Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management
But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig, then he has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for unlimited access, he has no reason to slow down. Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? John -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 07:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: 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
RE: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...
Nope. Does it add a tab key as this seems to be the only thing missing from the free Putty. -Original Message- From: Chad Halsted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 January 2007 01:41 To: WISPA General List Subject: 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/ -- WISPA Wireless
RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik 1 to 1 NAT question
You will need to add a srcnat rule for every dstnat rule you want to work. Cheers, P. Skyline Networks Consultancy Ltd www.skyline-networks.com -Original Message- From: Don Annas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 January 2007 04:52 To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [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/ -- 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
Here are the plans I am working to make available in 2007 for our own subscribers: 5 Mbps / 1 Mbps for $59.99 10 Mbps / 2 Mbps for $69.99 15 Mbps / 3 Mbps for $79.99 20 Mbps / 4 Mbps for $89.99 Just because you give someone faster speeds, don't assume they will consume more bandwidth. Our subs with faster speeds use 1/2 as much total bandwidth in any given month as our subs on the slower speed plans offered by our company. It is best to get them on and off your network as fast as you can IMO. If they need something, make it where they can get that something quickly and you'll have a very happy subscriber for life! If you don't someone else will... and when they do, don't blame them, blame yourself for not doing it first. What's hard about competing? Competition around here is beneficial because we beat them hands down in the areas of service and support. We ask our customers for their name when they call, instead of their account #, maybe this has something to do with it? ;-) Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky Your Hometown Broadband Provider http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas - Proud Beta Testers Of ISP Buddy! http://www.ispbuddy.com - - Original Message - From: John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings,By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig, then he has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for unlimited access, he has no reason to slow down. Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? John -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 07:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: 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)
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik 1 to 1 NAT question
Don Annas wrote: 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? You need a srcnat rule as well. Jeremy -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Tranzeo Wireless agrees to acquire Sensoria for cash and shares
Tranzeo Wireless agrees to acquire Sensoria for cash and shares Canadian Press Published: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 PITT MEADOWS, B.C. (CP) - Tranzeo Wireless Technologies Inc. (TSX:TZT) has agreed to acquire the assets of San Diego, Calif.-based Sensoria Corp. and hire most of its employees for a combination of cash and shares, the B.C.-based company said Wednesday. Tranzeo shares rose 15 cents, or nearly six per cent, to $2.70 on the Toronto Stock Exchange following the announcement. Tranzeo designs and makes high-speed wireless broadband communications systems, while Sensoria makes wireless mesh network equipment and network management software for voice, video and data. Sensoria's mesh networking technology will allow Tranzeo immediate sales traction into a number of wireless vertical markets and give us the opportunity to leverage current contacts Sensoria have made in government and military sector, Tranzeo president and CEO Jim Tocher said in a release. The total value of the transaction will be less than five per cent of Tranzeo's current market capitalization and the cash component will include assumption of liabilities and cash payments valued at less than one-third of the share component, Tranzeo said. The acquisition is expected to close on Jan. 31. © The Canadian Press 2007 http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/news/gizmos/story.html?id=56500527-8a7f-4d57-90e3-55dcaf8f948ck=28592 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum..
High-tech interests come out against increased spectrum for public safety By Jeffrey Silva Story posted: January 23, 2007 - 1:46 pm EDT Mobile-phone and high-tech sectors urged the new Democratic-led Congress to oppose any effort to dilute the pool of auction-bound 700 MHz spectrum, a major portion of which is being sought by public safety advocates. “The American public wants Congress to work in a bi-partisan manner to ensure that the most innovative communications technologies are made available as early and widely as possible,” said Jeff Connaughton, executive director of the High Tech DTV Coalition. “Congress took a tremendous stride towards a new communications future when it passed DTV legislation into law last year. The High Tech DTV Coalition will continue working to ensure that the goals of that legislation are realized, including the February 17, 2009 transition deadline and the January 2008 auction plans.” The High Tech DTV Coalition wrote a letter to Capitol Hill on the issue, and the letter was signed by cellular trade group CTIA, Qualcomm Inc., Verizon Wireless, Aloha Partners, Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco Systems Inc., Intel Corp., Texas Instruments Inc. and others in the high-tech space. The letter could be the start of a broader industry campaign to counter lobbying by Cyren Call Communications Corp. and public-safety organizations to set aside for public safety half of the 60 megahertz in the 700 MHz band set for auction. Public-safety organizations say they need an additional 30 megahertz of spectrum to supplement 24 megahertz in the 700 MHz band already coming their way. They propose the creation of a pubic-safety broadband trust to oversee the construction of a nationwide, interoperable broadband wireless network that commercial entities would build and share with first responders. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed that half of public safety’s new 24 megahertz of spectrum be devoted to broadband under a public-private partnership similar to that pitched by the first responder lobby. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the 60 megahertz of spectrum headed for auction could fetch $12.5 billion. Public-safety officials lobbying Congress have proposed raising $5 billion for the U.S. Treasury by using revenues from commercial users and through the assistance of federal loan guarantees like those previously made available to airline, shipping, pipelines and automotive industries. Hanging overhead is growing concern over practical aspects of the transition from analog to digital TV, which is what would make the 700 MHz spectrum available. Several House GOP lawmakers introduced legislation yesterday to make the American public more aware of the coming changes through better outreach by industry and the federal government. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a Commerce Department unit that advises the White House on telecom policy and manages federal government spectrum, has the lead in educating the public. The agency plans to dispense vouchers to subsidize the cost of digital-to-analog converter boxes. Links below; http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/FREE/70123007/1005/FREE http://www.thewirelessreport.com/2007/01/24/wireless-industry-doesnt-want-govt-messing-in-public-safety-sp/ http://forums.wirelessadvisor.com/wireless-news/60667-big-companies-looking-congress-stop-public.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] San Francisco Mayor Submits Wireless Proposal to Board of Supervisors
San Francisco Mayor Submits Wireless Proposal to Board of Supervisors Jan 24, 2007 News Release Mayor Gavin Newsom today submitted legislation that would codify the agreement the city has reached with a Earthlink/Google partnership that would make San Francisco the first major city in the country to offer free universal wireless internet access. The agreement provides for a wireless internet infrastructure to be deployed and maintained by Earthlink throughout San Francisco, at no cost to the taxpayers. Google, Inc will provide a free service tier as well as other innovative applications and services. Newsom first proposed free wireless in October 2004 as the first step in a larger initiative to create a comprehensive digital inclusion strategy that includes computer hardware, technology training, and internet access targeted at helping bridge the digital divide for low-income communities. The agreement presented to the Board today is the product of a uniquely transparent process begun over a year ago that saw all documents posted regularly online. Mayor Newsom said, Free universal wireless internet access is just the critical first step in bridging the digital divide that separates literally hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans from the enormous benefits of technology. I look forward to working with the Board of Supervisors to make free universal wireless a reality. The wireless agreement marks a significant change from the more typical hotspots or hot zones where WiFi access is available in proscribed areas -- something that is currently available in many cities and municipalities. San Francisco's initiative seeks ubiquitous connectivity anywhere, anytime -- an especially difficult challenge in a city renowned for its hilly topography -- and at no cost to users. The terms of the agreement protects privacy and security of all users, and provides consumer choice through open access. Universal free wireless is the anchor of Mayor Newsom's a href=http://www.sfgov.org/techconnecTechConnect initiative that focuses on Digital Inclusion by creating access and providing hardware, content and training for residents without the benefit of real time, consistent access to technology. http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/103497 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik 1 to 1 NAT question
