Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth

[Glenn Kelley]

Caching is pretty cheap - if you know how to do it cheap.
Whats nice is - you can actually cache multiple places

Edge however is wisest imho if you have to choose 1 location for most -

If your interested in a dead easy cache (squid) method - pfsense is  
free and the squid package is brainless to implement.

vYatta is really good as well - and the new vyatta Guard is pretty hot

I had heard folks like Akamai will give servers if your network is big  
enough - but never been able to get traction on that rumor sadly


On May 21, 2010, at 12:04 AM, RickG wrote:

> Makes me think: What about caching on the edge rather than the core of
> your network? My goal would not be so much as to save bandwidth but
> rather performance to the end user.
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Tom DeReggi  > wrote:
>> Depends whether you are asking me or Jeremie.
>>
>> We dont use caching to save upstream badnwidth, currently. The  
>> reason is
>> that our upstream transit costs are way less expesnive than our  
>> last mile
>> and transport costs.
>> At one point, I calculated our unlicensed transport costs to be  
>> close to
>> $180 per mbps (inlcuding colo/roof leases), but our transit costs  
>> at the
>> same time averaged under $10/mb.  (actually down to $3/mb now all  
>> costs
>> factored).
>> Now, this is all changing, as we add more licensed higher capacity  
>> backhauls
>> and higher capacity last mile. Today my last mile/transport costs  
>> are much
>> much lower, but I haven't calculated that recently.
>> Caching would not have saved us money or prevented bottle necks for  
>> download
>> traffic.  However, it very well could save us money caching our  
>> customers
>> on-net web servers, reducing last mile traffic.
>> Obviously, it would be the opposite situation for other WISPs that  
>> had high
>> transit/transport costs and low last mile costs.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Glenn Kelley" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:51 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth
>>
>>
>>> Well Put.
>>>
>>> Have you guys thought about - (sorry jumping in the back end here)
>>> adding squid or caching?
>>>
>>> I have seen some major drops on bandwidth when caching is put in  
>>> place
>>> - up to 30+%
>>>
>>> On the other hand - squid is not a replacement for the additional
>>> bandwidth.
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 20, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>>
 For Ethernet colision detection type networks, you are correct.
 That is what many WISPs forget when deploying PtMP. They  
 incorrectly
 think a
 CDMA 25mb link will double their 10mb TDD link as they scale. They
 learn
 that as customer get added, the capacity is not nearly as much as  
 they
 thought..

 But with Ethernet backbones it does not always work the same, for  
 two
 reasons

 1) There is only one end device, so its not possible for  
 collisions,
 and
 collision avoidance algorythms aren't really needed.
 2) If using  TDD Ethernet, transmits are scheduled, without the
 typical
 overhead of Ethernet.

 I can run successfully run a bandwidth test of 95mb over a 100mb
 Cogent
 fiber circuti, and with a Tlink-45 set 36mbps mod, tested to pass
 30mbps
 with radio tests,  I can count on passing 30mbps through it.
 So again, it comes down to the design and technology of the  
 backbone.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: "Scott Reed" 
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:08 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth


> Old rule of thumb for Ethernet, because it is based on collision
> detection, is 70-75% is the max you want.  Above this and  
> collisions
> often become an issue.  I assume the same is true for the faster
> links
> as well.
>
> Jeremie Chism wrote:
>> At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding  
>> more
>> capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
>> looking for suggestions.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Scott Reed
> Sr. Systems Engineer
> GAB Midwest
> 1-800-363-1544 x2241
> 1-260-827-2241
> Cell: 260-273-7239
>
>
>
> -

Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth

[RickG]

Makes me think: What about caching on the edge rather than the core of
your network? My goal would not be so much as to save bandwidth but
rather performance to the end user.

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Tom DeReggi  wrote:
> Depends whether you are asking me or Jeremie.
>
> We dont use caching to save upstream badnwidth, currently. The reason is
> that our upstream transit costs are way less expesnive than our last mile
> and transport costs.
> At one point, I calculated our unlicensed transport costs to be close to
> $180 per mbps (inlcuding colo/roof leases), but our transit costs at the
> same time averaged under $10/mb.  (actually down to $3/mb now all costs
> factored).
> Now, this is all changing, as we add more licensed higher capacity backhauls
> and higher capacity last mile. Today my last mile/transport costs are much
> much lower, but I haven't calculated that recently.
> Caching would not have saved us money or prevented bottle necks for download
> traffic.  However, it very well could save us money caching our customers
> on-net web servers, reducing last mile traffic.
> Obviously, it would be the opposite situation for other WISPs that had high
> transit/transport costs and low last mile costs.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Glenn Kelley" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth
>
>
>> Well Put.
>>
>> Have you guys thought about - (sorry jumping in the back end here)
>> adding squid or caching?
>>
>> I have seen some major drops on bandwidth when caching is put in place
>> - up to 30+%
>>
>> On the other hand - squid is not a replacement for the additional
>> bandwidth.
>>
>>
>> On May 20, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>
>>> For Ethernet colision detection type networks, you are correct.
>>> That is what many WISPs forget when deploying PtMP. They incorrectly
>>> think a
>>> CDMA 25mb link will double their 10mb TDD link as they scale. They
>>> learn
>>> that as customer get added, the capacity is not nearly as much as they
>>> thought..
>>>
>>> But with Ethernet backbones it does not always work the same, for two
>>> reasons
>>>
>>> 1) There is only one end device, so its not possible for collisions,
>>> and
>>> collision avoidance algorythms aren't really needed.
>>> 2) If using  TDD Ethernet, transmits are scheduled, without the
>>> typical
>>> overhead of Ethernet.
>>>
>>> I can run successfully run a bandwidth test of 95mb over a 100mb
>>> Cogent
>>> fiber circuti, and with a Tlink-45 set 36mbps mod, tested to pass
>>> 30mbps
>>> with radio tests,  I can count on passing 30mbps through it.
>>> So again, it comes down to the design and technology of the backbone.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Scott Reed" 
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:08 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth
>>>
>>>
 Old rule of thumb for Ethernet, because it is based on collision
 detection, is 70-75% is the max you want.  Above this and collisions
 often become an issue.  I assume the same is true for the faster
 links
 as well.

 Jeremie Chism wrote:
> At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more
> capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
> looking for suggestions.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> 
> 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/
>
>
>

 --
 Scott Reed
 Sr. Systems Engineer
 GAB Midwest
 1-800-363-1544 x2241
 1-260-827-2241
 Cell: 260-273-7239



 
 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
>>

Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth

[RickG]

I was trained by Lucent when I was responsible for Performance
Engineering at AT&T Wireless. I had it take over a year to add T1's in
some places. With that said, I do like Tom's full explanation as
average usage should also come into play. Basically, it comes down to
how you want our network to perform. Having too much bandwidth (is
there really such a thing?:) can be a waste during off-peak hours. I
look at this a bit differently though as my business customers are
using the network for much of the off-peak hours. Also, a lot of
gamers take the early morning shift so they get less lag. With
bandwidth costs down, I'd rather get a reputation for being fast. When
they were high, I just did as much as could do towards that goal
(caching, etc).

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Justin Wilson  wrote:
>    I agree with Rick¹s percentage.  If it is a traditional telco circuit
> you should get a concrete answer on how long it will take to add an
> additional circuit.  I had to go 8 months one time to add another T1 into
> our bond.
>
> Justin
> --
> Justin Wilson 
> http://www.mtin.net/blog
> Wisp Consulting ­ Tower Climbing ­ Network Support
>
>
>
> From: RickG 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:54:49 -0400
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth
>
> When you peak at 65-75 percent its probably time to add more. It
> depends on how fast your filling it up and how long it takes to
> implement the new capacity.
> -RickG
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Jeremie Chism  wrote:
>> At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more
>> capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
>> looking for suggestions.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
> 
>> 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/
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Ubiuiti N and selecting antenna port

[Rubens Kuhl]

> BUT... the problem would go away, if we could simply select which chain will
> operate like the primary, and always stay active.

Physically mounting integrated antenna units with 90 degree turn or
inverting antenna connections wouldn't achieve your goal in part ?
(less flexible than remote configuring it, but still possible)



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] Ubiuiti N and selecting antenna port

[Tom DeReggi]

I think you missed my point. The same problem exists if I use Nano Stations, 
or Built-in antenna models.
I live in a very noisy inconsistent environment. Its uncertain in which 
installation cases Dual pol MIMO will work, and which cases it will not.
It all depends on spectral availabilty. I always guess wrong, and it takes 
so much longer to tests ahead of time.
I'm spoiled by using Trangos the last 10 years, I'll always continue to look 
for the equivellent in flexibilty.

The core benefit is to be able to standardize on proceedure and equipment 
selection.  I dont want to use A one day, N the next. Use Mikrotik one day, 
StarOS the next, Ubiquiti the next.
Its to hard to keep a million different parts and systems ready to go for 
every products line. Its hard predicting which products I'll need stocked, 
and which products will be most needed for opprotunities that arise in the 
future.

Ubiquity has the promise to offer one platform that can do everything. And 
it seems to work well, so far. Its certainly price right.

The fact that some CPEs have built-in antenna pre-hard configured to which 
polarity is Chain0 makes this a much bigger problem than I thought.
That means that CPEs have already selected which POL will reside on Chain0. 
(Im not sure which it is, so hypothetically I say chain0 is verticle)
That means that if Chain0 is Verticle, that my whole network must be 
standardized on using Verticle pol as the primary 0-7 antenna.
What if at 70% of my pre-existing DSSS sectors Verticle pol has to much 
noise and cant be used, and I am using Horizontal pol now?
My goal is to replace slow DSSS gear with Faster OFDM gear where possible.
When the Ubiquiti radios are put in place they'd be forced to first operate 
on the noisy channel, not the clean channel. Possibly even interfereing with 
my other sectors at teh cell site. My understanding is that the primary 
chain does not ever disable itself. Just the secondary channel auto adjusts 
on or off.
I'd be at risk at destroying my sector quality if I upgraded gear to 
Ubiquiti, if I could not select which chain/pol would be the primary to use.

When I upgrade my network from DSSS to OFDM, I do not want to do it with 3 
different products. I want to upgrade it with one product that I can adapt 
to best fit into the pre-existing situation.
In many cases, MIMO dual pol will work fine, but in other it simply wont.

This is also critical for disaster prevention. What happens if someone else 
deploys on chain0's pol, and kills it? It takes a truck role to fix it, and 
customers are lost in the mean time. Sure I could switch from N to A on the 
fly MAYBE, but maybe not if the noise was to loud and I lost remote access 
to CPEs. Plus it would take to long to convert. But if I could jsut go tell 
all teh CPEs to switch which chain/pol was primary, the primary could be 
moved to the clean channel, and hopefully the new deployer will eventually 
go away, and free the channel back up for my radios.

