P Please consider the environment before printing this email WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
They do if the local county or city attorney believes they do. Moreover, if you are leasing the site, the landowner can be the customer thereby giving OTARD a toe hold. If you are a HAM you can make the case that you are also using the site for ham purposes. Not saying any would stand scrutiny in a hearing with well informed lawyers. When that happens, you trot out the telecom act provisions. Taken all together it can be persuasive. I have done this multiple times. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem OTARD and PRB1 do not pertain to AP or backhaul locations Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:43:37 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem There are two parts of the telecom act, OTARD and the Ham ruling that should be able to be used to mitigate most of this. Especially of the city attorney doesn't want to do much research. OTARD and the Ham ruling could probably combat the visual impact aspect. I have successfully used the competitive nature of the tower they want me to collocate on to argue that it would give my competitor an advantage over me. Hard to argue that one down. - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Actually, visual impact CAN be applied. Lambs Knoll MD is a good example of a recent application where the tower company lost. A municipality can heavily regulate tower placement, and if they show that another site without that visual impact, or even multiple sites without that visual impact can do the same job, then the site with the visual impact can be legally denied. The federal rules about siting state that the municipality cannot capriciously or unreasonably deny an application, but the definition of unreasonably has still never been clarified. Insofar as the taking of a tower, only allowing towers that are capable and available for colocation is accepted as a standard codes restriction, and has been backed up in the court. Having the municipality become the leasing agent has not however. They can also DENY your application to build a tower if suitable colocation oppurtunity exists on existing structures, leaving the onus on you to show why that won't work, and a financial argument won't stand up. Case in point, http://tinyurl.com/5clfkt Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, especially RF emissions are federally regulated and wholly prempts local officials. It is actually easier if you call your facility cellular like in most cases because federal code can get most of this off your back. The building code/engineering folks will still require soils analysis and structural engineering but much of the other stuff including visual impacts cannot be applied. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Marlon, We never went before the board for a variance. The overwhelming burden placed on us was apparently more of a fight than we needed to take on with alternate locations just a hilltop away. We cut our losses with the $1000 deposit on the property which had a usage-acceptance clause in the contract and moved on. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Hey Joe, What happened when you went before the city council and lined out the fee's vs. your expected income? Is there possibly a DSL or cable competitor already there that didn't want any competition etc.? laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls for us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the right to determine who collocates and what their fair value is for collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up a LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his operation at our site for $10 per month. You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed store that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a WISP, or a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service
Re: [WISPA] FCC ULC
Thank you __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:59 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC ULC * Jerry Richardson wrote, On 8/12/2008 11:55 AM: How accurate is the FCC ULC? I am searching by call sign for grandfathered earth stations and all four of the call signs come back not found. It's not in there except a reference to the grandfathered PDF. The International Bureau is where the FSSes are dealt with. Leon Jerry Richardson VP Operations 925-260-4119 P Please consider the environment before printing this email WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Jack, I am a Brooklyn boy that ran a communications business in Midtown Manhattan for 15 years. I had rooftops secured before anyone knew what they were worth. We leased space to Winstar (Ouch!), all the paging companies ( more ouch) and ran several 20 channel SMR systems in addition to about 80 UHF repeaters. I can certainly push when there is a value to it, but this was just too easy to walk away from. This was in West Virginia, and we had reached out to Sen. Jay Rockefeller on this project as he is a champion of rural broadband. The mayor, and entire city council in this town was fully aware of the importance of this to him. They called us to hurry things along. When we asked if that included granting a variance to simplify things, the answer was a resounding no. So much for outside influence. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:43 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem There were many good on-list responses to your post so I'll be short here with my comments. Local jurisdictions can't prohibit your tower but your tower is subject to their local zoning rules and regulations. Co-location requirements are often made to minimize the number of towers in an area in order to avoid ruining the beauty or the character of the area with too many towers. Local officials (just like people everywhere these days) don't know the difference between wireless technologies (Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, cellular... it's all wireless). Educate these local officials about the financial and service differences between your small local company and a large deep-pocketed cellphone company. If you don't educate them about these differences, no one else will. If this tower and this business is truly important to you, don't try to cheap it out. Find a local land use attorney, spend the money to hire them and then use them to push back and help you educate the county planning department. You should only need to do this once before the planning department starts to understand your operation and cooperate with you. If you still get resistance, be ready to go to your local County Commissioners to ask for their support for your efforts to bridge the digital divide and provide broadband Internet access to the people who voted to elect them and who trusted them to do what is right for the local citizens. I hope you find this information useful. jack Isp Operator wrote: Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Who defines reasonable? In this case the city ordinance. If you want the permit granted, you comply with the provisions. We chose to move on to a more reasonable jurisdiction. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Rogers Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:59 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the construction of the tower, namely permitting and engineering studies required are part of the Rent. Just like a building, I wouldn't rent it less than it costs to construct it. That doesn't make sense. At $1000/mo, it would take nearly 68 months to pay for costs. A 5-year lease is 60 months. I am not a lawyer, and I would definitely involve one if the situation arose. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem And you would be sued, and you would lose. Reasonable accommodations have to be made for collocation. If your competitor is required by the town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him from complying with the city statutes, he has firm legal footing to pursue you. A few quotes for comparable space at other locations and he has you. Of course, this is only where you are required to provide reasonable accommodations - if you build a tower where there are no such requirements tell the guy to pound sand. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion.