Thank you very much Paul. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of paul hendry Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:15 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik 1 to 1 NAT question You will need to add a srcnat rule for every dstnat rule you want to work. Cheers, P. Skyline Networks Consultancy Ltd www.skyline-networks.com -Original Message- From: Don Annas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 January 2007 04:52 To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.10/651 - Release Date: 1/24/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.10/651 - Release Date: 1/24/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
Do any of you use caching to save on bandwidth consumption? Blair Davis wrote: 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 -- 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 / ATT
Just so you know - Cingular is indeed a separate entity from BST and att. Assets from one are not found by the other. Heck, SBC assets can't be found by att. Level3 can't identify Progress or Telcove lit buildings. The bigger they get, the worse it gets. But the opportunity to steal customers with exceptional service and a remarkable product offering are there for the taking. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. 4isps.com www.rad-info.net marketingideaguy.com KyWiFi LLC wrote: WOW, $450 per month for a T-1 in a rural area is unheard of! This is great for you Blair, count yourself VERY lucky. It took 6+ months of negotiations between myself and ATT just to get T-1's for $605 per month. We have located a full DS3 approx. 15 miles away from here for $1,950 per month so we are working diligently on acquiring it. The problem is that there is a tower we need to use right onsite where this ATT POP is but ATT knows nothing about it when I speak with their agents. The tower is like 30' away from the backside of their POP and there are several wires and heliax running from the POP to the tower so you would think they would know who owns it if they don't. Well, I went over there and took some pictures last week and the sign on the chainlink fence shows Cingular as the owner. What a joke... Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky Your Hometown Broadband Provider http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 -- 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 - Competing
John J. Thomas wrote: But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig, then he has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for unlimited access, he has no reason to slow down. Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? John Well, the reality is this: you can't compete with it. And why try? Why not move upstream to a larger ARPU customer? Cable ILEC can handle and deliver service to the masses cheaply - for now. But there is a segment of every population that needs more than the cheap dumb pipe attached to the cheap dumb support. That is the GAP. That is where the money is. That is where your market is. But it may mean selling beyond just a pipe. I've been preaching this for years - and clients that have listened - narrowed their focus; but the shotgun (marketing) away; have done well. See articles here: http://www.rad-info.net/newsletters/walmart16.htm And there:http://www.rad-info.net/newsletters/winninger.htm Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. (813) 963-5884 -- 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
wispa wrote: 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. It does pay. It allows the ILECs (both RBOC RLEC) to say that they have BB in every zip code --- ubiquious coverage. Competition works! You can deregulate now. Oh, by the way, please send that USF check today to pay for me to put in more DSLAMs. Thank you. 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. -- 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
John J. Thomas wrote: But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig, then he has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for unlimited access, he has no reason to slow down. Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? John Some cablecos have put a bandwidth cap in their TOS. -- 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 will get harder as 4Q07 approaches and ATT rolls out it's $10 DSL and $19.95 Naked DSL - as per merger concessions. There will be a ton of disqualifiers. However, this will effectively put many Residential ISPs in the NFL cities out of business. I don't understand the race to the bottom. But I do understand the numbers game. Cheaper means easier to sign up more subs. Maybe selling metered internet like the cellular guys do with EVDO would be a smarter model. Or a bandwidth cap. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. (813) 963-5884 Travis Johnson 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 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Views of Downloading
Most Americans regard the illegal downloading and distributing of Hollywood movies as something on par with minor parking offenses, according to a report issued Wednesday. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070125/wr_nm/piract_dc_1 -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.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] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum..
Those analog converter boxes: where do people buy those and who offers them? How about an agency dispensing vouchers for Wireless CPE in order to transition users in rural areas into fixed wireless broadband at sub-700Mhz unlicensed spectrum? Is this too much to ask? Or too naive? or both? Mario Dawn DiPietro wrote: High-tech interests come out against increased spectrum for public safety The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a Commerce Department unit that advises the White House on telecom policy and manages federal government spectrum, has the lead in educating the public. The agency plans to dispense vouchers to subsidize the cost of digital-to-analog converter boxes. -- 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
Hi, I've said this many times before (starting 5+ years ago when Cable first came to my area)... if you are going to try and compete on price alone, you are going to be out of business soon. The CableCo and Telco's are loosing money on internet services right now, but they don't care. They are in it for the long term (read 15+ years). We are currently the most expensive internet solution in our area: Cable - 3meg - $39.95 DSL - 7meg - $39.95 other WISP - 4meg - $34.95 other MMDS wireless - 1meg - $24.95 Me - 512k - $39.95, 1meg - $49.95 and it goes up from there... and right now, I have over 100 pending orders waiting to be installed. We offer a free wireless firewall, a static IP address, same speed up and down, and local customer service and support. Things the big guys just can't offer. Again, if you are competing on price, you are not going to last long... Travis Microserv John J. Thomas wrote: But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig, then he has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for unlimited access, he has no reason to slow down. Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? John -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 07:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: 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
Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management
At one time I sold by the byte but only to the high bandwidth users that I would carry otherwise. I've said since 1999 that one day bandwidth will be by the byte. I think this could be the case if once carriers bandwidth was better than anothers. Then someone would pay for it. -RickG On 1/25/07, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig, then he has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for unlimited access, he has no reason to slow down. Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? John -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 07:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: 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
Re: [WISPA] Views of Downloading
I'll bet the RIAA would start taking fingers if they could, just to impress us to the contrary! On 1/25/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Americans regard the illegal downloading and distributing of Hollywood movies as something on par with minor parking offenses, according to a report issued Wednesday. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070125/wr_nm/piract_dc_1 -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik 1 to 1 NAT question
And it probably needs to be above the global rule in the list. paul hendry wrote: You will need to add a srcnat rule for every dstnat rule you want to work. Cheers, P. Skyline Networks Consultancy Ltd www.skyline-networks.com -Original Message- From: Don Annas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 January 2007 04:52 To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [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] -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.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] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management
Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? Don't sell bandwidth! I tell all my customers, bandwidth is cheap, and thats just a small percentage of the costs in a Broadband bundle. What I'm really selling them is a Standard of Quality and Response Time. People and ethics aren't cheap. Secondly, play down the benefit of speed. What good is 10 mbps, if most websites won't let you pass more than 1-2 mbps per session anyway? Like they need 10mbps, when their average usage is less than 15 kbps. What customers need is HELP. Sell them what they need. We don't hide behind a web page, and that makes all the difference in the world. Its funny, one of the first things the customer does is they go to our web page, and they ask why we don't have all the bells and wistles and easy signup type stuff online. And I answer truthfully, Do you want to talk to a computer or a person? If you want to talk to a computer, go call Comcast, but get used to it, because that is going to be your only option for real help. We sell 100% from referrals, and person to person communication, the same we support our clients. If thats not valuable to you, we are not the provider for you. The first portion of our sales process is to distinguish ourselves from other ISPs. Most customers jsut don't believe we are different at first. They treat us as we are a Goliath monopoly provider that they are accustomed to. Sure 90% of the subs, only care about price, and for those, the 10 mbps is not even a factor in the decission, they are going to buy the cheapest service. Those are the customers that you don' want, and you just wish them well, and refer them to the wire provider with the worst service. Its the other 10% that you care about. That dream about the day, that they are free to use the Internet unencumbered hassle free. And you sell them hassle free. When I sell broadband its like selling them a service maintenance contract. 1 flat fee, monthly, to guarantee that they have peice of mind. The truth is, almost all WISP business models can survive with a 10% or less market share in a region. Its about understanding your identity, and finding the clients that want what you sell. That model may not scale, but having the largest number of subs is not my goal. My goal is profitabilty, and feeling good about my business day to day, and for that the model works. The funny thing is, most of the customers that we loose are customers, that we haven't communicated with during the previous year. Everything just worked, so they lose touch of who we are and why they bought from us in the fiorst place. What is the value of support, if someone never needed it. The customers that have had a problem, RARELY leave, because they just don;t want to risk losing the quality of support, that they received from us. They realize their time is way more valuable than a couple dollars savings. The number one dispute to commiting to our service is... We just have a basic need with limimted use, we are just looking for something cheap.. They AREN'T ASKING FOR 10 MBPS! Educate them on why they should pay more, and what criteria they should be using to make decisions. Being a successful WISP is about Saving the Day. Do that enough and word will spread. The biggest benefit of Wireless is it Enables WISPs to take action on their own to have the opportunity to save the day. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- 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
Travis, It also appears you also are not attempting to compete on Peak Speed either. I agree with you fully. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was:Advanced Bandwidth Management Hi, I've said this many times before (starting 5+ years ago when Cable first came to my area)... if you are going to try and compete on price alone, you are going to be out of business soon. The CableCo and Telco's are loosing money on internet services right now, but they don't care. They are in it for the long term (read 15+ years). We are currently the most expensive internet solution in our area: Cable - 3meg - $39.95 DSL - 7meg - $39.95 other WISP - 4meg - $34.95 other MMDS wireless - 1meg - $24.95 Me - 512k - $39.95, 1meg - $49.95 and it goes up from there... and right now, I have over 100 pending orders waiting to be installed. We offer a free wireless firewall, a static IP address, same speed up and down, and local customer service and support. Things the big guys just can't offer. Again, if you are competing on price, you are not going to last long... Travis Microserv John J. Thomas wrote: But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig, then he has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for unlimited access, he has no reason to slow down. Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? John -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 07:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: 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
[WISPA] My comment (was bandwidth management)
I was out most of yesterday, so I missed responding to the bandwidth management thread. I don't want to respond to any of the individual emails at this point. Below is a summary of responses in not particular order. I believe customers should pay for the bandwidth they want/need and in turn the ISP should deliver on that. I know this is possible to do since we do it everyday. Is it harder with best effort customers? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. The trick is not the technology; its the business model. Make sure you can profitably sell what the customer is buying. Further, make sure the customer understands what they are buying and offer to sell them something else if that's not what they want. Technically, I don't think traffic shaping is a good way to go. Today, P2P traffic may be a big problem, but what about tomorrow? What happens when everyone is downloading video from Apple or some other legitimate traffic? You will never be able to beat bandwidth requirements with shaping since they will continue to rise and others will find ways around the shapers. I don't believe the amount of bandwidth you sell has to be a 1:1 ratio with the amount of bandwidth you have. Some users will maximize their connections, while others will not. In the voice world, the number of channels you need is based on the number of calls during the busy hour. Similarly, the amount of bandwidth you need is related to your customers' peak usage. This is very different than saturating your available bandwidth and only getting more as you run out. The cost of your bandwidth is only one component in what it will cost you to deliver bandwidth to your customer. We have some large customers that only pay $10 per meg for bandwidth yet I can't buy transit at a similar commit for that price. Does that mean I am losing money? No it doesn't. It simply means I was able to sell the bandwidth for one price that doesn't have any relation to what I may pay. A significant amount of traffic --the vast majority of our usage in fact-- is our customers interacting with content. Since we peer with the large content providers we are able to exchange this traffic on a settlement free basis. Additionally, another large portion of traffic is P2P, which seems to be exchanged primarily with universities. Again, since we peer with all the large universities in the Southeast we are able to exchange this traffic on a settlement free basis. -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] Advanced Bandwidth Management
But we can;t forget about delivery! Anyone can create a price sheet, but can they deliver? The day the competors delivers 10 meg for $10 per month, and consistently delviers to the majority of the population, it will be past the time to look into being in another business. But I'm betting on the fact that they won't get there as fast as they advertise, at the quality level customers demand.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management This will get harder as 4Q07 approaches and ATT rolls out it's $10 DSL and $19.95 Naked DSL - as per merger concessions. There will be a ton of disqualifiers. However, this will effectively put many Residential ISPs in the NFL cities out of business. I don't understand the race to the bottom. But I do understand the numbers game. Cheaper means easier to sign up more subs. Maybe selling metered internet like the cellular guys do with EVDO would be a smarter model. Or a bandwidth cap. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. (813) 963-5884 Travis Johnson 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 -- 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
Well stated Tom. I can't tell you how many ISP sites I've been to that don't have phone numbers, or bury them so that they are hard to find. Comcast is the worst with this. Answering the phone is the next issue of course... :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings,By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? Don't sell bandwidth! I tell all my customers, bandwidth is cheap, and thats just a small percentage of the costs in a Broadband bundle. What I'm really selling them is a Standard of Quality and Response Time. People and ethics aren't cheap. Secondly, play down the benefit of speed. What good is 10 mbps, if most websites won't let you pass more than 1-2 mbps per session anyway? Like they need 10mbps, when their average usage is less than 15 kbps. What customers need is HELP. Sell them what they need. We don't hide behind a web page, and that makes all the difference in the world. Its funny, one of the first things the customer does is they go to our web page, and they ask why we don't have all the bells and wistles and easy signup type stuff online. And I answer truthfully, Do you want to talk to a computer or a person? If you want to talk to a computer, go call Comcast, but get used to it, because that is going to be your only option for real help. We sell 100% from referrals, and person to person communication, the same we support our clients. If thats not valuable to you, we are not the provider for you. The first portion of our sales process is to distinguish ourselves from other ISPs. Most customers jsut don't believe we are different at first. They treat us as we are a Goliath monopoly provider that they are accustomed to. Sure 90% of the subs, only care about price, and for those, the 10 mbps is not even a factor in the decission, they are going to buy the cheapest service. Those are the customers that you don' want, and you just wish them well, and refer them to the wire provider with the worst service. Its the other 10% that you care about. That dream about the day, that they are free to use the Internet unencumbered hassle free. And you sell them hassle free. When I sell broadband its like selling them a service maintenance contract. 