Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[RickG]

Charles, I know that you are aware of this but it's worth repeating - there
is a huge difference between regulated telephone companys and unregulated
ISP's. As I'm sure you are also well aware of - the phone cos get lots of
subsidy money, ISP's dont. So why compare them?

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Charles N Wyble
wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/20/2010 06:52 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > At 12/20/2010 07:56 PM, Jeromie wrote:
> >> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
> >> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
> >> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
> >> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
> >> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
> >> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
> >> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
> >> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
> >> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
> >> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
> >> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
> >> wake up and go pickup the kids.
> >
> > That's what I asked for too, separation of the ILEC services into
> > wholesale lower layers and multiple providers of unregulated upper
> > layers.
>
>
> You do realize that regulation and government action is required for
> that to happen. I thought you didn't want any regulation at all?
>
> Doesn't work.
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNEEBxAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAtrB0P/RDCbBPr/+S7Bfg3zLITvKku
> i5j86w30KhbU32ZgL2XJg5kzlOIMBXi42LvFF8cAj7ZLrvqh5czZhWPbmJkyJtUZ
> zMgxXwC6ERao3esZEEEaso8XqPMbAmua3y3qrX3UCFC5ZDyhH+flkyLUlD7IYWcj
> OKpzg4sqTnys44fAO/EZSnabfOmlhvRSu+OxZp7O5POZWHHtQEOJLGuSJ/c8lEk0
> yYObpBaFzd3yCi6HeDCpjym/9HA6qRXwv8U1zlR9VNf7h/mUoSFffWfxcjtxDecB
> IrbLUQfnNRTGASNIH5jWzwm4i0aPdJ0qjHa105XHw9UnlFEnYrVXMatFw8qt2KDr
> ZZKkU/pE8IEIC0rJt+azpSVatnpxQwNb9xHg+PnexDcJlhoYPSdofbUcgUcp++Jy
> aBWUuGw3/7W5wow/nzayEXGnpMJk9Tv7PmPLb7Z36uACEvH13qTSx/q/QNOHVBhp
> HAga2QpiAUK54aJYC5e/zV6VDR58xjYB8ggjpGn8YwgcjPnrprSkw3TBGXX56wfZ
> ckjZYGFUiFc9NmLWW5BZgJOPSvOSXF/g6wGnILpObdD6AnxMIkrJxOYfTRfuWm6e
> yotQ22mHZWhin7zPJ4xLQxqUx901MudQjfZSekHNdmuEVMziG2EJ4nVOh9dD640/
> EOV4S3uf+uum21uRHqKG
> =sN91
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
>
> 
> 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/
>



-- 
-RickG



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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Charles N Wyble]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 12/20/2010 04:56 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
> wake up and go pickup the kids.


Um.

so you want the big guys to have to play by certain rules (be dumb
pipes) but you wouldn't have to play by those rules as a small player?

Why shouldn't that regulation be applied to wisps as well? Why shouldn't
you have to share spectrum?

Let's realize we are all in this together and come up with workable
solutions. Let's be partners with the ISPs and not make it us vs them.

.

I have been doing a lot of thinking about how to make packet movement
(in particular backhaul) somewhat more fair. I already discussed peering
on the list in recent days.

Have folks been following the NBN rollout in Australlia? It leaves a
certain amount of rough edges on the implementation specifics (see the
AUSNOG mailing list archives for several very detailed discussions).
However it's a national l2 network. Pretty cool stuff.

See I'm a layer3 and above guy, and have targeted very specific areas
for my wireless deployment (currently in 4 locations in the greater
la/oc area). I'm deploying an advertising network and giving internet
access away. I'm going into areas that don't have a lot of existing
wifi, running heavily localized advertising driven hotspots. So I don't
have spectrum issues.

However I face the same problems as many wisps at layer3 and above
(namely getting bandwidth at a good price where I need it).

So what would folks like to see? Would you like to see a layer1/2
"natural monopolie" run as a municipal utility, that would run an open
access/co-op fiber network?

How many here participated in the broadband forum meetings that were
held prior to the Obama election? How many people here reached out to
those folks and requested exactly this? I know I did (I went to the Los
Angeles meeting).

Don't get mad, get even!!!

Hmmm... the above was a bit rambling... looks like rough pieces of a
mind map for a blog post. :)

Things to think about anyway.









> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
>> No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It
>> is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial exemption".
>>
>> I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.
>>
>> As far as I’m concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will damn
>> well NOT comply.
>>
>> And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken to
>> stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't know
>> when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
>> government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=hM4B
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Charles N Wyble]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 12/20/2010 06:52 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 12/20/2010 07:56 PM, Jeromie wrote:
>> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
>> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
>> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
>> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
>> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
>> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
>> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
>> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
>> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
>> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
>> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
>> wake up and go pickup the kids.
> 
> That's what I asked for too, separation of the ILEC services into 
> wholesale lower layers and multiple providers of unregulated upper 
> layers. 


You do realize that regulation and government action is required for
that to happen. I thought you didn't want any regulation at all?

Doesn't work.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=sN91
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[RickG]

Faisal, with all due respect, (and you know I do) - Mark is right. We are
not phone companys. We are PRIVATE, independent companys
with volunteer subscribers. Are you saying we have already lost? The fact
that we are even having to have this conversation in "the land of the free"
is sad.
BTW: I dont read Mark's post as a tantrum. It's hard for anyone to comment
on negative news in a positive light.
P.S. It looks like Bell fared well against governmetn lawsuits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:

>  'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into
> your life... this kind of stress is not good...
>
> Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to
> regulate the Phone Company !
>
> Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for
> the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to
> regulate it...
>
> Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility !
> (Electricity ?) ...
>
> Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in
> position to make the rules, just play by them...or not !
>
> Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make
> a difference...
>
> :)
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet&  Telecom
>
> On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote:
> > I am opposed to ALL aspects, period.   Nothing is broken such that it
> needs
> > the atomic bomb of government to fix it.
> >
> > This is a fix in desperate search of a "broken" and the closest thing to
> a
> > "broken" they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the
> first
> > place.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ++
> > Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> > 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> > ++
> >
> > --
> > From: "Jeromie Reeves"
> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM
> > To: "WISPA General List"
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
> >
> >> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
> >> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
> >> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
> >> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
> >> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
> >> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
> >> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
> >> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
> >> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
> >> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
> >> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
> >> wake up and go pickup the kids.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
> >>> No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.
> >>> It
> >>> is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial
> >>> exemption".
> >>>
> >>> I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for
> this.
> >>>
> >>> As far as I’m concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will
> >>> damn
> >>> well NOT comply.
> >>>
> >>> And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken
> to
> >>> stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't
> know
> >>> when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
> >>> government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ++
> >>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> >>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> >>> ++
> >>> From: Joe Fiero
> >>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM
> >>> To: 'WISPA General List'
> >>> Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
> >>>
> >>> It’s good to see all our efforts pay off.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55
> >>>
> >>> WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
> >>> Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
> >>> content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their
> >>> networks,
> >>> senior agency officials said Monday.
> >>>
> >>> Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns
> >>> with
> >>> the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this
> >>> month,
> >>> but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are
> >>> expected
> >>> to vote in favor of the rules.
> >>>
> >>> Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but
> allowing
> >>> Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers
> >>> based
> >>> on Internet usage.
> >>>
> >>> The rules would be more fle

Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Mike Hammett]

I'd have to agree with Mark.  Its my network, my money.  Get the hell 
out. When I accept government money or protections, sure, tell me what 
to do.  Otherwise...

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 12/20/2010 8:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into
> your life... this kind of stress is not good...
>
> Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to
> regulate the Phone Company !
>
> Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for
> the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to
> regulate it...
>
> Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility !
> (Electricity ?) ...
>
> Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in
> position to make the rules, just play by them...or not !
>
> Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make
> a difference...
>
> :)
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet&   Telecom
>
> On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote:
>> I am opposed to ALL aspects, period.   Nothing is broken such that it needs
>> the atomic bomb of government to fix it.
>>
>> This is a fix in desperate search of a "broken" and the closest thing to a
>> "broken" they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first
>> place.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ++
>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>> ++
>>
>> --
>> From: "Jeromie Reeves"
>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List"
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>>
>>> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
>>> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
>>> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
>>> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
>>> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
>>> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
>>> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
>>> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
>>> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
>>> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
>>> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
>>> wake up and go pickup the kids.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK   wrote:
 No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.
 It
 is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial
 exemption".

 I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.

 As far as I’m concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will
 damn
 well NOT comply.

 And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken to
 stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't know
 when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
 government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.



 ++
 Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
 ++
 From: Joe Fiero
 Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

 It’s good to see all our efforts pay off.







 REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55

 WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
 Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
 content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their
 networks,
 senior agency officials said Monday.

 Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns
 with
 the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this
 month,
 but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are
 expected
 to vote in favor of the rules.

 Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing
 Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers
 based
 on Internet usage.

 The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said
 in
 a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of
 development than terrestrial Internet service.







 

 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http:

Re: [WISPA] Internet Backbone

[Mike Hammett]

Multiple 10 Gig.  Cogent has no less than 8 of them everywhere.  Some 
carriers, some routes, I'd say no less than 150 Gig.  Some  have 
multiple 40 gig channels.  Within a year, it'll be multiple 100Gig.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 12/20/2010 2:51 PM, Matt wrote:
> Question out of curiosity.  What does Tier1 carrier have for bandwidth
> between a couple major cities?  Say between Chicago and St. Louis?
> How many Gigabit typically?  I know it likely varies and there will be
> multiple routes but I was looking for an educated guesstimate.  I
> imagine there would need to be a good deal of surplus to cover any
> fiber cuts requiring them to route around.
>
>
> 
> 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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/20/2010 08:36 PM, MDK wrote:
>I am opposed to ALL aspects, period.   Nothing is broken such that it needs
>the atomic bomb of government to fix it.
>
>This is a fix in desperate search of a "broken" and the closest thing to a
>"broken" they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first
>place.

Well, no, what IS PROFOUNDLY BROKEN is that the ILECs are no longer 
required to be common carriers.  They built their network using 
common carrier privileges.  They got their market share using common 
carrier privileges.  And then they turned  around and got their 
common carrier obligations lifted by the profoundly corrupt 
Cheney-Rove FCC.  So now they control the content on their wires, and 
you can't lease them.  That's just wrong.  And the Genachowski FCC 
isn't doing squat about that, though they absolutely have the power 
to do so.  We do need a national common carrier utility.  There is a 
clear distinction between carriage and content. ISPs are content, not 
carriage.  And WISPs are self-provisioned ISPs who deliver content 
over unlicensed facilities without using a carrier, and without being one.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/20/2010 07:56 PM, Jeromie wrote:
>While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
>wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
>like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
>with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
>forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
>have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
>everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
>with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
>1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
>not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
>is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
>wake up and go pickup the kids.

That's what I asked for too, separation of the ILEC services into 
wholesale lower layers and multiple providers of unregulated upper 
layers.  But the FCC is more likely to attempt, without statutory 
authority, to regulate all ISPs' layer 7 offerings, with exemptions 
for CMRS and maybe some leeway on a case-by-case basis for 
WISPs.  But since they lack authority over Part 15 content, they 
probably can't act.  The rule exists to allow the ILEC to attack its 
competitors, not to protect consumers.



>On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
> > No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the 
> power.It
> > is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial exemption".
> >
> > I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will damn
> > well NOT comply.
> >
> > And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken to
> > stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't know
> > when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
> > government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.
> >
> >
> >
> > ++
> > Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> > 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> > ++
> > From: Joe Fiero
> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM
> > To: 'WISPA General List'
> > Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
> >
> > It's good to see all our efforts pay off.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55
> >
> > WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
> > Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
> > content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks,
> > senior agency officials said Monday.
> >
> > Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with
> > the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month,
> > but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and 
> are expected
> > to vote in favor of the rules.
> >
> > Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing
> > Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based
> > on Internet usage.
> >
> > The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, 
> Genachowski said in
> > a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of
> > development than terrestrial Internet service.
> >
> >

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/20/2010 07:30 PM, MDK wrote:
No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the 
power.It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get 
"partial exemption".


I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.

As far as I'm concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I 
will damn well NOT comply.


And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too 
chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, 
apparently.   I don't know when people forgot that according to the 
Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get 
off, not the other way around.




I repeat advice I mentioned once before (on 12/11).  Stop identifying 
your service as simply "Internet service".  Define your service as 
"online differentiated data services with managed Internet access", 
and invite those who want a pure ISP to go elsewhere (yeah, 
right).  Since you are not licensed, and not holding yourself out as 
a carrier, you can offer whatever you want.  (Warning: IANAL.)


I also expect the FCC's policy to be enjoined promptly and overturned 
slowly. It is a political game.


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Faisal Imtiaz]

  'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into 
your life... this kind of stress is not good...

Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to 
regulate the Phone Company !

Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for 
the general population... the Gov. (anywhere in the world) will start to 
regulate it...

Don't be surprised if tomorrow's Internet, gets to be like a utility ! 
(Electricity ?) ...

Get a grip, you don't have to like the rules, but realize you are not in 
position to make the rules, just play by them...or not !