Having radios auto adjust turning teh second antenna on and off is NOT a 
good thing for High ARPU SLA/Performance. Everytime modulation changes, or a 
radio looses packets figuring out of a pol/chain is usable above the noise, 
packet loss occurs and customers can feel it. I need the flexibilt to turn 
off a chain if something migrates to poor performance, but that does not 
help unless I can select which chain to disable. It only helps if I can 
disable the chain that has noise.

This could be a huge problem.

BUT... the problem would go away, if we could simply select which chain will 
operate like the primary, and always stay active.

Lets look at this a different way... When I first built my network 10 years 
ago, there was a reason I selected Trango over Alvarion and Canopy. The 
others only operated on Verticle pol. 70% of my sector environments only had 
free spectrum on Horizontal. Trango gave me that flexibilty, to select. I 
dont ever want to loose that.  If using MIMO means I have to give up that 
flexibilty, the whole purpose of Dual pol is lost. The facts are The 
primary polarity will not always be available everywhere.
It needs to be selectable.

I dont want to send out a tech with three products, and then to do a scan, 
and then select which product  to use. Thats to encumbersome.  MAybe, the 
reason I'm buying Ubiquiti is not Mimo, but Price? Wouldn't it be easier to 
just buy one product line?
All the vendors are going to be carrying MIMO anyway, thats whats most 
popular right now.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiuiti N and selecting antenna port


Only the Rocket M's have the antenna port on them, all of the others
have built in antennas since Rocket M's are really to be used as
AP's , could I ask what is the vlaue in trying to do what you are asking
for ?

Wh

Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth

[Jeremie Chism]

Sorry for the late reply. It stormed here today and I was busy  
watching all the equipment. No we currently do not do any caching.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 20, 2010, at 7:13 PM, "Tom DeReggi"   
wrote:

> Depends whether you are asking me or Jeremie.
>
> We dont use caching to save upstream badnwidth, currently. The  
> reason is
> that our upstream transit costs are way less expesnive than our last  
> mile
> and transport costs.
> At one point, I calculated our unlicensed transport costs to be  
> close to
> $180 per mbps (inlcuding colo/roof leases), but our transit costs at  
> the
> same time averaged under $10/mb.  (actually down to $3/mb now all  
> costs
> factored).
> Now, this is all changing, as we add more licensed higher capacity  
> backhauls
> and higher capacity last mile. Today my last mile/transport costs  
> are much
> much lower, but I haven't calculated that recently.
> Caching would not have saved us money or prevented bottle necks for  
> download
> traffic.  However, it very well could save us money caching our  
> customers
> on-net web servers, reducing last mile traffic.
> Obviously, it would be the opposite situation for other WISPs that  
> had high
> transit/transport costs and low last mile costs.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Glenn Kelley" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth
>
>
>> Well Put.
>>
>> Have you guys thought about - (sorry jumping in the back end here)
>> adding squid or caching?
>>
>> I have seen some major drops on bandwidth when caching is put in  
>> place
>> - up to 30+%
>>
>> On the other hand - squid is not a replacement for the additional
>> bandwidth.
>>
>>
>> On May 20, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>
>>> For Ethernet colision detection type networks, you are correct.
>>> That is what many WISPs forget when deploying PtMP. They incorrectly
>>> think a
>>> CDMA 25mb link will double their 10mb TDD link as they scale. They
>>> learn
>>> that as customer get added, the capacity is not nearly as much as  
>>> they
>>> thought..
>>>
>>> But with Ethernet backbones it does not always work the same, for  
>>> two
>>> reasons
>>>
>>> 1) There is only one end device, so its not possible for collisions,
>>> and
>>> collision avoidance algorythms aren't really needed.
>>> 2) If using  TDD Ethernet, transmits are scheduled, without the
>>> typical
>>> overhead of Ethernet.
>>>
>>> I can run successfully run a bandwidth test of 95mb over a 100mb
>>> Cogent
>>> fiber circuti, and with a Tlink-45 set 36mbps mod, tested to pass
>>> 30mbps
>>> with radio tests,  I can count on passing 30mbps through it.
>>> So again, it comes down to the design and technology of the  
>>> backbone.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Scott Reed" 
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:08 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth
>>>
>>>
 Old rule of thumb for Ethernet, because it is based on collision
 detection, is 70-75% is the max you want.  Above this and  
 collisions
 often become an issue.  I assume the same is true for the faster
 links
 as well.

 Jeremie Chism wrote:
> At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding  
> more
> capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
> looking for suggestions.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> -
> 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/
>
>
>

 -- 
 Scott Reed
 Sr. Systems Engineer
 GAB Midwest
 1-800-363-1544 x2241
 1-260-827-2241
 Cell: 260-273-7239



 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 -
 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://signu

Re: [WISPA] Ubiuiti N and selecting antenna port

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Only the Rocket M's have the antenna port on them, all of the others 
have built in antennas since Rocket M's are really to be used as 
AP's , could I ask what is the vlaue in trying to do what you are asking 
for ?

Why not just deploy the Radios with the antennas, that they are designed 
to work with ?

What is there to be gained by using a 802.11n radio and then 'crippling' 
it by using some external settings for 'disabling' one of the antenna 
ports ?
If it is interference you are worried about, let the 2x2 radio with 
Airmax on, take care off it it self.

Faisal.

On 5/20/2010 9:02 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
> With Ubiquiti and any 2x2mimo N gear, there are two antenna ports or
> "chains".  If mode 1-7 is selected only Chain 0 (antenna port1) is enabled.
> If mode 8-14 is selected, the Chain1 (antenna port2) is enabled, and
> dependant on how much noise Antenna2 heard, the radio would automatically
> enable and disable antenna2 on the fly asrequired to optimize quality.
> In this scenario, chain0 is one polarity and chain1 is the other polarity.
> The negative part of this is that Chain0 will always be the antenna polarity
> connected to that Chain0 antenna port. And by default Chain0's polarity will
> always be the one that AT MINIMUM is enabled.
>
> I dont like that because flexibilty is lost. I prefer a method like Trango
> or dual port 802.11a, where if only one port is desired, the antenna port to
> use can be custom selected.
> An example secnario would be... Chain0 was originally installed withVert
> pol, and then a month later noise levels changed, and now only Horizonal pol
> is clean. How would the Radio be changed to use the Horizontal pol antenna
> only, without a truck role?
> That flexibilty is invaluable. Its also good for documentation
> standardization... For example, lets say by standard Horizontal pol is
> always isntalled on Chain0.  Would it be nice if the remote NOC tech could
> always count on that, to ease knowing what Pol was used at sites?  Wouldn;t
> it be nice to just select "chain1 only" to enable that Verticle pol antenna
> only, if there was a need to change pols after the fact? Or if documentation
> was not accessible when installing a new link, to know what pol other radios
> are on simply by which chain was enabled on the radio's software, to make it
> easier to select the right non-interfering pol for the new link? Its also
> helpful to isntall an AP link, and then after the fact have a noc tech
> select which pol is most free to operate on. This enables a one man team
> installer and tech force to isntall more quickly, and adapt later when it is
> more convenient to do so, such as from the comfort of their desk.  Or after
> going to client side and doing a noise scan there to.  Obviously Mimo is
> about using both antennas, but in many case, the future will cause that no
> longer to be viable as new deployments get made.
>
> So my questions are
>
> Can this be done with UbiquitiOS and MadWifi? (I recognize that the Web
> interface does not allow it currently) Is there a way to change which
> antenna port acts as Chain0 through software? Or a way to select which Chain
> will act as the Primary port when mode 1-7 is selected? Does the 802.11N
> MIMO standard allow for that? Is this functionality hard coded out of the
> Atheros chipset? Or will the Atheros chip do it, if software is modified to
> tell it to? Is chain1 the only one that can operate with the features to
> auto enable and disable itself?
>
> I recognize there are some challenges where the CPE side will autoadjust to
> the AP side. So the CPE does need to understand which Port to enable as
> primary and optional secondary.
> But it would be super advatnateous to be able to select which chain acted as
> the primary.
>
> Anyone know?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL&  Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom DeReggi"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on RuralILECsand
> SmallTelecom Provider's
>
>
> It sounds like a lot of good was taken and contributed to that meeting.
> I'm glad you were there.
>
> What interests me most will be to fully learn what scenergies will be found
> between our groups.
> At the end of the day, when it come to government increasing regulation, the
> sides become provider versus governbment. Under those circumstances, its
> amazing how many issues we share in common with these other groups.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL&  Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rick Harnish"
> To: "'WISPA General List'"
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECsand
> SmallTelecom Provider's
>
>
> Tom,
>
> The general perception is that mobile broadband providers will be the most
> likely recipients of the Reverse Auction procedure.  Voice is 

[WISPA] Ubiuiti N and selecting antenna port

[Tom DeReggi]

With Ubiquiti and any 2x2mimo N gear, there are two antenna ports or 
"chains".  If mode 1-7 is selected only Chain 0 (antenna port1) is enabled.
If mode 8-14 is selected, the Chain1 (antenna port2) is enabled, and 
dependant on how much noise Antenna2 heard, the radio would automatically 
enable and disable antenna2 on the fly asrequired to optimize quality.
In this scenario, chain0 is one polarity and chain1 is the other polarity.
The negative part of this is that Chain0 will always be the antenna polarity 
connected to that Chain0 antenna port. And by default Chain0's polarity will 
always be the one that AT MINIMUM is enabled.

I dont like that because flexibilty is lost. I prefer a method like Trango 
or dual port 802.11a, where if only one port is desired, the antenna port to 
use can be custom selected.
An example secnario would be... Chain0 was originally installed withVert 
pol, and then a month later noise levels changed, and now only Horizonal pol 
is clean. How would the Radio be changed to use the Horizontal pol antenna 
only, without a truck role?
That flexibilty is invaluable. Its also good for documentation 
standardization... For example, lets say by standard Horizontal pol is 
always isntalled on Chain0.  Would it be nice if the remote NOC tech could 
always count on that, to ease knowing what Pol was used at sites?  Wouldn;t 
it be nice to just select "chain1 only" to enable that Verticle pol antenna 
only, if there was a need to change pols after the fact? Or if documentation 
was not accessible when installing a new link, to know what pol other radios 
are on simply by which chain was enabled on the radio's software, to make it 
easier to select the right non-interfering pol for the new link? Its also 
helpful to isntall an AP link, and then after the fact have a noc tech 
select which pol is most free to operate on. This enables a one man team 
installer and tech force to isntall more quickly, and adapt later when it is 
more convenient to do so, such as from the comfort of their desk.  Or after 
going to client side and doing a noise scan there to.  Obviously Mimo is 
about using both antennas, but in many case, the future will cause that no 
longer to be viable as new deployments get made.

So my questions are

Can this be done with UbiquitiOS and MadWifi? (I recognize that the Web 
interface does not allow it currently) Is there a way to change which 
antenna port acts as Chain0 through software? Or a way to select which Chain 
will act as the Primary port when mode 1-7 is selected? Does the 802.11N 
MIMO standard allow for that? Is this functionality hard coded out of the 
Atheros chipset? Or will the Atheros chip do it, if software is modified to 
tell it to? Is chain1 the only one that can operate with the features to 
auto enable and disable itself?

