Rural Ontario Funding program in Wireless Service Providers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20774329 en Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:24:26 EDT Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:24:26 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21111842 Nowireneeded : wispdude, still waiting for some answers. You said your wimax tests failed yet you're not filling us in on what frequency failed, what your expectations were, what vendor and antenna configuration, what failed? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21111842 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:42:26 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21086985 Nowireneeded : Ok that's fair. What product did you use that failed? Tell us about the set up...antenna diversity, frequency used, what were your expectations on performance? I'm not on a high horse at all.....just my experience and yours are quite different. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21086985 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:48:53 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21086953 wispdude : I was referring to bashing people, not stupid technologies.
Alright, so WiMax works for some people - woop de doo. So does Dial-up. We looked at it up here, and TESTED some equipment which boasted great WiMAX capabilities - and it FAILED. F-A-I-L-E-D. Not only did it fail to provide the coverage and range the manufacturer boasted, but when we did get in range to test it with i was less than impressed with performance. Honestly, get off of your high horse - I could care less about WiMax. It was a tiny part of my previous post and was probably given the least amount of thought as i don't care for it either way and i KNOW that in the environment which we attempted to deploy it in, it failed. End of conversation. There is no arguing with that. It is one of the main reasons why companies like Bell and Rogers are having such a hard time deploying it up here in the North - that's all i was trying to say. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21086953 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:41:24 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21086718 Nowireneeded : wispdude, you bashed wimax and I'd guess you have ZERO experience deploying it. I do. You bashed wimax without knowing the facts of Buzz BB claims. I do.

You can doubt wimax all you want but let's stick to facts as you suggested in one of your own posts.

You said, "Wow, way to come out bashing. Thanks for that, seeing as i was trying to avoid bashing." You bashed wimax without knowing the facts or without having any experience. I wasn't bashing at all....just letting you know that Buzz's claims were flawed.

»www.wimaxmaps.org/ here's a great link that shows the current state of wimax deployments. You can talk about side effects, doubt and non-absolute claims about wimax all you want......but if you'd stop and do a little keyboarding it will take you all of about 30 minutes to refute your own claims.

Wimax is far from perfect with the current business model but prices are dropping quickly, certifications are now moving forward, and edge devices are starting to go to beta.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21086718 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:44:14 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21084037 wispdude : Wow, way to come out bashing.
Thanks for that, seeing as i was trying to avoid bashing.
OK so, tell me this then - What company or industry, if bashed, would NOT respond or refute negative claims? That means nothing, absolutely nothing. That's like a pharmaceutical company boasting about a drug, people complaining about it not working or having bad side effects and then the same pharmaceutical company coming back 'refuting' the claims made against it. I have not seen (not that i've looked to hard, but i have looked) a third party which doesn't have its hands in the honey pot back those two industries, have you?
I don't personally like WiMax - that's me. For urban environments (especially where you don't have to erect towers ever 40KM) - maybe, but for rural areas with terrain like northern Ontario - i'll stick with my doubts.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21084037 Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:21:47 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21083596 Nowireneeded : wispdude, you should take your own advice...you said, "And WiMAX? HA. Give me a break. Check out how things are going for WiMAX in Australia and get back to me on that. It was a failure. They got like, 1/4 of the range they wanted and were having HUGE issues and WAY overspending. You really should get all of the facts before you start making bogus assumptions".

Don't comment on something you know nothing about.

Airspan and the Wimax industry in general refuted Buzz BB claims. If you haven't any wimax experience yourself why make a comment like this? Buzz's issues were based on poor backhaul and the wrong choice of base station/antenna selection.....they actually underspent and went the cheapo route for the deployment strategy that was needed. Google Wimax deployments and take another look. There is plenty happening without rehashing old news like the Buzz debacle. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21083596 Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:01:15 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21075601 wispdude : Hey George,

Yea - i didn't have my facts exactly straight on that issue, thanks for clearing it up. Have had a hard time finding the official documentation which states the changes so i went from memory.
Regarding the Canopy being bulletproof - it isn't that it is 'the best' i am sure. From first hand experience i can tell you that Canopy does NOT play well with other equipment, period. It raises the noise floor pretty hugely and is extremely loud and uses most of the available spectrum (when you have multi-base sites which almost all Canopy installs i have seen are) which i can see causing problems with other gear. I would be equally frustrated but what can you do? If you are forced to co-exist in a public band (and very small at that) you quickly run out of options when trying to avoid interference. GPS Syncing helps but not everyone uses it. That's one of the good things about Canopy - it is GPS Synced AND it runs Horizontally Polarized so you get some separation there - but not much. It is not the best but from the equipment i have seen which operates at 900Mhz - it provides the most throughput bandwidth wise and operates well in 'noisy' environments where other equipment fails - so that would be a good reason for them to use it IMO.
As far as my narrative goes - what did i miss? I probably left the odd bit out especially regarding Core as i was mainly responding to the previous rant which was centered on 'NetSpectrum', not Core.
:)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21075601 Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:59:22 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21068202 GNca George :
said by wispdude See Profile :

Dealing with the CRTC - if you want to go above 100 feet you need to jump through an amazing amount of red tape - but that is for above 100 feet. If someone were to erect their own tower (lets say 96 feet) they should be in the clear.
Suggest you have a look at the new regs for antenna support structures that came into effect 1 Jan 2008. Its now anything over 50'. There was no limit on type II structures before this, the biggest consideration was the Nav Canada regulations for marking and lighting.

