Tom, I don't think asking to be exclusive on light poles is a bad thing. It's usually done in exchange for public safety or public workers riding the network for free. Like I said in a previous post, I just can't see multiple vendors stacking wifi mesh solutions on every other light pole. Who will invest if that's the case? Again, I'm still on the fence with these Muni wified mesh networks and their viability. Time will tell. How many of you have exclusive rooftop or tower rights? The same can be said about light poles when Earthlink or another service provider is deploying and sometimes paying to be there. Brad
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal They have been exclusive. But that is part of the problem. Some how some people conclude that an open wholesale network gets around the legallity and intent the FCC has for unlicensed spectrum. But I also feel it is anti-American and border line illegal for City agreements to be exclusive. In Montgomery County MD, the City promised free access to all County Governement structures, to third party providers, in exchange for restrictions of new tower building. Changing it to exclusive after teh fact would be deceptive and in contrast to previous law. They would need to remove the ban on tower building and reduce the $17,000 Special Exception fee, if they changed directions and attempted exclusivity. There are FCC laws that protect unlicensed spectrum for public use, and protect entities from breaking competition and exclsuively supporting one ISP over another ISP. In the public sector MTU world, property owners are not supposed to give one ISP preferencial terms over another preventing consumers access to telecommunications. EXCLUSIVITY is a dirty word for any colocation agreement. For Governments to ignore their own rulings, and lead the way to give "exclusivity" is just wrong. Instead they should be allocating spectrum for city's use, for their exclusive projects. The Bells complained about governments helping fund third parties giving them an upper hand above the monopoly telecoms that have invested in the existing networks. Giving exclusivity is even worse. Its not giving an advantage (financially) its preventing the others from playing at all! People forget that City assets, ultimately belong to the people who pay the taxes. Its not the same thing as Private property owners of MTU buildings who should ahve fewer restrictions than public property. We need to remember we are not a dictatorship governement. I am NOT agaisnt Muni networks anymore. But I am definately against exclusivity. If teh city want to give an easement and public marketing support in exchange for investment from a third party, so be it. But they do not have the ethical right to deny those asements from additional third parties who are willing to invest. These proposals of exclusivity are being initiated because they are administered from clueless polititions who have zero experience in FCC and the Internet world. It is my opinion that the WORST thing for ISPs, Vendors, Cities, and Consumers is to give "exclusivity." It undoes everything that every telecommunications act has ever attempted to do. There is absolutely no downside to keeping unlicensed open, and public easements open to as many competitors as possible. Interference, can be controlled so many ways other than via exclusiveity, and exclusivity won;t solve the problem anyway, as the City does not own the air and all the public property. All exclusivity does is prevents putting togeather the shared benefits of public and private assets, which public assets are jsut not owned by a single intity. "exclusivity" should be the number one topic that WISPs are fighting against. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:27 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal Most of the Muni contracts I have worked on so far are exclusive. An RFP would have been a better way to resolve the issue. Just letting anyone use city property is a sure way for failure. I'm not so sure letting wisp's "deploy at will" for Muni wifi is such a great idea. Brad -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Council rejects wireless proposal I'm glad they recognized there would be a problem giving one person an exclusive contract to serve the entire city, via city property. I'm especially glad they got down to the technical details of unlicensed frequency, in a public way. Of course it helps when there is a councilman who understands the issues. As it stands now, there does not need to be exclusive contracts, just let the wisps deploy at will. Dawn DiPietro wrote: > Council rejects wireless proposal > > By Adrian Sanchez/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > COLUMBUS - The City Council rejected Frontier Communications' proposal > to deploy a wireless broadband network in Columbus in a 5-3 Monday night > vote. > > Councilmen Joe Jarecke, Ron Bogus and Jim Bulkley voted in favor of the > proposal after extensive discussion. Frontier representatives exited the > council chambers immediately following the council vote. > > Kerry Haley, vice president and general manager of the Frontier wireless > division, declined to comment on the council's decision, but did > summarize her reaction in one word: "Disappointed." > > Linda Aerni, president of Community Internet and Wire Free Nebraska > Inc., and Paul Schumacher, a business partner of Aerni, celebrated the > decision. > > Aerni said the council did a good job of processing a lot of > technological information and made the right decision for the city. > > "The council voted the right way, not holding the city to a 10-year > obligation," she said. "Technology has changed so much, even in the last > month." > > When asked if Community Internet is considering deploying a network on > its own, Aerni said "of course." > > "Community Internet has already deployed wireless Internet outside > Columbus," she said. > > Schumacher said there was no need to rush into any agreement, and if and > when Community Internet does decide to implement a network, "the city > wouldn't be in the middle of it." > > A report by Robert Tupper, chief telecommunications engineer for RVW > Inc., and Donn C. Swedenburg, telecommunications specialist for RVW, may > have influenced the council's decision. > > The proposed contract stipulated no other devices that may degrade > Frontier's network "as determined by Frontier" could be attached to city > property. > > The report stated "the characteristics of unlicensed operation present > many challenges." According to Federal Communication Commission > regulations, devices for operation of an unlicensed band, such as > Frontier proposed, "must accept any interference received, including > interference that may cause undesired operation." > > Tupper said deployment of two wireless, broadband, mesh networks was > possible but may not be feasible. > > "Co-existing within the 2.4 gHz spectrum is the toughest coordination," > he said. "I am not going to say it can be done. I am not going to say it > can't be done." > > Whether it can or can't, it would "be difficult to have two widely > deployed mesh networks ... from an economics standpoint," Tupper said. > > Councilman Chuck Whitney objected to Frontier's sole discretion to > determine interference and network pricing differences between Frontier > and non-Frontier customers. > > "If I am a Frontier customer I pay $9.99 a month and a customer of > Community Internet/Megavision would pay $9.99 per day," Whitney said. > "There can be no discrimination in pricing." > > Mayor Mike Moser said the council made the right decision regarding the > Frontier proposal. > > "I think the council came up with right decision. There were a lot of > unknowns, and before entering into a contract, all the blanks should be > filled in," Moser said. "I didn't feel the city was getting enough out > of it to make it work. > > "If somebody else comes up with plan they can bring it to city the to > look at it, but it is not something we are actively looking for at this > moment. The ultimate result was where it should be gone." -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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 footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). ************************************************************************ ************ ************************************************************************ ************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). ************************************************************************ ************ ************************************************************************ ************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************ ************ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ ************************************************************************ ************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). ************************************************************************ ************ ************************************************************************ ************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). ************************************************************************ ************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