I recognize there are some challenges where the CPE side will autoadjust to 
the AP side. So the CPE does need to understand which Port to enable as 
primary and optional secondary.
But it would be super advatnateous to be able to select which chain acted as 
the primary.

Anyone know?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on RuralILECsand 
SmallTelecom Provider's


It sounds like a lot of good was taken and contributed to that meeting.
I'm glad you were there.

What interests me most will be to fully learn what scenergies will be found
between our groups.
At the end of the day, when it come to government increasing regulation, the
sides become provider versus governbment. Under those circumstances, its
amazing how many issues we share in common with these other groups.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Harnish" 
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECsand
SmallTelecom Provider's


Tom,

The general perception is that mobile broadband providers will be the most
likely recipients of the Reverse Auction procedure.  Voice is going mobile
and they obviously have a solid lobbying front.  It would seem logical that
mobile providers could accept lower subsidies with lower overhead and still
produce respectable revenue.  I am not totally familiar with all the USF
details but with landlines decreasing at a rapid rate it would seem logical
that this shift would go to the resulting technology that replaces
landlines.  Of note, there will be only one USF subsidy recipient per NGU
after the reverse auction is complete.  Therefore, only one company will be
subsidized in each geographical area.  If that doesn't spell MONOPOLY, I
don't know what does.

The Rural ILEC's do not expect good things to come from the USF rewrite.
Now those opinions presented may be biased.  T

Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth

[Tom DeReggi]

Depends whether you are asking me or Jeremie.

We dont use caching to save upstream badnwidth, currently. The reason is 
that our upstream transit costs are way less expesnive than our last mile 
and transport costs.
At one point, I calculated our unlicensed transport costs to be close to 
$180 per mbps (inlcuding colo/roof leases), but our transit costs at the 
same time averaged under $10/mb.  (actually down to $3/mb now all costs 
factored).
Now, this is all changing, as we add more licensed higher capacity backhauls 
and higher capacity last mile. Today my last mile/transport costs are much 
much lower, but I haven't calculated that recently.
Caching would not have saved us money or prevented bottle necks for download 
traffic.  However, it very well could save us money caching our customers 
on-net web servers, reducing last mile traffic.
Obviously, it would be the opposite situation for other WISPs that had high 
transit/transport costs and low last mile costs.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Glenn Kelley" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth


> Well Put.
>
> Have you guys thought about - (sorry jumping in the back end here)
> adding squid or caching?
>
> I have seen some major drops on bandwidth when caching is put in place
> - up to 30+%
>
> On the other hand - squid is not a replacement for the additional
> bandwidth.
>
>
> On May 20, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>
>> For Ethernet colision detection type networks, you are correct.
>> That is what many WISPs forget when deploying PtMP. They incorrectly
>> think a
>> CDMA 25mb link will double their 10mb TDD link as they scale. They
>> learn
>> that as customer get added, the capacity is not nearly as much as they
>> thought..
>>
>> But with Ethernet backbones it does not always work the same, for two
>> reasons
>>
>> 1) There is only one end device, so its not possible for collisions,
>> and
>> collision avoidance algorythms aren't really needed.
>> 2) If using  TDD Ethernet, transmits are scheduled, without the
>> typical
>> overhead of Ethernet.
>>
>> I can run successfully run a bandwidth test of 95mb over a 100mb
>> Cogent
>> fiber circuti, and with a Tlink-45 set 36mbps mod, tested to pass
>> 30mbps
>> with radio tests,  I can count on passing 30mbps through it.
>> So again, it comes down to the design and technology of the backbone.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Scott Reed" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth
>>
>>
>>> Old rule of thumb for Ethernet, because it is based on collision
>>> detection, is 70-75% is the max you want.  Above this and collisions
>>> often become an issue.  I assume the same is true for the faster
>>> links
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> Jeremie Chism wrote:
 At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more
 capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
 looking for suggestions.

 Sent from my iPhone


 
 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/



>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Scott Reed
>>> Sr. Systems Engineer
>>> GAB Midwest
>>> 1-800-363-1544 x2241
>>> 1-260-827-2241
>>> Cell: 260-273-7239
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/m

Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECsand SmallTelecom Provider's

[Tom DeReggi]

It sounds like a lot of good was taken and contributed to that meeting.
I'm glad you were there.

What interests me most will be to fully learn what scenergies will be found 
between our groups.
At the end of the day, when it come to government increasing regulation, the 
sides become provider versus governbment. Under those circumstances, its 
amazing how many issues we share in common with these other groups.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Harnish" 
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECsand 
SmallTelecom Provider's


Tom,

The general perception is that mobile broadband providers will be the most
likely recipients of the Reverse Auction procedure.  Voice is going mobile
and they obviously have a solid lobbying front.  It would seem logical that
mobile providers could accept lower subsidies with lower overhead and still
produce respectable revenue.  I am not totally familiar with all the USF
details but with landlines decreasing at a rapid rate it would seem logical
that this shift would go to the resulting technology that replaces
landlines.  Of note, there will be only one USF subsidy recipient per NGU
after the reverse auction is complete.  Therefore, only one company will be
subsidized in each geographical area.  If that doesn't spell MONOPOLY, I
don't know what does.

The Rural ILEC's do not expect good things to come from the USF rewrite.
Now those opinions presented may be biased.  The presenters were Bob Gnapp
of NECA and Douglas Meredith from John Starulakis, Inc. (JSI).

The group welcomed my comments and I saw lots of head shaking (up and down)
as I spoke.  Although competitors, they understand the power of partnership,
at least they seemed to.  I suppose they could have just been courteous.  I
have reached out to Bob Gnapp from NECA today and he said:

"Rick,
I think your proposal to see what our associations may be able to accomplish
together is a good one. I'll be in touch.
Bob"

There is realistically recognition from the Rural ILECs that unlicensed
spectrum is competition, especially if they hold AWS or 700 MHz licenses.
One speaker acted as though all spectrum would be auctioned to raise money
to pay for the Broadband Stimulus and National Broadband Plan.  That is one
very important reason we need to achieve higher member participation
throughout our industry.

Respectfully,
Rick Harnish

> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:07 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and
> SmallTelecom Provider's
>
> Rick,
>
> Good info
>
> How open was that group (rural ILECs) to WISPA in general? Did they
> agree or
> disagree that there were scenergies to work togeather? I would think
> that
> Rural ILECs would benefit heavilly from the NBP goals that favored
> subsidizing Rural ILECs.
> Basically instead of USF recipients gaining funds for Phone, they
> receive
> the same funds to build broadband. Why wouldn't they want that?  A
> local
> non-ILEC WISP surely wouldn't want that.
>
> "$24 billion needed to close the gap by 2020 (mostly accomplished
> by USF modifications):
>
>   "shift from supporting legacy telephone networks to directly
> supporting
> high-capacity broadband deployments"
>
> "Only one recipient per NGU"
>
>  "One awardee per territory (county levels are suspected)"
>
> So what that says to me is that we are in trouble. NBP's intent is to
> give
> the remaing userved market to monoplies.
> And more so it suggests USF could be one of the biggest threats to
> WISPs,
> because the program could generate enough funds to successfully fund
> giving
> all the remaining prime unserved markets to ILECs.
> What it says to me is, NBP's intent is to REPEAT the mistake of the
> Original
> USF, by replicating the flaws for broadband.
>
> "HOW DOES THAT PROMOTE COMPETITION?  IMHO, this creates
> Mini-monopolies in each service territory "
>
> All I can say to that is, AMEN! I here ya.
>
> What bothers me the most is NOT ONE SINGLE WORD to preserving small
> local operators and competition.
> Not one word about strengthening the "provider industry" as a whole.
> This is a plan to extinguish an industry, in favor of building mini
> monopolies..
> Unless we stop that destrutive mind set, or derail progress,  our
> industry
> is doomed.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rick Harnish" 
> To: ; ; "'WISPA General List'"
> 
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:33 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and
> SmallTelecom Provider's
>
>
> Yesterday, I attended a conference of primarily Rural ILECs with a
> focus on
> the National 

[WISPA] FW: [WISPA Members] Respond to RUS grants? Deadline Amended

[Rick Harnish]

Due to the emergency maintenance which was conducted this past weekend, RUS
is extending the 30-day Public Notice Filing period by one day. The new
deadline for existing service providers to file a response to any Public
Notice Filing will be Monday, May 24th at 11:59pm CDT. 

 

> -Original Message-

> From: members-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:members-boun...@wispa.org] On

> Behalf Of Chau Jasty

> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:57 PM

> To: memb...@wispa.org

> Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Respond to RUS grants?

> 

> Hi everyone,

> 

> The following just showed up at broadbandusa.gov website.

> 

> " Thursday, May 20, 2010

> 

> Due to the emergency maintenance which was conducted this past weekend,

> RUS

> is extending the 30-day Public Notice Filing period by one day. The new

> deadline for existing service providers to file a response to any

> Public

> Notice Filing will be Monday, May 24th at 11:59pm CDT. "

> 

> I filed a handful of responses today. Not too painful.

> 

> Chau Jasty

> CalDSL

> 




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] [WISPA Members] Copier Security Risk!

[Cliff Leboeuf]

Register for a presentation from Xerox to learn more at:
www.seeuthere.com/MFPsecurity

 

From: members-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:members-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:01 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; motor...@afmug.com; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA Members] Copier Security Risk!

 

Please pass this on to others in business!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC38D5am7go

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

President

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 




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] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and SmallTelecom Provider's

[Rick Harnish]

Tom,

The general perception is that mobile broadband providers will be the most
likely recipients of the Reverse Auction procedure.  Voice is going mobile
and they obviously have a solid lobbying front.  It would seem logical that
mobile providers could accept lower subsidies with lower overhead and still
produce respectable revenue.  I am not totally familiar with all the USF
details but with landlines decreasing at a rapid rate it would seem logical
that this shift would go to the resulting technology that replaces
landlines.  Of note, there will be only one USF subsidy recipient per NGU
after the reverse auction is complete.  Therefore, only one company will be
subsidized in each geographical area.  If that doesn't spell MONOPOLY, I
don't know what does.  

The Rural ILEC's do not expect good things to come from the USF rewrite.
Now those opinions presented may be biased.  The presenters were Bob Gnapp
of NECA and Douglas Meredith from John Starulakis, Inc. (JSI).  

The group welcomed my comments and I saw lots of head shaking (up and down)
as I spoke.  Although competitors, they understand the power of partnership,
at least they seemed to.  I suppose they could have just been courteous.  I
have reached out to Bob Gnapp from NECA today and he said: 

"Rick, 
I think your proposal to see what our associations may be able to accomplish
together is a good one. I'll be in touch. 
Bob"

There is realistically recognition from the Rural ILECs that unlicensed
spectrum is competition, especially if they hold AWS or 700 MHz licenses.
One speaker acted as though all spectrum would be auctioned to raise money
to pay for the Broadband Stimulus and National Broadband Plan.  That is one
very important reason we need to achieve higher member participation
throughout our industry.