Eric Kannen, the CEO of Spectrum 2000 is a very pleasant, very smart guy who did a great job of picking up the pieces left by the W3 debacle. You are somewhat accurate in your analysis of the BlueSkyNet problem, but like any hearsay, you have significant errors in your narrative.

Unfortunately, as everyone knows history tends to repeat itself. See BlueSky Net and Muskoka Community Networks history with Core Broadband in Muskoka. So far they have toasted about 250 of my customers with apparently $3.2M in government subsidies (the exact number is a closely held secret). As there is no public reporting requirement, no one is able to determine if there is a net gain in broadband services, or a net loss through the damage they have caused.

Tony Clement (minister in charge of FedNor) is directly responsible for this mess btw, we brought the issues to his personal attention at a meeting a couple of years ago well before the current problems developed. Fortunately, he is the member for Muskoka/Parry Sound, won last time by only 27 votes, and is high on my list for some publicity during the coming election campaign.

Fascinating to see what a government subsidised enterprise will do when they believe that Canopy 900 is bulletproof.

I guess no one ever told them that in the race for the bottom, Canopy is no where near the toughest kid on the block... See MicroHard, NovaRoam and various meter reading applications for reference.

»www.muskoka-news.com/muskokanews···le/62361

»www.muskoka-news.com/muskokanews···le/63122

George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21068202 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:19:35 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21045412 wispdude : Alright. I want to do this without bashing - so here it goes.
If you want to start bashing a small company please get your facts straight.
To deal with the 'government funded' crap - learn this:
Initial Government Funding was provided to a company named W3 Connex out of Southern Ontario. They seemingly randomly went around and placed towers to try to provide the coverage that was required by the government - and failed. They went bankrupt in the process and another company had to take over - enter Spectrum Group. Spectrum Group then took over the project - acquiring the previous network. They had to work with what they had as by this point there was basically 0 funding left from the government and any network expansion that had to be done was done out of their own pocket. So the 'couple million dollars' that you mentioned was totally false information. They had to use what was left by W3 and try to turn a profit and still expand. They were new at this at the time because they were primarily a 2 way radio division and had little experience with broadband. So they deployed as fast as they could and as far as they could. Please keep in mind that Northern Ontario presents challenges that do not exist in places where normal 'Fixed Wireless' service is available. Our dense forests and diverse terrain do wonders to RF signals (in a bad way).
Unfortunately due to the circumstances listed above there are large outages but again, due to government rules they had to cover the major areas first and then on their own coin fill in the gaps in coverage.
The 'tower solution' that you listed also has holes in it. First, the 2500+ for a tower is STRICTLY for the costs of the tower - that doesn't even cover tower erection or the foundation required for such a large tower. The 'extra 250 a month' would probably have been to cover the costs of the tower over a period of years as you can clearly see the packages on netspectrum.ca and that is not a package. Dealing with the CRTC - if you want to go above 100 feet you need to jump through an amazing amount of red tape - but that is for above 100 feet. If someone were to erect their own tower (lets say 96 feet) they should be in the clear.
And again, 90% of the money provided for the project was already gone by the time Spectrum Group got into the game - read the newspapers.
And anyone knows - if you are having slow speed issues call your ISP and let them know. I would hardly think that speeds that awful would be acceptable - even if the company is as horrible as you say. Have you tried to get it repaired, or just complain about it?
And from an insiders point of view - the rates you listed for wholesale are completely wrong. Why would any ISP 'break even' on a service? No one would bother and that is a ridiculous idea.
Furthermore to prove a point - i even called in to this Spectrum Group and found out a little information which you could have gotten had you simply called and asked - the installers that any of the other (three) ISPs who wholesale on the network use are all Spectrum Group's. The install fee (which is 150, not 250) goes to the installer for the work - not the ISP. And upon further questioning - they revealed to me that the Fiber Outage that you were PROBABLY referring to was actually because the fiber was cut - and service was only out for half of a day - not two. From the guy i talked to (forgot his name) he sounded pretty competent. I mean, coming from a small WISP i know that starting up is really hard and you only hire competent people who can take on a lot of roles. It sucks for the people you hire but that's what you have to do to start up so i have a hard time imagining that they would hire idiots.
And as far as Bell goes - HA. I laugh at that. With all the crap going on about how Bell needs to increase network capacity and their private sale to the Teachers Union and cutting 2300 jobs - do you really think they are hugely concerned with deploying DSL in rural towns? Besides that - current DSL technologies will only reach 4.5KM from the Bell CO - anyone outside of that is out of luck anyways - besides that we as the tax payers paid for most of Bells network and you don't see them scrambling to get coverage for anyone outside of their range do you?
And WiMAX? HA. Give me a break. Check out how things are going for WiMAX in Australia and get back to me on that. It was a failure. They got like, 1/4 of the range they wanted and were having HUGE issues and WAY overspending. You really should get all of the facts before you start making bogus assumptions - and i mean that in a sincere way - no flaming intended. It just upsets me when this happens because so many people are so uninformed of what is actually happening and then turn to stuff like this and really, it hurts everyone.
Anyways that's my two cents. Read and reply :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21045412 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:03:10 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805405 AMD Phreak : I just thought I'd stop in and see what this thread is all about. I knew my ears were burning for some reason. ;)

