Re: [WISPA] Letter from BTOP
BIP applicants don't have to deal with this political dog-and-pony show (er., BS =) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of St. Louis Broadband Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:42 PM To: li...@stlbroadband.com; 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Letter from BTOP Has anyone else received this letter from BTOP? We received it yesterday. Dear BTOP applicant: Thank you for submitting your application for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), the $4.7 billion grant program established by Congress in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to expand and enhance broadband capabilities in the United States. The U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is working to ensure that funds from the Recovery Act are made available as quickly, effectively, and fairly as possible. In the Recovery Act, NTIA was authorized to consult with states, territories, possessions, and the District of Columbia (states) regarding the identification of unserved and underserved areas within their borders and the allocation of grants funds to projects affecting each state. Accordingly, NTIA is making relevant information about your project available on its website www.broadbandusa.gov for states and the public to review: applicant name, contact information, amount requested, and a description of the application. On September 8, 2009, you also received an email from NTIA requesting your permission to post your project's Executive Summary, or a partially redacted version thereof, on www.broadbandusa.gov. Assuming you have granted the requested permission, this information will also be made available to states and the public. If you have not yet responded to our September 8 email, please do so (to b...@ntia.doc.gov) at your earliest convenience. NTIA is affording states the opportunity to comment on BTOP applications that propose to serve areas within their jurisdiction and to provide an explanation of why certain applications meet the greatest needs of the state. Information provided by states will be among the factors considered by NTIA in making final awards. To protect any confidential information or trade secrets contained in your application, NTIA is providing states with only the limited information described above. Many states may wish to consider additional information contained in your application before making recommendations to NTIA and may contact you to request such information. Because states have been asked to submit any recommendations to NTIA by October 14, 2009, we recommend you respond as quickly as possible to any information requests from states to give them sufficient time to consider it before commenting to NTIA. We also request that you do not send information to the states unless and until! you are asked to do so by a state. Please note that your application remains under consideration until NTIA has notified you in writing regarding any changes to your status. Notifications will be made on a rolling basis in the coming weeks, and as such you may not hear from NTIA immediately. Thank you again for applying to BTOP. If you have any further questions regarding the state consultation process, please call (202) 482-2048 or email us at b...@ntia.doc.gov and we will do our best to assist you as quickly as possible. Victoria Proffer www.StLouisBroadband.com 314-974-5600 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
It's worth noting that the rules are a little different for middle mile applicants than last mile applicants e.g., for the middle mile -- one has to pre-set their wholesale bandwidth rates and stay in accordance with the NOFA's non-discrimination rules per the application Keep in mind, if someone with a middle mile project gets an application saying that they're going to sell bandwidth for $50 / meg in your rural market with a zero setup fee -- adhering to that pricing plan / etc becomes a REQUIREMENT of their funding agreement -- so, if you go to them and they then quote you $100 / meg, they are in violation of their agreement with the government Keep in mind, when this happens, it now becomes fraud, and that's considered a felony (in addition, the government has the right to de-obligate the entire grant, and what that means is that they can demand 100% of the money back) Also, note that in some cases, the government is a little different than your average debtor, in some cases (e.g., tax evasion), not paying the government can put you in jail That sad (or maybe not depending on your perspective?) thing is that there are a lot of, IMO jokers applying for broadband stimulus funds who move fast and loose and think that they can pull a fast one over the government -- add in the fact that NTIA/RUS have tens of millions of budgeted for auditing, I would predict that many of them will end up in jail as a result of stimulus -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well tough. If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale access...just attachment, whatever the heck that means. There just seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their usual games with this stuff and block the intent. So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the provider is willing to and interested in doing so. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't think it's a good plan. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you can find it on line. The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are instructed to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's. It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach you're suggesting as I understood the circular. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Its also feasible to protest a plan simply because its a poor plan. The NTIA/RUS needs to approve grants for companies that use tax payer money optimally wisely and benefit the public, and adhere to the NOFA rules. If you think you can do a better plan, but didn;t have time to submit it until Round2, why should the ROund1 plan get approved if its less good? And if one doubts the entent of an applicant, we should tell NTIA what we think. We are not only competing providers, but we are also the public that has to pay the taxes 5to fund these projects. I know in my State, there were numerous good applications that targeted truely needy areas, and made an effort to avoid other provider infrastructure. I plan to support those projects. For example only about 20% in my opinion were bad applications that would directly compete with me and other WISPs in their core