Respectfully,
Rick Harnish

> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:07 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and
> SmallTelecom Provider's
> 
> Rick,
> 
> Good info
> 
> How open was that group (rural ILECs) to WISPA in general? Did they
> agree or
> disagree that there were scenergies to work togeather? I would think
> that
> Rural ILECs would benefit heavilly from the NBP goals that favored
> subsidizing Rural ILECs.
> Basically instead of USF recipients gaining funds for Phone, they
> receive
> the same funds to build broadband. Why wouldn't they want that?  A
> local
> non-ILEC WISP surely wouldn't want that.
> 
> "$24 billion needed to close the gap by 2020 (mostly accomplished
> by USF modifications):
> 
>   "shift from supporting legacy telephone networks to directly
> supporting
> high-capacity broadband deployments"
> 
> "Only one recipient per NGU"
> 
>  "One awardee per territory (county levels are suspected)"
> 
> So what that says to me is that we are in trouble. NBP's intent is to
> give
> the remaing userved market to monoplies.
> And more so it suggests USF could be one of the biggest threats to
> WISPs,
> because the program could generate enough funds to successfully fund
> giving
> all the remaining prime unserved markets to ILECs.
> What it says to me is, NBP's intent is to REPEAT the mistake of the
> Original
> USF, by replicating the flaws for broadband.
> 
> "HOW DOES THAT PROMOTE COMPETITION?  IMHO, this creates
> Mini-monopolies in each service territory "
> 
> All I can say to that is, AMEN! I here ya.
> 
> What bothers me the most is NOT ONE SINGLE WORD to preserving small
> local operators and competition.
> Not one word about strengthening the "provider industry" as a whole.
> This is a plan to extinguish an industry, in favor of building mini
> monopolies..
> Unless we stop that destrutive mind set, or derail progress,  our
> industry
> is doomed.
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rick Harnish" 
> To: ; ; "'WISPA General List'"
> 
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:33 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and
> SmallTelecom Provider's
> 
> 
> Yesterday, I attended a conference of primarily Rural ILECs with a
> focus on
> the National Broadband Plan.  It was very interesting to hear another
> perspective of the plan other than from the wireless industry.  Below I
> will
> outline some major talking points that were discussed.  The first
> speaker
> was from NECA (National Exchange Carrier's Association).  He started
> out the
> conversation by saying "The National Broadband Plan is a bad plan for
> Rural
> ILECs and Small telecommunication providers"
> 
> 
> 
> Later in the program, I had a chance to introduce myself and WISPA.
> Someone
> asked the question, "What can we do to proactively voice our concerns".
> I
> recommended that small trade associations break down the barriers when
> common interests 

Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and SmallTelecom Provider's

[Tom DeReggi]

Rick,

Good info

How open was that group (rural ILECs) to WISPA in general? Did they agree or 
disagree that there were scenergies to work togeather? I would think that 
Rural ILECs would benefit heavilly from the NBP goals that favored 
subsidizing Rural ILECs.
Basically instead of USF recipients gaining funds for Phone, they receive 
the same funds to build broadband. Why wouldn't they want that?  A local 
non-ILEC WISP surely wouldn't want that.

"$24 billion needed to close the gap by 2020 (mostly accomplished
by USF modifications):

  "shift from supporting legacy telephone networks to directly supporting
high-capacity broadband deployments"

"Only one recipient per NGU"

 "One awardee per territory (county levels are suspected)"

So what that says to me is that we are in trouble. NBP's intent is to give 
the remaing userved market to monoplies.
And more so it suggests USF could be one of the biggest threats to WISPs, 
because the program could generate enough funds to successfully fund giving 
all the remaining prime unserved markets to ILECs.
What it says to me is, NBP's intent is to REPEAT the mistake of the Original 
USF, by replicating the flaws for broadband.

"HOW DOES THAT PROMOTE COMPETITION?  IMHO, this creates
Mini-monopolies in each service territory "

All I can say to that is, AMEN! I here ya.

What bothers me the most is NOT ONE SINGLE WORD to preserving small 
local operators and competition.
Not one word about strengthening the "provider industry" as a whole.
This is a plan to extinguish an industry, in favor of building mini 
monopolies..
Unless we stop that destrutive mind set, or derail progress,  our industry 
is doomed.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Harnish" 
To: ; ; "'WISPA General List'" 

Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:33 AM
Subject: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and 
SmallTelecom Provider's


Yesterday, I attended a conference of primarily Rural ILECs with a focus on
the National Broadband Plan.  It was very interesting to hear another
perspective of the plan other than from the wireless industry.  Below I will
outline some major talking points that were discussed.  The first speaker
was from NECA (National Exchange Carrier's Association).  He started out the
conversation by saying "The National Broadband Plan is a bad plan for Rural
ILECs and Small telecommunication providers"



Later in the program, I had a chance to introduce myself and WISPA.  Someone
asked the question, "What can we do to proactively voice our concerns".  I
recommended that small trade associations break down the barriers when
common interests are at stake.  It is essential that partnering between
associations will give NPRM/NOI comments more credibility and a greater
likelihood be successful.  Partnering may also lower lobbying and legal
costs which WILL BE substantial in the next few years.  My prediction is
that many small trade associations will exhaust all capital required to
effectively lobby to protect their particular industry interests and will
cease to exist.  It is important that STA's search for efficient methods to
reach satisfactory conclusions.  STA's must seek full support from their
industry participants and in many cases, raise dues to meet the lobbying
demand which is already on the table.  It is also essential that cooperative
lobbying efforts be adopted between associations to conserve funding.



Someone asked me who I thought was behind the National Broadband Plan.
Having been a participant representing WISPA at the National Broadband
Coalition meetings, it became apparent to me that Washington lobbyists and
attorneys have the most to gain by creating conflict and rewriting telecom
rules.  Do we need a strategic plan?  Absolutely!   Do we need everything
that has been proposed?  Absolutely NOT!  From my perspective, this proposed
plan is very two-faced.  While proponents say they want to promote
competition, it appears that small competition will be forced out of
business.  The devil is in the details.



We can succeed but we need nearly total cooperation from all WISPs.

We need to build our membership base substantially over the next few months.


We need to seek out new Association partners.

We need to improve our Broadband speeds

We need to continue to lobby for more usable spectrum and use it efficiently

We need to continue to push manufacturers to improve performance, speed and
capacity

We need to better promote our industry and its capabilities

We need to be less "selfish" with our hard-earned revenues as insurance to
protect our businesses from over regulation by supporting our trade
association

We need to be more proactive instead of reactive.

We need to complain less and be more constructive.  In fighting will get us
nowhere.

We need to reach out to neighboring WISPs in your state or area and promote
the need to support WISPA



The time is 

Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth

[Tom DeReggi]

Scott,

You raise a very valid point, Half Duplex can have a penalty regarding 
throughput and/or collisions, in some cases.
As well it can break bandwdith mangement routines to some extent, because 
its not static how much bandwidth will be available at a given time in a 
direction to share between all the flows in that direction.
The question that arises is... which loses more bandwidth/spectrum? Half 
Duplex or Full Duplex with asymemtrical usage mismatch?
Depends, but definately a factor to consider.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Reed" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth


> To point one, it depends on the device and the settings.  If set to full
> duplex, there should not be collisions in a ptp configuration, but some
> inexpensive equipment will still show collisions.  In half duplex, there
> may be, since only one side can talk at a time.  I agree, this is only
> for CDMA networks.
>
> Tom's discussion in his earlier post is excellent.
>
> Tom DeReggi wrote:
>> For Ethernet colision detection type networks, you are correct.
>> That is what many WISPs forget when deploying PtMP. They incorrectly 
>> think a
>> CDMA 25mb link will double their 10mb TDD link as they scale. They learn
>> that as customer get added, the capacity is not nearly as much as they
>> thought..
>>
>> But with Ethernet backbones it does not always work the same, for two
>> reasons
>>
>> 1) There is only one end device, so its not possible for collisions, and
>> collision avoidance algorythms aren't really needed.
>> 2) If using  TDD Ethernet, transmits are scheduled, without the typical
>> overhead of Ethernet.
>>
>> I can run successfully run a bandwidth test of 95mb over a 100mb Cogent
>> fiber circuti, and with a Tlink-45 set 36mbps mod, tested to pass 30mbps
>> with radio tests,  I can count on passing 30mbps through it.
>> So again, it comes down to the design and technology of the backbone.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Scott Reed" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth
>>
>>
>>
>>> Old rule of thumb for Ethernet, because it is based on collision
>>> detection, is 70-75% is the max you want.  Above this and collisions
>>> often become an issue.  I assume the same is true for the faster links
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> Jeremie Chism wrote:
>>>
 At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more
 capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
 looking for suggestions.

 Sent from my iPhone


 
 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/




>>> -- 
>>> Scott Reed
>>> Sr. Systems Engineer
>>> GAB Midwest
>>> 1-800-363-1544 x2241
>>> 1-260-827-2241
>>> Cell: 260-273-7239
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Scott Reed
> Sr. Systems Engineer
> GAB Midwest
> 1-800-363-1544 x2241
> 1-260-827-2241
> Cell: 260-273-7239
>
>
>
> 
> 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/
--

Re: [WISPA] New in Box SolecTek Skyway Excel P2P for sale

[David E. Smith]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 13:36, Jon Auer  wrote:

> Thought the WISPA General list has its own rules...
>

It does:
"5) No selling or self promotion allowed. (Violations: One Warning then an
Invoice for minimum $150 ad will be generated)"

from http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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/

Re: [WISPA] New in Box SolecTek Skyway Excel P2P for sale

[Jon Auer]

Thought the WISPA General list has its own rules...