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
OTARD does not apply to any commercial usage. It will apply to a commercial end user, but not a system operator. Statutes that apply to HAM operators are just that, for HAM operators. Certainly you could make a claim, but that's about the same as saying you garage your car in another state to save on insurance premiums. It's not an issue until it becomes one. Then you have one heck of a mess to clean up. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem There are two parts of the telecom act, OTARD and the Ham ruling that should be able to be used to mitigate most of this. Especially of the city attorney doesn't want to do much research. OTARD and the Ham ruling could probably combat the visual impact aspect. I have successfully used the competitive nature of the tower they want me to collocate on to argue that it would give my competitor an advantage over me. Hard to argue that one down. - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Actually, visual impact CAN be applied. Lambs Knoll MD is a good example of a recent application where the tower company lost. A municipality can heavily regulate tower placement, and if they show that another site without that visual impact, or even multiple sites without that visual impact can do the same job, then the site with the visual impact can be legally denied. The federal rules about siting state that the municipality cannot capriciously or unreasonably deny an application, but the definition of unreasonably has still never been clarified. Insofar as the taking of a tower, only allowing towers that are capable and available for colocation is accepted as a standard codes restriction, and has been backed up in the court. Having the municipality become the leasing agent has not however. They can also DENY your application to build a tower if suitable colocation oppurtunity exists on existing structures, leaving the onus on you to show why that won't work, and a financial argument won't stand up. Case in point, http://tinyurl.com/5clfkt Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, especially RF emissions are federally regulated and wholly prempts local officials. It is actually easier if you call your facility cellular like in most cases because federal code can get most of this off your back. The building code/engineering folks will still require soils analysis and structural engineering but much of the other stuff including visual impacts cannot be applied. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Would OTARD apply in a scenario of a mesh AP/CPE antenna? - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem OTARD does not apply to any commercial usage. It will apply to a commercial end user, but not a system operator. Statutes that apply to HAM operators are just that, for HAM operators. Certainly you could make a claim, but that's about the same as saying you garage your car in another state to save on insurance premiums. It's not an issue until it becomes one. Then you have one heck of a mess to clean up. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem There are two parts of the telecom act, OTARD and the Ham ruling that should be able to be used to mitigate most of this. Especially of the city attorney doesn't want to do much research. OTARD and the Ham ruling could probably combat the visual impact aspect. I have successfully used the competitive nature of the tower they want me to collocate on to argue that it would give my competitor an advantage over me. Hard to argue that one down. - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Actually, visual impact CAN be applied. Lambs Knoll MD is a good example of a recent application where the tower company lost. A municipality can heavily regulate tower placement, and if they show that another site without that visual impact, or even multiple sites without that visual impact can do the same job, then the site with the visual impact can be legally denied. The federal rules about siting state that the municipality cannot capriciously or unreasonably deny an application, but the definition of unreasonably has still never been clarified. Insofar as the taking of a tower, only allowing towers that are capable and available for colocation is accepted as a standard codes restriction, and has been backed up in the court. Having the municipality become the leasing agent has not however. They can also DENY your application to build a tower if suitable colocation oppurtunity exists on existing structures, leaving the onus on you to show why that won't work, and a financial argument won't stand up. Case in point, http://tinyurl.com/5clfkt Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, especially RF emissions are federally regulated and wholly prempts local officials. It is actually easier if you call your facility cellular like in most cases because federal code can get most of this off your back. The building code/engineering folks will still require soils analysis and structural engineering but much of the other stuff including visual impacts cannot be applied. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility.
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
OTARD was modified to recognize that CPE can also be part of the infrastructure allowing CPE to be repeaters. So, it really doesn't matter if it is an AP or CPE anymore. As long as there is a customer at the site. The customer doesn't have to live at the site. - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Would OTARD apply in a scenario of a mesh AP/CPE antenna? - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem OTARD does not apply to any commercial usage. It will apply to a commercial end user, but not a system operator. Statutes that apply to HAM operators are just that, for HAM operators. Certainly you could make a claim, but that's about the same as saying you garage your car in another state to save on insurance premiums. It's not an issue until it becomes one. Then you have one heck of a mess to clean up. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem There are two parts of the telecom act, OTARD and the Ham ruling that should be able to be used to mitigate most of this. Especially of the city attorney doesn't want to do much research. OTARD and the Ham ruling could probably combat the visual impact aspect. I have successfully used the competitive nature of the tower they want me to collocate on to argue that it would give my competitor an advantage over me. Hard to argue that one down. - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Actually, visual impact CAN be applied. Lambs Knoll MD is a good example of a recent application where the tower company lost. A municipality can heavily regulate tower placement, and if they show that another site without that visual impact, or even multiple sites without that visual impact can do the same job, then the site with the visual impact can be legally denied. The federal rules about siting state that the municipality cannot capriciously or unreasonably deny an application, but the definition of unreasonably has still never been clarified. Insofar as the taking of a tower, only allowing towers that are capable and available for colocation is accepted as a standard codes restriction, and has been backed up in the court. Having the municipality become the leasing agent has not however. They can also DENY your application to build a tower if suitable colocation oppurtunity exists on existing structures, leaving the onus on you to show why that won't work, and a financial argument won't stand up. Case in point, http://tinyurl.com/5clfkt Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, especially RF emissions are federally regulated and wholly prempts local officials. It is actually easier if you call your facility cellular like in most cases because federal code can get most of this off your back. The building code/engineering folks will still require soils analysis and structural engineering but much of the other stuff including visual impacts cannot be applied. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any
[WISPA] FCC geographic search
Anyone else having trouble using the FCC geographic search feature? I called tech support and they said there were known issues. But nothing further. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC ULC
Jerry Richardson wrote: Thank you Link for the international bureau search page: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/General_Menu_Reports/ -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] info on securing a 3.65 license
Charles et al, Below is a 14 MB file detailing some of the steps needed in order to secure a 3.65 GHz license. http://www.alvarion.com/upload/images/stepbystep_wp.pdf (Others may already know this, but this was new for me) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] He knows what we don't... ???
ralph wrote: Please elaborate, Jeff. Ralph Yes Jeff. Please elaborate. There are various community projects that are somewhat successful. Various muni service networks that are operational. Certainly providing free access to everyone didn't and isn't going to work (see earthlink :) However city wide mesh for various uses does have success stories. -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] He knows what we don't... ???
