Re: [WISPA] customers dogs chewing on CAT5
How about http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=69899-1267-FO550M&lpage=none where the dogs can reach it? John Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > I've had several customers that have had their dog chew on the Cat5 going > from the house to the TV tower and some of them multiple times. > > > > Anyone have ideas on how to keep the dog from chewing on the wire? I've got > one customer on their 3rd Cat5 run and going out right now to replace a > different customer that will be his 3rd one as well. > > > > I'm about ready to shoot the stinking dog.. > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > > > > > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] CPE - who buys it?
Tom, Your reply is the the info I was looking for. Thanks for your reply. I do believe you are correct but I'll double-check with my county and CPA. I've moved so many times around the country that I cant keep up! Just a note, we have been paying our property taxes by default because of our lessor passes it on to us. The reason I'm inquiring is in preparation for when our lease is paid off (early next year). With that said, I have an additional question: Do you pay property taxes on every screw, nut, & bolt? -RickG On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > Rick, > > No your assumption is not true. > > Property Tax is applied on "property". When you buy radio CPE it shows up > on your financials as "property", and if you TAX DEDUCT the cost of the > CPE, > which I sure hope you do for your benefit, you have claimed those purchases > as property. A Auditor isn;t going to go look for a single small purchase. > But I assure you CPEs, a line item which adds up to be a huge inaggregate > cost, they will immediately see that property and recognize whether that > property was declared, and property tax properly paid on it or not. As a > matter of fact some counties will check you federal returns, to find your > claimed deductions and depreciations, and automatically assess your > property > tax based on your Federal Tax Returns. > > SO IF your county charges "Property Tax" then your CPEs are "TAXABLE > PROPERTY" UNLESS your county specifically has passsed a law to "excemption" > radio equipment. Loudon County Virgina is one specific County that made > Wireless CPE exempt from property tax to foster local investment in > Broadband. I wish more counties were as insightful, because it was a very > effective program. Property Tax is NOT just for large real estate. Its > paid > on EVERY TANGIBLE ASSET you own. That include an office chair, a computer, > a > telephone, a router, a CPE, what ever it is that you own. > > Mike, Just because nobody has been commming around asking for Property Tax > on CPE does not make it not owed. Property Tax is self claimed, so the > government doesn't know you have that property until they decide to audit > you, or you tell them. But why do you pay any tax of any kind at all? After > all, if you aren't audited you wont have to pay it? Because you know when > you are audited, you'll be in big trouble if you didn't. The same applied > to > Property Tax. The burden is on the Property Owner to know the law and > properly report Tax, or it is illegal TAX Evading, if the owner does not > report it. > > Yes, I've fully qualified the above with attorneys and accountants. I > learned this the hard way. > I originally over paid my property taxes, because I didn't know the laws. > When I learned I over paid, I stopped reporting and paying Property tax. > I got audited by the county, and they decided to estimate my Property Tax > based on data reported on my income tax returns, which was about 10 times > more than I actually owed. > The way it work is, you pay everything the government claims, and then if > you protest the amounts and win, they'll send you a refund. > I made the mistake of fighting the process, and when I didn't pay the wrong > amounts, they simply immediately cancelled my corporate status, reported it > to credit agencies, and made it impossible for me to get a LOAN for over > 1.5 > years. I couldn't even renew my ARIN IP, until I got it cleared up. > > The reason you report Property Tax on CPE is so you can report the correct > amounts. The government does not have access to the fact to assess a > correct > amount and will always grossly over estimate. You should also include a > letter explaining anything that might look odd. > > This is the thing Property Tax is paid to the State that the property > is > located and installed in. So if you are a Pennsylvania business, and buy > equipment from California, and install the CPE into Maryland, you pay > Property Tax on that CPE to Maryland. The problem here is that most WISPs > dont track where they will install a CPE at the time they buy bulk CPE, so > there is usually not a good record of where to pay tax to. SO... IF you > buy > 100 CPEs and Pay Tax on 100 CPEs to your State, and then isntall 30 of > those > CPEs in another State, you owe that second State Property Tax for 30 CPEs. > This means that you are at risk of paying Tax TWICE, if you do not properly > track where property resides and break tax payments down appropriately to > match. > > This is one of the reasons I am against tracking an ISP's end user > locations. The States/Counties will then have a clear record to track how > many CPEs an ISP has in their County. > > To find out if you owe property tax, you need to look at county code. Dont > look for something to say that you have to pay tax on CPE, because it wont > be there. By default you are obligated to pay tax on EVERYTHING, unless an > excemption was given. So you are looking for
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
You do NOT have to identify the customer via IP. They may come to you with an IP addy and you CAN tell them that you need more than that. Once they give you some form of identity that will narrow it down to a single customer you may have to either give them the info or do the tap. What you CAN'T do is give them any information on anyone other than the target person. We worked extensively with the FBI on the standard. We went all over these details. My subpoena had a user name. They wanted (and eventually got) a name and phone number for the target. In this case we didn't have to do the "wire tap". But they knew info other than the IP addy. marlon - Original Message - From: "Faisal Imtiaz" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > You have to be able to Identify the Customer, weather you do it via IP or > any other info is a monior Technicality. A lot of the Subpoena issued > via mail or fax are more 'in support' of whatever the case the appropriate > law enforcemnet agency is working on. > > Next time you get a Subpoena Feel free to ignore it or tell them you > cannot find the info. > > If what they are working on is important enough or if you piss off the > right > person, having a group of 4 or 5 agents showing up to your office, and > telling you nicely "You can either find the information for us now, or > we can come back with a team of a dozen people and a court order, and find > the information ourselves by taking everything apart" is very real and a > tremendous motivator. > > If I had not seen them do this, I would have chalked it off to being a > 'movie line'. > > In Short, you can be a cowboy with an attituted with them, or you can > cooperate, the choice is yours, but the consequences can be very real. > > > > Faisal Imtiaz > Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net > Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:49 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > You do NOT have to be able to identify the user by IP. What you have to > be > able to do is forward (in real time) all traffic to LEA. > > Butch Evens helped write our standard: > http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html > he'll be able to give you much more accurate info on the specifics than I > can. > > laters, > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Clint Ricker" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > >> CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address >> and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for >> CALEA >> compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal >> proceedings. >> >> However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA >> information >> unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a >> criminal >> prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some >> of >> the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing >> lawsuit. >> >> Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service >> provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a >> subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright >> enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two >> parties >> than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in >> other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice >> being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes >> for >> identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. >> >> -Clint >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz >> wrote: >> >>> This actually leads to another question: >>> Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) >>> supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs >>> >>> .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log >>> access, >>> based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what >>> IP >>> address at what point in time... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Faisal Imtiaz >>> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net >>> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Adam Goodman >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >>> >>> Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really >>> your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson >>> wrot
Re: [WISPA] IPTV -- Anyone doing it?
Middleware... we initially used something that started with an E... I don't remember. It was junk, and the developers were not too bright. We ended up going with Minerva - it's great. AT&T U-Verse runs Minerva, so that has to tell you something. Our headend was built by Avail Media. I don't know what software they used on the Linux encoders. I do know the 4-port ASI cards (which were something like $1200/ea) come with Linux software to encode from ASI to MPEG 4 and stream out via multicast. Initially we used some cheap-o STB's made by... again, the name escapes me. Mood or something. They were decent, actually. We ended up going with Motorola STBs because they supported HD. Again, U-Verse uses Moto STBs, so that tells you something. Middleware provides the guide. On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote: > We're operate a small cable TV company in a minor section of our service > area and carry about 55 channels which includes most of the major networks. > > We're interested in deploying IPTV. What middleware software would you > recommend? You mentioned you used Linux in your headend environment. Can you > elaborate on that setup, such as the software you were using to convert the > channels to IP Multicast, set-top boxes being used, software providing > channel guides, etc etc? > > Thanks. > > -- > Blake Covarrubias > > On Nov 9, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Jayson Baker wrote: > > > Building the headend isn't that difficult, you're right. > > > > Ours was actually pretty simple. We used multi-channel satellite > receivers; > > each tuned 32 channels I think. It had an ASI output. > > > > We'd take the ASI stream, and run it into an ASI-input PCI card. Each > card > > took 4 ASI streams, and was about $1000 each. > > > > Linux software on the server pulled each channel out of the ASI and > > converted it to MPEG 4. Cheap, easy, simple. > > > > They'd put out a multicast stream, which our network took and pushed out > the > > fiber ring. We even had it going down some wireless links, so I could > get > > it at my house 20 miles away. > > > > The money in the headend comes in when you by the middleware -- this you > > cannot just "roll your own" Middleware handles billing, authentication, > > licenses, guide, etc. > > > > > > Making deals with companies to rebroadcast their channels is going to be > > another major hurdle. Unless you are big (i.e. have $$$) don't think > you'll > > be carrying anything in the Disney/ESPN/ABC family. And forget about > HBO. > > You'll need a fancy (i.e. $$$) lawyer who has been down this road before > to > > negotiate these deals. When we set ours up, we hired a lawyer away from > > Comcast. After everything was in place, he went on to other things. > > > > > > Echostar has an IPTV solution, you may want to look into that. AFAIK, > you > > pay them for everything, and they handle it all. Their feed, their > headend, > > their encoders, their middleware, their STB's. One nice thing about that > is > > it's the same DISH Network interface a lot of satellite users are already > > used to. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net < > jree...@18-30chat.net > >> wrote: > > > >> Thats the problem, if I had 50K sitting around for gear, I would not be > >> putting > >> it into TV (well, maybe I would be, but more BW, more towers, faster > >> clients, > >> etc come to mind sooner). > >> > >> I can build a head end for far far less then that, If I stuck to the > free > >> channels or made my won deals with each channel. There are 1000's (well, > >> close) > >> of free to air channels out there. Some even give explicit permission to > >> rebroadcast the channel, as long as you notify them etc. I was hoping to > >> find a > >> place that would let me purchase channels X, Y, and Z, etc. The locals > are > >> easy > >> enough to deal with. So, Looks like I will need to do my own head end, > no > >> biggie > >> over all. Who do I talk to about licensing? I knwo some channels are > >> direct, > >> some are not. Is there a list? And, can a person who already has a > license > >> sub-license to me? Like MDU style? I know Charter does that, if you have > >> enough > >> people (IE I suspect enough money) If I could sublet off of a existing > >> licensee > >> and do my own IP transport, that would work out pretty well. Anyone have > a > >> license contract they can share? (most seam to have some NDA stuffs) > >> > >> can...@believewireless.net wrote: > >>> When we looked into Avail Media, it was a $500,000 investment to start > >>> if I remember correctly. (Headend, set top boxes, etc.) > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jayson Baker > >> wrote: > Have a look at Avail Media. We used them in the past for an FTTH > >> project I > was involved in. > They will provide you the headend, and satellite feeds from their > super-headend (aggregator). > They work with the networks and it makes licensing and such a
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
They just plugged some linux box one of their computer cop dudes put together into our main switch in the office and left. They monitored it from the cop shop. All we told them was we needed to see a court order before they plugged the thing in. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement I assume you gave them a port on your edge switch that mirrored your network feed? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:31 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement Exactly. They are the detectives so I basically told them to feel free to detect. Just don't mess with my network. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement An that will be sufficient assuming that you can point to an IP on your network and know who has it at the time. the only way to do that is to track the MAC address of the CPE. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:25 PM To: fai...@snappydsl.net; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement We Nat everyone and we log not much of anything because I'm an internet service, not a monitoring service. "They" don't pay me to do such things therefore I don't. However, I did have one case of suspected child porn and told the cops to feel free to install their own box to log it and they did. All I gave them was a place to plug it in. Not my job. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:05 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You have to be able to Identify the Customer, weather you do it via IP or any other info is a monior Technicality. A lot of the Subpoena issued via mail or fax are more 'in support' of whatever the case the appropriate law enforcemnet agency is working on. Next time you get a Subpoena Feel free to ignore it or tell them you cannot find the info. If what they are working on is important enough or if you piss off the right person, having a group of 4 or 5 agents showing up to your office, and telling you nicely "You can either find the information for us now, or we can come back with a team of a dozen people and a court order, and find the information ourselves by taking everything apart" is very real and a tremendous motivator. If I had not seen them do this, I would have chalked it off to being a 'movie line'. In Short, you can be a cowboy with an attituted with them, or you can cooperate, the choice is yours, but the consequences can be very real. Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You do NOT have to be able to identify the user by IP. What you have to be able to do is forward (in real time) all traffic to LEA. Butch Evens helped write our standard: http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html he'll be able to give you much more accurate info on the specifics than I can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Clint Ricker" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address > and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for > CALEA > compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal > proceedings. > > However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA > information > unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a > criminal > prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some > of > the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing > lawsuit. > > Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service > provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a > subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright > enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties > than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in > other ways: it's not hard t
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
