Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Marlon, Just for info... see inline... Marlon K. Schafer wrote: All due respect right back at ya! grin Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at heart is a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale or a cheap and easy 2' or 1' dish? DISH SIZE - Licensed microwave links are engineered with the proper antenna to deliver the proper amount of fade margin to achieve your desired reliability (for example, 99.9%, 99.99%, 99.995%, 99.999%) over the actual path in the actual rain zone that the link will be operating in. The engineering is all cut and dried. You know before you purchase the system what dish size you need to achieve the reliability that you want. You also know the dish hardware cost, the dish mounting cost, and the largest size dish that the tower can handle at the specific height that the terrain and link distance determine is needed. If the cost is too high (or the tower too small) you can choose to go with a smaller antenna and have less reliability. I'm not willing to get into technical arguments about this issue. The fact is, each link is different. Each tower is different. It should be left up to the local operator to figure out what's best. ESPECIALLY in a licensed band. If they get interference, they can fix it. If they cause interference they have to fix it. INTERFERENCE - Interference is not left up to the local operator. Interference is avoiding by the the company that handles the link licensing, not by the WISP operator. A licensing company will do a proper frequency search and select a frequency that will not cause interference or be interfered with. Freedom from interference is the basic reason for selecting (and paying for) a licensed link. I just don't like the idea of micro managing the pro's in our industry. Keep the interference issues dealt with but let folks use the latest and greatest technologies available to them. MICROMANAGING THE PROS - Nobody in their right mind would micromanage a licensed link design engineer and everybody wants to use the best technology that they can afford. If I want to build a link across the train tracks, 100', there's NO reason for a large dish. Small dishes with lower power radios will do the trick nicely. And if we mandate atpc we can get away with 3 to 5 (or some other such really small number) fade margins too. No need for the typical microwave 30 dB fade margins. SHORT LINKS AND ATPC - Once again, nobody would advocate using a large antenna on a short link because a small antenna that provides the desired reliability will cost a lot less than a large antenna. We're not the experts when it comes to mandating ATPC. How do we know; perhaps ATPC is already in use? If it's not, we're not the fade margin experts who can state unequivocally that ATPC is needed. If ATPC is not in use, what are the costs to redesign a $30,000 licensed microwave link to add ATPC? I'd suggest leaving the issue of ATPC to the experienced microwave equipment design engineers who do this for a living every day. The problem with trying to engineer everything is that the real world often doesn't give a rats behind what the engineers say. I've spend my adult life (such as it is) finding ways to make what works on paper really work in the field. ENGINEERING EVERYTHING - Engineering a real-world microwave link is a science that is at least 60 years old. When you spend $30,000 in hardware costs plus $10,000 in equipment mounting costs for a licensed microwave link, believe me - you want it fully engineered so it will deliver the reliability that you need. An experienced microwave engineer can design a microwave link with whatever reliability you want. That's a lot different than you or me finding a way to make it work. Making it work is nowhere near the same thing as engineering a wireless link to deliver 99,999 out of 100,000 packets error-free 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If we're going to be going on record with the FCC, we need to be going on record with actual, factual engineering knowledge. IMHO, making it work is just not good enough. jack We need the paper, to be sure. But we also need the flexibility to do what's expedient in the field. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Marlon, With all due respect... We need solid engineering arguements if we're going to present an official WISPA position to the FCC. If we submit comments based on faulty engineering then it will be obvious to the FCC (the FCC has real engineers on staff) that we don't know what we're talking about. We will lose our hard-earned credibility with the FCC. What's the benefit of losing our credibility? No one here needs to be reminded that we're here to serve
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Rich Comroe wrote: SNIP Yeah, but ... Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW. Is IPTV really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps? How could it possibly compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW? The items that use 1/10th the bandwidth are not made to be displayed on a 42 HD monitor. As an example watch youtube videos on your system and see if you would be willing to use it for everyday show viewing. There are certain things that can be low resolution, most news programs for instance. However, most people would prefer Desperate Housewives in 1080p HD especially if they shelled out the bucks for the TV that will do it. Honestly, what, other than content on demand (and I mean really on demand not available ever 15 minutes for the next week), does IPTV offer over regular broadcast TV? Sam Tetherow Sandhills 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] CALEA compliance methods
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote Mark, your info is 3 years old We have to be ready to tap our lines. Even IMs. marlon I think you missed my point, Marlon... That being that not even the government is a reliable source of information about what the government wants and demands. www.askcalea.com is direct from their mouths. Yes, it's old, but then the site is still considered live. THE FCC is saying one thing, a different agency is saying another. Concurrently. I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet to write a law that says we have to do squat. Frankly, I think every broadband ISP should file and say we will never be compliant and just let them TRY to shut down every ISP in the country. It's about time we told THEM where to get off, rather than being lambs to the slaughter. But no. WISPA leads the charge to slaughter it's own industry by begging to be regulated out of existence. Just three years ago, the WISP industry and WISPA was going to show the world just how scrappy, independent and courageous we were. We did alright. We turned into worms and mashed ourselves into the pavement instead. One can only imagine the reaction if some actual competitive threat came along. 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] IPTV
fyi, we just switched over a fios customer onto our trango 900 mhz system. they were so pissed at the up/down constant thrashing of their high speed fios service... quite happy with us now :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account automatically anyway. (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone service or TV service to something different, I can. (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that right now... or even 3-5 years from now. Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality. Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Mark, wispa wrote: I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet to write a law that says we have to do squat. Did you even bother to read the press release mentioned in your recent post? http://www.askcalea.com/docs/20040317.fbi.release.pdf As quoted from the press release mentioned above; Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 to help the nation's law enforcement community maintain its ability to use court-authorized electronic surveillance as an important investigative tool in an era of new telecommunications technologies and services. Today, electronic surveillance plays a vitally important role in law enforcement's ability to ensure national security and public safety. Also quoted from the same press release; Specifically, the petition requests the FCC establish rules that formally identify services and entities covered by CALEA, so both law enforcement and industry are on notice with respect to CALEA obligations and compliance. The petition makes this request because disagreements continue between industry and law enforcement over whether certain services are subject to CALEA. The petition requests the FCC find “broadband access” and “broadband telephony” to be subject to CALEA. Got any links for these other places you speak of? Below is a link to the latest report about CALEA and the reclassification of Wireless Providers as information services in case anyone is interested in reading. Page 18 and 19 make for some interesting reading. ;-) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf 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] Service in York PA.
I need to know if anyone can service the York PA area. I have a client there who needs bandwidth ASAP. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Remember that like the term wireless, iptv has way too many meanings. IPTV to the telcos is TV to the cablecos. By saying IPTV, they figure they get around a lot of stuff and make it sound better than broadcast TV. Broadcast TV isn't much of a bandwidth problem - they do it fine today. TV over the internet will take time since most people don't want to watch TV on a laptop or PC. Until the Converged Living Room becomes mainstream, bandwidth won't be a huge problem. VOD (video on demand) is being confused with Network DVR. Instead of home DVR, it will be at the NOC. Maybe the way hotel on-demand is. That's what the content companies want. We'll see. Even DISH promises Caller ID on the TV screen, but that isn't IPTV. Just some thoughts this morning. Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Mark, CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld by courts. CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance. It is part of the 2 biggest communications laws - TA96 and the Comm. Act of 19 Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four An Act To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, TITLE I--INTERCEPTION OF DIGITAL AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the `Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act'. Communications Act of 1934 (amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996) Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 5647 (1996); 47 U.S.C. § 151 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/ch5schI.html /et seq/.; 47 U.S.C. §§ 153 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/153.html, 251 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/251.html, 252 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/252.html, 253 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/253.html, and 255 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/255.html and amended by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, (CALEA) 47 USC §§ 1001-1010 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sup_01_47_10_9_20_I.html The Communications Act of 1934 created the FCC and gave this new agency the power to regulate telephones and radio. The 1996 Act amends the 1934, but is actually much longer. The purpose of the law was to encourage competition, but it also has a vast regulatory scheme. //*ACE v. CALEA*/ http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-1404a.pdf/*, No. 05-1404*, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Decided June 9, 2006 This case involves a statutory interpretation of 47 USC § 1002 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_1002000-.html. This law provides that a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable of being expeditiously isolated and accessed by the government pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization. The communication must be able to be accessed before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication. An exception in section 1002 excludes from this requirement information services; or equipment, facilities, or services that support the transport or switching of communications for private networks or for the sole purpose of interconnecting telecommunications carriers. In September of 2005, the FCC issued an Order (FCC 05-153) that stated that broadband and VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) providers were covered (at least in part) by CALEA's definition of telecommunications carriers. Implementation of this Order (required by May 14, 2007) would necessitate colleges and universities that are broadband or VoIP providers to redesign their networks at a cost estimated to be over $450* per student in tuition fees. Given these high stakes, the America Council on Education (ACE) challenged the order, and this decision, which upheld the FCC Order is the result of the litigation. In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit agreed with the FCC that providers of both broadband and VoIP serve as replacements for a substantial functionality of local telephone exchange service. This is key, as the definition of a telecommunications carrier in 47 USC § 1001(8) includes those providers that substantially replaces traditional transmission or switching. The court also found CALEA differed from the Telecom Act by not using the phrases telecommunications carrier and information services as mutually exclusive terms. The court found the FCC interpretation of the law reasonable. The court did state that if the case had been reviewed /de novo/, the ACE argument might have been found to be the more persuasive one. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on June 9, 2006 in the lawsuit brought by the American Council on Education (ACE) challenging the FCC's CALEA rules. Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the CALEA proceeding to apply CALEA obligations to all wireless broadband Internet access providers, including mobile wireless providers, or our interpretations of the
RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
I don't think you would select 11GHz to go 100'. That's the whole point...let's hope FCC doesn't screw up 11GHz by allowing it's use for short haul applications. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:07 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz All due respect right back at ya! grin Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at heart is a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale or a cheap and easy 2' or 1' dish? I'm not willing to get into technical arguments about this issue. The fact is, each link is different. Each tower is different. It should be left up to the local operator to figure out what's best. ESPECIALLY in a licensed band. If they get interference, they can fix it. If they cause interference they have to fix it. I just don't like the idea of micro managing the pro's in our industry. Keep the interference issues dealt with but let folks use the latest and greatest technologies available to them. If I want to build a link across the train tracks, 100', there's NO reason for a large dish. Small dishes with lower power radios will do the trick nicely. And if we mandate atpc we can get away with 3 to 5 (or some other such really small number) fade margins too. No need for the typical microwave 30 dB fade margins. The problem with trying to engineer everything is that the real world often doesn't give a rats behind what the engineers say. I've spend my adult life (such as it is) finding ways to make what works on paper really work in the field. We need the paper, to be sure. But we also need the flexibility to do what's expedient in the field. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Marlon, With all due respect... We need solid engineering arguements if we're going to present an official WISPA position to the FCC. If we submit comments based on faulty engineering then it will be obvious to the FCC (the FCC has real engineers on staff) that we don't know what we're talking about. We will lose our hard-earned credibility with the FCC. What's the benefit of losing our credibility? No one here needs to be reminded that we're here to serve the interests of the WISP community. We all know that. A few of us have been in this industry since 1993. Some of us first offered WISP service in 1995. Some of us having been unselfishly serving the needs of the WISP community since 1995. The manufacturers are the ones that we are going to be buying our licensed 11 GHz equipment from. Why would their interest in 11 GHz dish size be any different from our interest? Wouldn't it be in their interest to make the best equipment to serve us? If allowing smaller dishes on 11 GHz was bad and if it would lead to fewer licensed links being deployable then wouldn't the equipment manufacturers oppose the proposed changes? Again, with all due respect... I really don't understand what you are trying to say in your post. Can you please state your points more clearly - for everyone's benefit? By the way, thank you for all the energy and the effort that you have put into improving the WISP community since 1999. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Jack, With all due respect We don't need engineers to know what we'd like the rules to be like! WISPA is here to serve the interests of the wisp community. The manufacturers can look after themselves. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Dylan, It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them anyway. Finally, WISPA dosn't have an engineering staff that can adequately analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical responese to submit to the FCC. jack Dylan Oliver wrote: I recall some past discussion bemoaning the large dish sizes required for licensed links .. I just found this in the latest Rural Spectrum Scanner from Bennett Law
RE: [WISPA] IPTV
Speaking of IPTV... We are demo'ing IPTV with MobiTV and NDS at CTIA http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reut ers.com:20070327:MTFH67307_2007-03-27_12-49-45_L27270281type=comktNews rpc=44 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 George Rogato Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Nice easy reading here. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand. Here's a link: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But there is a convergence happening. I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Travis Johnson wrote: I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account automatically anyway. (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone service or TV service to something different, I can. (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that right now... or even 3-5 years from now. Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality. Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per
RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Hello Jack, Good to see you're back on track with, IMO, a proper response to the 11GHz question/concerns. Your initial comment came off as who cares and we don't have time for this. John simply dittoed your comments, so what was the group left to believe? I apologize if I misunderstood your intent. Your questions/response below illustrate the type of post I would have expected from you in the first place. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Brad, I think you may be misquoting or misunderstanding me. No good can come from that. Real questions need to be asked and need to be correctly answered before we risk our reputation by filing comments with the FCC that are technically incomplete or technically incorrect. Here's a repost of my original post. ** Begin Original Post * It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them anyway. Finally, WISPA doesn't have an engineering staff that can adequately analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical response to submit to the FCC. End Original Post * NOWHERE did I say that the licensed frequency bands are not important to WISPS. Licensed backhauls are very important to WISPs. WISPs SHOULD use licensed backhauls wherever interference levels are high, where reliability is crucial, where throughput needs are high, and/or where full duplex links are needed. NOWHERE did I say that the focus of the group should be limited to unlicensed frequencies only. TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, I will restate each original paragraph and I will list the questions that each paragraph is implicitly asking. *** PARAGRAPH 1 - It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. In other words, we need to know the minimum dish size now and we need to know what dish sizes FiberTower is proposing before we can begin to understand if there is any affect on us and before we can formulate our position. QUESTION: SO WHAT ARE THOSE DISH SIZES NOW, BEFORE A RULES CHANGE AND AFTER THE PROPOSED RULES CHANGE? QUESTION: WHAT'S THE TRUE IMPACT, IF ANY, ON US IF THE FCC ALLOWS SMALLER DISH SIZES TO BE USED? QUESTION: ONCE WE UNDERSTAND THE TRUE IMPACT, IF ANY, WHAT POSITION SHOULD WE TAKE BEFORE THE FCC? ** PARAGRAPH 2 - I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. QUESTION: DOES A REDUCTION IN DISH SIZE REALLY AFFECT US? QUESTION: HOW DOES IT REALLY AFFECT US? ARE 11 GHz FREQUENCIES CURRENTLY IN SHORT SUPPLY IN THE AREAS WHERE MOST WISPs OPERATE? QUESTION: HAS ANY WISP EVER BEEN DENIED A LICENSE FOR AN 11 GHz FREQUENCY? IF SO, WHERE? HOW OFTEN HAS THIS HAPPENED? QUESTION: ARE THERE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES BEFORE THE FCC THAT WE NEED TO DEVOTE OUR TIME AND ENERGY TO? WHAT ARE THOSE ISSUES? WHITE SPACE? WISPS AS AN INFORMATION SERVICE? FCC's BROADBAND SERVICES SURVEY? CALEA? OTHERS?? * PARAGRAPH 3 - I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them anyway. QUESTION - IF ALLOWING SMALLER DISH SIZES WAS GOING TO CREATE INTERFERENCE PROBLEMS WOULDN'T THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE 11 GHz EQUIPMENT BE AGAINST THE PROPOSED CHANGES BECAUSE THAT WOULD RESULT IN THEM SELLING FEWER LICENSED 11 GHz LINKS AND HAVING HIGHER CUSTOMER SUPPORT COSTS? *** PARAGRAPH 4 - Finally, WISPA doesn't have an engineering staff that can adequately analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical response to submit to the FCC. QUESTION - DO WE HAVE THE ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE TO REALLY KNOW WHAT THE TRUE EFFECTS OF ALLOWING SMALLER
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Wow... that's good news... after reading PC Magazine's ISP comparison, they made it sound like Verizon's fiber was the end all for every customer they contacted. ;) Travis Microserv Rick Smith wrote: fyi, we just switched over a fios customer onto our trango 900 mhz system. they were so pissed at the up/down constant thrashing of their high speed fios service... quite happy with us now :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account automatically anyway. (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone service or TV service to something different, I can. (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that right now... or even 3-5 years from now. Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality. Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained
[WISPA] Indy
Does anyone operate in Indianapolis? Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - Telecom Agent 813.963.5884 www.rad-info.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Indy
REAL Close to it. What do you need? Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Indy Does anyone operate in Indianapolis? Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - Telecom Agent 813.963.5884 www.rad-info.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
The FCC already permits two classes of licensed antennas in Part 101.115: Standard A and Standard B. Antennas meeting performance standard A must be used except in areas not subject to frequency congestion (however that is defined). If Standard B antennas are used, the operator must replace them with Standard A antennas if the Standard B antenna would interfere with a new application using Standard A antennas: (c) The Commission shall require the replacement of any antenna or periscope antenna system of a permanent fixed station operating at 932.5 MHz or higher that does not meet performance Standard A specified in paragraph (c) of this section, at the expense of the licensee operating such antenna, upon a showing that said antenna causes or is likely to cause interference to (or receive interference from) any other authorized or applied for station whereas a higher performance antenna is not likely to involve such interference. I don't see why the same process shouldn't be used with a new Standard C for 2' dishes. 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/
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Peter, do you have much information on Network DVR (like the term). I would think that if you could get DR owners to agreee to Network DVR it would just be a small jump to real VOD. But then again, I still struggle with the concept of them bitching about people copying stuff that they broadcast freely over the air... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: Remember that like the term wireless, iptv has way too many meanings. IPTV to the telcos is TV to the cablecos. By saying IPTV, they figure they get around a lot of stuff and make it sound better than broadcast TV. Broadcast TV isn't much of a bandwidth problem - they do it fine today. TV over the internet will take time since most people don't want to watch TV on a laptop or PC. Until the Converged Living Room becomes mainstream, bandwidth won't be a huge problem. VOD (video on demand) is being confused with Network DVR. Instead of home DVR, it will be at the NOC. Maybe the way hotel on-demand is. That's what the content companies want. We'll see. Even DISH promises Caller ID on the TV screen, but that isn't IPTV. Just some thoughts this morning. Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] IPTV
One of the major cable systems just lost that fight. The studios and networks filed suit and won on the issue of copyright infringmement. Dave David T. Hughes Director, Corporate Communications Roadstar Internet 604 South King Street -Suite 200 Leesburg, VA 20175 -HOME OF INET LOUDOUN- Office - (703) 234-9969 Direct - (703) 953-1645 Cell -(703) 587-3282 Corporate Offices - (703) 554-6621 Fax - (703) 258-0003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: dhughes248 - Video conference capable -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Peter, do you have much information on Network DVR (like the term). I would think that if you could get DR owners to agreee to Network DVR it would just be a small jump to real VOD. But then again, I still struggle with the concept of them bitching about people copying stuff that they broadcast freely over the air... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: Remember that like the term wireless, iptv has way too many meanings. IPTV to the telcos is TV to the cablecos. By saying IPTV, they figure they get around a lot of stuff and make it sound better than broadcast TV. Broadcast TV isn't much of a bandwidth problem - they do it fine today. TV over the internet will take time since most people don't want to watch TV on a laptop or PC. Until the Converged Living Room becomes mainstream, bandwidth won't be a huge problem. VOD (video on demand) is being confused with Network DVR. Instead of home DVR, it will be at the NOC. Maybe the way hotel on-demand is. That's what the content companies want. We'll see. Even DISH promises Caller ID on the TV screen, but that isn't IPTV. Just some thoughts this morning. Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
That agrees with most of the anecdotal information that I have on it, which is why I am very interested if Peter has information on someone doing it or, if like the rest of the world outside the digital rights holders, he see the immense value of being able to do so for your customer base. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless David Hughes wrote: One of the major cable systems just lost that fight. The studios and networks filed suit and won on the issue of copyright infringmement. Dave David T. Hughes Director, Corporate Communications Roadstar Internet 604 South King Street -Suite 200 Leesburg, VA 20175 -HOME OF INET LOUDOUN- Office - (703) 234-9969 Direct - (703) 953-1645 Cell -(703) 587-3282 Corporate Offices - (703) 554-6621 Fax - (703) 258-0003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: dhughes248 - Video conference capable -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Peter, do you have much information on Network DVR (like the term). I would think that if you could get DR owners to agreee to Network DVR it would just be a small jump to real VOD. But then again, I still struggle with the concept of them bitching about people copying stuff that they broadcast freely over the air... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: Remember that like the term wireless, iptv has way too many meanings. IPTV to the telcos is TV to the cablecos. By saying IPTV, they figure they get around a lot of stuff and make it sound better than broadcast TV. Broadcast TV isn't much of a bandwidth problem - they do it fine today. TV over the internet will take time since most people don't want to watch TV on a laptop or PC. Until the Converged Living Room becomes mainstream, bandwidth won't be a huge problem. VOD (video on demand) is being confused with Network DVR. Instead of home DVR, it will be at the NOC. Maybe the way hotel on-demand is. That's what the content companies want. We'll see. Even DISH promises Caller ID on the TV screen, but that isn't IPTV. Just some thoughts this morning. Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
It wouldn't happen to be this one: http://www.samsung.com/Products/ProAV/Plasmas/PPM50M5HBXXAA.asp?page=Specifications I was thinking of buying this last year. Held off looking for lower pricing, so I can buy 2. George Rich Comroe wrote: I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Yeah, but ... My living room big picture that I watch from my easy chair happens to be my PC video server, not a TV. It's been over a year since I used a TV (which I define as a display box with a TV tuner built in). The living room PC has a couple TV tuner cards, Internet connection, and drives a big 48 display. Watch cable, programs previously recorded to disk (BeyondTV software is great with a half-terabyte drives), or Internet content. There's never even been a keyboard on this machine. If I wanna navigate there's a wireless mouse that sits on the hassock next to the tuner card remote controls. If I really need to type, I have to use a laptop with VNC. Essentially a TIVO on steroids. It's geek heaven! Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. Yeah, but ... Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW. Is IPTV really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps? How could it possibly compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW? Rich - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Nice easy reading here. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand. Here's a link: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But there is a convergence happening. I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Travis Johnson wrote: I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account automatically anyway. (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone service or TV service to something different, I can. (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that right now... or even 3-5 years from now. Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality. Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
Even worse than the Friday night phenomenon is say Saturdays in the fall. Layne Sisk had some pretty nasty things to say about the IPTV solution used in Utah on football saturdays and how the usage would honestly bring the fiber ring to it knees. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
Now Marlon, that's not why we ALL insult you ;) Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Marlon K. Schafer wrote: sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. -- 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] IPTV
Right, I was just reading this a couple days ago. It did not look good for the future of network based dvr and it sounded like it had implications for anyone wanting to cache primetime tv. David Hughes wrote: One of the major cable systems just lost that fight. The studios and networks filed suit and won on the issue of copyright infringmement. Dave David T. Hughes Director, Corporate Communications Roadstar Internet 604 South King Street -Suite 200 Leesburg, VA 20175 -HOME OF INET LOUDOUN- Office - (703) 234-9969 Direct - (703) 953-1645 Cell -(703) 587-3282 Corporate Offices - (703) 554-6621 Fax - (703) 258-0003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: dhughes248 - Video conference capable -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Peter, do you have much information on Network DVR (like the term). I would think that if you could get DR owners to agreee to Network DVR it would just be a small jump to real VOD. But then again, I still struggle with the concept of them bitching about people copying stuff that they broadcast freely over the air... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: Remember that like the term wireless, iptv has way too many meanings. IPTV to the telcos is TV to the cablecos. By saying IPTV, they figure they get around a lot of stuff and make it sound better than broadcast TV. Broadcast TV isn't much of a bandwidth problem - they do it fine today. TV over the internet will take time since most people don't want to watch TV on a laptop or PC. Until the Converged Living Room becomes mainstream, bandwidth won't be a huge problem. VOD (video on demand) is being confused with Network DVR. Instead of home DVR, it will be at the NOC. Maybe the way hotel on-demand is. That's what the content companies want. We'll see. Even DISH promises Caller ID on the TV screen, but that isn't IPTV. Just some thoughts this morning. Peter -- 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] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Marlon, Just for info... see inline... Marlon K. Schafer wrote: All due respect right back at ya! grin Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at heart is a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale or a cheap and easy 2' or 1' dish? DISH SIZE - Licensed microwave links are engineered with the proper antenna to deliver the proper amount of fade margin to achieve your desired reliability (for example, 99.9%, 99.99%, 99.995%, 99.999%) over the actual path in the actual rain zone that the link will be operating in. The engineering is all cut and dried. You know before you purchase the system what dish size you need to achieve the reliability that you want. You also know the dish hardware cost, the dish mounting cost, and the largest size dish that the tower can handle at the specific height that the terrain and link distance determine is needed. If the cost is too high (or the tower too small) you can choose to go with a smaller antenna and have less reliability. And with minimum sizes in the regs you may often HAVE to use a much LARGER dish than was needed. ATPC would allow much higher reliability numbers with LESS likelyhood of interference to others on the other end of the path I'm not willing to get into technical arguments about this issue. The fact is, each link is different. Each tower is different. It should be left up to the local operator to figure out what's best. ESPECIALLY in a licensed band. If they get interference, they can fix it. If they cause interference they have to fix it. INTERFERENCE - Interference is not left up to the local operator. Interference is avoiding by the the company that handles the link licensing, not by the WISP operator. A licensing company will do a proper frequency search and select a frequency that will not cause interference or be interfered with. Freedom from interference is the basic reason for selecting (and paying for) a licensed link. Right. And lower power levels help with interference issues as much, sometimes more than, as tighter antenna beams. I just don't like the idea of micro managing the pro's in our industry. Keep the interference issues dealt with but let folks use the latest and greatest technologies available to them. MICROMANAGING THE PROS - Nobody in their right mind would micromanage a licensed link design engineer and everybody wants to use the best technology that they can afford. I disagree with that in this case Jack. The rules, as they are written dictate the antenna sizes regulatorily not technically. To me, that's micromanaging. Why should anyone have to use a 4' dish to do a link of a few blocks? If I want to build a link across the train tracks, 100', there's NO reason for a large dish. Small dishes with lower power radios will do the trick nicely. And if we mandate atpc we can get away with 3 to 5 (or some other such really small number) fade margins too. No need for the typical microwave 30 dB fade margins. SHORT LINKS AND ATPC - Once again, nobody would advocate using a large antenna on a short link because a small antenna that provides the desired reliability will cost a lot less than a large antenna. We're not the experts when it comes to mandating ATPC. How do we know; perhaps ATPC is already in use? If it's not, we're not the fade margin experts who can state unequivocally that ATPC is needed. If ATPC is not in use, what are the costs to redesign a $30,000 licensed microwave link to add ATPC? I'd suggest leaving the issue of ATPC to the experienced microwave equipment design engineers who do this for a living every day. That's my point Jack. This issue is about removing the mandatory antenna size. OR at least allowing smaller ones. What you are complaining about my claim is what IS in the CURRENT rules. grin The problem with trying to engineer everything is that the real world often doesn't give a rats behind what the engineers say. I've spend my adult life (such as it is) finding ways to make what works on paper really work in the field. ENGINEERING EVERYTHING - Engineering a real-world microwave link is a science that is at least 60 years old. When you spend $30,000 in hardware costs plus $10,000 in equipment mounting costs for a licensed microwave link, believe me - you want it fully engineered so it will deliver the reliability that you need. An experienced microwave engineer can design a microwave link with whatever reliability you want. That's a lot different than you or me finding a way to make it work. Making it work is nowhere near the same thing as engineering a wireless link to deliver 99,999 out of 100,000 packets error-free 24
Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