John Galt was a huge help in the RUS grant process. I want to make that publicly known. The guy is top-notch!

As to my experiences, there was a lot of stress (ok, HUGE stress) in the engineering of the sites and planning phases. The company I work for ultimately decided to not take it further to the processing phase. We did not submit any information to the USDA as they determined there was too much risk involved. Had we submitted everything though, we could have easily completed the job. We build communications sites (turnkey jobs) so it is nothing new to us.

The application process is insanely detailed, and you MUST engineer everything 110%. This includes drawings and specifications for every piece you put in, and actual engineering studies to confirm all designs. You must follow the spirit of the installation portion of the telecom requriements as well as the details for WIFI are not really covered explicitly. These details (telecom-type installation requriements) appear very restrictive to people that have no experience in what is entailed in a typical 'site construction' (ok, they are restrictive but once you weed past the BS it's not so bad). I got off on a tangent while doing the design because of the details. I had to step back and realize that it was no different than the requirements for any of my other normal designs. They just word it to sound doom and gloom.

Not to sound like an ass, but only a few here at DSLR truly understand what goes into a real site build. Thankfully we all help each other out so that the knowlege can be spread. In a Rural Grant however, you really need to have someone experienced in site construction do all of the engineering and installation. I don't want to see someone go out of business because they did the project and then were fined for non-compliance.
--
"No job is so important, and no service is so urgent that we cannot take the time to do it safely."
-- AT&T
--Safety One Tower Rescue Certified
--LLigetfa:"Wimax is like teenage sex. Everyone talks about doing it."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805405 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:57:10 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805297 anon :
said by a1_Andy See Profile :

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]

Pinging 206.248.***.*** with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 206.248.***.***: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=255
Reply from 206.248.***.***: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=255
Reply from 206.248.***.***: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=255
Reply from 206.248.***.***: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=255

Ping statistics for 206.248.***.***:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 18ms

Latency, Is this good for 7 km 4 hops?
Bit off thread...

But... Honestly the answer would require a new thread, latency is complicated to say the least as it is only represents one metric and includes many factors. Its' effects are more pronounced when using certain apps ie. video, audio/VoIP, games, etc... and then there are all of the causes...

It would be more useful to have more data. Personally, tracert/winblows - traceroute/linux/BSD/unix would be my preference over a ping.

Try this program WinMTR (Very cool attachments feature.. :) ) and run it in the background for awhile (including peak hours). Don't overdo the frequency of tests as the provider may see this as a simple DOS attack and you know the rest.

Traceroute from your computer to the providers' backbone gateway.

And be mindful of background apps (auto updates/downloads/chats, etc.) and other traffic as they will skew WinMTR test results...

Post the results to the new latency related thread if you wish.

Also, you can use some type of speed test which provides another usable metric: bandwidth (also includes ping, and some measure jitter.

This site has an excellent set of speed tests (DSL Reports): »/speedtest

An alternative is »www.speedtest.net if you crave some eye-candy. And other goodies in the gallery @ »www.ookla.com/gallery/

said by a1_Andy See Profile :

And thank you for that link. I hope I'm not dreaming...
Hope it can be of help.

Latency
winmtr_bin.zip 137,687 bytes
WinMTR - Windoze
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20805297 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:38:01 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20804176 John Galt :
said by Latency :

But I'm sure you wiley veterans are all over this stuff. Respect (no flames please)
Oh, no problem at all. The comments were more that the application process itself was onerous. T'aint a one page form we are talking about here, ya know. :mad: :p

You do make several good points, however.

;)
--
A is A]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20804176 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:38:16 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20803395 a1_Andy : Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

D:\Documents and Settings\ZooKeeper>ping 206.248.***.***

Pinging 206.248.***.*** with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 206.248.***.***: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=255
Reply from 206.248.***.***: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=255
Reply from 206.248.***.***: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=255
Reply from 206.248.***.***: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=255

Ping statistics for 206.248.***.***:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 18ms

Latency, Is this good for 7 km 4 hops?