Don't like it.. go do something else... Throwing tantrums will not make 
a difference...

:)


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom

On 12/20/2010 8:36 PM, MDK wrote:
> I am opposed to ALL aspects, period.   Nothing is broken such that it needs
> the atomic bomb of government to fix it.
>
> This is a fix in desperate search of a "broken" and the closest thing to a
> "broken" they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first
> place.
>
>
>
>
> ++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++
>
> --
> From: "Jeromie Reeves"
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>
>> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
>> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
>> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
>> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
>> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
>> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
>> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
>> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
>> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
>> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
>> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
>> wake up and go pickup the kids.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
>>> No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.
>>> It
>>> is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial
>>> exemption".
>>>
>>> I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.
>>>
>>> As far as I’m concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will
>>> damn
>>> well NOT comply.
>>>
>>> And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken to
>>> stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't know
>>> when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
>>> government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ++
>>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>>> ++
>>> From: Joe Fiero
>>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM
>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>>>
>>> It’s good to see all our efforts pay off.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55
>>>
>>> WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
>>> Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
>>> content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their
>>> networks,
>>> senior agency officials said Monday.
>>>
>>> Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns
>>> with
>>> the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this
>>> month,
>>> but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are
>>> expected
>>> to vote in favor of the rules.
>>>
>>> Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing
>>> Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers
>>> based
>>> on Internet usage.
>>>
>>> The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said
>>> in
>>> a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of
>>> development than terrestrial Internet service.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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:

Re: [WISPA] Internet Backbone

[Tom DeReggi]

Tier1 providers between cities... 40-80GB.

Once long haul dark fiber is purchased, why limit it, when the tier1 can 
just put in the biggest optical router offered.

The larger reseller blended transit providers serving colos typically are 
buying 10GB connections, and breaking them up..

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Matt" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:51 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Internet Backbone


> Question out of curiosity.  What does Tier1 carrier have for bandwidth
> between a couple major cities?  Say between Chicago and St. Louis?
> How many Gigabit typically?  I know it likely varies and there will be
> multiple routes but I was looking for an educated guesstimate.  I
> imagine there would need to be a good deal of surplus to cover any
> fiber cuts requiring them to route around.
>
>
> 
> 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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

I am opposed to ALL aspects, period.   Nothing is broken such that it needs 
the atomic bomb of government to fix it.

This is a fix in desperate search of a "broken" and the closest thing to a 
"broken" they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first 
place.




++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: "Jeromie Reeves" 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:56 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

> While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
> wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
> like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
> with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
> forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
> have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
> everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
> with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
> 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
> not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
> is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
> wake up and go pickup the kids.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
>> No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power. 
>> It
>> is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial 
>> exemption".
>>
>> I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.
>>
>> As far as I’m concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will 
>> damn
>> well NOT comply.
>>
>> And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken to
>> stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't know
>> when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
>> government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.
>>
>>
>>
>> ++
>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>> ++
>> From: Joe Fiero
>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM
>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>> Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>>
>> It’s good to see all our efforts pay off.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55
>>
>> WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
>> Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
>> content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their 
>> networks,
>> senior agency officials said Monday.
>>
>> Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns 
>> with
>> the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this 
>> month,
>> but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are 
>> expected
>> to vote in favor of the rules.
>>
>> Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing
>> Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers 
>> based
>> on Internet usage.
>>
>> The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said 
>> in
>> a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of
>> development than terrestrial Internet service.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> 
>> 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/

Re: [WISPA] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Scott Carullo]

Yeah, external filters are not an option for me.  They are going to work 
or...

The Trango and Radwin equipment may have a chance.  I'm not really giving 
the UBNT stuff a chance at all.  Am I being too pessimistic?  Its the 
ethernet I've had the most problems with in the past, not the radios 
receivers

Scott Carullo
Technical Operations
855-FLSPEED x102



From: "Bob Moldashel" 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:39 PM
To: wa4...@arrl.net, "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

Filtering is pretty moot when you consider they are in plastic housings 
with no significant shielding  :-)