I TOTALLY disagree with that. On two fronts. First, what's wrong with a short licensed link? If that's what I want to use that's up to me. Maybe I want to put a link that requires 100% uptime guarantee and has to be licensed but only has to cross the train tracks. Ever try to push a cable across the tracks or freeway? It'll make Jack's $30,000 link look cheap! Second, how would use of smaller antennas screw anything up? I've been blown offline from interference that came from 30 MILES away. It was only an 11 mile link. They had 6' dishes an had the power cranked all the way up. I think I figured it at a 60 dB fade margin. And there was nothing in the rules that said they couldn't do that! Luckily they turned the power way down and my problem went away. With an ATPC requirement that never would have happened. Just because they mandate antenna sizes in no way means that it's the only, or today, even the best way to maximize frequency reuse. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:08 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz I don't think you would select 11GHz to go 100'. That's the whole point...let's hope FCC doesn't screw up 11GHz by allowing it's use for short haul applications. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:07 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz All due respect right back at ya! grin Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at heart is a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale or a cheap and easy 2' or 1' dish? I'm not willing to get into technical arguments about this issue. The fact is, each link is different. Each tower is different. It should be left up to the local operator to figure out what's best. ESPECIALLY in a licensed band. If they get interference, they can fix it. If they cause interference they have to fix it. I just don't like the idea of micro managing the pro's in our industry. Keep the interference issues dealt with but let folks use the latest and greatest technologies available to them. If I want to build a link across the train tracks, 100', there's NO reason for a large dish. Small dishes with lower power radios will do the trick nicely. And if we mandate atpc we can get away with 3 to 5 (or some other such really small number) fade margins too. No need for the typical microwave 30 dB fade margins. The problem with trying to engineer everything is that the real world often doesn't give a rats behind what the engineers say. I've spend my adult life (such as it is) finding ways to make what works on paper really work in the field. We need the paper, to be sure. But we also need the flexibility to do what's expedient in the field. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Marlon, With all due respect... We need solid engineering arguements if we're going to present an official WISPA position to the FCC. If we submit comments based on faulty engineering then it will be obvious to the FCC (the FCC has real engineers on staff) that we don't know what we're talking about. We will lose our hard-earned credibility with the FCC. What's the benefit of losing our credibility? No one here needs to be reminded that we're here to serve the interests of the WISP community. We all know that. A few of us have been in this industry since 1993. Some of us first offered WISP service in 1995. Some of us having been unselfishly serving the needs of the WISP community since 1995. The manufacturers are the ones that we are going to be buying our licensed 11 GHz equipment from. Why would their interest in 11 GHz dish size be any different from our interest? Wouldn't it be in their interest to make the best equipment to serve us? If allowing smaller dishes on 11 GHz was bad and if it would lead to fewer licensed links being deployable then wouldn't the equipment manufacturers oppose the proposed changes? Again, with all due respect... I really don't understand what you are trying to say in your post. Can you please state your points more clearly - for everyone's benefit? By the way, thank you for all the energy and the effort that you have put into improving the WISP community since 1999. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Jack, With all due respect We
RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Marlon, 11GHz is intended for medium to long range links. That is why they require a relatively larger antenna to keep the beam narrow to increase the freq reuse ability. 6GHz requires a 6' minimum antenna and this is a GOOD thing otherwise there would be fewer 6GHz licenses available in any given geographic area. If you have a 100' link then by all means use an 80-90GHz licensed link or even sub-lease a 38GHz license. Or use FOS or 60GHz or 24GHz for 100' links, but 11GHz for a 100' shot is a waste and not a good use of the band. Opening 11GHz to smaller dishes means more chance the band will be used up by short links that could have been achieved with the same (or even better) results by using a higher freq band. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz I TOTALLY disagree with that. On two fronts. First, what's wrong with a short licensed link? If that's what I want to use that's up to me. Maybe I want to put a link that requires 100% uptime guarantee and has to be licensed but only has to cross the train tracks. Ever try to push a cable across the tracks or freeway? It'll make Jack's $30,000 link look cheap! Second, how would use of smaller antennas screw anything up? I've been blown offline from interference that came from 30 MILES away. It was only an 11 mile link. They had 6' dishes an had the power cranked all the way up. I think I figured it at a 60 dB fade margin. And there was nothing in the rules that said they couldn't do that! Luckily they turned the power way down and my problem went away. With an ATPC requirement that never would have happened. Just because they mandate antenna sizes in no way means that it's the only, or today, even the best way to maximize frequency reuse. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:08 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz I don't think you would select 11GHz to go 100'. That's the whole point...let's hope FCC doesn't screw up 11GHz by allowing it's use for short haul applications. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:07 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz All due respect right back at ya! grin Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at heart is a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale or a cheap and easy 2' or 1' dish? I'm not willing to get into technical arguments about this issue. The fact is, each link is different. Each tower is different. It should be left up to the local operator to figure out what's best. ESPECIALLY in a licensed band. If they get interference, they can fix it. If they cause interference they have to fix it. I just don't like the idea of micro managing the pro's in our industry. Keep the interference issues dealt with but let folks use the latest and greatest technologies available to them. If I want to build a link across the train tracks, 100', there's NO reason for a large dish. Small dishes with lower power radios will do the trick nicely. And if we mandate atpc we can get away with 3 to 5 (or some other such really small number) fade margins too. No need for the typical microwave 30 dB fade margins. The problem with trying to engineer everything is that the real world often doesn't give a rats behind what the engineers say. I've spend my adult life (such as it is) finding ways to make what works on paper really work in the field. We need the paper, to be sure. But we also need the flexibility to do what's expedient in the field. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Marlon, With all due respect... We need solid engineering arguements if we're going to present an official WISPA position to the FCC. If we submit comments based on faulty engineering then it will be obvious to the FCC (the FCC has real engineers on staff) that we don't know what we're talking about. We will lose our hard-earned credibility with the FCC. What's the benefit of losing our credibility? No one here needs to be reminded that we're here to serve the interests of the
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote Mark, wispa wrote: I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet to write a law that says we have to do squat. Did you even bother to read the press release mentioned in your recent post? http://www.askcalea.com/docs/20040317.fbi.release.pdf As quoted from the press release mentioned above; Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 to help the nation's law enforcement community maintain its ability to use court-authorized electronic surveillance as an important investigative tool in an era of new telecommunications technologies and services. Today, electronic surveillance plays a vitally important role in law enforcement's ability to ensure national security and public safety. Also quoted from the same press release; Specifically, the petition requests the FCC establish rules that formally identify services and entities covered by CALEA, so both law enforcement and industry are on notice with respect to CALEA obligations and compliance. The petition makes this request because disagreements continue between industry and law enforcement over whether certain services are subject to CALEA. The petition requests [WINDOWS-1252?] the FCC find broadband access and broadband telephony to be subject to CALEA. Ok... here's an old joke. What's the difference between dogs and cats? The dog looks at you and says you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... You must be a god!. The cat looks at you and says you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... I must be a god!. We're saying EXACTLY the same thing, but the perspective is different. Read up on CALEA itself. There's absolutely NOTHING in it that even remotely addresses ISP's. It addresses TAPPING TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. Nothing else. It is VERY specific. When it was written, broadband didn't even EXIST, how COULD they have written a law that applies to it? It's as if Congress wrote a law that regulates the maintenance schedules on trains. Along comes OSHA, and demands that the DOT rule that the law must apply to trucking, as well, even though the whole concept is absurd. Congress knew it would NEVER get away with just wholesale handing it's shopping list of demands to industry for changes in the way it's equipment worked, and making industry PAY for it. Duhhh. That would never have made it past... well... even a kangaroo court. And the telcos would have fought it, collectively, with all thier legal muscle. Over the years, the FCC has (correctly) and and consistently insisted we are NOT telecommunications services or providers. Now, it suddenly says we ARE, but only for purposes of CALEA. Ohhh, could you park that decision on anything closer to what resembles vapor? I doubt it. Even worse, since the law didn't apply to us, it doesn't pay for what it OBVIOUSLY has to pay for. The FCC cannot just spend money, Congress has to do that. So, along comes the FCC and says WE have to pay for it. I've said this before, I'll say it again, the FCC threw in the most egregious demands they could think of (like requiring us to pay for it), in order to ensure this would LOSE in a legal challenge, since they weren't inclined to continue arguing with the FBI and DOJ. So, instead of defending what was defensible, they sidestepped and tossed the mess in our laps, and we're just sitting here taking it without so much as a word of protest. Gee, we must look like real shmucks to them by now. EVERYONE fights or at least ARGUES back when they do stuff... well, except for us. We beat on our own people for objecting. MAn, READ THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON EVERYTHING THE FCC DOES! Fear to tell them they're wrong? Heck no, they say it every possible way they can think of! Had Congress tried CALEA without paying for it initially, the fight would have been HUGE, CALEA would have been tossed out in court on very firm ground I am sure. The FCC doesn't write law. It can't. The DOJ and FBI have NO END TO THE LIST OF DEMANDS, their wishes are infinitely long. But just because they WANT it doesn't mean they get it, at our expense. You and I pay taxes, so that when the government wants something, it has to debate, vote, and pony up and pay in the public budget for it. If we, the people, were not protected by the Constitution, the police would just stop us and demand we fill their car with gas, buy them new tires, tune it up, repaint their cars, use OUR building for their office, provide them internet for free, the list goes on and on and on. After all, we have to have cops
Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Marlon, I think you misunderstood Brad's comment. Nowhere does he say not to use a short licensed link. I think his point is that using 11 GHz for a 100-ft link is inappropriate. A higher frequency, like 23 GHz is the proper way to go because lower frequencies go further than higher frequencies therefore using a higher frequency for a short licensed link is more appropriate because it would reduce the possibility of causing interference to someone further away. It's a simple concept. Please give me a phone call when you have a few minutes today. I need to talk with you. Thanks, jack Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: I TOTALLY disagree with that. On two fronts. First, what's wrong with a short licensed link? If that's what I want to use that's up to me. Maybe I want to put a link that requires 100% uptime guarantee and has to be licensed but only has to cross the train tracks. Ever try to push a cable across the tracks or freeway? It'll make Jack's $30,000 link look cheap! Second, how would use of smaller antennas screw anything up? I've been blown offline from interference that came from 30 MILES away. It was only an 11 mile link. They had 6' dishes an had the power cranked all the way up. I think I figured it at a 60 dB fade margin. And there was nothing in the rules that said they couldn't do that! Luckily they turned the power way down and my problem went away. With an ATPC requirement that never would have happened. Just because they mandate antenna sizes in no way means that it's the only, or today, even the best way to maximize frequency reuse. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:08 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz I don't think you would select 11GHz to go 100'. That's the whole point...let's hope FCC doesn't screw up 11GHz by allowing it's use for short haul applications. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:07 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz All due respect right back at ya! grin Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at heart is a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale or a cheap and easy 2' or 1' dish? I'm not willing to get into technical arguments about this issue. The fact is, each link is different. Each tower is different. It should be left up to the local operator to figure out what's best. ESPECIALLY in a licensed band. If they get interference, they can fix it. If they cause interference they have to fix it. I just don't like the idea of micro managing the pro's in our industry. Keep the interference issues dealt with but let folks use the latest and greatest technologies available to them. If I want to build a link across the train tracks, 100', there's NO reason for a large dish. Small dishes with lower power radios will do the trick nicely. And if we mandate atpc we can get away with 3 to 5 (or some other such really small number) fade margins too. No need for the typical microwave 30 dB fade margins. The problem with trying to engineer everything is that the real world often doesn't give a rats behind what the engineers say. I've spend my adult life (such as it is) finding ways to make what works on paper really work in the field. We need the paper, to be sure. But we also need the flexibility to do what's expedient in the field. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Marlon, With all due respect... We need solid engineering arguements if we're going to present an official WISPA position to the FCC. If we submit comments based on faulty engineering then it will be obvious to the FCC (the FCC has real engineers on staff) that we don't know what we're talking about. We will lose our hard-earned credibility with the FCC. What's the benefit of losing our credibility? No one here needs to be reminded that we're here to serve the interests of the WISP community. We all know that. A few of us have been in this industry since 1993. Some of us first offered WISP service in 1995. Some of us having been unselfishly serving the needs of the WISP community since 1995. The manufacturers are the ones that we are going to be buying our licensed 11 GHz equipment from. Why would their interest in 11 GHz
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote Mark, CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld by courts. YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying. CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance. The whole idea that WE are covered under CALEA is just FCC opinion, which is as changeable and variable as the wind. The ruling is capricious and founded on VAPOR, not substance. I just cannot believe you approve of unfunded federal mandates for public purposes. CALEA was not. Misapplying CALEA is. This is not OSHA mandates. This is not the same as requiring that a tower service company require their climbers to use a safety system. Not even close. If the federal government is justified with making us provide, AT OUR EXPENSE, law enforcement services, then we're one little itty bitty non- existent step from from being mandated to do ANYTHING they happen to wish for, and the wish lists from the swamp on the Potomac are so large they boggle the mind. And don't give me the we play dead for regulatory favors in the future crap. Nothing we do will buy us one MOMENT's worth of consideration, in EITHER direction. 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] CALEA compliance methods
Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share with each other about technical implementation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the conversation about whether to comply should be halted, just that some room be given to those of us who also want to speak about implementation. I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical standpoint. Thanks, Adam - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote Mark, CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld by courts. YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying. CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance. The whole idea that WE are covered under CALEA is just FCC opinion, which is as changeable and variable as the wind. The ruling is capricious and founded on VAPOR, not substance. I just cannot believe you approve of unfunded federal mandates for public purposes. CALEA was not. Misapplying CALEA is. This is not OSHA mandates. This is not the same as requiring that a tower service company require their climbers to use a safety system. Not even close. If the federal government is justified with making us provide, AT OUR EXPENSE, law enforcement services, then we're one little itty bitty non- existent step from from being mandated to do ANYTHING they happen to wish for, and the wish lists from the swamp on the Potomac are so large they boggle the mind. And don't give me the we play dead for regulatory favors in the future crap. Nothing we do will buy us one MOMENT's worth of consideration, in EITHER direction. 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