Jack Unger wrote: Here's a guy who is building a Muni WiMAX network all by himself. http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/08/09/3592867.htm Either: a) This gentleman believes he knows a whole lot more than WISPA members know (because very few WISPA members are single-handedly building Muni Wi-MAX networks), or b) The opposite is true, or c) Neither of the above. Another journalist is conflating Wi-Fi and WiMAX (again). No... I think they mean WiMAX. The quote: A few more base stations would have to be installed around the city to make all of Delray Beach wireless. to me implies WiMAX. Unless the city is quite small, I don't think a handful of (meshed) Access Points could cover it. I mean unless he is using 3.65Ghz perhaps? -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem
You may wanted to argue two points 1) That your company/broadcast site does not match the description of telecom facility as defined in the County Code. And that there is no provision listed in the county code that specifically states your business type and use, and that bundling you into the closest thing is not appropriate because the closest thing is far away from the profile of your company and infrastructure, and therefore appropriate to assume that you should be exempt from the County code requirements as written. 2) Second, argue that you are Grandfathered at that site from any future legislation, as you were installed prior to any new legislation or ammendments that may decide to make to attempt to charge you unfair amounts. You must get the county code, and read it like a hawk, and be clear on exactly what it states. Thinks like telecom facility you re specifically exempt from if you are not a telecom (LEC). Brand X case should have proved that an ISP is a broadband company. A wireless provider is usually portrayed as a broadband company. The key to your defense is in the definitions of terms used in the County code. Additional approached 1) Contact FCC for help. The Otard does not specifically protect the right to build towers, it falls under the jurisdiction of county code (unless a smaller governing intitiy liek an incorporated city).. But there are provisions at the federal level that prevent counties from putting overly stringent demands and delays on broadband/tower owners. There was a really well known and big case on this issue, that was won by the tower owner, after several years of legal trials. (guessing around 3 years ago). The FCC will help you, by putting pressure on the County to play fair. 2) Determine if you have public support for your services and tower, versus a tower that the public wants to seen torn down. If its likely you'd have public support, you can always go to the media. Stories like County plans to shut down local entreprenure, stop economic development, and deprive under served areas and consumers of broadband. Followed by ideas that you might move your business to another county that supports economic development. Etc Etc. Stating the County should be pitching contributing matching funds, instead of burdening you with fees and taxes. Maybe send the rough draft to your local legislators prior to sending it to the local newspaper. Important note In most cases, they do NOT have the right to prevent you from operating and broadcasting while legal trials or appeals are being faught and negotiated, provided you are not causing a significant safety concern. The burden of proof is on them, to get a ruling of why you need to take it down. They do have ways to make life hard for you, so if hard ball occurs, you'll probably need an attorney. For example, even if they just used the dispute to put a hold on your corporate status, that could prevent you from getting a loan until resolved. Another option is that if the site is important enough to you, and it becomes a large enoug problem, you may want to seperate it from your other core business. You could set up a seperate company that owns that tower, so any legislation regarding that tower does not effect your other business operations. Lastly, info is needed like whether you followed the proper proceedure and permitting in building the tower in the first place. In most counties, you do not specifically have the right by default. They just didn't update their code to consider new business types like WISPs. 3) You can always go the HAM radio tower route. Federal law allows you to build a HAM radio tower, for a license fee of about $95. The catch is that you are NOT allowed to use it for commercial purposes. You could say anything you are doing is free to the users you are connecting with (other HAMs). That would then add an additonal burden to the county to have to prove that you were actually serving paying customers from that site. An important factor here is... what makes the county more money? If you give service away, and aren't making any money, you don't pay income tax on the revenue that you useed to make. If they learn your tower isn't going anywhere do to the HAM license, and that your business model truly does not afford to pay tower telecom level permit fees, and they are only accomplsihing reducing your taxable income, they very well may give up, and give up on it, without a justifyable reason to pursue it further. Good luck with it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Isp Operator [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:37 AM Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. Sure about that? If so I'd like more info. In Montgomery County Maryland, their position is that before they'll issue a tower permit (excluding HAM towers), one of the requirements is that you must prove that you have been unable to find adequate space on an existing tower and/or be willing to provide colocation to atleast two other entities, if feasible. (This of course could be argued that to solve visual impact issues that you would build the tower to minimum level specs to accomplish the needs, thus the better serving the public to build a smaller more noticeable tower) But what the county gave in return for this provision was that anyone would have the right to install on any pre-existing county owned facility, without a fee, other than typical maintenance costs. (Taking them up on that offer is a lot harder than represented in the code, and I considered their FREE to not be cost effective :-( ) I gave up on building towers here, due to the minimum $20,000 application fee, and other many provisions to make it hard. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the
Re: [WISPA] He knows what we don't... ???
If you believe they mean true Wi-MAX then do you believe it's licensed Wi-MAX or licensed-lite Wi-MAX in 3650? Charles Wyble wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Here's a guy who is building a Muni WiMAX network all by himself. http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/08/09/3592867.htm Either: a) This gentleman believes he knows a whole lot more than WISPA members know (because very few WISPA members are single-handedly building Muni Wi-MAX networks), or b) The opposite is true, or c) Neither of the above. Another journalist is conflating Wi-Fi and WiMAX (again). No... I think they mean WiMAX. The quote: A few more base stations would have to be installed around the city to make all of Delray Beach wireless. to me implies WiMAX. Unless the city is quite small, I don't think a handful of (meshed) Access Points could cover it. I mean unless he is using 3.65Ghz perhaps? -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Cisco Press Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs NEXT ONLINE TRAINING AUGUST 18-19 2008 http://www.linktechs.net/askwi.asp FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger Phone 818-227-4220 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem
Tom, Your suggestions are valid for an OTARD situation, but ill advised in this case. The burden of proof is not on the municipality, however compliance is expected. Failure to comply and operating a facility could likely result in fines being assessed daily. The first question is how are they defining a 'telecommunications facility'. Also, what exceptions are specifically allowed for under the ordinance. Certainly some early discussions and education can bear fruit, but if all else fails, they hold the cards, not the operator of the site. The FCC has stated they can not restrict towers being built, but they have capitulated on many aspects including local control as to placement, and visual impact. The municipality can require the facility to be constructed on pre-approved sites, often township property. Of course that's so the revenues stream comes to them and not the guy that owns the collision shop where they want to build the tower. The FCC no longer gets involved. They have pushed these cases into court time and time again. As long as there is SOME provision to build facilities, they are of the mind that the municipality is in compliance. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem You may wanted to argue two points 1) That your company/broadcast site does not match the description of telecom facility as defined in the County Code. And that there is no provision listed in the county code that specifically states your business type and use, and that bundling you into the closest thing is not appropriate because the closest thing is far away from the profile of your company and infrastructure, and therefore appropriate to assume that you should be exempt from the County code requirements as written. 