[WISPA] per customer computer pricing
I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
Good job Tom, George and Brent. I personally have not done my due diligence in filing form 477, but will now put it on my priority list. It is good to hear about the 5.4GHz, hope the vendors will follow suit. Victoria Proffer www.stlbroadband.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit We just got back from FCC and FTC visits yesterday. A couple notes... 1) Both meetings had full staff attending, which I consider an honor. Each meeting lasted about 2 hours. 2) Some of the WISPs had to cancel due to weather, but 3 made it, George Rigoto, Brent Anderson, and myself Tom DeReggi. 3) One thing was clear without a doubt. They are somewhat pissed that all WISPs are NOT filling From 477. I think the general concensus was that maybe only 10% were? The FCC primarilly stayed on the arguement that it wasn't a choice, it was law. But I could see it in their eyes that it was more than that, possibly even hurtful. After all that they have been doing for us, that the single only thing that they asked of us, we couldn't even bother to do. I tell you, we will alienate our friends at the FCC, if we do not cooperate. EVERYONE must file Form 477. They did Thank WISPA for helping in promoting the need to file. We talked a bit about why we thought some WISPs weren't filing. But anyway we looked at it, any reason not to was a false fear. The Form 477 is not intertwined with the taxation department, it is not intertwined with the Enforcement beaurow for illegal gear. They aren't giving the data to our competition. And the data they collect is to broad to even do us harm if it was disclosed. So if you are a WISP, please file. I personally am working on my Form today, and plan on sending it in Monday. I personally won't make the mistake of not filing, again. 4) We discussed the option for self/group effort to certifying gear combinations. It won't be an option that will be viable. It must be a Manufacturer that applied for equipment certification, as there must be an accountable/responsible/liable party. A group applying for certification, would have to take liabilty and prove their ability to be able to be accountable. I'm not the police and not going to tell you what to use, but any way you slice it, make your own StarOS / Mikrotik gear is illegal (non-certified) in the US. The only way to not be illegal, is to buy it from a manufacturer that has certified their combination, or you become a manufacturer yourself and apply for certification of your combination. The fact that XYZ certified the combination, does not make your combination certified. UNLESS you convince XYZ to be responsible and liable for the compliance of the gear that you bought elsewhere. A MPCI card and antenna is not enough to be a certified system. There are other components involved like Main boards and cases, and testing gear during the QC stage to verify compliance. But there is nothing wrong with a group of people taking up a collection to help a manufactuer pay for certifying their combination. The grey area is it is also in the new rules that all the components (such as antenna and cables) don't necessarilly have to be bought from the manufacturer, if they are the same products bought elsewhere. So if a manufacturer certified a complete combination, and discloses what components were in it, technically it could be argued that it is that same product as the manufacturers, if the same oem parts were used. But legally that won't completely fly either, because there is no FCC sticker that was issued to the manufactuer, and there is no one accountable for it. So technically, at least one major component of the solution would have to be certified where you'd get the sticker from the manufacturer. So legally we may be able to substitute antenna, but that is not the same thing as saying you are allowed to just build your own radio system from scratch. 5) Enforcement- The FCC was clear on the issue that the rules are the rules, period. But they also said, when reporting a complaint, it should be defined the details. Complaints are prioritized by severity, and more severe violation will be given higher priority to enforce. The mentons a very low number of complaints we filed. They stated enforcement is a reality, but it requires someone to complain, and disclose facts for the FCC to know something is needing investigation. 6) 5.4G violations. They were very concerned that some gear on the market may be able to illegally be configured to use 5.4Ghz without going through the certification process for compliance. They are much more concerned on the compliace of 5.4 gear because the importance NOT TO INTERFERE with DOD applications. So using uncertified 5.4 gear is on the Radar for enforcement, without sympathy.
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
Mark, wireless ISP, exactly why would you know about it? Wireless guys are more likely to have some knowlege of the FCC.. non-wireless... The FCC is foreign and irrelevant to them. This argument is moot considering they were talking about WISP's, specifically, not non wireless guys. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] SR9 / SR2 in same enclosure problems
Can I hear from people that are running an SR9 and an SR2 on the same board, be it RB112 or 532's, that are putting them both on one board in the same enclosure ? I've read about problems doing that because of the fact that the SR9 is just an up/down converted 2.4 card... And in fact, I'm seeing throughput problems with just that setup... and that's only at one client on the system as a test... I'd love to find an enclosure that had two separate compartments, to run an RB112 or RB532 on each side, one mpci on each, and separated by the casting... i.e. [|][|] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due Date Approaching
Thanks Rick. That was painless. Victoria Proffer www.stlbroadband.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due Date Approaching The due date for filing form 477 as mandated by law is March 1, 2007. This filing is done every six months and is required by the FCC. The instructions can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477instr.pdf. I have attached the form to this email in an excel spreadsheet. Wireless ISP's are NOT exempt from this filing, see below: . Facilities-based Providers of Broadband Connections to End User Locations: Entities that are facilities-based providers of broadband connections - which, for purposes of this information collection, are wired lines or wireless channels that enable the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction - must complete and file the applicable portions of this form for each state in which the entity provides one or more such connections to end user locations. For the purposes of Form 477, an entity is a facilities-based provider of broadband connections to end user locations if it owns the portion of the physical facility that terminates at the end user location, if it obtains unbundled network elements (UNEs), special access lines, or other leased facilities that terminate at the end user location and provisions/equips them as broadband, or if it provisions/equips a broadband wireless channel to the end user location over licensed or unlicensed spectrum. Such entities include incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers (LECs), cable system operators, fixed wireless service providers (including wireless ISPs), terrestrial and satellite mobile wireless service providers, MMDS providers, electric utilities, municipalities, and other entities. (Such entities do not include equipment suppliers unless the equipment supplier uses the equipment to provision a broadband connection that it offers to the public for sale. Such entities also do not include providers of fixed wireless services (e.g., Wi-Fi and other wireless ethernet, or wireless local area network, applications) that only enable local distribution and sharing of a premises broadband facility.) For such entities, the applicable portions of the form are: 1) the Cover Page; 2) Part I; 3) Part IV (if necessary); and the relevant portion(s) of Part V. Respectfully, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SR9 / SR2 in same enclosure problems
How about a blade system .. n lightweight cards plugged into and coordinated/configured by a controller. I wonder if RF filtering would be required along the backplane. Wouldn't it be something if APs were stackable like switches? Best, -- 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/
[WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations
I have observed a discussion on the members only list, talked to people with insight and given it a lot of thought. 1.) I do think that WISPA needs to make a stand to promote membership compliance to Part 15 rules. We should modify our mission statement and our goals to reflect this. 2.) WISPA should assist and encourage non-certified vendors such as StarOS, Mikrotik and others to certify hardware/software/antenna systems that will allow operators using these platforms to reach certification compliance with minimal capital outlay. 3.) 100% Compliancy should be a goal with a Target Date of completion. I personally believe that this Target Date should be no more than 18 months out. We need to show the FCC that our industry recognizes the rules and our members are striving to bring their networks into compliance on a timeline that is affordable and logistically achievable so that our clients have minimal disruption. This will send a message to vendors that certification is not an option anymore. If they want to market their products to our industry, they need to invest in certification. That may raise the price of equipment, but it is a necessary increase that our industry must bear if we are to survive. 4.) We also need to recognize that the FCC has essentially given our industry a gift with unlicensed spectrum (although not their original intent with the spectrum). This gift can be taken away with a swoop of a pen. 5.) WISP operators that publicly defy the FCC laws and mandates to fill out necessary forms such as Form 477 and 445 are in direct opposition to the goals and ideals of WISPA. IMHO, if a WISP operator promotes anti-lawful cooperation with FCC rules and guidelines on WISPA listservs, that operator should be banned from the WISPA listservs. WISPA does need to improve credibility with the FCC and we cannot do this by allowing tyrannical posts that blatantly oppose following the law. That does not mean that we have to silence discussion or opposition to current rules, it just means we need to clarify that current WISPA policy does not agree with their personal views. If their intent is to change WISPA policy, they need to submit a policy change submission to the WISPA board for consideration and possible polling of the membership. 6.) An observation that our competition (ILECs and Cable Companies) are aggressively lobbying the FCC to shut down unlicensed bands as unfair competition and an industry that in their view, openly breaks the law, is inevitable. 