I bet the technical aspects of how to comply will be emerging soon. I understand the wispa calea meeting went very well. So there must be some good news. Adam Greene wrote: Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share with each other about technical implementation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the conversation about whether to comply should be halted, just that some room be given to those of us who also want to speak about implementation. I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical standpoint. Thanks, Adam - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote Mark, CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld by courts. YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying. CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance. The whole idea that WE are covered under CALEA is just FCC opinion, which is as changeable and variable as the wind. The ruling is capricious and founded on VAPOR, not substance. I just cannot believe you approve of unfunded federal mandates for public purposes. CALEA was not. Misapplying CALEA is. This is not OSHA mandates. This is not the same as requiring that a tower service company require their climbers to use a safety system. Not even close. If the federal government is justified with making us provide, AT OUR EXPENSE, law enforcement services, then we're one little itty bitty non- existent step from from being mandated to do ANYTHING they happen to wish for, and the wish lists from the swamp on the Potomac are so large they boggle the mind. And don't give me the we play dead for regulatory favors in the future crap. Nothing we do will buy us one MOMENT's worth of consideration, in EITHER direction. 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/ -- 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] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Brad, I see how my original comment could have been misinterpreted. There was an element of I don't have time for this. Now that I've taken the time (that I didn't have) and (hopefully) asked the right questions, I think it's time for others to follow up if they feel it's an important issue. Personally, I'm not worried at this point about allowing smaller 11 GHz antennas. I don't think it's going to cause us any problems with frequency availability. I think 11 GHz frequencies will be available when they are needed. FiberTower's investors include American Tower, Crown Castle and SpectraSite. I can't believe that those companies would want to do anything to screw up either the availability of frequencies or the sale of vertical real estate on their tower properties. Have a good day, jack Brad Belton wrote: Hello Jack, Good to see you're back on track with, IMO, a proper response to the 11GHz question/concerns. Your initial comment came off as who cares and we don't have time for this. John simply dittoed your comments, so what was the group left to believe? I apologize if I misunderstood your intent. Your questions/response below illustrate the type of post I would have expected from you in the first place. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Brad, I think you may be misquoting or misunderstanding me. No good can come from that. Real questions need to be asked and need to be correctly answered before we risk our reputation by filing comments with the FCC that are technically incomplete or technically incorrect. Here's a repost of my original post. ** Begin Original Post * It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them anyway. Finally, WISPA doesn't have an engineering staff that can adequately analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical response to submit to the FCC. End Original Post * NOWHERE did I say that the licensed frequency bands are not important to WISPS. Licensed backhauls are very important to WISPs. WISPs SHOULD use licensed backhauls wherever interference levels are high, where reliability is crucial, where throughput needs are high, and/or where full duplex links are needed. NOWHERE did I say that the focus of the group should be limited to unlicensed frequencies only. TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, I will restate each original paragraph and I will list the questions that each paragraph is implicitly asking. *** PARAGRAPH 1 - It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. In other words, we need to know the minimum dish size now and we need to know what dish sizes FiberTower is proposing before we can begin to understand if there is any affect on us and before we can formulate our position. QUESTION: SO WHAT ARE THOSE DISH SIZES NOW, BEFORE A RULES CHANGE AND AFTER THE PROPOSED RULES CHANGE? QUESTION: WHAT'S THE TRUE IMPACT, IF ANY, ON US IF THE FCC ALLOWS SMALLER DISH SIZES TO BE USED? QUESTION: ONCE WE UNDERSTAND THE TRUE IMPACT, IF ANY, WHAT POSITION SHOULD WE TAKE BEFORE THE FCC? ** PARAGRAPH 2 - I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. QUESTION: DOES A REDUCTION IN DISH SIZE REALLY AFFECT US? QUESTION: HOW DOES IT REALLY AFFECT US? ARE 11 GHz FREQUENCIES CURRENTLY IN SHORT SUPPLY IN THE AREAS WHERE MOST WISPs OPERATE? QUESTION: HAS ANY WISP EVER BEEN DENIED A LICENSE FOR AN 11 GHz FREQUENCY? IF SO, WHERE? HOW OFTEN HAS THIS HAPPENED? QUESTION: ARE THERE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES BEFORE THE FCC THAT WE NEED TO DEVOTE OUR TIME AND ENERGY TO? WHAT ARE THOSE ISSUES? WHITE SPACE? WISPS AS AN INFORMATION SERVICE? FCC's BROADBAND SERVICES SURVEY? CALEA? OTHERS?? * PARAGRAPH 3 - I think this is an
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Mark, Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not. As quoted from the link I sent you earlier; Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the CALEA proceeding to apply CALEA obligations to all wireless broadband Internet access providers, including mobile wireless providers, or our interpretations of the provisions of CALEA itself. As the Commission found, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed, the purposes and intent of CALEA are strikingly different than those of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is embedded in the Communications Act. As the Court noted, “CALEA--unlike the 1996 Act--is a law-enforcement statute . . . (requiring telecommunications carriers to enable ‘the government’ to conduct electronic surveillance) . . . . The Communications Act (of which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted ‘[f]or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio’ . . . . The Commission's interpretation of CALEA reasonably differs from its interpretation of the 1996 Act, given the differences between the two statutes.”121 Thus, our interpretation of the separate statutory provisions in section 332 of the Communications Act, whose purposes closely track those of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Communications Act generally, in no way affects our determination that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service providers are subject to the CALEA statute.122 Here is the link again so you can read it if you choose to do so. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro wispa wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote Mark, wispa wrote: I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet to write a law that says we have to do squat. Did you even bother to read the press release mentioned in your recent post? http://www.askcalea.com/docs/20040317.fbi.release.pdf As quoted from the press release mentioned above; Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 to help the nation's law enforcement community maintain its ability to use court-authorized electronic surveillance as an important investigative tool in an era of new telecommunications technologies and services. Today, electronic surveillance plays a vitally important role in law enforcement's ability to ensure national security and public safety. Also quoted from the same press release; Specifically, the petition requests the FCC establish rules that formally identify services and entities covered by CALEA, so both law enforcement and industry are on notice with respect to CALEA obligations and compliance. The petition makes this request because disagreements continue between industry and law enforcement over whether certain services are subject to CALEA. The petition requests [WINDOWS-1252?] the FCC find “broadband access” and “broadband telephony” to be subject to CALEA. Ok... here's an old joke. What's the difference between dogs and cats? The dog looks at you and says you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... You must be a god!. The cat looks at you and says you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... I must be a god!. We're saying EXACTLY the same thing, but the perspective is different. Read up on CALEA itself. There's absolutely NOTHING in it that even remotely addresses ISP's. It addresses TAPPING TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. Nothing else. It is VERY specific. When it was written, broadband didn't even EXIST, how COULD they have written a law that applies to it? It's as if Congress wrote a law that regulates the maintenance schedules on trains. Along comes OSHA, and demands that the DOT rule that the law must apply to trucking, as well, even though the whole concept is absurd. Congress knew it would NEVER get away with just wholesale handing it's shopping list of demands to industry for changes in the way it's equipment worked, and making industry PAY for it. Duhhh. That would never have made it past... well... even a kangaroo court. And the telcos would have fought it, collectively, with all thier legal muscle. Over the years, the FCC has (correctly) and and consistently insisted we are NOT telecommunications services or providers. Now, it suddenly says we ARE, but only for purposes of CALEA. Ohhh, could you park that decision on anything closer to what resembles vapor? I doubt it. Even worse, since the law
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
The best stratergy to take towards CALEA is to get familiar and get ready to comply. If for some reason it turns out some don't have to comply, then no loss. If it turns out that we all have to comply, then we're ahead of the game. Think positive! Dawn DiPietro wrote: Mark, Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not. As quoted from the link I sent you earlier; Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the CALEA proceeding to apply CALEA obligations to all wireless broadband Internet access providers, including mobile wireless providers, or our interpretations of the provisions of CALEA itself. As the Commission found, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed, the purposes and intent of CALEA are strikingly different than those of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is embedded in the Communications Act. As the Court noted, “CALEA--unlike the 1996 Act--is a law-enforcement statute . . . (requiring telecommunications carriers to enable ‘the government’ to conduct electronic surveillance) . . . . The Communications Act (of which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted ‘[f]or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio’ . . . . The Commission's interpretation of CALEA reasonably differs from its interpretation of the 1996 Act, given the differences between the two statutes.”121 Thus, our interpretation of the separate statutory provisions in section 332 of the Communications Act, whose purposes closely track those of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Communications Act generally, in no way affects our determination that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service providers are subject to the CALEA statute.122 Here is the link again so you can read it if you choose to do so. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro wispa wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote Mark, wispa wrote: I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet to write a law that says we have to do squat. Did you even bother to read the press release mentioned in your recent post? http://www.askcalea.com/docs/20040317.fbi.release.pdf As quoted from the press release mentioned above; Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 to help the nation's law enforcement community maintain its ability to use court-authorized electronic surveillance as an important investigative tool in an era of new telecommunications technologies and services. Today, electronic surveillance plays a vitally important role in law enforcement's ability to ensure national security and public safety. Also quoted from the same press release; Specifically, the petition requests the FCC establish rules that formally identify services and entities covered by CALEA, so both law enforcement and industry are on notice with respect to CALEA obligations and compliance. The petition makes this request because disagreements continue between industry and law enforcement over whether certain services are subject to CALEA. The petition requests [WINDOWS-1252?] the FCC find “broadband access” and “broadband telephony” to be subject to CALEA. Ok... here's an old joke. What's the difference between dogs and cats? The dog looks at you and says you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... You must be a god!. The cat looks at you and says you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... I must be a god!. We're saying EXACTLY the same thing, but the perspective is different. Read up on CALEA itself. There's absolutely NOTHING in it that even remotely addresses ISP's. It addresses TAPPING TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. Nothing else. It is VERY specific. When it was written, broadband didn't even EXIST, how COULD they have written a law that applies to it? It's as if Congress wrote a law that regulates the maintenance schedules on trains. Along comes OSHA, and demands that the DOT rule that the law must apply to trucking, as well, even though the whole concept is absurd. Congress knew it would NEVER get away with just wholesale handing it's shopping list of demands to industry for changes in the way it's equipment worked, and making industry PAY for it. Duhhh. That would never have made it past... well... even a kangaroo court. And the telcos would have fought it, collectively, with all thier legal muscle. Over the years, the FCC has (correctly) and and
[WISPA] Wireless Credit Cards
Courtesy of ATT wireless. Just wave your cell phone at the cash register! What will they think of next? -- 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] Wireless Credit Cards
George, In Japan they have been doing this for quite awhile now. Regards, Dawn George Rogato wrote: Courtesy of ATT wireless. Just wave your cell phone at the cash register! What will they think of next? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Credit Cards
Imagine a hacker type that could just drive downtown Tokyo and charge everyones cell phone at the same time. I bet they could rack up so much money, they couldn't move it fast enough. Dawn DiPietro wrote: George, In Japan they have been doing this for quite awhile now. Regards, Dawn George Rogato wrote: Courtesy of ATT wireless. Just wave your cell phone at the cash register! What will they think of next? -- 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] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:07:51 -0400, Adam Greene wrote Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share with each other about technical implementation. EVen if tomorrow, CALEA vanished, it is true that we need the capabilities of doing this. Thanks for pointing that out. The problem lies in that the CALEA technical discussion revolves around unknown technical requirements / capabilities. We can only discuss it in sort of a theoretical concept. At the moment, my abilities are ... well, they don't exist. Nothing in the software / hardware on my network, AT ANY POINT can be modified to do this. I would have to go to my upstream and ask them to mirror or log or otherwise catch the traffic, since that is the only present single point ot exist where all traffic in / out of my network passes. And that won't be for long, as I'll soon have multiple providers and dynamic routing. I can't even do policy based routing at the moment to force all the traffic from one client to anywhere. However, none of this really matters. We don't know what the demands are technically. The theoretical requirements are that we intercept at the CPE. Who the bloody heck has CPE that can do that? Few WISP's do. The vast majority do not. Further, if CALEA requirements apply to WISP's, then CALEA requirements apply to WISP equipment providers, just like they do to telco equipment providers. Another can of worms, entirely. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the conversation about whether to comply should be halted, just that some room be given to those of us who also want to speak about implementation. To add to that, I welcome the conversation about not compliance, since that's a very specific and detailed demand, but simply about how to assist LEA's in catching bad guys. That's something a good lot of us will eventually end up doing. I just don't believe it is proper or right for me to be an unpaid lackey who is forced to do whatever they want out of my own pocket. I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical standpoint. Thanks, Adam - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods 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] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:17:09 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote Mark, Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not. As quoted from the link I sent you earlier; Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the CALEA proceeding to apply CALEA obligations to all wireless broadband Internet access providers, including mobile wireless providers, or our interpretations of the provisions of CALEA itself. As the Commission found, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed, the purposes and intent of CALEA are strikingly different than those of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is [WINDOWS-1252?] embedded in the Communications Act. As the Court noted, CALEA- -unlike the 1996 Act--is a law-enforcement statute . . . [WINDOWS-1252?] (requiring telecommunications carriers to enable the government to conduct electronic surveillance) . . . . The Communications Act (of [WINDOWS-1252?] which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted [f] or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in [WINDOWS-1252?] communication by wire and radio . . . . The Commission's interpretation of CALEA reasonably differs from its interpretation [WINDOWS-1252?] of the 1996 Act, given the differences between the two statutes.121 Thus, our interpretation of the separate statutory provisions in section 332 of the Communications Act, whose purposes closely track those of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Communications Act generally, in no way affects our determination that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service providers are subject to the CALEA statute.122 Here is the link again so you can read it if you choose to do so. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf Dawn, respectfully... But, please understand my point. Tomorrow, the FCC COULD reverse it's opinion and we'd be exempt. JUST LIKE THAT, without a single court decision, without a single sentence from Congress, etc. In fact, WE WERE EXEMPT until 2006, when the FCC changed its mind. So, what kind of law applies ... or doesn't... Depending on the whim of unelected beaurocrats? CALEA isn't that vague. It's just misapplied. I maintain that the FCC is in error in it's interpretation of what is a telecommunications provider and we should be shouting it at them at 36dbm and 102 decibels. In fact, EVERY ISP, NSP, etc, organization should be snowing the FCC under in objections. And maybe some legal efforts, too. 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] CALEA compliance methods