1 flat fee, monthly, to guarantee that they have peice of mind. The truth is, almost all WISP business models can survive with a 10% or less market share in a region. Its about understanding your identity, and finding the clients that want what you sell. That model may not scale, but having the largest number of subs is not my goal. My goal is profitabilty, and feeling good about my business day to day, and for that the model works. The funny thing is, most of the customers that we loose are customers, that we haven't communicated with during the previous year. Everything just worked, so they lose touch of who we are and why they bought from us in the fiorst place. What is the value of support, if someone never needed it. The customers that have had a problem, RARELY leave, because they just don;t want to risk losing the quality of support, that they received from us. They realize their time is way more valuable than a couple dollars savings. The number one dispute to commiting to our service is... We just have a basic need with limimted use, we are just looking for something cheap.. They AREN'T ASKING FOR 10 MBPS! Educate them on why they should pay more, and what criteria they should be using to make decisions. Being a successful WISP is about Saving the Day. Do that enough and word will spread. The biggest benefit of Wireless is it Enables WISPs to take action on their own to have the opportunity to save the day. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- 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
Which is a whole other issue... we still answer EVERY phone call with a live person... always. No auto attendant. We also don't allow our customers to hold for tech support. They are placed in a call back system and we return the call with a live tech ready to help. You would be surprised how many customers are surprised when a LIVE person answers the phone every time. :) Travis Microserv Jeff Broadwick wrote: Well stated Tom. I can't tell you how many ISP sites I've been to that don't have phone numbers, or bury them so that they are hard to find. Comcast is the worst with this. Answering the phone is the next issue of course... :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings,By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? Don't sell bandwidth! I tell all my customers, bandwidth is cheap, and thats just a small percentage of the costs in a Broadband bundle. What I'm really selling them is a Standard of Quality and Response Time. People and ethics aren't cheap. Secondly, play down the benefit of speed. What good is 10 mbps, if most websites won't let you pass more than 1-2 mbps per session anyway? Like they need 10mbps, when their average usage is less than 15 kbps. What customers need is "HELP". Sell them what they need. We don't hide behind a web page, and that makes all the difference in the world. Its funny, one of the first things the customer does is they go to our web page, and they ask why we don't have all the bells and wistles and easy signup type stuff online. And I answer truthfully, "Do you want to talk to a computer or a person?" If you want to talk to a computer, go call Comcast, but get used to it, because that is going to be your only option for real help. "We sell 100% from referrals, and person to person communication, the same we support our clients". If thats not valuable to you, we are not the provider for you. The first portion of our sales process is to distinguish ourselves from other ISPs. Most customers jsut don't believe we are different at first. They treat us as we are a Goliath monopoly provider that they are accustomed to. Sure 90% of the subs, only care about price, and for those, the 10 mbps is not even a factor in the decission, they are going to buy the cheapest service. Those are the customers that you don' want, and you just wish them well, and refer them to the wire provider with the worst service. Its the other 10% that you care about. That dream about the day, that they are free to use the Internet unencumbered hassle free. And you sell them hassle free. When I sell broadband its like selling them a service maintenance contract. 1 flat fee, monthly, to guarantee that they have peice of mind. The truth is, almost all WISP business models can survive with a 10% or less market share in a region. Its about understanding your identity, and finding the clients that want what you sell. That model may not scale, but having the largest number of subs is not my goal. My goal is profitabilty, and feeling good about my business day to day, and for that the model works. The funny thing is, most of the customers that we loose are customers, that we haven't communicated with during the previous year. Everything just worked, so they lose touch of who we are and why they bought from us in the fiorst place. What is the value of support, if someone never needed it. The customers that have had a problem, RARELY leave, because they just don;t want to risk losing the quality of support, that they received from us. They realize their time is way more valuable than a couple dollars savings. The number one dispute to commiting to our service is... "We just have a basic need with limimted use, we are just looking for something cheap.". They AREN'T ASKING FOR 10 MBPS! Educate them on why they should pay more, and what criteria they should be using to make decisions. Being a successful WISP is about "Saving the Day". Do that enough and word will spread. The biggest benefit of Wireless is it "Enables" WISPs to take action on their own to have the opportunity to "save the day". Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- 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
Yeppers, one size does not fit all. Out here, I have customers that get 30 meg for $50 per month. I also have customers that pay $350 for 6 megs. We don't bill for speed out here though. Everyone gets to go as fast as I can make them go. I bill per bit. MOST of our customers get REALLY cheap REALLY fast internet. The ones that actually USE it are the ones that pay for it. I don't bandwidth shape anything other than the ptp programs. I don't much care what people do on the net as long as they pay for it We're just enforcing the program now. We've lost a couple of users but mostly we're getting people to pay much more than they did before. $75 business accounts will end up paying $100 to $150 (in one case $350). Some home users will move from $35 to $50 to $100. AND our costs are already trending down a bit. The best part? Now our competitors have to upgrade their systems and pay more for bandwidth to deal with the folks that want something for nothing and will move from us to them even though we're faster. And the customers that are left here will get even better service! laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management 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 -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- 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 do. I run a squid cache (that way filtering comes easy too). I get a hit rate of 40% (40% of requested items come from the cache), and this accounts for 20% of the bandwidth (the 40% are usually small graphics, etc). So I stretch my bandwidth by about 20%. Jason Peter R. wrote: Do any of you use caching to save on bandwidth consumption? Blair Davis wrote: 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 -- 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
We have a customer that signed up for a service on the net that allowed him to download all of the movies he wanted for almost nothing. His kids were getting 2 to 3 movies per DAY. He chewed up 70 gigs of data per month. He was willing to pay $100 per month to us but I'd have had to put in a dedicated link to him as he was killing service to everyone else. He's back down, close to a normal user now and loves his netflix. It's a FAR more cost effective mechanism for getting his movies to him. If we'd have been billing by the kbps instead of the bit, he'd still be downloading movies 24x7. And there would be NOTHING that we could do about it. Check out the hugesnet fair use policy. And the new one from AOL too. We're couching our bit billing as a fair use issue and people are understanding the program. Those that don't go elsewhere and I'd love to find a happy medium to keep them with our service but not if they cost more than they pay. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:59 PM Subject: 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
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
Wow! Thanks much. So linux bandwidth management implements the Token Bucket Algorithm in its queue controls, which is similar to, but not the same as the Leaky Bucket Algorithm I'm familiar with. I'm trying to understand the subtle diference, but it'll take some time: Now that I've read about the Token Bucket Algorithm from the Linux URL you provided, I've found a source that contrasts them (shamelessly, it's wikipedia!): Two predominant methods for shaping traffic exist: a leaky bucket implementation and a token bucket implementation. Sometimes the leaky bucket and token bucket algorithms are mistakenly lumped together under the same name. Both these schemes have distinct properties and are used for distinct purposes [1]. They differ principally in that the leaky bucket imposes a hard limit on the data transmission rate, whereas the token bucket allows a certain amount of burstiness while imposing a limit on the average data transmission rate. I can't say I understand the difference yet, but I'm motivated. Does anyone else understand or know how to explain the difference? Rich - Original Message - From: Ryan Langseth To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum..