I assume you gave them a port on your edge switch that mirrored your network feed? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:31 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement Exactly. They are the detectives so I basically told them to feel free to detect. Just don't mess with my network. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement An that will be sufficient assuming that you can point to an IP on your network and know who has it at the time. the only way to do that is to track the MAC address of the CPE. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:25 PM To: fai...@snappydsl.net; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement We Nat everyone and we log not much of anything because I'm an internet service, not a monitoring service. "They" don't pay me to do such things therefore I don't. However, I did have one case of suspected child porn and told the cops to feel free to install their own box to log it and they did. All I gave them was a place to plug it in. Not my job. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:05 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You have to be able to Identify the Customer, weather you do it via IP or any other info is a monior Technicality. A lot of the Subpoena issued via mail or fax are more 'in support' of whatever the case the appropriate law enforcemnet agency is working on. Next time you get a Subpoena Feel free to ignore it or tell them you cannot find the info. If what they are working on is important enough or if you piss off the right person, having a group of 4 or 5 agents showing up to your office, and telling you nicely "You can either find the information for us now, or we can come back with a team of a dozen people and a court order, and find the information ourselves by taking everything apart" is very real and a tremendous motivator. If I had not seen them do this, I would have chalked it off to being a 'movie line'. In Short, you can be a cowboy with an attituted with them, or you can cooperate, the choice is yours, but the consequences can be very real. Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You do NOT have to be able to identify the user by IP. What you have to be able to do is forward (in real time) all traffic to LEA. Butch Evens helped write our standard: http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html he'll be able to give you much more accurate info on the specifics than I can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Clint Ricker" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address > and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for > CALEA > compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal > proceedings. > > However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA > information > unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a > criminal > prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some > of > the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing > lawsuit. > > Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service > provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a > subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright > enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties > than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in > other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice > being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for > identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. > > -Clint > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> This actually leads to another question: >> Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) >> supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs >> >> .We keep logs by using a centralied
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
Exactly. They are the detectives so I basically told them to feel free to detect. Just don't mess with my network. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement An that will be sufficient assuming that you can point to an IP on your network and know who has it at the time. the only way to do that is to track the MAC address of the CPE. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:25 PM To: fai...@snappydsl.net; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement We Nat everyone and we log not much of anything because I'm an internet service, not a monitoring service. "They" don't pay me to do such things therefore I don't. However, I did have one case of suspected child porn and told the cops to feel free to install their own box to log it and they did. All I gave them was a place to plug it in. Not my job. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:05 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You have to be able to Identify the Customer, weather you do it via IP or any other info is a monior Technicality. A lot of the Subpoena issued via mail or fax are more 'in support' of whatever the case the appropriate law enforcemnet agency is working on. Next time you get a Subpoena Feel free to ignore it or tell them you cannot find the info. If what they are working on is important enough or if you piss off the right person, having a group of 4 or 5 agents showing up to your office, and telling you nicely "You can either find the information for us now, or we can come back with a team of a dozen people and a court order, and find the information ourselves by taking everything apart" is very real and a tremendous motivator. If I had not seen them do this, I would have chalked it off to being a 'movie line'. In Short, you can be a cowboy with an attituted with them, or you can cooperate, the choice is yours, but the consequences can be very real. Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You do NOT have to be able to identify the user by IP. What you have to be able to do is forward (in real time) all traffic to LEA. Butch Evens helped write our standard: http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html he'll be able to give you much more accurate info on the specifics than I can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Clint Ricker" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address > and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for > CALEA > compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal > proceedings. > > However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA > information > unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a > criminal > prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some > of > the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing > lawsuit. > > Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service > provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a > subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright > enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties > than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in > other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice > being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for > identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. > > -Clint > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> This actually leads to another question: >> Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) >> supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs >> >> .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log >> access, >> based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what IP >> address at what point in time... >> >> >> >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net >> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
An that will be sufficient assuming that you can point to an IP on your network and know who has it at the time. the only way to do that is to track the MAC address of the CPE. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:25 PM To: fai...@snappydsl.net; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement We Nat everyone and we log not much of anything because I'm an internet service, not a monitoring service. "They" don't pay me to do such things therefore I don't. However, I did have one case of suspected child porn and told the cops to feel free to install their own box to log it and they did. All I gave them was a place to plug it in. Not my job. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:05 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You have to be able to Identify the Customer, weather you do it via IP or any other info is a monior Technicality. A lot of the Subpoena issued via mail or fax are more 'in support' of whatever the case the appropriate law enforcemnet agency is working on. Next time you get a Subpoena Feel free to ignore it or tell them you cannot find the info. If what they are working on is important enough or if you piss off the right person, having a group of 4 or 5 agents showing up to your office, and telling you nicely "You can either find the information for us now, or we can come back with a team of a dozen people and a court order, and find the information ourselves by taking everything apart" is very real and a tremendous motivator. If I had not seen them do this, I would have chalked it off to being a 'movie line'. In Short, you can be a cowboy with an attituted with them, or you can cooperate, the choice is yours, but the consequences can be very real. Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You do NOT have to be able to identify the user by IP. What you have to be able to do is forward (in real time) all traffic to LEA. Butch Evens helped write our standard: http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html he'll be able to give you much more accurate info on the specifics than I can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Clint Ricker" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address > and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for > CALEA > compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal > proceedings. > > However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA > information > unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a > criminal > prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some > of > the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing > lawsuit. > > Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service > provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a > subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright > enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties > than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in > other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice > being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for > identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. > > -Clint > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> This actually leads to another question: >> Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) >> supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs >> >> .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log >> access, >> based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what IP >> address at what point in time... >> >> >> >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net >> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Adam Goodman >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really >> your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 a
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
We Nat everyone and we log not much of anything because I'm an internet service, not a monitoring service. "They" don't pay me to do such things therefore I don't. However, I did have one case of suspected child porn and told the cops to feel free to install their own box to log it and they did. All I gave them was a place to plug it in. Not my job. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:05 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You have to be able to Identify the Customer, weather you do it via IP or any other info is a monior Technicality. A lot of the Subpoena issued via mail or fax are more 'in support' of whatever the case the appropriate law enforcemnet agency is working on. Next time you get a Subpoena Feel free to ignore it or tell them you cannot find the info. If what they are working on is important enough or if you piss off the right person, having a group of 4 or 5 agents showing up to your office, and telling you nicely "You can either find the information for us now, or we can come back with a team of a dozen people and a court order, and find the information ourselves by taking everything apart" is very real and a tremendous motivator. If I had not seen them do this, I would have chalked it off to being a 'movie line'. In Short, you can be a cowboy with an attituted with them, or you can cooperate, the choice is yours, but the consequences can be very real. Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You do NOT have to be able to identify the user by IP. What you have to be able to do is forward (in real time) all traffic to LEA. Butch Evens helped write our standard: http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html he'll be able to give you much more accurate info on the specifics than I can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Clint Ricker" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address > and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for > CALEA > compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal > proceedings. > > However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA > information > unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a > criminal > prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some > of > the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing > lawsuit. > > Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service > provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a > subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright > enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties > than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in > other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice > being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for > identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. > > -Clint > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> This actually leads to another question: >> Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) >> supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs >> >> .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log >> access, >> based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what IP >> address at what point in time... >> >> >> >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net >> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Adam Goodman >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really >> your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson >> wrote: >> > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the >> offending >> customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. >> > >> > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for >> the server delivering copyrighted information. >> > >> > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. >> > >> > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections acro
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
That's the point I was trying to make. If you are going to run NAT/DHCP, then you need to track the MAC address of the CPE's. If it's an open WiFi network, then all bets are off. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Schmidt Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:14 PM To: fai...@snappydsl.net; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement It's dumb. You could have 100s of folks behind a NAT. You can identify the account connection to your system but not the ID of the computer. It isn't well thought out. . . . J o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:05 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You have to be able to Identify the Customer, weather you do it via IP or any other info is a monior Technicality. A lot of the Subpoena issued via mail or fax are more 'in support' of whatever the case the appropriate law enforcemnet agency is working on. Next time you get a Subpoena Feel free to ignore it or tell them you cannot find the info. If what they are working on is important enough or if you piss off the right person, having a group of 4 or 5 agents showing up to your office, and telling you nicely "You can either find the information for us now, or we can come back with a team of a dozen people and a court order, and find the information ourselves by taking everything apart" is very real and a tremendous motivator. If I had not seen them do this, I would have chalked it off to being a 'movie line'. In Short, you can be a cowboy with an attituted with them, or you can cooperate, the choice is yours, but the consequences can be very real. Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You do NOT have to be able to identify the user by IP. What you have to be able to do is forward (in real time) all traffic to LEA. Butch Evens helped write our standard: http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html he'll be able to give you much more accurate info on the specifics than I can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Clint Ricker" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP > address and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is > collected for CALEA compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can > be used in other legal proceedings. > > However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA > information unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would > require a criminal prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions > which circumvent some of the normal due process for these requests) or > a subpoena in an ongoing lawsuit. > > Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a > service provider to forward that information onto a third party > outside of a subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of > "copyright enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute > between two parties than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy > could also be abused in other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed > copyright violation notice being sent by a child predator or an > offended chatroom user who fishes for identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. > > -Clint > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> This actually leads to another question: >> Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service >> provider) supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs >> >> .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log >> access, based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was >> using what IP address at what point in time... >> >> >> >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net >> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On Behalf Of Adam Goodman >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it >> really your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson >> wrote: >> > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the >> offending >> customer? We are running static/public so we do
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