I have posted a couple of messages over on the Mikrotik forum over the last month or so. Mikrotik first basically said why should we care- we are in Latvia. After a little pressure from users, they began to ask for more information about the subject. I'm not at all knowledgeable enough to discuss the technical specs of the format, but I'm sure there are some folks around that are. Let's get MT users and prospective users rallied and do what we can to ebcourage MT to comply. It can only help us more and should also create a yardstick for other manufacturers. Here is a link to the threads http://forum.mikrotik.com/search.php?mode=resultssid=723d81c229563812d900d2 0b3a31a900 Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Greene Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share with each other about technical implementation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the conversation about whether to comply should be halted, just that some room be given to those of us who also want to speak about implementation. I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical standpoint. Thanks, Adam - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote Mark, CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld by courts. YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying. CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance. The whole idea that WE are covered under CALEA is just FCC opinion, which is as changeable and variable as the wind. The ruling is capricious and founded on VAPOR, not substance. I just cannot believe you approve of unfunded federal mandates for public purposes. CALEA was not. Misapplying CALEA is. This is not OSHA mandates. This is not the same as requiring that a tower service company require their climbers to use a safety system. Not even close. If the federal government is justified with making us provide, AT OUR EXPENSE, law enforcement services, then we're one little itty bitty non- existent step from from being mandated to do ANYTHING they happen to wish for, and the wish lists from the swamp on the Potomac are so large they boggle the mind. And don't give me the we play dead for regulatory favors in the future crap. Nothing we do will buy us one MOMENT's worth of consideration, in EITHER direction. 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/ -- 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] CALEA compliance methods
Mark, Right or wrong, Congress regularly delegates rule-making to the various agencies. They pass laws that are purposely vague and/or broad and they empower the various agencies (and the courts, ultimately) to fill in the blanks. It's questionable Constitutionally, if you believe that we should follow the original intent of the Constitution...but that cat left the bag decades ago. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wispa Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:17:09 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote Mark, Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not. As quoted from the link I sent you earlier; Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the CALEA proceeding to apply CALEA obligations to all wireless broadband Internet access providers, including mobile wireless providers, or our interpretations of the provisions of CALEA itself. As the Commission found, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed, the purposes and intent of CALEA are strikingly different than those of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is [WINDOWS-1252?] embedded in the Communications Act. As the Court noted, CALEA- -unlike the 1996 Act--is a law-enforcement statute . . . [WINDOWS-1252?] (requiring telecommunications carriers to enable 'the government' to conduct electronic surveillance) . . . . The Communications Act (of [WINDOWS-1252?] which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted '[f] or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in [WINDOWS-1252?] communication by wire and radio' . . . . The Commission's interpretation of CALEA reasonably differs from its interpretation [WINDOWS-1252?] of the 1996 Act, given the differences between the two statutes.121 Thus, our interpretation of the separate statutory provisions in section 332 of the Communications Act, whose purposes closely track those of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Communications Act generally, in no way affects our determination that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service providers are subject to the CALEA statute.122 Here is the link again so you can read it if you choose to do so. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf Dawn, respectfully... But, please understand my point. Tomorrow, the FCC COULD reverse it's opinion and we'd be exempt. JUST LIKE THAT, without a single court decision, without a single sentence from Congress, etc. In fact, WE WERE EXEMPT until 2006, when the FCC changed its mind. So, what kind of law applies ... or doesn't... Depending on the whim of unelected beaurocrats? CALEA isn't that vague. It's just misapplied. I maintain that the FCC is in error in it's interpretation of what is a telecommunications provider and we should be shouting it at them at 36dbm and 102 decibels. In fact, EVERY ISP, NSP, etc, organization should be snowing the FCC under in objections. And maybe some legal efforts, too. 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:29:18 -0400, Jeff Broadwick wrote Mark, Right or wrong, Congress regularly delegates rule-making to the various agencies. They pass laws that are purposely vague and/or broad and they empower the various agencies (and the courts, ultimately) to fill in the blanks. But CALEA wasn't vague. They used as precise of wording as they could in 1994 and there wasn't an iota of doubt as to what they wanted and who they wanted it from. It's questionable Constitutionally, if you believe that we should follow the original intent of the Constitution...but that cat left the bag decades ago. Time for some stuffing the cat BACK, then. Gee, every day I read some man or woman died serving me in some far off place. And we're afraid to say NO! to the overreaching fat sow in DC? Forget that noise, as my dad used to say when he thought my arguments were weak. 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] CALEA compliance methods
Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router. Likewise, although assistance from manufacturors is nice, it is not requisite and in some ways may complicate matters since you can end up with hundreds of different monitoring nodes and several different interfaces unless you have complete uniformity across your network. Generally, the easiest and most cost effective approach is to place taps at key points in your network that give you access to traffic. If you backhaul all of your wireless traffic to a central points, a single tap at the central point can monitor all of the traffic from the wireless cells. The tapping process itself does not need to be expensive or complicated. Any decent switch (if it doesn't, you probably shouldn't be using it to begin with) has some sort of port mirroring built in that can easily function as a tap. If not, ethernet and fiber taps are fairly cheap ($100-$200 or so on the second hand market). The tap can be hooked into a server running tcpdump or similiar software or various commercially available. This provides complete compliance for a fairly reasonable cost. Having a tap on each wireless access point, etc...needlessly complicates the whole affair and increases cost drastically. If you are doing backhaul via an Internet T1 or similiar, the upstream carrier may be doing some of this for you. However, you do have to analyze carefully to ensure that you are compliant in this situation. Note that this actually is a good idea to have even without CALEA as you can get a good idea as to what traffic is actually running on your network and can better track down virus/hackers/other malicious traffic. - I have posted a couple of messages over on the Mikrotik forum over the last month or so. Mikrotik first basically said why should we care- we are in Latvia. After a little pressure from users, they began to ask for more information about the subject. I'm not at all knowledgeable enough to discuss the technical specs of the format, but I'm sure there are some folks around that are. Let's get MT users and prospective users rallied and do what we can to ebcourage MT to comply. It can only help us more and should also create a yardstick for other manufacturers. Here is a link to the threads http://forum.mikrotik.com/search.php?mode=resultssid=723d81c229563812d900d2 0b3a31a900 Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Greene Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share with each other about technical implementation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the conversation about whether to comply should be halted, just that some room be given to those of us who also want to speak about implementation. I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical standpoint. Thanks, Adam - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote Mark, CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld by courts. YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying. CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance. The whole idea that WE are covered under CALEA is just FCC opinion, which is as changeable and variable as the wind. The ruling is capricious and founded on VAPOR, not substance. I just cannot believe you approve of unfunded federal mandates for public purposes. CALEA was not. Misapplying CALEA is. This is not OSHA mandates. This is not the same as requiring that a tower service company require their climbers to use a safety system. Not even close. If the federal government is justified with making us provide, AT OUR EXPENSE, law enforcement services, then we're one little itty bitty non- existent step from from being mandated to do ANYTHING they happen to wish for, and the wish lists from the swamp on the Potomac are so large they boggle the mind. And don't give me the we play dead for regulatory favors in the future crap. Nothing we do will buy us one MOMENT's worth of consideration, in EITHER direction. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Credit Cards
George Rogato wrote: Imagine a hacker type that could just drive downtown Tokyo and charge everyones cell phone at the same time. As Dawn mentioned, this has been big in Japan for a while, and AFAIK nothing like this has happened yet. Usually, you do have to confirm (via pressing buttons on your phone) that you want to buy something from that Coke machine or whatever. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Mark, Enough with the analogies. CALEA is law - not once but twice - 1934 and 1996. Courts have upheld the FCC decision on what CALEA covers. The same laws that give the DOJ the right to wiretap, gives the FCC the right to create guidelines. I don't like it, any more than I like ATT letting the NSA tap every thing that runs through it's pipes or any more than I like the Patriot Act (which only helps strengthen the FCC and DOJ's right to decide what can and cannot be wiretapped). But there it is. How about we just concentrate on being compliance in the next 45 days? Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, 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] CALEA compliance methods
I've been looking over OpenCALEA - I can't really see any reason for a NON-VOIP provider that it wouldn't do everything properly needed from a Linux command prompt on a 700mhz old HP Presario, all for a cost of less than $100 for a used computer. And when OpenCALEA is done, it will solve 99% of our problems, minus potential network design issues (routed vs. bridged) but even those can eventually be overcome. Now VOIP, maybe needs more in OpenCALEA to work, but why argue, let's just help make OpenCALEA work, if we NEED to do it, it's cheap, available and we're compliant should their opinion actually become fact. Already the FBI's accused of abusing their powers of the Patriot Act, but let's face it. Whether we like it or not EVENTUALLY the NEED to wiretap broadband connections WILL emerge. The bad guys aren't going to go away any time soon. So whether this year we're an information service, if every wired (DSL, Cable, etc) is wiretappable, and we are not, the bad guys will FLOCK to our networks.And then we will be forced in 1,2 years to do it anyways. I do NOT advocate spending hundreds of thousands to do this. I DO advocate developing a free solution like OpenCALEA and maybe even seeing it ported to Windows for those ISPs who don't have linux help at hand. It's inevitable guys, how can YOUR upstream give them YOUR customers information from an IP address? We can't sit around hoping to pawn this task off on someone else. When the FBI calls your upstream and asks them to tap Tony Montana's broadband connection, and they say, who the heck is that, that's XYZ Wireless ISP? Then they call you and ask, and you say We can't do it. And those ISPs who NAT their customers can't rely on the upstream for help. So then what? Big media press release that Wireless ISPs are the reason criminals are getting away with fraud, identity theft, etc. I'm not saying this will happen, but logically, what choice IS there other than having the ability to do this? - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router. Likewise, although assistance from manufacturors is nice, it is not requisite and in some ways may complicate matters since you can end up with hundreds of different monitoring nodes and several different interfaces unless you have complete uniformity across your network. Generally, the easiest and most cost effective approach is to place taps at key points in your network that give you access to traffic. If you backhaul all of your wireless traffic to a central points, a single tap at the central point can monitor all of the traffic from the wireless cells. The tapping process itself does not need to be expensive or complicated. Any decent switch (if it doesn't, you probably shouldn't be using it to begin with) has some sort of port mirroring built in that can easily function as a tap. If not, ethernet and fiber taps are fairly cheap ($100-$200 or so on the second hand market). The tap can be hooked into a server running tcpdump or similiar software or various commercially available. This provides complete compliance for a fairly reasonable cost. Having a tap on each wireless access point, etc...needlessly complicates the whole affair and increases cost drastically. If you are doing backhaul via an Internet T1 or similiar, the upstream carrier may be doing some of this for you. However, you do have to analyze carefully to ensure that you are compliant in this situation. Note that this actually is a good idea to have even without CALEA as you can get a good idea as to what traffic is actually running on your network and can better track down virus/hackers/other malicious traffic. - I have posted a couple of messages over on the Mikrotik forum over the last month or so. Mikrotik first basically said why should we care- we are in Latvia. After a little pressure from users, they began to ask for more information about the subject. I'm not at all knowledgeable enough to discuss the technical specs of the format, but I'm sure there are some folks around that are. Let's get MT users and prospective users rallied and do what we can to ebcourage MT to comply. It can only help us more and should also create a yardstick for other manufacturers. Here is a link to the threads http://forum.mikrotik.com/search.php?mode=resultssid=723d81c229563812d900d2 0b3a31a900 Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Greene Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like
Re: [WISPA] IPTV Net DVR
Sam, The content rights owners are strong - and a PITA. There business model revolves around record once, sell thousands of times to the same consumer. That model of course is broken - and Gen Y disregards it. If the RIAA and the MPAA keep pushing, a group may get together and sue. Like tobacco, the first time they lose a copyright fight will be the last. The cable companies think that it will be cheaper; more consumer friendly; and more advertiser friendly to have a Network DVR ... where TV watching becomes totlly on-demand. Cablevision based in NYC is the MSO that lost the copyright court battle. (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2107528,00.asp) ATT's HomeZone uses PRISMIQ (http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3289311) for On-Demand, but mainly for movies and internet content, not TV content. Regards, Peter @ RAD-INFO Sam Tetherow wrote: That agrees with most of the anecdotal information that I have on it, which is why I am very interested if Peter has information on someone doing it or, if like the rest of the world outside the digital rights holders, he see the immense value of being able to do so for your customer base. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless David Hughes wrote: One of the major cable systems just lost that fight. The studios and networks filed suit and won on the issue of copyright infringmement. Dave -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Clint Ricker wrote: Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router. Wouldn't it be cool, and cheap, if it was just that easy? Here's your encrypted access to xxx customers radio / port, it's yours to monitor...? Maybe a CALEA button that we can turn on at will Somehow I doubt it will be this easy. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint
Hello Clint. You are confusing me. When I mention MT, I said routers, not CPE. We don't use non type accepted CPE and therefore don't have MT in any form at the customer end. However our site routers and even the edge router ARE MT- even the edge router. Those are what I am talking about. I didn't say anything about putting any certain number of units in. And I really don't see how that would turn into hundreds of monitoring nodes. I'd just as soon only have to mess with it at one or two places. Our network is fed from two different points, but from the same provider. This provider told another WISP in the area (that he also upstreams) that he would not be able to do CALEA capture for us, but has now publicly said that he can. We'll have to see how that goes as it develops. If he will, then that makes him an even more valuable provider. Cisco's CALEA solution is at the router level. This seems to be the most logical place to do the tap- especially if the equipment/license/whatever is costly. The fewer costly licenses that need to be bought, the better it is for the small guy. We are very small (make that tiny). We all know that a decent switch can mirror a port. We also know how to sniff packets. What we don't know is how to package this data up with a nice pretty red bow the way Joe Law wants it. As far as I understand it, this is what Cisco is saying they will do (although I'm sure it will not be free). Imagestream is promising something as well. Those of us who don't use Cisco or Imagestream have to hope that our hardware provider will come up with a way, too. Aren't we really on the same page, here? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router. Likewise, although assistance from manufacturors is nice, it is not requisite and in some ways may complicate matters since you can end up with hundreds of different monitoring nodes and several different interfaces unless you have complete uniformity across your network. Generally, the easiest and most cost effective approach is to place taps at key points in your network that give you access to traffic. If you backhaul all of your wireless traffic to a central points, a single tap at the central point can monitor all of the traffic from the wireless cells. The tapping process itself does not need to be expensive or complicated. Any decent switch (if it doesn't, you probably shouldn't be using it to begin with) has some sort of port mirroring built in that can easily function as a tap. If not, ethernet and fiber taps are fairly cheap ($100-$200 or so on the second hand market). The tap can be hooked into a server running tcpdump or similiar software or various commercially available. This provides complete compliance for a fairly reasonable cost. Having a tap on each wireless access point, etc...needlessly complicates the whole affair and increases cost drastically. If you are doing backhaul via an Internet T1 or similiar, the upstream carrier may be doing some of this for you. However, you do have to analyze carefully to ensure that you are compliant in this situation. Note that this actually is a good idea to have even without CALEA as you can get a good idea as to what traffic is actually running on your network and can better track down virus/hackers/other malicious traffic. - I have posted a couple of messages over on the Mikrotik forum over the last month or so. Mikrotik first basically said why should we care- we are in Latvia. After a little pressure from users, they began to ask for more information about the subject. I'm not at all knowledgeable enough to discuss the technical specs of the format, but I'm sure there are some folks around that are. Let's get MT users and prospective users rallied and do what we can to ebcourage MT to comply. It can only help us more and should also create a yardstick for other manufacturers. Here is a link to the threads http://forum.mikrotik.com/search.php?mode=resultssid=723d81c229563812d900d2 0b3a31a900 Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Greene Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share with each other about technical implementation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the conversation about whether to comply should be halted, just