-B-

On 12/20/2010 6:31 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:
> On 12/20/2010 05:56 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
>> There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and 
a
>> separation distance of 100 yards. Remember the inverse-square law - RF 
intensity
>> decreases as the SQUARE of the separation distance. 100 yards is 300 
feet and 20
>> feet goes into 300 feet 15 times so the RF intensity at 100 yards is the 
inverse
>> of 15 squared (15X15) or the inverse of 225. Inverting 225 means that 
the
>> intensity at 100 yards is only 1/225th as much as at 20 feet. Scott's 
equipment
>> is going to be exposed to 225 times greater RF energy than yours so his
>> equipment is likely to be overloaded with receiver de-sensitization 
while your
>> equipment may be OK.
>>
>> The solution is to "do everything right" as Scott says. The 11 GHz 
equipment is
>> likely so far away from the FM and TV frequencies that it is probably 
OK. The
>> solution for 2.4 and 5 GHz is use proper bandpass filters between the 
antennas
>> and the equipment then test to see if the receivers seem to have full
>> sensitivity or not.
>>
> Jack is 100% correct. Remember these radios do not have much filtering
> in the front-ends so you have to make up for it with external 
accessories.
>
> Leon
>> jack
>>
>>
>> On 12/20/2010 2:34 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
>>
 On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:

> Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away
> and dealt with it decently.
>
> Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get 
a
> 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW
> channel 39 I think.
>
> Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power antennas?
> Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment work int his RF
> environment?  Assume I did everything right (grounded metal box,
> shielded cable soldered drain wires, ferrite cores on the cables 
etc...).
>
> Thanks
>
> Scott Carullo
> Technical Operations
> 855-FLSPEED x102
>
>>> We are running 5.8 and 3.65 stuff on towers with 100KW TV systems on 
the
>>> tower located about a 100 yards from us on another tower...no 
problems.
>>> Probably not much difference between 100KW 20 feet or 100 yards apart.
>>>
>
>
> 


> 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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Joe Fiero]

Of course I agree that no regulation would be preferable, but when you see
the train coming and you know you can't stop it, you are glad to find that
you can lie between the tracks and let it pass over you.

 

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of MDK
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 7:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

 

No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It
is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial exemption".  

 

I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.   

 

As far as I'm concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will damn
well NOT comply.   

 

And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken to
stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't know
when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.   

 

 

 

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

 

From: Joe Fiero   

Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM

To: 'WISPA General List'   

Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

 

It's good to see all our efforts pay off.

 

 

 

REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 

WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks,
senior agency officials said Monday. 

Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with
the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month,
but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected
to vote in favor of the rules. 

Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing
Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based
on Internet usage.

The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband
 ,
Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an
earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service.

 

 

 

  _  





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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[St. Louis Broadband]

Yes it is!

 

Victoria Proffer - President/CEO

www.ShowMeBroadband.com

www.StLouisBroadband.com

314-974-5600

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Fiero
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:12 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless

 

It's good to see all our efforts pay off.

 

 

 

REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 

WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks,
senior agency officials said Monday. 

Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with
the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month,
but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected
to vote in favor of the rules. 

Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing
Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based
on Internet usage.

The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband
 ,
Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an
earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service.

 

 

 




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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Jeromie Reeves]

While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must
have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for
everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network)
with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer
1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed
not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that
is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to
wake up and go pickup the kids.



On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK  wrote:
> No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.    It
> is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial exemption".
>
> I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.
>
> As far as I’m concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will damn
> well NOT comply.
>
> And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken to
> stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't know
> when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the
> government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around.
>
>
>
> ++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++
> From: Joe Fiero
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
>
> It’s good to see all our efforts pay off.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55
>
> WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
> Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
> content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks,
> senior agency officials said Monday.
>
> Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with
> the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month,
> but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected
> to vote in favor of the rules.
>
> Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing
> Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based
> on Internet usage.
>
> The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in
> a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of
> development than terrestrial Internet service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> 
> 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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[MDK]

No, we LOST.   You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It is 
not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial exemption".  

I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.   

As far as I'm concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will damn well 
NOT comply.   

And if we all did that.  They'd just give up.   But we're too chicken to stand 
up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently.   I don't know when people 
forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do 
and where to get off, not the other way around.   



++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++


From: Joe Fiero 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless


It's good to see all our efforts pay off.

 

 

 

REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 

WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt 
Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful 
content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, 
senior agency officials said Monday. 

Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the 
proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but 
senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to 
vote in favor of the rules. 

Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing 
Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on 
Internet usage.

The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a 
previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of 
development than terrestrial Internet service.

