You do have a point on the 5.4 Marlon, although it was otherwise
unsellable spectrum. The power restrictions along with DFS requirements
limited it to something I doubt many would be willing to pay for. Not
saying we can't use it though. I'm eagerly awaiting affordable gear
since it fits my model quite well. Most of my customers are within 3
miles of my towers.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
Uh Sam, you do remember the 5.4 gig band right?
255 mhz of NEW spectrum, made available last year.
There's also 24ghz and 60ghz available. We just need people building
the new toys at price points that will work for us.
Know what I want? A 15 or 20 meg $1500 to $2000 60 gig solution good
for a mile or two.
marlon
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
My opinion then, is that the FCC can get off their duffs and provide
internet to the hinterlands themselves.
There is more to CALEA than having a $500 unix box, and sharing a
$7000 turnkey box is not an option unless you are sharing it within a
tight geographical area since response times on execution of certain
parts of CALEA is shorter than an overnight shipment.
As for getting more spectrum, quite honestly I will believe it when I
see it. The FCC is far more interested in the cash that spectrum
sales bring in than it is interested in providing the best use of the
spectrum for the American public.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
cw wrote:
My opinion is that you're not helping the big picture by saying
compliance is more than you can handle. The FCC is not going to go
out of their way to hand out more spectrum to providers that can't
perform basic requirements. Just like they're not going to help
providers that refuse to file 475 forms. You can build a unix box
for five hundred dollars that will do the job for you. Or you can
buy a turnkey box with support for seven thousand. I've seen it
suggested people pool their funds and share a $7000 turnkey box. If
you can't do any of these things, then you can't provide required
services. I don't like or trust government but I don't think they're
out of line requiring providers be CALEA compliant. This one ain't
special interests motivated. - cw
Jack Unger wrote:
Dear Representative Stupak,
I'm writing to support your request on March 14, 2007 asking that
the FCC Commissioners consider a waiver from CALEA regulations for
small broadband providers.
In a nutshell, the costs of complying with the CALEA provisions are
far in excess of what small broadband providers can afford to pay.
It is poor government policy to allow the costs of CALEA compliance
to literally put small broadband providers out of business thereby
denying broadband Internet access to many rural Americans.
Do you plan to introduce legislation that directs the FCC to
reconsider their regulations and to consider the compliance costs
when regulating small Internet access providers?
Please advise me how I can further support your effort to retain
broadband Internet access service for rural Americans.
Thank you for your time, interest, and efforts.
Sincerely,
Jack Unger
P.S. - I am copying this email to the general email list maintained
by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA.org)
to help as many small ISPs as possible learn about and support your
efforts in their behalf. I will forward your response to this list.
--
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/