all of those companies, especially Aloha, have a lot of balls saying any such thing! Let them utilize at least 50% of what they've got before them come back to the table for more spectrum! Unlicensed is where the future is Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum.. High-tech interests come out against increased spectrum for public safety By Jeffrey Silva Story posted: January 23, 2007 - 1:46 pm EDT Mobile-phone and high-tech sectors urged the new Democratic-led Congress to oppose any effort to dilute the pool of auction-bound 700 MHz spectrum, a major portion of which is being sought by public safety advocates. “The American public wants Congress to work in a bi-partisan manner to ensure that the most innovative communications technologies are made available as early and widely as possible,” said Jeff Connaughton, executive director of the High Tech DTV Coalition. “Congress took a tremendous stride towards a new communications future when it passed DTV legislation into law last year. The High Tech DTV Coalition will continue working to ensure that the goals of that legislation are realized, including the February 17, 2009 transition deadline and the January 2008 auction plans.” The High Tech DTV Coalition wrote a letter to Capitol Hill on the issue, and the letter was signed by cellular trade group CTIA, Qualcomm Inc., Verizon Wireless, Aloha Partners, Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco Systems Inc., Intel Corp., Texas Instruments Inc. and others in the high-tech space. The letter could be the start of a broader industry campaign to counter lobbying by Cyren Call Communications Corp. and public-safety organizations to set aside for public safety half of the 60 megahertz in the 700 MHz band set for auction. Public-safety organizations say they need an additional 30 megahertz of spectrum to supplement 24 megahertz in the 700 MHz band already coming their way. They propose the creation of a pubic-safety broadband trust to oversee the construction of a nationwide, interoperable broadband wireless network that commercial entities would build and share with first responders. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed that half of public safety’s new 24 megahertz of spectrum be devoted to broadband under a public-private partnership similar to that pitched by the first responder lobby. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the 60 megahertz of spectrum headed for auction could fetch $12.5 billion. Public-safety officials lobbying Congress have proposed raising $5 billion for the U.S. Treasury by using revenues from commercial users and through the assistance of federal loan guarantees like those previously made available to airline, shipping, pipelines and automotive industries. Hanging overhead is growing concern over practical aspects of the transition from analog to digital TV, which is what would make the 700 MHz spectrum available. Several House GOP lawmakers introduced legislation yesterday to make the American public more aware of the coming changes through better outreach by industry and the federal government. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a Commerce Department unit that advises the White House on telecom policy and manages federal government spectrum, has the lead in educating the public. The agency plans to dispense vouchers to subsidize the cost of digital-to-analog converter boxes. Links below; http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/FREE/70123007/1005/FREE http://www.thewirelessreport.com/2007/01/24/wireless-industry-doesnt-want-govt-messing-in-public-safety-sp/ http://forums.wirelessadvisor.com/wireless-news/60667-big-companies-looking-congress-stop-public.html -- 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] Gist of SF/Earthlink/Google Report
All, For anyone who did not get a chance to read the SF/Earthlink/Google report that was posted a few weeks back here is an article that summarizes of what the report had to say. Link to 3 page article below; http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=2665catid=volume_id=254issue_id=278volume_num=41issue_num=17 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] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum..
I concur ... Aloha holds lots of 700 spectrum, under utilized ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum.. all of those companies, especially Aloha, have a lot of balls saying any such thing! Let them utilize at least 50% of what they've got before them come back to the table for more spectrum! Unlicensed is where the future is Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum.. High-tech interests come out against increased spectrum for public safety By Jeffrey Silva Story posted: January 23, 2007 - 1:46 pm EDT Mobile-phone and high-tech sectors urged the new Democratic-led Congress to oppose any effort to dilute the pool of auction-bound 700 MHz spectrum, a major portion of which is being sought by public safety advocates. The American public wants Congress to work in a bi-partisan manner to ensure that the most innovative communications technologies are made available as early and widely as possible, said Jeff Connaughton, executive director of the High Tech DTV Coalition. Congress took a tremendous stride towards a new communications future when it passed DTV legislation into law last year. The High Tech DTV Coalition will continue working to ensure that the goals of that legislation are realized, including the February 17, 2009 transition deadline and the January 2008 auction plans. The High Tech DTV Coalition wrote a letter to Capitol Hill on the issue, and the letter was signed by cellular trade group CTIA, Qualcomm Inc., Verizon Wireless, Aloha Partners, Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco Systems Inc., Intel Corp., Texas Instruments Inc. and others in the high-tech space. The letter could be the start of a broader industry campaign to counter lobbying by Cyren Call Communications Corp. and public-safety organizations to set aside for public safety half of the 60 megahertz in the 700 MHz band set for auction. Public-safety organizations say they need an additional 30 megahertz of spectrum to supplement 24 megahertz in the 700 MHz band already coming their way. They propose the creation of a pubic-safety broadband trust to oversee the construction of a nationwide, interoperable broadband wireless network that commercial entities would build and share with first responders. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed that half of public safety's new 24 megahertz of spectrum be devoted to broadband under a public-private partnership similar to that pitched by the first responder lobby. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the 60 megahertz of spectrum headed for auction could fetch $12.5 billion. Public-safety officials lobbying Congress have proposed raising $5 billion for the U.S. Treasury by using revenues from commercial users and through the assistance of federal loan guarantees like those previously made available to airline, shipping, pipelines and automotive industries. Hanging overhead is growing concern over practical aspects of the transition from analog to digital TV, which is what would make the 700 MHz spectrum available. Several House GOP lawmakers introduced legislation yesterday to make the American public more aware of the coming changes through better outreach by industry and the federal government. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a Commerce Department unit that advises the White House on telecom policy and manages federal government spectrum, has the lead in educating the public. The agency plans to dispense vouchers to subsidize the cost of digital-to-analog converter boxes. Links below; http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/FREE/70123007 /1005/FREE http://www.thewirelessreport.com/2007/01/24/wireless-industry-doesnt-wan t-govt-messing-in-public-safety-sp/ http://forums.wirelessadvisor.com/wireless-news/60667-big-companies-look ing-congress-stop-public.html -- 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:
RE: [WISPA] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum..
