Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US
I disagree with that. Confidentiality was promised to the form fillers. If that confidentiality is breached, ISPs would never honestly fill them out again, after being betrayed. The FCC is holding firm, as they know, its the only way to keep getting accurate data, and standing behind its word is protects the integrity of the FCC. I do not believe that the FCC GOA has any benefit to fudge their findings. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they have fudged the heck out of it! It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it might be time to put the FCC out to pasture. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] TV white spaces
All, This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become unlicensed. As quoted from the press release; The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet. Links below; http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392 http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US
That actually may be the head of the nail. Maybe not everyone DID fill it out honorably -- and hence the data is seriously flawed... Data that the FCC uses regularly to deregulate. Data that the FCC and the gov't uses regularly to grant so much to the ILECs. Someone needs to verify the raw data. - Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: I disagree with that. Confidentiality was promised to the form fillers. If that confidentiality is breached, ISPs would never honestly fill them out again, after being betrayed. The FCC is holding firm, as they know, its the only way to keep getting accurate data, and standing behind its word is protects the integrity of the FCC. I do not believe that the FCC GOA has any benefit to fudge their findings. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they have fudged the heck out of it! It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it might be time to put the FCC out to pasture. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] BelAir Networks VAR Program
Anybody using BelAir? They have made some stabs at doing Muni RFP's but had some capital issues. http://www.phoneplusmag.com/hotnews/71h17132810.html BelAir Networks, a mobile broadband multiservice wireless mesh network provider, today announced an expanded VAR channel program. BelAir Networks’ VAR program offers sales, technical and marketing support customized to each partner’s goals. The program includes three tiers with increasing levels of incentives; technical and sales certification through BelAir University Webinars; market development funds, rewards and rebates; and a partner advisory council. “We have enhanced and expanded our program in response to strong interest from VARs who want to take advantage of the opportunities offered now in the wireless mesh space. In addition to industry-leading incentives, the program offers many benefits including market development support and comprehensive technical training – all designed to give our partners a quick ramp-up in this fast-paced market,” stated Jim Freeze, senior vice president of marketing and alliances at BelAir Networks. BelAir Networks and its partners have made more than 200 deployments of wireless mesh networks in cities such as Minneapolis, London and Toronto, as well as high-profile venues such as Dolphin Stadium in Miami. BelAir Networks www.belairnetworks.com http://www.belairnetworks.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...
I'm running putty on my E70. Is great to be on a roof with mobile in one hand whilst you pan your StarOS or Mikrotik cpe ;) Only down side seems to be the lack of a tab key. -Original Message- From: Chad Halsted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2007 19:32 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness... Matt, Have you had a chance to play with SSH utilities. I'm looking for the same phone and have heard others using it to SSH into their Star-OS boxes with good success. Mobile SSH has a free trial and should work with the E70. On 1/22/07, Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was finally time to replace my Nokia 6800 with 600 hours and a broken screen from being dropped too many times, so I decided to get a Nokia E70 phone. It has been a little bit of a challenge, but it is pretty close to cell phone nirvana. It has been able to do I have wanted to accomplish with a PDA or cell phone combined. The first main issue was getting the phone contacts/calendar/notes synchronized with my PC. My previous phone was extremely flaky when used with the Nokia PC Suite software, and only connected about one in every 10 times. I had to install, reinstall, run a registry cleaner and then reinstall the software but I was finally able to get a reliable connection between my PC and phone. Once accomplished, I was able to get all of my items synced up in a repeatable, reliable fashion. With all their available resources, I am amazed that Nokia was not able to this process worked out better. The second item was seeing how Internet access worked on the phone. GPRS seems to work fine, but I was more interested in the wifi connectivity feature of the phone. The E70 will browse for an available access point and the process for connecting is pretty straightforward. I have to pass on huge props for the Internet browser on the E70. I would prefer using the smaller screen E70 browser than the browser on all of the PocketPCs that I have used. It is that good. It was reliable, viewable, easy to navigate and there have been no weird format surprises. All told - the Internet access components work very well. I have not gotten the instant messaging to work yet, but it looks like other have, so I will still have that to work on. The last and most interesting piece was the struggle to get VOIP working on a cell phone. My cell coverage at my house and many other places in my service area is very spotty, so I have been looking forward to having a phone that could roam to wifi and keep my roaming minutes down to a minimum. I was able to find a couple of links to guides on how to set the phone up with an asterisk voip server and was finally able to get it to connect to my office voip phone system. After all the hassles and reported problems on user forums, I was very pleasantly surprised by the performance of the voip part of the E70. It is actually clearer than regular cell calls, with just a little bit of breakup when the wifi signal gets low. Best of all, my outgoing calls all go through my office system when I am in range of a wifi access point, meaning less minutes on my cell phone plan. I should also be able to use the voip when I go to remote tower sites that used to not work at all on the regular cell network or incurred roaming charges. All in all, I am very impressed with the E70. I am going to officially retire my iPaqs to other tasks and use this as my primary PIM/phone/voip phone. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com PS - I purchased my E70 from Tiger Direct for about $435, but they are also available at voip-supply.com for $385. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Chad Halsted The Computer Works Conway, AR www.tcworks.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum becoming unlicensed? Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before we see any gear. So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America? Thanks. Mario Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become unlicensed. As quoted from the press release; The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet. Links below; http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392 http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US
The government cannot request data with a note saying it is confidential and then turn around and say it is not. That is not going to fly. If my data is shared with others then I will file suit against the FCC myself. Peter, how can you possibly support the idea that it is ok for confidential data to be gathered and then shared because the ILECs want it shared? The FCC is not withholding this information to be annoying or secretive. They are doing so because confidentiality was assured when the data was gathered. If this data is shared then Mark Koskenmaki and others were right in saying we should not fill out those forms. For now I will do it because it is a requirement according to the governing law of the land. If this bites me then I will be the first to tell you I was wrong in supporting the Form 477 process. For now the data is still not being shared and the form process is still a matter of law, like it or not. Scriv Peter R. wrote: That actually may be the head of the nail. Maybe not everyone DID fill it out honorably -- and hence the data is seriously flawed... Data that the FCC uses regularly to deregulate. Data that the FCC and the gov't uses regularly to grant so much to the ILECs. Someone needs to verify the raw data. - Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: I disagree with that. Confidentiality was promised to the form fillers. If that confidentiality is breached, ISPs would never honestly fill them out again, after being betrayed. The FCC is holding firm, as they know, its the only way to keep getting accurate data, and standing behind its word is protects the integrity of the FCC. I do not believe that the FCC GOA has any benefit to fudge their findings. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they have fudged the heck out of it! It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it might be time to put the FCC out to pasture. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetitionin the US