And thank you for that link. I hope I'm not dreaming... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20803395 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:38:59 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20801867 anon : Sorry about the reply to field in my last post it is not accurate . It was a response to Inssomniak

Dumb newbie forum error, :D

Latency]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20801867 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:35:17 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20801842 anon : Inssomniak wrote:

""Unless some chunk of licensed spectrum falls into my lap
which ain't gonna happen...
Ive looked at how the auction process works ....it favors cash period ""

Found this lately wonder if it might help your spectrum situation? Depending on how rural your area is this might give you some more spectrum...

It's worth a shot all they can do is turn you dowm..

GL-05- Interim Technical Guidelines for Remote Rural Broadband Systems Operating in the Band 512-698 MHz (TV channels 21 to 51)

March 2007

Spectrum Management and Telecommunications

»www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.n···39e.html ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20801842 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:30:29 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20801785 anon : John and AMD Phreak:

This is FYI: If AMD Phreak just plowed through an application he might want to consider this in his business model.

One might keep in mind that this money is to get in the tower business first (new), and broadband wireless second (existing). Keep in mind the sharing rules, once you start putting up towers with govn't monies then you must play nice and share your tower with your direct competitors.

Sure this may be another source of income as they are taking all of your subs away. (-1 +1 = 0)

IMHO - You might NOT want to engineer in any over-capacity in the tower(s), then you can use an old Rogers/Bell trick and tell them you have no more capacity. This even allows you to build in some over-capacity and keep it for your own business expansion purposes.

This is one issue to think about in advance; Are you really getting into the tower business or do you want to? Or are you expanding and improving upon existing infrastructure for your wireless broadband services?

After all this will be the ultimate outcome of the already completed Rural initiative in Northern Ontario.

But I'm sure you wiley veterans are all over this stuff. Respect (no flames please)


Forums » Industry Forums » Wireless Service Providers » Cost of a 360' tower

davidg wrote:

""if the cell companies agree to share the cost, you could be setting yourself up for a nice recurring chunk of change. another 2 way shop here put up about 30 towers over a 10 year span with an agreement with a couple of carriers that they would go on each tower. the cell carriers each paid 1500.00 a month to be on each site. they paid off the towers in 4-5 years max, and now have enough recurring income just from the carriers that they really don't even have to do any work on the regular business side of the operation.""
--

Latency]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20801785 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:21:45 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20792443 Mad Dawg : I have had a couple toes stomped on myself andy
and yup it just plain sucks but
the system does seem to favor those with deep pockets
and government funding

a xplornet regional rep recently requested I submit my
tower locations and coverage maps for review lol!

I respectfully declined their kind offer since about 7 months previous
another wisp and winner of some government funding and licensed spectrum too (I might add )
was kind enough to educate me on the downfalls of sharing my coverage areas
(ie 2 new towers located in areas they previously had nothing and all within 1/2km
of my existing stuff) hmmm it was beyond coincidence I thought :(
I am not as naive anymore

As for using 900mhz my plan is to use it very sparingly
if at all and mainly only for remote ptp links
I am going to focus on 2.4 and 5.8 for client side duties and
if the location requires a new micro pop ..so be it

Any 900 I might use for clients will be Hz and located very low
on the tower almost at ground level
hopefully this will help minimize it from the effects of noise my hope
is that since much of the competition is seemingly migrating away from 2.4
I am going stick with it
Unless some chunk of licensed spectrum falls into my lap
which ain't gonna happen...
Ive looked at how the auction process works ....it favors cash period

The old hope of serving a big area with some 900 high up on one big tower
just does not seem realistic given the competitive environment and relatively small amount of spectrum available

Personally I will toss a 900 AP on my big tower but its function will be primarily
to make my presence known in the region to the x boys
its doubtful I will be serving anyone with it Some may not think much of that statement but
I don't really give a @@@@ what anyone thinks about me on that one

What I do know is that everything I own is tied into this venture
and I'll be darned If I will go politely or quietly just because some exec
decides that these previously ignored smaller markets are more feasible now
due to the available government funding programs.

Basically they get to expand their infrastructure at fractional costs
and normal red tape seems to mysteriously fall away ... the clients are just the icing on the funding cake
they don't care if their service sucks cause they got the areas all sewn up and the money to deal with it later

Crap I cant even get the bank to recognize my infrastructure as an asset to get a line of credit
and I have 30 towers now plus all the gear lol!

It would have been nice to see some licensed spectrum set aside just for local wisp enterprise
to use in area specific regions with preference shown to existing local operators but that just isn't gonna happen
since spectrum is a limited resource its value is also subject to the laws of supply and demand
and hey the government obviously isn't opposed to making a buck selling air if its in demand
Will I eventually have to bid on the air I breath ?

