[WISPA] FCC Majority Backs Open-Access Plan for Airwaves
FCC Majority Backs Open-Access Plan for Airwaves By Kim Hart Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; D02 A majority of the members of the Federal Communications Commission told a House panel yesterday that they support an open-access requirement for the coming radio spectrum auction that would give consumers more choices for cellphone devices and services. The open-access proposal, first outlined about two weeks ago by FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, has become central to the debate over how the airwaves will be used when television broadcasters give them up in 2009. The FCC plans to auction these airwaves to companies in January. The measure would require the highest bidder to use a third of the airwaves to build a network that is available to all wireless devices and services. The hearing yesterday before the House subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet was the first time the commissioners publicly shared their views about the rules for the auction and was probably the last chance for Congress to weigh in before commissioners vote on the rules, perhaps as early as next week. Democratic Commissioners Jonathan S. Adelstein and Michael J. Copps said they supported the open-access plan, while Republican Commissioners Deborah Taylor Tate and Robert M. McDowell said they were undecided. The Martin proposal was unpopular among Republican subcommittee members, who say the auction should be free of conditions -- in part because rules could reduce the revenue it generates, which is expected to be about $15 billion. About $10 billion of that has been allocated for federal use. Democrats on the panel supported the provision on the grounds that it would give consumers more choices than wireless providers like ATamp;T and Verizon Wireless now provide. Google, which has expressed interest in bidding, has said the open-access requirement is not enough to allow a new entrant into the wireless market. On Friday, the company said it would spend at least $4.6 billion to bid on the spectrum if the FCC also mandated that the winner lease some of the airwaves to other companies offering broadband services that do not restrict devices or services. Martin has resisted what is being called the wholesale measure, saying it would discourage the winner from investing in the network. Excluding ATT, the wireless industry opposes any restrictions on how the spectrum will be used. Last week, ATT said that it supported Martin's proposal but would not make a decision about whether to bid until the FCC's rules were finalized. The proposal is not designed to facilitate the entry of any one company, Martin said. While there isn't a company that supports my proposal, I think consumers will. McDowell said he was leaning against Martin's proposal for open access because it could raise prices for consumers. Although McDowell said he would like to see the wireless industry become less restrictive in the devices and services it offers consumers, he questions whether that should happen through natural evolution or government mandate. Several lawmakers expressed concern that the open-access rule would shut small and rural companies out of the auction. If a condition is placed on the largest piece of the spectrum, well-established carriers such as ATamp;T and Verizon may opt to bid on smaller licenses eyed by rural carriers, Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said. Martin said he favored breaking up the spectrum into licenses of various sizes to let a diverse mix of companies participate in the auction. 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] FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data
FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data $5 Million a Year Sought for Firms To Keep Databases By Ellen Nakashima Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A07 The FBI wants to pay the major telecommunications companies to retain their customers' Internet and phone call information for at least two years for the agency's use in counterterrorism investigations and is asking Congress for $5 million a year to defray the cost, according to FBI officials and budget documents. The FBI would not have direct access to the records. It would need to present a subpoena or an administrative warrant, known as a national security letter, to obtain the information that the companies would keep in a database, officials said. We have never asked for the ability to have direct access to or to 'data mine' telephone company databases, said John Miller, the FBI's assistant director for public affairs. The budget request simply seeks to absorb the cost to the service provider of developing an efficient electronic system for them to retain and deliver the information after it is legally requested. The proposal has raised concerns by civil libertarians who point to telecom companies' alleged involvement in the government's domestic surveillance program and to a recent Justice Department inspector general's report on FBI abuse of national security letters. In one case, a senior FBI official signed the letters without including the required proof that they were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage investigations. The report also disclosed that the bureau was issuing exigent letters, telling telephone companies that the bureau needed information immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later. In many cases, agents did not follow up. Moreover, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found, there was no legal basis to compel the disclosure of information using such letters. The proposal is circumventing the law by paying companies to do something the FBI couldn't do itself legally, said Michael German, American Civil Liberties Union policy counsel on national security. Going around the Fourth Amendment by paying private companies to hoard our phone records is outrageous. Mark J. Zwillinger, a Washington lawyer who represents Internet service providers, said companies have no business reason to keep the data. Moreover, he said he did not think telecom companies are in the business of becoming the investigative arm for the government, keeping data just so the government can get access to it. That's really what the government is asking for: 'Keep data on hundreds of millions of users just in case we need to get data for 15 individuals.' Last year, according to industry sources, U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III urged telecom providers to keep subscriber information and network data for two years. Legislation is pending in Congress that would require companies to keep the data. What type and for how long would be up to the attorney general. The administration is also attempting to win immunity for telecom companies from criminal and civil liability for any role in the surveillance program. Telecoms have been providing data legally to the government and then charging for it, said a government official not authorized to speak publicly about the matter and who spoke on condition of anonymity. The cost is about $1.8 million a year since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the official said. The idea now, the official said, is to have the telecom companies create and maintain databases of phone and Internet records so that when they receive a subpoena or national security letter, they can deliver the information expeditiously in electronic form. Zwillinger, an Internet and data protection expert with Sonnenschein Nath amp; Rosenthal and a former federal prosecutor, said that merely retaining the records creates a very attractive trove of data that can be subpoenaed by other entities, such as lawyers in divorce proceedings or other civil litigation. The FBI's proposal to pay companies for the records was reported previously by ABC News. 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] Marina Cams
Anyone done cameras at a marina where they've sold access to the slip owners ? How do ya handle multiple people wanting to see the same camera ? 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] FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data
UHG!!! What a waste of resources. Can anyone point to even ONE terrorist that has even been sniffed out due to data from an ISP? I did a few quick Google searches and no case has popped up. IMO terrorist groups have show that they know how to operate and not leave a trail that leads anyplace important till after the fact. Anyone remember when it was requested that encryptions have a back door? I think this is partly fall out from then. How many ISPs have people who use PGP? As a computer shop I can think of at least a few people who are using PGP/OpenPGP and one who uses a 2048bit cypher. What is WISPA`s official stance on this subject? On 7/25/07, David Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data $5 Million a Year Sought for Firms To Keep Databases By Ellen Nakashima Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A07 The FBI wants to pay the major telecommunications companies to retain their customers' Internet and phone call information for at least two years for the agency's use in counterterrorism investigations and is asking Congress for $5 million a year to defray the cost, according to FBI officials and budget documents. The FBI would not have direct access to the records. It would need to present a subpoena or an administrative warrant, known as a national security letter, to obtain the information that the companies would keep in a database, officials said. We have never asked for the ability to have direct access to or to 'data mine' telephone company databases, said John Miller, the FBI's assistant director for public affairs. The budget request simply seeks to absorb the cost to the service provider of developing an efficient electronic system for them to retain and deliver the information after it is legally requested. The proposal has raised concerns by civil libertarians who point to telecom companies' alleged involvement in the government's domestic surveillance program and to a recent Justice Department inspector general's report on FBI abuse of national security letters. In one case, a senior FBI official signed the letters without including the required proof that they were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage investigations. The report also disclosed that the bureau was issuing exigent letters, telling telephone companies that the bureau needed information immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later. In many cases, agents did not follow up. Moreover, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found, there was no legal basis to compel the disclosure of information using such letters. The proposal is circumventing the law by paying companies to do something the FBI couldn't do itself legally, said Michael German, American Civil Liberties Union policy counsel on national security. Going around the Fourth Amendment by paying private companies to hoard our phone records is outrageous. Mark J. Zwillinger, a Washington lawyer who represents Internet service providers, said companies have no business reason to keep the data. Moreover, he said he did not think telecom companies are in the business of becoming the investigative arm for the government, keeping data just so the government can get access to it. That's really what the government is asking for: 'Keep data on hundreds of millions of users just in case we need to get data for 15 individuals.' Last year, according to industry sources, U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III urged telecom providers to keep subscriber information and network data for two years. Legislation is pending in Congress that would require companies to keep the data. What type and for how long would be up to the attorney general. The administration is also attempting to win immunity for telecom companies from criminal and civil liability for any role in the surveillance program. Telecoms have been providing data legally to the government and then charging for it, said a government official not authorized to speak publicly about the matter and who spoke on condition of anonymity. The cost is about $1.8 million a year since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the official said. The idea now, the official said, is to have the telecom companies create and maintain databases of phone and Internet records so that when they receive a subpoena or national security letter, they can deliver the information expeditiously in electronic form. Zwillinger, an Internet and data protection expert with Sonnenschein Nath amp; Rosenthal and a former federal prosecutor, said that merely retaining the records creates a very attractive trove of data that can be subpoenaed by other entities, such as lawyers in divorce proceedings or other civil litigation. The FBI's proposal to pay companies for the records was reported previously by ABC News. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know
RE: [WISPA] Marina Cams
Last month I ran across a PTZ camera site and once you clicked the PTZ link it would put you in a cue to operate it. Once it was your turn it would give you so many minutes of operation. I can not find the link but the software was part of the camera. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Smith, Rick Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 7:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Marina Cams Anyone done cameras at a marina where they've sold access to the slip owners ? How do ya handle multiple people wanting to see the same camera ? 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] Public Safety
4.9 is the only true data band. 800 is still shared - and Nextel is not vacating it, just moving around a bit on it. 150, 450, and 800 will not support high speed data with the present day band plan, and changing that band plan would be a unworkable at this day and time. What do you mean about the third band that the nationwide interoperable network could be in? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] Public Safety What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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 Associate Member
We appreciate your support. Please welcome our newest WISPA Associate Member: St. Louis Network Engineering Services dbo / www.mikrotikconsulting.com http://www.mikrotikconsulting.com STLNES is a Mikrotik and Network Support Services company owned and operated by Dennis Burgess. I provide end to end network design, and consulting services for all levels of Wireless Internet Service Providers, as well as Enterprise customers, such as small and medium business's. I currently hold certifications with Microsoft, Cisco and as well with Mikrotik. Providing Teir 3 Support for WISPs and Mikrotik Products is my day to day job.. I also sell Enterprise-Grade Mikrotik Routers, via www.mikrotikrouter.com http://www.mikrotikrouter.com. I have over 9 years experience supporting enterprise customers, using Cisco and Microsoft products. Eventually I started a WISP south of St. Louis. This WISP, 2K Wireless, is over 3 years old. Mikrotik quickly became my passion and a product that I would start supporting. I continue to work with Mikrotik to provide high-quality consulting for the Mikrotik RouterOS . Thanks, Dennis Burgess www.mikrotikconsulting.com http://www.mikrotikconsulting.com www.mikrotikrouter.com http://www.mikrotikrouter.com 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] FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data