I do not think Peters argument was that the data should be shared. I think he is against that as much as anyone. BUT what needs to happen is that someone needs to check and verify the data that is collected. The FCC does no review of what is submitted. A ILEC could have on DSL line in a zip code and therefore claim that broadband is available for the entire area. This is the kind of thing that needs to be checked and verified. Jory Privett WCCS - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetitionin the US The government cannot request data with a note saying it is confidential and then turn around and say it is not. That is not going to fly. If my data is shared with others then I will file suit against the FCC myself. Peter, how can you possibly support the idea that it is ok for confidential data to be gathered and then shared because the ILECs want it shared? The FCC is not withholding this information to be annoying or secretive. They are doing so because confidentiality was assured when the data was gathered. If this data is shared then Mark Koskenmaki and others were right in saying we should not fill out those forms. For now I will do it because it is a requirement according to the governing law of the land. If this bites me then I will be the first to tell you I was wrong in supporting the Form 477 process. For now the data is still not being shared and the form process is still a matter of law, like it or not. Scriv Peter R. wrote: That actually may be the head of the nail. Maybe not everyone DID fill it out honorably -- and hence the data is seriously flawed... Data that the FCC uses regularly to deregulate. Data that the FCC and the gov't uses regularly to grant so much to the ILECs. Someone needs to verify the raw data. - Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: I disagree with that. Confidentiality was promised to the form fillers. If that confidentiality is breached, ISPs would never honestly fill them out again, after being betrayed. The FCC is holding firm, as they know, its the only way to keep getting accurate data, and standing behind its word is protects the integrity of the FCC. I do not believe that the FCC GOA has any benefit to fudge their findings. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they have fudged the heck out of it! It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it might be time to put the FCC out to pasture. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
What kind of speed can be obtained on such low frequencies? -RickG On 1/24/07, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight-lipped about it though. Scriv Mario Pommier wrote: Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum becoming unlicensed? Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before we see any gear. So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America? Thanks. Mario Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become unlicensed. As quoted from the press release; The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet. Links below; http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392 http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
John: There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces - 802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/ Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote: The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- lipped about it though. Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces
This spectrum is the Goose's Golden egg for all of us in VERY rural areas. It will absolutely revolutionize N. Louisiana as far as internet/intranet access. We cover about ~12% of Louisiana, but cant reach but about 4 out 10 when we do site surveys. Steve - - you are always full of info and remain to be a WISPs #1 proponent!! Thanks for all you do. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Stroh Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:45 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces John: There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces - 802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/ Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote: The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- lipped about it though. Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
Likelihood of unlicensed??? My guess is that the established communications carriers and the broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most effectively. Mario Pommier wrote: Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum becoming unlicensed? Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before we see any gear. So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America? Thanks. Mario Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become unlicensed. As quoted from the press release; The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet. Links below; http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392 http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
List, Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For... Here's what I'd like to do: 1. Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe. This way casual surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy. 2. If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes). 3. Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to download. 4. After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3). I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out there. The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't know the actual values): 1. Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth. 2. The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k. 3. The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg. 4. If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are replenished, he eventually gets only 128k. Does anyone know how to get something like this going? I am especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions. Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadband competition in the US
And yet another point of view: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/nichols Yes, there has been an Abolish the FCC movement alive for at least 10 and probably 20 years. FOMHR (For Our Many Happy Readers) here are two (of the many) points of view: http://news.com.com/2010-1028-5226979.html http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/05/b677863.html jack Peter R. wrote: You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they have fudged the heck out of it! It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it might be time to put the FCC out to pasture. - Peter -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt Jason wrote: List, Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For... Here's what I'd like to do: 1. Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe. This way casual surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy. 2. If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes). 3. Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to download. 4. After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3). I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out there. The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't know the actual values): 1. Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth. 2. The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k. 3. The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg. 4. If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are replenished, he eventually gets only 128k. Does anyone know how to get something like this going? I am especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions. Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
It depends on the depth of modulation used and other factors. In a 6 meg TV channel space I am guessing you could easily see 15 to 20 megabit aggregate throughput over a good coverage area. (Maybe 3 miles radius?) NOTE: The above are generalized best guesses on my part as I have never even seen one of these radios yet. DOCSIS standards provide some basis for conjecture of possible speeds within TV channel space. Google DOCSIS and most notably ARRIS DOCSIS for more thorough basis to estimate speeds and coverage areas for wireless data transmission within TV channel spaces. Scriv RickG wrote: What kind of speed can be obtained on such low frequencies? -RickG On 1/24/07, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight-lipped about it though. Scriv Mario Pommier wrote: Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum becoming unlicensed? Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before we see any gear. So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America? Thanks. Mario Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become unlicensed. As quoted from the press release; The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet. Links below; http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392 http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
I believe what you would be looking for is something like a NetEqualizer. This device works to equalize all your traffic to make sure one user is not using up all the pipe. It works by tracking active connections by IP address, if it finds a user hogging the bandwidth it puts a delay on their connection to slow it down until they are back under control. The best thing about this device is the price they are inexpensive compared to the very high end devices. Mike Pearson Matt Liotta wrote: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt Jason wrote: List, Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For... Here's what I'd like to do: 1. Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe. This way casual surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy. 2. If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes). 3. Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to download. 4. After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3). I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out there. The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't know the actual values): 1. Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth. 2. The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k. 3. The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg. 4. If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are replenished, he eventually gets only 128k. Does anyone know how to get something like this going? I am especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions. Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
grin...read my mind. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt Jason wrote: List, Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For... Here's what I'd like to do: 1. Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe. This way casual surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy. 2. If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes). 3. Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to download. 4. After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3). I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out there. The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't know the actual values): 1. Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth. 2. The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k. 3. The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg. 4. If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are replenished, he eventually gets only 128k. Does anyone know how to get something like this going? I am especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions. Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