Do I sound a little bitter ..perhaps I guess... but I do believe the auction and funding process
should be more fair and favor local existing small business rather than large corporations
or at least favor no one by removing the highest bid as the end all be all deciding factor
the lil guy has no hope in the current system

I can get a handicap playing golf to offset my game
I think we need the small independent wisps to organize and lobby government
if we are ever to have any chance against the big boys is there such an organization in Canada

Oh well enough bitching back to work :)

That is what we canucks do...
get us upset and we will write letters
..oh boy that will show em lol!!


--
Best Regards

MD]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20792443 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:52:20 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20791728 John Galt :
said by Latency :

I would like to know; What are the technical and business qualifications of the politicians who are approving these projects in the first place?
The short answer is "none"...of course.

AMD Phreak See Profile is one who can give a qualified viewpoint on the rigors of these application processes. He and I plowed through one...he doing the forms and I backing him up on research. What a grind...!

I am not sure he has any hair left...if he had any to begin with.

:p

The reality of this process is that it requires a full staff to engineer the system and prepare the application...something most WISPs don't have.
--
A is A]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20791728 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:10:41 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20791650 Semaphore : IMHO what should be done is to provide the infrastructure for the WISP to locate on or back-haul from. If there are well placed towers with sufficient capacity the market will evolve without unfair advantages, and eratic coverage, that will most definitely result from the Big guys getting involved. The problem with the "bidding" process that the gov. want to engage in is that the "winner" will be the single source provider - that's not good for anyone.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20791650 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:57:30 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20791307 Inssomniak : This funding program is mandating a 1.5mbps download speed, this is the speed we offer (we only offer one).

The challenges are, they only grant 1/3 of the money. You are required to show proof you have or can get the last 2/3's, and if I read it right, in-kind contribution only can start with infrastructure from April 2008.

So, that rules me out immediately. A small WISP like me doesnt have that kind of cash flow, and most of my infrastructure is older than that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20791307 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:51:44 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20791226 a1_Andy :
said by Latency :

Start selling your equipment now and look for a new career in the Arctic (sorry, that markets already been taken :uhh:).

Just went through this in Northern Ontario and I wish anyone up against the political machine all of the best.

They will throw in their gear, take all of the usable bandwidth, drive up the noise floor to unusable levels, market their service and voila you'll be out of business in a jiffy.

I don't agree with John Galt on this one, (maybe the first time)

""Small WISPs (under 1,000 subs) have neither the time, money or expertise to compete with large companies on projects like these.""

Without funding like this the little guys stay poor, little, understaffed. And I definitely disagree with the expertise part. Anywho, experts can be bought!

Who says the big companies do things "the best" . ROFL

Give me a couple of million dollars like they did Netspectrum and you'll see how much time, money and expertise I have to compete with "large companies".

In this area the only thing that is different is the political pull that the larger companies posses. All the little guy is missing is a budget for CRTC lobbyists.

The company Netspectrum that got all of the money in our area certainly lacks expertise. But that is not stopping them one bit as they now can "buy" their way out of bad decisions.

Their system is a mixture of mistakes, as are their mail servers running 8 yr old Beta software, and security... What security? They feel secure telling customers that nobody can hack them without being a customer?

The big joke on the taxpayer is that they adopted the same "macro" model as the incumbents, leaving the "rural" WISP with huge gaps and shadows in their coverage. Leaving very many customers without service..

Netspectrums' solution is for the customer to pay $2500.00 + to put up your own tower and get a 5.8 GHz connection. An extra $250.00 per month for a year, or until you can get a real high-speed connection. Too bad our Canadian regulations regarding erecting towers have recently changed and just try getting approval for a 100' tower in a residential area.

What we need now is another round of funding in Northern Ontario to provide high-speed access to persons living in rural Northern Ontario.. :hmm: Is there an echo?

The money was intended to provide "all people" in rural areas with high speed internet access (not just some who live close to a tower) for an affordable rate?

Internet access from Netspectrum costs $50.00/mnth for a 60Kbps download and a 20 Kbps Upload. On many occasions my upload has been less than 5Kbps and download rates of 25Kbps are common during all daylight hours. Is this even classified as HIGH SPEED? I have speed tests for over 8 months and they support this data.

In my area they cannot even sell you more bandwidth (what they advertise) as they have oversubscribed (12+) to the point that the system is miserably slow and 1000-2500ms + pings are common.

The cost as roughly compared to Bell or Rogers. A 3Mbps access costs $250.00 per month and a 9Mbps costs $750.00 per month. Not including tower (if required) and costs for hardware to aggregate 5-15 wireless modems... Oh, I almost forgot the $1250-3750 for radio(s) installation. Yes, very affordable..