It's dumb. You could have 100s of folks behind a NAT. You can identify the account connection to your system but not the ID of the computer. It isn't well thought out. . . . J o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:05 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You have to be able to Identify the Customer, weather you do it via IP or any other info is a monior Technicality. A lot of the Subpoena issued via mail or fax are more 'in support' of whatever the case the appropriate law enforcemnet agency is working on. Next time you get a Subpoena Feel free to ignore it or tell them you cannot find the info. If what they are working on is important enough or if you piss off the right person, having a group of 4 or 5 agents showing up to your office, and telling you nicely "You can either find the information for us now, or we can come back with a team of a dozen people and a court order, and find the information ourselves by taking everything apart" is very real and a tremendous motivator. If I had not seen them do this, I would have chalked it off to being a 'movie line'. In Short, you can be a cowboy with an attituted with them, or you can cooperate, the choice is yours, but the consequences can be very real. Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You do NOT have to be able to identify the user by IP. What you have to be able to do is forward (in real time) all traffic to LEA. Butch Evens helped write our standard: http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html he'll be able to give you much more accurate info on the specifics than I can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Clint Ricker" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP > address and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is > collected for CALEA compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can > be used in other legal proceedings. > > However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA > information unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would > require a criminal prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions > which circumvent some of the normal due process for these requests) or > a subpoena in an ongoing lawsuit. > > Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a > service provider to forward that information onto a third party > outside of a subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of > "copyright enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute > between two parties than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy > could also be abused in other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed > copyright violation notice being sent by a child predator or an > offended chatroom user who fishes for identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. > > -Clint > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> This actually leads to another question: >> Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service >> provider) supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs >> >> .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log >> access, based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was >> using what IP address at what point in time... >> >> >> >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net >> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On Behalf Of Adam Goodman >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it >> really your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson >> wrote: >> > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the >> offending >> customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. >> > >> > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP >> > for >> the server delivering copyrighted information. >> > >> > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. >> > >> > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the >> > network to >> find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. >> > >> > Maybe there is an easier way. >> > >> > >> > >> >
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
You have to be able to Identify the Customer, weather you do it via IP or any other info is a monior Technicality. A lot of the Subpoena issued via mail or fax are more 'in support' of whatever the case the appropriate law enforcemnet agency is working on. Next time you get a Subpoena Feel free to ignore it or tell them you cannot find the info. If what they are working on is important enough or if you piss off the right person, having a group of 4 or 5 agents showing up to your office, and telling you nicely "You can either find the information for us now, or we can come back with a team of a dozen people and a court order, and find the information ourselves by taking everything apart" is very real and a tremendous motivator. If I had not seen them do this, I would have chalked it off to being a 'movie line'. In Short, you can be a cowboy with an attituted with them, or you can cooperate, the choice is yours, but the consequences can be very real. Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement You do NOT have to be able to identify the user by IP. What you have to be able to do is forward (in real time) all traffic to LEA. Butch Evens helped write our standard: http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html he'll be able to give you much more accurate info on the specifics than I can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Clint Ricker" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address > and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for > CALEA > compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal > proceedings. > > However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA > information > unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a > criminal > prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some > of > the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing > lawsuit. > > Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service > provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a > subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright > enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties > than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in > other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice > being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for > identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. > > -Clint > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> This actually leads to another question: >> Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) >> supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs >> >> .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log >> access, >> based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what IP >> address at what point in time... >> >> >> >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net >> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Adam Goodman >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really >> your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson >> wrote: >> > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the >> offending >> customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. >> > >> > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for >> the server delivering copyrighted information. >> > >> > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. >> > >> > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network >> > to >> find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. >> > >> > Maybe there is an easier way. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> > On Behalf Of Nick Olsen >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> > >> > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came >> > from, When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the >> > ISP could become the s
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
You have to follow network designs that allow for CALEA intercepts if need be. If you've not looked at the WISPA standard I'd suggest you do so now. It'll be a lot easier to comply if the network is designed for LEA interface ahead of time. http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html marlon - Original Message - From: "Jerry Richardson" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > OK so let's play out the scenario. > > Studio wants ISP send a letter to the customer > ISP is NAT/DHCP - has no way to know > Studio gets subpoena > > What now? At this point LEA is involved which demands cooperation. > If the network is open WiFi, then there truly is no way to know. > If the network is fixed installation, then the ISP "could" provide the > information. > > So assuming it's a fixed installation, the ISP sets up a server with > Wireshark or other packet capture and stores that data for1 day, 1 > week, 1 month? > > At this point is the ISP breaking any privacy laws of customers that are > NOT named in the subpoena? Not if the customer's TOA indicated that their > Internet traffic MAY be stored and analyzed under legal request by LEA. > > > Mind you this is all hypothetical. I'm just trying to understand the > potential impact and exposire on the part of the ISP. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Josh Luthman > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:48 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > >> So what does the law require? > > It doesn't. > >> Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static >> public > IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? > > If the law changes and says each customer is required to have a public IP, > then ISPs need to be provided as such. > > Keep in mind, too, that IPs are dynamic with most ISPs. Don't forget that > the "I have an open WiFi don't blame me" case still works. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." > --- Albert Einstein > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jerry Richardson > > wrote: > >> good point. >> >> So what does the law require? >> >> Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static >> public >> IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Josh Luthman >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:31 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> That works for current infringements but what about those last night? >> last >> week? last month? >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." >> --- Albert Einstein >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson < >> jrichard...@aircloud.com >> > wrote: >> >> > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the >> offending >> > customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. >> > >> > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for >> the >> > server delivering copyrighted information. >> > >> > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. >> > >> > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network >> > to >> > find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you >> > go. >> > >> > Maybe there is an easier way. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> > Behalf Of Nick Olsen >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> > >> > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came >> from, >> > When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP >> > could >> > become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point >> > fingers >> at >> > a customer. >> > >> > Nick Olsen >> > Brevard Wireless >> > (321) 205-1100 x106 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM >> > To: "WISPA General List" >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> > >> > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems >> > like then more of the burden might fall on you. >> > >> > GReg >> > >> > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: >> > >> > > To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to >> > > protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since >> > > they have no way of knowin
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
You do NOT have to be able to identify the user by IP. What you have to be able to do is forward (in real time) all traffic to LEA. Butch Evens helped write our standard: http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/index.html he'll be able to give you much more accurate info on the specifics than I can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Clint Ricker" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address > and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for > CALEA > compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal > proceedings. > > However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA > information > unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a > criminal > prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some > of > the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing > lawsuit. > > Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service > provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a > subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright > enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties > than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in > other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice > being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for > identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. > > -Clint > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> This actually leads to another question: >> Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) >> supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs >> >> .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log >> access, >> based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what IP >> address at what point in time... >> >> >> >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net >> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Adam Goodman >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really >> your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson >> wrote: >> > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the >> offending >> customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. >> > >> > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for >> the server delivering copyrighted information. >> > >> > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. >> > >> > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network >> > to >> find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. >> > >> > Maybe there is an easier way. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> > On Behalf Of Nick Olsen >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> > >> > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came >> > from, When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the >> > ISP could become the sole person responsible for that unless you can >> > point fingers at a customer. >> > >> > Nick Olsen >> > Brevard Wireless >> > (321) 205-1100 x106 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM >> > To: "WISPA General List" >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> > >> > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? >> > Seems like then more of the burden might fall on you. >> > >> > GReg >> > >> > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: >> > >> >> To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to >> >> protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since >> >> they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they >> >> really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the >> >> copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work >> >> sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from >> >> contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. >> >> >> >> -Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West >> >> >> > wrote: >> >>> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass >> >>> it >> > along >>
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
The point I was making is that Based on CALEA requirements, each ISP is supposed to keep records of useage and access, and should be available via easy access (not a few hrs of research). Disclosing the End user info to DMCA That is not what we do and not in favor off either, but using the logs to identify which customer is the ofender and having them stop is what we do actively do. Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement This information will help clarify (or confuse further) http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for CALEA compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal proceedings. However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA information unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a criminal prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some of the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing lawsuit. Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. -Clint On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > This actually leads to another question: > Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) > supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs > > .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log > access, based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was > using what IP address at what point in time... > > > > > Faisal Imtiaz > Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net > Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On Behalf Of Adam Goodman > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it > really your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson > wrote: > > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the > offending > customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. > > > > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP > > for > the server delivering copyrighted information. > > > > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. > > > > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the > > network to > find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. > > > > Maybe there is an easier way. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > > On Behalf Of Nick Olsen > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it > > came from, When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree > > you the ISP could become the sole person responsible for that unless > > you can point fingers at a customer. > > > > Nick Olsen > > Brevard Wireless > > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > > > > > > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? > > Seems like then more of the burden might fall on you. > > > > GReg > > > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > > > >> To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > >> protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > >> they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all > >> they really have is an ip address. That the ISP would
Re: [WISPA] IPTV -- Anyone doing it?
