Re: [WISPA] Green Field Developments
Don't have anything for you yet, but I'm interested in what others are doing in this area. What types of arrangements/payments do others make/collect from developers for service guarantees or such for their new developments? On 7/11/07, D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I was wondering if any of you have ever worked on green field devlopments. I have been asked by 2 developers to work up some numbers to provide services to homes that are not yet built. Thanks! ryan Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 4.9 use
This is very interesting and makes me curious, Felix. Which part of the workforce is using the 4.9? What city services? This implies something else than Public Safety because you said city services AND public safety. Ralph WISPA full member -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix A. Lopez Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 8:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 4.9 use Butch, My WISP team installed a MotoWi4 Motorola Mesh + Motorola Canopy system at a municipality/city. The system was the 2.4 GHz + 4.9 GHz MotoMesh radio (the MotoWi4 product line). The 2.4 GHz is being used for WiFi city utility metering. The 4.9 GHz will be used for mesh networking for mobility along thoroughfares for workforce. To use the 4.9 GHZ we called the FCC and researched what was needed. There is a piece of paperwork that needs to be completed by your city Communications Officer or CIO. So that is what they did...the Communicatios Officer and CIO complted the FCC paperwork and officially filed and got permission from the FCC to use the 4.9 GHz. It was actually quite easy. I don't have the paperwork with me but there is a FCC Technical Engineer available on the FCC website. The key point is the 4.9GHZ will be used for city services and public safety for first responders. Felix Lopez Wireless Practioneer /wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
Carl We used one from Tessco that has a collar that bolts around the vent on top of tank and adjustable legs for leveling.It has been up there 4 years with no problems.It was easy to install approx 1hour. Ray Hill - Original Message - From: J. Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts Carl Shivers wrote: We are going to be mounting Panel Sector antennas to 2 Water Towers. One tower is ideal with a rail that has been designed for pipe mounting. The other is not so kind. It simply has a ladder up the side and over the top, no catwalk. We were thinking about using one of those 170 lbs. Water Tower mounts. This means we either have to get a welder up there to weld the plates or come up with an industrial epoxy solution. I have successfully used magnets on a couple of towers for 2 years now... I don't completely trust them, so I also run a safety cable around the mast and anchor it to a solid projection on the tower so that if the magnets did turn loose, the mast wouldn't hit the ground, but in two years, and through several thunderstorms and pretty good winds, the magnets haven't shifted a bit that I can see. -- John Vogel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vogent.net 620-754-3907 Vogel Enterprises, LLC Information Services Provider serving S.E. Kansas Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 7/10/2007 5:44 PM Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers
FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers By Kim Hart Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, July 12, 2007; D08 Key lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday supported the idea that regulators should give consumers greater control over how they use their cellphones. Several members of a House subcommittee voiced agreement with a proposal that would require a portion of valuable airwaves about to be auctioned off by the Federal Communications Commission to be used for an open network that would connect to any mobile device or service. Such a rule would benefit technology companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Skype, who want more ways to reach their customers without going through carriers. The plan could hurt wireless carriers, who say unfettered access to their networks would undermine billions of dollars of investment for high-speed services. This issue of open access lies at the center of the debate about rules that will govern the spectrum auction, which are expected to be released this month. FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin has proposed setting aside one-third of the spectrum for an open network that would work with any cellphone. Supporters of Google and its partners say an open network would promote innovation by letting consumers use services on new devices like the iPhone without being limited to a single network. But critics argue that placing such conditions on the bidding process would actually stifle competition and reduce revenues from the auction, which is expected to yield between $15 billion and $20 billion for the U.S. Treasury. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the subcommittee that handles telecommunications and Internet issues, urged the FCC to seize this opportunity to create an open-access opportunity for wireless service in this auction. He added that wireless carriers are exerting far too much control over the features, functions and applications that wireless gadget makers and content entrepreneurs can offer directly to consumers. Ranking Republican Fred Upton of Michigan countered by saying the wireless market is already vigorously competitive. No matter how you slice it, he said, the proposal smothers investment in a competitive market, and in the end would leave consumers worse off and with fewer choices. The four-hour hearing highlighted the divergent views of policymakers and industry representatives on the consequences of using a slice of the spectrum for an open-access network. Steven E. Zipperstein, general counsel for Verizon Wireless, testified that competition already forces wireless companies to invest in new products and networks, ultimately benefiting consumers. He also said that any open-access requirement would make the spectrum less valuable to companies like Verizon Wireless. But Jason Devitt, who runs a Silicon Valley start-up that sells wireless products and services, disagreed. While the major carriers such as Verizon Wireless and ATamp;T bring new products to market, he said, there are so many other products and services not getting in front of consumers because carriers act as gatekeepers. I'm an entrepreneur, and I'm mad as hell I have to ask for permission to innovate, he said, referring to what he called the wireless companies' death grip on the market. Google, which has been lobbying Congress and the FCC in favor of open networks, has not decided whether it will formally bid on a piece of the spectrum and build a wireless network. On the company's public policy blog, Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, Richard Whitt, wrote Tuesday that the company was still interested in participating in the auction but said it's clear that the incumbent carriers have built-in advantages that will prove difficult to overcome. Google said it favors openness that allows all services, applications and devices to work on the wireless network. Some consumer advocates say the auction rules Martin proposed this week do not go far enough to promote real competition. In addition to allowing any device to connect to the network, the FCC should require the auction winner to wholesale the spectrum to companies that impose no rules on what type of services and equipment consumers can use, said Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge, an advocacy group. Martin seems to be testing the waters, Brodsky said, with draft rules that seem to favor high-tech companies over the major telecom carriers. He wants to see the congressional and industry reaction, he said. He's trying to see what kind of support he'll get. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List:
[WISPA] Reverse DNS
If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not working - no reverse dns. -- You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS
Carl A jeptha wrote: If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not working - no reverse dns. Typically your upstream will handle it or they will forward the request to your DNS servers. Sincerely, Jeremy Davis Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS
Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP blocks. -Matt Carl A jeptha wrote: If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not working - no reverse dns. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS
I have several /27s and /28s that I handle their reverse on! These are on cable compaines and ATT networks too.. On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP blocks. -Matt Carl A jeptha wrote: If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not working - no reverse dns. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant www.mikrotikconsulting.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS
I have a delegated reverse on a /25 from ATT. If you do a whois on my netblock the reverse DNS servers are still ATT's, but they forward all the requests on that block to my servers. Graham On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP blocks. -Matt Carl A jeptha wrote: If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not working - no reverse dns. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS
My fault; I didn't realize RFC 2317 had changed things. -Matt Graham McIntire wrote: I have a delegated reverse on a /25 from ATT. If you do a whois on my netblock the reverse DNS servers are still ATT's, but they forward all the requests on that block to my servers. Graham On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP blocks. -Matt Carl A jeptha wrote: If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not working - no reverse dns. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS
I don't konw if it is RFC or not. Just saying, it can be done! On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My fault; I didn't realize RFC 2317 had changed things. -Matt Graham McIntire wrote: I have a delegated reverse on a /25 from ATT. If you do a whois on my netblock the reverse DNS servers are still ATT's, but they forward all the requests on that block to my servers. Graham On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP blocks. -Matt Carl A jeptha wrote: If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not working - no reverse dns. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant www.mikrotikconsulting.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS
They will look into it this afternoon. You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Dennis Burgess wrote: I don't konw if it is RFC or not. Just saying, it can be done! On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My fault; I didn't realize RFC 2317 had changed things. -Matt Graham McIntire wrote: I have a delegated reverse on a /25 from ATT. If you do a whois on my netblock the reverse DNS servers are still ATT's, but they forward all the requests on that block to my servers. Graham On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP blocks. -Matt Carl A jeptha wrote: If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not working - no reverse dns. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
I've heard that welding on a water tower is a bad idea... messes up some of the insides. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Carl Shivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:36 PM Subject: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts We are going to be mounting Panel Sector antennas to 2 Water Towers. One tower is ideal with a rail that has been designed for pipe mounting. The other is not so kind. It simply has a ladder up the side and over the top, no catwalk. We were thinking about using one of those 170 lbs. Water Tower mounts. This means we either have to get a welder up there to weld the plates or come up with an industrial epoxy solution. Any other ideas would be welcome. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- 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 Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers
Hi there! New to the list but wanted to jump in with comments: This was, IMO, a great hearing. I watched about the first 2 hours of it and was delighted by the responses of the witnesses. Hearing the chair of the committee refer to the ATT iPhone contract as being a Hotel California service where you can signup, but never leave with your iPhone made me chuckle. But it was Jason Devitt that drove it home for me, paraphrasing from his prepared testimony, Open Access is an unfamiliar term for a very familiar idea. The private companies who build and maintain our highways don't get to dictate what kind of car I drive. I don't have to ask Wal-Mart for permission to open a retail store next door to one of theirs. ConEd and PGE can't limit my choice of vacuum cleaner, and I don't have to ask Verizon for permission to launch a web site. However, I have to ask Verizon Wireless for permission to sell a phone that runs on their network or an application that runs on their phones. If you are interested in watching an archived version or reading more of the witness testimony, it's online @ http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-ti-hrg.071107.ConsumerProtecti on.shtml Have a great day, and I look forward to contributing to this list :) -drew Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hughes Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:15 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network,Say Lawmakers FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers By Kim Hart Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, July 12, 2007; D08 Key lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday supported the idea that regulators should give consumers greater control over how they use their cellphones. Several members of a House subcommittee voiced agreement with a proposal that would require a portion of valuable airwaves about to be auctioned off by the Federal Communications Commission to be used for an open network that would connect to any mobile device or service. Such a rule would benefit technology companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Skype, who want more ways to reach their customers without going through carriers. The plan could hurt wireless carriers, who say unfettered access to their networks would undermine billions of dollars of investment for high-speed services. This issue of open access lies at the center of the debate about rules that will govern the spectrum auction, which are expected to be released this month. FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin has proposed setting aside one-third of the spectrum for an open network that would work with any cellphone. Supporters of Google and its partners say an open network would promote innovation by letting consumers use services on new devices like the iPhone without being limited to a single network. But critics argue that placing such conditions on the bidding process would actually stifle competition and reduce revenues from the auction, which is expected to yield between $15 billion and $20 billion for the U.S. Treasury. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the subcommittee that handles telecommunications and Internet issues, urged the FCC to seize this opportunity to create an open-access opportunity for wireless service in this auction. He added that wireless carriers are exerting far too much control over the features, functions and applications that wireless gadget makers and content entrepreneurs can offer directly to consumers. Ranking Republican Fred Upton of Michigan countered by saying the wireless market is already vigorously competitive. No matter how you slice it, he said, the proposal smothers investment in a competitive market, and in the end would leave consumers worse off and with fewer choices. The four-hour hearing highlighted the divergent views of policymakers and industry representatives on the consequences of using a slice of the spectrum for an open-access network. Steven E. Zipperstein, general counsel for Verizon Wireless, testified that competition already forces wireless companies to invest in new products and networks, ultimately benefiting consumers. He also said that any open-access requirement would make the spectrum less valuable to companies like Verizon Wireless. But Jason Devitt, who runs a Silicon Valley start-up that sells wireless products and services, disagreed. While the major carriers such as Verizon Wireless and ATamp;T bring new products to market, he said, there are so many other products and services not getting in front of consumers because carriers act as gatekeepers. I'm an entrepreneur, and I'm mad as hell I have to ask for permission to innovate, he said, referring to what he called the wireless companies' death grip on the market. Google, which has been lobbying Congress and the FCC in favor of open networks, has not decided whether it will formally bid on a piece of the spectrum
[WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-Multipoint Product Line
Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-Multipoint Product Line New Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R Enables Broadband, Non-Line-of-Sight Links for Municipal and Other Applications July 12, 2007: 09:00 AM EST http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0277031.htm Proxim Wireless Corporation, a leader in core-to-client solutions for broadband municipal wireless networks and wholly owned subsidiary of Terabeam, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRBM), today announced the Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R, an outdoor point-to-multipoint base station and subscriber unit system that supports high-speed wireless connections in the 900 MHz license-exempt frequency band. Designed for non-line-of-sight applications, the new system enables reliable communications links in environments filled with buildings, dense foliage and other obstructions. With Proxim's new Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R, we can create reliable, high-speed wireless links in environments where line-of-sight is simply not possible, said Gregg Rowland, Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing at ShotSpotter, Inc. ShotSpotter's wireless Gunshot Location System is a mission critical tool for public safety and the military, so reliable communications to and from our sensors is essential to dispatch or the command and control systems. An addition to Proxim's award-winning Tsunami MP.11 family, the Model 954-R system provides capabilities of WiMAX, including WiMAX QoS, mobile roaming with fast handoff speeds up to 200 km/per hour (120 mph), dynamic data rate selection (DDRS) and advanced security with AES encryption. The system's design enables flexible and easy deployment. Housed in ruggedized enclosures, the base station and subscriber units can be deployed in extreme weather conditions with a variety of external antennas. An antenna alignment tool and secure local and remote management ensure quick installation and maintenance. With the introduction of these products, Proxim Wireless is expanding our point-to-multipoint product line to support an even wider range of applications, said Bert Williams, Vice President of Marketing at Proxim Wireless. Our Tsunami product line with ProximVisionT management now operates in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz license-exempt frequency bands, as well as the 3.5 GHz and 4.9 GHz licensed bands, so that our customers can choose the spectrum that best supports their particular applications and environment. The Tsunami MP.11 954-R base station is available now at a U.S. list price of $2,299; Tsunami MP.11 954-R subscriber units are also available now with U.S. list prices starting at $1,199. About Proxim Wireless Proxim Wireless Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Terabeam, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRBM). Proxim Wireless is a global pioneer in developing and supplying scalable broadband wireless networking systems for service providers, municipalities, governments, and enterprises. The company's end-to-end wireless products -- including Wi-FiR mesh, WiMAX, MeshMAXT, WLAN, and wireless backhaul -- are available through an extensive global channel network, backed by world-class support. Proxim is a Principal Member of the WiMAX Forum and is ISO-9001 certified. Information about Proxim and its products and support can be found at http://www.proxim.com. About ShotSpotter, Inc. (www.shotspotter.com) ShotSpotter, Inc., the leading developer of gunshot location systems and technology, is based in Mountain View, CA. ShotSpotter's flagship product, which detects gunfire across large urban areas using a small number of inexpensive and easy-to-deploy sensors, currently protects the citizens of cities nationwide, from Los Angeles, CA to Washington, DC. Its products assisted the FBI and the Franklin County Sheriff's Office in identifying and capturing the Columbus, Ohio highway sniper suspect. With technology covered by numerous patents, the company also offers products to the law enforcement, homeland security and military markets. ShotSpotter technology has consistently produced arrests and weapons confiscations nationwide and has helped reduce gunfire and crime rates in cities that deploy it. Safe Harbor Statement Statements in this press release that are not statements of historical facts are forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions. Our actual results may differ materially from the results anticipated in these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could contribute to such differences including those relating to difficulties in overcoming the network installation and operational challenges relating to any specific customer or geographical area; factors beyond our control such as weather, geographic, governmental, and interference issues; and difficulties or delays in supplying products with the features, performance, compliances, certifications, cost, price, and other characteristics desired by customers. Further