We haven't used them but they do have an impressive client list, here's the link http://netequalizer.com/indexgoo.php Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management List, Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For... Here's what I'd like to do: 1. Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe. This way casual surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy. 2. If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes). 3. Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to download. 4. After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3). I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out there. The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't know the actual values): 1. Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth. 2. The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k. 3. The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg. 4. If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are replenished, he eventually gets only 128k. Does anyone know how to get something like this going? I am especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions. Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
I knew there was an 802.22 effort but I had no idea that it was geared for any particular spectrum until now. Glad to hear the efforts are underway. Isn't Flarion's IP based closely on what will be 802.22? Was there an earlier effort for 802.22 standards development that was spectrum agnostic? This caught me completely by surprise. Thanks for the info Steve and welcome back to writing for our industry. We missed your crystal ball. :-) Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you are writing these days? Thanks, Scriv Steve Stroh wrote: John: There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces - 802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/ Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote: The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- lipped about it though. Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetitionin the US
I can agree that over-sight is in order. I think the General Accounting Office actually did this. Didn't the report get sent out here a while back? I know Tom De Reggi and some of the rest of the WISPA board were involved in helping fine tune this report. What became of that one guys? Thanks, Scriv Jory Privett wrote: I do not think Peters argument was that the data should be shared. I think he is against that as much as anyone. BUT what needs to happen is that someone needs to check and verify the data that is collected. The FCC does no review of what is submitted. A ILEC could have on DSL line in a zip code and therefore claim that broadband is available for the entire area. This is the kind of thing that needs to be checked and verified. Jory Privett WCCS - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetitionin the US The government cannot request data with a note saying it is confidential and then turn around and say it is not. That is not going to fly. If my data is shared with others then I will file suit against the FCC myself. Peter, how can you possibly support the idea that it is ok for confidential data to be gathered and then shared because the ILECs want it shared? The FCC is not withholding this information to be annoying or secretive. They are doing so because confidentiality was assured when the data was gathered. If this data is shared then Mark Koskenmaki and others were right in saying we should not fill out those forms. For now I will do it because it is a requirement according to the governing law of the land. If this bites me then I will be the first to tell you I was wrong in supporting the Form 477 process. For now the data is still not being shared and the form process is still a matter of law, like it or not. Scriv Peter R. wrote: That actually may be the head of the nail. Maybe not everyone DID fill it out honorably -- and hence the data is seriously flawed... Data that the FCC uses regularly to deregulate. Data that the FCC and the gov't uses regularly to grant so much to the ILECs. Someone needs to verify the raw data. - Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: I disagree with that. Confidentiality was promised to the form fillers. If that confidentiality is breached, ISPs would never honestly fill them out again, after being betrayed. The FCC is holding firm, as they know, its the only way to keep getting accurate data, and standing behind its word is protects the integrity of the FCC. I do not believe that the FCC GOA has any benefit to fudge their findings. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they have fudged the heck out of it! It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it might be time to put the FCC out to pasture. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
I'm with you jason - the subject of bandwidth management is an important one, and the fact is that new applications (crapplications?!) are appearing all the time which are pushing the business model into a tight spot. We have competing forces - on the one hand, we purchase expensive dedicated bandwidth, and on the other, we sell low cost shared bandwidth. We cannot sell for $34.95 what we pay $300 for. But yet we get customers who come to us and ask us to do exactly that. The days of the unmanaged bandwidth network are numbered, if they are not already at an end. There's certainly some solutions available for head-end bandwidth management - like the bandwidth arbitrator which was already mentioned - but the most effective management starts with subscriber side and _not allowing_ traffic flows that exceed that subscribers limits, into the network in the first place. The Arbitrator can only deal with it once it reaches your noc (or wherever else you've placed it), but this doesn't do anything for portscanning viruses or other traffic which would get dropped - but also would have also consumed your precious network resouces first before getting to that choke point. I'd really like to see an isp industry standardization effort on the subject of bandwidth subscription policies, something that we can present to customers as the uniform definition of what we provide in terms of bandwidth and allocation and priority and so forth that could then be used as a 'sticker' when shopping around for services Mike (the rambler) Jason wrote: List, Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For... Here's what I'd like to do: 1. Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe. This way casual surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy. 2. If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes). 3. Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to download. 4. After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3). I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out there. The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't know the actual values): 1. Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth. 2. The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k. 3. The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg. 4. If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are replenished, he eventually gets only 128k. Does anyone know how to get something like this going? I am especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions. Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:36:49 -0600, John Scrivner wrote The government cannot request data with a note saying it is confidential and then turn around and say it is not. That is not going to fly. If my data is shared with others then I will file suit against the FCC myself. Peter, how can you possibly support the idea that it is ok for confidential data to be gathered and then shared because the ILECs want it shared? The FCC is not withholding this information to be annoying or secretive. They are doing so because confidentiality was assured when the data was gathered. If this data is shared then Mark Koskenmaki and others were right in saying we should not fill out those forms. For now I will do it because it is a requirement according to the governing law of the land. If this bites me then I will be the first to tell you I was wrong in supporting the Form 477 process. For now the data is still not being shared and the form process is still a matter of law, like it or not. Scriv You invoked my name, but let me clear something up... If the FCC loses in court, exactly who is to blame? The FCC? Hardly. The court system? Maybe. Who? I dunno. I was opposed on the grounds that the government shouldn't know this in the first place, not that it will get spread around. My reasoning was that there's really no Constitutional justification for demanding the information. That someone will come along later and get to that information when it was promised to be confidential... well... even WISPA could find itself in that position if it collected it. I don't know why or how WISPA could get sued, but I don't think any of us foresaw the FCC getting sued until it happened, did we? And if WISPA got sued, what deep pockets would exist to pay the lawyers to fight it? That the case isn't summarily dismissed is a bad sign... Not that the FCC will lose, I don't know, but that the mere accusation of fudging numbers about how many people can get broadband is JUSTIFICATION FOR REVEALING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Do you get how flimsy that appears? Any old political goal or wish is justification for demanding data and it really IS at risk, since summary judgement hasn't occurred, the court is seriously considering the idea valid. Plaintiff: We think your policies might not be perfect, so we can sue, get the data you collect under promise of confidentiality, and spread it around the internet to use in a campaign to get you to change policies or have you as an agency absolished, or at least your people replaced. Court: Absolutely, your goals definitely trump any objections from businesses about confidentiality. Seems hard to imagine, but right now, that is precisely what's going on. Here's what I see happening as a solution to this: The FCC asks Congress to pass a law demanding we file... AND codifying confidentiality into law. Congress does this, and at the same time requires you to now obtain federal licensing to be an ISP and that licensing will not be granted until you provide proof of CALEA compliance and a host of other important things they suddenly get lobbied to include... All in the name of protecting the consumer of course... competence, adequacy, universal coverage, non- discrimination in who you serve, blah, blah, blah. And 95% of us close our doors and go to work for McDonald's to pay off our debts. I said long ago that opening the door and walking into the realm of federally regulated services is a guillotine for small businesses. There is no future for small business in federally regulated services. Never has been. We should have been fighting this from day one, not walking in like a wide eyed lamb. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetitionin the US