We're operate a small cable TV company in a minor section of our service area and carry about 55 channels which includes most of the major networks. We're interested in deploying IPTV. What middleware software would you recommend? You mentioned you used Linux in your headend environment. Can you elaborate on that setup, such as the software you were using to convert the channels to IP Multicast, set-top boxes being used, software providing channel guides, etc etc? Thanks. -- Blake Covarrubias On Nov 9, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Jayson Baker wrote: > Building the headend isn't that difficult, you're right. > > Ours was actually pretty simple. We used multi-channel satellite receivers; > each tuned 32 channels I think. It had an ASI output. > > We'd take the ASI stream, and run it into an ASI-input PCI card. Each card > took 4 ASI streams, and was about $1000 each. > > Linux software on the server pulled each channel out of the ASI and > converted it to MPEG 4. Cheap, easy, simple. > > They'd put out a multicast stream, which our network took and pushed out the > fiber ring. We even had it going down some wireless links, so I could get > it at my house 20 miles away. > > The money in the headend comes in when you by the middleware -- this you > cannot just "roll your own" Middleware handles billing, authentication, > licenses, guide, etc. > > > Making deals with companies to rebroadcast their channels is going to be > another major hurdle. Unless you are big (i.e. have $$$) don't think you'll > be carrying anything in the Disney/ESPN/ABC family. And forget about HBO. > You'll need a fancy (i.e. $$$) lawyer who has been down this road before to > negotiate these deals. When we set ours up, we hired a lawyer away from > Comcast. After everything was in place, he went on to other things. > > > Echostar has an IPTV solution, you may want to look into that. AFAIK, you > pay them for everything, and they handle it all. Their feed, their headend, > their encoders, their middleware, their STB's. One nice thing about that is > it's the same DISH Network interface a lot of satellite users are already > used to. > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net > wrote: > >> Thats the problem, if I had 50K sitting around for gear, I would not be >> putting >> it into TV (well, maybe I would be, but more BW, more towers, faster >> clients, >> etc come to mind sooner). >> >> I can build a head end for far far less then that, If I stuck to the free >> channels or made my won deals with each channel. There are 1000's (well, >> close) >> of free to air channels out there. Some even give explicit permission to >> rebroadcast the channel, as long as you notify them etc. I was hoping to >> find a >> place that would let me purchase channels X, Y, and Z, etc. The locals are >> easy >> enough to deal with. So, Looks like I will need to do my own head end, no >> biggie >> over all. Who do I talk to about licensing? I knwo some channels are >> direct, >> some are not. Is there a list? And, can a person who already has a license >> sub-license to me? Like MDU style? I know Charter does that, if you have >> enough >> people (IE I suspect enough money) If I could sublet off of a existing >> licensee >> and do my own IP transport, that would work out pretty well. Anyone have a >> license contract they can share? (most seam to have some NDA stuffs) >> >> can...@believewireless.net wrote: >>> When we looked into Avail Media, it was a $500,000 investment to start >>> if I remember correctly. (Headend, set top boxes, etc.) >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jayson Baker >> wrote: Have a look at Avail Media. We used them in the past for an FTTH >> project I was involved in. They will provide you the headend, and satellite feeds from their super-headend (aggregator). They work with the networks and it makes licensing and such a little >> easier. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:44 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net < >> jree...@18-30chat.net > wrote: > I have been looking at some IPTV options and basically, there does not >> seam > to > be a whole lot of options. I can A) build my own IP headend B) nada . >> I > can not > find a single IPTV provider that truly caters to the resident, soho, >> etc. > There > is one that does so for huge cable op's but thats not where I am at, >> yet =) > > I can build my own head end no problem. Licensing is the primary issues > there. I > am guessing that is what is stopping the explosion of retail IPTV and > instead > pushing the more a la carte IP video streamers like NetFlix, HuLu, et >> al. > > So, what options exist for IPTV ? > > > > >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >> -
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
This information will help clarify (or confuse further) http://www.wispa.org/calea/WCS/ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for CALEA compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal proceedings. However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA information unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a criminal prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some of the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing lawsuit. Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. -Clint On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > This actually leads to another question: > Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) > supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs > > .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log access, > based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what IP > address at what point in time... > > > > > Faisal Imtiaz > Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net > Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Goodman > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really > your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson > wrote: > > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the > offending > customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. > > > > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for > the server delivering copyrighted information. > > > > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. > > > > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to > find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. > > > > Maybe there is an easier way. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > > On Behalf Of Nick Olsen > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came > > from, When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the > > ISP could become the sole person responsible for that unless you can > > point fingers at a customer. > > > > Nick Olsen > > Brevard Wireless > > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > > > > > > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? > > Seems like then more of the burden might fall on you. > > > > GReg > > > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > > > >> To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > >> protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > >> they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they > >> really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the > >> copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work > >> sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from > >> contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. > >> > >> -Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West > >> > > wrote: > >>> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass > >>> it > > along > >>> and forget it. Not my job. > >>> > >>> Bob- > >>> > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > >>> On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg > >>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM > >>> To: WISPA General List > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyrig
Re: [WISPA] customers dogs chewing on CAT5
We've had dogs pull the cable right off the side of the building. marlon - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] customers dogs chewing on CAT5 > OR one can just do a professional install job, and not have loose > cables, and properly stable/fasten all cables flush to surfaces every > three > feet, and run behind walls, and under trims, etc. Dogs have never been a > threat to my installs. Sure a Dog might chew a 6ft Patch Cable, but thats > an > easy fix, and easilly verified by end user. Now on the other hand a Weed > Eater? We've had a few cut by lawn care, when the weeds grew up to the > trim > edge, cause they dont even know the cable is there, and accidentally get > it. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Chuck Bartosch" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:17 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] customers dogs chewing on CAT5 > > >> Feed and Grain stores sell bitters, but I find that any determined dog >> will ignore the bitters and chew away. >> >> In fact, just this morning I coincidentally happened to have some >> bitters (gf bought it a while back) and thought "oh what the hell" and >> sprayed it on something a dog was chewing on. The dog went right back >> to it, licked it, shook his head, licked his chops, and licked the >> wood again. Kept doing this, whining at times, until it was "all >> clean" and he could chew again ;-). >> >> However, I *have* found that Habanero Tabasco Hot Sauce works 100% of >> the time. That's like 10,000 times hotter than normal jalapeno hot >> sauce and they do not like and do not go back for a second lick. >> >> Chuck >> >> On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Greg wrote: >> >>> Your local feed and grain or pet store should have aerosol dog >>> repellent. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Kurt Fankhauser >>> wrote: >>> I've had several customers that have had their dog chew on the Cat5 going from the house to the TV tower and some of them multiple times. Anyone have ideas on how to keep the dog from chewing on the wire? I've got one customer on their 3rd Cat5 run and going out right now to replace a different customer that will be his 3rd one as well. I'm about ready to shoot the stinking dog.. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com 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/ >> >> -- >> Chuck Bartosch >> Clarity Connect, Inc. >> 200 Pleasant Grove Road >> Ithaca, NY 14850 >> (607) 257-8268 >> >> "When the stars threw down their spears, >> and water'd heaven with their tears, >> Did He smile, His work to see? >> Did He who made the Lamb make thee?" >> >> From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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: h
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for CALEA compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal proceedings. However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA information unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a criminal prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some of the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing lawsuit. Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of "copyright enforcement", which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. -Clint On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > This actually leads to another question: > Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) > supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs > > .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log access, > based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what IP > address at what point in time... > > > > > Faisal Imtiaz > Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net > Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Goodman > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really > your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson > wrote: > > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the > offending > customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. > > > > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for > the server delivering copyrighted information. > > > > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. > > > > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to > find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. > > > > Maybe there is an easier way. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > > On Behalf Of Nick Olsen > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came > > from, When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the > > ISP could become the sole person responsible for that unless you can > > point fingers at a customer. > > > > Nick Olsen > > Brevard Wireless > > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > > > > > > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? > > Seems like then more of the burden might fall on you. > > > > GReg > > > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > > > >> To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > >> protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > >> they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they > >> really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the > >> copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work > >> sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from > >> contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. > >> > >> -Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West > >> > > wrote: > >>> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass > >>> it > > along > >>> and forget it. Not my job. > >>> > >>> Bob- > >>> > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > >>> On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg > >>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM > >>> To: WISPA General List > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > >>> > >>> Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard > >>> studio letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any > information. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Chuck Hogg > >>> Shelby Broadband > >>> 502-722-9292 > >>> ch...@shelbybb.com > >>> http://www.shelbybb.com > >>> > >>> > >>> -
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
Do we have to do the logging or just give them a port to connect their "magic box" into so they can record everything? LaRoy McCann Data Technology Jerry Richardson wrote: > no it's not. > > but a subpoena means drop everything and do it now. I'd rather be > prepared to comply > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 12:01 PM, "Adam Goodman" wrote: > > >> Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it >> really your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson >> wrote: >> >>> So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the >>> offending customer? We are running static/public so we don't run >>> into this. >>> >>> I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP >>> for the server delivering copyrighted information. >>> >>> The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. >>> >>> Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the >>> network to find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC >>> and there you go. >>> >>> Maybe there is an easier way. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>> boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick Olsen >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >>> >>> Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it >>> came from, >>> When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP >>> could >>> become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point >>> fingers at >>> a customer. >>> >>> Nick Olsen >>> Brevard Wireless >>> (321) 205-1100 x106 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >>> >>> What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? >>> Seems >>> like then more of the burden might fall on you. >>> >>> GReg >>> >>> On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: >>> >>> To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. -Adam On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West >>> >>> wrote: >>> > I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I > pass it > >>> along >>> > and forget it. Not my job. > > Bob- > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- > boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Chuck Hogg > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard > studio > letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any > information. > > Regards, > Chuck Hogg > Shelby Broadband > 502-722-9292 > ch...@shelbybb.com > http://www.shelbybb.com > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- > boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Goodman > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from > "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie > from > BitTorrent. > > They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is > aware > of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you > handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another > path? > > Thank you, > Adam > > > > >>> --- >>> - >>> > > 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/ > > > > >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> ---