Jeromie, While personally I agree with your view, I don't believe WISPA has an official stance or an official position on this subject as yet. Keep in mind that this news item http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402479.html just appeared in print yesterday. If enough WISPA members express their views then the Board should be able to determine a majority view of WISPA members. WISPA may then choose to communicate that majority view to Congress. Individual WISPS are of course free to also express their views directly to Congress. Although the term politician carries a negative connotation these days, it is our elected members of Congress who write the laws that determine what each of us as individuals as well as what the employees of our 15 different national intelligence agencies can and can not legally do. jack Jeromie Reeves wrote: UHG!!! What a waste of resources. Can anyone point to even ONE terrorist that has even been sniffed out due to data from an ISP? I did a few quick Google searches and no case has popped up. IMO terrorist groups have show that they know how to operate and not leave a trail that leads anyplace important till after the fact. Anyone remember when it was requested that encryptions have a back door? I think this is partly fall out from then. How many ISPs have people who use PGP? As a computer shop I can think of at least a few people who are using PGP/OpenPGP and one who uses a 2048bit cypher. What is WISPA`s official stance on this subject? On 7/25/07, David Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data $5 Million a Year Sought for Firms To Keep Databases By Ellen Nakashima Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A07 The FBI wants to pay the major telecommunications companies to retain their customers' Internet and phone call information for at least two years for the agency's use in counterterrorism investigations and is asking Congress for $5 million a year to defray the cost, according to FBI officials and budget documents. The FBI would not have direct access to the records. It would need to present a subpoena or an administrative warrant, known as a national security letter, to obtain the information that the companies would keep in a database, officials said. We have never asked for the ability to have direct access to or to 'data mine' telephone company databases, said John Miller, the FBI's assistant director for public affairs. The budget request simply seeks to absorb the cost to the service provider of developing an efficient electronic system for them to retain and deliver the information after it is legally requested. The proposal has raised concerns by civil libertarians who point to telecom companies' alleged involvement in the government's domestic surveillance program and to a recent Justice Department inspector general's report on FBI abuse of national security letters. In one case, a senior FBI official signed the letters without including the required proof that they were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage investigations. The report also disclosed that the bureau was issuing exigent letters, telling telephone companies that the bureau needed information immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later. In many cases, agents did not follow up. Moreover, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found, there was no legal basis to compel the disclosure of information using such letters. The proposal is circumventing the law by paying companies to do something the FBI couldn't do itself legally, said Michael German, American Civil Liberties Union policy counsel on national security. Going around the Fourth Amendment by paying private companies to hoard our phone records is outrageous. Mark J. Zwillinger, a Washington lawyer who represents Internet service providers, said companies have no business reason to keep the data. Moreover, he said he did not think telecom companies are in the business of becoming the investigative arm for the government, keeping data just so the government can get access to it. That's really what the government is asking for: 'Keep data on hundreds of millions of users just in case we need to get data for 15 individuals.' Last year, according to industry sources, U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III urged telecom providers to keep subscriber information and network data for two years. Legislation is pending in Congress that would require companies to keep the data. What type and for how long would be up to the attorney general. The administration is also attempting to win immunity for telecom companies from criminal and civil liability for any role in the surveillance program. Telecoms have been providing data legally to the government and then charging for it, said a government official not authorized to speak publicly about the matter and who spoke
Re: [WISPA] FCC Majority Backs Open-Access Plan for Airwaves
Open Access here does NOT mean wholesaling the network. Open Access here means Carterphone. IOW, the unlocking of the iPhone. - Peter David Hughes wrote: FCC Majority Backs Open-Access Plan for Airwaves By Kim Hart Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; D02 A majority of the members of the Federal Communications Commission told a House panel yesterday that they support an open-access requirement for the coming radio spectrum auction that would give consumers more choices for cellphone devices and services. The open-access proposal, first outlined about two weeks ago by FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, has become central to the debate over how the airwaves will be used when television broadcasters give them up in 2009. The FCC plans to auction these airwaves to companies in January. The measure would require the highest bidder to use a third of the airwaves to build a network that is available to all wireless devices and services. The hearing yesterday before the House subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet was the first time the commissioners publicly shared their views about the rules for the auction and was probably the last chance for Congress to weigh in before commissioners vote on the rules, perhaps as early as next week. Democratic Commissioners Jonathan S. Adelstein and Michael J. Copps said they supported the open-access plan, while Republican Commissioners Deborah Taylor Tate and Robert M. McDowell said they were undecided. The Martin proposal was unpopular among Republican subcommittee members, who say the auction should be free of conditions -- in part because rules could reduce the revenue it generates, which is expected to be about $15 billion. About $10 billion of that has been allocated for federal use. Democrats on the panel supported the provision on the grounds that it would give consumers more choices than wireless providers like ATamp;T and Verizon Wireless now provide. Google, which has expressed interest in bidding, has said the open-access requirement is not enough to allow a new entrant into the wireless market. On Friday, the company said it would spend at least $4.6 billion to bid on the spectrum if the FCC also mandated that the winner lease some of the airwaves to other companies offering broadband services that do not restrict devices or services. Martin has resisted what is being called the wholesale measure, saying it would discourage the winner from investing in the network. Excluding ATT, the wireless industry opposes any restrictions on how the spectrum will be used. Last week, ATT said that it supported Martin's proposal but would not make a decision about whether to bid until the FCC's rules were finalized. The proposal is not designed to facilitate the entry of any one company, Martin said. While there isn't a company that supports my proposal, I think consumers will. McDowell said he was leaning against Martin's proposal for open access because it could raise prices for consumers. Although McDowell said he would like to see the wireless industry become less restrictive in the devices and services it offers consumers, he questions whether that should happen through natural evolution or government mandate. Several lawmakers expressed concern that the open-access rule would shut small and rural companies out of the auction. If a condition is placed on the largest piece of the spectrum, well-established carriers such as ATamp;T and Verizon may opt to bid on smaller licenses eyed by rural carriers, Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said. Martin said he favored breaking up the spectrum into licenses of various sizes to let a diverse mix of companies participate in the auction. 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/
[WISPA] Re: [WISPA Members] New WISPA Associate Member
Dennis, WELCOME TO WISPA. jack John Scrivner wrote: We appreciate your support. Please welcome our newest WISPA Associate Member: St. Louis Network Engineering Services dbo / www.mikrotikconsulting.com http://www.mikrotikconsulting.com STLNES is a Mikrotik and Network Support Services company owned and operated by Dennis Burgess. I provide end to end network design, and consulting services for all levels of Wireless Internet Service Providers, as well as Enterprise customers, such as small and medium business's. I currently hold certifications with Microsoft, Cisco and as well with Mikrotik. Providing Teir 3 Support for WISPs and Mikrotik Products is my day to day job.. I also sell Enterprise-Grade Mikrotik Routers, via www.mikrotikrouter.com http://www.mikrotikrouter.com. I have over 9 years experience supporting enterprise customers, using Cisco and Microsoft products. Eventually I started a WISP south of St. Louis. This WISP, 2K Wireless, is over 3 years old. Mikrotik quickly became my passion and a product that I would start supporting. I continue to work with Mikrotik to provide high-quality consulting for the Mikrotik RouterOS . Thanks, Dennis Burgess www.mikrotikconsulting.com http://www.mikrotikconsulting.com www.mikrotikrouter.com http://www.mikrotikrouter.com ___ WISPA Membership Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com 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] Marina Cams
Smith, Rick wrote: Anyone done cameras at a marina where they've sold access to the slip owners ? How do ya handle multiple people wanting to see the same camera ? 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. Network DVR allows multiple access. Lots of camera manufacturers out there. Works well - at least for the one client that is doing it. Look at ipvisionsoftware.com -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com 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] FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data
On 7/25/07, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeromie, While personally I agree with your view, I don't believe WISPA has an official stance or an official position on this subject as yet. Keep in mind that this news item http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402479.html just appeared in print yesterday. This has been talked about many times on the lists. I understand its to early to get a official position, that is exactly why I asked. This is imho a easy thing to decide. If a ISP wants to hold the records then its should be part of their SOP. Not Law. They should only be paid for them if/when the LEA needs them. Any other stance is baffling. The Gov will not pay for CALEA but will for this, that amounts to about the same thing (some over lap of requirements) If enough WISPA members express their views then the Board should be able to determine a majority view of WISPA members. WISPA may then choose to communicate that majority view to Congress. Individual WISPS are of course free to also express their views directly to Congress. Although the term politician carries a negative connotation these days, As it did when we were founded. Much of this nations founding fathers hated the need for such people. Sadly much of the ideas from that time period have been lost and the words twisted. As a citizen I plan to express my dislike for this idea. it is our elected members of Congress who write the laws that determine what each of us as individuals as well as what the employees of our 15 different national intelligence agencies can and can not legally do. Yup I know that. I speak up when I can, not that I feel my voice is very loud. jack Jeromie Reeves wrote: UHG!!! What a waste of resources. Can anyone point to even ONE terrorist that has even been sniffed out due to data from an ISP? I did a few quick Google searches and no case has popped up. IMO terrorist groups have show that they know how to operate and not leave a trail that leads anyplace important till after the fact. Anyone remember when it was requested that encryptions have a back door? I think this is partly fall out from then. How many ISPs have people who use PGP? As a computer shop I can think of at least a few people who are using PGP/OpenPGP and one who uses a 2048bit cypher. What is WISPA`s official stance on this subject? On 7/25/07, David Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data $5 Million a Year Sought for Firms To Keep Databases By Ellen Nakashima Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A07 The FBI wants to pay the major telecommunications companies to retain their customers' Internet and phone call information for at least two years for the agency's use in counterterrorism investigations and is asking Congress for $5 million a year to defray the cost, according to FBI officials and budget documents. The FBI would not have direct access to the records. It would need to present a subpoena or an administrative warrant, known as a national security letter, to obtain the information that the companies would keep in a database, officials said. We have never asked for the ability to have direct access to or to 'data mine' telephone company databases, said John Miller, the FBI's assistant director for public affairs. The budget request simply seeks to absorb the cost to the service provider of developing an efficient electronic system for them to retain and deliver the information after it is legally requested. The proposal has raised concerns by civil libertarians who point to telecom companies' alleged involvement in the government's domestic surveillance program and to a recent Justice Department inspector general's report on FBI abuse of national security letters. In one case, a senior FBI official signed the letters without including the required proof that they were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage investigations. The report also disclosed that the bureau was issuing exigent letters, telling telephone companies that the bureau needed information immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later. In many cases, agents did not follow up. Moreover, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found, there was no legal basis to compel the disclosure of information using such letters. The proposal is circumventing the law by paying companies to do something the FBI couldn't do itself legally, said Michael German, American Civil Liberties Union policy counsel on national security. Going around the Fourth Amendment by paying private companies to hoard our phone records is outrageous. Mark J. Zwillinger, a Washington lawyer who represents Internet service providers, said companies have no business reason to keep the data. Moreover, he said he did not think telecom companies are in the business of becoming the investigative arm for the government, keeping data just so the
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..