7.) Recognition of the damage that will be done to the rural market economy with the removal of the WISP industry is inconceivable. It is our responsibility to protect the markets we serve by reaching out for compliance as soon as we can. 8.) Our industry has developed dramatically in the last 10 years, equipment choices have improved, techniques have improved, network design has improved. Yet we still have manufacturers who refuse to certify their products. Their excuse seems to be that their customers will not pay enough to warrant certification. This seems to be a lame excuse in my eyes. I recognize the quick lifespan of wireless components these days makes the certification process very frustrating, to spend money and time getting certified only to have new technology change the market a short time later must be a manufacturer's nightmare. The fact is though, that new investment is entering this industry and more options will be manufactured that will be certified. Current non-certified vendors will face expulsion from the industry unless they step up to the plate quickly. 9.) WISPA is run by a volunteer board of operators at this time. To become a truly effective trade association, we must look to hire a full time staff which will form procedures, policy, update website content, email members, collect dues, manage books, lobby more effectively and work through legal matters with FCC versed attorneys. While in its infancy, the volunteer effort was essential. Now that we are gaining ground and presented with industry wide challenges, we need better organization and full time staff to better manage the association and direction. 10.) Many current board members have been building WISPA through its formation from early 2004 and have put hours and hours of time and personal finances into it's success. Along with this effort as come some stagnation of ideas and commitments. Don't get me wrong, there are great ideas presented every week and John's recent Form 445 solution is one example of what WISPA and working together can do for our members. I do however think it is time for new members to step up and consider running for the board. It is a rewarding experience and I personally have made great friends and relationships with vendors and fellow WISPs across the country. These are my thoughts and not necessarily the thoughts of the whole WISPA board. We are at a critical point in our industry, in
[WISPA] Test message
Test. Please disregard. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations
Rick, An excellent post! Hearing the comments from the FCC meeting I think the time is now to do just what you state. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Rick Harnish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:03 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations I have observed a discussion on the members only list, talked to people with insight and given it a lot of thought. 1.) I do think that WISPA needs to make a stand to promote membership compliance to Part 15 rules. We should modify our mission statement and our goals to reflect this. 2.) WISPA should assist and encourage non-certified vendors such as StarOS, Mikrotik and others to certify hardware/software/antenna systems that will allow operators using these platforms to reach certification compliance with minimal capital outlay. 3.) 100% Compliancy should be a goal with a Target Date of completion. I personally believe that this Target Date should be no more than 18 months out. We need to show the FCC that our industry recognizes the rules and our members are striving to bring their networks into compliance on a timeline that is affordable and logistically achievable so that our clients have minimal disruption. This will send a message to vendors that certification is not an option anymore. If they want to market their products to our industry, they need to invest in certification. That may raise the price of equipment, but it is a necessary increase that our industry must bear if we are to survive. 4.) We also need to recognize that the FCC has essentially given our industry a gift with unlicensed spectrum (although not their original intent with the spectrum). This gift can be taken away with a swoop of a pen. 5.) WISP operators that publicly defy the FCC laws and mandates to fill out necessary forms such as Form 477 and 445 are in direct opposition to the goals and ideals of WISPA. IMHO, if a WISP operator promotes anti-lawful cooperation with FCC rules and guidelines on WISPA listservs, that operator should be banned from the WISPA listservs. WISPA does need to improve credibility with the FCC and we cannot do this by allowing tyrannical posts that blatantly oppose following the law. That does not mean that we have to silence discussion or opposition to current rules, it just means we need to clarify that current WISPA policy does not agree with their personal views. If their intent is to change WISPA policy, they need to submit a policy change submission to the WISPA board for consideration and possible polling of the membership. 6.) An observation that our competition (ILECs and Cable Companies) are aggressively lobbying the FCC to shut down unlicensed bands as unfair competition and an industry that in their view, openly breaks the law, is inevitable. 7.) Recognition of the damage that will be done to the rural market economy with the removal of the WISP industry is inconceivable. It is our responsibility to protect the markets we serve by reaching out for compliance as soon as we can. 8.) Our industry has developed dramatically in the last 10 years, equipment choices have improved, techniques have improved, network design has improved. Yet we still have manufacturers who refuse to certify their products. Their excuse seems to be that their customers will not pay enough to warrant certification. This seems to be a lame excuse in my eyes. I recognize the quick lifespan of wireless components these days makes the certification process very frustrating, to spend money and time getting certified only to have new technology change the market a short time later must be a manufacturer's nightmare. The fact is though, that new investment is entering this industry and more options will be manufactured that will be certified. Current non-certified vendors will face expulsion from the industry unless they step up to the plate quickly. 9.) WISPA is run by a volunteer board of operators at this time. To become a truly effective trade association, we must look to hire a full time staff which will form procedures, policy, update website content, email members, collect dues, manage books, lobby more effectively and work through legal matters with FCC versed attorneys. While in its infancy, the volunteer effort was essential. Now that we are gaining ground and presented with industry wide challenges, we need better organization and full time staff to better manage the association and direction. 10.) Many current board members have been building WISPA through its formation from early 2004 and have put hours and hours of time and personal finances into it's success. Along with this effort as come some stagnation of ideas and commitments. Don't get me wrong, there are great ideas presented every week and John's recent Form 445 solution is one example of what WISPA and working together can do for our members. I do however think it
Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing
We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations
Rick - I believe they should pay for the certification and not increase the prices. The prices and margins they are achieving on RouterOS / StarOS type stuff is more then adequate. I am sure Lonnie will chime in here and I really don't care. If companies outside of the US want to sell their gear to US based companies, I think they should eat the costs.. I know operating out of Canada and Latvia, their costs are much lower to begin with, although they still charge US rates... So - the extra $$ they are making in the exchange from US Dollars to their currency should be more then adequate for them to accomplish this. I feel as though Lonnie and Tully could get together and split the costs involved... Man I'd love to see that ! Regards, JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:03 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations I have observed a discussion on the members only list, talked to people with insight and given it a lot of thought. 1.) I do think that WISPA needs to make a stand to promote membership compliance to Part 15 rules. We should modify our mission statement and our goals to reflect this. 2.) WISPA should assist and encourage non-certified vendors such as StarOS, Mikrotik and others to certify hardware/software/antenna systems that will allow operators using these platforms to reach certification compliance with minimal capital outlay. 3.) 100% Compliancy should be a goal with a Target Date of completion. I personally believe that this Target Date should be no more than 18 months out. We need to show the FCC that our industry recognizes the rules and our members are striving to bring their networks into compliance on a timeline that is affordable and logistically achievable so that our clients have minimal disruption. This will send a message to vendors that certification is not an option anymore. If they want to market their products to our industry, they need to invest in certification. That may raise the price of equipment, but it is a necessary increase that our industry must bear if we are to survive. 4.) We also need to recognize that the FCC has essentially given our industry a gift with unlicensed spectrum (although not their original intent with the spectrum). This gift can be taken away with a swoop of a pen. 5.) WISP operators that publicly defy the FCC laws and mandates to fill out necessary forms such as Form 477 and 445 are in direct opposition to the goals and ideals of WISPA. IMHO, if a WISP operator promotes anti-lawful cooperation with FCC rules and guidelines on WISPA listservs, that operator should be banned from the WISPA listservs. WISPA does need to improve credibility with the FCC and we cannot do this by allowing tyrannical posts that blatantly oppose following the law. That does not mean that we have to silence discussion or opposition to current rules, it just means we need to clarify that current WISPA policy does not agree with their personal views. If their intent is to change WISPA policy, they need to submit a policy change submission to the WISPA board for consideration and possible polling of the membership. 6.) An observation that our competition (ILECs and Cable Companies) are aggressively lobbying the FCC to shut down unlicensed bands as unfair competition and an industry that in their view, openly breaks the law, is inevitable. 7.) Recognition of the damage that will be done to the rural market economy with the removal of the WISP industry is inconceivable. It is our responsibility to protect the markets we serve by reaching out for compliance as soon as we can. 8.) Our industry has developed dramatically in the last 10 years, equipment choices have improved, techniques have improved, network design has improved. Yet we still have manufacturers who refuse to certify their products. Their excuse seems to be that their customers will not pay enough to warrant certification. This seems to be a lame excuse in my eyes. I recognize the quick lifespan of wireless components these days makes the certification process very frustrating, to spend money and time getting certified only to have new technology change the market a short time later must be a manufacturer's nightmare. The fact is though, that new investment is entering this industry and more options will be manufactured that will be certified. Current non-certified vendors will face expulsion from the industry unless they step up to the plate quickly. 9.) WISPA is run by a volunteer board of operators at this time. To become a truly effective trade association, we must look to hire a full time staff which will form procedures, policy, update website content, email members, collect dues, manage books, lobby more effectively and work through legal matters with FCC versed attorneys. While in its infancy, the