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
I don't intend to ruffle any feathers, nor do I direct this at any one individual but, the number of assumptions made and the knee-jerk reactions and false statements being made in response to a suggestion that magnetic mounts can be successfully used in some circumstances is both amazing and somewhat disappointing. I would have hoped that we could have a more professional atmosphere on this list. Best practices if it in this case is taken to mean to use a commercially available professionally engineered mount which has been engineered to withstand 100 mph wind loads (to use an arbitrary example) instead of using a mounting system which will withstand much more than that, albeit not a professionally engineered solution is just wrong. I would rather go with the stronger, more stable solution rather than compromise on the integrity of the mounting to attain the engineer's label. Whether that is best or not I suppose would depend upon whether your goal was safety or following the norm. It has been suggested in another post that nothing should ever be mounted on a tower that some idiot might at some point decided to use as a tie-off anchor point. That is a good idea in practice, but how many of us have attached a lightweight yagi antenna to a tower leg, assuming that nobody would ever be foolish enough to use it to tie off to, or even use as a foothold or handhold? Are we supposed to only use yagi antennas engineered to withstand improper use in case some idiot decides to tie off to one? What about omni antennas consisting of a thin metal rod, possibly encased in a small fiberglass tube? The point is that while safety should be a top priority, the goal of never mounting something on a tower that could at some point be mis-used as an anchor or support point is an unrealistic goal, which I would go so far as to say that those who propose such a goal have not been able to meet themselves, assuming that they have actually mounted equipment on towers. As far as mounting heavy stuff which might fall off and hurt someone, I would assume that the reaction(s) in this thread would indicate that non-penetrating roof mounts, chimmney mount brackets, clamping to roof vents not specifically engineered to withstand such use, and all other forms of mounting which might under some conditions fail and allow the heavy objects to fall would be outlawed in your town were you given the regulatory authority to do so. Or, perhaps because they were designed by professionals they would pass muster in your book in spite of the fact that any fool looking at them could imagine a likely scenario in which they would fail. I have seen numerous professionally engineered solutions which I would not use in a given circumstance because of the likelihood of it failing, and have in several instances used a solution designed by an amateur (me) so that I could rest easier at night, knowing that I have done what I could to mitigate the actual risk to life and property. Sometimes that means doing things in a way that is out of the norm, which scares some people. That they are scared by that which is not normal without a rational basis for their fear is disheartening. Many rules and regulations have been foisted upon us and have limited the options available to those less suited for the job at hand simply because of those irrational fears. I have seen mounts which were professionally mounted to towers using welded studs (either welded to existing towers or in some cases to towers being constructed) using small diameter bolts which were definitely not something that I would trust my life to, and other mounts that were well engineered and would likely withstand likely wind loads on the equipment that they were supporting, yet which will probably fail in hurricane or tornado force winds. Are these in-appropriate? should we engineer everything to withstand +500mph wind loads? Should all magnets be outlawed? (I see lots of magnetically mounted omni antennas on vehicles traveling at high speed down public roadways, can you imagine that???) I bet some of those responding negatively to magnetic mounts even have magnets holding stuff on their refrigerators, one of the highest use and traffic areas in the typical home. I can show numerous examples of solutions designed and built by amateurs which in the final analysis are safer and better solutions than commercially available, professionally designed solutions to the same problem, but the amateur solutions do not have the blessing of the designed by professionals label. Does that make them inappropriate? In the views of some people, sadly, the answer is yes. All of that being said, whenever one is considering their options for mounting equipment on a tower, safety should be a top priority (and I would add should take precedence over having a designed by professionals label) and one should never mount equipment in a fashion which is likely to cause serious injury or death to innocent members of the
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
I think magnetic mounts are used by lazy / cheap people who do not want to spend the $$ nor the time to do it right. Get a professional welder... Be done with it, sleep at night. A magnetic mount would never fly with our approval board on our water tower systems. JohnnyO ps - I have a few friends on this list that use magnetic mounts. they are lazy / cheap :) LOL - Original Message - From: J. Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts I don't intend to ruffle any feathers, nor do I direct this at any one individual but, the number of assumptions made and the knee-jerk reactions and false statements being made in response to a suggestion that magnetic mounts can be successfully used in some circumstances is both amazing and somewhat disappointing. I would have hoped that we could have a more professional atmosphere on this list. Best practices if it in this case is taken to mean to use a commercially available professionally engineered mount which has been engineered to withstand 100 mph wind loads (to use an arbitrary example) instead of using a mounting system which will withstand much more than that, albeit not a professionally engineered solution is just wrong. I would rather go with the stronger, more stable solution rather than compromise on the integrity of the mounting to attain the engineer's label. Whether that is best or not I suppose would depend upon whether your goal was safety or following the norm. It has been suggested in another post that nothing should ever be mounted on a tower that some idiot might at some point decided to use as a tie-off anchor point. That is a good idea in practice, but how many of us have attached a lightweight yagi antenna to a tower leg, assuming that nobody would ever be foolish enough to use it to tie off to, or even use as a foothold or handhold? Are we supposed to only use yagi antennas engineered to withstand improper use in case some idiot decides to tie off to one? What about omni antennas consisting of a thin metal rod, possibly encased in a small fiberglass tube? The point is that while safety should be a top priority, the goal of never mounting something on a tower that could at some point be mis-used as an anchor or support point is an unrealistic goal, which I would go so far as to say that those who propose such a goal have not been able to meet themselves, assuming that they have actually mounted equipment on towers. As far as mounting heavy stuff which might fall off and hurt someone, I would assume that the reaction(s) in this thread would indicate that non-penetrating roof mounts, chimmney mount brackets, clamping to roof vents not specifically engineered to withstand such use, and all other forms of mounting which might under some conditions fail and allow the heavy objects to fall would be outlawed in your town were you given the regulatory authority to do so. Or, perhaps because they were designed by professionals they would pass muster in your book in spite of the fact that any fool looking at them could imagine a likely scenario in which they would fail. I have seen numerous professionally engineered solutions which I would not use in a given circumstance because of the likelihood of it failing, and have in several instances used a solution designed by an amateur (me) so that I could rest easier at night, knowing that I have done what I could to mitigate the actual risk to life and property. Sometimes that means doing things in a way that is out of the norm, which scares some people. That they are scared by that which is not normal without a rational basis for their fear is disheartening. Many rules and regulations have been foisted upon us and have limited the options available to those less suited for the job at hand simply because of those irrational fears. I have seen mounts which were professionally mounted to towers using welded studs (either welded to existing towers or in some cases to towers being constructed) using small diameter bolts which were definitely not something that I would trust my life to, and other mounts that were well engineered and would likely withstand likely wind loads on the equipment that they were supporting, yet which will probably fail in hurricane or tornado force winds. Are these in-appropriate? should we engineer everything to withstand +500mph wind loads? Should all magnets be outlawed? (I see lots of magnetically mounted omni antennas on vehicles traveling at high speed down public roadways, can you imagine that???) I bet some of those responding negatively to magnetic mounts even have magnets holding stuff on their refrigerators, one of the highest use and traffic areas in the typical home. I can show numerous examples of solutions designed and built by amateurs which in the final analysis are safer and better solutions than commercially available,