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:52:37 -0600, Jory Privett wrote I do not think Peters argument was that the data should be shared. I think he is against that as much as anyone. BUT what needs to happen is that someone needs to check and verify the data that is collected. The FCC does no review of what is submitted. A ILEC could have on DSL line in a zip code and therefore claim that broadband is available for the entire area. This is the kind of thing that needs to be checked and verified. Jory Privett WCCS Why? What is so sacred about broadband that the federal government has to come in like a bull in a china shop and start just banging around willy- nilly? Think about this: We use this single dsl line in a zip code argument, and then what one of us would lease a tower site, put up equipment and backhauls, install ONE customer and then refuse to serve anyone else there, and do this in every town for 100 miles in every direction? What kind of crazy nonsense is that? The only time that makes sense, is when it pays to do it, that's why. So why and how would someone profit from doing it. Answer that question, and you'll answer why there are broadband problems in the US (if there really is any) and it won't require a single confidentiality breach, or anything else. Remember, this argument is about the SUCCESS of a set of policies, and that people want to change them. Frankly, I think the spread of broadband coverage is going to go about the same speed no matter if the governemnt gets deeply involved or not. About the best it can do proactively is nothing. The best it can do at all, is GET OUT OF THE WAY. If that means letting some spectrum loose, that would help. If it meant telling the federal land managers (USFS, BLM, etd) to stop demanding a half million dollar EIS to build a tower for a WIFI backhaul, and other such nonsense, that's getting out of the way, too. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Matt Liotta wrote: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? When your head dips below the cloud cover, you will realize that not everyone has this luxury. Many on this list are selling residential service at lowball rates. Also, most of them are paying premium prices for bandwidth. You can't build a business model around unlimited access for $30/month and pay for an $800+ T1, if you allow every even 128k without restrictions. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
This thread should not hit a nerve, as I think it has. I've read a lot of your stuff, so I know you're a bright guy. You know that while telephone talk-time may not be metered for many phone services that if everyone picked up their phone that the chances of getting a trunk out of your local office would drop to zero. That's just science, not marketing. No matter how your terms of service are sold there's a real engineering metric called erlangs per user, and it's expected value is much-much less than 1. This is traffic engineering, not marketing. It's the real science behind what most wisps describe as oversubscription. The lower the average erlangs per user the more users a given bandwidth serves. There are actually textbooks and mature classes on the subject going back 40 years (the science was matured long ago by telephone engineering from the Bell System). It's a legitimate concern what to do about users that statistically use x10 fold, x100 fold, or even x1000 fold or more over the average. Unless you're a service provider with a statistically HUGE number of users you cannot afford to let the averages take care of themselves as phone carriers do. Even so, with the typically small number of users per access point, a statistically anomalous user can destroy service to other customers unlucky to share the same channel ... it's something that simply MUST be addressed. What the writer described, I call the leaky bucket algorithm, and there are some wisp manufacturers that actually code this into their radio products (no need to perform it via a head-end traffic shaper). If your deployed radios do not, a head-end traffic shaper can do the same thing. It's referred to as the leaky bucket algorithm because it's has a physical similarity. Imagine a bucket of a given size that has a leak ... through which the user draws water. In an instant, the user cannot draw more water than the bucket currently holds (referred to as burst size). Once the bucket, or burst size, has been drawn, the user cannot draw more than the bucket's refill rate (referred to as sustained rate). Radios with this built-in typically specify a burst size and sustained rate per CPE, for inbound, and for outbound (4 parameters in total). I'm familiar with many wisps that set the burst sizes to 10M (don't know any that set it to 1G as the author hypothesized), and set sustained rates at 256kbps or 384kbps. The interesting thing about the algorithm is that burst size is dimensionless (it's only a size, and not a rate ... the rate is determined by the radio channel and traffic levels), while the sustained rate is a true rate (bits/sec). I appologize for the lecture, but traffic engineering has always been a topic of interest to me going way back. But I have great concerns for the viability of wisps that don't appreciate the issue (unless they only sell business service where throughput per user is sold with SLAs ... engineering to a high erlang per user, or equivalently described as a low oversubscription rate). regards, Rich - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt Jason wrote: List, Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For... Here's what I'd like to do: 1. Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe. This way casual surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy. 2. If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes). 3. Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to download. 4. After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3). I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out there. The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't know the actual values): 1. Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth. 2. The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k. 3. The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg. 4. If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are replenished, he eventually gets only 128k. Does anyone know how to get something like this going? I am especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions. Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List:
RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces
Flarion's (QCOM) IP was to be the basis for 802.20, not 802.22. The effort by 802.22 has ALWAYS been rural-focused, and thus the sub 1 GHz bands, specifically the white spaces/TV bands. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces I knew there was an 802.22 effort but I had no idea that it was geared for any particular spectrum until now. Glad to hear the efforts are underway. Isn't Flarion's IP based closely on what will be 802.22? Was there an earlier effort for 802.22 standards development that was spectrum agnostic? This caught me completely by surprise. Thanks for the info Steve and welcome back to writing for our industry. We missed your crystal ball. :-) Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you are writing these days? Thanks, Scriv Steve Stroh wrote: John: There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces - 802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/ Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote: The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- lipped about it though. Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] DNS Timeout supposedly
Sorry for the cross-post I am getting this report from dns reports.com: quote A timeout occurred getting the NS records from your nameservers! None of your nameservers responded fast enough. They are probably down or unreachable. I can't continue since your nameservers aren't responding. If you have a Watchguard Firebox, it's due to a bug in their DNS Proxy, which must be disabled (31 Jul 2006 UPDATE: several years after being informed of this, there is a rumor that there is a fix that allows the Watchguard DNS proxy to work). unquote So with that result it appears you wouldn't be able to reach our mailserver, but as can be seen these lists do. The dns servers and other servers run thru our Mikrotik Gateway like this: incoming on ether-b sent over to ether-d where our servers are. ether-a is the internet gateway for our wireless clients and ether-c goes out to our wireless network. Now when I use dnscheck, I don't have the same problem. Reason for all this is that we seem to having problems with our mailserver's anti-spam. I think we are running into alot of broken, ill-configured mailservers of which ours was one. How to fix, we run a Merak server that uses Spamassassin and avast. -- You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
Matt, What an asinine comment! You sound like you ought to be giving bandwidth away with the pride and carefree attitude that you portrayed with such indignant comment. If the truth was known you aren't any different than anyone else on this list - - the sub gets what they pay for. You can talk trash all you want, but the truth is you need to dig your head out of your ass and quit acting like - - well - - - - enough said. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt Jason wrote: List, Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For... Here's what I'd like to do: 1. Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe. This way casual surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy. 2. If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes). 3. Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to download. 4. After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3). I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out there. The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't know the actual values): 1. Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth. 2. The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k. 3. The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg. 4. If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are replenished, he eventually gets only 128k. Does anyone know how to get something like this going? I am especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions. Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