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband is for their system. If it's a middle mile application, they would be in violation of their funding contract if they bandwidth wasn't available to you for the same price that they're buying it for -- IMO, you would win either way 1. You get access to cheap bandwidth for the same price as them 2. They deny you access, you report them to the government, they get audited, shut down, thrown in jail, you have one less competitor, and you get to buy their system for pennies on the dollar =) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well tough. If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale access...just attachment, whatever the heck that means. There just seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their usual games with this stuff and block the intent. So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the provider is willing to and interested in doing so. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't think it's a good plan. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you can find it on line. The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are instructed to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's. It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach you're suggesting as I understood the circular. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Its also feasible to protest a plan simply because its a poor plan. The NTIA/RUS needs to approve grants for companies that use tax payer money optimally wisely and benefit the public, and adhere to the NOFA rules. If you think you can do a better plan, but didn;t have time to submit it until Round2, why should the ROund1 plan get approved if its less good? And if one doubts the entent of an applicant, we should tell NTIA what we think. We are not only competing providers, but we are also the public that has to pay the taxes 5to fund these projects. I know in my State, there were numerous good applications that targeted truely needy areas, and made an effort to avoid other provider infrastructure. I plan to support those projects. For example only about 20% in my opinion were bad applications that would directly compete with me and other WISPs in their core markets. I plan to protest that 20%. Anyone that was smart would have avoided pre- existing providers or called them a head of time to work benefit for them into the proposal to gain their support. If they didn't do that, they deserve to have their applications protested, in my opinion. As well, if a grant application covers an area that you entended on applying for in Round2, I see no problem in telling NTIA/RUS that, and advising that the Round1 funds are oversubscribed, and Round1 funds should go to projects without alledged conflict of interests first, and at minimum deny the conflcit of interest applicants until round2, where they can be mroe fairly considered, and so there is more time to gain fact on what
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Well...operators in 2.5 GHz can put out up to 2 kW (E.g., 2000 Watts) EIRP at the tower site, have a noise floor of -100 dBm which allows them to take full advantage of more advanced technology, and in some cases, have access to almost 200 MHz of spectrum Compare that to 900 MHz, where you're limited to 4W of EIRP, have a -80 dbm noise floor, and a total of 24 MHz of spectrum that's being shared with 20 other users -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of St. Louis Broadband Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:06 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects I am just not getting this. We have two competitors that state that they can provide 14 Mbps wireless broadband to a very heavily tree canopied area. The best we could do is with 900 MHz and that would only provide 3.3 Mbps, if luck. How can these folks get away with such amazing statements? Victoria -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects I dont have much confident in anyone gaining access to someone else's network inexpensively, unless that network is owned by a small local company, short in front end sales resources themselves, that truly benefits from having other partners to drive demand. Example... Yesterday I tried to buy capacity (7 mbps) Wholesale access to TowerStream's broadband network for 1 day, and they quoted me $11,000 and refused to budge. And they had a live tower/NOC 500 yards away. The wholesale price for 1 year, would have been just as bad. Obviously, we chose another option. To them, its all about what the market will bear, and has absolutely nothing to do with their cost. Many grant winners will have the same mentality, and the fact that they got their grant for free, will have no effect on their pricing sctructure, or pricing structure for wholesale, or desire to even havea wholesale offering. The truth is, I just dont see Public traded or VC funded companies sharing their grant funded networks ethically, regardless of the open access requirments. And a lot of the grant winners are likely going to be the one with financial and investment backing. Its different for small WISPs. Small WISPs partner with other WISPs all the time, because there is a mutual benefit for doing so. I sure hope some small WISPs win some grants, and maybe the wholesale requirements of the program might actually make it to a beneficial reality. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Nah, the plan they have is just to use microwave to bring it in. A system of towers, is what they propose. No fiber. A million bucks worth of towers and radios? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:18 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Why not? You should be able to take advantage of that cheaper bandwidth too I'd think. Assuming it's a fiber build, they are going to have tons of excess capacity. Chuck On Sep 17, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Robert West wrote: In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband is for their system. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well tough. If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale access...just attachment, whatever the heck that means. There just seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their usual games with this stuff and block the intent. So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the provider is willing to and