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
Not to argue with you JohnnyO, :) but the last time I hired professionals (just recently in fact) to do something I could well have done myself, it was because I was lazy and cheap. I didn't have the time, nor the inclination to do something myself, so I hired a professional crew to do it for me. And I do mean professional. A highly experienced, regionally known, and well respected in the industry, firm. I was there to watch the work being done, and I can tell you that had safety, efficiency, and getting the job done according to all relevant best current practices been the criteria, the amateur crew I would have hired had I wanted to spend the time money and energy to do it myself would have been a far better choice. I may be lazy and cheap, but that is really irrelevant to the thread at hand. John JohnnyO wrote: I think magnetic mounts are used by lazy / cheap people who do not want to spend the $$ nor the time to do it right. Get a professional welder... Be done with it, sleep at night. A magnetic mount would never fly with our approval board on our water tower systems. JohnnyO ps - I have a few friends on this list that use magnetic mounts. they are lazy / cheap :) LOL - Original Message - From: J. Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts I don't intend to ruffle any feathers, nor do I direct this at any one individual but, the number of assumptions made and the knee-jerk reactions and false statements being made in response to a suggestion that magnetic mounts can be successfully used in some circumstances is both amazing and somewhat disappointing. I would have hoped that we could have a more professional atmosphere on this list. Best practices if it in this case is taken to mean to use a commercially available professionally engineered mount which has been engineered to withstand 100 mph wind loads (to use an arbitrary example) instead of using a mounting system which will withstand much more than that, albeit not a professionally engineered solution is just wrong. I would rather go with the stronger, more stable solution rather than compromise on the integrity of the mounting to attain the engineer's label. Whether that is best or not I suppose would depend upon whether your goal was safety or following the norm. It has been suggested in another post that nothing should ever be mounted on a tower that some idiot might at some point decided to use as a tie-off anchor point. That is a good idea in practice, but how many of us have attached a lightweight yagi antenna to a tower leg, assuming that nobody would ever be foolish enough to use it to tie off to, or even use as a foothold or handhold? Are we supposed to only use yagi antennas engineered to withstand improper use in case some idiot decides to tie off to one? What about omni antennas consisting of a thin metal rod, possibly encased in a small fiberglass tube? The point is that while safety should be a top priority, the goal of never mounting something on a tower that could at some point be mis-used as an anchor or support point is an unrealistic goal, which I would go so far as to say that those who propose such a goal have not been able to meet themselves, assuming that they have actually mounted equipment on towers. As far as mounting heavy stuff which might fall off and hurt someone, I would assume that the reaction(s) in this thread would indicate that non-penetrating roof mounts, chimmney mount brackets, clamping to roof vents not specifically engineered to withstand such use, and all other forms of mounting which might under some conditions fail and allow the heavy objects to fall would be outlawed in your town were you given the regulatory authority to do so. Or, perhaps because they were designed by professionals they would pass muster in your book in spite of the fact that any fool looking at them could imagine a likely scenario in which they would fail. I have seen numerous professionally engineered solutions which I would not use in a given circumstance because of the likelihood of it failing, and have in several instances used a solution designed by an amateur (me) so that I could rest easier at night, knowing that I have done what I could to mitigate the actual risk to life and property. Sometimes that means doing things in a way that is out of the norm, which scares some people. That they are scared by that which is not normal without a rational basis for their fear is disheartening. Many rules and regulations have been foisted upon us and have limited the options available to those less suited for the job at hand simply because of those irrational fears. I have seen mounts which were professionally mounted to towers using welded studs (either welded to existing towers or in some cases to towers being
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
Or by people who have to deal with government people that are so overwhelmed by the Homeland Security stuff that they want absolutely nothing done that could even remotely cause an issue with the water supply. I do not personally have any water tower mounted equipment, partly because of this paranoia with making changes to the tower. I am fairly certain that the only way I would have gotten permission to go on the top of the tank would have been to use magnetic mounts. JohnnyO wrote: I think magnetic mounts are used by lazy / cheap people who do not want to spend the $$ nor the time to do it right. Get a professional welder... Be done with it, sleep at night. A magnetic mount would never fly with our approval board on our water tower systems. JohnnyO ps - I have a few friends on this list that use magnetic mounts. they are lazy / cheap :) LOL - Original Message - From: J. Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts I don't intend to ruffle any feathers, nor do I direct this at any one individual but, the number of assumptions made and the knee-jerk reactions and false statements being made in response to a suggestion that magnetic mounts can be successfully used in some circumstances is both amazing and somewhat disappointing. I would have hoped that we could have a more professional atmosphere on this list. Best practices if it in this case is taken to mean to use a commercially available professionally engineered mount which has been engineered to withstand 100 mph wind loads (to use an arbitrary example) instead of using a mounting system which will withstand much more than that, albeit not a professionally engineered solution is just wrong. I would rather go with the stronger, more stable solution rather than compromise on the integrity of the mounting to attain the engineer's label. Whether that is best or not I suppose would depend upon whether your goal was safety or following the norm. It has been suggested in another post that nothing should ever be mounted on a tower that some idiot might at some point decided to use as a tie-off anchor point. That is a good idea in practice, but how many of us have attached a lightweight yagi antenna to a tower leg, assuming that nobody would ever be foolish enough to use it to tie off to, or even use as a foothold or handhold? Are we supposed to only use yagi antennas engineered to withstand improper use in case some idiot decides to tie off to one? What about omni antennas consisting of a thin metal rod, possibly encased in a small fiberglass tube? The point is that while safety should be a top priority, the goal of never mounting something on a tower that could at some point be mis-used as an anchor or support point is an unrealistic goal, which I would go so far as to say that those who propose such a goal have not been able to meet themselves, assuming that they have actually mounted equipment on towers. As far as mounting heavy stuff which might fall off and hurt someone, I would assume that the reaction(s) in this thread would indicate that non-penetrating roof mounts, chimmney mount brackets, clamping to roof vents not specifically engineered to withstand such use, and all other forms of mounting which might under some conditions fail and allow the heavy objects to fall would be outlawed in your town were you given the regulatory authority to do so. Or, perhaps because they were designed by professionals they would pass muster in your book in spite of the fact that any fool looking at them could imagine a likely scenario in which they would fail. I have seen numerous professionally engineered solutions which I would not use in a given circumstance because of the likelihood of it failing, and have in several instances used a solution designed by an amateur (me) so that I could rest easier at night, knowing that I have done what I could to mitigate the actual risk to life and property. Sometimes that means doing things in a way that is out of the norm, which scares some people. That they are scared by that which is not normal without a rational basis for their fear is disheartening. Many rules and regulations have been foisted upon us and have limited the options available to those less suited for the job at hand simply because of those irrational fears. I have seen mounts which were professionally mounted to towers using welded studs (either welded to existing towers or in some cases to towers being constructed) using small diameter bolts which were definitely not something that I would trust my life to, and other mounts that were well engineered and would likely withstand likely wind loads on the equipment that they were supporting, yet which will probably fail in hurricane or tornado force winds. Are these in-appropriate? should we engineer everything to withstand +500mph wind loads?