Rich, --- Here is the detail from the manual. I have first cut pasted the graceful degradation math detail: Graceful Degradation Limit (AU only) Sets the limit on using the graceful degradation algorithm. In cases of over demand, the performance of all SUs is degraded proportionally to their CIR (IR=(100%-k%) x CIR). The graceful degradation algorithm is used as long as k ≤ K, where K is the Graceful Degradation Limit. Beyond this point the simple brute force algorithm is used. The Graceful Degradation Limit should be raised in proportion to the demand in the cell. The higher the expected demand in a cell, the higher the value of the Graceful Degradation Limit. Higher demand can be expected in cases of significant over subscription and/or in deployments where a high number of subscribers are in locations without proper communication with the AU at the highest data rate. The available values range from 0 to 70 (%). --- And here is the whole bit about how the mechanism works 4.2.6.6.2 MIR and CIR Parameters The CIR (Committed Information Rate) specifies the minimum data rate guaranteed to the relevant subscriber. The MIR (Maximum Information Rate) value specifies the maximum data rate available for burst transmissions, provided such bandwidth is available. Under normal conditions, the actual Information Rate (IR) is between the applicable CIR and MIR values, based on the following formula: IR=CIR+K(MIR - CIR). In this formula K is between 0 and 1 and is determined dynamically by the AU according to overall demand in the cell and the prevailing conditions that influence the performance of the wireless link. In some situations the minimum rate (CIR) cannot be provided. This may result from high demand and poor wireless link conditions and/or high demand in over-subscribed cells. When this occurs, the actual information rate is lower than the CIR. The simple solution for managing the information rate in such cases can result in an unfair allocation of resources, as subscribers with a higher CIR actually receive an IR lower than the CIR designated for subscribers in a lower CIR bracket. A special algorithm for graceful degradation is incorporated into the AU, ensuring that the degradation of performance for each individual Subscriber Unit is proportional to its CIR. The MIR/CIR algorithm uses buffers to control the flow of data. To balance the performance over time, a special Burst Duration algorithm is employed to enable higher transmission rates after a period of inactivity. If no data is received from the Ethernet port during the last N seconds, the unit is allowed to transmit N times its CIR value without any delay. For example, after a period of inactivity of 0.5 seconds, a unit with CIR = 128 Kbps can transmit up to 128 Kbits x 0.5 = 64 Kbits without any delay. 4.2.6.6.2.1 MIR: Downlink (SU only) Sets the Maximum Information Rate of the downlink from the AU to the SU. The MIR value cannot be lower than the corresponding CIR value. Available values range and default value are shown inTable 4-12. The actual value will be the entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128). 4.2.6.6.2.2 MIR: Uplink (SU only) Sets the Maximum Information Rate of the up-link from the SU to the AU. The MIR value cannot be lower than the corresponding CIR value. Available values range and default value are shown in Table 4-12. The actual value will be the entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128). 4.2.6.6.2.3 CIR: Downlink (SU only) Sets the Committed Information Rate of the downlink from the AU to the SU. The CIR value cannot be higher than the corresponding MIR value. Available values range and default value are shown inTable 4-13. The actual value will be the entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128). 4.2.6.6.2.4 CIR: Uplink (SU only) Sets the Committed Information Rate of the uplink from the SU to the AU. The CIR value cannot be higher than the corresponding MIR value. Available values range and default value are shown in Table 4-13. The actual value will be the entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128). Table 4-12: MIR Ranges and Defaults MIR Uplink MIR Downlink Unit Type Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps) Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps) SU-3 128-2,048 2,048 128-3,072 3,072 SU-6 128-4,096 4,096 128-6,016 6,016 SU-54 128-53,888 32,896 128-53,888 32,896 Table 4-13: CIR Ranges and Defaults CIR Uplink and Downlink Unit Type Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps) SU-3 0-2,048 0 SU-6 0-4,096 0 SU-54 0-45,056 0 4.2.6.6.2.5 Maximum Burst Duration (SU and AU) Sets the maximum time for accumulating burst transmission rights according to the Burst Duration algorithm. Available values range from 0 to 2000 milliseconds). The default value is 5 (milliseconds), enabling a maximum burst of (0.005 X CIR) Kbps after a period of inactivity of 5 milliseconds or more. 4.2.6.6.2.6 Maximum Delay (SU only) Sets the maximum permitted delay in the
RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
Matt (Liota) and the rest of us need to remember that Matt sells only dedicated ptp links. He does not deploy a PMP, so his inputs and answers generally do not reflect a pmp environment or its many orders higher complexity. That's not a dig Matt, it is just reality. Ptp is a far different world and much easier. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 4:23 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management Matt, What an asinine comment! You sound like you ought to be giving bandwidth away with the pride and carefree attitude that you portrayed with such indignant comment. If the truth was known you aren't any different than anyone else on this list - - the sub gets what they pay for. You can talk trash all you want, but the truth is you need to dig your head out of your ass and quit acting like - - well - - - - enough said. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt Jason wrote: List, Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For... Here's what I'd like to do: 1. Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe. This way casual surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy. 2. If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes). 3. Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to download. 4. After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3). I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out there. The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't know the actual values): 1. Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth. 2. The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k. 3. The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg. 4. If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are replenished, he eventually gets only 128k. Does anyone know how to get something like this going? I am especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions. Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
My hat is off to you John! You possess skills that I don't in saying things that I should have said in a different fashion :-) I am not now - nor have I ever been in a class that is politically correct and unless something serious happens - - - - - never will be :-) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. Vogel Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world, not necessarily in the limited world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not pay for such a pipe. In many areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive. Customers do not want to pay close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the internet, yet the customer would like to access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster) whenever they can. In such a case it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all unethical to sell customers shared bandwidth. In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid question, and deserves an answer other than one which implies that they may be doing something they should not be. The world is a big place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have seen lately. John Matt Liotta wrote: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
Butch, That's not correct. About 5 years ago, we were paying $1,500 per T1 and selling T1 speed wireless for $250 per month. Seven to eight years ago we were paying $3,000 per T1 and selling wireless T1 for $250 per month. This is the entire ISP business model. Travis Microserv Butch Evans wrote: On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Matt Liotta wrote: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? When your head dips below the cloud cover, you will realize that not everyone has this luxury. Many on this list are selling residential service at lowball rates. Also, most of them are paying premium prices for bandwidth. You can't build a business model around unlimited access for $30/month and pay for an $800+ T1, if you allow every even 128k without restrictions. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling what they get. We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down, guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc. Make your customers pay for what they need and use. Travis Microserv Blair Davis wrote: We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses. We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month. My pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit. A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the 256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced. He demanded a 1Mbit committed rate and no price change. I explained this was not possible. He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the customer find a new ISP. I, fed up with his big city attitude, told him to go right ahead. He said to come pick up the gear on this Friday. Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone.. After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and a 3 month lead time, he called me back... He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri) and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a damn good deal.. The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large cites Out here in the real world, it don't work that way. The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer Just my $.02 J. Vogel wrote: I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world, not necessarily in the limited world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not pay for such a pipe. In many areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive. Customers do not want to pay close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the internet, yet the customer would like to access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster) whenever they can. In such a case it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all unethical to sell customers shared bandwidth. In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid question, and deserves an answer other than one which implies that they may be doing something they should not be. The world is a big place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have seen lately. John Matt Liotta wrote: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...