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
They either lie or they legitimately dont know what they are doing. Or maybe you don't know what is possible with licensed spectrum =) For example, in the 2.5 GHz band, there are over 30 6 MHz channels available (e.g., almost 200 MHz of spectrum) -- we have one customer that owns/leases almost every channel in their respective market (I believe they're at 28 or so), and they have the ability to do some really cool stuff -Charles WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Hi David, While I applaud your efforts in being involved with the broadband stimulus, it is my understanding that MVN.net is/was applying for stimulus funds for Round 1 -- maybe I'm missing something, but I can't figure out how you'd be able to over-come the conflict of interest clauses? -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Tom DeReggi wrote: Again, I jsut hope decission makers are smart enough to see the truth, and grant to those with the most proven experience. The best way to help ensure this would have been to volunteer to review the grants (unless, of course, you're interested in pursuing a grant yourself). I really hope I'm not the only WISP employee who did so. I think it's too late to volunteer and still review the first round of grant applications, but there will be further rounds over the next several months. As there are more than a few applications asking for money to build out wireless, a few extra nonsense-detectors wouldn't hurt. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Okay, so for the grant they MUST provide the bandwidth for the same price they are paying for it??? But are they then able to throw a bunch of BS fees on top of it? If they have to provide at the same price, then it's not bad but I suspect it will be more cumbersome. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband is for their system. If it's a middle mile application, they would be in violation of their funding contract if they bandwidth wasn't available to you for the same price that they're buying it for -- IMO, you would win either way 1. You get access to cheap bandwidth for the same price as them 2. They deny you access, you report them to the government, they get audited, shut down, thrown in jail, you have one less competitor, and you get to buy their system for pennies on the dollar =) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well tough. If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale access...just attachment, whatever the heck that means. There just seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their usual games with this stuff and block the intent. So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the provider is willing to and interested in doing so. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't think it's a good plan. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you can find it on line. The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are instructed to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's. It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach you're suggesting as I understood the circular. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Its also feasible to protest a plan simply because its a poor plan. The NTIA/RUS needs to approve grants for companies that use tax payer money optimally wisely and benefit the public, and adhere to the NOFA rules. If you think you can do a better plan, but didn;t have time to submit it until Round2, why should the ROund1 plan get approved if its less good? And if one doubts the entent of an applicant, we should tell NTIA what we think. We are not only competing providers, but we are also the public that has to pay the taxes 5to fund these projects. I know in my State, there were numerous good applications that targeted truely needy areas, and made an effort to avoid other provider infrastructure. I plan to support those projects. For example only about 20% in my opinion were bad applications that would directly compete with me and other WISPs in their core markets. I plan to protest that 20%. Anyone that was smart would have avoided pre- existing providers or called them a head of time to work benefit for them into the proposal to gain their support. If they didn't do that,
[WISPA] 2.4 Sector Recommendations
Looking for recommendations for 2.4ghz sector antennas, cheap of course. Thanks! Robert West WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2.4 Sector Recommendations
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2009-09-19-internet-rules-fcc_N.htm?csp=34 On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Looking for recommendations for 2.4ghz sector antennas, cheap of course. Thanks! Robert West WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RAD/Radwin x Wi-Fi
Answers inline... On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: My understanding was they were using standard Wifi Chipsets, but provided their own TDD mac. Similar to the concept of Alvarion VL, that uses Atheros chipset, with their own proprietary MAC. Do you mean the traditional Alvarion VL hardware or the new cheap stuff ones ? I'm pretty sure RadWin was the first to do this to accomplish immulated Full Duplex, with a single half-duplex designed chipset. Hummm, a single half-duplex instead of two half-duplex ones like nstreme dual. This was way before, all the recent trend SoftwareTDD packages. Which do you think is closer to the RadWin design: Karlnet, Mikrotik nstreme, Ubiquiti AirMax or none of the above ? The units are also the same as the equivellent Ceragon models. So there is some intellectual property that was licensed or oem'ed to the other, to make that viable. Yes, Ceragon representatives confirm that they are indeed OEM'ing RAD/Radwin. Outside of that, I cant help. But thought I'd ask. What testing tools are you using to perform RFC-2544 performance testing ? Agilent FrameScope Pro, but looking forward to less expensive tools. Rubens WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
