Brad said... "Again, in the end the property owner will prevail as they should. It is after all their property and they should have final say what happens to their property. If their decisions are poor and result in lost lease revenue than they'll be gone soon enough and maybe the new owner will see the benefit to allowing the right additional providers into the property. The market always works these issues out themselves."
No it does not. It should work it self out, but it doesn't. Because people in control of multi-million if not billion dollar property understand prooperty not broadband, and they greedilly milk every dollar they can, because it is what their core business trains them to do. The property owners have little to loose to experiement with the broadband market and push the limits even if result to failure. Broadband is not relevent enough to their bottom line to matter. The truth is at the end of the day when a tenant has a choice to incur a $100,000 expense to move offices, or an exta $100 to change broadband providers to accommodate the landlord, the tenant always gives in. The prospective broadband providers are the ones that loose in the end. Industry Progress is delayed. The comment that after all its there property is not a fully accurate statement. The real owner is the state. They prove that everytime they send the property tax bill, and prove that they can seize your property within weeks, if you fail to pay that property tax bill. Ultimately, the state indirectly holds title to your land and used space within their state. It is the state that prevents the building of new towers, and states the acceptable use of areas within that state. Which includes access to reach the space above tenant buildings. A teannt building is consuming valuable space that is required to reach the area above buildings. When the building is there, a tower can't be built. Therefore it should be fully within the state's power to ask to easement on that structure that is preventing access to the air space. Just like a state can demand right of ways for their roads and utilities, those same provisions should be extended to gain access to teh space above buildings. The world is three dimenional, why should there only be provisions to reach areas horizontally. Verticle can't be left behind. or we waste space in a 3 deminsion world. Why is it OK to go verticle down into the earth, but not verticely up? I am fully for making ISPs responsible for "real" costs associated with wear and tear on space they gain easements for. But restricting access is wrong. What people forget is that when someone buys land they have not bought the right to a specific height into the sky. Do builders have the right to build a building that blocks my LOS or Blocks my beautiful view? The answer is no, building codes can restrict how high buildings are allowed to be built. And if someone builts one high blocking my vioew and blocking my airway LOS, it is there obligation to help me get around the evil obstruction that they put in front of me, by giving me access to their roof. to accomplish it.. Now, whether I ahve the right to come intop their house, to serve inside their building, well thats a different arguement. That is combated by saying tenants are entitled to basic utilities. And I think broadband should have equal rights to electric, water, and phone. What makes the electric any more important than broadband? A builder is REQUIRED to install electric in commercial buildings just like they are required to install sprinklers for fire safety. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Belton" <b...@belwave.com> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits > Your argument makes the assumption there are no other options for a tenant > other than the property in question. > > This is really no different than restaurants that allow smoking vs. > restaurants that don't allow smoking. If you want to smoke you will dine > at > restaurants that allow smoking and the ones that forbid smoking won't get > your business. This works for the non-smokers too. Personally I'm a > non-smoker and dine at either smoking or non-smoking restaurants, but we > all > know people that are adamant on both sides of the issue. > > Regarding your tenant lease renewal example, doubt the property owner will > make publicly known (regardless as to the reason) why he chooses not to > renew a tenant's lease. Is there a law I'm unaware of that forces a > landlord to give reason for not renewing a lease? Eviction, sure, but not > for renewals. Have you ever read a lease agreement closely? They are > always heavily weighted towards the landlord vs. the tenant as they should > be. Again, there is nothing forcing a tenant to lease there as they can > always lease elsewhere. > > There are many limitations that can prevent the number of providers in one > property. Riser space or roof space may be limited among many other > limitations. Roof or other building warranties may be voided if the new > provider is negligent or even if they aren't negligent. Insurance > requirements will need to meet the property owner's requirements. The > property owner can essentially make it cost prohibitive for you to enter > the > property if they choose to do so. > > Again, in the end the property owner will prevail as they should. It is > after all their property and they should have final say what happens to > their property. If their decisions are poor and result in lost lease > revenue than they'll be gone soon enough and maybe the new owner will see > the benefit to allowing the right additional