2) Second, argue that you are Grandfathered at that site from any future legislation, as you were installed prior to any new legislation or ammendments that may decide to make to attempt to charge you unfair amounts. You must get the county code, and read it like a hawk, and be clear on exactly what it states. Thinks like telecom facility you re specifically exempt from if you are not a telecom (LEC). Brand X case should have proved that an ISP is a broadband company. A wireless provider is usually portrayed as a broadband company. The key to your defense is in the definitions of terms used in the County code. Additional approached 1) Contact FCC for help. The Otard does not specifically protect the right to build towers, it falls under the jurisdiction of county code (unless a smaller governing intitiy liek an incorporated city).. But there are provisions at the federal level that prevent counties from putting overly stringent demands and delays on broadband/tower owners. There was a really well known and big case on this issue, that was won by the tower owner, after several years of legal trials. (guessing around 3 years ago). The FCC will help you, by putting pressure on the County to play fair. 2) Determine if you have public support for your services and tower, versus a tower that the public wants to seen torn down. If its likely you'd have public support, you can always go to the media. Stories like County plans to shut down local entreprenure, stop economic development, and deprive under served areas and consumers of broadband. Followed by ideas that you might move your business to another county that supports economic development. Etc Etc. Stating the County should be pitching contributing matching funds, instead of burdening you with fees and taxes. Maybe send the rough draft to your local legislators prior to sending it to the local newspaper. Important note In most cases, they do NOT have the right to prevent you from operating and broadcasting while legal trials or appeals are being faught and negotiated, provided you are not causing a significant safety concern. The burden of proof is on them, to get a ruling of why you need to take it down. They do have ways to make life hard for you, so if hard ball occurs, you'll probably need an attorney. For example, even if they just used the dispute to put a hold on your corporate status, that could prevent you from getting a loan until resolved. Another option is that if the site is important enough to you, and it becomes a large enoug problem, you may want to seperate it from your other core business. You could set up a seperate company that owns that tower, so any legislation regarding that tower does not effect your other business operations. Lastly, info is needed like whether you followed the proper proceedure and permitting in building the tower in the first place. In most counties, you do not specifically have the right by default. They just didn't update their code to consider new
Re: [WISPA] He knows what we don't... ???
ClearWire managed to bridge the digital divide with Wimax in many places. So whats the big deal with what this guys doing other than the free investment advertisement? He's charging monthly for access, and you still need a CPE to use it. So did Towerstream. If someone gave me 2.5 million I'd bridge it here too. - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] He knows what we don't... ??? If you believe they mean true Wi-MAX then do you believe it's licensed Wi-MAX or licensed-lite Wi-MAX in 3650? Charles Wyble wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Here's a guy who is building a Muni WiMAX network all by himself. http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/08/09/3592867.htm Either: a) This gentleman believes he knows a whole lot more than WISPA members know (because very few WISPA members are single-handedly building Muni Wi-MAX networks), or b) The opposite is true, or c) Neither of the above. Another journalist is conflating Wi-Fi and WiMAX (again). No... I think they mean WiMAX. The quote: A few more base stations would have to be installed around the city to make all of Delray Beach wireless. to me implies WiMAX. Unless the city is quite small, I don't think a handful of (meshed) Access Points could cover it. I mean unless he is using 3.65Ghz perhaps? -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Cisco Press Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs NEXT ONLINE TRAINING AUGUST 18-19 2008 http://www.linktechs.net/askwi.asp FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger Phone 818-227-4220 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem
Where did you get the information about building a HAM tower for a $95 licensing fee? That information seems incorrect. Getting a HAM radio license requires passing the appropriate HAM radio licensing tests for the license class that you want. Tom DeReggi wrote: You may wanted to argue two points 1) That your company/broadcast site does not match the description of telecom facility as defined in the County Code. And that there is no provision listed in the county code that specifically states your business type and use, and that bundling you into the closest thing is not appropriate because the closest thing is far away from the profile of your company and infrastructure, and therefore appropriate to assume that you should be exempt from the County code requirements as written. 2) Second, argue that you are Grandfathered at that site from any future legislation, as you were installed prior to any new legislation or ammendments that may decide to make to attempt to charge you unfair amounts. You must get the county code, and read it like a hawk, and be clear on exactly what it states. Thinks like telecom facility you re specifically exempt from if you are not a telecom (LEC). Brand X case should have proved that an ISP is a broadband company. A wireless provider is usually portrayed as a broadband company. The key to your defense is in the definitions of terms used in the County code. Additional approached 1) Contact FCC for help. The Otard does not specifically protect the right to build towers, it falls under the jurisdiction of county code (unless a smaller governing intitiy liek an incorporated city).. But there are provisions at the federal level that prevent counties from putting overly stringent demands and delays on broadband/tower owners. There was a really well known and big case on this issue, that was won by the tower owner, after several years of legal trials. (guessing around 3 years ago). The FCC will help you, by putting pressure on the County to play fair. 2) Determine if you have public support for your services and tower, versus a tower that the public wants to seen torn down. If its likely you'd have public support, you can always go to the media. Stories like County plans to shut down local entreprenure, stop economic development, and deprive under served areas and consumers of broadband. Followed by ideas that you might move your business to another county that supports economic development. Etc Etc. Stating the County should be pitching contributing matching funds, instead of burdening you with fees and taxes. Maybe send the rough draft to your local legislators prior to sending it to the local newspaper. Important note In most cases, they do NOT have the right to prevent you from operating and broadcasting while legal trials or appeals are being faught and negotiated, provided you are not causing a significant safety concern. The burden of proof is on them, to get a ruling of why you need to take it down. They do have ways to make life hard for you, so if hard ball occurs, you'll probably need an attorney. For example, even if they just used the dispute to put a hold on your corporate status, that could prevent you from getting a loan until resolved. Another option is that if the site is important enough to you, and it becomes a large enoug problem, you may want to seperate it from your other core business. You could set up a seperate company that owns that tower, so any legislation regarding that tower does not effect your other business operations. Lastly, info is needed like whether you followed the proper proceedure and permitting in building the tower in the first place. In most counties, you do not specifically have the right by default. They just didn't update their code to consider new business types like WISPs. 3) You can always go the HAM radio tower route. Federal law allows you to build a HAM radio tower, for a license fee of about $95. The catch is that you are NOT allowed to use it for commercial purposes. You could say anything you are doing is free to the users you are connecting with (other HAMs). That would then add an additonal burden to the county to have to prove that you were actually serving paying customers from that site. An important factor here is... what makes the county more money? If you give service away, and aren't making any money, you don't pay income tax on the revenue that you useed to make. If they learn your tower isn't going anywhere do to the HAM license, and that your business model truly does not afford to pay tower telecom level permit fees, and they are only accomplsihing reducing your taxable income, they very well may give up, and give up on it, without a justifyable reason to pursue it further. Good luck with it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed
Re: [WISPA] info on securing a 3.65 license
Rogelio wrote: Charles et al, Below is a 14 MB file detailing some of the steps needed in order to secure a 3.65 GHz license. http://www.alvarion.com/upload/images/stepbystep_wp.pdf Yes that is a fantastic link and quite informative. I think my blog post still beats it on google though. :) -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] He knows what we don't... ???