Scottie Arnett wrote: I am thinking out loud and not actually thinking this through, but here is my idea. Do as they started with Computer Inquires...All ILEC's and Cable Co's should not be allowed in the ISP business. They can start their own ISP as a separate entity, but the parent ILEC/CC will have to sell to all ISP's, including their own at a wholesale rate for use of their transport. There should be no cross subsidization from one to the other. That was how the original TA96 was written. Separate entity without cross-subsidization. However, the FCC did not actually enforce that piece. No bundling was supposed to occur (DSL, LD nor Local) until 3 years after the RBOC's received 272 relief (were allowed to sell LD again). During those 3 years prior to sunset, the FCC was suppose to monitor to insure that the networks were open to competition, that there was no cross-sub, etc. Never happened. The FCC did not in any way enforce this piece of the law. (Yeah, this was law, no some FCC guideline). I live in an area full of Cooperatives. Cooperatives do not have to follow many of the Tele Act of 1996 rules (rural exemptions). I live in TN where, I actually lost count, but there are approximately 20 +/- telephone cooperatives. So I do not and have not got to do many of the things you guys have got to do. Now that talk all this BS about bridging the digital divide, but they still let these cooperatives get away with monopolies and not having to follow half the rules that the rest of the US ILEC's have to follow. TA96 was mainly about RBOC's not ILEC's. Even Sprint United (now calling itself Embarq) was not regulated by much of the TA96. There was a nother section of TA96 about cable. And a general section about ILEC's. Rural ILEC's (RLEC's) get a special deal because of their size / status. They also get lost of USF funding. As long as this goes on, rural America may see 20 Meg speeds by the end of the next century. We never had ISDN here until around 2001 and DSL around 2003 and of course it was done by the co-op telcos that were given almost every penny to do it by the USDA. Ah, I am through with my rant. I could complain and gripe all day. I spend a lot of time on http://www.cybertelecom.org/ and teletruth.org that goes much deeper into the points I stated above. No wonder you are ranting - you hang out with two of the biggest ranting and raving guys in telecom - Bruce and Bob. I have nothing against either one, but you can only spend so much time, energy and effort screaming before you have to get an army and go to battle... or go do something. - Peter 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] Public Safety
Well Mike, perhaps I can help to enlighten you from the public safety stand point. I'm a volunteer fire chief in a small rural community situated in North Central PA near the NY state line. My county's fire service radios are in the 154MHz band. I derive some of my mutual aid from the neighboring NY state county which operates in the 46MHz band. And my Hazardous Materials Response Team comes from a neighboring PA county that operates in the 450MHz band. Now, add to that the fact that the area police agencies are in another band hopefully you can begin to see the basis of some of the issues at hand. Now duplicate this throughout the country and you get the communications mess that was had during Katrina relief efforts. While everything may be hunky dorie while I'm playing in my own back yard things go to hell in a hurry when things hit the fan someplace else and they want help (you do still remember 9/11 don't you?). Now move into the (hopefully not too distant) future... I currently have a laptop computer in my truck that I use for emergency response. While I have various pieces of software on it for Haz-Mat response, GPS and pre-fire planning I am limited on what I can do because I have no way to connect to anyone else with this laptop when I am on the scene of an emergency. I'm not able to use it to get up to date weather information, or to connect to the county's GIS system for up to date facility information, or to email information to a state or national resource for in depth information. And it certainly limits my ability to locate someone to help get your butt off that 900 ft tower when you decide to have a heart attack at about 500 ft and someone calls 9-1-1 and expects us public safety folks to come to your rescue. It sure would be nice to have a wireless broadband network available to me to connect to that is dedicated for emergency services use to allow me use today (and tomorrow's) technology to my (and ultimately your) benefit. I'd really rather not wake you and make you leave your house at 3am when someone wrecks a truck filled with methyl ethyl bad stuff down the road from you if I can help it. But if I can't look at up to date weather info and see which way the wind is blowing and if there is rain headed that way or not... guess what.. you're getting out of bed and leaving your happy home until my job is done. Now, add to this picture the fact that mobile phone service (aka cell phones) is practically non-existent in the vast majority of this area. Are you beginning to get the idea? If you would like to get a little more information on the public safety point of view on this subject visit this web site: http://www.cyrencall.com/ I think you'll find it informative. I hope that I've been able to illustrate for you just why us public safety folks need our little chunk of that 700 MHz spectrum. Have a great day and stay safe! Mike Healy 1st Asst Chief Tri-Town Fire and Ambulance Ulysses, PA Mike Hammett wrote: What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..
Clint Ricker wrote: I'd agree on the doctors; however, distance learning is a pathetic substitute for on-site teachers. Good teaching is more about inspiring the person to want to learn rather than the passing on of information--technology won't solve what is essentially a problem created by us placing educational funding as a fairly low budget priority. Distance learning is not about K-8, it's about Adult Ed, Continued Ed, or Specialized Ed. Forced wholesale access of the physical layer / network layer does absolutely nothing to increase availability and, in fact, actually hurts availabilty. You are incorrect there. The plant company would need to keep building out to increase revenue. The Application side would want that as well. I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people. If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT. So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint does not grow, but certainly the penetration does. And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build new facilities? Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions. VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or dial-up. ATT is doing ADSL2 (although you won't get any more usable bandwidth than currently available). I think the bigger question is why aren't more CLECs rolling out ADSL2? Why did COVAD wait 5 years to start? Why do they gripe and moan about how the FCC is killing the innovative part of the industry instead of actually implementing innovative technologies? 15Mb/s DSL would have been interesting 5 years ago. Given massive fiber rollouts and the upcoming DOCSIS 3 rollouts from the cable companies, 15Mb/s DSL will be too little, too late. ADSL2+ equipment just became reasonable - that's why it wasn't around 5 years ago. ATT is reselling Covad ADSL2 in its out of region areas. The 6MB product in-region is sort of ADSL2. I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and can't make people some dough. But, national policy is not structured around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash positive... running the same old tired copper to the same old customers does not increase broadband penetration. National policy! HA! It's about Innovation and Competition. Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was invented in Bell Labs in 1965! RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they went the exact opposite way). Metro-E over copper is, by and large, a disappointing technology (getting good quality copper is too difficult by and large). In some sense as well, copper just needs to die and be replaced by a better medium (ie fiber or at least cable HFC plants). That's not what I am seeing. Isn't it? Copper needs to die as a physical medium...it's expensive to maintain and is severely handicapped. I'm perhaps backtracking a bit on my bandwidth points earlier, but we have reached pretty close to the limit to what you can shove over a pair of copper. While we have sufficient bandwidth for the time being, I believe, copper won't be able to deliver the needed bandwidth for 10 years down the road... Actually, the copper needs to stay where it is. Add fiber, but if anything, the copper should be sold off to a CLEC, instead of dismantling it. It cannot be rebuilt. Does it hurt the ILEC? Heh...probably not all that much. But, are CLECs really helping the consumer? I tend to argue no, by and large...why IS CLEC market share so small? Why are independent ISPs have so little market share? Clint, I could spend days on this. For you even to ask this, . it almost feels like you are trolling (or do I hear the clinking of ice?) CLECs have killed themselves because they tended to think in quarterly and yearly terms for P/L and investment. The cable companies and the ILECS tend to think longer term and so have been able to win out in the long term. NSPs pay ~$30/month to resell DSL service; $3,600 over ten years to provide DSL service to a residence. That's enough money to start financing a fiber buildout, and that's just some crummy DSL service. Owning the physical infrastructure makes a huge difference, something that CLECs, by and large, never learned, and just kept on paying huge chunks of money to the ILEC rather than building their own network and making themselves sufficient (in a lot of cases, it isn't feasible, since you do have to have a certain market penetration for it to be worthwhile.). By and large, most CLEC's are run by Bell-head idiots. Most will be entering BK in the next 18 months. But even the ones who built network - L3,
RE: [WISPA] ADELSTEIN ROCKS
I think everyone on this list ought to take the time to read FCC Commissioner Adelstein's comments recorded here - dated July 24 2007. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275467A1.pdf If we ever have had a better proponent for WISPs - - I don't know who it would be! Let's send him two hams and a turkey dressed with a side of beef! He is our man!! Mac Dearman 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] Public Safety
Fantastic post Mike and it should be read by all WISPs, who also tend to be rural-based. You acutely layout another perspective and in doing so you further illuminate why real mobile broadband access (and connectivity in general) is so vital. Thanks for the contribution. - Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Healy Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:26 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety Well Mike, perhaps I can help to enlighten you from the public safety stand point. I'm a volunteer fire chief in a small rural community situated in North Central PA near the NY state line. My county's fire service radios are in the 154MHz band. I derive some of my mutual aid from the neighboring NY state county which operates in the 46MHz band. And my Hazardous Materials Response Team comes from a neighboring PA county that operates in the 450MHz band. Now, add to that the fact that the area police agencies are in another band hopefully you can begin to see the basis of some of the issues at hand. Now duplicate this throughout the country and you get the communications mess that was had during Katrina relief efforts. While everything may be hunky dorie while I'm playing in my own back yard things go to hell in a hurry when things hit the fan someplace else and they want help (you do still remember 9/11 don't you?). Now move into the (hopefully not too distant) future... I currently have a laptop computer in my truck that I use for emergency response. While I have various pieces of software on it for Haz-Mat response, GPS and pre-fire planning I am limited on what I can do because I have no way to connect to anyone else with this laptop when I am on the scene of an emergency. I'm not able to use it to get up to date weather information, or to connect to the county's GIS system for up to date facility information, or to email information to a state or national resource for in depth information. And it certainly limits my ability to locate someone to help get your butt off that 900 ft tower when you decide to have a heart attack at about 500 ft and someone calls 9-1-1 and expects us public safety folks to come to your rescue. It sure would be nice to have a wireless broadband network available to me to connect to that is dedicated for emergency services use to allow me use today (and tomorrow's) technology to my (and ultimately your) benefit. I'd really rather not wake you and make you leave your house at 3am when someone wrecks a truck filled with methyl ethyl bad stuff down the road from you if I can help it. But if I can't look at up to date weather info and see which way the wind is blowing and if there is rain headed that way or not... guess what.. you're getting out of bed and leaving your happy home until my job is done. Now, add to this picture the fact that mobile phone service (aka cell phones) is practically non-existent in the vast majority of this area. Are you beginning to get the idea? If you would like to get a little more information on the public safety point of view on this subject visit this web site: http://www.cyrencall.com/ I think you'll find it informative. I hope that I've been able to illustrate for you just why us public safety folks need our little chunk of that 700 MHz spectrum. Have a great day and stay safe! Mike Healy 1st Asst Chief Tri-Town Fire and Ambulance Ulysses, PA Mike Hammett wrote: What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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:
Re: [WISPA] Outdoor Router
RB 532 is a great box! Outdoor case, etc.. 3 ether to 9 ether in most cases. Talk to Jim at www.jeffcosoho.com tell him Dennis sent ya. On 7/25/07, Carl Shivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone have a line on inexpensive outdoor routers? We have an application using a Skypilot connector acting as a bridge and we need a hardened router with no WiFi. 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] Need a Enterprise Class RouterOS: www.mikrotikrouter.com 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] Outdoor Router
Do you just need it hardened for temperature? If so, the Envoy or R1 routers in our line could be an answer. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carl Shivers Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:21 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Outdoor Router Anyone have a line on inexpensive outdoor routers? We have an application using a Skypilot connector acting as a bridge and we need a hardened router with no WiFi. 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] Public Safety
Exactly, and I'm sure Blake wil also agree that 4.9 GHz is useful only for fixed multipoint, PtP, or picocell tactical mesh (ala Packethop). I should not say only because these are vital needs and enable large, secure and relatively interference-immune pipes. But since public safety workers spend most of their time in the field, the critical need is mobile broadband access -- and the more dedicated in nature (as in reserved for them) the better. And certainly there are not enough dollars in the world to build a ubiquitous 4.9 GHz network; it simply is not the band for such a thing and such an idea would be absurd. - Patrick, Alvarion -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety 4.9 is the only true data band. 800 is still shared - and Nextel is not vacating it, just moving around a bit on it. 150, 450, and 800 will not support high speed data with the present day band plan, and changing that band plan would be a unworkable at this day and time. What do you mean about the third band that the nationwide interoperable network could be in? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] Public Safety What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(84). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. 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] Outdoor Router
Anyone have a line on inexpensive outdoor routers? We have an application using a Skypilot connector acting as a bridge and we need a hardened router with no WiFi. 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] Public Safety
I thought Nextel was supposed to vacate 800 MHz in X years, and to fill Nextel's need they were given 1.9 GHz. The third band I meant was that 4.9 and 800 are available, and now they're going to have 700 as well. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety 4.9 is the only true data band. 800 is still shared - and Nextel is not vacating it, just moving around a bit on it. 150, 450, and 800 will not support high speed data with the present day band plan, and changing that band plan would be a unworkable at this day and time. What do you mean about the third band that the nationwide interoperable network could be in? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] Public Safety What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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] Outch.. Drunk employee....