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Josh Luthman
 wrote:
> No problem, no one is upset I'm sure.  It's just courteous to follow the
> rules of the Moto Folk.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue
> that counts.”
> --- Winston Churchill
>
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Cameron Kilton  wrote:
>
>> Sorry about that, did not know what, well noted now.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cameron Kilton
>> Project Manager
>> Midcoast Internet Solutions
>> http://www.midcoast.com
>> c...@midcoast.com
>> (207) 594-8277 x 108
>>
>> On 5/20/2010 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> > The list "rules" strongly suggest for sale/trades are only shared on
>> > Fridays.
>> >
>> > Josh Luthman
>> > Office: 937-552-2340
>> > Direct: 937-552-2343
>> > 1100 Wayne St
>> > Suite 1337
>> > Troy, OH 45373
>> >
>> > “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
>> continue
>> > that counts.”
>> > --- Winston Churchill
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Cameron Kilton
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why wait until Friday?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Cameron Kilton
>> >> Project Manager
>> >> Midcoast Internet Solutions
>> >> http://www.midcoast.com
>> >> c...@midcoast.com
>> >> (207) 594-8277 x 108
>> >>
>> >> On 5/20/2010 10:50 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> >>> Wait until Friday, you should.
>> >>>
>> >>> Josh Luthman
>> >>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> >>> 1100 Wayne St
>> >>> Suite 1337
>> >>> Troy, OH 45373
>> >>>
>> >>> “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
>> >> continue
>> >>> that counts.”
>> >>> --- Winston Churchill
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Cameron Kilton
>> >>   wrote:
>> >>>
>>  http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=swexcel&page=feat
>> 
>>  Brand new complete link without antennas. This is the connectorized
>>  version.
>> 
>>  Make an offer offlist if you are interested.
>> 
>>  -Cameron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >>
>> 
>>  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/
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>> >> 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/
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>


---

[WISPA] Executive Director Job Description Posted

[Rick Harnish]

Press  Release:

Application and Proposals Due June 1, 2010

Elizabeth Bowles, WISPA Vice President and Association Management Committee
Chair

 

The WISPA Board has approved hiring an Executive Director and is accepting
proposals from those interested in applying for this position.  Below is a
link to the job description for the Executive Director position.  

 

WISPA
  Executive Director Job Description

 

The salary range is $40-$60,000/year depending on experience and number of
hours worked.  A one-year commitment is requested.

 

Proposals must be received not later than June 1, 2010 and should be emailed
to exec...@wispa.org.  

 

This information is also available on the WISPA website.

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

President

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 




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] Google TV Announced

[Justin Wilson]

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/announcing-google-tv-tv-meets-web-web
.html

If you think Youtube is bad, wait till this kicks in.  I have always said
you need to design your network to meet customer demands, not make customers
fit your network.  I would expect ³Internet TVs² and other such devices to
be in the works. 

Justin

-- 
Justin Wilson 
http://www.mtin.net/blog
Wisp Consulting ­ Tower Climbing ­ Network Support




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] Looking for WISP in these Areas

[Rick Harnish]

Mr. Randall has not received any responses from this yet so I'm resending.
He will be sending me more as he gets them.

 

Dear Sirs:

 

   I am looking for WISP Services in the following locations,
(Sorry but we do need to place a rush on these locations listed below).
Please be sure that when you give me a quote that the total is for EVERY
THING .  

 

We will need five static IP Address with 512 kbps up and down.  Anything
over is gravy.

 

Locations:

 

1.   46330 Panoche Rd.  Firebaugh, Ca. 93622  559-659-6913

2.   1403 Eagle Ridge Rd.   Le Claire, IA.  52753
563-289-4801

3.   401 S. Pierce St.Alma, Ga.  31510
912-632-2657

4.   100 SW 28th Ave.   Minot, Md.  58701
701-420-2890

 

Please get back to me when you get these and we are ready to go when you
find a home for them. 

 

Thanks

JC Randall

HyperDSL

707-643-0105

JC Randall [...@hyperdsl.net]

 

Respectfully

 

Rick Harnish

President

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 




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] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband

[Rick Harnish]

This is from the second speaker at the conference yesterday.

 

How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband

Legal Authority

*   Many recommendations call into question whether the FCC has the
authority to act.  For example:

*   USF reform - Does the FCC have authority to add Broadband to USF?
*   ICC reform - Does the FCC have authority to mandate changes to state
access rates?

*   Comcast v. FCC April 6, 2010 Court Opinion

*   Comcast argued that the FCC did not have authority to regulate how
Comcast managed its network.
*   Appellate Court (DC Circuit):  3 judge panel unanimously agreed with
Comcast.
*   FCC was left without a legal foundation providing the necessary
authority to enforce its Network Neutrality principles.
*   Cast doubt on the ability to regulate Broadband under Title 1.

*   FCC Proposes a THIRD WAY to Regulate Broadband

*   Appeal Comcast decision

*   Not likely to succeed as the vote was 3-0 in favor of Comcast

*   Go to Congress and get specific authority

*   Too long of a process

*   1. Reinforce its ancillary authority argument

*   Suggested by the Court but not considered by the FCC because of
scope issues.

*   2. Reclassify Internet communications as telecommunications service
to restore direct authority over Broadband communication networks
*   3.  THIRD WAY - Move all Broadband Internet access service to Title
II and lightly regulate this service

*   Who is the Target?

*   Rural Carriers offer Broadband Internet access service as a Title II
telecommunications service (no effect)
*   RBOC's, wireless, cable and Broadband over powerline providers offer
Broadband Internet access Service as Title 1.

*   These are the providers that will be subject to Title II regulations
*   These entities can and will push back very hard

*   Purpose of the THIRD WAY 

*   The Third Way isn't about Network Neutrality.  

*   The proposed Title II regulation of Broadband Internet access
service does not regulate or control the entire transport to the Internet
cloud

*   The Third Way IS about regulation of last mile Broadband for other
purposes.

*   "At the outset, it must be made absolutely clear that the issue of
reclassification goes far beyond our open Internet proceeding.  It involves
some of the most important parts of our National Broadband Plan - universal
service, privacy, transparency, and cyber security.  Without
reclassification, the road to achieving each of those issues is laden with
land mines and likely to fail."  Commissioner Mignon Clyburn - May 11, 2010

*   Propsed Regulations

*   Section 201

*   Requires Internet providers to interconnect and charge reasonable
rates

*   Section 202

*   Prevents price and service discrimination

*   Section 208

*   Sets up FCC Complaint processes

*   Section 222

*   Protects customer privacy and proprietary commercial information

*   Section 254

*   Allows use of Universal Service Fund for Broadband

*   Section 255

*   Ensures disability access

*   Problems with the Third Way

*   Major push back on this approach by the target providers (not Title
II presently)
*   Problem achieving the goal of the reform - The Third Way doesn't
deliver Network Neutrality for example.

*   Effective regulation of Broadband has to include "customer-to-cloud"
transmission.  This approach only addresses the last mile and ignores the
middle mile transmission.
*   Avoids regulation of any services provided over the transmission.
*   Effort is initiated to ensure Net Neutral principles.  However, the
management of the pipe does not need to be with the pipe provider, instead
it can be with the ISP managing and controlling the middle mile to the
Internet
*   The effort includes USF reform

*   Section 254 requires that USF be used for telecom service.  If
Broadband isn't a telecom service, the whole notion of USF reform can't
happen easily under the NBP.

*   Next Steps for Title "I.V"

*   FCC will issue a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on the matter.
*   FCC has announced that it will move straight to a Declaratory Ruling
after the NOI.
*   FCC has to create a record that allows the reversal of numerous
prior decisions.
*   This will be a very complicated process

 

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

President

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 




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] New in Box SolecTek Skyway Excel P2P for sale

[Josh Luthman]

No problem, no one is upset I'm sure.  It's just courteous to follow the
rules of the Moto Folk.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue
that counts.”
--- Winston Churchill


On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Cameron Kilton  wrote:

> Sorry about that, did not know what, well noted now.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Cameron Kilton
> Project Manager
> Midcoast Internet Solutions
> http://www.midcoast.com
> c...@midcoast.com
> (207) 594-8277 x 108
>
> On 5/20/2010 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> > The list "rules" strongly suggest for sale/trades are only shared on
> > Fridays.
> >
> > Josh Luthman
> > Office: 937-552-2340
> > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > 1100 Wayne St
> > Suite 1337
> > Troy, OH 45373
> >
> > “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
> continue
> > that counts.”
> > --- Winston Churchill
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Cameron Kilton
>  wrote:
> >
> >> Why wait until Friday?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Cameron Kilton
> >> Project Manager
> >> Midcoast Internet Solutions
> >> http://www.midcoast.com
> >> c...@midcoast.com
> >> (207) 594-8277 x 108
> >>
> >> On 5/20/2010 10:50 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >>> Wait until Friday, you should.
> >>>
> >>> Josh Luthman
> >>> Office: 937-552-2340
> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >>> 1100 Wayne St
> >>> Suite 1337
> >>> Troy, OH 45373
> >>>
> >>> “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
> >> continue
> >>> that counts.”
> >>> --- Winston Churchill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Cameron Kilton
> >>   wrote:
> >>>
>  http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=swexcel&page=feat
> 
>  Brand new complete link without antennas. This is the connectorized
>  version.
> 
>  Make an offer offlist if you are interested.
> 
>  -Cameron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> 
>  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/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> >> 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 
> 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] New in Box SolecTek Skyway Excel P2P for sale

[Cameron Kilton]

Sorry about that, did not know what, well noted now.


Thanks,
Cameron Kilton
Project Manager
Midcoast Internet Solutions
http://www.midcoast.com
c...@midcoast.com
(207) 594-8277 x 108

On 5/20/2010 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> The list "rules" strongly suggest for sale/trades are only shared on
> Fridays.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue
> that counts.”
> --- Winston Churchill
>
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Cameron Kilton  wrote:
>
>> Why wait until Friday?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cameron Kilton
>> Project Manager
>> Midcoast Internet Solutions
>> http://www.midcoast.com
>> c...@midcoast.com
>> (207) 594-8277 x 108
>>
>> On 5/20/2010 10:50 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>> Wait until Friday, you should.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
>> continue
>>> that counts.”
>>> --- Winston Churchill
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Cameron Kilton
>>   wrote:
>>>
 http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=swexcel&page=feat

 Brand new complete link without antennas. This is the connectorized
 version.

 Make an offer offlist if you are interested.

 -Cameron




>> 
 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/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>
>



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] Copier Security Risk!

[Rick Harnish]

Please pass this on to others in business!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC38D5am7go

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

President

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 




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] New in Box SolecTek Skyway Excel P2P for sale

[Josh Luthman]

The list "rules" strongly suggest for sale/trades are only shared on
Fridays.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue
that counts.”
--- Winston Churchill


On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Cameron Kilton  wrote:

> Why wait until Friday?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Cameron Kilton
> Project Manager
> Midcoast Internet Solutions
> http://www.midcoast.com
> c...@midcoast.com
> (207) 594-8277 x 108
>
> On 5/20/2010 10:50 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> > Wait until Friday, you should.
> >
> > Josh Luthman
> > Office: 937-552-2340
> > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > 1100 Wayne St
> > Suite 1337
> > Troy, OH 45373
> >
> > “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
> continue
> > that counts.”
> > --- Winston Churchill
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Cameron Kilton
>  wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=swexcel&page=feat
> >>
> >> Brand new complete link without antennas. This is the connectorized
> >> version.
> >>
> >> Make an offer offlist if you are interested.
> >>
> >> -Cameron
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> >> 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 
> 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] New in Box SolecTek Skyway Excel P2P for sale

[Cameron Kilton]

Why wait until Friday?


Thanks,
Cameron Kilton
Project Manager
Midcoast Internet Solutions
http://www.midcoast.com
c...@midcoast.com
(207) 594-8277 x 108

On 5/20/2010 10:50 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> Wait until Friday, you should.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue
> that counts.”
> --- Winston Churchill
>
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Cameron Kilton  wrote:
>
>> http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=swexcel&page=feat
>>
>> Brand new complete link without antennas. This is the connectorized
>> version.
>>
>> Make an offer offlist if you are interested.
>>
>> -Cameron
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>
>



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] FiberTower for backhauling ?