It depends on what you're buying from them, but the basic answer is no they do not have to sell at their cost. If you're buying transit, you strike your own deal with the bandwidth supplier. In that sense you're just paying cost on the bandwidth. But, they have to determine the transit terms for the application. That will include a profit number for them. But, they have to live with the proposal they make. They can also sell bandwidth, at a predesigned schedule. They make a profit there too, but they have to live with their proposed schedule. That or I missed something big in the NOFA. Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 19, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just- micro.com wrote: Okay, so for the grant they MUST provide the bandwidth for the same price they are paying for it??? But are they then able to throw a bunch of BS fees on top of it? If they have to provide at the same price, then it's not bad but I suspect it will be more cumbersome. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband is for their system. If it's a middle mile application, they would be in violation of their funding contract if they bandwidth wasn't available to you for the same price that they're buying it for -- IMO, you would win either way 1. You get access to cheap bandwidth for the same price as them 2. They deny you access, you report them to the government, they get audited, shut down, thrown in jail, you have one less competitor, and you get to buy their system for pennies on the dollar =) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Net Neutrality
It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Need Lightning Arrestor Advice
I'll second the PolyPhaser. Their RF products rock. No lost radios ever. I've had one fail in 10 years The factory was amazed and wanted it back for analysis. They gave me a free one to replace it. Marco On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: I'm not sure which Ethernet surge protection I'd recommend, but PolyPhaser does it best, in my opinion, for RF. At 10:51 PM 9/16/2009, you wrote: Hello all, I am part of a group installing a wireless network in rural Honduras for a growing educational system with a chapter of Engineers Without Borders (http://ewb-usa.org). We are creating a 7 node wireless network spanning a 3 mile radius. Since Honduras is very prone to rain storms and lightning strikes, we need to protect our equipment from the lightning. We plan on doing the following: 1) Place an arrestor between the radio and the antenna 2) Place an arrestor in the POE injector Some of the following criteria we are thinking: Amount of lightning strikes: One or Many Insertion Loss: Small as possbile Frequency : 2.4-5.8 GHZ When searching the internet, I see many many types of lightning arrestors given my criteria. Does anyone have any recommendations through their experience with lightning arrestors? What do you use? Thanks! James WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Need Lightning Arrestor Advice
I've had one of three die on a tower a while back. Few months and still waiting on my RMA number/replacement/acknowledgement of existence. On 9/19/09, Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com wrote: I'll second the PolyPhaser. Their RF products rock. No lost radios ever. I've had one fail in 10 years The factory was amazed and wanted it back for analysis. They gave me a free one to replace it. Marco On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: I'm not sure which Ethernet surge protection I'd recommend, but PolyPhaser does it best, in my opinion, for RF. At 10:51 PM 9/16/2009, you wrote: Hello all, I am part of a group installing a wireless network in rural Honduras for a growing educational system with a chapter of Engineers Without Borders (http://ewb-usa.org). We are creating a 7 node wireless network spanning a 3 mile radius. Since Honduras is very prone to rain storms and lightning strikes, we need to protect our equipment from the lightning. We plan on doing the following: 1) Place an arrestor between the radio and the antenna 2) Place an arrestor in the POE injector Some of the following criteria we are thinking: Amount of lightning strikes: One or Many Insertion Loss: Small as possbile Frequency : 2.4-5.8 GHZ When searching the internet, I see many many types of lightning arrestors given my criteria. Does anyone have any recommendations through their experience with lightning arrestors? What do you use? Thanks! James WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Maxrad adjustable sector antennas
Anyone have any experience with these? I have a pretty narrow area I have to hit, and the 45 degree, 18dbi gain would be ideal - if they really work well. Randy -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc work: 435-773-6071 email: rco...@infowest.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RAD/Radwin x Wi-Fi