Read the updated post - it was the SF Power Outtage... :) On 7/25/07, Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://valleywag.com/tech/breakdowns/a-drunk-employee-kills-all-of-the-websites-you-care-about-282021.php -- Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant www.mikrotikconsulting.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Enterprise Class RouterOS: www.mikrotikrouter.com 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] Public Safety
Be VERY careful about the Cyrencall proposal. Although Morgan is the consumate salesperson, there are LOTS of issues that need to be worked out with their proposal. Now, add to this picture the fact that mobile phone service (aka cell phones) is practically non-existent in the vast majority of this area. Are you beginning to get the idea? If you would like to get a little more information on the public safety point of view on this subject visit this web site: http://www.cyrencall.com/ I think you'll find it informative. 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] Public Safety
I'm not saying you don't need that network. YOU DO! That is one of the things that benefits public safety without sacrificing any liberties. The network hasn't been built in 4.9 GHz. The network hasn't been built in 800 MHz. What's going to cause this network to appear when 700 MHz is reserved for public safety? Accelerate Nextel's departure from 800 MHz and use that. Actually, I may have been mistaken. I just read this: = Nextel will relinquish rights to some of its 800 MHz licenses and all of its 700 MHz licenses, and fund the realignment of the 800 MHz band and clearing of the 1.9 GHz spectrum to be authorized to Nextel. = So they're already giving up 700 MHz. What's being done with that? They were given only a couple years to have the 800 MHz band reconfigured. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Healy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety Well Mike, perhaps I can help to enlighten you from the public safety stand point. I'm a volunteer fire chief in a small rural community situated in North Central PA near the NY state line. My county's fire service radios are in the 154MHz band. I derive some of my mutual aid from the neighboring NY state county which operates in the 46MHz band. And my Hazardous Materials Response Team comes from a neighboring PA county that operates in the 450MHz band. Now, add to that the fact that the area police agencies are in another band hopefully you can begin to see the basis of some of the issues at hand. Now duplicate this throughout the country and you get the communications mess that was had during Katrina relief efforts. While everything may be hunky dorie while I'm playing in my own back yard things go to hell in a hurry when things hit the fan someplace else and they want help (you do still remember 9/11 don't you?). Now move into the (hopefully not too distant) future... I currently have a laptop computer in my truck that I use for emergency response. While I have various pieces of software on it for Haz-Mat response, GPS and pre-fire planning I am limited on what I can do because I have no way to connect to anyone else with this laptop when I am on the scene of an emergency. I'm not able to use it to get up to date weather information, or to connect to the county's GIS system for up to date facility information, or to email information to a state or national resource for in depth information. And it certainly limits my ability to locate someone to help get your butt off that 900 ft tower when you decide to have a heart attack at about 500 ft and someone calls 9-1-1 and expects us public safety folks to come to your rescue. It sure would be nice to have a wireless broadband network available to me to connect to that is dedicated for emergency services use to allow me use today (and tomorrow's) technology to my (and ultimately your) benefit. I'd really rather not wake you and make you leave your house at 3am when someone wrecks a truck filled with methyl ethyl bad stuff down the road from you if I can help it. But if I can't look at up to date weather info and see which way the wind is blowing and if there is rain headed that way or not... guess what.. you're getting out of bed and leaving your happy home until my job is done. Now, add to this picture the fact that mobile phone service (aka cell phones) is practically non-existent in the vast majority of this area. Are you beginning to get the idea? If you would like to get a little more information on the public safety point of view on this subject visit this web site: http://www.cyrencall.com/ I think you'll find it informative. I hope that I've been able to illustrate for you just why us public safety folks need our little chunk of that 700 MHz spectrum. Have a great day and stay safe! Mike Healy 1st Asst Chief Tri-Town Fire and Ambulance Ulysses, PA Mike Hammett wrote: What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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.
Re: [WISPA] Public Safety
But it could be used as the PtP infrastructure between the 700 and 800 that Nextel is supposed to be freeing up? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:20 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Public Safety Exactly, and I'm sure Blake wil also agree that 4.9 GHz is useful only for fixed multipoint, PtP, or picocell tactical mesh (ala Packethop). I should not say only because these are vital needs and enable large, secure and relatively interference-immune pipes. But since public safety workers spend most of their time in the field, the critical need is mobile broadband access -- and the more dedicated in nature (as in reserved for them) the better. And certainly there are not enough dollars in the world to build a ubiquitous 4.9 GHz network; it simply is not the band for such a thing and such an idea would be absurd. - Patrick, Alvarion -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety 4.9 is the only true data band. 800 is still shared - and Nextel is not vacating it, just moving around a bit on it. 150, 450, and 800 will not support high speed data with the present day band plan, and changing that band plan would be a unworkable at this day and time. What do you mean about the third band that the nationwide interoperable network could be in? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] Public Safety What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(84). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. 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
Re: [WISPA] Public Safety
I wish that we could get all interests (including WISPs, Cellcos, Two-way, Hams and Public Service) to think in terms of reservation of air time as opposed to exclusivity of bandspace for future spectrum allocations. If an emergency occurs then public safety should be able to force a reservation of airtime in any band they need in my opinion. Then everyone can benefit from having lower-cost, mass-produced equipment which is able to be used by any interests in a given band. I am not suggesting that we should not dedicate some bandspace for public safety exclusively. They need some. What I am saying though is that many other bands could have the ability to reserve airtime for specific interests when needed. This would also allow for more efficient use of spectrum. There is no reason that we should not use any bands we can for recreational, experimental and commercial use when there is not an emergency situation. As long as the priority is in place to force the airtime for public safety then we can hand it over instantly if needed. If devices had to ask permission to transmit based on a base station priority system then that system could be used for any purpose including 100% public safety in a disaster. Allowing the priority of traffic to be established instantly means that any interest could make use of the bandwidth under certain conditions as established by a base station with priority control over traffic in real time. We already have some spectrum exclusively used for specific interests. I think all the rest should have multiple use ability. I may not be doing a good job of describing what I am suggesting but the whole point is that airtime priority partitioning is more important than band exclusivity. We need to start designing and building communications systems with this approach in mind. John Scrivner Patrick Leary wrote: Exactly, and I'm sure Blake wil also agree that 4.9 GHz is useful only for fixed multipoint, PtP, or picocell tactical mesh (ala Packethop). I should not say only because these are vital needs and enable large, secure and relatively interference-immune pipes. But since public safety workers spend most of their time in the field, the critical need is mobile broadband access -- and the more dedicated in nature (as in reserved for them) the better. And certainly there are not enough dollars in the world to build a ubiquitous 4.9 GHz network; it simply is not the band for such a thing and such an idea would be absurd. - Patrick, Alvarion -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety 4.9 is the only true data band. 800 is still shared - and Nextel is not vacating it, just moving around a bit on it. 150, 450, and 800 will not support high speed data with the present day band plan, and changing that band plan would be a unworkable at this day and time. What do you mean about the third band that the nationwide interoperable network could be in? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] Public Safety What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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/
[WISPA] IP DVR
Does anyone have suggestions for an IP DVR system? I'm looking for something more integrated than a few independent IP cams . - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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] Outch.. Drunk employee....
Does seem strange that a simple power outage would take down a datacenter, which should have backup generators and UPS systems. Travis Microserv kimo wrote: Read the updated post - it was the SF Power Outtage... :) On 7/25/07, Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://valleywag.com/tech/breakdowns/a-drunk-employee-kills-all-of-the-websites-you-care-about-282021.php -- Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant www.mikrotikconsulting.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Enterprise Class RouterOS: www.mikrotikrouter.com 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] IP DVR
Depending on what you need MythTV might do it for you. On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have suggestions for an IP DVR system? I'm looking for something more integrated than a few independent IP cams . - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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] Public Safety
Sounds like the software defined radio (SDR) approach ! http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=%22software+defined+radio%22btnG=Google+Search jack John Scrivner wrote: I wish that we could get all interests (including WISPs, Cellcos, Two-way, Hams and Public Service) to think in terms of reservation of air time as opposed to exclusivity of bandspace for future spectrum allocations. If an emergency occurs then public safety should be able to force a reservation of airtime in any band they need in my opinion. Then everyone can benefit from having lower-cost, mass-produced equipment which is able to be used by any interests in a given band. I am not suggesting that we should not dedicate some bandspace for public safety exclusively. They need some. What I am saying though is that many other bands could have the ability to reserve airtime for specific interests when needed. This would also allow for more efficient use of spectrum. There is no reason that we should not use any bands we can for recreational, experimental and commercial use when there is not an emergency situation. As long as the priority is in place to force the airtime for public safety then we can hand it over instantly if needed. If devices had to ask permission to transmit based on a base station priority system then that system could be used for any purpose including 100% public safety in a disaster. Allowing the priority of traffic to be established instantly means that any interest could make use of the bandwidth under certain conditions as established by a base station with priority control over traffic in real time. We already have some spectrum exclusively used for specific interests. I think all the rest should have multiple use ability. I may not be doing a good job of describing what I am suggesting but the whole point is that airtime priority partitioning is more important than band exclusivity. We need to start designing and building communications systems with this approach in mind. John Scrivner Patrick Leary wrote: Exactly, and I'm sure Blake wil also agree that 4.9 GHz is useful only for fixed multipoint, PtP, or picocell tactical mesh (ala Packethop). I should not say only because these are vital needs and enable large, secure and relatively interference-immune pipes. But since public safety workers spend most of their time in the field, the critical need is mobile broadband access -- and the more dedicated in nature (as in reserved for them) the better. And certainly there are not enough dollars in the world to build a ubiquitous 4.9 GHz network; it simply is not the band for such a thing and such an idea would be absurd. - Patrick, Alvarion -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety 4.9 is the only true data band. 800 is still shared - and Nextel is not vacating it, just moving around a bit on it. 150, 450, and 800 will not support high speed data with the present day band plan, and changing that band plan would be a unworkable at this day and time. What do you mean about the third band that the nationwide interoperable network could be in? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] Public Safety What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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. -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying
Re: [WISPA] IP DVR
I can help with this please contact me off list Tracy Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Hammett wrote: Does anyone have suggestions for an IP DVR system? I'm looking for something more integrated than a few independent IP cams . - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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. -- Tracy Tippett Territorial Sales Manager Western US Canada Electro-Comm Distributing Inc. 303-917-2264 cell 866-582-7287 H-office 800-525-0173 ECD office [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ecommwireless.com www.shopecbiz.com Wireless data voice connectivity products are our only business! Our trained staff and friendly service, keep it simple, so you can concentrate on your business. Visit us soon either at our Denver headquarters or at one of the following industry events. 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] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..
Clint Ricker wrote: And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build new facilities? Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as has always been the case... Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions. VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or dial-up. CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is all to often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially interesting on VoIP. Not every CLEC and I have to wonder if you are just looking at the big National Idiots like Paetec-USLEC, FDN-Nuvox, and TWTC-Xspedius. Those guys are going to be facing BK with their mounting debt and shrinking revenues. It's the regional players like Cbeyond, CavTel, and a few others. You can't make sweeping remarks, because the industry is not really an industry at all but a collection of people tied to the idea of being an ISP. Agreed...but that was 1998-2002. What have they done for us lately? Again it depends on who you look at. Birch and McLeod not a F$^$%ing thing ever. But some others like Hunt Telecom, Vern in VT and some others different story. I'm honestly not trolling here, although, given the forum, it definitely comes across that way. Definitely, back in the 1990's and early 2000's, CLECs drove costs down and drove in new services that Bell had little interest in offering. That was 5 years ago, though. By and large, the bells are usually fairly competitive price wise in the business market and by far the best value out there in the residential / SOHO market. Now, it is largely the cable/telco competition that is keeping prices down, not the CLECs... The Bells are only competitively priced where they face competition. Their local and LD rates have climbed up about 6% nationally since consolidation, which explains some of the huge 61% profit increase at ATT. In ATM, MPLS, Private Line, and some other Special Access stuff, they are plainly priced for 1999. No competition. Why is Metro E priced so low in Metro's? Competition from the CLEC's like L3 and TWTC and Cable. I worked for several years at an ISP that did the whole BellSouth DSL NSP stuff. The FISPA list, etc...continually trashed BellSouth DSL service and their poor customer service, and so forth, and espoused the the glories of independent ISPs, which I largely agreed with until one day when I setup a friends self-install DSL kit from BellSouth. It was a very slick automated installation procedure that was _much_ better than what we were doing. Actually then, some of the fault is your very own. You may not have owned NEGIA but you worked there and could have contributed to the Value Add and keeping ahead of th ewave, especially after experiencing the FastAccess. The Independent ISP community did _way_ too much talking about their own value and their own great customer service while, by and large, doing very little to actually improve workflows, improve the customer experience (in terms of ease of turn up) and way too little time / effort spent actually selling and marketing. Simply put, by 2005 the telco offering by and large was, for most people, a better product. Again, this isn't a universal indictment, but a lot of their problems were self-inflicted and not the result of FCC meddling. Too much talk, too little action... Because the ones doing MOST of the complaining are complaining instead of selling and working ON their biz. The quiet ones are too busy selling and talking to customers to get on any lists. Way, way too much time was and is still spent blaming the government and the evil ILECs and too little time / effort spent actually selling, improving business operations, and reinvesting in better infrastructure / services. FISPA and AISPA and other associations are partially to blame. All problems were ILEC based and FCC pointers. Remember how Tom and I were constantly pointing out that there were niches to win - and it wasn't by selling on price? Portal. Community. Hand holding. Simple bill. Training. Classes. Lunch n Learn. Demos. Outreach. Tons of ways to take the advantage. Honestly, would you say that (insert independent ISP reselling ILEC DSL service) has a better DSL offering than (insert ILEC)? By and large, I wouldn't... I think DSL is a crap product overall. New Edge, Covad, ILEC - doesn't matter. My personal experience is that it is over-priced crap - even when it is cheaper than cable. Mine constantly blinks sending my ATA in to a tizzy. Most of that is the market...L3, WilTel, and GX screwed themselves over by throwing billions of dollars into an incredibly overbuilt market (carrier fiber networks). Paying $ to run even more fiber from Chicago to New York when there is already way too much is a MUCH different market than last mile. The good thing with last mile access is that there is a very
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? Build Out ROI
Clint, People on this list can't even come up with a viable business plan for 700 MHz spectrum. Paying for the spectrum. Buying and installing the AP's. Buying and installing the CPE at probably upwards of $1000 in the beginning. Sell, invoice and collect for internet access. Add value added services for stickiness and to increase ARPU. The first 3 pieces overwhelm cashflow and available monies. So overbuild last mile Don't you think if it could have been done, some of these jockeys who like to spend investors billions would have tried it? Cogent, Yipes, expedient, Winstar, and others tried it in the business space, in metro areas, selling what the ILEC's didn't - and combined lost a billion. So tell me again that plan for building a new network and being innovative? - Peter 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] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..