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
Mark: You're overlooking one critical difference between PCs and Wireless systems. PCs are UNintentional radiators, with radiated power levels that are very, very low. Wireless systems are intentional radiators, at significant power levels, and through unintended mixing, have the potential to disrupt other communications systems, including critical systems like public safety. This is a very real fear of the FCC, borne out over nearly 100 years of experience now with the evolution of wireless technology. These things DO happen, and having a proliferation of unlicensed systems out there with significant power levels (EIRP) can cause havoc. When a WISP slaps together a system, do they hook it up to a spectrum analyzer to insure that substantially all the radiated energy is contained within the desired band? No, they don't. Um, the FCC is getting innovation and advancement - look at Clearwire. When there weren't Clearwire, NextWave, Sprint Nextel and ATT actively deploying Broadband Wireless Internet Access, the FCC needed WISPs. Now they've got those big players starting to deploy and they can point to them as a success story for Broadband Wireless Internet Access. Thanks, Steve On Feb 16, 2007, at Feb 16 11:38 PM, wispa wrote: I'd say that that's probable. Further, I'd say that at least 75% of those who did or do not don't even know about it. Especially, if you're a non- wireless ISP, exactly why would you know about it? Wireless guys are more likely to have some knowlege of the FCC.. non-wireless... The FCC is foreign and irrelevant to them. If the government officials take it personal, we're doomed. We're all doomed. If they see things as must get them under our control then there's no longer any good going to happen. It becomes adversary vs adversary. Let me predict that form 445 will get perhaps HALF that response. Again, who's even going to know? I think that's the wrong approach, and along with you, I sincerely doubt it can be gotten past a regulatory body. I suggested component, rather than assembly certification. This way there IS a responsible party. The maker of the equipment is responsible if it is not within spec, and the user is responsible if the user fails to follow the rules concerning EIRP and out of band emissions. Look, there's GOOD precedent for this. Do any of you remember when PC's had to be FCC certified? In the FCC's own terminology - in their own words, even - assemblies using normally compliant parts can be considered compliant and require only a DoC, or Declaration of Conformity. No testing needed. For instance, the SAME mini-pci card the FCC wants certified as an assembly with a WRAP board is perfectly legal to stuff into a laptop with nothing other than a DoC by the maker of the laptop! The only thing this would require... is some specific guidelines from the FCC for component certification by the manufacturer, and the ability for us to file DoC with the FCC for obviously legal assemblies that obviously comply with the intentional radiator standards, because we file for combinations of parts with CERTIFIED behavior and it would be almost simplistic to both do and oversee. So, WOULD I file DoC's on the parts combinations I'd like to use, and then sticker them so * I * am responsible for those? Of course. If Wistron Neweb wants to sell 500K CM-9's let them certify their behavior. Let PacWireless certify the patterns and gain of thier antennas. Let Ubiquiti certify the behavior of SR-9's and SR-2's. It makes little sense to test, retest, re-retest over and over and over, the same basic parts to the same standards. If Wistron's mini-pci fails to perform as spec'd, is it the fault of ... Builder X, who certified the assembly? Or the fault of Wistron? If PacWireless antennas are sold as 21 db gain and are really 27, is that the fault of Builder X or PacWireless? If accountability is what they want, THIS IS IT. Again, the grey area you talk about concerning the use of identical parts of a different brand is actually resolved, from a regulatory viewpoint, rather than being gray. THIS I would argue, not that individual unknown parts be assembled and then magically declared conforming. Like it's going to matter if the case is made of aluminum, steel, or stainless, and whether it's 6X8 or 16X12 as to whether the EIRP, out of band emissions, and so on, meet the legal requirements. Of course it does not. Again, this process of using compliant parts with a DoC on file would be a great way to solve ALL of this. The FCC could ALWAYS restrict it to WISP applications, even, if they wanted. I would argue that the market lifespan and the almost frantic pace of innovation and technological improvement has obsoleted the assembly certification process, as parts suppliers update what's being sold as often as every few months.
RE: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing
I tell my residential subs that we don't care if they have a hundred PCs. We don't have a cap on bandwidth that is available, but we do tell them that with each subscription is included 5gigs of data transfer per month. We sale bandwidth for a living and it is metered just like electricity and water. Help yourself to all you want, but it is not a free for all or a buffet where you can eat all you want for the low low price of $8.99. I realize I will probably get a scalding rebuke over my 5gigs, but I don't have copper in the ground or FTTH to allow a Hogs feast on my bandwidth. I run a very successful WIRELESS ISP and the BH pipes and APs are all limited in the amount of data they can carry. That is not my fault, but it is my problem and that is how I deal with it! I never have a complaint and I sell a fantastic service. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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] per customer computer pricing
Yes, but how do you explain what 5G/month is to the average sub?? They worry because they don't see this with the 'big boys' that advertize don't sevre their area. Do you find it takes alot more selling/education for each sub? On 2/17/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tell my residential subs that we don't care if they have a hundred PCs. We don't have a cap on bandwidth that is available, but we do tell them that with each subscription is included 5gigs of data transfer per month. We sale bandwidth for a living and it is metered just like electricity and water. Help yourself to all you want, but it is not a free for all or a buffet where you can eat all you want for the low low price of $8.99. I realize I will probably get a scalding rebuke over my 5gigs, but I don't have copper in the ground or FTTH to allow a Hogs feast on my bandwidth. I run a very successful WIRELESS ISP and the BH pipes and APs are all limited in the amount of data they can carry. That is not my fault, but it is my problem and that is how I deal with it! I never have a complaint and I sell a fantastic service. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing
You could also consider limiting the number of simultaneous connections- We limit our residential plans to 75 (Family basic) and 100 (family Power) simultaneous connections. If they share the connections or have many computers they will max out real quick. The numbers have been tested (75 and 100) over the past few years and cover 99% of our residential user's just fine. This also helps with peer to peer traffic as well. We use Allot bandwidth managers but most of the standards traffic managers can do it. Marty __ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-623-4542 (Cell) 703-554-6620 (office) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rabbtux rabbtux Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing Yes, but how do you explain what 5G/month is to the average sub?? They worry because they don't see this with the 'big boys' that advertize don't sevre their area. Do you find it takes alot more selling/education for each sub? On 2/17/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tell my residential subs that we don't care if they have a hundred PCs. We don't have a cap on bandwidth that is available, but we do tell them that with each subscription is included 5gigs of data transfer per month. We sale bandwidth for a living and it is metered just like electricity and water. Help yourself to all you want, but it is not a free for all or a buffet where you can eat all you want for the low low price of $8.99. I realize I will probably get a scalding rebuke over my 5gigs, but I don't have copper in the ground or FTTH to allow a Hogs feast on my bandwidth. I run a very successful WIRELESS ISP and the BH pipes and APs are all limited in the amount of data they can carry. That is not my fault, but it is my problem and that is how I deal with it! I never have a complaint and I sell a fantastic service. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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 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] per customer computer pricing
I don't bother with any of this. Most subs don't use much and the few that do either have no effect on my system or end up going elsewhere. I prefer to not have them go elsewhere, because I have ample unused bandwidth and most of my aps can handle the extra traffic, amd I can use the revenue... We had a thread recently where Marlon was explaining how much he would charge for extra bandwidth. The very next day a sub called and complained that he was having issues downloading his news groups and was considering changing over to DSL. I've had this sub for 5 years and the original reason he bought broadband from me was because he came to his retirement home here on the coast on some weekends and wanted to be able to download some movies from newsgroups he subscribed to. I've always tried to engineer my systems to be able to have the capacity to service this type of customer. I buy extra bandwidth, more than I need. and I try not to load up my ap's and make sure they have nice big fat feeds. We ended up swapping out his cpe and pointing him at a diferent ap. This was the day after Marlons thread. which was about feb 1st. here is his usage up till now: TX Data: 1,556,767,671 RX Data: 39,673,651,793 BYTES or 36.95 gigs to data downloaded and it's only day 17 out of 30. His usagge has not impacted my system and his usage is like once or twice a week. When I look at this guy, I see dollar signs. $2,500 for the money he has given me and I think even more he will give me in the future. I realize not everyone has this business plan, or can even afford the bandwidth, so I'm not implying anyone is doing it wrong, just that we can handle these types of subs and make a profit from it if we engineer our network to accomadate this type of user. George rabbtux rabbtux wrote: Yes, but how do you explain what 5G/month is to the average sub?? They worry because they don't see this with the 'big boys' that advertize don't sevre their area. Do you find it takes alot more selling/education for each sub? On 2/17/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tell my residential subs that we don't care if they have a hundred PCs. We don't have a cap on bandwidth that is available, but we do tell them that with each subscription is included 5gigs of data transfer per month. We sale bandwidth for a living and it is metered just like electricity and water. Help yourself to all you want, but it is not a free for all or a buffet where you can eat all you want for the low low price of $8.99. I realize I will probably get a scalding rebuke over my 5gigs, but I don't have copper in the ground or FTTH to allow a Hogs feast on my bandwidth. I run a very successful WIRELESS ISP and the BH pipes and APs are all limited in the amount of data they can carry. That is not my fault, but it is my problem and that is how I deal with it! I never have a complaint and I sell a fantastic service. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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/ -- 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] per customer computer pricing