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
no it's not. but a subpoena means drop everything and do it now. I'd rather be prepared to comply Sent from my iPhone On Nov 10, 2009, at 12:01 PM, "Adam Goodman" wrote: > Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it > really your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson > wrote: >> So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the >> offending customer? We are running static/public so we don't run >> into this. >> >> I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP >> for the server delivering copyrighted information. >> >> The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. >> >> Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the >> network to find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC >> and there you go. >> >> Maybe there is an easier way. >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >> boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick Olsen >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it >> came from, >> When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP >> could >> become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point >> fingers at >> a customer. >> >> Nick Olsen >> Brevard Wireless >> (321) 205-1100 x106 >> >> >> >> >> From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? >> Seems >> like then more of the burden might fall on you. >> >> GReg >> >> On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: >> >>> To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to >>> protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since >>> they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all >>> they >>> really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the >>> copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work >>> sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from >>> contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West >> > >> wrote: I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it >> along and forget it. Not my job. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Adam Goodman Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from BitTorrent. They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another path? Thank you, Adam >> --- >> - 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/ >> --- >> --- >> --- >> -
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
This actually leads to another question: Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log access, based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what IP address at what point in time... Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Adam Goodman Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the offending customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. > > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for the server delivering copyrighted information. > > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. > > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. > > Maybe there is an easier way. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On Behalf Of Nick Olsen > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came > from, When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the > ISP could become the sole person responsible for that unless you can > point fingers at a customer. > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? > Seems like then more of the burden might fall on you. > > GReg > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > >> To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to >> protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since >> they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they >> really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the >> copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work >> sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from >> contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West >> > wrote: >>> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass >>> it > along >>> and forget it. Not my job. >>> >>> Bob- >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>> On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg >>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >>> >>> Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard >>> studio letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Chuck Hogg >>> Shelby Broadband >>> 502-722-9292 >>> ch...@shelbybb.com >>> http://www.shelbybb.com >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>> On Behalf Of Adam Goodman >>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >>> >>> We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from >>> "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from >>> BitTorrent. >>> >>> They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is >>> aware of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did >>> you handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking >>> another path? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> > -- > -- >>> >>> 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/ >>> > -- > -- > >>
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
Are you asking if it is our job to follow the tax law? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --- Albert Einstein On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Adam Goodman wrote: > Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it > really your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson > wrote: > > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the > offending customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. > > > > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for > the server delivering copyrighted information. > > > > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. > > > > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to > find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. > > > > Maybe there is an easier way. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Nick Olsen > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came > from, > > When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP could > > become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point fingers > at > > a customer. > > > > Nick Olsen > > Brevard Wireless > > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > > > > > > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems > > like then more of the burden might fall on you. > > > > GReg > > > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > > > >> To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > >> protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > >> they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they > >> really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the > >> copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work > >> sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from > >> contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. > >> > >> -Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West < > robert.w...@just-micro.com> > > wrote: > >>> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it > > along > >>> and forget it. Not my job. > >>> > >>> Bob- > >>> > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > >>> Behalf Of Chuck Hogg > >>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM > >>> To: WISPA General List > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > >>> > >>> Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio > >>> letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Chuck Hogg > >>> Shelby Broadband > >>> 502-722-9292 > >>> ch...@shelbybb.com > >>> http://www.shelbybb.com > >>> > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > >>> Behalf Of Adam Goodman > >>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM > >>> To: WISPA General List > >>> Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > >>> > >>> We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from > >>> "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from > >>> BitTorrent. > >>> > >>> They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware > >>> of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you > >>> handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another > >>> path? > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> 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/m
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the offending > customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. > > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for the > server delivering copyrighted information. > > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. > > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to find > the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. > > Maybe there is an easier way. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Nick Olsen > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came from, > When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP could > become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point fingers at > a customer. > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems > like then more of the burden might fall on you. > > GReg > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > >> To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to >> protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since >> they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they >> really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the >> copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work >> sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from >> contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West > wrote: >>> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it > along >>> and forget it. Not my job. >>> >>> Bob- >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Chuck Hogg >>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >>> >>> Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio >>> letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Chuck Hogg >>> Shelby Broadband >>> 502-722-9292 >>> ch...@shelbybb.com >>> http://www.shelbybb.com >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Adam Goodman >>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >>> >>> We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from >>> "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from >>> BitTorrent. >>> >>> They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware >>> of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you >>> handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another >>> path? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> 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/ >>> >> >> >> > --
Re: [WISPA] NTIA / RUS - Request for Information for 2nd Round Released
WISPA as well will be filing comments, and have been patiently waiting this anticipated ROI. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: memb...@wispa.org ; WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:39 PM Subject: [WISPA] NTIA / RUS - Request for Information for 2nd Round Released We will be filing comments, so if you want to add your “2 cents” on the process, let me know and we’ll be more than happy to incorporate your thoughts Agencies Plan to Consolidate Final Two Funding Rounds, Seek Comment on Program Enhancements WASHINGTON – The USDA‟s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Commerce Department‟s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announced they are streamlining the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act‟s broadband grant and loan programs by awarding the remaining funding in just one more round, instead of two rounds, to increase efficiency and better accommodate applicants. The agencies also announced they are seeking public comment on how best to administer the second round of funding for the programs in order to improve the applicant experience and maximize the ability of the programs to meet Recovery Act objectives. “Stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide us with well-informed feedback on how the first round worked for applicants, the agencies will be able to make improvements to the process, and potential applicants will gain more time to form partnerships and create stronger project proposals. Ultimately, this approach can help us run the programs with increased efficiency and produce better results for the American public,” Strickling said. In a Request for Information (RFI) released today, the agencies are seeking feedback on procedural and policy aspects of BIP and BTOP. While inviting general input on the programs, the agencies identified specific areas for comment. In terms of procedural matters, for example, the RFI seeks input on ways to streamline the application process while still ensuring that the agencies obtain the information necessary to make awards in accordance with statutory requirements. The RFI also asks whether the agencies can better balance the public‟s interest in transparency and openness with stakeholders‟ legitimate interest in maintaining the confidentiality of proprietary data. Among policy matters raised, the RFI seeks comment on how to best target the remaining funds to achieve the goals of the Recovery Act. Commenters proposing a more targeted approach are asked to quantify the impact of their proposal based on metrics such as the number of end users or community anchor institutions connecting to service, the number of new jobs created, and the projected increase in broadband adoption rates. The RFI asks whether to focus second round funding on projects that create “comprehensive communities” by installing high capacity middle mile facilities between anchor institutions that bring essential health, medical, and educational services to citizens. The RFI also invites input on various other issues, including whether the definition of “remote area,” which is used to determine grant eligibility under BIP, is too restrictive, how the agencies can best ensure that investments are cost effective, and ways the programs might impact regional economic development and stability. RUS and NTIA will utilize the feedback received in response to the RFI to set the rules for the second funding round, which the agencies expect Charles Wu President c...@ippay.com cell: 773-870-0962 • office: 847-346-0990 x2500 16W235 83rd Street, Suite A, Burr Ridge, IL 60527 • tel: 847.346.0990 fax: 847.346.0991 -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] CPE - who buys it?