have you tried mobile ssh? On 1/24/07, paul hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm running putty on my E70. Is great to be on a roof with mobile in one hand whilst you pan your StarOS or Mikrotik cpe ;) Only down side seems to be the lack of a tab key. -Original Message- From: Chad Halsted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2007 19:32 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness... Matt, Have you had a chance to play with SSH utilities. I'm looking for the same phone and have heard others using it to SSH into their Star-OS boxes with good success. Mobile SSH has a free trial and should work with the E70. On 1/22/07, Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was finally time to replace my Nokia 6800 with 600 hours and a broken screen from being dropped too many times, so I decided to get a Nokia E70 phone. It has been a little bit of a challenge, but it is pretty close to cell phone nirvana. It has been able to do I have wanted to accomplish with a PDA or cell phone combined. The first main issue was getting the phone contacts/calendar/notes synchronized with my PC. My previous phone was extremely flaky when used with the Nokia PC Suite software, and only connected about one in every 10 times. I had to install, reinstall, run a registry cleaner and then reinstall the software but I was finally able to get a reliable connection between my PC and phone. Once accomplished, I was able to get all of my items synced up in a repeatable, reliable fashion. With all their available resources, I am amazed that Nokia was not able to this process worked out better. The second item was seeing how Internet access worked on the phone. GPRS seems to work fine, but I was more interested in the wifi connectivity feature of the phone. The E70 will browse for an available access point and the process for connecting is pretty straightforward. I have to pass on huge props for the Internet browser on the E70. I would prefer using the smaller screen E70 browser than the browser on all of the PocketPCs that I have used. It is that good. It was reliable, viewable, easy to navigate and there have been no weird format surprises. All told - the Internet access components work very well. I have not gotten the instant messaging to work yet, but it looks like other have, so I will still have that to work on. The last and most interesting piece was the struggle to get VOIP working on a cell phone. My cell coverage at my house and many other places in my service area is very spotty, so I have been looking forward to having a phone that could roam to wifi and keep my roaming minutes down to a minimum. I was able to find a couple of links to guides on how to set the phone up with an asterisk voip server and was finally able to get it to connect to my office voip phone system. After all the hassles and reported problems on user forums, I was very pleasantly surprised by the performance of the voip part of the E70. It is actually clearer than regular cell calls, with just a little bit of breakup when the wifi signal gets low. Best of all, my outgoing calls all go through my office system when I am in range of a wifi access point, meaning less minutes on my cell phone plan. I should also be able to use the voip when I go to remote tower sites that used to not work at all on the regular cell network or incurred roaming charges. All in all, I am very impressed with the E70. I am going to officially retire my iPaqs to other tasks and use this as my primary PIM/phone/voip phone. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com PS - I purchased my E70 from Tiger Direct for about $435, but they are also available at voip-supply.com for $385. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Chad Halsted The Computer Works Conway, AR www.tcworks.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Chad Halsted The Computer Works Conway, AR www.tcworks.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Travis Johnson wrote: That's not correct. About 5 years ago, we were paying $1,500 per T1 and selling T1 speed wireless for $250 per month. Seven to eight years ago we were paying $3,000 per T1 and selling wireless T1 for $250 per month. This is the entire ISP business model. And you allow a single customer to pay you $250/month for what you pay $1500/month? And you make money how? What I read in Matt's post (below) is that if they pay for the 1.5Mbit, they should get it...anytime, all the time. As in dedicated. Perhaps I mistook his intention, but from reading others responses, I'd guess I didn't. FWIW, I have been in this business long enough to understand how it works. I am not saying that you can't purchase a T1 and sell a T1 speed to more than one person and get away with it. But keep in mind, that selling internet access to businesses 7-8 years ago is not even the same as it is today. Back then, businesses did not use NEAR the average bandwidth they use today. Even so, they use much less average BW than do residential subs (in most cases). SO, if your cost/meg goes down, your utilization is going up. Your bottom line will show you that what I am saying is true (and I know you understand this anyway). On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Matt Liotta wrote: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
Thanks much. I love it when you talk technical! Sorry, couldn't help it... No really, the devil is always in the details in these things. This is just the detail I was looking for. After I digest I hope I may send questions your way off-list. Still hoping operators using other brands will share what bw management algorithms they may have built-in. thanks again, Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:23 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management Rich, --- Here is the detail from the manual. I have first cut pasted the graceful degradation math detail: Graceful Degradation Limit (AU only) Sets the limit on using the graceful degradation algorithm. In cases of over demand, the performance of all SUs is degraded proportionally to their CIR (IR=(100%-k%) x CIR). The graceful degradation algorithm is used as long as k ≤ K, where K is the Graceful Degradation Limit. Beyond this point the simple brute force algorithm is used. The Graceful Degradation Limit should be raised in proportion to the demand in the cell. The higher the expected demand in a cell, the higher the value of the Graceful Degradation Limit. Higher demand can be expected in cases of significant over subscription and/or in deployments where a high number of subscribers are in locations without proper communication with the AU at the highest data rate. The available values range from 0 to 70 (%). --- And here is the whole bit about how the mechanism works 4.2.6.6.2 MIR and CIR Parameters The CIR (Committed Information Rate) specifies the minimum data rate guaranteed to the relevant subscriber. The MIR (Maximum Information Rate) value specifies the maximum data rate available for burst transmissions, provided such bandwidth is available. Under normal conditions, the actual Information Rate (IR) is between the applicable CIR and MIR values, based on the following formula: IR=CIR+K(MIR - CIR). In this formula K is between 0 and 1 and is determined dynamically by the AU according to overall demand in the cell and the prevailing conditions that influence the performance of the wireless link. In some situations the minimum rate (CIR) cannot be provided. This may result from high demand and poor wireless link conditions and/or high demand in over-subscribed cells. When this occurs, the actual information rate is lower than the CIR. The simple solution for managing the information rate in such cases can result in an unfair allocation of resources, as subscribers with a higher CIR actually receive an IR lower than the CIR designated for subscribers in a lower CIR bracket. A special algorithm for graceful degradation is incorporated into the AU, ensuring that the degradation of performance for each individual Subscriber Unit is proportional to its CIR. The MIR/CIR algorithm uses buffers to control the flow of data. To balance the performance over time, a special Burst Duration algorithm is employed to enable higher transmission rates after a period of inactivity. If no data is received from the Ethernet port during the last N seconds, the unit is allowed to transmit N times its CIR value without any delay. For example, after a period of inactivity of 0.5 seconds, a unit with CIR = 128 Kbps can transmit up to 128 Kbits x 0.5 = 64 Kbits without any delay. 4.2.6.6.2.1 MIR: Downlink (SU only) Sets the Maximum Information Rate of the downlink from the AU to the SU. The MIR value cannot be lower than the corresponding CIR value. Available values range and default value are shown inTable 4-12. The actual value will be the entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128). 4.2.6.6.2.2 MIR: Uplink (SU only) Sets the Maximum Information Rate of the up-link from the SU to the AU. The MIR value cannot be lower than the corresponding CIR value. Available values range and default value are shown in Table 4-12. The actual value will be the entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128). 4.2.6.6.2.3 CIR: Downlink (SU only) Sets the Committed Information Rate of the downlink from the AU to the SU. The CIR value cannot be higher than the corresponding MIR value. Available values range and default value are shown inTable 4-13. The actual value will be the entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128). 4.2.6.6.2.4 CIR: Uplink (SU only) Sets the Committed Information Rate of the uplink from the SU to the AU. The CIR value cannot be higher than the corresponding MIR value. Available values range and default value are shown in Table 4-13. The actual value will be the entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128). Table 4-12: MIR Ranges and Defaults MIR Uplink MIR Downlink Unit Type Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps) Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps) SU-3 128-2,048 2,048 128-3,072 3,072 SU-6 128-4,096 4,096
[WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management
Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord... I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by speed which is the way am currently doing it. My question is this: What if you played the cable game and just sell all you can eat? Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else? Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties up your network much longer. Just looking for some opinions here ;) Thanks! RickG On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling what they get. We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down, guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc. Make your customers pay for what they need and use. Travis Microserv Blair Davis wrote: We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses. We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month. My pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit. A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the 256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced. He demanded a 1Mbit committed rate and no price change. I explained this was not possible. He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the customer find a new ISP. I, fed up with his big city attitude, told him to go right ahead. He said to come pick up the gear on this Friday. Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone.. After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and a 3 month lead time, he called me back... He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri) and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a damn good deal.. The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large cites Out here in the real world, it don't work that way. The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer Just my $.02 J. Vogel wrote: I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world, not necessarily in the limited world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not pay for such a pipe. In many areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive. Customers do not want to pay close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the internet, yet the customer would like to access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster) whenever they can. In such a case it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all unethical to sell customers shared bandwidth. In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid question, and deserves an answer other than one which implies that they may be doing something they should not be. The world is a big place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have seen lately. John Matt Liotta wrote: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
That is exactly the issue I have. The system I need this for is an extremely rural retirement community, satellite-connected WISP with 1meg down 128k up and 266megs total per day limit (8gig spread over 30 days). Just one all night P2P session will cause the upstream provider to cut the connection to 56k up/down for weeks until the total usage drops to 6gig in the previous 30 days. Then nobody's happy. Meanwhile, babyboomers are retiring and moving from the city where they got 4 to 6 meg Roadrunner and Cox connections and expect the same service at the same pricepoint. T1's run up to 2200$/month. Needless to say, I am also looking for other bandwidth sources... Even with a GOOD Internet pipe, I'll need software to make sure everyone plays fair, especially at the dawn of IPTV. Jason On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Matt Liotta wrote: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? When your head dips below the cloud cover, you will realize that not everyone has this luxury. Many on this list are selling residential service at lowball rates. Also, most of them are paying premium prices for bandwidth. You can't build a business model around unlimited access for $30/month and pay for an $800+ T1, if you allow every even 128k without restrictions. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] BelAir Networks VAR Program
Talk to David Wilson about this. He used to work for them. - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:49 AM Subject: [WISPA] BelAir Networks VAR Program Anybody using BelAir? They have made some stabs at doing Muni RFP's but had some capital issues. http://www.phoneplusmag.com/hotnews/71h17132810.html BelAir Networks, a mobile broadband multiservice wireless mesh network provider, today announced an expanded VAR channel program. BelAir Networks’ VAR program offers sales, technical and marketing support customized to each partner’s goals. The program includes three tiers with increasing levels of incentives; technical and sales certification through BelAir University Webinars; market development funds, rewards and rebates; and a partner advisory council. “We have enhanced and expanded our program in response to strong interest from VARs who want to take advantage of the opportunities offered now in the wireless mesh space. In addition to industry-leading incentives, the program offers many benefits including market development support and comprehensive technical training – all designed to give our partners a quick ramp-up in this fast-paced market,” stated Jim Freeze, senior vice president of marketing and alliances at BelAir Networks. BelAir Networks and its partners have made more than 200 deployments of wireless mesh networks in cities such as Minneapolis, London and Toronto, as well as high-profile venues such as Dolphin Stadium in Miami. BelAir Networks www.belairnetworks.com http://www.belairnetworks.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
WISPA has been working on this for a couple of years now. Independently and with Cisco, New America, Media Access Project and I've recently had talks with the 802.22 (ieee white spaces standards group) folks. As always, we need more bodies to go a better job. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum becoming unlicensed? Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before we see any gear. So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America? Thanks. Mario Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become unlicensed. As quoted from the press release; The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet. Links below; http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392 http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management
Holy cow! Stepped away from the 'puter for a bit and see that everyone's beating up on poor 'ol Matt for making a perfectly correct statement! No surprise as to some of the people commenting here that largely promote best effort gear, but others that have commented should know better. Rick, you're on the right track. Keep it up. We have been selling bandwidth packages since day one. If we had not been we wouldn't have seen the organic increase to our bottom line over the past few years as customers upgrade bandwidth packages. The ones complaining about VoIP quality issues are largely the ones that have an open spigot for all their users. The VoIP revolution has been great because many times it requires the client to come back to us for MORE bandwidth. When you sell bandwidth packages that gives you an opportunity to put more dollars in the register. This opportunity can lead to other sales like client network upgrades, extending the service agreement...the list goes on and on. Matt's comment: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? I see no problem with this comment. Why should it matter to the provider if the bits of data are VoIP, FTP, HTTP, or Xbox? It's all ones and zeros. Build your network to handle it at the levels you are committing to your clients. As they require more they PAY for more! What a concept! Bottom line is don't join the great race to zero with the likes of cable and DSL. Nobody wants to be there fighting it out on price alone against the big guys. Believe me they have more money than you. Instead sell a better service at a fair price. Your clients will thank you and your wallet will too. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Service Offerings,By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord... I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by speed which is the way am currently doing it. My question is this: What if you played the cable game and just sell all you can eat? Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else? Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties up your network much longer. Just looking for some opinions here ;) Thanks! RickG On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling what they get. We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down, guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc. Make your customers pay for what they need and use. Travis Microserv Blair Davis wrote: We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses. We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month. My pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit. A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the 256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced. He demanded a 1Mbit committed rate and no price change. I explained this was not possible. He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the customer find a new ISP. I, fed up with his big city attitude, told him to go right ahead. He said to come pick up the gear on this Friday. Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone.. After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and a 3 month lead time, he called me back... He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri) and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a damn good deal.. The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large cites Out here in the real world, it don't work that way. The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer Just my $.02 J. Vogel wrote: I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world, not necessarily in the limited world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not pay for such a pipe. In many areas of the US, especially rural,
Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management