 

 

 









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] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Bob Moldashel]

Filtering is pretty moot when you consider they are in plastic housings 
with no significant shielding  :-)

-B-




On 12/20/2010 6:31 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:
> On 12/20/2010 05:56 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
>> There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and a
>> separation distance of 100 yards. Remember the inverse-square law - RF 
>> intensity
>> decreases as the SQUARE of the separation distance. 100 yards is 300 feet 
>> and 20
>> feet goes into 300 feet 15 times so the RF intensity at 100 yards is the 
>> inverse
>> of 15 squared (15X15) or the inverse of 225. Inverting 225 means that the
>> intensity at 100 yards is only 1/225th as much as at 20 feet. Scott's 
>> equipment
>> is going to be exposed to 225 times greater RF energy than yours so his
>> equipment is likely to be overloaded with receiver de-sensitization while 
>> your
>> equipment may be OK.
>>
>> The solution is to "do everything right" as Scott says. The 11 GHz equipment 
>> is
>> likely so far away from the FM and TV frequencies that it is probably OK. The
>> solution for 2.4 and 5 GHz is use proper bandpass filters between the 
>> antennas
>> and the equipment then test to see if the receivers seem to have full
>> sensitivity or not.
>>
> Jack is 100% correct. Remember these radios do not have much filtering
> in the front-ends so you have to make up for it with external accessories.
>
> Leon
>> jack
>>
>>
>> On 12/20/2010 2:34 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
>>
 On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:

> Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away
> and dealt with it decently.
>
> Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a
> 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW
> channel 39 I think.
>
> Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power antennas?
> Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment work int his RF
> environment?  Assume I did everything right (grounded metal box,
> shielded cable soldered drain wires, ferrite cores on the cables etc...).
>
> Thanks
>
> Scott Carullo
> Technical Operations
> 855-FLSPEED x102
>
>>> We are running 5.8 and 3.65 stuff on towers with 100KW TV systems on the
>>> tower located about a 100 yards from us on another tower...no problems.
>>> Probably not much difference between 100KW 20 feet or 100 yards apart.
>>>
>
>
> 
> 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] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Jeremie Chism]

I have an fm antenna (low power) on the tower where I am at at about 35 feet 
above me and I have a CPE on an FM backup antenna with no problems. This is 
Axxcelera 3.65 wimax. Shielded cable with good grounds. No need for ferrite 
beads so far. 

Sent from my iPhone4

On Dec 20, 2010, at 5:31 PM, "Leon D. Zetekoff"  
wrote:

> On 12/20/2010 05:56 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
>> There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and a 
>> separation distance of 100 yards. Remember the inverse-square law - RF 
>> intensity 
>> decreases as the SQUARE of the separation distance. 100 yards is 300 feet 
>> and 20 
>> feet goes into 300 feet 15 times so the RF intensity at 100 yards is the 
>> inverse 
>> of 15 squared (15X15) or the inverse of 225. Inverting 225 means that the 
>> intensity at 100 yards is only 1/225th as much as at 20 feet. Scott's 
>> equipment 
>> is going to be exposed to 225 times greater RF energy than yours so his 
>> equipment is likely to be overloaded with receiver de-sensitization while 
>> your 
>> equipment may be OK.
>> 
>> The solution is to "do everything right" as Scott says. The 11 GHz equipment 
>> is 
>> likely so far away from the FM and TV frequencies that it is probably OK. 
>> The 
>> solution for 2.4 and 5 GHz is use proper bandpass filters between the 
>> antennas 
>> and the equipment then test to see if the receivers seem to have full 
>> sensitivity or not.
>> 
> Jack is 100% correct. Remember these radios do not have much filtering
> in the front-ends so you have to make up for it with external accessories.
> 
> Leon
>> jack
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/20/2010 2:34 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
>> 
 On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
 
> Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away
> and dealt with it decently.
> 
> Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a
> 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW
> channel 39 I think.
> 
> Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power antennas?
> Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment work int his RF
> environment?  Assume I did everything right (grounded metal box,
> shielded cable soldered drain wires, ferrite cores on the cables etc...).
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Scott Carullo
> Technical Operations
> 855-FLSPEED x102
> 
>>> We are running 5.8 and 3.65 stuff on towers with 100KW TV systems on the
>>> tower located about a 100 yards from us on another tower...no problems.
>>> Probably not much difference between 100KW 20 feet or 100 yards apart.
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 12/20/2010 05:56 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
> There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and a 
> separation distance of 100 yards. Remember the inverse-square law - RF 
> intensity 
> decreases as the SQUARE of the separation distance. 100 yards is 300 feet and 
> 20 
> feet goes into 300 feet 15 times so the RF intensity at 100 yards is the 
> inverse 
> of 15 squared (15X15) or the inverse of 225. Inverting 225 means that the 
> intensity at 100 yards is only 1/225th as much as at 20 feet. Scott's 
> equipment 
> is going to be exposed to 225 times greater RF energy than yours so his 
> equipment is likely to be overloaded with receiver de-sensitization while 
> your 
> equipment may be OK.
>
> The solution is to "do everything right" as Scott says. The 11 GHz equipment 
> is 
> likely so far away from the FM and TV frequencies that it is probably OK. The 
> solution for 2.4 and 5 GHz is use proper bandpass filters between the 
> antennas 
> and the equipment then test to see if the receivers seem to have full 
> sensitivity or not.
>   
Jack is 100% correct. Remember these radios do not have much filtering
in the front-ends so you have to make up for it with external accessories.