Jack Unger wrote: If you believe they mean true Wi-MAX then do you believe it's licensed Wi-MAX or licensed-lite Wi-MAX in 3650? For 2.5 million I'm thinking licensed. -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U
I have and still do, in some cases, long, (100ft+), cable runs. LMR-400 is the minimum cable size for that on 2.4GHz. You will need an amp. At 5GHz, I would expect LMR-600 or better. However, at 5GHz, I think I would go with tower top radios. I doubt that you will get good results at 5GHz with that kind of cable run. RG8 cable is useless for anything we do as wisps. RickG wrote: I hate radios at the top of the tower so I'd like to run coax cables to an enclosure at the bottom and add amps to make up for the loss. I'm looking for a 9 mile link. The drop is 150 feet. At any rate, I found an old RG8/U cable. Will that work on 5GHz? I also have LMR400? If not, what would you recommend? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Press Release - Link Technologies and Ask-Wi.Com Announce Online Wireless Training
http://www.wispa.org/?p=265 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U
Hold on, I am heading out the door right now the the camera I'm gonna get some pics of another tower I setup that is all COAX and I think you'll be drooling when you see it. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U I have and still do, in some cases, long, (100ft+), cable runs. LMR-400 is the minimum cable size for that on 2.4GHz. You will need an amp. At 5GHz, I would expect LMR-600 or better. However, at 5GHz, I think I would go with tower top radios. I doubt that you will get good results at 5GHz with that kind of cable run. RG8 cable is useless for anything we do as wisps. RickG wrote: I hate radios at the top of the tower so I'd like to run coax cables to an enclosure at the bottom and add amps to make up for the loss. I'm looking for a 9 mile link. The drop is 150 feet. At any rate, I found an old RG8/U cable. Will that work on 5GHz? I also have LMR400? If not, what would you recommend? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation
Just wondering if there are others doing DSL along with their wireless? Would like a product recommendation and source. Thanks Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation
Yes. We use IAKNO wholesale DSL. They have been great. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Just wondering if there are others doing DSL along with their wireless? Would like a product recommendation and source. Thanks Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation
Well actually was referring to a DSL modem recommendation... Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Yes. We use IAKNO wholesale DSL. They have been great. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Just wondering if there are others doing DSL along with their wireless? Would like a product recommendation and source. Thanks Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation
Just modems or dslams? Randy Mark McElvy wrote: Well actually was referring to a DSL modem recommendation... Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Yes. We use IAKNO wholesale DSL. They have been great. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Just wondering if there are others doing DSL along with their wireless? Would like a product recommendation and source. Thanks Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc office: 435-773-6071 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
One way to do it is... You get the tower up via HAM rules, and don't provide commercial use. BUilt it just large enoug that it would hold only your antennas. Then after the fact There are some local code issues that often incourage someone to attempt to find a pre-existing structures to colocate on, prior to being authorized to build a new tower. Argue, for them to expand the permit for the pre-existing HAM tower, to one allowing limited commercial use for your antennas, in trade for not proposing and building ANOTHER ugly larger tower right next to it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Reasonable is more often than not going to be based on what a similiar tower would lease similiar space in a similiar area. And its always a good idea to involve an attorney any more. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the construction of the tower, namely permitting and engineering studies required are part of the Rent. Just like a building, I wouldn't rent it less than it costs to construct it. That doesn't make sense. At $1000/mo, it would take nearly 68 months to pay for costs. A 5-year lease is 60 months. I am not a lawyer, and I would definitely involve one if the situation arose. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem And you would be sued, and you would lose. Reasonable accommodations have to be made for collocation. If your competitor is required by the town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him from complying with the city statutes, he has firm legal footing to pursue you. A few quotes for comparable space at other locations and he has you. Of course, this is only where you are required to provide reasonable accommodations - if you build a tower where there are no such requirements tell the guy to pound sand. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the
Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation
End user DSL modem recommendation. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Cosby Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Just modems or dslams? Randy Mark McElvy wrote: Well actually was referring to a DSL modem recommendation... Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Yes. We use IAKNO wholesale DSL. They have been great. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Just wondering if there are others doing DSL along with their wireless? Would like a product recommendation and source. Thanks Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc office: 435-773-6071 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC geographic search
Chuck, What exactly are you having problems with? Any FCC ULS searches have been a crap shoot for me. Much of the time I find that for any queries to work well, you need to be as simple as possible. It seems that if you give it more complex conditions to filter down the results, it gets funky if it works at all. Hit me off list and I may be able to help do it outside their web site. I can download their databases and use the GIS tools which is sometimes easier. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:08 PM To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] FCC geographic search Anyone else having trouble using the FCC geographic search feature? I called tech support and they said there were known issues. But nothing further. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation
Mark McElvy wrote: End user DSL modem recommendation. Hmmm.. What are you using as your DSLAM? Generally you want to pair a similar brand. Can you tell us a bit more about your service and architecture? DSL is ridiculously complex. I have been researching it extensively and ATM alone is enough to make one swear off networking and use smoke signals. :) -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation
Well we are looking at wholesaling through Socket. We are mainly in Embarq territory. I there a better way to go? Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Wyble Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Mark McElvy wrote: End user DSL modem recommendation. Hmmm.. What are you using as your DSLAM? Generally you want to pair a similar brand. Can you tell us a bit more about your service and architecture? DSL is ridiculously complex. I have been researching it extensively and ATM alone is enough to make one swear off networking and use smoke signals. :) -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Also, read the actual code/charter that regulates the activity to find exemptions. Here in Prince George's county, MD, antennas that fall below a certain size and power output are considered minimal (forget the exact wording) and can be installed on an existing structure without going through the permit process. Theoretically this would allow one to construct a tower using the amateur radio protections, then load it up with antennas for WISP use once the tower is constructed and signed off. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Tom DeReggi wrote: One way to do it is... You get the tower up via HAM rules, and don't provide commercial use. BUilt it just large enoug that it would hold only your antennas. Then after the fact There are some local code issues that often incourage someone to attempt to find a pre-existing structures to colocate on, prior to being authorized to build a new tower. Argue, for them to expand the permit for the pre-existing HAM tower, to one allowing limited commercial use for your antennas, in trade for not proposing and building ANOTHER ugly larger tower right next to it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Reasonable is more often than not going to be based on what a similiar tower would lease similiar space in a similiar area. And its always a good idea to involve an attorney any more. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the construction of the tower, namely permitting and engineering studies required are part of the Rent. Just like a building, I wouldn't rent it less than it costs to construct it. That doesn't make sense. At $1000/mo, it would take nearly 68 months to pay for costs. A 5-year lease is 60 months. I am not a lawyer, and I would definitely involve one if the situation arose. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem And you would be sued, and you would lose. Reasonable accommodations have to be made for collocation. If your competitor is required by the town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him from complying with the city statutes, he has firm legal footing to pursue you. A few quotes for comparable space at other locations and he has you. Of course, this is only where you are required to provide reasonable accommodations - if you build a tower where there are no such requirements tell the guy to pound sand. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking
Re: [WISPA] FCC geographic search
Brian Webster wrote: Chuck, What exactly are you having problems with? Any FCC ULS searches have been a crap shoot for me. Much of the time I find that for any queries to work well, you need to be as simple as possible. It seems that if you give it more complex conditions to filter down the results, it gets funky if it works at all. Hit me off list and I may be able to help do it outside their web site. I can download their databases and use the GIS tools which is sometimes easier. Ah yes. The GIS data sets are awesome. I have been playing around with them. I'll probably be doing some blog posts on the subject soon. I'm thinking of taking LA County base parcel data, then overlaying it with the FCC Antenna Structure Registration data as well as various other FCC data bits, and throwing in economic/population density data and wigle.net data as well. I love getting the data my tax dollars are working so hard to obtain. :) -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC geographic search
http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=alerts#71 Seems like there is always some sort of technical difficulties there. I enjoy getting pdf reports from ULS that are generated with the following footer: ReportMill Evaluation. Call 214.513.1636 for license :) Brian Webster wrote: Chuck, What exactly are you having problems with? Any FCC ULS searches have been a crap shoot for me. Much of the time I find that for any queries to work well, you need to be as simple as possible. It seems that if you give it more complex conditions to filter down the results, it gets funky if it works at all. Hit me off list and I may be able to help do it outside their web site. I can download their databases and use the GIS tools which is sometimes easier. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:08 PM To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] FCC geographic search Anyone else having trouble using the FCC geographic search feature? I called tech support and they said there were known issues. But nothing further. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc office: 435-773-6071 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem
Where my advice applies depends on the motive for delaying the a Tower application. I agree one must fiirst identify what the local laws/ordinances are, and make sure that they comply with them, prior to building. Building in a way that is known to be against allowable rules, is a really bad idea. The reason I brought it up was... of three type cases 1) Some county officials have alternative motives. They don't care about the legality of it, and instead look to leverage you to make revenue for the town. In these cases the county will loose in court. 2) Some couty officials purposely use delay tactics, hoping the person wanting to build the tower will just go away. 3) Some county officials are clueless on the laws, and are fighting something that they do not have the right to fight for. I'd always recommend that the define proceedures for tower application, be explored first, and allow fair time periods to negotiate an agreeance. My point was not to be a renegade, but just that one doesn't have to let themselves be bullied by the county. I can give one example, where I requested about a town water tower colocation, and the fees were to high, that the township were asking of $3000/month for the small little town. So I wanted to build a tower. They then wanted to deny me the permit, to try and force me to pay the town a reoccurring fee. I could have fought them, and won. The path I chose, was not to fight it. I ended up just colocating down the street on a tower, after I managed to talk the private tower owner way down in price. They feared I would build a tower to compete against them, and they were much better off just charging me a lower rent to for my little operation. I also misread the original post. I thought the tower was already built without permits, and the county/permitting office was giving objections after the fact. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem Tom, Your suggestions are valid for an OTARD situation, but ill advised in this case. The burden of proof is not on the municipality, however compliance is expected. Failure to comply and operating a facility could likely result in fines being assessed daily. The first question is how are they defining a 'telecommunications facility'. Also, what exceptions are specifically allowed for under the ordinance. Certainly some early discussions and education can bear fruit, but if all else fails, they hold the cards, not the operator of the site. The FCC has stated they can not restrict towers being built, but they have capitulated on many aspects including local control as to placement, and visual impact. The municipality can require the facility to be constructed on pre-approved sites, often township property. Of course that's so the revenues stream comes to them and not the guy that owns the collision shop where they want to build the tower. The FCC no longer gets involved. They have pushed these cases into court time and time again. As long as there is SOME provision to build facilities, they are of the mind that the municipality is in compliance. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem You may wanted to argue two points 1) That your company/broadcast site does not match the description of telecom facility as defined in the County Code. And that there is no provision listed in the county code that specifically states your business type and use, and that bundling you into the closest thing is not appropriate because the closest thing is far away from the profile of your company and infrastructure, and therefore appropriate to assume that you should be exempt from the County code requirements as written. 2) Second, argue that you are Grandfathered at that site from any future legislation, as you were installed prior to any new legislation or ammendments that may decide to make to attempt to charge you unfair amounts. You must get the county code, and read it like a hawk, and be clear on exactly what it states. Thinks like telecom facility you re specifically exempt from if you are not a telecom (LEC). Brand X case should have proved that an ISP is a broadband company. A wireless provider is usually portrayed as a broadband company. The key to your defense is in the definitions of terms used in the County code. Additional approached 1) Contact FCC for help. The Otard does not specifically protect the right to build towers, it falls under the jurisdiction of county code (unless a smaller governing intitiy liek an
Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem
I was not clear. I was not talking about getting a HAM license. I was talking about the local permit fee, for the tower application. It is rediculously low, atleast in my county. (maybe it was as high as $300 max?) The HAM guys did a good job protecting their rights over the years. They are almost sacred. The person applying for the tower would already have to be a HAM operator and already have a HAM license. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem Where did you get the information about building a HAM tower for a $95 licensing fee? That information seems incorrect. Getting a HAM radio license requires passing the appropriate HAM radio licensing tests for the license class that you want. Tom DeReggi wrote: You may wanted to argue two points 1) That your company/broadcast site does not match the description of telecom facility as defined in the County Code. And that there is no provision listed in the county code that specifically states your business type and use, and that bundling you into the closest thing is not appropriate because the closest thing is far away from the profile of your company and infrastructure, and therefore appropriate to assume that you should be exempt from the County code requirements as written. 2) Second, argue that you are Grandfathered at that site from any future legislation, as you were installed prior to any new legislation or ammendments that may decide to make to attempt to charge you unfair amounts. You must get the county code, and read it like a hawk, and be clear on exactly what it states. Thinks like telecom facility you re specifically exempt from if you are not a telecom (LEC). Brand X case should have proved that an ISP is a broadband company. A wireless provider is usually portrayed as a broadband company. The key to your defense is in the definitions of terms used in the County code. Additional approached 1) Contact FCC for help. The Otard does not specifically protect the right to build towers, it falls under the jurisdiction of county code (unless a smaller governing intitiy liek an incorporated city).. But there are provisions at the federal level that prevent counties from putting overly stringent demands and delays on broadband/tower owners. There was a really well known and big case on this issue, that was won by the tower owner, after several years of legal trials. (guessing around 3 years ago). The FCC will help you, by putting pressure on the County to play fair. 2) Determine if you have public support for your services and tower, versus a tower that the public wants to seen torn down. If its likely you'd have public support, you can always go to the media. Stories like County plans to shut down local entreprenure, stop economic development, and deprive under served areas and consumers of broadband. Followed by ideas that you might move your business to another county that supports economic development. Etc Etc. Stating the County should be pitching contributing matching funds, instead of burdening you with fees and taxes. Maybe send the rough draft to your local legislators prior to sending it to the local newspaper. Important note In most cases, they do NOT have the right to prevent you from operating and broadcasting while legal trials or appeals are being faught and negotiated, provided you are not causing a significant safety concern. The burden of proof is on them, to get a ruling of why you need to take it down. They do have ways to make life hard for you, so if hard ball occurs, you'll probably need an attorney. For example, even if they just used the dispute to put a hold on your corporate status, that could prevent you from getting a loan until resolved. Another option is that if the site is important enough to you, and it becomes a large enoug problem, you may want to seperate it from your other core business. You could set up a seperate company that owns that tower, so any legislation regarding that tower does not effect your other business operations. Lastly, info is needed like whether you followed the proper proceedure and permitting in building the tower in the first place. In most counties, you do not specifically have the right by default. They just didn't update their code to consider new business types like WISPs. 3) You can always go the HAM radio tower route. Federal law allows you to build a HAM radio tower, for a license fee of about $95. The catch is that you are NOT allowed to use it for commercial purposes. You could say anything you are doing is free to the users you are connecting with (other HAMs). That would then add an additonal burden to
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Thats interesting. It might be worth seeing if Montgomery County, followed suit, and did something similar? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Also, read the actual code/charter that regulates the activity to find exemptions. Here in Prince George's county, MD, antennas that fall below a certain size and power output are considered minimal (forget the exact wording) and can be installed on an existing structure without going through the permit process. Theoretically this would allow one to construct a tower using the amateur radio protections, then load it up with antennas for WISP use once the tower is constructed and signed off. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Tom DeReggi wrote: One way to do it is... You get the tower up via HAM rules, and don't provide commercial use. BUilt it just large enoug that it would hold only your antennas. Then after the fact There are some local code issues that often incourage someone to attempt to find a pre-existing structures to colocate on, prior to being authorized to build a new tower. Argue, for them to expand the permit for the pre-existing HAM tower, to one allowing limited commercial use for your antennas, in trade for not proposing and building ANOTHER ugly larger tower right next to it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Reasonable is more often than not going to be based on what a similiar tower would lease similiar space in a similiar area. And its always a good idea to involve an attorney any more. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the construction of the tower, namely permitting and engineering studies required are part of the Rent. Just like a building, I wouldn't rent it less than it costs to construct it. That doesn't make sense. At $1000/mo, it would take nearly 68 months to pay for costs. A 5-year lease is 60 months. I am not a lawyer, and I would definitely involve one if the situation arose. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem And you would be sued, and you would lose. Reasonable accommodations have to be made for collocation. If your competitor is required by the town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him from complying with the city statutes, he has firm legal footing to pursue you. A few quotes for comparable space at other locations and he has you. Of course, this is only where you are required to provide reasonable accommodations - if you build a tower where there are no such requirements tell the guy to pound sand. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Remember that one of the ham radio provisions is that you need to be a ham... :) Patrick Shoemaker wrote: Also, read the actual code/charter that regulates the activity to find exemptions. Here in Prince George's county, MD, antennas that fall below a certain size and power output are considered minimal (forget the exact wording) and can be installed on an existing structure without going through the permit process. Theoretically this would allow one to construct a tower using the amateur radio protections, then load it up with antennas for WISP use once the tower is constructed and signed off. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Tom DeReggi wrote: One way to do it is... You get the tower up via HAM rules, and don't provide commercial use. BUilt it just large enoug that it would hold only your antennas. Then after the fact There are some local code issues that often incourage someone to attempt to find a pre-existing structures to colocate on, prior to being authorized to build a new tower. Argue, for them to expand the permit for the pre-existing HAM tower, to one allowing limited commercial use for your antennas, in trade for not proposing and building ANOTHER ugly larger tower right next to it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband * NOTE TO OUR ESTEEMED READERS: For your greater reading pleasure and to relieve the load on your computer, 569 pages of previously-offered wordly wisdom has been removed from this message * - Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Cisco Press Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs NEXT ONLINE TRAINING AUGUST 18-19 2008 http://www.linktechs.net/askwi.asp FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger Phone 818-227-4220 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation
We have been using the dlink --- airCloud Communications Jerry Richardson 925-260-4119 Sent Mobile -Original Message- From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:20 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Well actually was referring to a DSL modem recommendation... Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Yes. We use IAKNO wholesale DSL. They have been great. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Just wondering if there are others doing DSL along with their wireless? Would like a product recommendation and source. Thanks Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation
We've had really good luck with these guys, used them for years here in Qwest territory: http://www.dtnettech.com/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=1877 and http://www.dtnettech.com/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=1876 Tell them InfoWest sent you. Jerry Richardson wrote: We have been using the dlink --- airCloud Communications Jerry Richardson 925-260-4119 Sent Mobile -Original Message- From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:20 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Well actually was referring to a DSL modem recommendation... Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Yes. We use IAKNO wholesale DSL. They have been great. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT - DSL Modem recomendation Just wondering if there are others doing DSL along with their wireless? Would like a product recommendation and source. Thanks Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc office: 435-773-6071 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:21:13AM -0400, Matt Liotta wrote: On Aug 12, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: GSRs are overkill for what you are doing. In the Cisco world, a couple of mid-range VXRs would be a better solution. Or you could use a couple of ImageStream Rebel or Gateway routers for a fraction of the price. Either way, I'd use two routers in a redundant configuration with BGP and VRRP/HSRP for link and hardware failover. I don't think it is possible to buy VXRs with the right engine to handle full tables that are cheaper than GSRs. What if you figure in the cost of a year or three of trying to feed the GSRs enough amps to keep them passing packets and enough amps to the air conditioner to keep them from melting? There have to be reasons that at least one NYC ISP was trying, and having some difficulty as I heard it, to give the GSRs away. Note: I do not know the current draw of a GSR vs the current draw of a VXR. But I have seen the power supplies. -- Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
We installed a GSR with two processor cards and a single OC3 card. The load on our UPS went up by 1% (APC 12kva). The heat generated by that is nothing compared to the three Akamai caching servers (2u HP's with 8 SCSI drives each and dual power supplies). Travis Microserv Scott Lambert wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:21:13AM -0400, Matt Liotta wrote: On Aug 12, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: GSRs are overkill for what you are doing. In the Cisco world, a couple of mid-range VXRs would be a better solution. Or you could use a couple of ImageStream Rebel or Gateway routers for a fraction of the price. Either way, I'd use two routers in a redundant configuration with BGP and VRRP/HSRP for link and hardware failover. I don't think it is possible to buy VXRs with the right engine to handle full tables that are cheaper than GSRs. What if you figure in the cost of a year or three of trying to feed the GSRs enough amps to keep them passing packets and enough amps to the air conditioner to keep them from melting? There have to be reasons that at least one NYC ISP was trying, and having some difficulty as I heard it, to give the GSRs away. Note: I do not know the current draw of a GSR vs the current draw of a VXR. But I have seen the power supplies. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] another tower site install (WAS coax cables)
Just got some pictures uploaded of another one of my AP sites if you want to check it out. This site is completely all COAX with no radio's at top! 150 foot tower that is all LMR-900. Check it out and I'll answer any questions. Just trying to help you guys out. I did this one all coax cause lightning was a PITA here. LMR-900 was $3.60/foot and there is 5 runs but I think it's worth it. http://www.wavelinc.com/towers/BTT_Tower/ Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:58 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U Hold on, I am heading out the door right now the the camera I'm gonna get some pics of another tower I setup that is all COAX and I think you'll be drooling when you see it. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] coax cables - RG8/U I have and still do, in some cases, long, (100ft+), cable runs. LMR-400 is the minimum cable size for that on 2.4GHz. You will need an amp. At 5GHz, I would expect LMR-600 or better. However, at 5GHz, I think I would go with tower top radios. I doubt that you will get good results at 5GHz with that kind of cable run. RG8 cable is useless for anything we do as wisps. RickG wrote: I hate radios at the top of the tower so I'd like to run coax cables to an enclosure at the bottom and add amps to make up for the loss. I'm looking for a 9 mile link. The drop is 150 feet. At any rate, I found an old RG8/U cable. Will that work on 5GHz? I also have LMR400? If not, what would you recommend? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers
On Aug 12, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Scott Lambert wrote: What if you figure in the cost of a year or three of trying to feed the GSRs enough amps to keep them passing packets and enough amps to the air conditioner to keep them from melting? For us it is irrelevant. We would need a VXR with a NPE-G2, which already costs more than a GSR and is limited to 3 ports. Granted you can expand the VXR with additional ports, but those are expensive and have limited throughput. There have to be reasons that at least one NYC ISP was trying, and having some difficulty as I heard it, to give the GSRs away. Most give them away because they don't scale well beyond 2.5Gbps. I know that is why we moved away. Note: I do not know the current draw of a GSR vs the current draw of a VXR. But I have seen the power supplies. Depends on the line cards, but Ethernet cards use very little. I haven't had one use more than 15amps of DC. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