Do you mean the traditional Alvarion VL hardware or the new cheap stuff ones ? The expensive Alvarian VL uses a standard Atheros Chipset. But Alvarion has its own MAC, which is the secret to its more robust offering. Which do you think is closer to the RadWin design: Karlnet, Mikrotik nstreme, Ubiquiti AirMax or none of the above ? None of the above. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RAD/Radwin x Wi-Fi Answers inline... On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: My understanding was they were using standard Wifi Chipsets, but provided their own TDD mac. Similar to the concept of Alvarion VL, that uses Atheros chipset, with their own proprietary MAC. Do you mean the traditional Alvarion VL hardware or the new cheap stuff ones ? I'm pretty sure RadWin was the first to do this to accomplish immulated Full Duplex, with a single half-duplex designed chipset. Hummm, a single half-duplex instead of two half-duplex ones like nstreme dual. This was way before, all the recent trend SoftwareTDD packages. Which do you think is closer to the RadWin design: Karlnet, Mikrotik nstreme, Ubiquiti AirMax or none of the above ? The units are also the same as the equivellent Ceragon models. So there is some intellectual property that was licensed or oem'ed to the other, to make that viable. Yes, Ceragon representatives confirm that they are indeed OEM'ing RAD/Radwin. Outside of that, I cant help. But thought I'd ask. What testing tools are you using to perform RFC-2544 performance testing ? Agilent FrameScope Pro, but looking forward to less expensive tools. Rubens WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Yes, if its a licensed spectrum proposal, so can control noise floor, and can design to operate at lower receive sensitivities, yes then my comment does not apply. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu imceaex-_o=cti_ou=exchange+20administrative+20group+20+28fydibohf23spdlt+29_cn=recipients_cn=char...@converge-tech.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects They either lie or they legitimately dont know what they are doing. Or maybe you don't know what is possible with licensed spectrum =) For example, in the 2.5 GHz band, there are over 30 6 MHz channels available (e.g., almost 200 MHz of spectrum) -- we have one customer that owns/leases almost every channel in their respective market (I believe they're at 28 or so), and they have the ability to do some really cool stuff -Charles WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? Josh Luthman wrote: Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define reasonable. It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about free speech. NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is anti-censorship therefore NN is pro-freedom. If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? Josh Luthman wrote: Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
The issue is that access to bandwidth can only be sold if it is still available and not already sold to someon else. Open Access is very relevent for fiber networks, but for wireless middle mile grants, it will be very easy to simply say the capacity has been sold already. Example: Grant winner builds out 300mbps licensed link. Grant winner agrees to open access. Grant winner sells 300mbps of capacity to Wholesale partner. Grant winner no longer has to sell bandwidth to anyone else, its already all been sold. Wholesale partner reserves it all, and sells it to subs as ordered over time. The grant winner itself is subject to the sharing rules, but the wholesale partner that capacity was sold to, will not necessarilly be subject to sharing. I see so many possibilities for games, to control who does and doesn't get access to the bandwidth. In our unsubmitted application, we legitimately wanted multiple wholesale partners, and pre-defined who we'd sell it to, and pre-allocated capacity for that. I'm not so sure other grant applicants equally embrace the wholesale open access principles. In my mind, I think history should be the ruling factor. If someone preveiously whoesaled, they are likely to continue wanting to wholesale. If they didn;t before, they probably wont want to afterwords, and will likely play games. Just my opinion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu imceaex-_o=cti_ou=exchange+20administrative+20group+20+28fydibohf23spdlt+29_cn=recipients_cn=char...@converge-tech.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband is for their system. If it's a middle mile application, they would be in violation of their funding contract if they bandwidth wasn't available to you for the same price that they're buying it for -- IMO, you would win either way 1. You get access to cheap bandwidth for the same price as them 2. They deny you access, you report them to the government, they get audited, shut down, thrown in jail, you have one less competitor, and you get to buy their system for pennies on the dollar =) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well tough. If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale access...just attachment, whatever the heck that means. There just seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their usual games with this stuff and block the intent. So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the provider is willing to and interested in doing so. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't think it's a good plan. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you can find it on line. The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are instructed to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's. It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying I enjoy Free Speech right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free Speech when ATT doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet service off. If ATT wants to take your Free Speech away then you are saying to the Government Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my freedom then have you telling ATT what to do. STOP protecting my Free Speech right now!!!. Mike Hammett wrote: What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define reasonable. It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about free speech. NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is anti-censorship therefore NN is pro-freedom. If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? Josh Luthman wrote: Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