RE: [WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-MultipointProduct Line
$1200 for the cpe yikes...what are they smoking? It just the mp.11 board with a ubiquity 900 card.. Take a peak here: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_i d=793933native_or_pdf=pdf Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drew Lentz Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:19 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-MultipointProduct Line Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-Multipoint Product Line New Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R Enables Broadband, Non-Line-of-Sight Links for Municipal and Other Applications July 12, 2007: 09:00 AM EST http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0277031.htm Proxim Wireless Corporation, a leader in core-to-client solutions for broadband municipal wireless networks and wholly owned subsidiary of Terabeam, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRBM), today announced the Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R, an outdoor point-to-multipoint base station and subscriber unit system that supports high-speed wireless connections in the 900 MHz license-exempt frequency band. Designed for non-line-of-sight applications, the new system enables reliable communications links in environments filled with buildings, dense foliage and other obstructions. With Proxim's new Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R, we can create reliable, high-speed wireless links in environments where line-of-sight is simply not possible, said Gregg Rowland, Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing at ShotSpotter, Inc. ShotSpotter's wireless Gunshot Location System is a mission critical tool for public safety and the military, so reliable communications to and from our sensors is essential to dispatch or the command and control systems. An addition to Proxim's award-winning Tsunami MP.11 family, the Model 954-R system provides capabilities of WiMAX, including WiMAX QoS, mobile roaming with fast handoff speeds up to 200 km/per hour (120 mph), dynamic data rate selection (DDRS) and advanced security with AES encryption. The system's design enables flexible and easy deployment. Housed in ruggedized enclosures, the base station and subscriber units can be deployed in extreme weather conditions with a variety of external antennas. An antenna alignment tool and secure local and remote management ensure quick installation and maintenance. With the introduction of these products, Proxim Wireless is expanding our point-to-multipoint product line to support an even wider range of applications, said Bert Williams, Vice President of Marketing at Proxim Wireless. Our Tsunami product line with ProximVisionT management now operates in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz license-exempt frequency bands, as well as the 3.5 GHz and 4.9 GHz licensed bands, so that our customers can choose the spectrum that best supports their particular applications and environment. The Tsunami MP.11 954-R base station is available now at a U.S. list price of $2,299; Tsunami MP.11 954-R subscriber units are also available now with U.S. list prices starting at $1,199. About Proxim Wireless Proxim Wireless Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Terabeam, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRBM). Proxim Wireless is a global pioneer in developing and supplying scalable broadband wireless networking systems for service providers, municipalities, governments, and enterprises. The company's end-to-end wireless products -- including Wi-FiR mesh, WiMAX, MeshMAXT, WLAN, and wireless backhaul -- are available through an extensive global channel network, backed by world-class support. Proxim is a Principal Member of the WiMAX Forum and is ISO-9001 certified. Information about Proxim and its products and support can be found at http://www.proxim.com. About ShotSpotter, Inc. (www.shotspotter.com) ShotSpotter, Inc., the leading developer of gunshot location systems and technology, is based in Mountain View, CA. ShotSpotter's flagship product, which detects gunfire across large urban areas using a small number of inexpensive and easy-to-deploy sensors, currently protects the citizens of cities nationwide, from Los Angeles, CA to Washington, DC. Its products assisted the FBI and the Franklin County Sheriff's Office in identifying and capturing the Columbus, Ohio highway sniper suspect. With technology covered by numerous patents, the company also offers products to the law enforcement, homeland security and military markets. ShotSpotter technology has consistently produced arrests and weapons confiscations nationwide and has helped reduce gunfire and crime rates in cities that deploy it. Safe Harbor Statement Statements in this press release that are not statements of historical facts are forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions. Our actual results may differ materially from the results
RE: [WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support toPoint-to-MultipointProduct Line
Haha. Gotta love it. Link to Ubiquiti board used: http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/sr9datasheet.pdf Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support toPoint-to-MultipointProduct Line $1200 for the cpe yikes...what are they smoking? It just the mp.11 board with a ubiquity 900 card.. Take a peak here: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_i d=793933native_or_pdf=pdf Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drew Lentz Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:19 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-MultipointProduct Line Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-Multipoint Product Line New Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R Enables Broadband, Non-Line-of-Sight Links for Municipal and Other Applications July 12, 2007: 09:00 AM EST http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0277031.htm Proxim Wireless Corporation, a leader in core-to-client solutions for broadband municipal wireless networks and wholly owned subsidiary of Terabeam, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRBM), today announced the Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R, an outdoor point-to-multipoint base station and subscriber unit system that supports high-speed wireless connections in the 900 MHz license-exempt frequency band. Designed for non-line-of-sight applications, the new system enables reliable communications links in environments filled with buildings, dense foliage and other obstructions. With Proxim's new Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R, we can create reliable, high-speed wireless links in environments where line-of-sight is simply not possible, said Gregg Rowland, Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing at ShotSpotter, Inc. ShotSpotter's wireless Gunshot Location System is a mission critical tool for public safety and the military, so reliable communications to and from our sensors is essential to dispatch or the command and control systems. An addition to Proxim's award-winning Tsunami MP.11 family, the Model 954-R system provides capabilities of WiMAX, including WiMAX QoS, mobile roaming with fast handoff speeds up to 200 km/per hour (120 mph), dynamic data rate selection (DDRS) and advanced security with AES encryption. The system's design enables flexible and easy deployment. Housed in ruggedized enclosures, the base station and subscriber units can be deployed in extreme weather conditions with a variety of external antennas. An antenna alignment tool and secure local and remote management ensure quick installation and maintenance. With the introduction of these products, Proxim Wireless is expanding our point-to-multipoint product line to support an even wider range of applications, said Bert Williams, Vice President of Marketing at Proxim Wireless. Our Tsunami product line with ProximVisionT management now operates in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz license-exempt frequency bands, as well as the 3.5 GHz and 4.9 GHz licensed bands, so that our customers can choose the spectrum that best supports their particular applications and environment. The Tsunami MP.11 954-R base station is available now at a U.S. list price of $2,299; Tsunami MP.11 954-R subscriber units are also available now with U.S. list prices starting at $1,199. About Proxim Wireless Proxim Wireless Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Terabeam, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRBM). Proxim Wireless is a global pioneer in developing and supplying scalable broadband wireless networking systems for service providers, municipalities, governments, and enterprises. The company's end-to-end wireless products -- including Wi-FiR mesh, WiMAX, MeshMAXT, WLAN, and wireless backhaul -- are available through an extensive global channel network, backed by world-class support. Proxim is a Principal Member of the WiMAX Forum and is ISO-9001 certified. Information about Proxim and its products and support can be found at http://www.proxim.com. About ShotSpotter, Inc. (www.shotspotter.com) ShotSpotter, Inc., the leading developer of gunshot location systems and technology, is based in Mountain View, CA. ShotSpotter's flagship product, which detects gunfire across large urban areas using a small number of inexpensive and easy-to-deploy sensors, currently protects the citizens of cities nationwide, from Los Angeles, CA to Washington, DC. Its products assisted the FBI and the Franklin County Sheriff's Office in identifying and capturing the Columbus, Ohio highway sniper suspect. With technology covered by numerous patents, the company also offers products to the law enforcement, homeland security and military markets. ShotSpotter technology
[WISPA] Reverse lookup
can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create a proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a /24 -- You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse lookup
Our upstream has finally plug in our server names to their dns servers and now we are working again You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Carl A jeptha wrote: can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create a proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a /24 Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse lookup