Quick Clarification As far as I know Personal Property Tax is a County Tax, and taxation is under the jurisdiction of the County Code, so its possible some states or Counties might not have a Personal Property Tax on anything. However, in our case the State collect Property Tax on behalf of the Counties. Many Counties get the "majority" of their income from Property Tax. With the Housing market crash, and falling property values, Counties have lost a huge percentage of their income, and usually in somewhat of a budget crisis because of it. For this reason it very possible that they might have their auditors look harder to areas other than Real Estate, to look for unreported taxable property. Just something to be concious about. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPE - who buys it? > Rick, > > No your assumption is not true. > > Property Tax is applied on "property". When you buy radio CPE it shows up > on your financials as "property", and if you TAX DEDUCT the cost of the > CPE, > which I sure hope you do for your benefit, you have claimed those > purchases > as property. A Auditor isn;t going to go look for a single small > purchase. > But I assure you CPEs, a line item which adds up to be a huge inaggregate > cost, they will immediately see that property and recognize whether that > property was declared, and property tax properly paid on it or not. As a > matter of fact some counties will check you federal returns, to find your > claimed deductions and depreciations, and automatically assess your > property > tax based on your Federal Tax Returns. > > SO IF your county charges "Property Tax" then your CPEs are "TAXABLE > PROPERTY" UNLESS your county specifically has passsed a law to > "excemption" > radio equipment. Loudon County Virgina is one specific County that made > Wireless CPE exempt from property tax to foster local investment in > Broadband. I wish more counties were as insightful, because it was a very > effective program. Property Tax is NOT just for large real estate. Its > paid > on EVERY TANGIBLE ASSET you own. That include an office chair, a computer, > a > telephone, a router, a CPE, what ever it is that you own. > > Mike, Just because nobody has been commming around asking for Property Tax > on CPE does not make it not owed. Property Tax is self claimed, so the > government doesn't know you have that property until they decide to audit > you, or you tell them. But why do you pay any tax of any kind at all? > After > all, if you aren't audited you wont have to pay it? Because you know when > you are audited, you'll be in big trouble if you didn't. The same applied > to > Property Tax. The burden is on the Property Owner to know the law and > properly report Tax, or it is illegal TAX Evading, if the owner does not > report it. > > Yes, I've fully qualified the above with attorneys and accountants. I > learned this the hard way. > I originally over paid my property taxes, because I didn't know the laws. > When I learned I over paid, I stopped reporting and paying Property tax. > I got audited by the county, and they decided to estimate my Property Tax > based on data reported on my income tax returns, which was about 10 times > more than I actually owed. > The way it work is, you pay everything the government claims, and then if > you protest the amounts and win, they'll send you a refund. > I made the mistake of fighting the process, and when I didn't pay the > wrong > amounts, they simply immediately cancelled my corporate status, reported > it > to credit agencies, and made it impossible for me to get a LOAN for over > 1.5 > years. I couldn't even renew my ARIN IP, until I got it cleared up. > > The reason you report Property Tax on CPE is so you can report the correct > amounts. The government does not have access to the fact to assess a > correct > amount and will always grossly over estimate. You should also include a > letter explaining anything that might look odd. > > This is the thing Property Tax is paid to the State that the property > is > located and installed in. So if you are a Pennsylvania business, and buy > equipment from California, and install the CPE into Maryland, you pay > Property Tax on that CPE to Maryland. The problem here is that most WISPs > dont track where they will install a CPE at the time they buy bulk CPE, so > there is usually not a good record of where to pay tax to. SO... IF you > buy > 100 CPEs and Pay Tax on 100 CPEs to your State, and then isntall 30 of > those > CPEs in another State, you owe that second State Property Tax for 30 CPEs. > This means that you are at risk of paying Tax TWICE, if you do not > properly > track where property resides and break tax payments down appropriately to > match. > > This is one of the
Re: [WISPA] CPE - who buys it?
Rick, No your assumption is not true. Property Tax is applied on "property". When you buy radio CPE it shows up on your financials as "property", and if you TAX DEDUCT the cost of the CPE, which I sure hope you do for your benefit, you have claimed those purchases as property. A Auditor isn;t going to go look for a single small purchase. But I assure you CPEs, a line item which adds up to be a huge inaggregate cost, they will immediately see that property and recognize whether that property was declared, and property tax properly paid on it or not. As a matter of fact some counties will check you federal returns, to find your claimed deductions and depreciations, and automatically assess your property tax based on your Federal Tax Returns. SO IF your county charges "Property Tax" then your CPEs are "TAXABLE PROPERTY" UNLESS your county specifically has passsed a law to "excemption" radio equipment. Loudon County Virgina is one specific County that made Wireless CPE exempt from property tax to foster local investment in Broadband. I wish more counties were as insightful, because it was a very effective program. Property Tax is NOT just for large real estate. Its paid on EVERY TANGIBLE ASSET you own. That include an office chair, a computer, a telephone, a router, a CPE, what ever it is that you own. Mike, Just because nobody has been commming around asking for Property Tax on CPE does not make it not owed. Property Tax is self claimed, so the government doesn't know you have that property until they decide to audit you, or you tell them. But why do you pay any tax of any kind at all? After all, if you aren't audited you wont have to pay it? Because you know when you are audited, you'll be in big trouble if you didn't. The same applied to Property Tax. The burden is on the Property Owner to know the law and properly report Tax, or it is illegal TAX Evading, if the owner does not report it. Yes, I've fully qualified the above with attorneys and accountants. I learned this the hard way. I originally over paid my property taxes, because I didn't know the laws. When I learned I over paid, I stopped reporting and paying Property tax. I got audited by the county, and they decided to estimate my Property Tax based on data reported on my income tax returns, which was about 10 times more than I actually owed. The way it work is, you pay everything the government claims, and then if you protest the amounts and win, they'll send you a refund. I made the mistake of fighting the process, and when I didn't pay the wrong amounts, they simply immediately cancelled my corporate status, reported it to credit agencies, and made it impossible for me to get a LOAN for over 1.5 years. I couldn't even renew my ARIN IP, until I got it cleared up. The reason you report Property Tax on CPE is so you can report the correct amounts. The government does not have access to the fact to assess a correct amount and will always grossly over estimate. You should also include a letter explaining anything that might look odd. This is the thing Property Tax is paid to the State that the property is located and installed in. So if you are a Pennsylvania business, and buy equipment from California, and install the CPE into Maryland, you pay Property Tax on that CPE to Maryland. The problem here is that most WISPs dont track where they will install a CPE at the time they buy bulk CPE, so there is usually not a good record of where to pay tax to. SO... IF you buy 100 CPEs and Pay Tax on 100 CPEs to your State, and then isntall 30 of those CPEs in another State, you owe that second State Property Tax for 30 CPEs. This means that you are at risk of paying Tax TWICE, if you do not properly track where property resides and break tax payments down appropriately to match. This is one of the reasons I am against tracking an ISP's end user locations. The States/Counties will then have a clear record to track how many CPEs an ISP has in their County. To find out if you owe property tax, you need to look at county code. Dont look for something to say that you have to pay tax on CPE, because it wont be there. By default you are obligated to pay tax on EVERYTHING, unless an excemption was given. So you are looking for an Excemption in the County Tax Code specifically for broadband investment. If you cant find one, Contact your County and point them to the fine example that Loudon County Virginia has made to help make their County one of the most advanced Broadband Counties in the Country, and ask them to follow in their foot steps. It was funny, when I contacted my County about Property Tax and that I'd likely be applying for a BTOP grant bringing in a large amount of new property, the first thing they saw was Dollar signs, and it was inferred they had no intentions of waiving the Property Tax. I found it extremely hippocritical, that they'd not waive property tax to help private
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
This is correct, But the cable companys hand out public addresses with DHCP. So you can say, Yeah This address was assigned to "mac" on this date. And they know the offending IP because it was in the email, But When you nat all your customers, the ip in the email is the IP assigned to the wan interface of your router, or whatever you are masquerading out. So you have no idea what the internal IP was the offender. And no log will tell you which one was. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "Israel Lopez-LISTS" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:14 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement AFAIK your assertion that "NAT/DHCP - has no way to know" is not entirely correct. Just how most Cable companies require you to register the MAC address of your modem to tie to your account (DHCP has logs you know), University students sign up for dorm internet using their mac address (which they sometimes rewrite onto their modem), but someone's name is still on the 'account.' This is how I think those 'high exposure' for DMCA (especially university) handle DMCA to Violator lookups. One does not need to open up wireshark and start logging traffic for awhile. Sufficient logs with enough detail (IP & MAC + cross reference against account holder) & accurate timestamps should be enough to identify who is who at what time without violating your customer's privacy of their data. -I Jerry Richardson wrote: > OK so let's play out the scenario. > > Studio wants ISP send a letter to the customer > ISP is NAT/DHCP - has no way to know > Studio gets subpoena > > What now? At this point LEA is involved which demands cooperation. > If the network is open WiFi, then there truly is no way to know. > If the network is fixed installation, then the ISP "could" provide the information. > > So assuming it's a fixed installation, the ISP sets up a server with Wireshark or other packet capture and stores that data for1 day, 1 week, 1 month? > > At this point is the ISP breaking any privacy laws of customers that are NOT named in the subpoena? Not if the customer's TOA indicated that their Internet traffic MAY be stored and analyzed under legal request by LEA. > > > Mind you this is all hypothetical. I'm just trying to understand the potential impact and exposire on the part of the ISP. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:48 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > >> So what does the law require? >> > > It doesn't. > > >> Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static public >> > IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? > > If the law changes and says each customer is required to have a public IP, > then ISPs need to be provided as such. > > Keep in mind, too, that IPs are dynamic with most ISPs. Don't forget that > the "I have an open WiFi don't blame me" case still works. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." > --- Albert Einstein > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jerry Richardson >> wrote: >> > > >> good point. >> >> So what does the law require? >> >> Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static public >> IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Josh Luthman >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:31 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> That works for current infringements but what about those last night? last >> week? last month? >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." >> --- Albert Einstein >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson < >> jrichard...@aircloud.com >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the >>> >> offending >> >>> customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. >>> >>> I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for >>> >> the >> >>> server delivering copyrighted information. >>> >>> The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. >>> >>> Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to >>> find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. >>> >>> Maybe there is an easier way. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Nick O
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
AFAIK your assertion that "NAT/DHCP - has no way to know" is not entirely correct. Just how most Cable companies require you to register the MAC address of your modem to tie to your account (DHCP has logs you know), University students sign up for dorm internet using their mac address (which they sometimes rewrite onto their modem), but someone's name is still on the 'account.' This is how I think those 'high exposure' for DMCA (especially university) handle DMCA to Violator lookups. One does not need to open up wireshark and start logging traffic for awhile. Sufficient logs with enough detail (IP & MAC + cross reference against account holder) & accurate timestamps should be enough to identify who is who at what time without violating your customer's privacy of their data. -I Jerry Richardson wrote: > OK so let's play out the scenario. > > Studio wants ISP send a letter to the customer > ISP is NAT/DHCP - has no way to know > Studio gets subpoena > > What now? At this point LEA is involved which demands cooperation. > If the network is open WiFi, then there truly is no way to know. > If the network is fixed installation, then the ISP "could" provide the > information. > > So assuming it's a fixed installation, the ISP sets up a server with > Wireshark or other packet capture and stores that data for1 day, 1 week, > 1 month? > > At this point is the ISP breaking any privacy laws of customers that are NOT > named in the subpoena? Not if the customer's TOA indicated that their > Internet traffic MAY be stored and analyzed under legal request by LEA. > > > Mind you this is all hypothetical. I'm just trying to understand the > potential impact and exposire on the part of the ISP. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Josh Luthman > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:48 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > >> So what does the law require? >> > > It doesn't. > > >> Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static public >> > IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? > > If the law changes and says each customer is required to have a public IP, > then ISPs need to be provided as such. > > Keep in mind, too, that IPs are dynamic with most ISPs. Don't forget that > the "I have an open WiFi don't blame me" case still works. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." > --- Albert Einstein > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jerry Richardson >> wrote: >> > > >> good point. >> >> So what does the law require? >> >> Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static public >> IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Josh Luthman >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:31 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> That works for current infringements but what about those last night? last >> week? last month? >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." >> --- Albert Einstein >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson < >> jrichard...@aircloud.com >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the >>> >> offending >> >>> customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. >>> >>> I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for >>> >> the >> >>> server delivering copyrighted information. >>> >>> The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. >>> >>> Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to >>> find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. >>> >>> Maybe there is an easier way. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Nick Olsen >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >>> >>> Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came >>> >> from, >> >>> When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP could >>> become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point fingers >>> >> at >> >>> a customer. >>> >>> Nick Olsen >>> Brevard Wireless >>> (321) 205-1100 x106 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - cop