Aloha was the biggest bidder in the lower 700 MHz auction a few years back. Later, they bought up all the lower 700 MHz spectrum from two of the other large bidders, Cavalier Wireless (2nd largest bidder) and Datacom Wireless (3rd). The only other remaining large bidder from that auction is Paul Allen's Vulcan Partners and they were 4th. So yes, now Aloha's 700MHz footprint is huge and national in scope -- not much room for them to complain! 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 Gino Villarini Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum.. I concur ... Aloha holds lots of 700 spectrum, under utilized ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum.. all of those companies, especially Aloha, have a lot of balls saying any such thing! Let them utilize at least 50% of what they've got before them come back to the table for more spectrum! Unlicensed is where the future is Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] More debate over the 700MHz spectrum.. High-tech interests come out against increased spectrum for public safety By Jeffrey Silva Story posted: January 23, 2007 - 1:46 pm EDT Mobile-phone and high-tech sectors urged the new Democratic-led Congress to oppose any effort to dilute the pool of auction-bound 700 MHz spectrum, a major portion of which is being sought by public safety advocates. The American public wants Congress to work in a bi-partisan manner to ensure that the most innovative communications technologies are made available as early and widely as possible, said Jeff Connaughton, executive director of the High Tech DTV Coalition. Congress took a tremendous stride towards a new communications future when it passed DTV legislation into law last year. The High Tech DTV Coalition will continue working to ensure that the goals of that legislation are realized, including the February 17, 2009 transition deadline and the January 2008 auction plans. The High Tech DTV Coalition wrote a letter to Capitol Hill on the issue, and the letter was signed by cellular trade group CTIA, Qualcomm Inc., Verizon Wireless, Aloha Partners, Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco Systems Inc., Intel Corp., Texas Instruments Inc. and others in the high-tech space. The letter could be the start of a broader industry campaign to counter lobbying by Cyren Call Communications Corp. and public-safety organizations to set aside for public safety half of the 60 megahertz in the 700 MHz band set for auction. Public-safety organizations say they need an additional 30 megahertz of spectrum to supplement 24 megahertz in the 700 MHz band already coming their way. They propose the creation of a pubic-safety broadband trust to oversee the construction of a nationwide, interoperable broadband wireless network that commercial entities would build and share with first responders. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed that half of public safety's new 24 megahertz of spectrum be devoted to broadband under a public-private partnership similar to that pitched by the first responder lobby. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the 60 megahertz of spectrum headed for auction could fetch $12.5 billion. Public-safety officials lobbying Congress have proposed raising $5 billion for the U.S. Treasury by using revenues from commercial users and through the assistance of federal loan guarantees like those previously made available to airline, shipping, pipelines and automotive industries. Hanging overhead is growing concern over practical aspects of the transition from analog to digital TV, which is what would make the 700 MHz spectrum available. Several House GOP lawmakers introduced legislation yesterday to make the American public more aware of the coming changes through better outreach by industry and the federal government. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a Commerce Department unit that advises the White House on telecom policy and manages federal
[WISPA] Form FCC477
Hehe!!! I just received my reminder that my new 'confidential' FCC 477 form will be due shortly. Cliff LeBoeuf www.cssla.com www.triparish.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
Great reference and I've learned a tremendous amount from this list. I learned that I have been mis-using the term Leaky Bucket. I now understand that what Jason described to the list is Token Bucket (I was totally wet in my earlier reply calling it Leaky Bucket). Radios that implement bw management vary considerably in sophistication of their bw management algorithms. I'm really impressed with the Alvarion bw management. Canopy has bw management built-in as well, but it seems less sophisticated. I'm also impressed with what I've learned Linux advanced bw management can do at the head-end if your radios don't. Given radios can be bridged or not, bw management in the in-radio implementations seem better ... because I don't see how head-end bw management can distinguish between bw to multiple destinations behind the same customer radio if the radios are bridged. Even if the radios are not bridged, then I'd see in-radio bw management as 'still' better because bw limited at the customer radio doesn't chew up inbound rf capacity, while in head-end bw management the rf inbound capacity gets burned whether the traffic is ultimately limited or not. Anyways, I'm getting a great deal from the discussion, and would love to hear if other radios have built-in bw management and what method is use for comparison (any Trango users who could possibly comment?). Rich From: Ryan Langseth To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477
Ya, I just got a notice as well. I wonder what the response rate will be this time around? Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: Cliff Leboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Hehe!!! I just received my reminder that my new 'confidential' FCC 477 form will be due shortly. Cliff LeBoeuf www.cssla.com www.triparish.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] Advanced Bandwidth Management
From what I understand, there are many types of qdisc (HTB, CBQ, Prio, on and on) that you can invoke with the 'tc' linux command. HTB is the 'Hierarchical Token Bucket' that you hear a lot about because it works well. HTB should not be confused with 'Hierarchical TOLKIEN Bucket' that has something to do with the Lord of the Rings. 'Leaky Bucket' is a reference to my brains as I try to grasp bandwidth shaping. Jason Rich Comroe wrote: Great reference and I've learned a tremendous amount from this list. I learned that I have been mis-using the term Leaky Bucket. I now understand that what Jason described to the list is Token Bucket (I was totally wet in my earlier reply calling it Leaky Bucket). Radios that implement bw management vary considerably in sophistication of their bw management algorithms. I'm really impressed with the Alvarion bw management. Canopy has bw management built-in as well, but it seems less sophisticated. I'm also impressed with what I've learned Linux advanced bw management can do at the head-end if your radios don't. Given radios can be bridged or not, bw management in the in-radio implementations seem better ... because I don't see how head-end bw management can distinguish between bw to multiple destinations behind the same customer radio if the radios are bridged. Even if the radios are not bridged, then I'd see in-radio bw management as 'still' better because bw limited at the customer radio doesn't chew up inbound rf capacity, while in head-end bw management the rf inbound capacity gets burned whether the traffic is ultimately limited or not. Anyways, I'm getting a great deal from the discussion, and would love to hear if other radios have built-in bw management and what method is use for comparison (any Trango users who could possibly comment?). Rich From: Ryan Langseth To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: 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/ -- 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