Coax can do 50 gigabit? Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than that. A 32 channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far off. I have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband.. -- Forwarded message -- From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband.. I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people. If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT. So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint does not grow, but certainly the penetration does. Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they generally had better customer relationships with the customers. These days, Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from the ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco. And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build new facilities? Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as has always been the case... Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions. VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or dial-up. CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is all to often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially interesting on VoIP. Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have evolved in a much different manner. However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs are more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy standpoint)--most of the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas and wireless in rural markets. The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over. I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and can't make people some dough. But, national policy is not structured around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash positive... running the same old tired copper to the same old customers does not increase broadband penetration. National policy! HA! It's about Innovation and Competition. In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame :) Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was invented in Bell Labs in 1965! RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they went the exact opposite way). Agreed...but that was 1998-2002. What have they done for us lately? Does it hurt the ILEC? Heh...probably not all that much. But, are CLECs really helping the consumer? I tend to argue no, by and large...why IS CLEC market share so small? Why are independent ISPs have so little market share? Clint, I could spend days on this. For you even to ask this, . it almost feels like you are trolling (or do I hear the clinking of ice?) I'm honestly not trolling here, although, given the forum, it definitely comes across that way. Definitely, back in the 1990's and early 2000's, CLECs drove costs down and drove in new services that Bell had little interest in offering. That was 5 years ago, though. By and large, the bells are usually fairly competitive price wise in the business market and by far the best value out there in the residential / SOHO market. Now, it is largely the cable/telco competition that is keeping prices down, not the CLECs... I worked for several years at an ISP that did the whole BellSouth DSL NSP stuff. The FISPA list, etc...continually trashed BellSouth DSL service and their poor customer service, and so forth, and espoused the the glories of independent ISPs, which I largely agreed with until one day when I setup a friends self-install DSL kit from BellSouth. It was a very slick automated installation procedure that was _much_ better than what we were doing. The Independent ISP community did _way_ too much talking about their own value and their own great customer service while, by and large, doing very little to actually improve workflows, improve the customer experience (in terms of ease of turn up) and way too little time / effort spent actually selling and marketing. Simply put, by 2005 the telco offering by and large was, for most people, a better product. Again, this isn't a universal
Re: [WISPA] America's Internet Disconnect
Well said! Internet is a rotten technology for video. IP just wasn't designed for it. Cable and Sat are great for video. I honestly don't understand what all of the hubub is about. I'm about to put broadband into a development with 1000++ lots. Almost all are camp trailers for summer residents. Those folks don't even have POWER out there yet! But they'll have broadband. Cheap and, at 1 to 3 megs it'll probably be better than what they really get at home. And why do they want broadband so bad? So they can stay in touch at work (could do that with sat access if it was really that big of a deal to them) and so they can email pics of the kids to grandma and pa. We as techs too often think that the world revolves around access. It doesn't. FEW people make a living via the net. Especially via 50meg access. For MOST people in this country the net is a tool! ONE tool out of many. It makes the job easier, faster and more convenient. The difference in job performance between waiting for fed ex and waiting for an email is night and day. The difference between getting that email in 100 seconds vs. 10 seconds is nothing. They'll still spend MOST of their time DOING something WITH the email! marlon - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] America's Internet Disconnect What a load of fluff. Almost 20 paragraphs from an FCC chairperson criticizing the current policy and not a single concrete suggestion, other than some vague more wireless and BPL suggestion... I'm not necessarily a fan of the direction at the FCC. Still, I'm not really sure that I've seen a smarter suggestion by and large on most of their decision (except for the ATT/BellSouth merger and perhaps their lack of a stance for net neutrality, although that's a complicated issue). Is 1.5Mb/s too slow? Really? The only application that needs faster connections at the consumer level is video; I seriously doubt that an extra bit of lag on the YouTube videos is really going to be a drag on our economy. I'm not against faster broadband. More bandwidth is good and, judging by developments in the cable and wireless industry, the next three years are going to be a watershed point in bandwidth capacity in which we'll see typical go from 3 Mb/s - 50Mb/s for urban areas. Still, I'm even more puzzled by the criticism of slow broadband on the WISPA list...Wireless is a very limited technology in terms of bandwidth (on a consumer, point to multi-point level). If anything, you should be grateful that you're not having to compete against 50 or 100Mb/s fiber connections :) -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/24/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: America's Internet Disconnect By Michael J. Copps Wednesday, November 8, 2006; A27 America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for service that is too slow. It's hurting our economy, and things are only going to get worse if we don't do something about it. The United States is 15th in the world in broadband penetration, according to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). When the ITU measured a broader digital opportunity index (considering price and other factors) we were 21st -- right after Estonia. Asian and European customers get home connections of 25 to 100 megabits per second (fast enough to stream high-definition video). Here, we pay almost twice as much for connections that are one-twentieth the speed. How have we fallen so far behind? Through lack of competition. As the Congressional Research Service puts it, U.S. consumers face a cable and telephone broadband duopoly. And that's more like a best-case scenario: Many households are hostage to a single broadband provider, and nearly one-tenth have no broadband provider at all. For businesses, it's just as bad. The telecom merger spree has left many office buildings with a single provider -- leading to annual estimated overcharges of $8 billion. Our broadband infrastructure should be a reason companies want to do business in the United States, not just another reason to go offshore. The stakes for our economy could not be higher. Our broadband failure places a ceiling over the productivity of far too much of the country. Should we expect small-town businesses to enter the digital economy, and students to enter the digital classroom, via a dial-up connection? The Internet can bring life-changing opportunities to those who don't live in large cities, but only if it is available and affordable. Even in cities and suburbs, the fact that broadband is too slow, too expensive and too poorly subscribed is a significant drag on our economy. Some experts estimate that
Re: [WISPA] New America Foundation Paper - Open Access for the 700 MHzAuction
Hmmm, I like that idea. I've long thought that those that own the wires shouldn't be allowed to sell content on them. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:47 PM Subject: [WISPA] New America Foundation Paper - Open Access for the 700 MHzAuction http://www.newamerica.net/files/openaccess700mhz.pdf REPORT CONCLUSION FOLLOWS * In conclusion, I reiterate that the open-access policy would likely be doomed to fail and the competitive benefits of the policy would not then be realized if the open-access license were controlled by an entity that was affiliated with a vertically integrated retail provider. No blocking and no locking are likely to be toothless without the third leg of the stool: no retail. If the FCC is serious about open access, it should set aside a modest amount of spectrum in the 700 MHz Auction for a wholesale-only provider. * -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com 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] FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data
Jeromie; I am writing this before reading the rest of the thread. Please be patient with me. UHG!!! What a waste of resources. Can anyone point to even ONE terrorist that has even been sniffed out due to data from an ISP? I did a few quick Google searches and no case has popped up. I detest the FBI. We have a special relationship. We try to keep it professional. That said, can you imagine any situation in which the counter-intelligence responsible agency in the US government would ever find it desirable to actually document in public how they got the intelligence that lead to someone being sniffed out? Honestly, they are not likely to tell you how the got what they got until the court case is finished, are they? Even then there are mechanisms where information is not allowed to enter the official court record. IMO terrorist groups have show that they know how to operate and not leave a trail that leads anyplace important till after the fact. Is that your Intelligence Professional opinion? ;) Anyone remember when it was requested that encryptions have a back door? I think this is partly fall out from then. How many ISPs have people who use PGP? As a computer shop I can think of at least a few people who are using PGP/OpenPGP and one who uses a 2048bit cypher. What is WISPA`s official stance on this subject? Anyone remember when the Wall Street Journal reported that NSA could crack PGP? I do. All that said, do I think that this is a good idea? Hell no! I think that the FBI is like any other gubmit agency. Eighty percent of their employees go to work every day at 9 AM and get off at 3 PM. The rest of them carry the load. It is the 80% moron population that proposed this brain dead idea... Someone send them a note 'cause they impress me as much today as they ever have... One last thing worth remembering about the FBI. 800 background files buy a LOT of VOTES, especially when about 400 of them are Congress critters. That ain't politics. That is history. -m- 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] Broadband Baloney full text
Finally! Someone upstairs get it! marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney full text Broadband Baloney (Opinion) FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell Broadband Baloney The Wall Street Journal 07/24/2007 American consumers are poised to reap a windfall of benefits from a new wave of broadband deployment. But you would never know it by the rhetoric of those who would have us believe that the nation is falling behind, indeed in free fall. Looming over the horizon are heavy-handed government mandates setting arbitrary standards, speeds and build-out requirements that could favor some technologies over others, raise prices and degrade service. This would be a mistaken road to take -- although it would hardly be the first time in history that alarmists have ignored cold, hard facts in pursuit of bad policy. Exhibit A for the alarmists are statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD says the U.S. has dropped from 12th in the world in broadband subscribers per 100 residents to 15th. The OECD's methodology is seriously flawed, however. According to an analysis by the Phoenix Center, if all OECD countries including the U.S. enjoyed 100% broadband penetration -- with all homes and businesses being connected -- our rank would fall to 20th. The U.S. would be deemed a relative failure because the OECD methodology measures broadband connections per capita, putting countries with larger household sizes at a statistical disadvantage. The OECD also overlooks that the U.S. is the largest broadband market in the world, with over 65 million subscribers -- more than twice the number of America's closest competitor. We got there because of our superior household adoption rates. According to several recent surveys, the average percentage of U.S. households taking broadband is about 42%; the EU average is 23%. Furthermore, the OECD does not weigh a country's geographic size relative to its population density, which matters because more consumers may live farther from the pipes. Only one country above the U.S. on the OECD list (Canada) stretches from one end of a continent to another like we do. Only one country above us on this list is at least 75% rural, like the U.S. In fact, 13 of the 14 countries that the OECD ranks higher are significantly smaller than the U.S. And if we compare many of our states individually with some countries that are allegedly beating us in the broadband race, we are actually winning. Forty-three American states have a higher household broadband adoption rate than all but five EU countries. Even large rural western states such as Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and both Dakotas exhibit much stronger household broadband adoption rates than France or Britain. Even if we use the OECD's flawed methodology, New Jersey has a higher penetration rate than fourth-ranked Korea. Alaska is more broadband-saturated than France. The OECD conclusions really unravel when we look at wireless services, especially Wi-Fi. One-third of the world's Wi-Fi hot spots are in the U.S., but Wi-Fi is not included in the OECD study unless it is used in a so-called fixed wireless setting. I can't recall ever seeing any fixed wireless users cemented into a coffee shop, airport or college campus. Most American Wi-Fi users do so with personal portable devices. It is difficult to determine how many wireless broadband users are online at any given moment, since they may not qualify as subscribers to anyone's service. In short, the OECD data do not include all of the ways Americans can make high-speed connections to the Internet, therefore omitting millions of American broadband users. Europe, with its more regulatory approach, may actually end up being the laggard because of latent weaknesses in its broadband market. It lacks adequate competition among alternative broadband platforms to spur the faster speeds that consumers and an ever-expanding Internet will require. Europe also suffers from a dearth of robust competition from cable modem and fiber. Cable penetration is only about 21% of households. In the U.S., cable is available to 94% of all households. Also, the U.S. is home to the world's fastest fiber-to-home market, with a 99% annual growth rate in subscribers compared with a relatively anemic 13% growth rate in Europe. In fact, the European Competitive Telecommunications Association reported last fall that Europe is experiencing a significant slowdown in the annual growth rate of broadband subscriptions, falling to 14% from 23% annual growth. Growth stalled in a number of countries, including Denmark and Belgium (4% in each country). And France -- a relative star -- exhibited just 10% growth. Yet all of these nations are ahead of us on the much-talked-about OECD chart. Here in