Leon
> jack
>
>
> On 12/20/2010 2:34 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
>   
>>> On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
>>>   
 Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away
 and dealt with it decently.

 Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a
 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW
 channel 39 I think.

 Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power antennas?
 Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment work int his RF
 environment?  Assume I did everything right (grounded metal box,
 shielded cable soldered drain wires, ferrite cores on the cables etc...).

 Thanks

 Scott Carullo
 Technical Operations
 855-FLSPEED x102
 
>> We are running 5.8 and 3.65 stuff on towers with 100KW TV systems on the
>> tower located about a 100 yards from us on another tower...no problems.
>> Probably not much difference between 100KW 20 feet or 100 yards apart.
>> 




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] FCC to Vote on Internet Regulation Plan

[Cliff LeBoeuf]

I know everyone here monitors FOX... ;-)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/20/fcc-vote-internet-regulation-plan
-despite-economic-warnings/





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] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Bret Clark]

True...good advice.

On 12/20/2010 05:56 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
> There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and a
> separation distance of 100 yards. Remember the inverse-square law - RF 
> intensity
> decreases as the SQUARE of the separation distance. 100 yards is 300 feet and 
> 20
> feet goes into 300 feet 15 times so the RF intensity at 100 yards is the 
> inverse
> of 15 squared (15X15) or the inverse of 225. Inverting 225 means that the
> intensity at 100 yards is only 1/225th as much as at 20 feet. Scott's 
> equipment
> is going to be exposed to 225 times greater RF energy than yours so his
> equipment is likely to be overloaded with receiver de-sensitization while your
> equipment may be OK.
>
> The solution is to "do everything right" as Scott says. The 11 GHz equipment 
> is
> likely so far away from the FM and TV frequencies that it is probably OK. The
> solution for 2.4 and 5 GHz is use proper bandpass filters between the antennas
> and the equipment then test to see if the receivers seem to have full
> sensitivity or not.
>
> jack
>
>
> On 12/20/2010 2:34 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
>
>>> On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
>>>
 Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away
 and dealt with it decently.

 Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a
 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW
 channel 39 I think.

 Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power antennas?
 Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment work int his RF
 environment?  Assume I did everything right (grounded metal box,
 shielded cable soldered drain wires, ferrite cores on the cables etc...).

 Thanks

 Scott Carullo
 Technical Operations
 855-FLSPEED x102
  
>> We are running 5.8 and 3.65 stuff on towers with 100KW TV systems on the
>> tower located about a 100 yards from us on another tower...no problems.
>> Probably not much difference between 100KW 20 feet or 100 yards apart.
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Jack Unger]

There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and a 
separation distance of 100 yards. Remember the inverse-square law - RF 
intensity 
decreases as the SQUARE of the separation distance. 100 yards is 300 feet and 
20 
feet goes into 300 feet 15 times so the RF intensity at 100 yards is the 
inverse 
of 15 squared (15X15) or the inverse of 225. Inverting 225 means that the 
intensity at 100 yards is only 1/225th as much as at 20 feet. Scott's equipment 
is going to be exposed to 225 times greater RF energy than yours so his 
equipment is likely to be overloaded with receiver de-sensitization while your 
equipment may be OK.