The way I make them understand is that I tell them that I have hundreds of businesses (call them by name) that use less than 3gigs of data transfer a month. I also tell them that it is relatively impossible for them to even get close to 2 gigs of transfer by sending emails, general surfing, goggling...etc without hitting the P2P stuff downloading movies music. We do limit p2p on this network as well as limit residential threads onto the internet. We have always shaped the P2P on the network as a whole, but only in the last 2 months have we limited the connections. I must confess that it brought the bandwidth utilization down by 7mbps. That is a TRAMATIC difference! Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rabbtux rabbtux Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing Yes, but how do you explain what 5G/month is to the average sub?? They worry because they don't see this with the 'big boys' that advertize don't sevre their area. Do you find it takes alot more selling/education for each sub? On 2/17/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tell my residential subs that we don't care if they have a hundred PCs. We don't have a cap on bandwidth that is available, but we do tell them that with each subscription is included 5gigs of data transfer per month. We sale bandwidth for a living and it is metered just like electricity and water. Help yourself to all you want, but it is not a free for all or a buffet where you can eat all you want for the low low price of $8.99. I realize I will probably get a scalding rebuke over my 5gigs, but I don't have copper in the ground or FTTH to allow a Hogs feast on my bandwidth. I run a very successful WIRELESS ISP and the BH pipes and APs are all limited in the amount of data they can carry. That is not my fault, but it is my problem and that is how I deal with it! I never have a complaint and I sell a fantastic service. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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 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] Brief report from FCC visit
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Steve Stroh wrote: When a WISP slaps together a system, do they hook it up to a spectrum analyzer to insure that substantially all the radiated energy is contained within the desired band? No, they don't. As odd as it may sound, I am in agreement with Mark on this one. Mark went into detail about how it can (and should) be accomplished. For example: 1. A radio (CM-9 for example) has known output power when combined with a specific driver. It's up to the software folks to insure they don't attempt to drive this card outside the manufacturer's given parameters. SO, a card (combined with a specific driver/OS) could be certified to behave in a specific manner. Once we have #1 done, we can use this card and OS in combination with ANY mother board and we won't be changing the operating parameters of the card. What is wrong with a certification that includes these 2 parameters? 2. Once we know that a radio/OS combo produces a CERTIFIED, known, behaviour in terms of power levels, we can combine THAT CERTIFIED COMBO with a specific antenna. This antenna would have to be type certified as well. So long as that antenna exhibits a known (certified) behaviour, we can easily, and RELIABLY predict the EIRP, radiation pattern and even sideband noise. I don't need a spectrum analyzer to know these things. So long as the above is true, then what is the problem? I'll tell you what the problem is...It is currently illegal to operate. I agree with Mark's contention that it SHOULD be the way he described (in terms of what is legal), but it is not. I'm at a loss for how this fact benefits Americans. Perhaps I am just slow... Um, the FCC is getting innovation and advancement - look at Clearwire. When there weren't Clearwire, NextWave, Sprint Nextel and ATT actively deploying Broadband Wireless Internet Access, the FCC needed WISPs. Now they've got those big players starting to deploy and they can point to them as a success story for Broadband Wireless Internet Access. This is somewhat telling, huh? As a WISP consultant, I can tell you that I am fully aware of SEVERAL WISPs that are operating illegally. MOST of them are operating within the parameters of the legal EIRP, but with non-certified combinations of radio systems. I do tell those that don't know that they are operating illegally. The fact is, the FCC wants innovation? They have it with WISPs. They really need to work on a means to allow us (as WISPs) to operate legally, but not dramatically limit our choices. Allow us to provide reliable service, within the limits of the EIRP, radiation patterns and such. Allow us to make decisions on the combination of gear we use based on the coverage we need, so long as we don't go outside these limitations. I just don't see what's so wrong with this kind of request (beyond the current legal status). -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
Thanks for your summary Tom. I not even going to pretend to be surprised by anything they mentioned -- as your meeting only validates my recent posts on the subject, no matter how much so many reject what I say as opinion and no matter how many think these are matters of choice. They are not. When the pain comes, such WISPs cannot say they were not adequately informed. As for, The same request goes out to all the name brand vendors like Trango, Alvarion, and Whoever else... regarding 5.4 certification. No worries there --ever-- about Alvarion not following the FCC requirements to the letter. I can and will tell folks that it will be the WISP relativism of so many and the rampant use of uncertified 5.4 GHz that will bring this all to a head. The FCC has been patient and EXCEPTIONALLY laissez-faire, but in 5.4 GHz that ends. Why, because many WISPs may not be aware how difficult 5.4 GHz has been for the FCC. They don't know the lengths that they, the NTIA, and others went through to come up with something expectable for the military. And this time, when the violations come, it will be the DoD that applies the pressure on the FCC to enforce the rules. 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit We just got back from FCC and FTC visits yesterday. A couple notes... 1) Both meetings had full staff attending, which I consider an honor. Each meeting lasted about 2 hours. 2) Some of the WISPs had to cancel due to weather, but 3 made it, George Rigoto, Brent Anderson, and myself Tom DeReggi. 3) One thing was clear without a doubt. They are somewhat pissed that all WISPs are NOT filling From 477. I think the general concensus was that maybe only 10% were? The FCC primarilly stayed on the arguement that it wasn't a choice, it was law. But I could see it in their eyes that it was more than that, possibly even hurtful. After all that they have been doing for us, that the single only thing that they asked of us, we couldn't even bother to do. I tell you, we will alienate our friends at the FCC, if we do not cooperate. EVERYONE must file Form 477. They did Thank WISPA for helping in promoting the need to file. We talked a bit about why we thought some WISPs weren't filing. But anyway we looked at it, any reason not to was a false fear. The Form 477 is not intertwined with the taxation department, it is not intertwined with the Enforcement beaurow for illegal gear. They aren't giving the data to our competition. And the data they collect is to broad to even do us harm if it was disclosed. So if you are a WISP, please file. I personally am working on my Form today, and plan on sending it in Monday. I personally won't make the mistake of not filing, again. 4) We discussed the option for self/group effort to certifying gear combinations. It won't be an option that will be viable. It must be a Manufacturer that applied for equipment certification, as there must be an accountable/responsible/liable party. A group applying for certification, would have to take liabilty and prove their ability to be able to be accountable. I'm not the police and not going to tell you what to use, but any way you slice it, make your own StarOS / Mikrotik gear is illegal (non-certified) in the US. The only way to not be illegal, is to buy it from a manufacturer that has certified their combination, or you become a manufacturer yourself and apply for certification of your combination. The fact that XYZ certified the combination, does not make your combination certified. UNLESS you convince XYZ to be responsible and liable for the compliance of the gear that you bought elsewhere. A MPCI card and antenna is not enough to be a certified system. There are other components involved like Main boards and cases, and testing gear during the QC stage to verify compliance. But there is nothing wrong with a group of people taking up a collection to help a manufactuer pay for certifying their combination. The grey area is it is also in the new rules that all the components (such as antenna and cables) don't necessarilly have to be bought from the manufacturer, if they are the same products bought elsewhere. So if a manufacturer certified a complete combination, and discloses what components were in it, technically it could be argued that it is that same product as the manufacturers, if the same oem parts were used. But legally that won't completely fly either, because there is no FCC sticker that was issued to the manufactuer, and there is no one accountable for it. So technically, at least one major component of the solution would have to be certified where you'd get the sticker from the manufacturer. So
Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing
Care to share what the simultaneous connection limits you used? On 2/17/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The way I make them understand is that I tell them that I have hundreds of businesses (call them by name) that use less than 3gigs of data transfer a month. I also tell them that it is relatively impossible for them to even get close to 2 gigs of transfer by sending emails, general surfing, goggling...etc without hitting the P2P stuff downloading movies music. We do limit p2p on this network as well as limit residential threads onto the internet. We have always shaped the P2P on the network as a whole, but only in the last 2 months have we limited the connections. I must confess that it brought the bandwidth utilization down by 7mbps. That is a TRAMATIC difference! Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rabbtux rabbtux Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing Yes, but how do you explain what 5G/month is to the average sub?? They worry because they don't see this with the 'big boys' that advertize don't sevre their area. Do you find it takes alot more selling/education for each sub? On 2/17/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tell my residential subs that we don't care if they have a hundred PCs. We don't have a cap on bandwidth that is available, but we do tell them that with each subscription is included 5gigs of data transfer per month. We sale bandwidth for a living and it is metered just like electricity and water. Help yourself to all you want, but it is not a free for all or a buffet where you can eat all you want for the low low price of $8.99. I realize I will probably get a scalding rebuke over my 5gigs, but I don't have copper in the ground or FTTH to allow a Hogs feast on my bandwidth. I run a very successful WIRELESS ISP and the BH pipes and APs are all limited in the amount of data they can carry. That is not my fault, but it is my problem and that is how I deal with it! I never have a complaint and I sell a fantastic service. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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 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] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations
Woo! Hoo! FANTASTIC NEWS Rick. If WISPA adopts this, it has just moved up several notches in the credibility department. Know that you may lose some members, but that is to your benefit and credit in the long run. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:03 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations I have observed a discussion on the members only list, talked to people with insight and given it a lot of thought. 1.) I do think that WISPA needs to make a stand to promote membership compliance to Part 15 rules. We should modify our mission statement and our goals to reflect this. 2.) WISPA should assist and encourage non-certified vendors such as StarOS, Mikrotik and others to certify hardware/software/antenna systems that will allow operators using these platforms to reach certification compliance with minimal capital outlay. 3.) 100% Compliancy should be a goal with a Target Date of completion. I personally believe that this Target Date should be no more than 18 months out. We need to show the FCC that our industry recognizes the rules and our members are striving to bring their networks into compliance on a timeline that is affordable and logistically achievable so that our clients have minimal disruption. This will send a message to vendors that certification is not an option anymore. If they want to market their products to our industry, they need to invest in certification. That may raise the price of equipment, but it is a necessary increase that our industry must bear if we are to survive. 4.) We also need to recognize that the FCC has essentially given our industry a gift with unlicensed spectrum (although not their original intent with the spectrum). This gift can be taken away with a swoop of a pen. 5.) WISP operators that publicly defy the FCC laws and mandates to fill out necessary forms such as Form 477 and 445 are in direct opposition to the goals and ideals of WISPA. IMHO, if a WISP operator promotes anti-lawful cooperation with FCC rules and guidelines on WISPA listservs, that operator should be banned from the WISPA listservs. WISPA does need to improve credibility with the FCC and we cannot do this by allowing tyrannical posts that blatantly oppose following the law. That does not mean that we have to silence discussion or opposition to current rules, it just means we need to clarify that current WISPA policy does not agree with their personal views. If their intent is to change WISPA policy, they need to submit a policy change submission to the WISPA board for consideration and possible polling of the membership. 6.) An observation that our competition (ILECs and Cable Companies) are aggressively lobbying the FCC to shut down unlicensed bands as unfair competition and an industry that in their view, openly breaks the law, is inevitable. 7.) Recognition of the damage that will be done to the rural market economy with the removal of the WISP industry is inconceivable. It is our responsibility to protect the markets we serve by reaching out for compliance as soon as we can. 8.) Our industry has developed dramatically in the last 10 years, equipment choices have improved, techniques have improved, network design has improved. Yet we still have manufacturers who refuse to certify their products. Their excuse seems to be that their customers will not pay enough to warrant certification. This seems to be a lame excuse in my eyes. I recognize the quick lifespan of wireless components these days makes the certification process very frustrating, to spend money and time getting certified only to have new technology change the market a short time later must be a manufacturer's nightmare. The fact is though, that new investment is entering this industry and more options will be manufactured that will be certified. Current non-certified vendors will face expulsion from the industry unless they step up to the plate quickly. 9.) WISPA is run by a volunteer board of operators at this time. To become a truly effective trade association, we must look to hire a full time staff which will form procedures, policy, update website content, email members, collect dues, manage books, lobby more effectively and work through legal matters with FCC versed attorneys. While in its infancy, the volunteer effort was essential. Now that we are gaining ground and presented with industry wide challenges, we need better organization and full time staff to better manage the association and direction. 10.) Many current board members have been building WISPA through its formation from early 2004 and have put hours and hours of time and personal finances into it's success. Along with this effort as come some stagnation of ideas and commitments. Don't get me wrong, there are great ideas presented every week and John's recent Form
[WISPA] CANADA LIST
There is now a [EMAIL PROTECTED] private mailing listserv. I have designed this list to serve Canadian WISPs only. Membership to this list is moderated but postings are not. If a member of this list wants to become the moderator at some point, they should contact me. The signup for the list is located at http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/canada. English and French are both acceptable languages on this list. Respectfully, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
I, for one, agree with Butch. Parts certification is the way it needs to go. Hold the part manufactures responsible for their published numbers. Allow operators to mix-n-match parts as they see fit, within the power limits. Hold operators responsible for their EIRP numbers. This would allow ongoing innovation in the field without driving the small guys out. I don't want to be locked into a single manufacturer. Quite honestly, I don't trust that what I need will still be available 6 months from now if I'm locked into one provider. Using commodity hardware I can build what I need. If, as an example only, the SR2 cards becomes unavailable, I can use a CM9 and a small amp to replace it. I'm sure others can come up with more examples... What happens to me when the single source supplier I was using drops support and production of the equipment I was using? Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 Butch Evans wrote: On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Steve Stroh wrote: When a WISP slaps together a system, do they hook it up to a spectrum analyzer to insure that substantially all the radiated energy is contained within the desired band? No, they don't. As odd as it may sound, I am in agreement with Mark on this one. Mark went into detail about how it can (and should) be accomplished. For example: 1. A radio (CM-9 for example) has known output power when combined with a specific driver. It's up to the software folks to insure they don't attempt to drive this card outside the manufacturer's given parameters. SO, a card (combined with a specific driver/OS) could be certified to behave in a specific manner. Once we have #1 done, we can use this card and OS in combination with ANY mother board and we won't be changing the operating parameters of the card. What is wrong with a certification that includes these 2 parameters? 2. Once we know that a radio/OS combo produces a CERTIFIED, known, behaviour in terms of power levels, we can combine THAT CERTIFIED COMBO with a specific antenna. This antenna would have to be type certified as well. So long as that antenna exhibits a known (certified) behaviour, we can easily, and RELIABLY predict the EIRP, radiation pattern and even sideband noise. I don't need a spectrum analyzer to know these things. So long as the above is true, then what is the problem? I'll tell you what the problem is...It is currently illegal to operate. I agree with Mark's contention that it SHOULD be the way he described (in terms of what is legal), but it is not. I'm at a loss for how this fact benefits Americans. Perhaps I am just slow... Um, the FCC is getting innovation and advancement - look at Clearwire. When there weren't Clearwire, NextWave, Sprint Nextel and ATT actively deploying Broadband Wireless Internet Access, the FCC needed WISPs. Now they've got those big players starting to deploy and they can point to them as a success story for Broadband Wireless Internet Access. This is somewhat telling, huh? As a WISP consultant, I can tell you that I am fully aware of SEVERAL WISPs that are operating illegally. MOST of them are operating within the parameters of the legal EIRP, but with non-certified combinations of radio systems. I do tell those that don't know that they are operating illegally. The fact is, the FCC wants innovation? They have it with WISPs. They really need to work on a means to allow us (as WISPs) to operate legally, but not dramatically limit our choices. Allow us to provide reliable service, within the limits of the EIRP, radiation patterns and such. Allow us to make decisions on the combination of gear we use based on the coverage we need, so long as we don't go outside these limitations. I just don't see what's so wrong with this kind of request (beyond the current legal status). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing
The ISP is directly affected by the bandwidth used by an account but is also affected by the loss of revenue if that account is redistributing the service. That is theft of service the same as wiring up an apartment building with cable TV from a single account. Connection measuring can put a constraint on P2P since many of the BitTorrent types can open thousands of flows when they need to. However, it may not be an indication of service redistribution since, for example, redistributing Internet access to an office park behind a gateway may show up only a couple dozen flows and not eat up significant bandwidth but cost you the revenue of a dozen accounts per month. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rabbtux rabbtux Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing Care to share what the simultaneous connection limits you used? On 2/17/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The way I make them understand is that I tell them that I have hundreds of businesses (call them by name) that use less than 3gigs of data transfer a month. I also tell them that it is relatively impossible for them to even get close to 2 gigs of transfer by sending emails, general surfing, goggling...etc without hitting the P2P stuff downloading movies music. We do limit p2p on this network as well as limit residential threads onto the internet. We have always shaped the P2P on the network as a whole, but only in the last 2 months have we limited the connections. I must confess that it brought the bandwidth utilization down by 7mbps. That is a TRAMATIC difference! Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rabbtux rabbtux Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing Yes, but how do you explain what 5G/month is to the average sub?? They worry because they don't see this with the 'big boys' that advertize don't sevre their area. Do you find it takes alot more selling/education for each sub? On 2/17/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tell my residential subs that we don't care if they have a hundred PCs. We don't have a cap on bandwidth that is available, but we do tell them that with each subscription is included 5gigs of data transfer per month. We sale bandwidth for a living and it is metered just like electricity and water. Help yourself to all you want, but it is not a free for all or a buffet where you can eat all you want for the low low price of $8.99. I realize I will probably get a scalding rebuke over my 5gigs, but I don't have copper in the ground or FTTH to allow a Hogs feast on my bandwidth. I run a very successful WIRELESS ISP and the BH pipes and APs are all limited in the amount of data they can carry. That is not my fault, but it is my problem and that is how I deal with it! I never have a complaint and I sell a fantastic service. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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:
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:17:09 -0800, Steve Stroh wrote Mark: You're overlooking one critical difference between PCs and Wireless systems. I merely used PC's because anyone who's been around the PC business for a few years will be aware of the change that occurred a while back that allowed much easier changes to pc design and MUCH lower prices by simply using known devices in mix-n-match. PCs are UNintentional radiators, with radiated power levels that are very, very low. Wireless systems are intentional radiators, at significant power levels, and through unintended mixing, have the potential to disrupt other communications systems, including critical systems like public safety. But this is NOT limited to UNintentional radiators. It is also used for many intentional radiators, too. I found references to cell phones, wireless telephone handsets, digital voice devices, all of which were using known compliant devices and thus were compliant merely with DoC procedures. This is a very real fear of the FCC, borne out over nearly 100 years of experience now with the evolution of wireless technology. Actually, part 15 devices were never imagined to be built from componentized parts. There's at least 50 different 802.11 type mini-pci boards, more likely 200, all of which are common form factor, chipsets, and function. Since part 15 was designed for consumer items like baby monitors and mini tv cameras and doorbells and security monitors and car starters and other such standalone devices, it was never concieved of millions of the same exact function device being built from commodity parts. This is why Part 15 has no current provisions for DoC compliance like many other sections of the FCC code. There are licensed and some unlicensed stuff which does have DoC procedures. This was done because manyh things like Cell phones ARE built from commodity components. These things DO happen, and having a proliferation of unlicensed systems out there with significant power levels (EIRP) can cause havoc. When a WISP slaps together a system, do they hook it up to a spectrum analyzer to insure that substantially all the radiated energy is contained within the desired band? No, they don't. Um, the FCC is getting innovation and advancement - look at Clearwire. When there weren't Clearwire, NextWave, Sprint Nextel and ATT actively deploying Broadband Wireless Internet Access, the FCC needed WISPs. Now they've got those big players starting to deploy and they can point to them as a success story for Broadband Wireless Internet Access. Well, there you have it folks. the only valid innovation is always big business overspending on overpriced stuff selling overpriced services at a loss, screwing the investors. Which is being defended in practice by people who claim to be my friends. sigh Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:02:09 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Steve Stroh wrote: As odd as it may sound, I am in agreement with Mark on this one. Mark went into detail about how it can (and should) be accomplished. For example: As much as we've had our differences and sniped at each other, thanks. Oh, and I regret now my acid comments your way at times. I misjudged you. If you can look past our disagreements, so can I. My apologies. Um, the FCC is getting innovation and advancement - look at Clearwire. When there weren't Clearwire, NextWave, Sprint Nextel and ATT actively deploying Broadband Wireless Internet Access, the FCC needed WISPs. Now they've got those big players starting to deploy and they can point to them as a success story for Broadband Wireless Internet Access. This is somewhat telling, huh? As a WISP consultant, I can tell you that I am fully aware of SEVERAL WISPs that are operating illegally. MOST of them are operating within the parameters of the legal EIRP, but with non-certified combinations of radio systems. I do tell those that don't know that they are operating illegally. The fact is, the FCC wants innovation? They have it with WISPs. They really need to work on a means to allow us (as WISPs) to operate legally, but not dramatically limit our choices. Allow us to provide reliable service, within the limits of the EIRP, radiation patterns and such. Allow us to make decisions on the combination of gear we use based on the coverage we need, so long as we don't go outside these limitations. I just don't see what's so wrong with this kind of request (beyond the current legal status). I detest Mikrotik in use... and I have no intention of having another MT vs Star-OS Jihad, but in this regard, if it were not for MT and Star-OS and a few others out there who were ALL Small guys there would ahve been almost NO innovation from the big guys. Like it or not, the try stuff and think outside the box types have solely been responsible for the advancement of this industry, in my view. EVERY ONE OF THEM has been illegal in some fashion, because there simply is no provision to innovate using commodity equipment within Part 15. Unlike Steve's characterization of slapping equipment together, the suggestion and procedure I detailed is all about doing things RIGHT, and following time honored and entirely legitemate means of BEING COMPLIANT with standards and rules, and all we're asking here is to change the law to allow standards compliant devices to be legal in the letter of the law. If this industry is going to move forward, and if the FCC REALLY intends compliance... There is ONLY one means of accomplishing this,and it's something like what Butch and I detailed. If we have to wait for Trango or Alvarion, or Motorola to crawl along, this industry dies, because the new stuff every 6 months or less will stop happening, and our innovation will be as slow and ponderous and timid as Cellular and POTS services. Not because the companies are necessarily slow, but they don't 'throw stuff up and try it, and cannot. They spend a LOT to get certified and in production, and it takes us WISP's about 24 hours to start telling them what we think of it. missing this, that doesn't work, why can't you...blah blah. Funny, HAM radio operators CAN build whatever they want out of whatever, and try it, for instance, in the 2.4 gig band. Oddly enough, they're lagging behind individual WISP's in knowledge, understanding, and practical applications. May I make a modest proposal, that the new 3.65-3.7ghz band have this type of equipment certification..and when it's available, the number of products that can be affordably deployed with rival that of unlicensed within 18 months. Man, anything but the status quo. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:13:34 -0600, JohnnyO wrote I feel as though Lonnie and Tully could get together and split the costs involved... Man I'd love to see that ! You are ALWAYS spoiling for a fistfight, aren't you? hahahahaah Regards, JohnnyO Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations
I was serious actually Mark - if WISPs can work together and so can other vendors - then why not these 2 ? JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wispa Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 4:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:13:34 -0600, JohnnyO wrote I feel as though Lonnie and Tully could get together and split the costs involved... Man I'd love to see that ! You are ALWAYS spoiling for a fistfight, aren't you? hahahahaah Regards, JohnnyO Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.1/690 - Release Date: 2/16/2007 2:25 PM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