No... I don't think that model works... because Joe Surfer sees how fast this last movie downloaded and decides to grab 3 more while he's at it... The model of the customer will use what they are going to use and then get off is not true... imagine if Joe Surfer figures out he can download the movies AND still surf, check email, etc. at the same time? Then he can just leave it downloading 24x7. :( Travis Microserv RickG wrote: Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord... I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by speed which is the way am currently doing it. My question is this: What if you played the cable game and just sell all you can eat? Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else? Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties up your network much longer. Just looking for some opinions here ;) Thanks! RickG On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling what they get. We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down, guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc. Make your customers pay for what they need and use. Travis Microserv Blair Davis wrote: We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses. We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month. My pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit. A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the 256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced. He demanded a 1Mbit committed rate and no price change. I explained this was not possible. He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the customer find a new ISP. I, fed up with his big city attitude, told him to go right ahead. He said to come pick up the gear on this Friday. Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone.. After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and a 3 month lead time, he called me back... He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri) and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a damn good deal.. The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large cites Out here in the real world, it don't work that way. The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer Just my $.02 J. Vogel wrote: I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world, not necessarily in the limited world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not pay for such a pipe. In many areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive. Customers do not want to pay close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the internet, yet the customer would like to access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster) whenever they can. In such a case it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all unethical to sell customers shared bandwidth. In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid question, and deserves an answer other than one which implies that they may be doing something they should not be. The world is a big place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have seen lately. John Matt Liotta wrote: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management
Ya, thats my gut feeling and why I havent done it. Thanks! On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No... I don't think that model works... because Joe Surfer sees how fast this last movie downloaded and decides to grab 3 more while he's at it... The model of the customer will use what they are going to use and then get off is not true... imagine if Joe Surfer figures out he can download the movies AND still surf, check email, etc. at the same time? Then he can just leave it downloading 24x7. :( Travis Microserv RickG wrote: Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord... I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by speed which is the way am currently doing it. My question is this: What if you played the cable game and just sell all you can eat? Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else? Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties up your network much longer. Just looking for some opinions here ;) Thanks! RickG On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling what they get. We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down, guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc. Make your customers pay for what they need and use. Travis Microserv Blair Davis wrote: We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses. We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month. My pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit. A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the 256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced. He demanded a 1Mbit committed rate and no price change. I explained this was not possible. He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the customer find a new ISP. I, fed up with his big city attitude, told him to go right ahead. He said to come pick up the gear on this Friday. Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone.. After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and a 3 month lead time, he called me back... He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri) and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a damn good deal.. The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large cites Out here in the real world, it don't work that way. The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer Just my $.02 J. Vogel wrote: I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world, not necessarily in the limited world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not pay for such a pipe. In many areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive. Customers do not want to pay close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the internet, yet the customer would like to access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster) whenever they can. In such a case it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all unethical to sell customers shared bandwidth. In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid question, and deserves an answer other than one which implies that they may be doing something they should not be. The world is a big place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have seen lately. John Matt Liotta wrote: Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Mikrotik 1 to 1 NAT question
I have an office router/Mikrotik that has a wan IP that is set up as a global nat to an inside private range. Additionally, we have a /27 routed to the Mikrotik and are doing 1 to 1 nat translations using dstnat for certain servers. Our problem is that while traffic can get to these devices using the alternate IP on the /27, when the devices send outbound traffic, it appears to be coming from the wan IP that is utilized for the global NAT pool instead of the IP that we are trying to translate it too. Any ideas? Thank you. Don Annas Triad Telecom, Inc. HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 1/23/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management
I have a funny story to share which is along these lines. My son is in college now at U of I in a fraternity. (President of his Frat I might add!) When he was in high school he would use our wireless connection at home to download using Bit Torrent and other P2P packages. At that time we had no shaping on the P2P traffic. I would get angry with him because I told him that was not allowed on our network due to all the traffic trouble it caused with the hundreds of connections it would open up. He always thought I was just being a jerk to him. I just got off the phone with him about 15 minutes ago. He was complaining about guys in their frat using up all the bandwidth with Bit Torrent and how the computer science major in the frat house has started policing the bandwidth use. He admitted to me that he felt like he understood me a little better now. It was sure fun tonight to hear him admitting that ol' Dad was maybe right after all! Enjoy your time with your kids guys. Every minute of it. I sure miss him around here. Scriv RickG wrote: Ya, thats my gut feeling and why I havent done it. Thanks! On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No... I don't think that model works... because Joe Surfer sees how fast this last movie downloaded and decides to grab 3 more while he's at it... The model of the customer will use what they are going to use and then get off is not true... imagine if Joe Surfer figures out he can download the movies AND still surf, check email, etc. at the same time? Then he can just leave it downloading 24x7. :( Travis Microserv RickG wrote: Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord... I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by speed which is the way am currently doing it. My question is this: What if you played the cable game and just sell all you can eat? Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else? Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties up your network much longer. Just looking for some opinions here ;) Thanks! RickG On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling what they get. We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down, guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc. Make your customers pay for what they need and use. Travis Microserv Blair Davis wrote: We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses. We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month. My pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit. A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the 256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced. He demanded a 1Mbit committed rate and no price change. I explained this was not possible. He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the customer find a new ISP. I, fed up with his big city attitude, told him to go right ahead. He said to come pick up the gear on this Friday. Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone.. After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and a 3 month lead time, he called me back... He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri) and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a damn good deal.. The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large cites Out here in the real world, it don't work that way. The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer Just my $.02 J. Vogel wrote: I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world, not necessarily in the limited world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not pay for such a pipe. In many areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive. Customers do not want to pay close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the internet, yet the customer would like to access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster) whenever they can. In such a case it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all unethical to sell customers shared bandwidth. In cases such as these,
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Rich Comroe wrote: Thanks much. I love it when you talk technical! Sorry, couldn't help it... No really, the devil is always in the details in these things. This is just the detail I was looking for. After I digest I hope I may send questions your way off-list. Still hoping operators using other brands will share what bw management algorithms they may have built-in. If you are looking for a better understanding of some of the traffic control systems, the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control manual is a good place to look. Starting at chapter 9, it goes into some detail on how some of the the algorithms available work and how to implement them. http://lartc.org http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.html thanks again, Rich -Ryan -- InvisiMax Ryan Langseth Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: (218) 745-6030 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