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Yeah, that's it! Naw it's not. I shouldn't be embarassed to tell the truth. The 48 display is the lowest tech thing in the livingroom. It's an almost 10yr old Toshiba rear-projection TV, and the PC simply uses a TV out. So when Sam Tetherow says the stuff that uses 1/10th of the bandwidth are not made to be displayed on a 42 HD monitor, he's correct ... but Slingbox, LocationFree, and BeyondTV compressed recordings look just fine to me (about the same as analog cable looked). Rich - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV It wouldn't happen to be this one: http://www.samsung.com/Products/ProAV/Plasmas/PPM50M5HBXXAA.asp?page=Specifications I was thinking of buying this last year. Held off looking for lower pricing, so I can buy 2. George Rich Comroe wrote: I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Yeah, but ... My living room big picture that I watch from my easy chair happens to be my PC video server, not a TV. It's been over a year since I used a TV (which I define as a display box with a TV tuner built in). The living room PC has a couple TV tuner cards, Internet connection, and drives a big 48 display. Watch cable, programs previously recorded to disk (BeyondTV software is great with a half-terabyte drives), or Internet content. There's never even been a keyboard on this machine. If I wanna navigate there's a wireless mouse that sits on the hassock next to the tuner card remote controls. If I really need to type, I have to use a laptop with VNC. Essentially a TIVO on steroids. It's geek heaven! Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. Yeah, but ... Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW. Is IPTV really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps? How could it possibly compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW? Rich - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Nice easy reading here. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand. Here's a link: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But there is a convergence happening. I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Travis Johnson wrote: I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account automatically anyway. (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone service or TV service to something different, I can. (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed (50% utilization of the 500
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of
Mark, You make some good observations, but I think you miss the overall point. In the end, the technical details of who can deliver what Mb/s doesn't matter when your competitor wins customers because they can offer services that you can't. It is true that cable and telco backbones can't handle a simultaneous sustained 1Mb/s to all of their subscribers; last mile is the most talked about limitation; however, transport to the node is a major limitation although less so as many service providers are upgrading to fiber backhaul infrastructure. Regardless, cable companies (and Verizon) don't need to be able to push a sustained 1Mb/s to all subscribers because they are simply pushing the video on the wire as analog or digital signal; it is not framed in IP and doesn't count in terms of bandwidth. They can do this because their medium (coax/fiber) can handle this sort of approach and has lots of capacity in terms of available frequencies. Since copper pairs can't handle the amount of data of coax or fiber, ATT's U-Verse service runs ADSL2 service, splits off 20Mb/s or so for video, and then uses multicast so that each television station needs to be sent to the node only once regardless of how many houses are watching it. This isn't video on demand, just simple television streamed over IP. Video on Demand can't really be done via a multicast system since it is on demand. Because of this, VOD is quite expensive per instance in terms of bandwidth/capacity. The exception to this method is satellite (in combo with DVR's); dish/directtv download their popular VOD titles to the DVR so that you can select them at any time. In any case, I think the discussion of Video on Demand is jumping the gun a little bit; it is much more difficult than traditional television service. In other words, if you can't figure out how to make your network support regular TV, then VOD will never happen in any meaningful way. Even among cable companies that have been doing video quite well for 50+ years, VOD is the exception, not the rule. For the next part, it is important to distinguish between broadcast and multicast. Broadcast sends the same traffic to all members of a network; multicast sends the same traffic to selected members of a network (for the discussion here, ones that have opted in to particular multicast streams). The bandwidth factor with wireless is limiting, no matter how you cut it. While your point about the limited backhaul capacity is valid (although limited is a relative term), the other technologies do have some features that allow providers to overcome limitations. To sum up these differences --- Cable is a high capacity (good) broadcast system (ehh, not so good) (in other words, there is lots of capacity, but all traffic goes to all subscribers). This allows for content to be broadcast to all subscribers, no problem. Video on demand, however, eventually becomes a problem because too many people ordering VOD at once can easily overwhelm the last mile for an entire subscriber base at once. --- ADSL is a low capacity (bad) point to point (good) system. This allows multicast to work quite well and is a quite elegant way to deliver content on a large scale. Video on demand actually works well in this scenario, but the last mile pipe for individual subscribers can be easily overwhelmed. --- Wireless is, well, the worse of both. When all is said and done, it is a low capacity broadcast medium. The broadcast aspect means that multicast is pretty much irrelevant, since a selective join means nothing when the information is getting sent to all subscribers regardless. The low capacity means there is simply not enough bandwidth to broadcast very many channels. There are some ways around this, but it does/would require concentrated buildout specifically for that purpose. Alternatively, partnering (as uneven of a partnership as it may be) with DirectTV/Dish can also be a good idea even if it doesn't actually make much money in and of itself (which it won't). Regardless, I don't think, however, that ignoring video is a smart strategy. Yes, there are consumers who don't like integration. However, bundling services gives major players the means to aggressively undercut competition while still maintaining profitability, and, potential for new services based on the integration of voice/video/data allows for a better value even if they never engage in an all-out price war. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 All, And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods - 3rd party
There are 3rd party vendors, like IP Fabrics with CALEA compliance gear. For data it shouldn't be that big of a deal since the Edge Router (connecting your WAN with your upstream) should be able to be tapped, if you use what I will call a brand name (Cisco, Juniper, Redback, blah, blah and soon WISPA's vendor member, Image Stream). For VOIP, it is a bear. SIP streams have to be hooked at many different points. So 3rd party gear built for this might be preferred. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. Ralph wrote: As far as I understand it, this is what Cisco is saying they will do (although I'm sure it will not be free). Imagestream is promising something as well. Those of us who don't use Cisco or Imagestream have to hope that our hardware provider will come up with a way, too. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Intel Announces Tremendous Breakthrough
...one of the big differences between standard Wi-Fi and Intel's long-range version lies in the fact that the long-range signals are directional: they are tuned to travel from one antenna to another one and nowhere else. A standard Wi-Fi antenna broadcasts its signal in a 360-degree circle... http://news.com.com/Intel+modifies+Wi-Fi+to+add+mileage/2100-7351_3-6170713.html http://news.com.com/5208-7351_3-0.html?forumID=1threadID=26098messageID=251455start=-1 -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of
Clint Ricker wrote: It is true that cable and telco backbones can't handle a simultaneous sustained 1Mb/s to all of their subscribers; last mile is the most talked about limitation; however, transport to the node is a major limitation although less so as many service providers are upgrading to fiber backhaul infrastructure. --- The bottleneck is the Node for all networks. Regardless, cable companies (and Verizon) don't need to be able to push a sustained 1Mb/s to all subscribers because they are simply pushing the video on the wire as analog or digital signal; it is not framed in IP and doesn't count in terms of bandwidth. They can do this because their medium (coax/fiber) can handle this sort of approach and has lots of capacity in terms of available frequencies. --- VZ actually uses 85% of the bandwidth that they promise you for TV. -- When they push 30MB to your house that includes the TV bw. - Don't know this for sure since I have a disdain for VZ, but my neighbors have claimed this. - The MSO's HFC uses a multiplexing formula, but it has limits due to heat. In other words, if you can't figure out how to make your network support regular TV, then VOD will never happen in any meaningful way. Even among cable companies that have been doing video quite well for 50+ years, VOD is the exception, not the rule. --- You are so right. -- Many of the 1000+ smaller MSO's and PCO's are selling out now, because DBS is taking market share and the cost to upgrade their antiquated analog head-end system would be millions -- money they do not think that they can recover. -- Cablecos owe about $100B on the upgrade to DOCSIS 2.0 -- The upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 will be aboout the same. -- The $400 per set-top box is the hard part to get over because at $5 per month, the numbers don't work and it is a huge capital expense upfront. Regardless, I don't think, however, that ignoring video is a smart strategy. Yes, there are consumers who don't like integration. However, bundling services gives major players the means to aggressively undercut competition while still maintaining profitability, and, potential for new services based on the integration of voice/video/data allows for a better value even if they never engage in an all-out price war. -- The cablecos have an advantage because they are moving from the flattened, not-so-profitable market of TV to the much-more-profitable world of internet and voice. Whereas the telcos are going the other way. And while sustaining a debt burden for each home passed (exceeding $2000) there is also the considerable cost of acquisition at a reduced rate (means less revenue and less profit). I don't know how this will work out in the long run. The penetration rate for VZ right now is less than 15% according to some studies and 15-18% according to VZ's latest press. That ain't a lot. VOD -- without a Network DVR it won't go far. Even the DBS guys don't really have it. IPTV - will be a nifty trick if M$ can ever get it to work. PPV - where the money is right now for all TV providers and hospitality units. There are far more crative things to offer your client base than video. If you are going to try video - why not stuff like CinemaNow (PPV), Video Email (Vmail), SightSpeed (video blogs), or Video Conferencing, where the bandwidth costs are less. That's my 2 cents. Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] why join when you disagree?
One reason would be so that your voice and opinion are heard. Maybe you and Mark can take Board seats and WISPA would take a turn towards your view of how things should be. Rarely does an ISP association represent the views of the louder minority. Since it is volunteer and made up of entrepreneur's, usually the one who donated the time gets more of the say. Or the Board members make most of the rules. (Not saying that is how it is with WISPA because I have no clue, but that IS how it is with quite a few other ISP assoc.) So, Blair, none of what WISPA has done, you agree with? Then why are you still on the list? Also, to lobby and fight takes effort, energy, time and money. And it needs someone to lead the charge. So you and Mark feel very strongly about both CALEA and form 477, why not head up to the Hill or to the FCC and state your case? Regards, Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. Blair Davis wrote: On another subject Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? -- Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] why join ... a rant
I haven't joined yet either. Three reasons: (1) I would have to join as a vendor, since I am a consultant - and I can't as yet see the ROI. (2) I see the similarities here to another group that I belonged to ... and I don't want to go down that path again. (3) I have a real problem with joining a group where participants pick and choose what laws and regulations they will and will not follow - and try to rally people to oppose such laws. Now you can argue all day about whether I am right or wrong in this viewpoint, but that is MY perspective and you cannot change that no matter how much arguing you do. Let's use a real world analogy. Let's say this was a NASCAR list. And I got a speeding ticket on I-4 going 88 in a 70 when there were maybe 5 cars on that stretch of straight, flat plain, 3-lane highway. And I moan about the ticket and how unfair it was. It was entrapment. The cop was in a unmarked car hidden behind a concrete barrier. So what if I was speeding! There was no one around. Blah blah blah. It's a banal argument and a waste of bytes - and an admission of guilt. Thanks, Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. Blair Davis wrote: On another subject Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? -- Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] price
Hi, Anyone happen to know the MSRP of the new Redline AN-80 5.4ghz p2p system? Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Thanks all for the interesting posts ... Regarding tapping at the edge between my upstream provider and me, I'm of the understanding that I need to be able to capture all of my customer's data, even that which passes between one customer and another, or between my customer and my mail server, or my customer and one of my other customers' colocated servers, etc. From that standpoint, the way I have been looking at it is to mirror the packets as close to the core of my network as possible, but no later than the first juncture where my customer's traffic can be routed or bridged to another customer or server. Since almost all of our customers have dedicated VLANs which terminate on a core layer 3 switch, for most of them I can just SPAN the corresponding layer 3 switch port. Some of them share a VLAN with other customers, though, so I will need to mirror a layer 2 switchport closer to the edge of my network for those. Regarding putting in a tap, is that something you put inline on the fiber / copper cable? If so, I wonder if that could be considered a completely compliant solution, as I was under the impression that the packet capture is not supposed to be noticeable to the customer at all. A tiny blip of downtime while I'm putting in the tap could theoretically be noticed I also have the impression (maybe wrongly) that we may need to be able to establish a VPN between the device capturing the traffic and the law enforcement agency, to pipe the data to them I agree it's really tough to know how to comply when the data format standards are simply not clear. That's why I'm really interested to hear from anyone who says they have a compliant solution already, to know what standard they are using I agree with those of us who are hoping that an open-source solution will be developed (for *nix or Windows) ... ... and here's an interesting document I found linked to from the Mikrotik threads: http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/PTSC/LAES/PTSC-LAES-2006-084R8.doc ... Adam - Original Message - From: Ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint Hello Clint. You are confusing me. When I mention MT, I said routers, not CPE. We don't use non type accepted CPE and therefore don't have MT in any form at the customer end. However our site routers and even the edge router ARE MT- even the edge router. Those are what I am talking about. I didn't say anything about putting any certain number of units in. And I really don't see how that would turn into hundreds of monitoring nodes. I'd just as soon only have to mess with it at one or two places. Our network is fed from two different points, but from the same provider. This provider told another WISP in the area (that he also upstreams) that he would not be able to do CALEA capture for us, but has now publicly said that he can. We'll have to see how that goes as it develops. If he will, then that makes him an even more valuable provider. Cisco's CALEA solution is at the router level. This seems to be the most logical place to do the tap- especially if the equipment/license/whatever is costly. The fewer costly licenses that need to be bought, the better it is for the small guy. We are very small (make that tiny). We all know that a decent switch can mirror a port. We also know how to sniff packets. What we don't know is how to package this data up with a nice pretty red bow the way Joe Law wants it. As far as I understand it, this is what Cisco is saying they will do (although I'm sure it will not be free). Imagestream is promising something as well. Those of us who don't use Cisco or Imagestream have to hope that our hardware provider will come up with a way, too. Aren't we really on the same page, here? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router. Likewise, although assistance from manufacturors is nice, it is not requisite and in some ways may complicate matters since you can end up with hundreds of different monitoring nodes and several different interfaces unless you have complete uniformity across your network. Generally, the easiest and most cost effective approach is to place taps at key points in your network that give you access to traffic. If you backhaul all of your wireless traffic to a central points, a single tap at the central point can monitor all of the traffic from the wireless cells. The tapping process itself does not need to be expensive or complicated. Any decent switch (if it doesn't, you probably shouldn't be using it to begin with) has some sort
Re: [WISPA] why join when you disagree?