Blair, that is certainly a possible thing for WISPs to advocate for as a rules change, and if you feel strongly about that you should do the work with other like-minded WISPs to effect change. That's a positive thing to do and caring enough to actively effect change using the process is always something to be admired and respected, regardless of what any of us might think of the ideas themselves. But, at the same time you should also acknowledge that in the interim the existing rules must be followed. We all don't get the luxury to pick and chose those rules we are willing to tolerate, at least not without being willing to accept whatever eventual consequence may result from flaunting the rules. As to your question, What happens to me when the single source supplier I was using drops support and production of the equipment I was using? I'd say that's not difficult to address, but it requires a necessary step that should be taken at the time you are planning your business. Make your technology decisions inclusive of generally accepted business due diligence. In this case it means NOT making the business decision to chose a flaky or unstable supplier. If you do not take into account such basic business questions in your question, then the hard truth is that you would might be SOL -- a simple result from a risky decision. 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 Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit I, for one, agree with Butch. Parts certification is the way it needs to go. Hold the part manufactures responsible for their published numbers. Allow operators to mix-n-match parts as they see fit, within the power limits. Hold operators responsible for their EIRP numbers. This would allow ongoing innovation in the field without driving the small guys out. I don't want to be locked into a single manufacturer. Quite honestly, I don't trust that what I need will still be available 6 months from now if I'm locked into one provider. Using commodity hardware I can build what I need. If, as an example only, the SR2 cards becomes unavailable, I can use a CM9 and a small amp to replace it. I'm sure others can come up with more examples... What happens to me when the single source supplier I was using drops support and production of the equipment I was using? Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 Butch Evans wrote: On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Steve Stroh wrote: When a WISP slaps together a system, do they hook it up to a spectrum analyzer to insure that substantially all the radiated energy is contained within the desired band? No, they don't. As odd as it may sound, I am in agreement with Mark on this one. Mark went into detail about how it can (and should) be accomplished. For example: 1. A radio (CM-9 for example) has known output power when combined with a specific driver. It's up to the software folks to insure they don't attempt to drive this card outside the manufacturer's given parameters. SO, a card (combined with a specific driver/OS) could be certified to behave in a specific manner. Once we have #1 done, we can use this card and OS in combination with ANY mother board and we won't be changing the operating parameters of the card. What is wrong with a certification that includes these 2 parameters? 2. Once we know that a radio/OS combo produces a CERTIFIED, known, behaviour in terms of power levels, we can combine THAT CERTIFIED COMBO with a specific antenna. This antenna would have to be type certified as well. So long as that antenna exhibits a known (certified) behaviour, we can easily, and RELIABLY predict the EIRP, radiation pattern and even sideband noise. I don't need a spectrum analyzer to know these things. So long as the above is true, then what is the problem? I'll tell you what the problem is...It is currently illegal to operate. I agree with Mark's contention that it SHOULD be the way he described (in terms of what is legal), but it is not. I'm at a loss for how this fact benefits Americans. Perhaps I am just slow... Um, the FCC is getting innovation and advancement - look at Clearwire. When there weren't Clearwire, NextWave, Sprint Nextel and ATT actively deploying Broadband Wireless Internet Access, the FCC needed WISPs. Now they've got those big players starting to deploy and they can point to them as a success story for Broadband Wireless Internet Access. This is somewhat telling, huh? As a WISP consultant, I can tell you that I am fully aware of SEVERAL WISPs that are operating illegally. MOST of them are operating within the parameters of the legal EIRP, but with non-certified combinations of radio systems. I do tell
Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due Date Approaching
Also, please note. WISPA had a team at the FCC a year or two ago. That team specifically met with the Form 477 team. Out of that meeting we now have FAQ #8 in the instructions. That is SPECIFICALLY for the WISP market. You only have to fill out a few lines on the form. It's really quite simple. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:33 AM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due Date Approaching The due date for filing form 477 as mandated by law is March 1, 2007. This filing is done every six months and is required by the FCC. The instructions can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477instr.pdf. I have attached the form to this email in an excel spreadsheet. Wireless ISP's are NOT exempt from this filing, see below: . Facilities-based Providers of Broadband Connections to End User Locations: Entities that are facilities-based providers of broadband connections - which, for purposes of this information collection, are wired lines or wireless channels that enable the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction - must complete and file the applicable portions of this form for each state in which the entity provides one or more such connections to end user locations. For the purposes of Form 477, an entity is a facilities-based provider of broadband connections to end user locations if it owns the portion of the physical facility that terminates at the end user location, if it obtains unbundled network elements (UNEs), special access lines, or other leased facilities that terminate at the end user location and provisions/equips them as broadband, or if it provisions/equips a broadband wireless channel to the end user location over licensed or unlicensed spectrum. Such entities include incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers (LECs), cable system operators, fixed wireless service providers (including wireless ISPs), terrestrial and satellite mobile wireless service providers, MMDS providers, electric utilities, municipalities, and other entities. (Such entities do not include equipment suppliers unless the equipment supplier uses the equipment to provision a broadband connection that it offers to the public for sale. Such entities also do not include providers of fixed wireless services (e.g., Wi-Fi and other wireless ethernet, or wireless local area network, applications) that only enable local distribution and sharing of a premises broadband facility.) For such entities, the applicable portions of the form are: 1) the Cover Page; 2) Part I; 3) Part IV (if necessary); and the relevant portion(s) of Part V. Respectfully, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -- 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] per customer computer pricing
4 gigs here. My average user (including all of my servers etc.) uses 1.7 or so per month. Gigs 5 through 10 are $5 each (that works out to a LOWER rate than the first 4 gigs are per gig!). Gigs 11 through 20 are $10 each. After that it's all custom. Our largest customer does roughly 40 to 50 gigs and is on a 60 gig plan for $350 per month. Oh yeah, they get an 8ish meg connection. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:39 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I tell my residential subs that we don't care if they have a hundred PCs. We don't have a cap on bandwidth that is available, but we do tell them that with each subscription is included 5gigs of data transfer per month. We sale bandwidth for a living and it is metered just like electricity and water. Help yourself to all you want, but it is not a free for all or a buffet where you can eat all you want for the low low price of $8.99. I realize I will probably get a scalding rebuke over my 5gigs, but I don't have copper in the ground or FTTH to allow a Hogs feast on my bandwidth. I run a very successful WIRELESS ISP and the BH pipes and APs are all limited in the amount of data they can carry. That is not my fault, but it is my problem and that is how I deal with it! I never have a complaint and I sell a fantastic service. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] WISPA New Member - Dot 11 Networks
Welcome to Cameron Crum of Dot11 Networks as a new Principal Member of WISPA. Thank you for your support of WISPA. Here is a bit about their operations: Dot11 was founded in 2003 by 4 former wireless telecommunications engineers. We currently serve fixed wireless to markets in southern Tarrant, and Northern Johnson Counties in Texas. We cover the cities of Crowley, Burleson, south Fort Worth, Joshua, south Benbrook, east Mansfield, and parts of Godley, Cleburne, and Alvarado. We also service some MDU's in Fort Worth and Tampa, FL. Most of the founders have extensive RF Engineering experience, and we design, manufacture, and use all our own base station antennas. We currently have about 1800 total subscribers to our network which I beleive puts us in the top 20 largest wisps in the country. We are happy to part of the WISPA organization. Regards, Cameron Crum Dot11 Networks, Inc. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing
Yeppers. It's amazing how well the bill per bit model has worked at getting people to clean up their home networks! http://64.146.146.1:81/graphs/iface/eth1-uplink/ Can anyone guess when we started the program? grin marlon - Original Message - From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 4:20 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing Have any of the providers on this list discovered any unauthorized redistribution of your service? I.e., off-premises links, either wired or wireless, through one or more NATs? Is it of any concern? Cable MSOs have discovered up to 100 users on a single account both in cable TV as well as in Internet access. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing 4 gigs here. My average user (including all of my servers etc.) uses 1.7 or so per month. Gigs 5 through 10 are $5 each (that works out to a LOWER rate than the first 4 gigs are per gig!). Gigs 11 through 20 are $10 each. After that it's all custom. Our largest customer does roughly 40 to 50 gigs and is on a 60 gig plan for $350 per month. Oh yeah, they get an 8ish meg connection. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:39 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I tell my residential subs that we don't care if they have a hundred PCs. We don't have a cap on bandwidth that is available, but we do tell them that with each subscription is included 5gigs of data transfer per month. We sale bandwidth for a living and it is metered just like electricity and water. Help yourself to all you want, but it is not a free for all or a buffet where you can eat all you want for the low low price of $8.99. I realize I will probably get a scalding rebuke over my 5gigs, but I don't have copper in the ground or FTTH to allow a Hogs feast on my bandwidth. I run a very successful WIRELESS ISP and the BH pipes and APs are all limited in the amount of data they can carry. That is not my fault, but it is my problem and that is how I deal with it! I never have a complaint and I sell a fantastic service. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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 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] per customer computer pricing
So Mark, your installer just makes a note of the number of computers during the install? or do you control the router and filter MACs so the customer has to call each time a computer (wired or wireless) is added?? On 2/17/07, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it. Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom pop shop that just so happens to go over the threshold, we don't worry about it. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] per customer computer pricing I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what? I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move them to another plan, but need to understand how others do it. -- 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] cost effective reliable 5.8G cpe suggestions?