Carl A jeptha wrote: can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create a proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a /24 I don't think BIND can handle smaller allocations. You may have to pretend to be authoritative for the whole /24. (Your upstream will, presumably, only route requests for your /28 to you, so the only folks who would ever know the difference are you, and any customers of yours who do reverse lookups on the rest of that /24, which probably doesn't happen too often.) David Smith MVN.net Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse lookup
I have BIND doing /27 networks as well as larger. Here is what www.dnsstuff.com found: Location: Canada [City: Toronto, Ontario] *Preparation*: The reverse DNS entry for an IP is found by reversing the IP, adding it to in-addr.arpa, and looking up the PTR record. So, the reverse DNS entry for 142.46.11.217 is found by looking up the PTR record for 217.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. All DNS requests start by asking the root servers, and they let us know what to do next. See How Reverse DNS Lookups Work http://member.dnsstuff.com/info/REVDNS.php for more information. *How I am searching*: Asking d.root-servers.net for 217.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa PTR record: d.root-servers.net says to go to indigo.arin.net. (zone: 142.in-addr.arpa.) Asking indigo.arin.net. for 217.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa PTR record: indigo.arin.net [192.31.80.32] says to go to NS2.HYDROONETELECOM.COM. (zone: 46.142.in-addr.arpa.) Asking NS2.HYDROONETELECOM.COM. for 217.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa PTR record: Got CNAME referral to 217.192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. at server ns2.cobourgnetworks.com. (zone 192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa.) [from 142.46.128.130] Asking h.root-servers.net for 217.192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. PTR record: h.root-servers.net [128.63.2.53] says to go to chia.arin.net. (zone: 142.in-addr.arpa.) Asking chia.arin.net. for 217.192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. PTR record: chia.arin.net [192.5.6.32] says to go to NS1.HYDROONETELECOM.COM. (zone: 46.142.in-addr.arpa.) Asking NS1.HYDROONETELECOM.COM. for 217.192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. PTR record: ns1.hydroonetelecom.com [142.46.1.130] says to go to ns1.cobourgnetworks.com. (zone: 192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa.) Asking ns1.cobourgnetworks.com. for 217.192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. PTR record: Reports that no PTR records exist [from 142.46.11.205]. *Answer*: *No PTR records exist for 142.46.11.217.* [Neg TTL=3600 seconds] David E. Smith wrote: Carl A jeptha wrote: can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create a proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a /24 I don't think BIND can handle smaller allocations. You may have to pretend to be authoritative for the whole /24. (Your upstream will, presumably, only route requests for your /28 to you, so the only folks who would ever know the difference are you, and any customers of yours who do reverse lookups on the rest of that /24, which probably doesn't happen too often.) David Smith MVN.net Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse lookup
My /25 is delegated to me from ATT as the zone: 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa
In my named.conf I have:
zone 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa {
type master;
file master/29.xx.12.in-addr.arpa;
};
Take note the CIDR and last octet of my network are reversed, my
netblock is 12.xx.xx.128/25.
Graham
On 7/12/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carl A jeptha wrote:
can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I
need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create a
proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a /24
I don't think BIND can handle smaller allocations. You may have to
pretend to be authoritative for the whole /24. (Your upstream will,
presumably, only route requests for your /28 to you, so the only folks
who would ever know the difference are you, and any customers of yours
who do reverse lookups on the rest of that /24, which probably doesn't
happen too often.)
David Smith
MVN.net
Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current
Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your
thoughts.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current
Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your
thoughts.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse lookup
Graham McIntire wrote: My /25 is delegated to me from ATT as the zone: 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa Oooh, neat, I didn't know BIND could do that. Are you using BIND 8 or BIND 9? (Or some other DNS software entirely?) David Smith MVN.net Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Reverse lookup
Ok will try this. thanks. will report back.
You have a Good Day now,
Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha
Graham McIntyre wrote:
My /25 is delegated to me from ATT as the zone:
128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa
In my named.conf I have:
zone 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa {
type master;
file master/29.xx.12.in-addr.arpa;
};
Take note the CIDR and last octet of my network are reversed, my
netblock is 12.xx.xx.128/25.
Graham
On 7/12/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carl A jeptha wrote:
can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I
need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to
create a
proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for
a /24
I don't think BIND can handle smaller allocations. You may have to
pretend to be authoritative for the whole /24. (Your upstream will,
presumably, only route requests for your /28 to you, so the only folks
who would ever know the difference are you, and any customers of yours
who do reverse lookups on the rest of that /24, which probably doesn't
happen too often.)
David Smith
MVN.net
Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA
lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this
time. We want to know your thoughts.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA
lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this
time. We want to know your thoughts.
Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current
Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your
thoughts.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
John Vogel, Disagreeing with you does not make this a less-than-professional discussion. There was nothing in my post that was unprofessional or uncivil; I simply disagree with the use of magnet-mounting equipment onto towers. If discussion on such stuff is unprofessional, then these lists have no purpose. You stated in your earlier post regarding magnets I don't completely trust them. I don't either, so we are in agreement on the matter :). Call it unprofessional of me, but I tend to think that one should avoid using mounting methods that one doesn't trust when one is dealing with big, heavy chunks of metal and what-all hundreds of feet in the air. As a general side note, any statement about mounting that involved some statement of I don't completely trust it would get the same response from me. I don't like the idea of people mounting big heavy objects above my head using methods they themselves have some doubt about. Best practices does not necessarily entail commercially available solutions or degreed engineering solutions. Best practices are simply that--the optimal way(s) of achieving a particular task. I don't completely trust methods are a long-ways off from that. My point is not to increase regulation and such--quite the opposite. My point is that using practices that aren't completely trusted will, in the end, lead to regulation. As an industry, the wireless industry will have to learn to regulate itself to a moderate degree or it will be regulated to a heavy degree. There's a lot that goes by everyone on that is not necessarily as well done as it could be--which is understandable--business may require concessions to some degree. Nevertheless, better practices should be used in places that are highly visible or potentially impact the public community. Does it need to involve a degreed engineer? Of course not. But, considering that even you had your doubts, 200 feet above everyone in plain sight of an entire town is a heck-of a place for a we'll see approach which was the feeling I got from your original postings. I don't think that engineering needs to take into accounts stupid misuse (ie antennas being used as footholds). Still, I don't see how a mounting solution that you were almost surprised that there hadn't been slippage on a year later is a good thing. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies ps. I'm not against magnets in general. Magnets on my fridge? Guilty as charged :) Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