Peter R. wrote: So, Blair, none of what WISPA has done, you agree with? Did not say that. Then why are you still on the list? I monitor this public list, and others, to get an idea where things are going in the industry. Also, to lobby and fight takes effort, energy, time and money. And it needs someone to lead the charge. So you and Mark feel very strongly about both CALEA and form 477, why not head up to the Hill or to the FCC and state your case? I wish I could! I can't speak for Mark, but for me, time and money come to mind. Regards, Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. Blair Davis wrote: On another subject Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? -- Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Blair, Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. Another case of Doth protest too much. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Blair Davis wrote: Because at WISPA, we don't have to all think the same and have the same opinions all in step. We're not clones. We're individuals who each have our own beliefs and run our operation individually, sometimes uniquely And fortunately WISPA is an organization made up of individuals who do NOT want to make you think a certain way. WISPA doesn't want to run your business or tell you how to run your business. We're just working for the common ground that will benefit all wisps, not just some wisps. Another good thing is, with such as small membership, those who decide to participate can have an impact or effect. And as I understand it there is many openings on various committees. As for 477, CALEA, and certified equipment, that all came out of the FCC's horses mouths. All we can do is help people comply. But you don't see WISPA wanting to deny membership to those that does NOT comply. I Believe if WISPA was to go down the path of dictating what a wispa member was required to do, it would be wrong. We would loose our individualism and that won't teach us anything new. I've fought this thinking in the board room. We are not here to alienate each other but to find a common ground. If you have a real difference of opinion, rather than hold it against anyone or keep it to yourself, you should express your self and not hold it against anyone for disagreeing or having a different opinion. I think most people here are not going to loose their respect for each other over a difference of opinion. Anyways WISPA is an opportunity to participate. Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? -- Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 -- 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] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote I've been watching this discussion for a bit. Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark. Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide their movements). They go to the DOT and the the DOT decides that the way to do this is to require every auto in the country to have a GPS and cellular modem in it. So the DOT mandates this, but doesn't provide any funding for it. Instead, they expect the auto owners to pay for the equipment and the cellular company's to provide the service for free. Just how many of you will go for this? Do you think the cellular company's will go for it? The example above is EXACTLY the same as the CALEA requirements being applied to us. Pretty good analogy, except that it would be more like having the cellular providers provide BOTH the equipment and service, but that's just quibbling around the edges. If they want to pay for it, fine. For my network, they can expect to pay about $40K to replace my MESH based AP's for me And, I don't know how much it will cost to fix my automated sign-up system for mobile and hot-spot users, (because it works with the MESH AP's only). I'm not even sure that hot-spots can EVER be made compliant. What about my 30min per day free stuff for tourists to check their e- mail? Right now, I can locate a person to a tower. Not to an individual CPE. And I see no way to do so without wholesale equipment replacement. I'll bet there are others in the same spot. I know that at least 10 to 20% of my customers have wireless AP's in their home. No way can I gaurantee that traffic I intercept is actually from or to the individual in question. I don't think we're being asked to do this, mind you, but it leads to the question of whether LEA should be attempting to bend network operations to their notion of what surveillance is, or should they change what they see as serveillance to how the services work. Again, this whole mess is a result of the FCC applying a PHONE SERVICE INTERCEPT law to a service that is NOT analogous and doesn't work the same way. On another subject Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? Let me state up front, that I argued for the formation of WISPA. I still believe in the idea of a trade organization for the industry I am in. I don't believe that was a mistake. WISPA will have regular elections to choose leadership. However, the leadership in place is in place, and will be a for a while yet. Unless we're arguing to remove leadership, which I think would be a terrible blow, an extremely divisive action, the idea is that we have to work with the leadership that exists as of right now. Some time ago, I formally cancelled my membership, and made it clear that when I believe that the leadership will make some effort to represent what I consider the interests of their myriad small members, I will again at least financially support WISPA. Does the stated leadership's stand on this reflect the the majority / minority of the member's views? I don't know. I don't really know WHAT the WISPA membership in general thinks. I don't know what the WISP industry in general thinks. Unfortunately, I really don't think that the volunteer leadership has the time or energy or resources to dig deep, engage in informed debate, and make sure that all views and ideas are well heard, and then get some kind of consensus of the views of the industry or membership. That's just the nature of the beast, for a startup organization that's small and driven by volunteers. Thus, WISPA has represented in DC what the views of the individuals are that both can and have gone to DC in our behalf. Being a volunteer driven organization, the only people who can serve are those who have the time, the money, and the drive, to become leadership. That leaves the vast majority of us out - me included. Peter suggested that people run for leadership of WISPA with contrarian views. I'm not really sure that's the solution. With the way it operates now, we'd just end up with a leadership bitterly divided within itself, and still probably not understanding or knowing the real guts of the industry itself, and still not really representting the industry. I do not see leadership of WISPA as being a tool for activism or agendas. For the most part, the WISPA leadership has asked the membership for input on much of what it has done. Sometimes, even important stuff doesn't get more than a
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
George As to form 477 and CALEA, no, no one has spoken of making membership contingent on their position on these issues. But, I do recall a discussion, on this list, 'Dealing with bad players', starting on Feb 8, that basically proposed requiring the use of stickered equipment to be a member. Not sure what became of it. George Rogato wrote: Blair Davis wrote: Because at WISPA, we don't have to all think the same and have the same opinions all in step. We're not clones. We're individuals who each have our own beliefs and run our operation individually, sometimes uniquely And fortunately WISPA is an organization made up of individuals who do NOT want to make you think a certain way. WISPA doesn't want to run your business or tell you how to run your business. We're just working for the common ground that will benefit all wisps, not just some wisps. Another good thing is, with such as small membership, those who decide to participate can have an impact or effect. And as I understand it there is many openings on various committees. As for 477, CALEA, and certified equipment, that all came out of the FCC's horses mouths. All we can do is help people comply. But you don't see WISPA wanting to deny membership to those that does NOT comply. I Believe if WISPA was to go down the path of dictating what a wispa member was required to do, it would be wrong. We would loose our individualism and that won't teach us anything new. I've fought this thinking in the board room. We are not here to alienate each other but to find a common ground. If you have a real difference of opinion, rather than hold it against anyone or keep it to yourself, you should express your self and not hold it against anyone for disagreeing or having a different opinion. I think most people here are not going to loose their respect for each other over a difference of opinion. Anyways WISPA is an opportunity to participate. Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? -- Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] price
Depends on the config -- per end @ LIST (2 sides = 1 link), you're looking at 9 Mb: 1940 18 Mb: 2245 27 Mb: 2840 36 Mb: 3340 54 Mb: 4540 108 Mb: 5440 -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:49 PM To: WISPA General List; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Subject: [WISPA] price Hi, Anyone happen to know the MSRP of the new Redline AN-80 5.4ghz p2p system? Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Sounds vagely familiar, Like I said, from my opinion, wispa would not be an industry association Remember once had a guy selling jock straps with the wispa logo thinking that was a good idea too. Blair Davis wrote: George As to form 477 and CALEA, no, no one has spoken of making membership contingent on their position on these issues. But, I do recall a discussion, on this list, 'Dealing with bad players', starting on Feb 8, that basically proposed requiring the use of stickered equipment to be a member. Not sure what became of it. George Rogato wrote: Blair Davis wrote: Because at WISPA, we don't have to all think the same and have the same opinions all in step. We're not clones. We're individuals who each have our own beliefs and run our operation individually, sometimes uniquely And fortunately WISPA is an organization made up of individuals who do NOT want to make you think a certain way. WISPA doesn't want to run your business or tell you how to run your business. We're just working for the common ground that will benefit all wisps, not just some wisps. Another good thing is, with such as small membership, those who decide to participate can have an impact or effect. And as I understand it there is many openings on various committees. As for 477, CALEA, and certified equipment, that all came out of the FCC's horses mouths. All we can do is help people comply. But you don't see WISPA wanting to deny membership to those that does NOT comply. I Believe if WISPA was to go down the path of dictating what a wispa member was required to do, it would be wrong. We would loose our individualism and that won't teach us anything new. I've fought this thinking in the board room. We are not here to alienate each other but to find a common ground. If you have a real difference of opinion, rather than hold it against anyone or keep it to yourself, you should express your self and not hold it against anyone for disagreeing or having a different opinion. I think most people here are not going to loose their respect for each other over a difference of opinion. Anyways WISPA is an opportunity to participate. Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? -- Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 -- 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] Intel Announces Tremendous Breakthrough
yeah, I was reading this article, and I believe it to be FUD. They were bragging about the ability to backhaul wirelessly between towers...whoopee... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:03 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Intel Announces Tremendous Breakthrough ...one of the big differences between standard Wi-Fi and Intel's long-range version lies in the fact that the long-range signals are directional: they are tuned to travel from one antenna to another one and nowhere else. A standard Wi-Fi antenna broadcasts its signal in a 360-degree circle... http://news.com.com/Intel+modifies+Wi-Fi+to+add+mileage/2100-7351_3-6170713. html http://news.com.com/5208-7351_3-0.html?forumID=1threadID=26098messageID=25 1455start=-1 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Inline wispa wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote I've been watching this discussion for a bit. Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark. Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide their movements). They go to the DOT and the the DOT decides that the way to do this is to require every auto in the country to have a GPS and cellular modem in it. So the DOT mandates this, but doesn't provide any funding for it. Instead, they expect the auto owners to pay for the equipment and the cellular company's to provide the service for free. Just how many of you will go for this? Do you think the cellular company's will go for it? The example above is EXACTLY the same as the CALEA requirements being applied to us. Pretty good analogy, except that it would be more like having the cellular providers provide BOTH the equipment and service, but that's just quibbling around the edges. If they want to pay for it, fine. For my network, they can expect to pay about $40K to replace my MESH based AP's for me And, I don't know how much it will cost to fix my automated sign-up system for mobile and hot-spot users, (because it works with the MESH AP's only). I'm not even sure that hot-spots can EVER be made compliant. What about my 30min per day free stuff for tourists to check their e- mail? Right now, I can locate a person to a tower. Not to an individual CPE. And I see no way to do so without wholesale equipment replacement. I'll bet there are others in the same spot. I know that at least 10 to 20% of my customers have wireless AP's in their home. over 50% for me. We set them up for free if they buy them from us or if they have it there at the time of the install. No way can I gaurantee that traffic I intercept is actually from or to the individual in question. I don't think we're being asked to do this, mind you, My reply to this is Yet. but it leads to the question of whether LEA should be attempting to bend network operations to their notion of what surveillance is, or should they change what they see as serveillance to how the services work. Again, this whole mess is a result of the FCC applying a PHONE SERVICE INTERCEPT law to a service that is NOT analogous and doesn't work the same way. Again, not directed at you, Mark, but to all what about hot spots? On another subject Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? Let me state up front, that I argued for the formation of WISPA. I still believe in the idea of a trade organization for the industry I am in. I don't believe that was a mistake. WISPA will have regular elections to choose leadership. However, the leadership in place is in place, and will be a for a while yet. Unless we're arguing to remove leadership, which I think would be a terrible blow, an extremely divisive action, the idea is that we have to work with the leadership that exists as of right now. I agree. And, I'm not advocating anything like that. Some time ago, I formally cancelled my membership, and made it clear that when I believe that the leadership will make some effort to represent what I consider the interests of their myriad small members, I will again at least financially support WISPA. I was planning on joining. I'd discussed it with my partner, and he had agreed. But, now, I'm not sure that WISPA is for the small WISP. Does the stated leadership's stand on this reflect the the majority / minority of the member's views? I don't know. I don't really know WHAT the WISPA membership in general thinks. I don't know what the WISP industry in general thinks. Neither do I know this. I'd like to. Unfortunately, I really don't think that the volunteer leadership has the time or energy or resources to dig deep, engage in informed debate, and make sure that all views and ideas are well heard, and then get some kind of consensus of the views of the industry or membership. But, if I'm going to support WISPA with my $$, I will have to know that they represent MY best interests when they speak to the gov. Don't really worry about anything else they do, but want to be sure that they don't mis-represent me to the gov. That's just the nature of the beast, for a startup organization that's small and driven by volunteers. Thus, WISPA has represented in DC what the views of the individuals are that both can and have gone to DC in our behalf. Being a volunteer
RE: [WISPA] Intel Announces Tremendous Breakthrough
Ugh...KarlNet? --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:03 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Intel Announces Tremendous Breakthrough ...one of the big differences between standard Wi-Fi and Intel's long-range version lies in the fact that the long-range signals are directional: they are tuned to travel from one antenna to another one and nowhere else. A standard Wi-Fi antenna broadcasts its signal in a 360-degree circle... http://news.com.com/Intel+modifies+Wi-Fi+to+add+mileage/2100-7351_3-6170 713.html http://news.com.com/5208-7351_3-0.html?forumID=1threadID=26098messageI D=251455start=-1 -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Intel Announces Tremendous Breakthrough
I think you missed the technology. They weren't talking about just repeaters, they were talking about making a radio talk to just one other radio at a time through a beam pointed only at that customer radio and no body else's. I think they were talking Vivato or Navini with their beam forming smart antenna polling system. Do we hear patent infringement lawsuits here? Rick Smith wrote: yeah, I was reading this article, and I believe it to be FUD. They were bragging about the ability to backhaul wirelessly between towers...whoopee... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:03 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Intel Announces Tremendous Breakthrough ...one of the big differences between standard Wi-Fi and Intel's long-range version lies in the fact that the long-range signals are directional: they are tuned to travel from one antenna to another one and nowhere else. A standard Wi-Fi antenna broadcasts its signal in a 360-degree circle... http://news.com.com/Intel+modifies+Wi-Fi+to+add+mileage/2100-7351_3-6170713. html http://news.com.com/5208-7351_3-0.html?forumID=1threadID=26098messageID=25 1455start=-1 -- 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] Intel Announces Tremendous Breakthrough
Yep! KarlNet/TurboCell all over again With phased array antennas? Or with servos on the antennas? Charles Wu wrote: Ugh...KarlNet? --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:03 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Intel Announces Tremendous Breakthrough ...one of the big differences between standard Wi-Fi and Intel's long-range version lies in the fact that the long-range signals are directional: they are tuned to travel from one antenna to another one and nowhere else. A standard Wi-Fi antenna broadcasts its signal in a 360-degree circle... http://news.com.com/Intel+modifies+Wi-Fi+to+add+mileage/2100-7351_3-6170 713.html http://news.com.com/5208-7351_3-0.html?forumID=1threadID=26098messageI D=251455start=-1 -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Mark, Right in time. WISPA will be having elections in the very near future. Now is the time to join WISPA and be eligible to cast your vote or run for a board seat. Membership is a very low 250.00 per year. And you get to vote! Try the new automated sign up: http://signup.wispa.org/wispa-newacct.html :) wispa wrote: . WISPA will have regular elections to choose leadership. However, the leadership in place is in place, and will be a for a while yet. Unless we're arguing to remove leadership, which I think would be a terrible blow, an extremely divisive action, the idea is that we have to work with the leadership that exists as of right now. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