[Gino Villarini]

Jack

My humble opinion is that using TVWS for backhauls is a waste of  
resources

My points

Current and future bandwidth requirement of wisps and celcos for  
towers are in the
50 Mbps + , so you'll plenty of spectrum to meet the demands, I'll say  
more than 50 MHz per link

Propagation of tvws freqs would yield in poor density of ptp links

Antenna sizes for ptp links would be a barrier


The FCC should seek out a space for ptp links on a higher band like 2  
or 3 ghz
But requiere a strict sync protocol for high freq reuse

Sent from my Motorola Startac...


On May 20, 2010, at 11:05 AM, "Jack Unger"  wrote:

> I ask because I'm trying to gather data to support WISPA's FCC  
> filings. I'll explain...
>
> FiberTower is telling the FCC that they need chunks of TV White  
> Space spectrum to be LICENSED TO THEM so they can provide point-to- 
> point backbone bandwidth to serve rural unserved and underserved  
> communities. Backbone bandwidth that is licensed to them means LESS  
> unlicensed (or less lightly-licensed) TV White Space for WISPs to use.
>
> I'm fighting to MAXIMIZE the TV White Space spectrum for WISP use  
> therefore I need information to debunk the FiberTower claims.
>
> I need to learn if FiberTower is actually a significant backbone  
> bandwidth provider to fixed broadband ISPs and WISPs or if  
> FiberTower is really only providing backbone bandwidth to mobile  
> broadband (cellular) carriers.
>
> If FiberTower is acting anti-competitively by trying to knock WISPs  
> out of the broadband business by denying us the TV White Space  
> spectrum that we need while at the same time using that spectrum to  
> serve the large cellphone companies then WISPA must explain that to  
> the FCC and ask the FCC to deny FiberTower's requests to exclusively  
> license TV White Space spectrum.
>
> jack
>
>
> Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>
>> Why do you ask?
>>
>> Im not saying anyone hasn't, but I have heard they have turned away
>> providing service to some WISPs. They cater to large carrier and  
>> telecom.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jack Unger" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:05 AM
>> Subject: [WISPA] FiberTower for backhauling ?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Does anyone use FiberTower for backhauling?
>>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>>> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities  
>>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities  
> 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] Bandwidth

[Scott Reed]

To point one, it depends on the device and the settings.  If set to full 
duplex, there should not be collisions in a ptp configuration, but some 
inexpensive equipment will still show collisions.  In half duplex, there 
may be, since only one side can talk at a time.  I agree, this is only 
for CDMA networks.

Tom's discussion in his earlier post is excellent.

Tom DeReggi wrote:
> For Ethernet colision detection type networks, you are correct.
> That is what many WISPs forget when deploying PtMP. They incorrectly think a 
> CDMA 25mb link will double their 10mb TDD link as they scale. They learn 
> that as customer get added, the capacity is not nearly as much as they 
> thought..
>
> But with Ethernet backbones it does not always work the same, for two 
> reasons
>
> 1) There is only one end device, so its not possible for collisions, and 
> collision avoidance algorythms aren't really needed.
> 2) If using  TDD Ethernet, transmits are scheduled, without the typical 
> overhead of Ethernet.
>
> I can run successfully run a bandwidth test of 95mb over a 100mb Cogent 
> fiber circuti, and with a Tlink-45 set 36mbps mod, tested to pass 30mbps 
> with radio tests,  I can count on passing 30mbps through it.
> So again, it comes down to the design and technology of the backbone.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Scott Reed" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth
>
>
>   
>> Old rule of thumb for Ethernet, because it is based on collision
>> detection, is 70-75% is the max you want.  Above this and collisions
>> often become an issue.  I assume the same is true for the faster links
>> as well.
>>
>> Jeremie Chism wrote:
>> 
>>> At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more
>>> capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
>>> looking for suggestions.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> -- 
>> Scott Reed
>> Sr. Systems Engineer
>> GAB Midwest
>> 1-800-363-1544 x2241
>> 1-260-827-2241
>> Cell: 260-273-7239
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>
>
>   

-- 
Scott Reed
Sr. Systems Engineer
GAB Midwest
1-800-363-1544 x2241
1-260-827-2241
Cell: 260-273-7239




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] Bandwidth

[Justin Wilson]

I agree with Rick¹s percentage.  If it is a traditional telco circuit
you should get a concrete answer on how long it will take to add an
additional circuit.  I had to go 8 months one time to add another T1 into
our bond.

Justin
-- 
Justin Wilson 
http://www.mtin.net/blog
Wisp Consulting ­ Tower Climbing ­ Network Support



From: RickG 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:54:49 -0400
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth

When you peak at 65-75 percent its probably time to add more. It
depends on how fast your filling it up and how long it takes to
implement the new capacity.
-RickG

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Jeremie Chism  wrote:
> At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more
> capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
> looking for suggestions.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> 

> 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/




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] Bandwidth

[Glenn Kelley]

Well Put.

Have you guys thought about - (sorry jumping in the back end here)  
adding squid or caching?

I have seen some major drops on bandwidth when caching is put in place  
- up to 30+%

On the other hand - squid is not a replacement for the additional  
bandwidth.


On May 20, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

> For Ethernet colision detection type networks, you are correct.
> That is what many WISPs forget when deploying PtMP. They incorrectly  
> think a
> CDMA 25mb link will double their 10mb TDD link as they scale. They  
> learn
> that as customer get added, the capacity is not nearly as much as they
> thought..
>
> But with Ethernet backbones it does not always work the same, for two
> reasons
>
> 1) There is only one end device, so its not possible for collisions,  
> and
> collision avoidance algorythms aren't really needed.
> 2) If using  TDD Ethernet, transmits are scheduled, without the  
> typical
> overhead of Ethernet.
>
> I can run successfully run a bandwidth test of 95mb over a 100mb  
> Cogent
> fiber circuti, and with a Tlink-45 set 36mbps mod, tested to pass  
> 30mbps
> with radio tests,  I can count on passing 30mbps through it.
> So again, it comes down to the design and technology of the backbone.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Scott Reed" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth
>
>
>> Old rule of thumb for Ethernet, because it is based on collision
>> detection, is 70-75% is the max you want.  Above this and collisions
>> often become an issue.  I assume the same is true for the faster  
>> links
>> as well.
>>
>> Jeremie Chism wrote:
>>> At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more
>>> capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
>>> looking for suggestions.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Scott Reed
>> Sr. Systems Engineer
>> GAB Midwest
>> 1-800-363-1544 x2241
>> 1-260-827-2241
>> Cell: 260-273-7239
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/




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] Bandwidth

[Tom DeReggi]

For Ethernet colision detection type networks, you are correct.
That is what many WISPs forget when deploying PtMP. They incorrectly think a 
CDMA 25mb link will double their 10mb TDD link as they scale. They learn 
that as customer get added, the capacity is not nearly as much as they 
thought..

But with Ethernet backbones it does not always work the same, for two 
reasons

1) There is only one end device, so its not possible for collisions, and 
collision avoidance algorythms aren't really needed.
2) If using  TDD Ethernet, transmits are scheduled, without the typical 
overhead of Ethernet.

I can run successfully run a bandwidth test of 95mb over a 100mb Cogent 
fiber circuti, and with a Tlink-45 set 36mbps mod, tested to pass 30mbps 
with radio tests,  I can count on passing 30mbps through it.
So again, it comes down to the design and technology of the backbone.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Reed" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth


> Old rule of thumb for Ethernet, because it is based on collision
> detection, is 70-75% is the max you want.  Above this and collisions
> often become an issue.  I assume the same is true for the faster links
> as well.
>
> Jeremie Chism wrote:
>> At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more
>> capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
>> looking for suggestions.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Scott Reed
> Sr. Systems Engineer
> GAB Midwest
> 1-800-363-1544 x2241
> 1-260-827-2241
> Cell: 260-273-7239
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Bandwidth

[Jeremie Chism]

Thanks Tom for the information. I appreciate you taking the time our  
of your busy day to give me such good information. It is greatly  
appreciated. I will make some adjustment to increase cpe bandwidth and  
see what happens. Most of my traffic shoul be bursty because it is  
business but I do have a few people that stream HD video (around 3mb  
stream) that I will probably leave.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 20, 2010, at 10:21 AM, "Tom DeReggi"  
 wrote:

> That depends on how long your peaks last.
>
> The bottom line is that peaks generally only last short periods. If  
> you run
> out of peak capacity, the side effect is usually minimal. All that  
> occurs is
> that transfers during those peak time slow down a bit and spreadout  
> over a
> longer period of time.  TCP in nature handles this for you  
> automatically.
> The longer you hold off on upgrading, (meaning increasing average  
> usage) The
> usage graph starts to flatten out, with less distance between  
> average and
> peak. If you have a large number of subs on a backbone, that may not  
> have
> much of a negative effect on the users at all.  Remember most people  
> cant
> tell the difference between 1mb and 2mb without running a speed  
> test. For
> this reason, I care very little about peak usage stats.
>
> What is way more relevant is "average usage". I personally think when
> average usage is around 50%, its time to think about upgrading, and  
> when
> average usage exceeds 70%, you are way overdue
> How much you push the limits and how quickly you move to upgrade is
> determined on several factors.
>
> 1) How long it will take to deliver an upgraded pipe. If its 6  
> months, think
> ahead. If its 1 week, you might be able to wait till users start to
> complain.
>
> 2) Your SLA.  If you have a bunch of high ARPU customers with SLA,  
> you may
> want to upgrade sooner. For example, if you sell 100mb end user  
> pipe, where
> custoemr may not use it much, so oversubscription can be  
> significant, but
> the customer pays a lot to make sure 100mbps is available when they  
> send
> their large docs once a week. Where as if selling best effort end user
> services, does it really matter if they slow down during peak usage  
> hours?
>
> 3) What you charge.  There is a reality to market price and costs.   
> If your
> selling price is  low enough, and your costs are high enough, you  
> may not
> have any choice but to attempt to change end user's usage patterns.  
> For
> example, if average bandwdith gets to high, the answer may be to start
> blocking or slowing down certain types of services, to discourage  
> end users
> from performing those functions.  For $19.95 do you allow then to  
> stream
> NetFlix, or do you change your AUP and firewall to fix it?  The  
> first thing
> we always ask is Why is the bandwidth usage so high?  For  
> example, have
> you checked how much inbound bandwdith is from Internet born DOS,  
> SPAM,
> Spyware, Scanning, etc? OR what about network overhead? Whether to  
> roue
> versus bridge, VLAN or not VLAN, Monitor end-to-end centrally versus
> distributed local monitoring, all have a factor on bandwidth usage.
>
> A more relevent question might be... How much bandwdith per user  
> should be
> allocated on a backbone, for healthy operation and profitabilty of  
> the WISP?
> That number may depend on how Internet savy the commuity base is, or  
> cost
> structures of that market. My point here is that the decission on  
> backbone
> bandwdith may not be a technical decission. And if its technical, the
> solution may not always be to add bandwdith, and the anser might be  
> to stop
> wasting bandwidth.
>
> But from a technical perspective there are realities that need to be
> addressed. There becomes a time when action must be taken in some  
> capacity.
>
> Most importantly let me point out an example regarding the effect of  
> peak
> usage and why it is not bad. Set bandwdith management to heavilly  
> restrict
> bandwdith. For example, set a CIR to 512k and MIR to 1mb. You will  
> see low
> peak usage, and a lot of bandwidth being wasted, meaning you can  
> never go
> back in time to recover unused badnwdith. Now set CIR to512, and MIR  
> to
> 10mbps. You will see peak usage skyrocket for short periods, but the  
> average
> usage will go way down, because users use the network for short  
> periods, and
> IF there is any unused bandwdith they are free to use it, before the
> opportunity in time is lost to do so. The mentality if always free the
> network up for the next guy as soon as possible. Operating a network  
> in that
> way (high MIRs) can easilly double the amount of capacity that can be
> aggreegated accross a backbone.  In many cases, all you have to do to
> prevent bandwdith shortage, is just to INCREASE your customer's  
> configured
> peak speed. If there usage need stays the same, you will waste less
> bandwdith and more efficiently use the network.
>
> The other thin