Clint, Thank you for the civil reply. You are still making assumptions which are in fact un-founded. Nowhere in my post did I state the weights and dimensions of what I have secured to towers using magnets, the number and size of magnets, their placement on the towers, proximity to areas where there might be climbers attempting find anchor points, whether they were on vertical or horizontal planes of the tower, the leverage which might have been either in favor of or against the magnets due to stresses which might be placed on the mount by winds or objects striking the antennas/masts, the methods used to tie the magnets together, wind load factor of attached equipment, or really any other technical details which would have given you or anybody else a possible basis for determining whether or not the methods used were likely to be sufficient under all forseeable circumstances, or even possible catastophic conditions. Yet you still referred to amateurs, your liklihood of dis-allowing any such mounts were you in the decision making role or in authority position, and other references that indicated that you believe that anybody that would use magnetic mounts in any circumstance (at 200 feet in the air) is doing it wrong. I believe you also referred to lack of understanding of magnet load carrying capacity and other references to the lack of ability of people (presumably including me) who might choose to use magnets to mount an antenna. I did say that I did not completely trust the mount, and immediately following that statement, stated that I had secured the mount/mast to the tower using a safety cable. I did not express surprise that the magnets had not moved, just stated that I could not detect any movement. I actually attached the safety cable because I am probably more cautious than most. I also don't completely trust most other mounting systems, and whenever possible and/or practical, take steps to add a redundant safety feature such as a safety cable, supporting braces, multiple mount points, etc... and I do this on towers that are in rural locations with no structures/and only authorized personnell being within 1/2 mile of the towers. (and only on rare occasions at that.)There is almost zero possibility of anybody or any thing being damaged or hurt should the mounts fail and the safety cable failing simultaneously. And by almost zero I mean approaching infinitesimally small odds that someone will get hurt. But then again, I am not a statistician either. :) My negative reaction to your post and those made by others was prompted by the unequivocal statements that magnet mounts are always a bad idea. I would propose that a properly designed and built mounting system secured by the proper quantity/size/power magnets strategically placed can be safer than many of the mounting systems I see in use that would not have elicited such a response had the suggestion been to use them, including some mounts I have seen that were bolted to the tower using capacitive stud welding. In fact, I believe that magnets could be used successfully to secure a mounting system that I WOULD trust my life to, and I take life very seriously. :) The original poster asked for alternative ideas for mounting some sector antennas to a tower. He did not as I recall specify the size or weight of those antennas. They likely are not very big or heavy if he is in the WISP industry. Most likely they weigh only a couple of pounds, with minimal wind loading characteristics. If that is the case, it might be entirely possible to design a mounting system that would hold them, with the mounting system exceeding the specifications of the antenna brackets themselves in terms of holding capacity and projected reliability. I did not propose to him the design of such a system, nor would I. Only a suggestion that such things can and are being done successfully, giving him another option to research. It is OK for you and others to disagree, but please, do so in a reasoned and civil manner, taking all care necessary to avoid giving the impression that you believe those with whom you are disagreeing are idiots, fools, or worse... unless of course they actually are. :) John Clint Ricker wrote: John Vogel, Disagreeing with you does not make this a less-than-professional discussion. There was nothing in my post that was unprofessional or uncivil; I simply disagree with the use of magnet-mounting equipment onto towers. If discussion on such stuff is unprofessional, then these lists have no purpose. You stated in your earlier post regarding magnets I don't completely trust them. I don't either, so we are in agreement on the matter :). Call it unprofessional of me, but I tend to think that one should avoid using mounting methods that one doesn't trust when one is dealing with big, heavy chunks of metal and what-all hundreds of feet in the air. As a general side note, any statement about mounting that involved some statement of I
Re: [WISPA] Reverse lookup
I have done as you directed and it is working, I love my freedom, if I
want to change a server I don't have to fill in the forms in triplicate
and wait three for the instruction to executed wrong. :-D
You have a Good Day now,
Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha
Graham McIntire wrote:
My /25 is delegated to me from ATT as the zone:
128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa
In my named.conf I have:
zone 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa {
type master;
file master/29.xx.12.in-addr.arpa;
};
Take note the CIDR and last octet of my network are reversed, my
netblock is 12.xx.xx.128/25.
Graham
On 7/12/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carl A jeptha wrote:
can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I
need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to
create a
proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for
a /24
I don't think BIND can handle smaller allocations. You may have to
pretend to be authoritative for the whole /24. (Your upstream will,
presumably, only route requests for your /28 to you, so the only folks
who would ever know the difference are you, and any customers of yours
who do reverse lookups on the rest of that /24, which probably doesn't
happen too often.)
David Smith
MVN.net
Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA
lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this
time. We want to know your thoughts.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA
lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this
time. We want to know your thoughts.
Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current
Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your
thoughts.
--
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 Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers
Gawd, it is this kind of thing that makes me wish I was a Democrat. Why can't we all find the middle? -m- David Hughes wrote: FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers By Kim Hart Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, July 12, 2007; D08 Key lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday supported the idea that regulators should give consumers greater control over how they use their cellphones. Several members of a House subcommittee voiced agreement with a proposal that would require a portion of valuable airwaves about to be auctioned off by the Federal Communications Commission to be used for an open network that would connect to any mobile device or service. Such a rule would benefit technology companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Skype, who want more ways to reach their customers without going through carriers. The plan could hurt wireless carriers, who say unfettered access to their networks would undermine billions of dollars of investment for high-speed services. This issue of open access lies at the center of the debate about rules that will govern the spectrum auction, which are expected to be released this month. FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin has proposed setting aside one-third of the spectrum for an open network that would work with any cellphone. Supporters of Google and its partners say an open network would promote innovation by letting consumers use services on new devices like the iPhone without being limited to a single network. But critics argue that placing such conditions on the bidding process would actually stifle competition and reduce revenues from the auction, which is expected to yield between $15 billion and $20 billion for the U.S. Treasury. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the subcommittee that handles telecommunications and Internet issues, urged the FCC to seize this opportunity to create an open-access opportunity for wireless service in this auction. He added that wireless carriers are exerting far too much control over the features, functions and applications that wireless gadget makers and content entrepreneurs can offer directly to consumers. Ranking Republican Fred Upton of Michigan countered by saying the wireless market is already vigorously competitive. No matter how you slice it, he said, the proposal smothers investment in a competitive market, and in the end would leave consumers worse off and with fewer choices. The four-hour hearing highlighted the divergent views of policymakers and industry representatives on the consequences of using a slice of the spectrum for an open-access network. Steven E. Zipperstein, general counsel for Verizon Wireless, testified that competition already forces wireless companies to invest in new products and networks, ultimately benefiting consumers. He also said that any open-access requirement would make the spectrum less valuable to companies like Verizon Wireless. But Jason Devitt, who runs a Silicon Valley start-up that sells wireless products and services, disagreed. While the major carriers such as Verizon Wireless and ATamp;T bring new products to market, he said, there are so many other products and services not getting in front of consumers because carriers act as gatekeepers. I'm an entrepreneur, and I'm mad as hell I have to ask for permission to innovate, he said, referring to what he called the wireless companies' death grip on the market. Google, which has been lobbying Congress and the FCC in favor of open networks, has not decided whether it will formally bid on a piece of the spectrum and build a wireless network. On the company's public policy blog, Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, Richard Whitt, wrote Tuesday that the company was still interested in participating in the auction but said it's clear that the incumbent carriers have built-in advantages that will prove difficult to overcome. Google said it favors openness that allows all services, applications and devices to work on the wireless network. Some consumer advocates say the auction rules Martin proposed this week do not go far enough to promote real competition. In addition to allowing any device to connect to the network, the FCC should require the auction winner to wholesale the spectrum to companies that impose no rules on what type of services and equipment consumers can use, said Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge, an advocacy group. Martin seems to be testing the waters, Brodsky said, with draft rules that seem to favor high-tech companies over the major telecom carriers. He wants to see the congressional and industry reaction, he said. He's trying to see what kind of support he'll get. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want