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
I am by no means a RF guy, I am still figuring out that side of being a wisp myself. The one question I have is; could the interference be through the LMR? Ryan On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I thought about that. But then it's too hard to change channels. There are other operators in the area and I need the ability to change things around as needed. marlon - Original Message - From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Look into some high Q cavity filters. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I just completely rebuilt a tower site. It had inconsistent speeds and I'd hit the point that I normally change things around. When I hit 50 people to a tower I'll sectorize it. On this tower I had an omni at about 25' (the hill is 700 feet over the valley) and a 15dB integrated Tranzeo ap at about 15'. Omni was vertical, sector was horizontal. I rented a manlift and put an hpol maxrad wisp series 120* adjustable beam sector at about 45', a vertical at 37ish and another horizontal at about 30. All antennas are also 6 to 8' horizontally separated. Each on a standoff attached to the different legs of the tower. All antennas are fed with lmr600 and the radios are right beside each other at the base of the tower (I'm too chicken to climb so the radios stay where I can get to them). Here's my problem, with all of the radios on and transmitting the speeds are worse than before for most customers. The sector to the west has 2 customers and sits at the 30' level and is hpol. Those two customers get around 4 megs down and up. The sector to the north east is vertical and a customer at 10ish miles gets .7 to 1.5 megs down and .25 to .5 up. The sector to the south east is hpol and sits at the 45 or 50' level. Customers get .6 to 1.5 down and .1 to .5 up. Unplug any two radios and speeds hit the 2 to 3 meg, sometimes 4 meg speed for all customers on that system. Plug the other one back in and speeds drop back down. The hpol maxrad antennas have a 30dB fb ratio. I've not yet looked at the patterns lately, as I recall they are pretty good though. APs are Teletronics 11-152s with metal cases. I've had GREAT luck with ALL of these components at other sites. Just never all at the same time and place like this. As most of you know, most of my coverage areas are VERY low density so I tend to use a lot of omni antennas, or am mounted on hills that have no coverage behind them so only one or two sectors are used. The two systems that interfere with each other the most are north east and south east. One's hpol one's vpol. They are on channel 1 and 9. To get things working MUCH better than they were before, I've replaced the north east and south east radios with Tranzeo ap's. I also moved the southeast antenna (actually put up a new one) back down to the roof of the shack. It's also a Tranzeo ap now. It, however, now sits in front of, though much lower than the west antenna, both are hpol though. If the channels are anywhere near the same for west and southeast the folks to the west get really slow speeds. I also moved the antennas on the tower further apart, they are now at least 5 or 6 feet apart from each other. I don't know how much that helped as I changed one of the radios to a Tranzeo at that same time. This helped but didn't fix the speed and consistency problem. That's when I moved the south east system back down where I could more easily get to it. Things still aren't as consistent as they need to be. If one system gets busy the others slow down. Any ideas? My first thought is to try a REALLY high end access point or two. You'd think those systems could sit side beside when using channels so far apart from each other. It's like the new radios are soo sensitive that they will pick up the noise close to them no matter what. OR, more likely, that the new, cheaper, gear has really really sensitive radios but with rotten side band isolation on both tx and rx. Any ideas? Radios/antennas to try? Changing the radios is easy. Getting a manlift back out to change the antennas will suck big time (due to the stand offs it would be too hard/dangerous to change antennas from the tower). thanks, marlon 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. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp
[WISPA] Tower hole size
Anyone know how big the hole should be for a self-supporting tower? Is there a guide or rule of thumb? Thanks! -RickG 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] Tower hole size
There is no rule of thumb. Contact the manufacturer as it depends on the tower and the soil type where the tower will go. The foundation plan makes certain assumptions about the soil. If your soil does not match these assumptions, then the foundation will need to be altered. Usually this means a bigger hole. There are geologist/soil engineers who do this. Ken Chipps -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tower hole size Anyone know how big the hole should be for a self-supporting tower? Is there a guide or rule of thumb? Thanks! -RickG 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] self inflicted interference
lol Yeah, that too! marlon - Original Message - From: Forrest W Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Marlon K. Schafer wrote: What I need are better radios. Something with better oob tx and rx stats. What you need is something with transmit synchronization (Canopy, Wimax) so that one AP isn't TX-ing at the same time that another is RX-ing. -forrest 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] self inflicted interference
I just realized I phrased that poorly, could the interference be radiating from the LMR rather than across the radios or antennas? On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Ryan Langseth wrote: I am by no means a RF guy, I am still figuring out that side of being a wisp myself. The one question I have is; could the interference be through the LMR? Ryan On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I thought about that. But then it's too hard to change channels. There are other operators in the area and I need the ability to change things around as needed. marlon - Original Message - From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Look into some high Q cavity filters. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I just completely rebuilt a tower site. It had inconsistent speeds and I'd hit the point that I normally change things around. When I hit 50 people to a tower I'll sectorize it. On this tower I had an omni at about 25' (the hill is 700 feet over the valley) and a 15dB integrated Tranzeo ap at about 15'. Omni was vertical, sector was horizontal. I rented a manlift and put an hpol maxrad wisp series 120* adjustable beam sector at about 45', a vertical at 37ish and another horizontal at about 30. All antennas are also 6 to 8' horizontally separated. Each on a standoff attached to the different legs of the tower. All antennas are fed with lmr600 and the radios are right beside each other at the base of the tower (I'm too chicken to climb so the radios stay where I can get to them). Here's my problem, with all of the radios on and transmitting the speeds are worse than before for most customers. The sector to the west has 2 customers and sits at the 30' level and is hpol. Those two customers get around 4 megs down and up. The sector to the north east is vertical and a customer at 10ish miles gets .7 to 1.5 megs down and .25 to .5 up. The sector to the south east is hpol and sits at the 45 or 50' level. Customers get .6 to 1.5 down and .1 to .5 up. Unplug any two radios and speeds hit the 2 to 3 meg, sometimes 4 meg speed for all customers on that system. Plug the other one back in and speeds drop back down. The hpol maxrad antennas have a 30dB fb ratio. I've not yet looked at the patterns lately, as I recall they are pretty good though. APs are Teletronics 11-152s with metal cases. I've had GREAT luck with ALL of these components at other sites. Just never all at the same time and place like this. As most of you know, most of my coverage areas are VERY low density so I tend to use a lot of omni antennas, or am mounted on hills that have no coverage behind them so only one or two sectors are used. The two systems that interfere with each other the most are north east and south east. One's hpol one's vpol. They are on channel 1 and 9. To get things working MUCH better than they were before, I've replaced the north east and south east radios with Tranzeo ap's. I also moved the southeast antenna (actually put up a new one) back down to the roof of the shack. It's also a Tranzeo ap now. It, however, now sits in front of, though much lower than the west antenna, both are hpol though. If the channels are anywhere near the same for west and southeast the folks to the west get really slow speeds. I also moved the antennas on the tower further apart, they are now at least 5 or 6 feet apart from each other. I don't know how much that helped as I changed one of the radios to a Tranzeo at that same time. This helped but didn't fix the speed and consistency problem. That's when I moved the south east system back down where I could more easily get to it. Things still aren't as consistent as they need to be. If one system gets busy the others slow down. Any ideas? My first thought is to try a REALLY high end access point or two. You'd think those systems could sit side beside when using channels so far apart from each other. It's like the new radios are soo sensitive that they will pick up the noise close to them no matter what. OR, more likely, that the new, cheaper, gear has really really sensitive radios but with rotten side band isolation on both tx and rx. Any ideas? Radios/antennas to try? Changing the radios is easy. Getting a manlift back out to change the antennas will suck big time (due to the stand offs it would be too hard/ dangerous to change antennas from the tower). thanks, marlon --- - 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.
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
two different netgear switches. Using my laptop at the tower things always work as expected. Just when the customers are further away (lower signal levels) causes the problems. I've moved things further apart and the system is running better than it ever has. But it should still be better.. What I need are better radios. Something with better oob tx and rx stats. marlon - Original Message - From: D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Marlon, How are these APs hooked to each other? If you are using a hub, get a switch. If it is a switch, get a different switch. I have had this happen on 3 of my repeater sites. ryan On Jul 24, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I just completely rebuilt a tower site. It had inconsistent speeds and I'd hit the point that I normally change things around. When I hit 50 people to a tower I'll sectorize it. On this tower I had an omni at about 25' (the hill is 700 feet over the valley) and a 15dB integrated Tranzeo ap at about 15'. Omni was vertical, sector was horizontal. I rented a manlift and put an hpol maxrad wisp series 120* adjustable beam sector at about 45', a vertical at 37ish and another horizontal at about 30. All antennas are also 6 to 8' horizontally separated. Each on a standoff attached to the different legs of the tower. All antennas are fed with lmr600 and the radios are right beside each other at the base of the tower (I'm too chicken to climb so the radios stay where I can get to them). Here's my problem, with all of the radios on and transmitting the speeds are worse than before for most customers. The sector to the west has 2 customers and sits at the 30' level and is hpol. Those two customers get around 4 megs down and up. The sector to the north east is vertical and a customer at 10ish miles gets .7 to 1.5 megs down and .25 to .5 up. The sector to the south east is hpol and sits at the 45 or 50' level. Customers get .6 to 1.5 down and .1 to .5 up. Unplug any two radios and speeds hit the 2 to 3 meg, sometimes 4 meg speed for all customers on that system. Plug the other one back in and speeds drop back down. The hpol maxrad antennas have a 30dB fb ratio. I've not yet looked at the patterns lately, as I recall they are pretty good though. APs are Teletronics 11-152s with metal cases. I've had GREAT luck with ALL of these components at other sites. Just never all at the same time and place like this. As most of you know, most of my coverage areas are VERY low density so I tend to use a lot of omni antennas, or am mounted on hills that have no coverage behind them so only one or two sectors are used. The two systems that interfere with each other the most are north east and south east. One's hpol one's vpol. They are on channel 1 and 9. To get things working MUCH better than they were before, I've replaced the north east and south east radios with Tranzeo ap's. I also moved the southeast antenna (actually put up a new one) back down to the roof of the shack. It's also a Tranzeo ap now. It, however, now sits in front of, though much lower than the west antenna, both are hpol though. If the channels are anywhere near the same for west and southeast the folks to the west get really slow speeds. I also moved the antennas on the tower further apart, they are now at least 5 or 6 feet apart from each other. I don't know how much that helped as I changed one of the radios to a Tranzeo at that same time. This helped but didn't fix the speed and consistency problem. That's when I moved the south east system back down where I could more easily get to it. Things still aren't as consistent as they need to be. If one system gets busy the others slow down. Any ideas? My first thought is to try a REALLY high end access point or two. You'd think those systems could sit side beside when using channels so far apart from each other. It's like the new radios are soo sensitive that they will pick up the noise close to them no matter what. OR, more likely, that the new, cheaper, gear has really really sensitive radios but with rotten side band isolation on both tx and rx. Any ideas? Radios/antennas to try? Changing the radios is easy. Getting a manlift back out to change the antennas will suck big time (due to the stand offs it would be too hard/dangerous to change antennas from the tower). thanks, marlon -- -- 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.