providers into the property. > > The market always works these issues out themselves. > > If you are truly offering a better product that is desirable then all of > this is a moot point. The problem is today (due to our current government > nanny state) any Joe Shmo can call themselves a Telco Provider. Savvy > property owners should, can and will keep those out that they don't see as > a > benefit. > > > Brad > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Matt Liotta > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:51 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits > > Your argument assumes issues such as anti-trust don't exist. The > market is not always right especially when you have monopoly issues to > deal with. In the case of telecom, we have competitive issues that the > market has been unable to historically solve. See the breakup of AT&T > and more recently the 1996 telecom act. > > Now more to your point. The most ideal situation is for property > owners to come to mutual acceptable agreements with telecom providers > who need to access to their private property. That isn't always > possible, but to imply that the property owner will always win is > shorted-sighted. There are many cases where both the telecom provider > AND the property owner can lose. > > One example of just the property owner losing, is the case of placing > an antenna in exclusively controlled space where OTARD applies; the > property owner regularly loses. If like you suggest a property owner > gets rid of a tenant because of a dish, the tenant at no expensive can > complain to the FCC. The property owner will then at their own expense > have to argue before the FCC that they didn't violate OTARD. > Understand the immense downside facing a property owner in this case. > FCC rules trump almost all others including contract law. In fact, the > only way to overturn an FCC decision regarding OTARD is an act of > Congress. The best part of OTARD is that while the case is pending the > property owner losing some of their property rights related to the > tenant in question. > > At the end of the day, the problem with property owners is that they > let in the monopolies for free and charge the competitors. Tenants > should have access to competitive telecom providers. The property > owner should receive compensation from telecom providers for access to > their property. But, because the property owner can't get away with > charging the monopoly they stick it to the competitive providers. This > ensures that only the monopolies win. > > What we need is some basic market regulation. Property owners should > be able to charge fair and reasonable access fees AND the monopolies > should be required to pay them. At the same time, if the monopolies > are going to be required to pay for access then all the other > providers should be given access assuming they pay the same fees. This > gives tenants choice, property owners compensation, and telecom > providers an even playing field. > > -Matt > > On May 21, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Brad Belton wrote: > >> Hello Mike, >> >> Still doesn't mean the property owner can't keep you out. >> >> Again, bottom line after all is said and done the property owner WILL >> prevail one way or another. Again, it is his private property and >> should be >> this way. >> >> If the property "A" doesn't have covered parking, but property "B" >> does and >> covered parking is important to you then lease from property "B". >> This is >> no different than if a property has Mike's Internet or not. If you >> desire >> Mike's Internet then find a property that has Mike's Internet or a >> property >> that will allow Mike's Internet to be installed. Otherwise lease >> elsewhere. >> If this happens often enough than I guarantee the property owner >> will find a >> way to get Mike's Internet, so that they can close on more leasing >> opportunities. >> >> This isn't rocket science. The market always works these issues out >> in the >> end. >> >> There is no law stating the property owner has to lease to you or >> renew a >> tenant lease. So, they may get to hang that DSS dish eye sore off >> the front >> of the building on their balcony for a while, but when their lease >> comes up >> they'll be gone and so will that dish. >> >> In the end the property owner will prevail as they should. You will >> always >> attract more bees with honey vs. vinegar. Trying to force yourself >> into a >> property citing FCC rules etc, etc will be your first and last >> mistake with >> a landlord. Word spreads quickly of such tactics around town and >> within >> BOMA. >> >> Best, >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:02 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits >> >> I'd have a more authoritative source, but "The normal FCC website is >> temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties. We are >> working to >> restore the full FCC website back to normal as soon as possible." >> >> Residential telecom was banned on March 21st, 2008. Commercial >> telecom was >> banned October 12, 2000. The October 12, 2000 ruling also put fixed >> wireless under OTARD's umbrella. >> >> >> http://www.wcsr.com/resources/pdfs/telecomm032608.pdf >> >> http://www.dlapiper.com/us/publications/detail.aspx?pub=3094 >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Tom DeReggi" <wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net> >> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:30 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits >> >>> Care to explain how that is illegal? >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Mike Hammett" <wispawirel...