Dennis,
Thanks for taking the time to talk to the local government officials.
I can understand them paying 60 grand to see if it's feasible. I'm sorry
that they don't believe that a local WISP could do it. In an ideal
world, there would be a local WISP who is open-minded enough and
business-creative enough to step up and do it. Having a good business
model would, of course, be a necessity. On the other hand, it will be a
LARGE project and it's possible that a local WISP, no matter how
business-savvy, may not have the financial resources to take this on.
jack
Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote:
I actually talked to the guys that are involved with this.
Several things now, is that they want to know if it is feasible, that is the
60 grand. Second, they want someone to do it, but mostly it is going to be
some big company, and they don't think that they can get a local company to
do it.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Delp
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:12 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV
whitespaces
Jack, you are correct, St. Louis County is a different entity and does not
have jurisdiction in St. Louis City. County is a large government with a
lot of cities/towns in its area, and St. Louis City is not part of that. I
am not sure of the specifics of the proposal being referred to but I have a
lot of good links to follow up on.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV
whitespaces
The guys in the St. Louis area can correct me if I'm wrong but if my
memory is correct, St. Louis County does not include the City of St.
Louis (yeah, I know it sounds funny). As I recall, the two governments
are distinctly different. This proposal may apply only to the area in
the County outside of the City boundaries and not the City itself. Can
anyone local to the area clarify?
Thanks,
jack
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet
By Clay Barbour
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
01/29/2007
WiFi users
CLAYTON - Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge
in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan
that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region.
The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's
economic development council, is working with a communications
engineering firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it
would cost - to offer Wi-Fi access across the county.
Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties
about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service
regionally.
Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to
connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis
area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi
network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in
downtown St. Louis.
But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an
increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland,
Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and
New York are considering it.
"It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and
more important in this high-tech age," said David Leezer, collaborative
vice president. "Just think of the versatility of something like this.
It could really set this area apart."
The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the
firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after
determining what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process
to Internet providers to see who could best do the job.
Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field,
providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local
providers such as Charter Communications and AT&T also could compete for
the job.
Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the
first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example,
Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone
stretches about 524 square miles.
Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest
Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both
like the idea of regional Wi-Fi.
"We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this,"
said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. "Approaching it
on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things."
Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he
is still looking into the issue and trying to gauge its importance to
Madison and St. Clair counties.
"I think it's exciting, though," he said. "I see the long-term benefit,
but we still need to explore it."
Leezer said he has not officially met with anyone from the city of St.
Louis or Franklin and Jefferson counties yet.
"We are going to walk, before we run," he said. "We want to do this. If
someone else wants to join us, they will be welcomed."
The city of St. Louis has been working for some months to set up a
citywide network.
Ahead of the curve
The chance to be on the cutting edge of technology is something that
appeals to St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley, who is pushing
the proposal.
"If you want to attract businesses, you need the right kind of
infrastructure," Dooley said. "This is the infrastructure of the future.
We are going to need it one day, so why not be ahead of the curve."
The St. Louis area suffered the country's second-worst number of job
losses for the year that ended in November, about 3,300 jobs. While some
experts have challenged those numbers, many still worry about the
region's perceived struggle to attract, and keep, businesses.
The county is considering a wireless system that would offer residents
and businesses a tiered level of service. Customers could get a low-end
service for a small fee and a faster, more expensive, service for a
higher price. Dooley said he would like to have it in place within the
next three years.
Installation of such a system can be pricey. Typically the hardware
costs about $50,000 a square mile in low-density areas and $150,000 a
square mile for urban areas.
Leezer said it's too early to say how much any system would cost the
county. But he did say that it would likely be a public-private
partnership in which the vendor would incur most, if not all, costs.
"We are not looking at having taxpayers fund this," he said.
Philadelphia used a similar system for its Wi-Fi. EarthLink paid the
city for the right to build and maintain a citywide system, which
included installing transmittal devices on about 4,000 of the city's
street lamp pole arms and providing residents and visitors with 22 area
hot spots.
EarthLink charges and collects the user fees, which run from about $9.95
a month to $20 a month.
The program met with some resistance from Comcast, the city's main cable
and Internet provider. This has been the trend in most cities
considering the service. While such a system does not replace the
existing providers, it often offers the same service for less.
"It sounds like a great idea to me, if it can be pulled off," said
University City Mayor Joe Adams. "Anything to help our citizens connect,
especially those who might not ordinarily be able to afford it."
Several cities in St. Louis County, including University City, Crestwood
and Maplewood, were considering setting up their own Wi-Fi system.
Dooley said their interest in the new technology sparked the larger idea.
"We set up the economic collaborative to help everyone in the county
work toward common goals," he said. "This idea makes sense for everyone."
Dooley said he would like to see the proposal spread to all counties in
the St. Louis area. Such a move would mitigate the cost of the project
by spreading it out and strengthen the entire region's appeal when it
comes to attracting new people and businesses.