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
I suppose it could be. But coax, especially the good stuff, doesn't leak much as I understand it. If it did, we'd have to use something else :-) marlon - Original Message - From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference I am by no means a RF guy, I am still figuring out that side of being a wisp myself. The one question I have is; could the interference be through the LMR? Ryan On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I thought about that. But then it's too hard to change channels. There are other operators in the area and I need the ability to change things around as needed. marlon - Original Message - From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Look into some high Q cavity filters. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I just completely rebuilt a tower site. It had inconsistent speeds and I'd hit the point that I normally change things around. When I hit 50 people to a tower I'll sectorize it. On this tower I had an omni at about 25' (the hill is 700 feet over the valley) and a 15dB integrated Tranzeo ap at about 15'. Omni was vertical, sector was horizontal. I rented a manlift and put an hpol maxrad wisp series 120* adjustable beam sector at about 45', a vertical at 37ish and another horizontal at about 30. All antennas are also 6 to 8' horizontally separated. Each on a standoff attached to the different legs of the tower. All antennas are fed with lmr600 and the radios are right beside each other at the base of the tower (I'm too chicken to climb so the radios stay where I can get to them). Here's my problem, with all of the radios on and transmitting the speeds are worse than before for most customers. The sector to the west has 2 customers and sits at the 30' level and is hpol. Those two customers get around 4 megs down and up. The sector to the north east is vertical and a customer at 10ish miles gets .7 to 1.5 megs down and .25 to .5 up. The sector to the south east is hpol and sits at the 45 or 50' level. Customers get .6 to 1.5 down and .1 to .5 up. Unplug any two radios and speeds hit the 2 to 3 meg, sometimes 4 meg speed for all customers on that system. Plug the other one back in and speeds drop back down. The hpol maxrad antennas have a 30dB fb ratio. I've not yet looked at the patterns lately, as I recall they are pretty good though. APs are Teletronics 11-152s with metal cases. I've had GREAT luck with ALL of these components at other sites. Just never all at the same time and place like this. As most of you know, most of my coverage areas are VERY low density so I tend to use a lot of omni antennas, or am mounted on hills that have no coverage behind them so only one or two sectors are used. The two systems that interfere with each other the most are north east and south east. One's hpol one's vpol. They are on channel 1 and 9. To get things working MUCH better than they were before, I've replaced the north east and south east radios with Tranzeo ap's. I also moved the southeast antenna (actually put up a new one) back down to the roof of the shack. It's also a Tranzeo ap now. It, however, now sits in front of, though much lower than the west antenna, both are hpol though. If the channels are anywhere near the same for west and southeast the folks to the west get really slow speeds. I also moved the antennas on the tower further apart, they are now at least 5 or 6 feet apart from each other. I don't know how much that helped as I changed one of the radios to a Tranzeo at that same time. This helped but didn't fix the speed and consistency problem. That's when I moved the south east system back down where I could more easily get to it. Things still aren't as consistent as they need to be. If one system gets busy the others slow down. Any ideas? My first thought is to try a REALLY high end access point or two. You'd think those systems could sit side beside when using channels so far apart from each other. It's like the new radios are soo sensitive that they will pick up the noise close to them no matter what. OR, more likely, that the new, cheaper, gear has really really sensitive radios but with rotten side band isolation on both tx and rx. Any ideas? Radios/antennas to try? Changing the radios is easy. Getting a manlift back out to change the antennas will suck big time (due to the stand offs it would be too hard/dangerous to change antennas from the tower). thanks, marlon Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
Marlon K. Schafer wrote: What I need are better radios. Something with better oob tx and rx stats. What you need is something with transmit synchronization (Canopy, Wimax) so that one AP isn't TX-ing at the same time that another is RX-ing. -forrest 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] self inflicted interference
I thought about that. But then it's too hard to change channels. There are other operators in the area and I need the ability to change things around as needed. marlon - Original Message - From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Look into some high Q cavity filters. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I just completely rebuilt a tower site. It had inconsistent speeds and I'd hit the point that I normally change things around. When I hit 50 people to a tower I'll sectorize it. On this tower I had an omni at about 25' (the hill is 700 feet over the valley) and a 15dB integrated Tranzeo ap at about 15'. Omni was vertical, sector was horizontal. I rented a manlift and put an hpol maxrad wisp series 120* adjustable beam sector at about 45', a vertical at 37ish and another horizontal at about 30. All antennas are also 6 to 8' horizontally separated. Each on a standoff attached to the different legs of the tower. All antennas are fed with lmr600 and the radios are right beside each other at the base of the tower (I'm too chicken to climb so the radios stay where I can get to them). Here's my problem, with all of the radios on and transmitting the speeds are worse than before for most customers. The sector to the west has 2 customers and sits at the 30' level and is hpol. Those two customers get around 4 megs down and up. The sector to the north east is vertical and a customer at 10ish miles gets .7 to 1.5 megs down and .25 to .5 up. The sector to the south east is hpol and sits at the 45 or 50' level. Customers get .6 to 1.5 down and .1 to .5 up. Unplug any two radios and speeds hit the 2 to 3 meg, sometimes 4 meg speed for all customers on that system. Plug the other one back in and speeds drop back down. The hpol maxrad antennas have a 30dB fb ratio. I've not yet looked at the patterns lately, as I recall they are pretty good though. APs are Teletronics 11-152s with metal cases. I've had GREAT luck with ALL of these components at other sites. Just never all at the same time and place like this. As most of you know, most of my coverage areas are VERY low density so I tend to use a lot of omni antennas, or am mounted on hills that have no coverage behind them so only one or two sectors are used. The two systems that interfere with each other the most are north east and south east. One's hpol one's vpol. They are on channel 1 and 9. To get things working MUCH better than they were before, I've replaced the north east and south east radios with Tranzeo ap's. I also moved the southeast antenna (actually put up a new one) back down to the roof of the shack. It's also a Tranzeo ap now. It, however, now sits in front of, though much lower than the west antenna, both are hpol though. If the channels are anywhere near the same for west and southeast the folks to the west get really slow speeds. I also moved the antennas on the tower further apart, they are now at least 5 or 6 feet apart from each other. I don't know how much that helped as I changed one of the radios to a Tranzeo at that same time. This helped but didn't fix the speed and consistency problem. That's when I moved the south east system back down where I could more easily get to it. Things still aren't as consistent as they need to be. If one system gets busy the others slow down. Any ideas? My first thought is to try a REALLY high end access point or two. You'd think those systems could sit side beside when using channels so far apart from each other. It's like the new radios are soo sensitive that they will pick up the noise close to them no matter what. OR, more likely, that the new, cheaper, gear has really really sensitive radios but with rotten side band isolation on both tx and rx. Any ideas? Radios/antennas to try? Changing the radios is easy. Getting a manlift back out to change the antennas will suck big time (due to the stand offs it would be too hard/dangerous to change antennas from the tower). thanks, marlon 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. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC 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
[WISPA] FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/fbi-proposes-bu.html -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com 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] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..
-- Forwarded message -- From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband.. I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people. If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT. So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint does not grow, but certainly the penetration does. Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they generally had better customer relationships with the customers. These days, Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from the ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco. And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build new facilities? Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as has always been the case... Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions. VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or dial-up. CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is all to often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially interesting on VoIP. Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have evolved in a much different manner. However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs are more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy standpoint)--most of the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas and wireless in rural markets. The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over. I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and can't make people some dough. But, national policy is not structured around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash positive... running the same old tired copper to the same old customers does not increase broadband penetration. National policy! HA! It's about Innovation and Competition. In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame :) Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was invented in Bell Labs in 1965! RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they went the exact opposite way). Agreed...but that was 1998-2002. What have they done for us lately? Does it hurt the ILEC? Heh...probably not all that much. But, are CLECs really helping the consumer? I tend to argue no, by and large...why IS CLEC market share so small? Why are independent ISPs have so little market share? Clint, I could spend days on this. For you even to ask this, . it almost feels like you are trolling (or do I hear the clinking of ice?) I'm honestly not trolling here, although, given the forum, it definitely comes across that way. Definitely, back in the 1990's and early 2000's, CLECs drove costs down and drove in new services that Bell had little interest in offering. That was 5 years ago, though. By and large, the bells are usually fairly competitive price wise in the business market and by far the best value out there in the residential / SOHO market. Now, it is largely the cable/telco competition that is keeping prices down, not the CLECs... I worked for several years at an ISP that did the whole BellSouth DSL NSP stuff. The FISPA list, etc...continually trashed BellSouth DSL service and their poor customer service, and so forth, and espoused the the glories of independent ISPs, which I largely agreed with until one day when I setup a friends self-install DSL kit from BellSouth. It was a very slick automated installation procedure that was _much_ better than what we were doing. The Independent ISP community did _way_ too much talking about their own value and their own great customer service while, by and large, doing very little to actually improve workflows, improve the customer experience (in terms of ease of turn up) and way too little time / effort spent actually selling and marketing. Simply put, by 2005 the telco offering by and large was, for most people, a better product. Again, this isn't a universal indictment, but a lot of their problems were self-inflicted and not the result of FCC meddling. Too much talk, too little action... Way, way too much time was and is still spent blaming the government and the evil ILECs and too little time / effort spent actually selling, improving business operations, and reinvesting in better infrastructure / services. In the end, the market share for the CLECs and independents is small because more consumers chose to go with someone else. Some of the better-run ones that actually do have a compelling product
Re: [WISPA] Public Safety
Lets first look at the rebanding as a whole. Its about as clear as JohnnyO's swamp water on a hot summer day. The mess started when the FCC and Nextel started the licensing process originally for Nextel, and 800 Mhz SMR's. Best practices were NOT used, and a mess was created. Then the interference started. Best practices COULD have fixed the problem, as is REQUIRED in the other bands. They were not. Nextel came riding in on white horse, to fix everything. Don't think for a moment that the rebanding, while costing Nextel a lot, won't end up benefitting them greatly with the new frequency assignments they are getting. The FCC, realizing that they were not without blame, jumped at the chance. http://mrtmag.com/rebanding/news/ has some great information on it. Nextel never had a large portion of 700 Mhz holdings. There never was a plan to build out 800 Mhz for a nationwide network. There never was a plan to build out 4.9 Mhz as a nationwide network. There ARE plans to build out the 700 Mhz into a nationwide network. Some are better than others.. They were given until mid 2008 to reband, but they have already asked for years of extensions. Also, the funding that is mentioned? That is a major point of contention right now among the people being rebanded, and there IS A CAP to the money that Nextel will have to pay. What happens after that is still up in the air - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety I'm not saying you don't need that network. YOU DO! That is one of the things that benefits public safety without sacrificing any liberties. The network hasn't been built in 4.9 GHz. The network hasn't been built in 800 MHz. What's going to cause this network to appear when 700 MHz is reserved for public safety? Accelerate Nextel's departure from 800 MHz and use that. Actually, I may have been mistaken. I just read this: = Nextel will relinquish rights to some of its 800 MHz licenses and all of its 700 MHz licenses, and fund the realignment of the 800 MHz band and clearing of the 1.9 GHz spectrum to be authorized to Nextel. = So they're already giving up 700 MHz. What's being done with that? They were given only a couple years to have the 800 MHz band reconfigured. 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] Outch.. Drunk employee....