I feel I should be able to manage my network any way I see fit and if someone doesn't like it move on... I think the larger providers should have that same ability. But, if laws like this continue I'll give my customers an option... I'll let them choose between a 1mb up 1mb down they can do what they want solution or they can have for the same price my 10mb down 3mb up solution if they agree I get to manage their bandwidth That covers any enforcement from above. Further, if I can't block their torrent traffic or slow it down legally I can fire them as a customer - thats one way to manage the problem and its legal... There is such thing as BAD customers and it often makes sense to get rid of them because they actually cost you money. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 5:49 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define reasonable. It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about free speech. NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is anti-censorship therefore NN is pro-freedom. If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? Josh Luthman wrote: Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
I absolutely agree. The open access stuff really only has meaning for us on fiber where total capacity is functionally unlimited in a new build out. Chuck On Sep 19, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: The issue is that access to bandwidth can only be sold if it is still available and not already sold to someon else. Open Access is very relevent for fiber networks, but for wireless middle mile grants, it will be very easy to simply say the capacity has been sold already. Example: Grant winner builds out 300mbps licensed link. Grant winner agrees to open access. Grant winner sells 300mbps of capacity to Wholesale partner. Grant winner no longer has to sell bandwidth to anyone else, its already all been sold. Wholesale partner reserves it all, and sells it to subs as ordered over time. The grant winner itself is subject to the sharing rules, but the wholesale partner that capacity was sold to, will not necessarilly be subject to sharing. I see so many possibilities for games, to control who does and doesn't get access to the bandwidth. In our unsubmitted application, we legitimately wanted multiple wholesale partners, and pre-defined who we'd sell it to, and pre-allocated capacity for that. I'm not so sure other grant applicants equally embrace the wholesale open access principles. In my mind, I think history should be the ruling factor. If someone preveiously whoesaled, they are likely to continue wanting to wholesale. If they didn;t before, they probably wont want to afterwords, and will likely play games. Just my opinion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu IMCEAEX-_O=CTI_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP +20+28fydibohf23spdlt+29_cn=recipients_cn=char...@converge-tech.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband is for their system. If it's a middle mile application, they would be in violation of their funding contract if they bandwidth wasn't available to you for the same price that they're buying it for -- IMO, you would win either way 1. You get access to cheap bandwidth for the same price as them 2. They deny you access, you report them to the government, they get audited, shut down, thrown in jail, you have one less competitor, and you get to buy their system for pennies on the dollar =) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well tough. If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale access...just attachment, whatever the heck that means. There just seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their usual games with this stuff and block the intent. So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the provider is willing to and interested in doing so. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't think it's a good plan. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you can find it on line. The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are instructed to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. Just to be clear here, you *could*
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Free speech protections are against the government, not individuals and companies. Speak your mind to your boss, get fired, then try to sue under the First Amendment. Fat chance. I provided for there not being alternatives in my previous message... start ISP C (or B if no one else is there). If you don't like it, go somewhere else or do it on your own. You don't have the right to say whatever at zero cost (nor the right to an audience), just the right to say whatever. You can get wholesale satellite access anywhere in the world (host county regulations withstanding). There's your right to say what you want. You just have to weigh your desire to say it against the cost of doing so. Besides, WE are the ISPs. I see ZERO possible way it benefits us at all. Not only does it force us to not filter, but it removes the business case of an ISP (or service) that doesn't filter. Since by law then no ISP could filter, there wouldn't be an advantage. Maybe I had a $40 connection that had P2P speed limiters or blocking or what have you. I could have a $100 connection that didn't have those or a wholesale connection. Why would anyone want to spend $150/meg for unrestricted bandwidth instead of $40 for 6 megs when the government prevents you from restricting in the first place. Yes, I know there's a clause in there about reasonable protection measures, but the definition of reasonable is purposely vague. If someone doesn't like you, all of a sudden your restriction is unreasonable. I think I said what I meant to say without going too far off topic into politics. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 5:07 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying I enjoy Free Speech right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free Speech when ATT doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet service off. If ATT wants to take your Free Speech away then you are saying to the Government Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my freedom then have you telling ATT what to do. STOP protecting my Free Speech right now!!!. Mike Hammett wrote: What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define reasonable. It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about free speech. NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is anti-censorship therefore NN is pro-freedom. If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? Josh Luthman wrote: Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews WISPA Wants You! Join today!