Re: [WISPA] Insurance carriers (I need one)

[Marco Coelho]

Again, the Hartford.  A couple of claims in 10 years.  No issues.

mc

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:35 PM, RickG  wrote:
> www.selectiveinsurance.com
> I've been very happy with them for several years now. With that said,
> I've never had a claim. Maybe the better question is: Who is happy
> with their insurance company AFTER they've had a claim?
> -RickG
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Scott Carullo
>  wrote:
>> I'm having a hard time finding someone to insure us for the requirements 
>> below...
>>
>> Employer's liability insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 each 
>> occurrence.
>>
>> Commercial General Liability (including completed operations and contractual 
>> liability) on an occurrence basis with limits of not less than $5,000,000 
>> per occurrence which can be achieved through a combination of primary and 
>> excess liability (umbrella) policies.
>>
>> Comprehensive form automobile liability covering owned, hired and non-owned 
>> vehicles with limits of not less than $5,000,000 combined single limit each 
>> accident which can be achieved through a combination of primary and excess 
>> liability (umbrella) policies.
>>
>> "All-risk" or special causes of loss property insurance covering the Site 
>> Equipment and appurtenant personal property for full replacement cost.
>>
>> All policies required hereunder shall be written by an insurer having a 
>> policyholder rating ("Best Rating") of at least "A-" or better and be 
>> assigned a financial size category of at least Class VIII as rated in the 
>> most recent edition of "Best's Key Rating Guide" for insurance companies, 
>> and be authorized to do business within the State of FL.  Such commercial 
>> general liability and property insurance policies shall name Licensor and 
>> the Site Manager (and such other parties as Licensor may reasonably specify 
>> from time to time) as additional insureds.
>>
>> Anyone have any suggestions of a carrier that understands our industry and 
>> the fact that an antenna on a building or tower would probably never cause 
>> any claims to be submitted...  Just there cause the lessor needs the 
>> paperwork.  Thanks.
>>
>> Scott Carullo
>> Brevard Wireless
>> 321-205-1100 x102
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Bandwidth

[Tom DeReggi]

That depends on how long your peaks last.

The bottom line is that peaks generally only last short periods. If you run 
out of peak capacity, the side effect is usually minimal. All that occurs is 
that transfers during those peak time slow down a bit and spreadout over a 
longer period of time.  TCP in nature handles this for you automatically. 
The longer you hold off on upgrading, (meaning increasing average usage) The 
usage graph starts to flatten out, with less distance between average and 
peak. If you have a large number of subs on a backbone, that may not have 
much of a negative effect on the users at all.  Remember most people cant 
tell the difference between 1mb and 2mb without running a speed test. For 
this reason, I care very little about peak usage stats.

What is way more relevant is "average usage". I personally think when 
average usage is around 50%, its time to think about upgrading, and when 
average usage exceeds 70%, you are way overdue
How much you push the limits and how quickly you move to upgrade is 
determined on several factors.

1) How long it will take to deliver an upgraded pipe. If its 6 months, think 
ahead. If its 1 week, you might be able to wait till users start to 
complain.

2) Your SLA.  If you have a bunch of high ARPU customers with SLA, you may 
want to upgrade sooner. For example, if you sell 100mb end user pipe, where 
custoemr may not use it much, so oversubscription can be significant, but 
the customer pays a lot to make sure 100mbps is available when they send 
their large docs once a week. Where as if selling best effort end user 
services, does it really matter if they slow down during peak usage hours?

3) What you charge.  There is a reality to market price and costs.  If your 
selling price is  low enough, and your costs are high enough, you may not 
have any choice but to attempt to change end user's usage patterns. For 
example, if average bandwdith gets to high, the answer may be to start 
blocking or slowing down certain types of services, to discourage end users 
from performing those functions.  For $19.95 do you allow then to stream 
NetFlix, or do you change your AUP and firewall to fix it?  The first thing 
we always ask is Why is the bandwidth usage so high?  For example, have 
you checked how much inbound bandwdith is from Internet born DOS, SPAM, 
Spyware, Scanning, etc? OR what about network overhead? Whether to roue 
versus bridge, VLAN or not VLAN, Monitor end-to-end centrally versus 
distributed local monitoring, all have a factor on bandwidth usage.

A more relevent question might be... How much bandwdith per user should be 
allocated on a backbone, for healthy operation and profitabilty of the WISP? 
That number may depend on how Internet savy the commuity base is, or cost 
structures of that market. My point here is that the decission on backbone 
bandwdith may not be a technical decission. And if its technical, the 
solution may not always be to add bandwdith, and the anser might be to stop 
wasting bandwidth.

But from a technical perspective there are realities that need to be 
addressed. There becomes a time when action must be taken in some capacity.

Most importantly let me point out an example regarding the effect of peak 
usage and why it is not bad. Set bandwdith management to heavilly restrict 
bandwdith. For example, set a CIR to 512k and MIR to 1mb. You will see low 
peak usage, and a lot of bandwidth being wasted, meaning you can never go 
back in time to recover unused badnwdith. Now set CIR to512, and MIR to 
10mbps. You will see peak usage skyrocket for short periods, but the average 
usage will go way down, because users use the network for short periods, and 
IF there is any unused bandwdith they are free to use it, before the 
opportunity in time is lost to do so. The mentality if always free the 
network up for the next guy as soon as possible. Operating a network in that 
way (high MIRs) can easilly double the amount of capacity that can be 
aggreegated accross a backbone.  In many cases, all you have to do to 
prevent bandwdith shortage, is just to INCREASE your customer's configured 
peak speed. If there usage need stays the same, you will waste less 
bandwdith and more efficiently use the network.

The other thing is it may matter what type backbone you have. For example, a 
PTP network can use a Ethernet segment very effectively, probably up to 
close to 85-90%.  But on a Multi-user segment like an office LAN, Ethernet 
capacity will saterate at about 50% because of collision avoidance issues. 
If you are agreegating multiple feeds into a backbone, whether the data fed 
into it collides with other data fed into it may depend on the bandwidth 
management methods and switching technology. IF the network is not always 
available, it can cause retransmits or higher latency, and that can effect 
end user's experience. So again, whether 50% or 80% backbone usage is 
acceptable may depend on many factors in you

Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth

[Scott Reed]

Old rule of thumb for Ethernet, because it is based on collision 
detection, is 70-75% is the max you want.  Above this and collisions 
often become an issue.  I assume the same is true for the faster links 
as well.

Jeremie Chism wrote:
> At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more  
> capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just  
> looking for suggestions.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> 
> 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/
>
>
>   

-- 
Scott Reed
Sr. Systems Engineer
GAB Midwest
1-800-363-1544 x2241
1-260-827-2241
Cell: 260-273-7239




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] FiberTower for backhauling ?

[Brad Belton]

We've leased 38GHz spectrum from FiberTower (actually the company prior to
FiberTower) for several years now.  We also have one very small fiber PtP
circuit from them simply because they had some available bandwidth between
two common sites and it was easier (which is rare) for us to have them
provide the loop than do it ourselves.

All in all FiberTower has been easy to work with, but our situation may be
different than some as we share common some sites together.

YMMV and I agree they are typically geared towards cellular carriers and not
smaller providers.

Best,


Brad

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 9:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FiberTower for backhauling ?

Actually, to more fair, I should state...
Fibertower owns and leases spectrum (24/39Ghz) as well as selling backhaul 
bandwidth. I would think they'd lease spectrum to anyone that was willing to

pay for it.
I was assuming you were asking about backhaul bandwidth.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Unger" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:05 AM
Subject: [WISPA] FiberTower for backhauling ?


> Does anyone use FiberTower for backhauling?
>
> jack
>
> -- 
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities 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/





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] FiberTower for backhauling ?

[Jack Unger]

I ask because I'm trying to gather data to support WISPA's FCC filings.
I'll explain...

FiberTower is telling the FCC that they need chunks of TV White Space
spectrum to be LICENSED TO THEM so they can provide point-to-point
backbone bandwidth to serve rural unserved and underserved communities.
Backbone bandwidth that is licensed to them means LESS unlicensed (or
less lightly-licensed) TV White Space for WISPs to use. 

I'm fighting to MAXIMIZE the TV White Space spectrum for WISP use
therefore I need information to debunk the FiberTower claims. 

I need to learn if FiberTower is actually a significant backbone
bandwidth provider to fixed broadband ISPs and WISPs or if FiberTower
is really only providing backbone bandwidth to mobile broadband
(cellular) carriers. 

If FiberTower is acting anti-competitively by trying to knock WISPs out
of the broadband business by denying us the TV White Space spectrum
that we need while at the same time using that spectrum to serve the
large cellphone companies then WISPA must explain that to the FCC and
ask the FCC to deny FiberTower's requests to exclusively license TV
White Space spectrum. 

jack


Tom DeReggi wrote:

  Why do you ask?

Im not saying anyone hasn't, but I have heard they have turned away 
providing service to some WISPs. They cater to large carrier and telecom.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Unger" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:05 AM
Subject: [WISPA] FiberTower for backhauling ?


  
  
Does anyone use FiberTower for backhauling?

jack

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities 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/


  


-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities 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] New in Box SolecTek Skyway Excel P2P for sale

[Chris Gotstein]

Yoda speaks!