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
But they also keep records of who had which IP when. Greg On Nov 10, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > Keep in mind, too, that IPs are dynamic with most ISPs. 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/
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
OK so let's play out the scenario. Studio wants ISP send a letter to the customer ISP is NAT/DHCP - has no way to know Studio gets subpoena What now? At this point LEA is involved which demands cooperation. If the network is open WiFi, then there truly is no way to know. If the network is fixed installation, then the ISP "could" provide the information. So assuming it's a fixed installation, the ISP sets up a server with Wireshark or other packet capture and stores that data for1 day, 1 week, 1 month? At this point is the ISP breaking any privacy laws of customers that are NOT named in the subpoena? Not if the customer's TOA indicated that their Internet traffic MAY be stored and analyzed under legal request by LEA. Mind you this is all hypothetical. I'm just trying to understand the potential impact and exposire on the part of the ISP. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > So what does the law require? It doesn't. > Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static public IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? If the law changes and says each customer is required to have a public IP, then ISPs need to be provided as such. Keep in mind, too, that IPs are dynamic with most ISPs. Don't forget that the "I have an open WiFi don't blame me" case still works. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --- Albert Einstein On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: > good point. > > So what does the law require? > > Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static public > IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Josh Luthman > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:31 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > That works for current infringements but what about those last night? last > week? last month? > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." > --- Albert Einstein > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson < > jrichard...@aircloud.com > > wrote: > > > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the > offending > > customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. > > > > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for > the > > server delivering copyrighted information. > > > > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. > > > > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to > > find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. > > > > Maybe there is an easier way. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > Behalf Of Nick Olsen > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came > from, > > When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP could > > become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point fingers > at > > a customer. > > > > Nick Olsen > > Brevard Wireless > > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > > > > > > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems > > like then more of the burden might fall on you. > > > > GReg > > > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > > > > > To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > > > protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > > > they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they > > > really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the > > > copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work > > > sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from > > > contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. > > > > > > -Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West < > robert.w...@just-micro.com > > > > > wrote: > > >> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it > > along > > >> and forget it. Not my job. > > >> > > >> Bob- > > >> > > >> > > >> -Original Message- > > >> From: wireless-boun...@wi
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
> So what does the law require? It doesn't. > Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static public IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? If the law changes and says each customer is required to have a public IP, then ISPs need to be provided as such. Keep in mind, too, that IPs are dynamic with most ISPs. Don't forget that the "I have an open WiFi don't blame me" case still works. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --- Albert Einstein On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: > good point. > > So what does the law require? > > Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static public > IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Josh Luthman > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:31 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > That works for current infringements but what about those last night? last > week? last month? > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." > --- Albert Einstein > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson < > jrichard...@aircloud.com > > wrote: > > > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the > offending > > customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. > > > > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for > the > > server delivering copyrighted information. > > > > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. > > > > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to > > find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. > > > > Maybe there is an easier way. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > Behalf Of Nick Olsen > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came > from, > > When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP could > > become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point fingers > at > > a customer. > > > > Nick Olsen > > Brevard Wireless > > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > > > > > > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > > > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems > > like then more of the burden might fall on you. > > > > GReg > > > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > > > > > To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > > > protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > > > they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they > > > really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the > > > copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work > > > sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from > > > contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. > > > > > > -Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West < > robert.w...@just-micro.com > > > > > wrote: > > >> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it > > along > > >> and forget it. Not my job. > > >> > > >> Bob- > > >> > > >> > > >> -Original Message- > > >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > > >> Behalf Of Chuck Hogg > > >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM > > >> To: WISPA General List > > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > >> > > >> Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio > > >> letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Chuck Hogg > > >> Shelby Broadband > > >> 502-722-9292 > > >> ch...@shelbybb.com > > >> http://www.shelbybb.com > > >> > > >> > > >> -Original Message- > > >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > > >> Behalf Of Adam Goodman > > >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM > > >> To: WISPA General List > > >> Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > >> > > >> We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from > > >> "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from > > >> BitTorrent. > > >> > > >> They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware > > >> of our AUP. Has anyone received a
Re: [WISPA] Metered Billing
I am not offering metered billing as of yet, but also plan to move to it very soon. I think you will see everyone move to it sooner or later. Bandwidth is cheap in the bigger cities, but even that is going to get used up before anyone knows it. Then the bandwidth providers have to do upgrades. Where is the cost going to be recouped? In the rural country, bandwidth is proportionately higher. I pay over $200/meg and just recently got this in the last few months after paying almost $425+/meg for years. What happens when dad wants to watch CSI on the Internet connected TV, Mom wants to watch Home and Garden Channel on Hulu, little brother wants to download 100 illegal mp3's on torrents, all while grandma is talking on VOIP, and grandpa is watching pron? The point is, at this time most customers are using very little. Even 100Mbit fiber backbone can sustain 10=10 meg users at a constant stream like my scenario provides. This is what is coming to be expected of us providers very soon. The idea has been to oversubscribe/oversell bandwidth and is the business model of probably %99 of all ISPs. Even the telcos oversell their telephone lines based on ratio. In the Internet market, all these high bandwidth applications are killing that idea now. Let NN get passed and you will see ALL the big boys jump on the metered bandwagon quicker than you can snap your fingers. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: "Eric Rogers" Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:00:09 -0500 >What happens when the teenager starts the streaming tv on the xbox and >a friend shows up... decides to go down the street but leaves it >running till mom and dad gets home at 6:00 PM? Then mom and dad >decide to rent a movie. To me, I am counting on over-selling the >bandwidth and that is where the profit is. My dynamic is changing and >the only thing that makes sense is to pay if you use it ... more than >normal. > >I am looking for pros and cons of metered/tiered billing. I have >heard from many as to why they wouldn't and don't, so who is billing >tiered and/or metered? The questions still stand. > >Eric Rogers >Precision Data Solutions, LLC >(317) 831-3000 x200 > >Fat-fingered from my phone! > >On Nov 8, 2009, at 9:46 AM, "Jayson Baker" >wrote: > >> Not everyone uses 6Mbps all day long. >> >> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:52 PM, RickG wrote: >> >>> Thats one way to utilize bandwidth shaping but how do you " >>> guaranteed >>> minimum of 1.5Mbps, 4Mbps and >>> 6Mbps" at those low rates to every use and make money? Maybe I'm >>> wrong but >>> the problem I see is that you will end up having unhappy >>> subscribers when >>> their expectations are not met. Thats where the premium rates can >>> come in. >>> I >>> find people all the time who would pay more for committed speeds if >>> it can >>> be delivered. >>> >>> BTW: Cricket Communications, subsidiary of Leap Wireless has lost >>> money >>> since its inception and continues to do so. Give me an example of an >>> non-subsidized "all you can eat service" company in a competitive >>> market >>> that actually makes money (bottom line). >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Jayson Baker >>> wrote: >>> Ya know, we've looked at this many times over the past couple years, and even tested it for a bit. Fact is, people like unlimited, and not having to guess. I, myself, >>> being a fairly lite user of the Internet, would still always opt for an unlimited plan--even if I knew my bill may be lower on a pay-per-use plan. I have unlimited cell phone minutes, txt messages, etc. If I could pay for unlimited utilites, I'd certainly do that too! We've got the infrastructure in place for a pay-per-use, and could >>> activate it at anytime. We tried selling it about a year ago, and people just didn't understand the concept. People aren't used to it--most people got online when Internet was $19.95/mo for dialup (or, $22.95 for AOL!), and don't remember the 10 for $10 dial-up packages. Nobody knows what ISDN with >>> 300 hours is. We currently offer 12Mbps service for $24.95/mo. This makes us the >>> fastest in the area, and the cheapest. We have local sales, support and installations. We decided the way to win is to shape traffic--we offer three 12Mbps packages; one with a guaranteed minimum of 1.5Mbps, 4Mbps >>> and 6Mbps. If you do nothing than browse, share pictures, etc. (i.e. "normal use") you'll always see the 12Mbps. But once you fire up a torrent or Netflix, you only get that speed for 10 minutes--after that, you get your guaranteed minimum. Prices double from 1.5 to 4, and double again going >>> to 6Mbps. We have never had a complaint about speed or price with
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
good point. So what does the law require? Is this a case for why providing Internet services without a static public IP exposed the ISP to legal suit? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement That works for current infringements but what about those last night? last week? last month? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --- Albert Einstein On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the offending > customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. > > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for the > server delivering copyrighted information. > > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. > > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to > find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. > > Maybe there is an easier way. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Nick Olsen > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came from, > When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP could > become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point fingers at > a customer. > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems > like then more of the burden might fall on you. > > GReg > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > > > To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > > protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > > they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they > > really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the > > copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work > > sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from > > contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West > > wrote: > >> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it > along > >> and forget it. Not my job. > >> > >> Bob- > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > >> Behalf Of Chuck Hogg > >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM > >> To: WISPA General List > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > >> > >> Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio > >> letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Chuck Hogg > >> Shelby Broadband > >> 502-722-9292 > >> ch...@shelbybb.com > >> http://www.shelbybb.com > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > >> Behalf Of Adam Goodman > >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM > >> To: WISPA General List > >> Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > >> > >> We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from > >> "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from > >> BitTorrent. > >> > >> They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware > >> of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you > >> handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another > >> path? > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> 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://