:0( On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems strange, but it happens all the time. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outch.. Drunk employee Does seem strange that a simple power outage would take down a datacenter, which should have backup generators and UPS systems. Travis Microserv kimo wrote: Read the updated post - it was the SF Power Outtage... :) On 7/25/07, Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://valleywag.com/tech/breakdowns/a-drunk-employee-kills-all-of-the-websites-you-care-about-282021.php -- Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant www.mikrotikconsulting.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Enterprise Class RouterOS: www.mikrotikrouter.com 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/ 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] Public Safety
What ever did happen with UWB products? On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the engineers need to get off their butts and get us software defined radios capable of accessing large amounts of spectrum. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety I wish that we could get all interests (including WISPs, Cellcos, Two-way, Hams and Public Service) to think in terms of reservation of air time as opposed to exclusivity of bandspace for future spectrum allocations. If an emergency occurs then public safety should be able to force a reservation of airtime in any band they need in my opinion. Then everyone can benefit from having lower-cost, mass-produced equipment which is able to be used by any interests in a given band. I am not suggesting that we should not dedicate some bandspace for public safety exclusively. They need some. What I am saying though is that many other bands could have the ability to reserve airtime for specific interests when needed. This would also allow for more efficient use of spectrum. There is no reason that we should not use any bands we can for recreational, experimental and commercial use when there is not an emergency situation. As long as the priority is in place to force the airtime for public safety then we can hand it over instantly if needed. If devices had to ask permission to transmit based on a base station priority system then that system could be used for any purpose including 100% public safety in a disaster. Allowing the priority of traffic to be established instantly means that any interest could make use of the bandwidth under certain conditions as established by a base station with priority control over traffic in real time. We already have some spectrum exclusively used for specific interests. I think all the rest should have multiple use ability. I may not be doing a good job of describing what I am suggesting but the whole point is that airtime priority partitioning is more important than band exclusivity. We need to start designing and building communications systems with this approach in mind. John Scrivner Patrick Leary wrote: Exactly, and I'm sure Blake wil also agree that 4.9 GHz is useful only for fixed multipoint, PtP, or picocell tactical mesh (ala Packethop). I should not say only because these are vital needs and enable large, secure and relatively interference-immune pipes. But since public safety workers spend most of their time in the field, the critical need is mobile broadband access -- and the more dedicated in nature (as in reserved for them) the better. And certainly there are not enough dollars in the world to build a ubiquitous 4.9 GHz network; it simply is not the band for such a thing and such an idea would be absurd. - Patrick, Alvarion -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety 4.9 is the only true data band. 800 is still shared - and Nextel is not vacating it, just moving around a bit on it. 150, 450, and 800 will not support high speed data with the present day band plan, and changing that band plan would be a unworkable at this day and time. What do you mean about the third band that the nationwide interoperable network could be in? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] Public Safety What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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
[WISPA] 90* N Connector
Does anyone know where to get 90* N connectors from? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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] 90* N Connector
electrocomm Mike Hammett wrote: Does anyone know where to get 90* N connectors from? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion
Scriv, I agree with you. I can't think of anything more important than WISPS getting the rights and control of some licensed 700 spectrum. We need small area CMAs and bidding credits. The concern is the What IF. If we aren't granted small CMAs, and Rural Bidding Credits. Who ends up with the spectrum? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion The bad thing about Google's wholesale push is this: We asked for bidding credits and CMA sized blocks in the upper and lower 700 MHz bands in the upcoming auction. If Google gets their way then the upper blocks will NOT be CMA sized and will have wholesale requirements attached. I can see some of the bigger players sidestepping the larger wholesale-crippled spectrum in order to outbid all of us in the lower CMA sized blocks. In those blocks there will likely be no wholesale requirements. End result? We cannot afford to outbid them and we lose a shot at these bands for our own use. I have never seen a wholesale model for a communications platform that worked. I doubt it will work this time either. I see this as a lose - lose for us if Google gets what they want. I hope I am wrong. Scriv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Oh man. This from anyone in the cellular industry! sigh I do, however, agree with his point. Goggle could just do that if they win the spectrum. This is clearly an attempt to devalue the spectrum. Not that that's a bad thing. Clearly we've seen that the spectrum tax, oh excuse me, auction, is a market place failure as far as broadband goes. marlon - Original Message - From: Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:24 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion Just to throw another log on, here's the CTIA's approach: WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--CTIA-The Wireless AssociationR President and CEO Steve Largent issued the following statement today in response to a letter from Google to the Federal Communications Commission asking for special conditions in the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction, and pledging to bid at least $4.6 billion for that spectrum if Google's conditions are met: The veil has been lifted. Google's letter to the FCC this morning highlights the Internet giant's scheme to have the 700 MHz auction rigged with special conditions in its favor. If Google is willing to commit almost $5 billion dollars for spectrum that it wants encumbered with various requirements, then let it win that spectrum in a competitive auction and choose that business model. Google and its allies, with their collective market capitalization approaching half a trillion dollars, don't need a government handout at taxpayers' expense. The competitive wireless industry welcomes all new entrants, but no company should be able to buy a custom-fit government regulation that suits their particular business plan. Consumers should decide if they're right, not the federal government. CTIA is the international association for the wireless telecommunications industry, representing carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet providers. Drew Lentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Smith, Rick Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion Rumors of Embarq pulling fiber in NW NJ. I'm trying to figure this one out, since it's home for me :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion Smith, Rick wrote: I can tell you for a fact that Embarq and Verizon have 700 Mhz and FTTP on their radar BIG time. It's that whole battle vs. war thing... They're willing to get their heads handed to them 9 times because that 10th is their nuke... OK I've gotta throw away this devil's advocate hat... EMBARQ? Hesse said that he was betting on the DSL game. Where does Embarq do FTTx? VZ and ATT are spending the money for FTTx - but not in rural America. (Maybe that's where 700 comes in, but I think the 700 is going to be used for muni wi-fi and to enhance their cellular data services). - Peter 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.
Re: [WISPA] Public Safety
So the engineers need to get off their butts and get us software defined radios capable of accessing large amounts of spectrum. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety I wish that we could get all interests (including WISPs, Cellcos, Two-way, Hams and Public Service) to think in terms of reservation of air time as opposed to exclusivity of bandspace for future spectrum allocations. If an emergency occurs then public safety should be able to force a reservation of airtime in any band they need in my opinion. Then everyone can benefit from having lower-cost, mass-produced equipment which is able to be used by any interests in a given band. I am not suggesting that we should not dedicate some bandspace for public safety exclusively. They need some. What I am saying though is that many other bands could have the ability to reserve airtime for specific interests when needed. This would also allow for more efficient use of spectrum. There is no reason that we should not use any bands we can for recreational, experimental and commercial use when there is not an emergency situation. As long as the priority is in place to force the airtime for public safety then we can hand it over instantly if needed. If devices had to ask permission to transmit based on a base station priority system then that system could be used for any purpose including 100% public safety in a disaster. Allowing the priority of traffic to be established instantly means that any interest could make use of the bandwidth under certain conditions as established by a base station with priority control over traffic in real time. We already have some spectrum exclusively used for specific interests. I think all the rest should have multiple use ability. I may not be doing a good job of describing what I am suggesting but the whole point is that airtime priority partitioning is more important than band exclusivity. We need to start designing and building communications systems with this approach in mind. John Scrivner Patrick Leary wrote: Exactly, and I'm sure Blake wil also agree that 4.9 GHz is useful only for fixed multipoint, PtP, or picocell tactical mesh (ala Packethop). I should not say only because these are vital needs and enable large, secure and relatively interference-immune pipes. But since public safety workers spend most of their time in the field, the critical need is mobile broadband access -- and the more dedicated in nature (as in reserved for them) the better. And certainly there are not enough dollars in the world to build a ubiquitous 4.9 GHz network; it simply is not the band for such a thing and such an idea would be absurd. - Patrick, Alvarion -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety 4.9 is the only true data band. 800 is still shared - and Nextel is not vacating it, just moving around a bit on it. 150, 450, and 800 will not support high speed data with the present day band plan, and changing that band plan would be a unworkable at this day and time. What do you mean about the third band that the nationwide interoperable network could be in? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] Public Safety What all bands does the public safety industry use? 150 MHz 450 MHz 800 MHz 4.9 GHz 4.9 is exclusively public safety. Nextel was granted some 1.9 GHz so that they would vacate 800 MHz, leaving it to public safety. The others are general commercial bands. Now the FCC wants to give them 700 MHz. I'm all about giving them what they need, but how much do they need? This would be the third band they could do their nationwide inter-operable network in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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.
Re: [WISPA] Outch.. Drunk employee....
It seems strange, but it happens all the time. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outch.. Drunk employee Does seem strange that a simple power outage would take down a datacenter, which should have backup generators and UPS systems. Travis Microserv kimo wrote: Read the updated post - it was the SF Power Outtage... :) On 7/25/07, Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://valleywag.com/tech/breakdowns/a-drunk-employee-kills-all-of-the-websites-you-care-about-282021.php -- Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant www.mikrotikconsulting.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Enterprise Class RouterOS: www.mikrotikrouter.com 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] Public Safety
I can't disagree. It will be a monumental undertaking, and it is fraught with issues, but it CAN be done. Software defined radios, as Jack Unger pointed out, is part of the fix. We are not completelly there yet - but there is progress being made. The millions upon millions of wireless devices out there will also need to be replaced. As an aside, one of the reasons I am totally opposed to the CyrenCall proposal is the use of propietary equipment. Any use of the 700 Mhz band needs to be in NON-propietary equipment. Make it easy, simple, and cheap. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public Safety I wish that we could get all interests (including WISPs, Cellcos, Two-way, Hams and Public Service) to think in terms of reservation of air time as opposed to exclusivity of bandspace for future spectrum allocations. If an emergency occurs then public safety should be able to force a reservation of airtime in any band they need in my opinion. Then everyone can benefit from having lower-cost, mass-produced equipment which is able to be used by any interests in a given band. I am not suggesting that we should not dedicate some bandspace for public safety exclusively. They need some. What I am saying though is that many other bands could have the ability to reserve airtime for specific interests when needed. This would also allow for more efficient use of spectrum. There is no reason that we should not use any bands we can for recreational, experimental and commercial use when there is not an emergency situation. As long as the priority is in place to force the airtime for public safety then we can hand it over instantly if needed. If devices had to ask permission to transmit based on a base station priority system then that system could be used for any purpose including 100% public safety in a disaster. Allowing the priority of traffic to be established instantly means that any interest could make use of the bandwidth under certain conditions as established by a base station with priority control over traffic in real time. We already have some spectrum exclusively used for specific interests. I think all the rest should have multiple use ability. I may not be doing a good job of describing what I am suggesting but the whole point is that airtime priority partitioning is more important than band exclusivity. We need to start designing and building communications systems with this approach in mind. John Scrivner 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] Public Safety
Exactly. We are building out a 4.9 network, but it is a backhaul network. - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:20 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Public Safety Exactly, and I'm sure Blake wil also agree that 4.9 GHz is useful only for fixed multipoint, PtP, or picocell tactical mesh (ala Packethop). I should not say only because these are vital needs and enable large, secure and relatively interference-immune pipes. But since public safety workers spend most of their time in the field, the critical need is mobile broadband access -- and the more dedicated in nature (as in reserved for them) the better. And certainly there are not enough dollars in the world to build a ubiquitous 4.9 GHz network; it simply is not the band for such a thing and such an idea would be absurd. - Patrick, Alvarion 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] FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants
snitch.net ??? Matt Larsen Vistabeam.com Jack Unger wrote: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/fbi-proposes-bu.html 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/