RE: [SPAM] RE: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
http://www.metal-cable.com/ Look at the MagneMount. No idea what is costs, but it should work for you. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC 320-256-WISP (9477) 320-256-9478 Fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 3:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [SPAM] RE: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts Importance: Low I would not recommend welding on the tank portion of the water tower. It is my understanding they are coated and will be damaged by the heat. I have equipment on two different water towers and that was the info given on both. Fortunately I had other mounting solutions. There was a discussion a while back about this and a magnetic mount was suggested. Mark McElvy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carl Shivers Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:37 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts We are going to be mounting Panel Sector antennas to 2 Water Towers. One tower is ideal with a rail that has been designed for pipe mounting. The other is not so kind. It simply has a ladder up the side and over the top, no catwalk. We were thinking about using one of those 170 lbs. Water Tower mounts. This means we either have to get a welder up there to weld the plates or come up with an industrial epoxy solution. Any other ideas would be welcome. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] New WISPA Member - Ted Olson of OACYS Technology
Please join me in welcoming Ted Olson of OACYS Technology as WISPA's newest Principal Member. Here is a little about Ted and his company: OACYS (pronounced as in oasis) turned 25 this year, I founded it in 1982 after many years as a military and commercial helicopter pilot. There's no connection, except for maybe an odd sense of adventure and a certain lack of good sense. We worked from CP/M to DOS and Windows and networks and software development, then in 1995 bought some bandwidth and a case of modems and became an ISP, the first in our semi-rural community of about 30K then (now 50K). In the late 90s we tangled with PacBell over the privilege of reselling their DSL. We're a charter member of CISPA and spent quite a bit of money on that battle, until I got fed up and decided that anything further in that direction was going to be a very bumpy road that would eventually turn into a dead-end. We're pretty independent sorts so we took a deep breath, white-boarded a new game plan, and turned exclusively to wireless. Never looked back. Karlnet stuff first, now mostly Trango in all the usual unlicensed bands. I was chairman of CISPA's first wireless committee, but got way too busy with our own business to have enough time to do that justice so I passed the baton. We're still members, but with only a few (and far between) wireless exceptions that group is still fighting the DSL battle so we don't really participate any more. I just posted a reference to WISPA in reply to a couple of enquiries on their list about 700 MHz, maybe you'll pick up another new member or two. We cover around 2,500 square miles of mostly rural area at the base of the Sierra Nevadas, and also up into several small foothill and mountain valleys that may never be served by DSL or cable. Wouldn't matter to us anyway, we own those markets now and our service is so good we'd be very hard to unseat. We have a dozen employees averaging close to ten years each, and around 2000 subs (60-40% residential and business). Our only wireless competition is Clearwire, but they're not affecting our business (they may be helping) and our growth is steady. Our CLEC application is now going through the approval process at CPUC. We've started selling VoIP (Asterisk box) and now need the advantages of a CLEC, previously it wasn't worth the cost. We've been aware of WISPA for a long time, but it was a recent article about CALEA that got us thinking we should probably join. I've been lurking in your mail list for a while, just to see what's going on ... we might be interested in supporting your 700 MHz efforts. We've of course been filing 477s for several years. Unfortunately for us there are apparently enough small cities elsewhere in our county to disqualify our CMA (150) as being rural. The extra 20% would have been nice but it's not really a deterrent, providing I can get some idea of what a realistic bid might be from our perspective. It looks like the average award in Auction 66 went for around $12 million, which would be WAY out of our reach. I'd like to know more about your previous experience with FCC auctions. That alone makes it worthwhile to join and help support your committee and lobbying efforts, is that still open at $1000? Our time is limited (just like yours), but we'll help as much as we can. Cheers, -Ted Note to Ted and others from Scriv I have extended the $1000 to join the 700 MHz Committee for a bit longer. I am guessing this deal will go away for goos in a couple of weeks though. If you are on the fence for getting into the 70 MHz efforts hen please join now by sending your check for $1000 to: WISPA Attn: 700 MHz Committee PO Box 1582 Mt. Vernon, IL. 62864 We appreciate your WISPA support whether you have an interest in 700 MHz or not. That goes for all of you out there who support WISPA. A big thank you to all. Back to you Ted.Scriv Ted Olson President and CEO [EMAIL PROTECTED] OACYS Technology 767 North Porter Road Porterville, CA 93257 559.781.4123 Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
Comments In line J. Vogel wrote: I don't intend to ruffle any feathers, nor do I direct this at any one individual but, the number of assumptions made and the knee-jerk reactions and false statements being made in response to a suggestion that magnetic mounts can be successfully used in some circumstances is both amazing and somewhat disappointing. I would have hoped that we could have a more professional atmosphere on this list. Sorry to disappoint you. My reaction to the statement was not an assumption nor a knee jerk reaction. This subject was discussed in-depth in the past and there have been similar responses. While the idea may seem like a good one it is not a safe practice. Best practices if it in this case is taken to mean to use a commercially available professionally engineered mount which has been engineered to withstand 100 mph wind loads (to use an arbitrary example) instead of using a mounting system which will withstand much more than that, albeit not a professionally engineered solution is just wrong. I would rather go with the stronger, more stable solution rather than compromise on the integrity of the mounting to attain the engineer's label. Whether that is best or not I suppose would depend upon whether your goal was safety or following the norm. I believe the intention was to promote safe and responsible mounting of equipment. Professional was never the issue. It has been suggested in another post Yes..Mine.. that nothing should ever be mounted on a tower that some idiot Why is the person an idiot? might at some point decided to use as a tie-off anchor point. That is a good idea in practice, but how many of us have attached a lightweight yagi antenna to a tower leg, assuming that nobody would ever be foolish enough to use it to tie off to, or even use as a foothold or handhold? Comon'I'm not talking about tying off to a yagi. Give me some credit hereWe are talking about mounting structures.. Are we supposed to only use yagi antennas engineered to withstand improper use in case some idiot decides to tie off to one? What about omni antennas consisting of a thin metal rod, possibly encased in a small fiberglass tube? Being ridiculous here.. No one in the steel or tower industry would tie off to an actual antenna. The point is that while safety should be a top priority, the goal of never mounting something on a tower that could at some point be mis-used as an anchor or support point is an unrealistic goal, which I would go so far as to say that those who propose such a goal have not been able to meet themselves, assuming that they have actually mounted equipment on towers. 1. Not true. The number one issue when working and mounting at heights must be safety. Again, not cost, but safety. Mounting all equipment so it will not come down under any circumstances. Routing cabling on towers and water tanks so that they will not produce safety issues such as climbing obstructions and/or tripping hazards. Grounding equipment and following NEC/EIA requirements when routing power up a tower or tank. I do not feel that it is unrealistic to expect a mounting structure to be properly mounted. Add to that an inexperienced climber and an antenna mount with magnets that could easily slide across the surface of the tank and you have an extremely unsafe condition. There are several people on this list that were involved in Hurricaine Katrina relief. Ask them how many cellular antennas they saw hanging from their cabling or damaged mounts after the storm. It is my understanding that there were not any where the structure was still standing. And where towers had collapsed, the cell mounts were still attached to the downed towers. 2. I propose such a goal because both myself and my guys (as well as several thousand other tower/steel workers) work on these structures every day. It would probably be safe to say that I have more mounting experience on water tanks than anyone else on this list. Not bragging...just expressing my experience. And I did not get this experience in the last year or two. It is more like 20+ years. As far as mounting heavy stuff which might fall off and hurt someone, I would assume that the reaction(s) in this thread would indicate that non-penetrating roof mounts, chimmney mount brackets, clamping to roof vents not specifically engineered to withstand such use, and all other forms of mounting which might under some conditions fail and allow the heavy objects to fall would be outlawed in your town were you given the regulatory authority to do so. Or, perhaps because they were designed by professionals they would pass muster in your book in spite of the fact that any fool looking at them could imagine a likely scenario in which they would fail. I am curious why you keep going back to this designed by professionals statement? Non-Pen mounts are designed to hold a certain amount of