RB112+CM9+Rootenna if you are not sticker conscious. If you are sticker conscious I use the Tranzeo TR5a-24/20 with MT/CM9 setups and they work great. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless rabbtux rabbtux wrote: Not to stir the fcc sticker debate, but what gear is out there today that is compatable with a MT/SR5 access point? Looking for lower cost CPEs for 1-5 mile deployments. Thanks -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations
Rick, I too offer my heartfelt applause to your recommendations. As I've tried to point out, any WISP's problems with regulators are all about PERCEPTIONS. If we are to be taken seriously we must be perceived to be trying our level-best to be good custodians of the spectrum we've been permitted to exploit. Every step, no matter its size, or shape, when taken as a group dedicated to professionalism, will help improve the regulators sense of our mission, and improve our chances of being taken seriously as an industry. Thanks for your efforts, Dave Brenton General Manager Rural Tennessee Wireless Broadband Bringing FAST Internet to the rest of us (sm) Dover TN (931) 232-0914 office (931) 627-1142 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:02 Subject: [WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations I have observed a discussion on the members only list, talked to people with insight and given it a lot of thought. 1.) I do think that WISPA needs to make a stand to promote membership compliance to Part 15 rules. We should modify our mission statement and our goals to reflect this. 2.) WISPA should assist and encourage non-certified vendors such as StarOS, Mikrotik and others to certify hardware/software/antenna systems that will allow operators using these platforms to reach certification compliance with minimal capital outlay. 3.) 100% Compliancy should be a goal with a Target Date of completion. I personally believe that this Target Date should be no more than 18 months out. We need to show the FCC that our industry recognizes the rules and our members are striving to bring their networks into compliance on a timeline that is affordable and logistically achievable so that our clients have minimal disruption. This will send a message to vendors that certification is not an option anymore. If they want to market their products to our industry, they need to invest in certification. That may raise the price of equipment, but it is a necessary increase that our industry must bear if we are to survive. 4.) We also need to recognize that the FCC has essentially given our industry a gift with unlicensed spectrum (although not their original intent with the spectrum). This gift can be taken away with a swoop of a pen. 5.) WISP operators that publicly defy the FCC laws and mandates to fill out necessary forms such as Form 477 and 445 are in direct opposition to the goals and ideals of WISPA. IMHO, if a WISP operator promotes anti-lawful cooperation with FCC rules and guidelines on WISPA listservs, that operator should be banned from the WISPA listservs. WISPA does need to improve credibility with the FCC and we cannot do this by allowing tyrannical posts that blatantly oppose following the law. That does not mean that we have to silence discussion or opposition to current rules, it just means we need to clarify that current WISPA policy does not agree with their personal views. If their intent is to change WISPA policy, they need to submit a policy change submission to the WISPA board for consideration and possible polling of the membership. 6.) An observation that our competition (ILECs and Cable Companies) are aggressively lobbying the FCC to shut down unlicensed bands as unfair competition and an industry that in their view, openly breaks the law, is inevitable. 7.) Recognition of the damage that will be done to the rural market economy with the removal of the WISP industry is inconceivable. It is our responsibility to protect the markets we serve by reaching out for compliance as soon as we can. 8.) Our industry has developed dramatically in the last 10 years, equipment choices have improved, techniques have improved, network design has improved. Yet we still have manufacturers who refuse to certify their products. Their excuse seems to be that their customers will not pay enough to warrant certification. This seems to be a lame excuse in my eyes. I recognize the quick lifespan of wireless components these days makes the certification process very frustrating, to spend money and time getting certified only to have new technology change the market a short time later must be a manufacturer's nightmare. The fact is though, that new investment is entering this industry and more options will be manufactured that will be certified. Current non-certified vendors will face expulsion from the industry unless they step up to the plate quickly. 9.) WISPA is run by a volunteer board of operators at this time. To become a truly effective trade association, we must look to hire a full time staff which will form procedures, policy, update website content, email members, collect dues, manage books, lobby more effectively and work through legal matters with FCC versed attorneys. While in its infancy, the
Re: [WISPA] Trango 5850 FOX to 5830 AP at close range
I've seen many issues that were fixed by raising the antenna that was shooting to low over a rooftop... -RickG On 2/15/07, Don Annas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting... So it is not a good practice in general to shoot across a flat roof without some height on the radio. In looking at the integrated antennal specs, It seemed like I had the clearance but with the power of the radio (being so close), maybe this increases the chance for multi-path? - Don -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chris cooper Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:08 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Trango 5850 FOX to 5830 AP at close range We had a similar thing happen to us- our SNR was great, but every so often it would just crash. It was on a flat roof, sled mount that held the radio @ 24 off the roof. After trying everything, we raised the mount up to @ 4ft and it solved the problem. chris On 2/14/07, Don Annas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The building the SU is on is not much lower. It appears to have good line of site and the signal is a -60 on both sides. Additionally, when the link is up, it's perfect. One thing that I will note is the AP is only a few feet off the roof and about 12 ft from the edge due to the landlords requirements. Even though, it is clear LOS even an inch off the roof -- 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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/687 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/687 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 -- 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] Routers
Netopia is another very reliable router. -RickG On 2/15/07, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cdw.com carries the Cisco 851W for $379. John -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 08:27 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers Checkpoint has one for under $400 too. I forgot about that one. Dual wan with wireless. Kinda cool. I've not tried one yet, but did see them at ISPCon. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers I too have that idea in action, but the port forwarding options are non existant... There has to be something out there that works... Thanks for the feedback. - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers Ross Cornett wrote: Hey guys, I hope some of you can enlighten me on what is the best line of router out there for home and small business. We have used linksys and netgear and their broadband routers have not held up very well. Anyone have any ideas as to what they are using and what works best? I am tired of replacing these things and explaining to the customer their lack of quality. Your feedback is very welcome. Ross Cornett VP 217 342 6201 ex 7 HofNet Communications, Inc. www.HofNet-Communications.com HofNet-Communications.com One more reason I use a cpe with built in router. I know your pain. George -- 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 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] Brief report from FCC visit
Many good arguements that you stated for component certification method. I played the restricting innovation card, at the meaning. The FCC did say that they would put some more thought into this. But remember, components in a PC aren't supposed to go airbourne, so its a little more risky and open to abuse for wireless gear. In otherwords, more harm can be done by a wireless abuser. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:47:27 -0500, Tom DeReggi wrote We just got back from FCC and FTC visits yesterday. A couple notes... 1) Both meetings had full staff attending, which I consider an honor. Each meeting lasted about 2 hours. 2) Some of the WISPs had to cancel due to weather, but 3 made it, George Rigoto, Brent Anderson, and myself Tom DeReggi. 3) One thing was clear without a doubt. They are somewhat pissed that all WISPs are NOT filling From 477. I think the general concensus was that maybe only 10% were? The FCC primarilly stayed on I'd say that that's probable. Further, I'd say that at least 75% of those who did or do not don't even know about it. Especially, if you're a non- wireless ISP, exactly why would you know about it? Wireless guys are more likely to have some knowlege of the FCC.. non-wireless... The FCC is foreign and irrelevant to them. the arguement that it wasn't a choice, it was law. But I could see it in their eyes that it was more than that, possibly even hurtful. If the government officials take it personal, we're doomed. We're all doomed. If they see things as must get them under our control then there's no longer any good going to happen. It becomes adversary vs adversary. Let me predict that form 445 will get perhaps HALF that response. Again, who's even going to know? 4) We discussed the option for self/group effort to certifying gear combinations. It won't be an option that will be viable. It must be a Manufacturer that applied for equipment certification, as there must be an accountable/responsible/liable party. A group applying for certification, would have to take liabilty and prove their ability to be able to be accountable. I think that's the wrong approach, and along with you, I sincerely doubt it can be gotten past a regulatory body. I suggested component, rather than assembly certification. This way there IS a responsible party. The maker of the equipment is responsible if it is not within spec, and the user is responsible if the user fails to follow the rules concerning EIRP and out of band emissions. Look, there's GOOD precedent for this. Do any of you remember when PC's had to be FCC certified? In the FCC's own terminology - in their own words, even - assemblies using normally compliant parts can be considered compliant and require only a DoC, or Declaration of Conformity. No testing needed. For instance, the SAME mini-pci card the FCC wants certified as an assembly with a WRAP board is perfectly legal to stuff into a laptop with nothing other than a DoC by the maker of the laptop! The only thing this would require... is some specific guidelines from the FCC for component certification by the manufacturer, and the ability for us to file DoC with the FCC for obviously legal assemblies that obviously comply with the intentional radiator standards, because we file for combinations of parts with CERTIFIED behavior and it would be almost simplistic to both do and oversee. So, WOULD I file DoC's on the parts combinations I'd like to use, and then sticker them so * I * am responsible for those? Of course. If Wistron Neweb wants to sell 500K CM-9's let them certify their behavior. Let PacWireless certify the patterns and gain of thier antennas. Let Ubiquiti certify the behavior of SR-9's and SR-2's. It makes little sense to test, retest, re-retest over and over and over, the same basic parts to the same standards. If Wistron's mini-pci fails to perform as spec'd, is it the fault of ... Builder X, who certified the assembly? Or the fault of Wistron? If PacWireless antennas are sold as 21 db gain and are really 27, is that the fault of Builder X or PacWireless? If accountability is what they want, THIS IS IT. Again, the grey area you talk about concerning the use of identical parts of a different brand is actually resolved, from a regulatory viewpoint, rather than being gray. THIS I would argue, not that individual unknown parts be assembled and then magically declared conforming. I'm not the police and not going to tell you what to use, but any way you slice it, make your own StarOS / Mikrotik gear is illegal (non-certified) in the US. The only way to not be illegal, is to buy it from a manufacturer that has certified their combination,