Not to worry though, you can still buy and resell services from your new competitors like we do here up North. Yes, you buy "wholesale" wireless service for $50.00/mnth, you provide everything else (authentication, email (application servers) and tech support, etc.) then you re-sell for $50.00/mnth. The install costs your customer $250.00+ and your competitors' installers show up at your customers location and install their equipment for you. Cool business model :D

When you have technical problems you get squeezed between a rock and a hard place. What exactly do you tell your customers when your service is down for two days and Netspectrum is blaming it on your local muni-fiber guys?

Now that all of the "rural" areas around are serviced by Netspectrum, Bell Canada is presently running fiber and DSL to every single one of these same area's. Other areas Bell is running around setting up WiMax towers.

And do I need to point out that this is only for fixed wireless access. What happens to all of these handout recipients when the mobile wireless access starts to happen? Netspectrum doesn't own any spectrum? Let's give out millions of taxpayer's dollars for some company to operate an open public spectrum WISP?

Does anyone write business plans anymore, as I sure would like to see Netspectrums' plan to compete with the likes of Bell Canada and Rogers.

It only seems logical that when a wireless customer can stop paying $300.00 + /mnth for a 2 Mbps internet access they will. Where does this leave the government funded wireless providers who have spent millions on their networks?

They are going to be out of the fixed wireless internet business and into the business of renting out "their" towers to the likes of Bell and Rogers who will be the only ones left standing.

I would argue John Galt that against the likes of Bell Canada and Rogers Communications no company in Canada is "big" enough. So let's just skip the whole process, leave things as status quo and split the money between the two incumbents then we can all go home... ;)

I would like to know; What are the technical and business qualifications of the politicians who are approving these projects in the first place?

Can anyone spell BOONDOGGLE

Latency
What really should be done is give the money to smaller wisp's that know the terrain and have "ham licences and/or solid experience" and know their neighbour's at least. The large Co's can give great power point presentations, but they have no clue what the area is (never even seen it).....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20791226 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:37:14 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20790411 anon : Start selling your equipment now and look for a new career in the Arctic (sorry, that markets already been taken :uhh:).

Just went through this in Northern Ontario and I wish anyone up against the political machine all of the best.

They will throw in their gear, take all of the usable bandwidth, drive up the noise floor to unusable levels, market their service and voila you'll be out of business in a jiffy.

I don't agree with John Galt on this one, (maybe the first time)

""Small WISPs (under 1,000 subs) have neither the time, money or expertise to compete with large companies on projects like these.""

Without funding like this the little guys stay poor, little, understaffed. And I definitely disagree with the expertise part. Anywho, experts can be bought!

Who says the big companies do things "the best" . ROFL

Give me a couple of million dollars like they did Netspectrum and you'll see how much time, money and expertise I have to compete with "large companies".

In this area the only thing that is different is the political pull that the larger companies posses. All the little guy is missing is a budget for CRTC lobbyists.

The company Netspectrum that got all of the money in our area certainly lacks expertise. But that is not stopping them one bit as they now can "buy" their way out of bad decisions.

Their system is a mixture of mistakes, as are their mail servers running 8 yr old Beta software, and security... What security? They feel secure telling customers that nobody can hack them without being a customer?

The big joke on the taxpayer is that they adopted the same "macro" model as the incumbents, leaving the "rural" WISP with huge gaps and shadows in their coverage. Leaving very many customers without service..

Netspectrums' solution is for the customer to pay $2500.00 + to put up your own tower and get a 5.8 GHz connection. An extra $250.00 per month for a year, or until you can get a real high-speed connection. Too bad our Canadian regulations regarding erecting towers have recently changed and just try getting approval for a 100' tower in a residential area.

What we need now is another round of funding in Northern Ontario to provide high-speed access to persons living in rural Northern Ontario.. :hmm: Is there an echo?

The money was intended to provide "all people" in rural areas with high speed internet access (not just some who live close to a tower) for an affordable rate?

Internet access from Netspectrum costs $50.00/mnth for a 60Kbps download and a 20 Kbps Upload. On many occasions my upload has been less than 5Kbps and download rates of 25Kbps are common during all daylight hours. Is this even classified as HIGH SPEED? I have speed tests for over 8 months and they support this data.

In my area they cannot even sell you more bandwidth (what they advertise) as they have oversubscribed (12+) to the point that the system is miserably slow and 1000-2500ms + pings are common.

The cost as roughly compared to Bell or Rogers. A 3Mbps access costs $250.00 per month and a 9Mbps costs $750.00 per month. Not including tower (if required) and costs for hardware to aggregate 5-15 wireless modems... Oh, I almost forgot the $1250-3750 for radio(s) installation. Yes, very affordable..