@ics-il.net> >>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:51 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits >>> >>> >>>> Actually, there was a law passed a couple years ago that prevented >>>> this >>>> very >>>> thing. They cannot stop Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Level 3, >>>> or Joe's >>>> Crab Shack Internet Service from installing cables from outside into >>>> their >>>> suite. They can make it costly and they can make it a PITA, but >>>> they >>>> must >>>> allow their installation. >>>> >>>> The flip side of this issue is property own only allowing Bob's >>>> Telecom, >>>> which is excessively priced because Bob and Jim (your landlord) are >>>> brothers. That is illegal. Same situation as we're talking about >>>> here. >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "Brad Belton" <b...@belwave.com> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:11 PM >>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits >>>> >>>>> Hello Mike, >>>>> >>>>> Have to step in here and disagree. Private property. If they >>>>> don't >>>>> want >>>>> you they can keep you out one way or another. This may not sit >>>>> well >>>>> with >>>>> some, but it is the proper thing to do. The market will always >>>>> sort >>>>> these >>>>> type of issues out themselves without third party or government >>>>> intervention. >>>>> >>>>> This is no different than comparing any property amenity. >>>>> Property "A" >>>>> has >>>>> XYZ vs. Property "B" doesn't. Some will find the XYZ amenity >>>>> important >>>>> and >>>>> opt for Property "A" over "B". If enough people do then you can >>>>> bet >>>>> Property "B" will find a way to add XYZ or a comparable amenity. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>>>> boun...@wispa.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of John Thomas >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:26 PM >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> Subject: [WISPA] Service Limits >>>>> >>>>> I realize that is the way it is supposed to happen, but that hasn't >>>>> happened here. >>>>> We have Office space in Bishop Ranch, San Ramon CA. We are not >>>>> allowed >>>>> in the MPOE, and apparently others aren't either. We have been >>>>> able to >>>>> get T-1s pulled in, and then we gave handed the authorized >>>>> personnel the >>>>> other end of our Cat 5 to punch down and connect our Service >>>>> Providers >>>>> T-1's. When we asked Time Warner about the fiber, they sent us a >>>>> map, >>>>> showing fiber at the sidewalk, less than 100 feet away, and they >>>>> claimed >>>>> that Bishop Ranch wouldn't lt them in the MPOE, so they couldn't >>>>> deliver. Maybe someone has bogus information? >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Hammett wrote: >>>>>> If you want their service, they can't restrict you, AFAIK. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> From: "John Thomas" <jtho...@quarnet.com> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:57 PM >>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test >>>>> tomeplease...> As they say, your mileage may vary.... We have a >>>>> 2xT1 >>>>> that >>>>> we pay $560 >>>>>> >>>>>>> per month for, and the routing/peering at TW Telecom is good, >>>>>>> but then >>>>>>> again, we are in the San Francisco Bay Area. If the building >>>>>>> owners >>>>>>> would have let TW Telecom into this buildings MPOE's we would >>>>>>> have a >>>>>>> 10 >>>>>>> meg fiber circuit and be paying about $700 for it. The fiber is >>>>>>> at the >>>>>>> curb, but Bishop Ranch won't let TW Telecom in.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Matt Liotta wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personally, I wouldn't go with TW Telecom for bandwidth. They >>>>>>>> tend to >>>>>>>> be overly pricy and their peering is too selective. In a case >>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>> the city you are located in doesn't have good peering such as >>>>>>>> Orlando >>>>>>>> you need to carefully select your upstream. In the case of TW >>>>>>>> Telecom, >>>>>>>> they have hardly any peers in Atlanta, which is the closest >>>>>>>> major >>>>>>>> peering point to you. This causes most of your US based >>>>>>>> traffic to >>>>>>>> flow through Ashburn or Dallas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Matt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 14, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just download a file via http from our web server at >>>>>>>>> http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip >>>>>>>>> and then >>>>>>>>> http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then email me with how fast each went and a traceroute from >>>>>>>>> you to >>>>>>>>> just one >>>>>>>>> of the servers please (they take same route). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you are not capable of downloading at 20MB on the Internet >>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>> the data >>>>>>>>> is not too useful for me... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you I appreciate your time and assistance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Scott Carullo >>>>>>>>> Brevard Wireless >>>>>>>>> 321-205-1100 x102 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ---- >>>>>>>>> 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 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 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 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/