   
Chris Gotstein, Sr Network Engineer, UP Logon/Computer Connection UP
http://uplogon.com | +1 906 774 4847 | ch...@uplogon.com

On 5/20/2010 9:50 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> Wait until Friday, you should.
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue
> that counts.”
> --- Winston Churchill
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Cameron Kilton  wrote:
> 
>> http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=swexcel&page=feat
>>
>> Brand new complete link without antennas. This is the connectorized
>> version.
>>
>> Make an offer offlist if you are interested.
>>
>> -Cameron
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/



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] New in Box SolecTek Skyway Excel P2P for sale

[Josh Luthman]

Wait until Friday, you should.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue
that counts.”
--- Winston Churchill


On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Cameron Kilton  wrote:

> http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=swexcel&page=feat
>
> Brand new complete link without antennas. This is the connectorized
> version.
>
> Make an offer offlist if you are interested.
>
> -Cameron
>
>
>
> 
> 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] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and Small Telecom Provider's

[St. Louis Broadband]

Agreed.  It is time for WISPA to take the next step.

~V~

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 9:33 AM
To: memb...@wispa.org; motor...@afmug.com; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and Small
Telecom Provider's

Yesterday, I attended a conference of primarily Rural ILECs with a focus on
the National Broadband Plan.  It was very interesting to hear another
perspective of the plan other than from the wireless industry.  Below I will
outline some major talking points that were discussed.  The first speaker
was from NECA (National Exchange Carrier’s Association).  He started out the
conversation by saying “The National Broadband Plan is a bad plan for Rural
ILECs and Small telecommunication providers”

 

Later in the program, I had a chance to introduce myself and WISPA.  Someone
asked the question, “What can we do to proactively voice our concerns”.  I
recommended that small trade associations break down the barriers when
common interests are at stake.  It is essential that partnering between
associations will give NPRM/NOI comments more credibility and a greater
likelihood be successful.  Partnering may also lower lobbying and legal
costs which WILL BE substantial in the next few years.  My prediction is
that many small trade associations will exhaust all capital required to
effectively lobby to protect their particular industry interests and will
cease to exist.  It is important that STA’s search for efficient methods to
reach satisfactory conclusions.  STA’s must seek full support from their
industry participants and in many cases, raise dues to meet the lobbying
demand which is already on the table.  It is also essential that cooperative
lobbying efforts be adopted between associations to conserve funding.

 

Someone asked me who I thought was behind the National Broadband Plan.
Having been a participant representing WISPA at the National Broadband
Coalition meetings, it became apparent to me that Washington lobbyists and
attorneys have the most to gain by creating conflict and rewriting telecom
rules.  Do we need a strategic plan?  Absolutely!   Do we need everything
that has been proposed?  Absolutely NOT!  From my perspective, this proposed
plan is very two-faced.  While proponents say they want to promote
competition, it appears that small competition will be forced out of
business.  The devil is in the details.

 

We can succeed but we need nearly total cooperation from all WISPs.  

We need to build our membership base substantially over the next few months.


We need to seek out new Association partners. 

We need to improve our Broadband speeds

We need to continue to lobby for more usable spectrum and use it efficiently

We need to continue to push manufacturers to improve performance, speed and
capacity

We need to better promote our industry and its capabilities

We need to be less “selfish” with our hard-earned revenues as insurance to
protect our businesses from over regulation by supporting our trade
association

We need to be more proactive instead of reactive.

We need to complain less and be more constructive.  In fighting will get us
nowhere.  

We need to reach out to neighboring WISPs in your state or area and promote
the need to support WISPA

 

The time is now, there is little time to waste.  We either stand up and be
recognized or we will begin to die a slow and painful death.  I’m an
optimist by nature and I struggle to write these realities, but they need to
be said.

 

Below is an outline of the speech from yesterday.

 

National Broadband Plan Overview:

· “The NBP is a strategic plan; it is not a series of rules”  Carol
Mattey, Deputy Bureau Chief, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau.

· Numerous NPRMs forthcoming (60 are proposed in the next twelve
months)

 

National Broadband Plan Goals:

· Promote world leading mobile broadband

· Foster competition and maximize benefits

· Advance and secure public safety communications

· Increase Broadband access and adoption

o   Introduces recommendations to reform federal USF programs and the ICC
system

· Speed Goals (by 2020)  (Actual throughput between the customer and
the closest Internet Gateway)

o   4/1 Mbps national minimum 

o   100/50 Mbps to 100 million homes

o   1 Gbps (downstream) to Anchor Institutions

· “Over time these targets will continue to rise”

o   Reevaluate speeds every 4 years

· Close the “broadband availability gap”

o   14 million individuals in 7 million “housing units”

§  50% in RBOC territory (which RBOC’s were claimed to have done a
relatively poor job of broadband deployment)

· $24 billion needed to close the gap by 2020 (mostly accomplished
by USF modifications)

o   Does not include the cost of maintaining “served” areas

· Additional congression

[WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and Small Telecom Provider's

[Rick Harnish]

Yesterday, I attended a conference of primarily Rural ILECs with a focus on
the National Broadband Plan.  It was very interesting to hear another
perspective of the plan other than from the wireless industry.  Below I will
outline some major talking points that were discussed.  The first speaker
was from NECA (National Exchange Carrier’s Association).  He started out the
conversation by saying “The National Broadband Plan is a bad plan for Rural
ILECs and Small telecommunication providers”

 

Later in the program, I had a chance to introduce myself and WISPA.  Someone
asked the question, “What can we do to proactively voice our concerns”.  I
recommended that small trade associations break down the barriers when
common interests are at stake.  It is essential that partnering between
associations will give NPRM/NOI comments more credibility and a greater
likelihood be successful.  Partnering may also lower lobbying and legal
costs which WILL BE substantial in the next few years.  My prediction is
that many small trade associations will exhaust all capital required to
effectively lobby to protect their particular industry interests and will
cease to exist.  It is important that STA’s search for efficient methods to
reach satisfactory conclusions.  STA’s must seek full support from their
industry participants and in many cases, raise dues to meet the lobbying
demand which is already on the table.  It is also essential that cooperative
lobbying efforts be adopted between associations to conserve funding.

 

Someone asked me who I thought was behind the National Broadband Plan.
Having been a participant representing WISPA at the National Broadband
Coalition meetings, it became apparent to me that Washington lobbyists and
attorneys have the most to gain by creating conflict and rewriting telecom
rules.  Do we need a strategic plan?  Absolutely!   Do we need everything
that has been proposed?  Absolutely NOT!  From my perspective, this proposed
plan is very two-faced.  While proponents say they want to promote
competition, it appears that small competition will be forced out of
business.  The devil is in the details.

 

We can succeed but we need nearly total cooperation from all WISPs.  

We need to build our membership base substantially over the next few months.


We need to seek out new Association partners. 

We need to improve our Broadband speeds

We need to continue to lobby for more usable spectrum and use it efficiently

We need to continue to push manufacturers to improve performance, speed and
capacity

We need to better promote our industry and its capabilities

We need to be less “selfish” with our hard-earned revenues as insurance to
protect our businesses from over regulation by supporting our trade
association

We need to be more proactive instead of reactive.

We need to complain less and be more constructive.  In fighting will get us
nowhere.  

We need to reach out to neighboring WISPs in your state or area and promote
the need to support WISPA

 

The time is now, there is little time to waste.  We either stand up and be
recognized or we will begin to die a slow and painful death.  I’m an
optimist by nature and I struggle to write these realities, but they need to
be said.

 

Below is an outline of the speech from yesterday.

 

National Broadband Plan Overview:

· “The NBP is a strategic plan; it is not a series of rules”  Carol
Mattey, Deputy Bureau Chief, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau.

· Numerous NPRMs forthcoming (60 are proposed in the next twelve
months)

 

National Broadband Plan Goals:

· Promote world leading mobile broadband

· Foster competition and maximize benefits

· Advance and secure public safety communications

· Increase Broadband access and adoption

o   Introduces recommendations to reform federal USF programs and the ICC
system

· Speed Goals (by 2020)  (Actual throughput between the customer and
the closest Internet Gateway)

o   4/1 Mbps national minimum 

o   100/50 Mbps to 100 million homes

o   1 Gbps (downstream) to Anchor Institutions

· “Over time these targets will continue to rise”

o   Reevaluate speeds every 4 years

· Close the “broadband availability gap”

o   14 million individuals in 7 million “housing units”

§  50% in RBOC territory (which RBOC’s were claimed to have done a
relatively poor job of broadband deployment)

· $24 billion needed to close the gap by 2020 (mostly accomplished
by USF modifications)

o   Does not include the cost of maintaining “served” areas

· Additional congressional support suggested

 

National Broadband Plan Time Frame

· Implement USF and ICC reforms over 10 years in three stages

o   Stage 1 (2010-2011) – Mapping – data gathering, rulemaking, limited
implementation (Heavy reliance on data gathering so educated decisions can
be made)

o   Stage 2 (2012-2016) – Most reforms begin

o   Stage 3 (2017-2020) –Complete transit

Re: [WISPA] FiberTower for backhauling ?

[Tom DeReggi]

Actually, to more fair, I should state...
Fibertower owns and leases spectrum (24/39Ghz) as well as selling backhaul 
bandwidth. I would think they'd lease spectrum to anyone that was willing to 
pay for it.
I was assuming you were asking about backhaul bandwidth.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Unger" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:05 AM
Subject: [WISPA] FiberTower for backhauling ?


> Does anyone use FiberTower for backhauling?
>
> jack
>
> -- 
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities 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/

[WISPA] New in Box SolecTek Skyway Excel P2P for sale

[Cameron Kilton]

http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=swexcel&page=feat

Brand new complete link without antennas. This is the connectorized version.

Make an offer offlist if you are interested.

-Cameron



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] FiberTower for backhauling ?

[Tom DeReggi]

Why do you ask?

Im not saying anyone hasn't, but I have heard they have turned away 
providing service to some WISPs. They cater to large carrier and telecom.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Unger" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:05 AM
Subject: [WISPA] FiberTower for backhauling ?


> Does anyone use FiberTower for backhauling?
>
> jack
>
> -- 
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities 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] Bandwidth

[D. Ryan Spott]

What do your trends show you?

Take your yearly graph and draw a line along the averages. Extend this
line what does it do?

ryan

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:54 AM, RickG  wrote:

> When you peak at 65-75 percent its probably time to add more. It
> depends on how fast your filling it up and how long it takes to
> implement the new capacity.
> -RickG
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Jeremie Chism  wrote:
> > At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more
> > capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
> > looking for suggestions.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > 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/
>



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] Bandwidth

[RickG]

When you peak at 65-75 percent its probably time to add more. It
depends on how fast your filling it up and how long it takes to
implement the new capacity.
-RickG

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Jeremie Chism  wrote:
> At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more
> capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just
> looking for suggestions.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> 
> 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/

[WISPA] Bandwidth

[Jeremie Chism]

At what percentage of your backbone usage do you look at adding more  
capacity. At peak times I run at 65-70 percent of capacity.  Just  
looking for suggestions.

Sent from my iPhone



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/