"Really, when it comes to something like this, it helps us all, if we
all get on board," he said
Link below;
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/AB
4ECCB73F716FFD86257272000E7875?OpenDocument
Tom DeReggi wrote:
I didn't say free, I said Not $90,000.
What should it cost to do a feasibilty study for a city?
Why does every city need to start from Ground Zero?
I'd rather $10,000-$20,000 go into a study with a competent engineer
like you, and the other $$70-80,000 go into actually paying an
integrator to build the network.
Or better yet, keep the government out of it, and let the Local WISP
that already knows the environment and how to do it, be on the top of
the list to get the job.
My understanding is that Downtown St Louis aint that big (But haven't
been there), whats there to study?
Here's a MESH budget for you....
$10,000 to get an OEM StarOS system FCC certified.
$10,000 for a "study"
(Maybe use OSLR for the MESH).
$30,000 for 60 AP repeaters ($500 each w/ antennas, mounts, and CM9s).
(Remember the CM9s support 2.4G-6G on the fly, so the integrator would
have the flexibilty to adjust as they identified the obstacles that
needed consideration)
$40,000 to install and troubleshoot (5 hours per Access Point @ $100
per hour, plus an extra $10,000 for the final over view and
documenting of what was found)
If the network didn't work, you'd know exactly why, and you'd have
only spent the $90,000 to get equivellent data as the Feasibilty study.
If the network did work, you'd be done.
If the network partially worked, you'd be half way there, and would
have a clear picture on whta moneys was needed to finish the job.
I could replicate this model using Alvarion, with their new low cost
Comnet program, in a PtP platform. (Although would be less flexible on
which spectrum appropriate, so maybe would need an exchange program
from a distributor if channels needed varying). And maybe the end
project would cost a tad bit more, if more super cells were needed
than expected intially.
The point is, to many people spend time trying to predict, rather than
just going and finsing out what the situation really is. No better way
to know for sure, than to put up gear and listen.
Now what about support.... Local WISP, already has paid executives and
local isntallers. Local WISP already has support department. Sure
local WISP will want grant to help increase his staff size to handle
demand, but thats an understandable cost, and a shared cost. The
biggest costs are the learning curve and the management costs, but
none of that would need to be paid, as the WISP already has that
knowledge and experience, and peices in place, so the local
governement would only be paying for just the new working staff (The
hands on the end of the arms).
Sure, I understand, my approach is not realistic based on the
Politicaly correct proceedures a governement needs to follow in an
award/bid situation using others(taxpayers) money. Sure you could
argue that those that do not plan in advance pay for it later. But its
likely a local WISP already did the bulk of the planning years ago.
I'm just saying that its IRONIC that a network can be built for near
the price of a feasibilty study, if the politics was not involved. The
truth is, Muni Wireless is expensive to launch, because they generally
duplicate the effort that is already available locally, select an out
of state provider not familiar with the local land, and they have
unknowlegeable people needing to make decission on how to use
knowledgeable industry bidders.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV
whitespaces
Tom,
I'm just wondering who should perform the necessary feasibility study
for free?
jack
Tom DeReggi wrote:
I wouldn't bypass the feasibility study, just the $90,000 to perform
it.
The feasibility study may also be to see who is already there and
what impact it would have on existing providers.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:11 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV
whitespaces
Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts.
I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was
talking
about "consultants" etc. You are correct in that many people who are
consultants don't know the real world implications. Us WISPs have
first
hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands,
hardware, etc
is capable of.
A recent "study" was commissioned in St. Louis. This was a
feasibility study
that netted some "consultant" over $90,000 bucks from the way I
read it.
What was this for? To see if the city of St. Louis can put in a
wireless
network covering downtown. Hmmmm. My first thought on this was....
"So the consultant needs to conduct a study on IF you can do this?"
Does
he not know what he is doing? I can tell you I can do it, might
take me a
bit to do the necessary research, but hell for that price, I will
do the
research, finding bandwidth, contracts, and power/data agreements.
This is the kind of thing that us, using license exempt bands nee
to fight.
We need to make it public, that this is a misuse of taxpayer's
dollars. We
need to ensure that this is shown to cut out the small business, in
favor of
large, non-local companies doing the work.
A few other things that would help us WISPs out, someone in the FCC
ready to
listen to our findings of non-complaint gear/overpowered radios,
someone
that can actually say, you get me these things, the proof to say,
and then
we will do something with it. Don't happen very often. If someone
calls
the FCC, how many times have you heard anything back on them? I
have heard
interference stories, even from cell companies, (recent on the lists).
The story about the IT Person telling the WISP to use 4.9, is a prime
example of something that the FCC should be ON THE BALL about. And
also
some clarification on band usages, power limits, etc, where several
questions and things are open to "interpretation", not closed down
enough to
be "solid" in court or anywhere.
Just a few thoughts.
Dennis
<earlier discussions pruned>
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