Not to worry though, you can still buy and resell services from your new competitors like we do here up North. Yes, you buy "wholesale" wireless service for $50.00/mnth, you provide everything else (authentication, email (application servers) and tech support, etc.) then you re-sell for $50.00/mnth. The install costs your customer $250.00+ and your competitors' installers show up at your customers location and install their equipment for you. Cool business model :D

When you have technical problems you get squeezed between a rock and a hard place. What exactly do you tell your customers when your service is down for two days and Netspectrum is blaming it on your local muni-fiber guys?

Now that all of the "rural" areas around are serviced by Netspectrum, Bell Canada is presently running fiber and DSL to every single one of these same area's. Other areas Bell is running around setting up WiMax towers.

And do I need to point out that this is only for fixed wireless access. What happens to all of these handout recipients when the mobile wireless access starts to happen? Netspectrum doesn't own any spectrum? Let's give out millions of taxpayer's dollars for some company to operate an open public spectrum WISP?

Does anyone write business plans anymore, as I sure would like to see Netspectrums' plan to compete with the likes of Bell Canada and Rogers.

It only seems logical that when a wireless customer can stop paying $300.00 + /mnth for a 2 Mbps internet access they will. Where does this leave the government funded wireless providers who have spent millions on their networks?

They are going to be out of the fixed wireless internet business and into the business of renting out "their" towers to the likes of Bell and Rogers who will be the only ones left standing.

I would argue John Galt that against the likes of Bell Canada and Rogers Communications no company in Canada is "big" enough. So let's just skip the whole process, leave things as status quo and split the money between the two incumbents then we can all go home... ;)

I would like to know; What are the technical and business qualifications of the politicians who are approving these projects in the first place?

Can anyone spell BOONDOGGLE

Latency]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20790411 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:49:20 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20787510 robbin :
said by markscs See Profile :

I haven't decided to and probably won't pursue any kind of legal action but it really sickens me to think things operate this way in a developed country in 2008.
Hmmm -- I thought you were in Canada? :o ;) :D

Seriously, I don't know what any of us can do when these development grants are issued. My guess is to either stick it out or redeploy in an under-served area. Neither option is cheap!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20787510 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:24:12 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20785045 markscs : Oh, I have an excellent 3-year plan for dealing with them in my market, but it's not something I'm going to disclose on a public forum. (and yes it is all above-board)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20785045 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:42:58 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20784927 a1_Andy : Well I am more than willing to pursue legal action if necessary. I hope that more of us who have been trampled on in this manner will chime in. As in my case it is fully intentional. They knew I was on 907 in that sector and they point a canopy at 906 right at my tower, when they could have pointed it anywhere else. Heck Nexicom put a tower up near that sight before xnet and it didn't affect me one single bit. Why can Nexicom avoid interfering with their neighbours where xnet tramples everything?
Its intentional 100% guaranteed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20784927 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:18:13 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20784721 John Galt :
said by markscs See Profile :

What I meant was that I was inquiring as to how far away you have to be from that Canopy stuff to use 900mhz (I wouldn't be using Canopy so there would be no sense in talking to them to share timeslot/sync info).
Systems on 900 MHz can have a range of up to 40 miles depending on the heights of the antenna.

If you want to use 900 in relative proximity to existing WISP systems and others (SCADA, for example), you are going to have to use "shielding' of some kind...such as you suggested.

With careful engineering, it should work.
--
A is A]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20784721 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:28:10 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20784388 markscs : As I mentioned, in our area it is former municipal phone companies, they are now "co-operatives" since 10-ish years ago for some kind of regulatory reason I was told.

I don't mind the competition other than that they got a government subsidy to go head-to-head with us in a couple of markets. There would be some "overlap" they said- I met with an Omafra fellow and a couple of people from our county- not because I wanted to be in on the bid but just because I wanted them to do their best to avoid areas that we were already building out.. I guess by overlap they mean being on a tower 300ft away from us. (in two cases) :-)

I'm patently against this kind of government intrusion into the private sector. High speed is available by satellite (yes we know that wireless is better) for about $5/month more. For those that really need it that is fine until enough of a market develops to make it a good business case for someone to use their own money to build out a network.

Rural folks used to fork out THOUSANDS of dollars (in 1980s money!) for installation and yearly fees for those big C band dishes in the early 80s, so to say $500-$700 for satellite Internet installation and $55-$85/month for subscription is out of reach for rural people is absurd.

MANY of the areas they were to cover now don't work because of foliage. No complaints from me on this as I've picked up a couple dozen customers because of it (we picked a micro-cell deployment model vs their macro-cell), but wow... typical government boondoggle.

The worst part is, I knew a guy on the committee and he had no idea we were even doing wireless stuff (our main business is DSL as far as Internet access goes). He told me point blank the application that was submitted was just re-hashed from some old federal broadband funding application with the dates changed, and that the committee had already decided who was to build the network and that the bidding process was just a formality. I even have the call logged (as he had returned my call on our customer service line and we record all inbound customer service calls for QC and training purposes). I haven't decided to and probably won't pursue any kind of legal action but it really sickens me to think things operate this way in a developed country in 2008.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20784388 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:51:19 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20783581 thewisperer : why all the secrecy?

are we talking Barrett Xplornet here?