Re: [WISPA] customers dogs chewing on CAT5
OR one can just do a professional install job, and not have loose cables, and properly stable/fasten all cables flush to surfaces every three feet, and run behind walls, and under trims, etc. Dogs have never been a threat to my installs. Sure a Dog might chew a 6ft Patch Cable, but thats an easy fix, and easilly verified by end user. Now on the other hand a Weed Eater? We've had a few cut by lawn care, when the weeds grew up to the trim edge, cause they dont even know the cable is there, and accidentally get it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Chuck Bartosch" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] customers dogs chewing on CAT5 > Feed and Grain stores sell bitters, but I find that any determined dog > will ignore the bitters and chew away. > > In fact, just this morning I coincidentally happened to have some > bitters (gf bought it a while back) and thought "oh what the hell" and > sprayed it on something a dog was chewing on. The dog went right back > to it, licked it, shook his head, licked his chops, and licked the > wood again. Kept doing this, whining at times, until it was "all > clean" and he could chew again ;-). > > However, I *have* found that Habanero Tabasco Hot Sauce works 100% of > the time. That's like 10,000 times hotter than normal jalapeno hot > sauce and they do not like and do not go back for a second lick. > > Chuck > > On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Greg wrote: > >> Your local feed and grain or pet store should have aerosol dog >> repellent. >> >> Greg >> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Kurt Fankhauser >> wrote: >> >>> I've had several customers that have had their dog chew on the Cat5 >>> going >>> from the house to the TV tower and some of them multiple times. >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyone have ideas on how to keep the dog from chewing on the wire? >>> I've got >>> one customer on their 3rd Cat5 run and going out right now to >>> replace a >>> different customer that will be his 3rd one as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm about ready to shoot the stinking dog.. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kurt Fankhauser >>> WAVELINC >>> P.O. Box 126 >>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>> 419-562-6405 >>> www.wavelinc.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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/ > > -- > Chuck Bartosch > Clarity Connect, Inc. > 200 Pleasant Grove Road > Ithaca, NY 14850 > (607) 257-8268 > > "When the stars threw down their spears, > and water'd heaven with their tears, > Did He smile, His work to see? > Did He who made the Lamb make thee?" > > From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger! > > > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
That works for current infringements but what about those last night? last week? last month? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --- Albert Einstein On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: > So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the offending > customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. > > I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for the > server delivering copyrighted information. > > The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. > > Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to > find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. > > Maybe there is an easier way. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Nick Olsen > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came from, > When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP could > become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point fingers at > a customer. > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems > like then more of the burden might fall on you. > > GReg > > On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > > > To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > > protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > > they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they > > really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the > > copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work > > sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from > > contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West > > wrote: > >> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it > along > >> and forget it. Not my job. > >> > >> Bob- > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > >> Behalf Of Chuck Hogg > >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM > >> To: WISPA General List > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > >> > >> Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio > >> letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Chuck Hogg > >> Shelby Broadband > >> 502-722-9292 > >> ch...@shelbybb.com > >> http://www.shelbybb.com > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > >> Behalf Of Adam Goodman > >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM > >> To: WISPA General List > >> Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > >> > >> We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from > >> "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from > >> BitTorrent. > >> > >> They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware > >> of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you > >> handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another > >> path? > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> 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 Li
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the offending customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for the server delivering copyrighted information. The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. Maybe there is an easier way. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick Olsen Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came from, When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP could become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point fingers at a customer. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems like then more of the burden might fall on you. GReg On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they > really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the > copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work > sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from > contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. > > -Adam > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West wrote: >> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it along >> and forget it. Not my job. >> >> Bob- >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Chuck Hogg >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio >> letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. >> >> Regards, >> Chuck Hogg >> Shelby Broadband >> 502-722-9292 >> ch...@shelbybb.com >> http://www.shelbybb.com >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Adam Goodman >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from >> "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from >> BitTorrent. >> >> They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware >> of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you >> handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another >> path? >> >> Thank you, >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> 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/ --
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
This is the critical phrase "The measure will expand who pays into the fund" Anyone know the answer? This is good if it makes high volume DSL and Cable Co to continue to pay USF fees. But not so good if it makes suburban WISPs have to start paying into the fund. Its a competitive advantage that WISPs dont have to pay the 5% USF tax currently, and needed advantage in the very competitive served markets, since WISPs are usually under dogs in their market. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "RickG" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? > Warning: "The bill also drew early praise from AT&T" > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Blair Davis wrote: > >> >> http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3847366/Lawmakers+Float+Bill+to+Boost+Rural+Broadband.htm >> >> I'm not sure I need any more gov. interference! >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came from, When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP could become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point fingers at a customer. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "os10ru...@gmail.com" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems like then more of the burden might fall on you. GReg On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they > really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the > copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work > sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from > contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. > > -Adam > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West wrote: >> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it along >> and forget it. Not my job. >> >> Bob- >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Chuck Hogg >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio >> letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. >> >> Regards, >> Chuck Hogg >> Shelby Broadband >> 502-722-9292 >> ch...@shelbybb.com >> http://www.shelbybb.com >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Adam Goodman >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from >> "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from >> BitTorrent. >> >> They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware >> of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you >> handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another >> path? >> >> Thank you, >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> 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 Ar
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
It all depends on the ISP. All they are doing is looking for the abuse email on the network. For our network this is us. However, Some of the bigger ISP's (TWTC...ect) actually have a up to date whois that you can query, So you Put in the info for lets say 65.33.33.33 and it says TWTC but once you query there whois it will tell you hostingcompanyx is who we issued this ip to. Linux's whois does this all by default. The point I'm making is, It is possible for the customer to be the one to receive the email, Its all about who is listed as a abuse contact on the whois page. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "Adam Goodman" Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:56 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. -Adam On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West wrote: > I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it along > and forget it. Not my job. > > Bob- > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Chuck Hogg > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio > letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. > > Regards, > Chuck Hogg > Shelby Broadband > 502-722-9292 > ch...@shelbybb.com > http://www.shelbybb.com > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Goodman > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from > "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from > BitTorrent. > > They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware > of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you > handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another > path? > > Thank you, > Adam > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems like then more of the burden might fall on you. GReg On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: > To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to > protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since > they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they > really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the > copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work > sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from > contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. > > -Adam > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West > wrote: >> I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it along >> and forget it. Not my job. >> >> Bob- >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Chuck Hogg >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio >> letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. >> >> Regards, >> Chuck Hogg >> Shelby Broadband >> 502-722-9292 >> ch...@shelbybb.com >> http://www.shelbybb.com >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Adam Goodman >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement >> >> We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from >> "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from >> BitTorrent. >> >> They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware >> of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you >> handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another >> path? >> >> Thank you, >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> 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/
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to protect "their" copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. -Adam On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West wrote: > I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it along > and forget it. Not my job. > > Bob- > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Chuck Hogg > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio > letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. > > Regards, > Chuck Hogg > Shelby Broadband > 502-722-9292 > ch...@shelbybb.com > http://www.shelbybb.com > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Goodman > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement > > We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from > "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from > BitTorrent. > > They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware > of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you > handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another > path? > > Thank you, > Adam > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it along and forget it. Not my job. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Adam Goodman Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement We have received an email from our provider with a complaint from "Twentieth Century FOX Film Corporation" about a download movie from BitTorrent. They demand we notify the customer and make sure the customer is aware of our AUP. Has anyone received a notice like this and how did you handle the case. Are you following DMCA protocol, or taking another path? Thank you, Adam 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/