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Mike Hammett wrote: Free speech protections are against the government, not individuals and companies. Speak your mind to your boss, get fired, then try to sue under the First Amendment. Fat chance. Free speech protections are exactly that - free speech protections. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects you against the Government but I submit that if your ISP cuts you off from the Internet because they don't like your politics then your Free Speech has been restricted and that's why a rule is necessary to be sure your ISP can't cut you off not because of how much bandwidth you are using (they can slow you down to the level that you signed up for) but simply because of your opinions or what (legal) website you visit. I provided for there not being alternatives in my previous message... start ISP C (or B if no one else is there). If you don't like it, go somewhere else or do it on your own. That's just not practical for many people, as I pointed out. They often can't go elsewhere and most people can't "start their own". You don't have the right to say whatever at zero cost (nor the right to an audience), just the right to say whatever. You can get wholesale satellite access anywhere in the world (host county regulations withstanding). There's your right to say what you want. You just have to weigh your desire to say it against the cost of doing so. And if the satellite company doesn't like it because your politics are different from their politics, now where are you going to go??? Besides, WE are the ISPs. I see ZERO possible way it benefits us at all. Not only does it force us to not filter, but it removes the business case of an ISP (or service) that doesn't filter. Since by law then no ISP could filter, there wouldn't be an advantage. Filtering for bandwidth is perfectly OK and any ISP that isn't already going that is WY behind the curve. But if you filter for bandwidth (as you should be doing already) then you can not filter just because you don't like what somebody is doing with the legal bandwidth that you agreed to sell them. You can restrict their bandwidth to the agreed-level (and you should) but if you cut me off because you don't like what I'm saying then that is (or should be) illegal. Maybe I had a $40 connection that had P2P speed limiters or blocking or what have you. I could have a $100 connection that didn't have those or a wholesale connection. Why would anyone want to spend $150/meg for unrestricted bandwidth instead of $40 for 6 megs when the government prevents you from restricting in the first place. I don't follow your point here. DO restrict bandwidth to the contracted level, just don't tell me where on the Internet I can or can not go. Yes, I know there's a clause in there about reasonable protection measures, but the definition of reasonable is purposely vague. If someone doesn't like you, all of a sudden your restriction is unreasonable. "Reasonable" should be defined in the law and (if necessary) interpreted by the courts. I think I said what I meant to say without going too far off topic into politics. I think you did an excellent job of expressing yourself without going off-track into politics. This issue is really bigger than traditional left-right politics. I think this issue is one area (I could be wrong; we'll see...) where the left and the right will agree that they don't want to be silenced by anybody - not by the government and not by telecom or Internet companies. Everybody understands the dangers of censorship and dictatorship where people lose their right to speak freely. I don't think that statement is too "political" either. I think Freedom transcends politics but if I'm wrong then I apologize. I've been pretty quiet lately but when it comes to preserving Freedom (for everyone, left, center and right) I feel I need to speak up and take a stand. I hope you understand. jack - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jack Unger" jun...@ask-wi.com Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 5:07 PM To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I don't want
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech, arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate is somewhat disingenuous. There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately. John Jack Unger wrote: The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying I enjoy Free Speech right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free Speech when ATT doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet service off. If ATT wants to take your Free Speech away then you are saying to the Government Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my freedom then have you telling ATT what to do. STOP protecting my Free Speech right now!!!. Mike Hammett wrote: What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define reasonable. It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about free speech. NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is anti-censorship therefore NN is pro-freedom. If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? Josh Luthman wrote: Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Hi John, Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they contract for and not any more than what they contract for. On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they won't pass. If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or receive it from. I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? Respectfully, jack John Vogel wrote: Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech, arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate is somewhat disingenuous. There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately. John Jack Unger wrote: The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free Speech when ATT doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet service off. If ATT wants to take your Free Speech away then you are saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my freedom then have you telling ATT what to do. STOP protecting my Free Speech right now!!!". Mike Hammett wrote: What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? Josh Luthman wrote: Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
I've always limited by mb/s... Looks like I'll be adding total connections and packets per sec limiting as well. I don't care where you go or what you do... But overselling bandwidth is the only way people in rural areas currently can afford high speed. ps Jack Unger wrote: Hi John, Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they contract for and not any more than what they contract for. On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they won't pass. If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or receive it from. I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? Respectfully, jack John Vogel wrote: Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech, arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate is somewhat disingenuous. There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately. John Jack Unger wrote: The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free Speech when ATT doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet service off. If ATT wants to take your Free Speech away then you are saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my freedom then have you telling ATT what to do. STOP protecting my Free Speech right now!!!". Mike Hammett wrote: What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Jack, I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much addressing you as being the one conflating the two issues. I think you have a good understanding of the two issues, and are reasonable in how you are addressing them. I am somewhat concerned that free speech was at the forefront of your endorsement of the FCC's upcoming proposal re Net Neutrality. As I said before, I don't think free speech is really the issue, either from the standpoint of the ISPs, nor of those who have been arguing for Net Neutrality, although some argue for NN primarily on the basis of free speech, which is where I think the issues have been conflated. The most visible cases I can recall that caught the attention of the News Media as well as the FCC were trade issues, rather than free speech issues. A phone company disallowing VoIP on their data networks, Cable companies disallowing IPTV on from possibly competing TV companies, etc. are trade issues. P2P is harder to portray as a trade issue. (Are there any ISPs who would block P2P to protect their own music business?) But.. P2P is still not really a free speech issue, although it is sometimes presented as such. The FCC proposes to regulate ISPs to ensure that they do not inhibit/impair the *free flow of information AND CERTAIN APPLICATIONS (quoted from the AP story, emphasis mine). We do have constitutional guarantees regarding free speech, and the Federal government is charged with regulating Interstate commerce, but there is no constitutional right to pass IP packets in any amount, frequency, volume, or direction you may choose, over anybody's IP network which you may choose. Advocating that you do under the free speech clause is inappropriate IMNSHO. :) As far as my network goes, and I suspect that most ISP's would be similar, I don't care if you use FTP, HTTP, TELNET, SSH, or Real Audio 40kps stream to receive the speech populary known as I have a dream by Martin Luther King. I might have an issue if you decide to download the HDTV version, and then do likewise for every political speech made since then. But... that has nothing to do with free speech. But, if the FCC decides that I must allow you to stream the HDTV video file, and that I cannot as an ISP interfere with that stream in a manner that makes it uncomfortable for you to view (constant buffering) under the guise of free speech guarantees, I have a big problem with that. I also have a problem with a certain application that is designed to consume every available network resource in an effort to gain an advantage over other users of the network in file download times. Again, not speech related, but often portrayed as a free speech issue. Jack, I know you know the difference, and this isn't really directed at you. But you were the one who brought the free speech issue into it AFAICT. John * Jack Unger wrote: Hi John, Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they contract for and not any more than what they contract for. On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the decider and choose what content they will pass and what content they won't pass. If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or receive it from. I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? Respectfully, jack John Vogel wrote: Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech,
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
I must be missing something. What and how are ISP's blocking or possibly blocking that may infringe on free speech? Certainly not PTP traffic. -RickG On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:14 PM, John Vogel jvo...@vogent.com wrote: Jack, I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much addressing you as being the one conflating the two issues. I think you have a good understanding of the two issues, and are reasonable in how you are addressing them. I am somewhat concerned that free speech was at the forefront of your endorsement of the FCC's upcoming proposal re Net Neutrality. As I said before, I don't think free speech is really the issue, either from the standpoint of the ISPs, nor of those who have been arguing for Net Neutrality, although some argue for NN primarily on the basis of free speech, which is where I think the issues have been conflated. The most visible cases I can recall that caught the attention of the News Media as well as the FCC were trade issues, rather than free speech issues. A phone company disallowing VoIP on their data networks, Cable companies disallowing IPTV on from possibly competing TV companies, etc. are trade issues. P2P is harder to portray as a trade issue. (Are there any ISPs who would block P2P to protect their own music business?) But.. P2P is still not really a free speech issue, although it is sometimes presented as such. The FCC proposes to regulate ISPs to ensure that they do not inhibit/impair the *free flow of information AND CERTAIN APPLICATIONS (quoted from the AP story, emphasis mine). We do have constitutional guarantees regarding free speech, and the Federal government is charged with regulating Interstate commerce, but there is no constitutional right to pass IP packets in any amount, frequency, volume, or direction you may choose, over anybody's IP network which you may choose. Advocating that you do under the free speech clause is inappropriate IMNSHO. :) As far as my network goes, and I suspect that most ISP's would be similar, I don't care if you use FTP, HTTP, TELNET, SSH, or Real Audio 40kps stream to receive the speech populary known as I have a dream by Martin Luther King. I might have an issue if you decide to download the HDTV version, and then do likewise for every political speech made since then. But... that has nothing to do with free speech. But, if the FCC decides that I must allow you to stream the HDTV video file, and that I cannot as an ISP interfere with that stream in a manner that makes it uncomfortable for you to view (constant buffering) under the guise of free speech guarantees, I have a big problem with that. I also have a problem with a certain application that is designed to consume every available network resource in an effort to gain an advantage over other users of the network in file download times. Again, not speech related, but often portrayed as a free speech issue. Jack, I know you know the difference, and this isn't really directed at you. But you were the one who brought the free speech issue into it AFAICT. John * Jack Unger wrote: Hi John, Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they contract for and not any more than what they contract for. On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the decider and choose what content they will pass and what content they won't pass. If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or receive it from. I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? Respectfully, jack John Vogel wrote: Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything they say,
Re: [WISPA] Maxrad adjustable sector antennas
2GHz or 5GHz? We used the 5GHz adjustable's years ago, and their performance was awesome. Just bought some of the 2GHz version to do some testing with. Not sure on those yet. Jayson On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Randy Cosby dco...@infowest.com wrote: Anyone have any experience with these? I have a pretty narrow area I have to hit, and the 45 degree, 18dbi gain would be ideal - if they really work well. Randy -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc work: 435-773-6071 email: rco...@infowest.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