And exactly HOW do you suppose that a very low power link will somehow screw up the band? Using higher power kills off everything on BOTH ends of the link. The signal doesn't just stop, it continues on past the rec. antenna. Your argument make no sense to me. Not from a frequency reuse standpoint. Also, what should we be pushing? MAXIMUM utilization for all bands. The rules for 11 gig and 6 gig cut down on the utilization and therefore waste a natural resource. I live on the farm. We use every drop of farmable ground. We plant the crops that grow the best out here and are always looking for new ones. Should be the same for wireless spectrum. Use up every drop. THEN, IF there's a problem, figure out how to deal with it. marlon - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:00 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Marlon, 11GHz is intended for medium to long range links. That is why they require a relatively larger antenna to keep the beam narrow to increase the freq reuse ability. 6GHz requires a 6' minimum antenna and this is a GOOD thing otherwise there would be fewer 6GHz licenses available in any given geographic area. If you have a 100' link then by all means use an 80-90GHz licensed link or even sub-lease a 38GHz license. Or use FOS or 60GHz or 24GHz for 100' links, but 11GHz for a 100' shot is a waste and not a good use of the band. Opening 11GHz to smaller dishes means more chance the band will be used up by short links that could have been achieved with the same (or even better) results by using a higher freq band. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz I TOTALLY disagree with that. On two fronts. First, what's wrong with a short licensed link? If that's what I want to use that's up to me. Maybe I want to put a link that requires 100% uptime guarantee and has to be licensed but only has to cross the train tracks. Ever try to push a cable across the tracks or freeway? It'll make Jack's $30,000 link look cheap! Second, how would use of smaller antennas screw anything up? I've been blown offline from interference that came from 30 MILES away. It was only an 11 mile link. They had 6' dishes an had the power cranked all the way up. I think I figured it at a 60 dB fade margin. And there was nothing in the rules that said they couldn't do that! Luckily they turned the power way down and my problem went away. With an ATPC requirement that never would have happened. Just because they mandate antenna sizes in no way means that it's the only, or today, even the best way to maximize frequency reuse. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:08 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz I don't think you would select 11GHz to go 100'. That's the whole point...let's hope FCC doesn't screw up 11GHz by allowing it's use for short haul applications. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:07 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz All due respect right back at ya! grin Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at heart is a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale or a cheap and easy 2' or 1' dish? I'm not willing to get into technical arguments about this issue. The fact is, each link is different. Each tower is different. It should be left up to the local operator to figure out what's best. ESPECIALLY in a licensed band. If they get interference, they can fix it. If they cause interference they have to fix it. I just don't like the idea of micro managing the pro's in our industry. Keep the interference issues dealt with but let folks use the latest and greatest technologies available to them. If I want to build a link across the train tracks, 100', there's NO reason for a large dish. Small dishes with lower power radios will do the trick nicely. And if we mandate atpc we can get away with 3 to 5 (or some other such really small number) fade margins too. No need for the typical microwave 30 dB fade margins. The problem with trying to engineer everything is that the real world often doesn't
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
We're close guys. Just waiting to get a doc fine tuned and double checked. marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods I bet the technical aspects of how to comply will be emerging soon. I understand the wispa calea meeting went very well. So there must be some good news. Adam Greene wrote: Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share with each other about technical implementation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the conversation about whether to comply should be halted, just that some room be given to those of us who also want to speak about implementation. I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical standpoint. Thanks, Adam - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote Mark, CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld by courts. YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying. CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance. The whole idea that WE are covered under CALEA is just FCC opinion, which is as changeable and variable as the wind. The ruling is capricious and founded on VAPOR, not substance. I just cannot believe you approve of unfunded federal mandates for public purposes. CALEA was not. Misapplying CALEA is. This is not OSHA mandates. This is not the same as requiring that a tower service company require their climbers to use a safety system. Not even close. If the federal government is justified with making us provide, AT OUR EXPENSE, law enforcement services, then we're one little itty bitty non- existent step from from being mandated to do ANYTHING they happen to wish for, and the wish lists from the swamp on the Potomac are so large they boggle the mind. And don't give me the we play dead for regulatory favors in the future crap. Nothing we do will buy us one MOMENT's worth of consideration, in EITHER direction. 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/ -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint
Ralph, My apologies for the confusion. I think we are more or less on the same page method-wise for gathering that information; I made some assumptions that may have been applicable to your network. Now, as far as the pretty red package and bow for transferring the information to a law enforcement agency (LEA), I'll take a stab at that, although, as I'm not a lawyer, my usefulness is limited. Still, having paid for and read through the spec, it's not all that complicated of a red package. I don't think that it's worth the $10,000+ commercial solutions are going for. However, I've not been able (yet) to track down the actual transmission to the LEA, other than it is over some sort of VPN, so I am missing that piece of the puzzle. But the format itself is seems fairly simple to implement and, indeed, is already at least somewhat implemented with opencalea. Good resources to look at: - OpenCALEA (http://www.opencalea.org/) OpenCALEA is an initiative to create an open source platform to comply with CALEA. The mailing list is a very good resource. The software is rough, but already covers the basic needs of most ISPS to a point except the actual handoff to the law enforcement agency (LEA) OpenCALEA Overview (PDF) (http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/karir.pdf) PDF overview of OpenCalea along with some conceptual network diagrams. Draft Specification (http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/PTSC/LAES/PTSC-LAES-2006-084R8.doc) Reference specification for data portion of CALEA. Is functionally the same as the current (pay required) Baller Herbst Law Group CALEA Page (http://www.baller.com/calea.html) Great page with most of the important links. Look here for legal explanation, especially in the Plain Language Summary section. Cisco CALEA Webinar (http://www.opastco.org/docs/SP_CALEA_Webinar.ppt) CALEA Standards (http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html) Official list of standards CALEA interface. -- Notes from the above 1. The commercial packages are effectively devices that query a radius/authentication server and sniff on the network and then format the information to send to the law enforcement agency. No real magic. 2. OpenCALEA already has the basics of the system, although it doesn't seem to have any support (yet) for the authentication (AAA) portion. Future features will possibly include handoff to the LEA and more complex infrastructure for handling a wide, disparate network. 3. The only real requirements are 1. That the tap happens 2. The tap gathers both authentication/control information AND a complete capture of the session 3. That the output of 2 gets formatted according the the standard 4. That the information be transmitted to the LEA (seemingly through a VPN). 4. Based on 3, most of the equipment/solutions out there are heavily overengineered (see Cisco Webinar for an example). Most of the solutions are geared to a process that can be managed across carrier networks with subscribers into the millions. This is overkill for most WISPS :) On a given WISP of 1,000 subs, how often is a CALEA order actually going to happen? Infrequently enough that having to do some manual work each time is better than a high upfront cost (by manual work, I mean turning on a monitoring port/tap and manually initiating a VPN to the law enforcement agency as necessary). -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 On 3/27/07, Ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Clint. You are confusing me. When I mention MT, I said routers, not CPE. We don't use non type accepted CPE and therefore don't have MT in any form at the customer end. However our site routers and even the edge router ARE MT- even the edge router. Those are what I am talking about. I didn't say anything about putting any certain number of units in. And I really don't see how that would turn into hundreds of monitoring nodes. I'd just as soon only have to mess with it at one or two places. Our network is fed from two different points, but from the same provider. This provider told another WISP in the area (that he also upstreams) that he would not be able to do CALEA capture for us, but has now publicly said that he can. We'll have to see how that goes as it develops. If he will, then that makes him an even more valuable provider. Cisco's CALEA solution is at the router level. This seems to be the most logical place to do the tap- especially if the equipment/license/whatever is costly. The fewer costly licenses that need to be bought, the better it is for the small guy. We are very small (make that tiny). We all know that a decent switch can mirror a port. We also know how to sniff packets. What we don't know is how to package this data up with a nice pretty red bow the way Joe Law wants it. As far as I understand it, this is what Cisco is saying they will do (although I'm sure it will not be free). Imagestream is promising something as well. Those of us who don't use Cisco or Imagestream have to
Fw: Fw: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
From the lawyers marlon Congress creates legislation, approves it, and then sends it to the President for signature. After that occurs, you have a federal law. In those laws, Congress may delegate authority to carry out the goals of the legislation. CALEA is a federal law and delegates responsibility for much of its implementation to the FCC. The FCC decided first how wireline providers should become compliant with CALEA. Then, after consultations with DOJ, the FCC determined that both facilities-based broadband and VoIP providers should also become CALEA compliant. There have been court challenges as to whether CALEA's delegated authority extends sufficiently for the FCC to decide that providers of information services (broadband) must follow CALEA. Last summer, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FCC's extension of CALEA to broadband and VoIP in American Council on Education v. FCC. Here's the link to the actual ruling: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/dccircuit_calea_ruling.pdf Judge Edwards wrote a well reasoned and strong dissent starting on page 21 that Mark would surely agree with. But he lost. This is a prime example of the type of behavior that continually undermines the WISP industry. Why should the FCC open TV whitespace spectrum on an unlicensed basis to companies that urge fellow providers to ignore government laws, especially those specifically designed to ensure public safety and national security? Everybody is free to disagree about the effectiveness, cost, and limitations of CALEA compliance. But no one is entitled to break the law simply because they don't like it. Kris __ Kristopher E. Twomey Telecom/Internet Law Regulatory Consulting www.lokt.net Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi Kris, Julie and Maura, Can anyone put a good legally acceptable reply to this together for me to respond with? He brings up some good points that I'm ill equipped to deal with. thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote Mark, your info is 3 years old We have to be ready to tap our lines. Even IMs. marlon I think you missed my point, Marlon... That being that not even the government is a reliable source of information about what the government wants and demands. www.askcalea.com is direct from their mouths. Yes, it's old, but then the site is still considered live. THE FCC is saying one thing, a different agency is saying another. Concurrently. I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet to write a law that says we have to do squat. Frankly, I think every broadband ISP should file and say we will never be compliant and just let them TRY to shut down every ISP in the country. It's about time we told THEM where to get off, rather than being lambs to the slaughter. But no. WISPA leads the charge to slaughter it's own industry by begging to be regulated out of existence. Just three years ago, the WISP industry and WISPA was going to show the world just how scrappy, independent and courageous we were. We did alright. We turned into worms and mashed ourselves into the pavement instead. One can only imagine the reaction if some actual competitive threat came along. 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] Service in York PA.
I have seen CPEs on a few commercial buildings in the York area near I-83, so there is likely a WISP in the area. I don't know what company owns them though. Patrick On Tue, March 27, 2007 7:45 am, Tim Wolfe said: I need to know if anyone can service the York PA area. I have a client there who needs bandwidth ASAP. -- 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] CALEA compliance methods
Adam, Regarding tapping at the edge between my upstream provider and me, I'm of the understanding that I need to be able to capture all of my customer's data, even that which passes between one customer and another, or between my customer and my mail server, or my customer and one of my other customers' colocated servers, etc. From that standpoint, the way I have been looking at it is to mirror the packets as close to the core of my network as possible, but no later than the first juncture where my customer's traffic can be routed or bridged to another customer or server. Since almost all of our customers have dedicated VLANs which terminate on a core layer 3 switch, for most of them I can just SPAN the corresponding layer 3 switch port. Some of them share a VLAN with other customers, though, so I will need to mirror a layer 2 switchport closer to the edge of my network for those. This definitely seems true, and I'm not certain how you even deal with traffic between two clients on the same AP other than not allow that scenario (without coming through a central router). There are many advantages to running a session-based approach to subscriber management; CALEA, I think, will just add another reason to take that approach. Regarding putting in a tap, is that something you put inline on the fiber / copper cable? If so, I wonder if that could be considered a completely compliant solution, as I was under the impression that the packet capture is not supposed to be noticeable to the customer at all. A tiny blip of downtime while I'm putting in the tap could theoretically be noticed Yes, they do go inline. Usually, they have one in and two outputs and have a failsafe mechanism where, if they lose power or otherwise fail, will still function. For inline taps, they would have to be setup from the get-go; this is best done in a maintenance window, in any case, since the ideal tapping point would have all of your customers traffic flowing through it, meaning that a tap insertion will momentarily cause a major disruption. Using port mirroring on a switch bypasses this, but isn't always an option. I also have the impression (maybe wrongly) that we may need to be able to establish a VPN between the device capturing the traffic and the law enforcement agency, to pipe the data to them Yes, this seems to be the case, although some places stated this as preferred. This is the only aspect, however, that I've not been able to find specifics of. On the good side, I've not seen anything official in the sense that it is in the actual law or the spec, meaning, in a legal sense, it may not be a requirement. I agree it's really tough to know how to comply when the data format standards are simply not clear. That's why I'm really interested to hear from anyone who says they have a compliant solution already, to know what standard they are using Take a look at the opencalea project (opencalea.org). Their application, although crude, does the packet captures and dumps to the basic format that is specified. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 I agree with those of us who are hoping that an open-source solution will be developed (for *nix or Windows) ... ... and here's an interesting document I found linked to from the Mikrotik threads: http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/PTSC/LAES/PTSC-LAES-2006-084R8.doc ... Adam - Original Message - From: Ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint Hello Clint. You are confusing me. When I mention MT, I said routers, not CPE. We don't use non type accepted CPE and therefore don't have MT in any form at the customer end. However our site routers and even the edge router ARE MT- even the edge router. Those are what I am talking about. I didn't say anything about putting any certain number of units in. And I really don't see how that would turn into hundreds of monitoring nodes. I'd just as soon only have to mess with it at one or two places. Our network is fed from two different points, but from the same provider. This provider told another WISP in the area (that he also upstreams) that he would not be able to do CALEA capture for us, but has now publicly said that he can. We'll have to see how that goes as it develops. If he will, then that makes him an even more valuable provider. Cisco's CALEA solution is at the router level. This seems to be the most logical place to do the tap- especially if the equipment/license/whatever is costly. The fewer costly licenses that need to be bought, the better it is for the small guy. We are very small (make that tiny). We all know that a decent switch can mirror a port. We also know how to sniff packets. What we don't know is how to package this data up with a nice pretty red bow the way Joe Law wants it. As far as I
Re: [WISPA] FCC requests .. Bob M. what about FSO
Hey Bob M. Seeing your on list and talking about short PtP sots. What do you think about FSO, Plaintree? Have you installed much and do you like? I'm thinking that I might have to go that way and figured you could advise. 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/
