Thanks for the clarifications. That all makes sense to me.
I can say that in some cases (not in your obviously) a muni-deployment
can still be a network you own and operate. I have spoken to people in
my town and in others who want a wireless network but do not want to own
it, operate it, or compete with the local providers in any way. They all
say they are willing to help when I talk to them. I guess my vision of
muni is just different than many other people's idea. If "you" build it,
own it and operate it then how is that a bad thing?
I know your particular Atlanta muni-network is a problem as they wish to
compete with you. I am not seeing that in my town though. I see a town
who likes to have my services available to them for better
communications and cost savings.
I am just drawing attention to the fact that muni-wireless does not
always have to be a bad thing for a WISP and in fact can be a good
opportunity if they become part of the effort early on and stave off the
competitive approach many communities have opted to take..
Scriv
Matt Liotta wrote:
John Scrivner wrote:
I have not been contacted and really have never heard what you are
talking about. Can you tell us more about what you are seeing and who
is reporting this?
There doesn't seem to be anybody going on record yet, but there have
been negative reports coming out of Anaheim, Philadelphia, San Diego,
New Orleans, and Mountain View that I have personally heard from
people working on the project.
I can agree with the "most suited" statement. I have no idea why a
WISP would turn down a chance to be part of a muni project. In my
home town the only muni project is my company's effort and we work
well with the city government. Turning away from that chance is
turning down free access to money, tower space and opportunity.
Acting as a consultant for another operator doesn't give you free
access to money or tower space. It gives the other opportunity your
expertise in exchange for money. Why help a competitor kill your
business? For example, Earthlink has gone on record stating that plan
to use their "distribution" network (Canopy) to sell T1 replacement
services. That is in direct competition to any existing fixed wireless
network from both a business as well as spectrum standpoint.
I do not know what the Atlanta RFP is. Who is involved? What is this
opportunity? Who is ignoring you? I am sure others want to learn more
about this too.
The Atlanta RFP is for muni wireless. Many major companies from AT&T
to Sprint and IBM to HP along with Earthlink are expecting to somehow
be involved and/or bid. Without stating directly to who we are or are
not talking to, I can say that we see this as a possible threat to our
business. We certainly don't want to see another operator placing
hundreds of Canopy and Tropos units throughout our market and selling
competitive services to what we offer.
Personally, I see the recruitment efforts as acknowledgment that
running a large wireless network isn't as simple as the radio vendors
make it out to be. Further, I don't see how Earthlink becoming a
successful wireless network operator is a good thing for any of us.
Unless of course one of our respective companies is actually operating
part or all of the network.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