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: He's back down, close to a normal user now and loves his netflix. It's a FAR more cost effective mechanism for getting his movies to him. Netflix has started doing an online download your movie deal. The dvd's will eventually go out of favor. So, back to how are we going to handle this in comparison to DSL and Cable providers, who most likely will prtner with netflix and others and not have cap on their usage. George -- 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 precious! It further occurs to me that even if you have radio built-in bw management you would also be pretty smart to have bw management enabled at the head-end, too. Why? Radio built-in bw management will block customer excess rate inbound customer traffic from wasting your rf capacity between CPE Access Point, but if you've got rf backhaul to the site you need head-end bw management as well to block excess rate outbound customer traffic from wasting the rf backhaul bw before it ever reaches the AP's outbound bw management. And the outbound bw is typically greater than the inbound bw anyway. So it now looks prudent to me to have BOTH bw management built into the radios, AND at the head-end. Rich - Original Message - From: Jason To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management From what I understand, there are many types of qdisc (HTB, CBQ, Prio, on and on) that you can invoke with the 'tc' linux command. HTB is the 'Hierarchical Token Bucket' that you hear a lot about because it works well. HTB should not be confused with 'Hierarchical TOLKIEN Bucket' that has something to do with the Lord of the Rings. 'Leaky Bucket' is a reference to my brains as I try to grasp bandwidth shaping. Jason Rich Comroe wrote: Great reference and I've learned a tremendous amount from this list. I learned that I have been mis-using the term Leaky Bucket. I now understand that what Jason described to the list is Token Bucket (I was totally wet in my earlier reply calling it Leaky Bucket). Radios that implement bw management vary considerably in sophistication of their bw management algorithms. I'm really impressed with the Alvarion bw management. Canopy has bw management built-in as well, but it seems less sophisticated. I'm also impressed with what I've learned Linux advanced bw management can do at the head-end if your radios don't. Given radios can be bridged or not, bw management in the in-radio implementations seem better ... because I don't see how head-end bw management can distinguish between bw to multiple destinations behind the same customer radio if the radios are bridged. Even if the radios are not bridged, then I'd see in-radio bw management as 'still' better because bw limited at the customer radio doesn't chew up inbound rf capacity, while in head-end bw management the rf inbound capacity gets burned whether the traffic is ultimately limited or not. Anyways, I'm getting a great deal from the discussion, and would love to hear if other radios have built-in bw management and what method is use for comparison (any Trango users who could possibly comment?). Rich From: Ryan Langseth To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: 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/ -- 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
And this is the benefit of using Star-Os at the customer end. We cbq them there. It would be great if thee was some advanced bandwidth management features available as well. Rich Comroe wrote: My precious! It further occurs to me that even if you have radio built-in bw management you would also be pretty smart to have bw management enabled at the head-end, too. Why? Radio built-in bw management will block customer excess rate inbound customer traffic from wasting your rf capacity between CPE Access Point, but if you've got rf backhaul to the site you need head-end bw management as well to block excess rate outbound customer traffic from wasting the rf backhaul bw before it ever reaches the AP's outbound bw management. And the outbound bw is typically greater than the inbound bw anyway. So it now looks prudent to me to have BOTH bw management built into the radios, AND at the head-end. Rich - Original Message - From: Jason To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management From what I understand, there are many types of qdisc (HTB, CBQ, Prio, on and on) that you can invoke with the 'tc' linux command. HTB is the 'Hierarchical Token Bucket' that you hear a lot about because it works well. HTB should not be confused with 'Hierarchical TOLKIEN Bucket' that has something to do with the Lord of the Rings. 'Leaky Bucket' is a reference to my brains as I try to grasp bandwidth shaping. Jason Rich Comroe wrote: Great reference and I've learned a tremendous amount from this list. I learned that I have been mis-using the term Leaky Bucket. I now understand that what Jason described to the list is Token Bucket (I was totally wet in my earlier reply calling it Leaky Bucket). Radios that implement bw management vary considerably in sophistication of their bw management algorithms. I'm really impressed with the Alvarion bw management. Canopy has bw management built-in as well, but it seems less sophisticated. I'm also impressed with what I've learned Linux advanced bw management can do at the head-end if your radios don't. Given radios can be bridged or not, bw management in the in-radio implementations seem better ... because I don't see how head-end bw management can distinguish between bw to multiple destinations behind the same customer radio if the radios are bridged. Even if the radios are not bridged, then I'd see in-radio bw management as 'still' better because bw limited at the customer radio doesn't chew up inbound rf capacity, while in head-end bw management the rf inbound capacity gets burned whether the traffic is ultimately limited or not. Anyways, I'm getting a great deal from the discussion, and would love to hear if other radios have built-in bw management and what method is use for comparison (any Trango users who could possibly comment?). Rich From: Ryan Langseth To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: 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/ -- 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
Atleast in my neck of the woods, the DSL and Cable system aren't going to handle it much better than my wireless network will. They already are having issues with their upto 6M accounts and the fact that you don't very often get that 6M. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless George Rogato wrote: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: He's back down, close to a normal user now and loves his netflix. It's a FAR more cost effective mechanism for getting his movies to him. Netflix has started doing an online download your movie deal. The dvd's will eventually go out of favor. So, back to how are we going to handle this in comparison to DSL and Cable providers, who most likely will prtner with netflix and others and not have cap on their usage. George -- 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
They aren't saying 10MB for $10. They are saying DSL for $10 -- most likely DSL Lite. It will probably be felt my the dial-up providers like NetZero, since the price is used to add subs. New subs added is the metric that Wall St. is watching. SBC learned that at $10 they can convert dial-up users to DSL and grab some penny-pinching cable users. (Churn is not mentioned). - Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: But we can;t forget about delivery! Anyone can create a price sheet, but can they deliver? The day the competors delivers 10 meg for $10 per month, and consistently delviers to the majority of the population, it will be past the time to look into being in another business. But I'm betting on the fact that they won't get there as fast as they advertise, at the quality level customers demand.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- 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
Mikrotik can do this. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:27 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] Form FCC477
Yeah, I think I'll wait to see the results of how the legal battle turns out before I file. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Cliff Leboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Hehe!!! I just received my reminder that my new 'confidential' FCC 477 form will be due shortly. Cliff LeBoeuf www.cssla.com www.triparish.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] Form FCC477
Tom DeReggi wrote: Yeah, I think I'll wait to see the results of how the legal battle turns out before I file. The current form is due on March 1st, and the odds of the case being tied up before then are asymptotically close to zero. Besides, you're probably required to file either way. David Smith MVN.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] Form FCC477
The way I see it is, I already gave them this information, whats the use of now saying no you can't have it again. So I'll file again, why subject myself to possible liabilities. I just went through something similar with the oregon PUC and our clec status. And I alsmost lost my status because of a mistake on their part, Another situation where they claimed we hadn't filed, even though we did. I don't want to have to deal with the FCC because of a missing form. I am not saying to anyone else tyhat they should or shouldn't, thats your business not mine. David E. Smith wrote: Tom DeReggi wrote: Yeah, I think I'll wait to see the results of how the legal battle turns out before I file. The current form is due on March 1st, and the odds of the case being tied up before then are asymptotically close to zero. Besides, you're probably required to file either way. David Smith MVN.net -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477