The solution is to "do everything right" as Scott says. The 11 GHz equipment is 
likely so far away from the FM and TV frequencies that it is probably OK. The 
solution for 2.4 and 5 GHz is use proper bandpass filters between the antennas 
and the equipment then test to see if the receivers seem to have full 
sensitivity or not.

jack


On 12/20/2010 2:34 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
>> On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
>>> Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away
>>> and dealt with it decently.
>>>
>>> Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a
>>> 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW
>>> channel 39 I think.
>>>
>>> Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power antennas?
>>> Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment work int his RF
>>> environment?  Assume I did everything right (grounded metal box,
>>> shielded cable soldered drain wires, ferrite cores on the cables etc...).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Scott Carullo
>>> Technical Operations
>>> 855-FLSPEED x102
>
> We are running 5.8 and 3.65 stuff on towers with 100KW TV systems on the
> tower located about a 100 yards from us on another tower...no problems.
> Probably not much difference between 100KW 20 feet or 100 yards apart.
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the WISP, 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] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Bret Clark]

>
> On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away 
>> and dealt with it decently.
>>
>> Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a 
>> 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW 
>> channel 39 I think.
>>
>> Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power antennas?  
>> Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment work int his RF 
>> environment?  Assume I did everything right (grounded metal box, 
>> shielded cable soldered drain wires, ferrite cores on the cables etc...).
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Scott Carullo
>> Technical Operations
>> 855-FLSPEED x102


We are running 5.8 and 3.65 stuff on towers with 100KW TV systems on the 
tower located about a 100 yards from us on another tower...no problems. 
Probably not much difference between 100KW 20 feet or 100 yards apart.




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] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Scott Carullo]

2 Trango 11Ghz Apex's
3 Ubiquiti Rocket M5 sectors
3 Ubiquiti Rocket M2 sectors
1 Nanostation M5
3 Rocket M5s with 34db dishes
2 Radwin 2000C's 

Scott Carullo
Technical Operations
855-FLSPEED x102



From: "Jack Unger" 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:47 PM
To: sc...@brevardwireless.com, "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

What gear are you running?

On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:

Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet
away and dealt with it decently.  

Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to
get a 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at
700KW channel 39 I think.

Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power
antennas?  Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment
work int his RF environment?  Assume I did everything right
(grounded metal box, shielded cable soldered drain wires,
ferrite cores on the cables etc...).

Thanks

Scott Carullo
Technical Operations
855-FLSPEED 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/


-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the WISP, 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] Flexible rules promised for wireless

[Joe Fiero]

It's good to see all our efforts pay off.

 

 

 

REUTERS  updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 

WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks,
senior agency officials said Monday. 

Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with
the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month,
but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected
to vote in favor of the rules. 

Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing
Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based
on Internet usage.

The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband
 ,
Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an
earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service.

 

 

 




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] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Jack Unger]

  
  
What gear are you running?

On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:

Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet
away and dealt with it decently.  

Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to
get a 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at
700KW channel 39 I think.

Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power
antennas?  Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment
work int his RF environment?  Assume I did everything right
(grounded metal box, shielded cable soldered drain wires,
ferrite cores on the cables etc...).

Thanks

Scott Carullo
  Technical Operations
  855-FLSPEED 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/


-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the WISP, 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] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Scott Carullo]

Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away and 
dealt with it decently.  

Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a 100KW 
20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW channel 39 I 
think.

Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power antennas?  Am I 
screwed or will I be able to have my equipment work int his RF environment? 
 Assume I did everything right (grounded metal box, shielded cable soldered 
drain wires, ferrite cores on the cables etc...).

Thanks

Scott Carullo
Technical Operations
855-FLSPEED 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/

Re: [WISPA] Internet Backbone

[Jeremy Parr]

On 20 December 2010 15:51, Matt  wrote:

> Question out of curiosity.  What does Tier1 carrier have for bandwidth
> between a couple major cities?  Say between Chicago and St. Louis?
> How many Gigabit typically?  I know it likely varies and there will be
> multiple routes but I was looking for an educated guesstimate.  I
> imagine there would need to be a good deal of surplus to cover any
> fiber cuts requiring them to route around.
>

Lots of 10GigE circuits being deployed these days. Fast and cheap.



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] Internet Backbone

[Ross Feezer]

OC 192?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Matt 
Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:51:15 
To: WISPA General List
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Subject: [WISPA] Internet Backbone

Question out of curiosity.  What does Tier1 carrier have for bandwidth
between a couple major cities?  Say between Chicago and St. Louis?
How many Gigabit typically?  I know it likely varies and there will be
multiple routes but I was looking for an educated guesstimate.  I
imagine there would need to be a good deal of surplus to cover any
fiber cuts requiring them to route around.



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] Internet Backbone

[Matt]

Question out of curiosity.  What does Tier1 carrier have for bandwidth
between a couple major cities?  Say between Chicago and St. Louis?
How many Gigabit typically?  I know it likely varies and there will be
multiple routes but I was looking for an educated guesstimate.  I
imagine there would need to be a good deal of surplus to cover any
fiber cuts requiring them to route around.



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/