I have surveyed their towers

Cyclone ap with omni

900 and horizontal

In my area it is Xittel using same equipment]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20783581 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:41:43 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20782387 markscs : What I meant was that I was inquiring as to how far away you have to be from that Canopy stuff to use 900mhz (I wouldn't be using Canopy so there would be no sense in talking to them to share timeslot/sync info).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20782387 Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:45:24 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20782202 a1_Andy :
said by markscs See Profile :

I have a question for you - we too have that stuff in our area (the government subsidized (through this program at least) usually former municipal government phone companies) operating 900mhz canopy (horizontal polarity I think).
»maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=Wing···ct=title
Google maps shows I am not the one you are asking?
But yes you should speak with your neighbour's.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20782202 Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:57:41 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20782048 markscs : I have a question for you - we too have that stuff in our area (the government subsidized (through this program at least) usually former municipal government phone companies) operating 900mhz canopy (horizontal polarity I think). I guess this is a bit off topic but if I had one of these towers say 15km away and topo maps show it mostly blocked by hills and stuff, would I be able to get away with focusing a 60 or 90 degree 900mhz sector on a small village from a silo or something nearby and not suffer interference? (back of the antenna would be to the competitors 900mhz gear 15km away and again, much hill blockage but it MAY peak over slightly) and customer CPE shouldn't be able to see competitors gear at all. Would it be useless or still worth a shot? Would only use 900 for worse case but just curious - I have no 900 deployed at all right now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20782048 Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:10:47 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20779472 a1_Andy :
said by LLigetfa See Profile :

There is a non-competing element whereby they cannot use the funding to deploy in areas already served. In fact, it really works against them because a WISP could conceivably cover a much larger area with lower population densities than DSL or cable does but are excluded.
I just had a lager gov funded (by this broadband funding) 'wisp' company knock 83 of my 900MHz clients offline. This is the 3rd time this particular Co has done this to me in 4 years! I had no idea about that "non-competing element", looks like I might have some recourse after all.

It's certainly intentional I heard that a tower may be going up nearby and having experienced this Co knocking my stuff off line before I set to broadcast SSID and sent them my coverage maps, then proved to one of their retailers that I have full coverage there by hooking him up for a day and still they put up a moto canopy 6 pack @ 4 Watts each in 900MHz using the entire 900MHz free spectrum............
Noise floor was -93 > -87 now its -73 > -59 at my tower :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20779472 Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:04:35 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775616 John Galt :
said by Inssomniak See Profile :

It would appear we have nothing to look forward to except large companies competing with eliminating us like we aren't even there!
Fixed it for you...

Small WISPs (under 1,000 subs) have neither the time, money or expertise to compete with large companies on projects like these.

Such is life...

EDIT: Typo
--
A is A]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775616 Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:26:40 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775207 Airnode :
at least your government do something for the rural areas.

In my location they talk a lot about bringing infrastructure like fast dsl etc to rurals but they do not a thing.

I have Pops in 3 smal villages near the town i operate and there was no dsl and no Cable there before (big german isp is not willing to deploy dsl there) in each
of them I had problems over problems to find places and premission to build my towers.

so I asume you dont live in that bad place because your government is willing to something.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775207 Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:15:55 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775116 LLigetfa : I haven't read the document but I have worked with WISP that took advantage of government funding to deploy in remote communities. There is a non-competing element whereby they cannot use the funding to deploy in areas already served. In fact, it really works against them because a WISP could conceivably cover a much larger area with lower population densities than DSL or cable does but are excluded. What they can do however is to build out at their own expense (sans funding) those areas where competion exists and take advantage of shared backhauls.

That is what one regional WISP here has done and is continuing to do, deploying on their own cellphone towers. In so doing, they are squeezing the incumbent WISP who built out with inferior infrastructure.

I think it comes down to size matters. The government funding helps them get more cellphone revenue that gives them the budget to deploy more in unfunded areas. If you have the budget to deploy huge cellphone towers, it costs next to nothing to also throw some Canopy gear on it and utilize the backhaul that is already there.
--
Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it. -- Stephen Vizinczey]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775116 Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:58:38 EDT Re: Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774983 dongato17 : So I'll read through the whole doc eventually, but I don't suppose you would be willing to summarize the challenges for us since you have already read it? :)

-Hal]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774983 Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:41:18 EDT Rural Ontario Funding program http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774329 Inssomniak : »www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/rur···band.htm

So I heard it was coming for a while, and someone emailed this link. It appears pretty useless for small WISPs to have a chance at any sort of funding. Municipalities working with large companies are the only ones that can afford to make applications.

It would appear we have nothing to look forward to except large companies competing with us like we aren't even there!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774329 Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:58:53 EDT