I'm not particularly worried about my info getting into anyone's hands. I've got nothing to hide. We'll fill it out again. I'm far more worried about the fines than competitors learning anything useful from the 477. Someone else brought up a great point. You can't market your company and stay hidden. If anyone's looking at your area for anything at all they'll find out all about you anyway. Unless you don't want customers to ever hear about you :-). laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Joe Laura [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Ya, I just got a notice as well. I wonder what the response rate will be this time around? Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: Cliff Leboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] Form FCC477 Hehe!!! I just received my reminder that my new 'confidential' FCC 477 form will be due shortly. Cliff LeBoeuf www.cssla.com www.triparish.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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi
MessageFunny how so few press outlets will ever talk about anything at all negative about muni networks. This is clearly biased, but it's still a breath of fresh air to me! marlon - Original Message - From: Cameron To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:28 PM Subject: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi FYI http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/10/municipal_wi-fi_survey/ -- 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
Good point, but it is my understanding that with a well behaved TCP/IP stack the flow control is handled end to end on TCP traffic, so if it is just the last hop (AP to CPE) that is 'dropping' packets the rate is backed up stream so the sender will not continue to slam your connection, the backoff is across the whole virtual pipe. Now, if you have a poorly behaving TCP/IP stack this will not hold true, but you should only see this on an ancient windows machine and it would only show in the customer trying to upload. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Rich Comroe wrote: My precious! It further occurs to me that even if you have radio built-in bw management you would also be pretty smart to have bw management enabled at the head-end, too. Why? Radio built-in bw management will block customer excess rate inbound customer traffic from wasting your rf capacity between CPE Access Point, but if you've got rf backhaul to the site you need head-end bw management as well to block excess rate outbound customer traffic from wasting the rf backhaul bw before it ever reaches the AP's outbound bw management. And the outbound bw is typically greater than the inbound bw anyway. So it now looks prudent to me to have BOTH bw management built into the radios, AND at the head-end. Rich - Original Message - From: Jason To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management From what I understand, there are many types of qdisc (HTB, CBQ, Prio, on and on) that you can invoke with the 'tc' linux command. HTB is the 'Hierarchical Token Bucket' that you hear a lot about because it works well. HTB should not be confused with 'Hierarchical TOLKIEN Bucket' that has something to do with the Lord of the Rings. 'Leaky Bucket' is a reference to my brains as I try to grasp bandwidth shaping. Jason Rich Comroe wrote: Great reference and I've learned a tremendous amount from this list. I learned that I have been mis-using the term Leaky Bucket. I now understand that what Jason described to the list is Token Bucket (I was totally wet in my earlier reply calling it Leaky Bucket). Radios that implement bw management vary considerably in sophistication of their bw management algorithms. I'm really impressed with the Alvarion bw management. Canopy has bw management built-in as well, but it seems less sophisticated. I'm also impressed with what I've learned Linux advanced bw management can do at the head-end if your radios don't. Given radios can be bridged or not, bw management in the in-radio implementations seem better ... because I don't see how head-end bw management can distinguish between bw to multiple destinations behind the same customer radio if the radios are bridged. Even if the radios are not bridged, then I'd see in-radio bw management as 'still' better because bw limited at the customer radio doesn't chew up inbound rf capacity, while in head-end bw management the rf inbound capacity gets burned whether the traffic is ultimately limited or not. Anyways, I'm getting a great deal from the discussion, and would love to hear if other radios have built-in bw management and what method is use for comparison (any Trango users who could possibly comment?). Rich From: Ryan Langseth To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: 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/ -- 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
Here is a link that does a decent job describing the Mikrotik implementation using burst-limit, burst-threshold and max-limit. Scroll down to the section labeled Burst (second to last section). http://www.mikrotik.org.pl/jakto.php?g=13PHPSESSID=5193496d65073e909b1f130b2e234135 Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: Mikrotik can do this. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:27 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/
Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
There actually are some of us out here that don't have this luxury in our markets. My total market is approximately 3000 people (not households) and I have to go 45 miles in any direction to find another town with more than 80 people in it. I'm not saying this in a 'woe is me' tone, just stating a fact. Some of us operate in the well under 10,000 people areas where 'finding a higher ARPU customer' is not really a viable option. We have to be all things in order to have enough customers to pay the bills. The top 10% of my market would get me less than 100 customers and they would have an average income of less than $100K. As a slightly off-topic aside: (those that don't want to listen to my ramblings can safely stop here :) I do find the Walmart reference interesting. Since I have started this business I have tried to read as much as I can in terms of business, marketing and sales books. Having come from a purely tech background it astounds me how clueless I really was until I started a business. One of the things that I have struggled with is the price point vs service aspect of the business. Obviously being the cheapest option has it's sales advantages, especially in the residential best effort internet business. But as we all know, being the cheapest makes it a bit harder to pay the bills. When I read business and marketing books they all espouse the higher end customer is the better customer view. I understand this view, you have a valued customer who is willing to pay a reasonable price for quality service. You look at brands like Lexus and Bose and think, these are the people I need to be like. These companies have made millionaires. But what I find interesting is that companies like Walmart and McDonalds who do live in the quantity, not quality world have made billionaires. The trick seems to be, if you can somehow manages to be the cheapest and do it right you can make a boat load of money and it doesn't have to be at the expense of the customer. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: John J. Thomas wrote: But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig, then he has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for unlimited access, he has no reason to slow down. Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per month, how can you compete with that? John Well, the reality is this: you can't compete with it. And why try? Why not move upstream to a larger ARPU customer? Cable ILEC can handle and deliver service to the masses cheaply - for now. But there is a segment of every population that needs more than the cheap dumb pipe attached to the cheap dumb support. That is the GAP. That is where the money is. That is where your market is. But it may mean selling beyond just a pipe. I've been preaching this for years - and clients that have listened - narrowed their focus; but the shotgun (marketing) away; have done well. See articles here: http://www.rad-info.net/newsletters/walmart16.htm And there:http://www.rad-info.net/newsletters/winninger.htm Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. (813) 963-5884 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
