Inssomniak
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
edit:
July 11th, @10:15AM
| Rural Ontario Funding program
»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! |
|
dongato17
VIP
join:2000-07-28
Atlanta, GA | 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 |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| 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 |
|
Airnode
join:2006-09-01
Germany
| reply to Inssomniak
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. |
|
John Galt
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR
edit:
July 12th, @12:04PM
| reply to Inssomniak
said by Inssomniak  :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 |
|
a1_Andy
Premium
join:2005-12-29
Campbellford, ON
| reply to LLigetfa
said by LLigetfa : 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  |
|
markscs
join:2003-03-14
Wingham, ON
| 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. |
|
a1_Andy
Premium
join:2005-12-29
Campbellford, ON
| said by 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). »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. |
|
markscs
join:2003-03-14
Wingham, ON | 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). |
|
thewisperer
Premium
join:2008-01-16 | reply to Inssomniak
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 |
|
markscs
join:2003-03-14
Wingham, ON
| reply to Inssomniak
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. |
|
John Galt
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR
| reply to markscs
said by 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). 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 |
|
a1_Andy
Premium
join:2005-12-29
Campbellford, ON
| reply to markscs
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. |
|
markscs
join:2003-03-14
Wingham, ON | 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) |
|
robbin
Premium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
| reply to markscs
said by markscs :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?   
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! |
|
Latency
@teksavvy.com
|  reply to a1_Andy
Start selling your equipment now and look for a new career in the Arctic (sorry, that markets already been taken  ).
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..  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
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 |
|
a1_Andy
Premium
join:2005-12-29
Campbellford, ON
edit:
July 14th, @07:38PM
| said by Latency :Start selling your equipment now and look for a new career in the Arctic (sorry, that markets already been taken ). 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.. 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 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)..... |
|
Inssomniak
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
| reply to 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. |
|
Semaphore
Premium
join:2003-11-18
Arnprior On.
| reply to Inssomniak
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. |
|
John Galt
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR
| reply to Latency
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 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.
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 |
|
