Re: [WISPA] mounting bracket for power supply
This is not quite right. Mine all run the battery charge voltage higher than the set voltage. The battery voltage is not settable. On 10/31/2011 4:05 PM, Kristian Hoffmann wrote: On 10/31/2011 12:23 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: That looks like a better solution then the DR-UPS40 and SDR-120-24 that you recommended earlier. Is it? Does it charge the batteries and will it feed the equipment from the batteries when AC power is out? The AD-155 will charge the batteries to whatever you set output voltage to. By default, it's set to 24.0V (on the B model) so your batteries will never fully charge. You have to set it to whatever you choose for your float voltage (like 27.6V) to get a full charge. On AC power loss, the output remains tied to the batteries and will power your equipment (unregulated) until the batteries are nearly fully discharged. A variable LVD would be nice, but it does completely shut down once the batteries have hit the low mark, instead of cycling on/off as you battery turns to mush. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Tom: I understand your position that we should respect authority, but there's also the fact that sometimes, you have to stand up to people who are not supposed to be doing what they're doing, even when in government office. As far as it goes, I have nothing to lose, really. While the business is self sustaining, and makes me a small profit, I have never been in this bad of shape in my life. 10 months ago, the wife was injured at work, 4 months ago, the injury, though treated and investigated, reached the point she could no longer work. The workmen's comp insurer decided to try to duck any responsibility, and now lawyers are dragging them kicking and fighting all the way, but it's going to take months to get this done, with endless hearings and legal dodging and gamesmanship. Even when or if we win (and we should) it means many more months of surgery, recovery, therapy. At this point, we're down to our last few bucks, I don't make enough to pay even the rent+utilities+cell phones. So, if they want to try to squeeze me for money... bring it on, I got nuttin, honey. They just can't hurt me anymore than we've been hurt, so, I got nothing to lose. And further, I'm fighting mad. Just one more authority showing up with a big stick saying work for me for nothing, you slave! ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 2:54 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality At the end of the day it boils down to whether its justified for a WISP to risk going to court. Admittedly, any government industry can cause a private company a lot of pain, if they want to, if you challenge them. That is not something someone should consider doing, lightly. With that said sometimes one must take a stand to defend their rights and what they believe in. Even if not cost effective for their own good, if its for the good of their industry. Just like BrandX, eventually someone had to step up to take it to trial, win or loose. If a WISP was put in a position that they had to go to court, I bet that other third party groups would be willing to assist fund the battle behind the scenes. I'm not talking just other WISPs. I'm talking about other big money companies that couldn't risk a netneutrality loss on the court record, documenting presidence. My opinion is that it would not be wise for the federal enforcement agencies to target small organizations to challenge their rulemaking in court. One, It would be a media/publicity nightmare. Such as FCC puts small business out of business. Two, It would be embaressing, and make FCC look weak. Bully FCC picks on the little guy. Three, Small WISPs would gain more sympathee from Juries than Big money Telcos. In my opinion the FCC rule making is not legal. Atleast not for those that aren't telecom act defined regulated carriers. And in my opinion, a WISP could simply refuse to comply, and demand that the FCC obtain a court order to back their claim of authority. If the FCC came knocking on my door to enforce an alledged NetNeutrality issue, I would fight it. I think the disclosure portion is the one good part of the FCC rulemaking. For that reason, I plan to comply with the disclosure portion, just because it makes good sense to do it anyway. Not to mention it would be just plain stupid not to comply to such an easy request, which would be almost like requesting a challenge, not to cooperate on such an easy request. Plus, not disclosing info could open up a WISP to legal issues covered by laws not related to NetNeutrality, such as truth in advertising. Disclosure should be vague, so not to self inciminate more than necessary. But as far as complying to the other rules of NetNeutrality, I am going to operate my network the way I want to, and I'm not going to change that, unless I'm forced to. Please note, in general I respect the FCC's authority, and my viewpoint stated herein is strictly relating to NetNeutrality. Hopefully, I as well as other WISPs will operate their networks fairly, so this issue never has to come up. So many issues could be defended by reasonable network mangement, to defend oneself without the need for court. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tony Iacopi t...@razzolink.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi there, Unfortunately I would love to agree with Matt and the fact that I paid for the network so I should be able to do what I want with it, however, the way it is currently written, if you provide internet service (which I believe we all
Re: [WISPA] Neighbor Sharing Internet
I don't do anything. I will do tech support ONLY for the paying person, and won't respond to complaints of slow or anything else. Am I losing money? Mulitple perspectives; 1. I've got a customer that pays a bill. 2. if I prohibit it, there's probably not much chance they'll all sign up. 3. I have no data use tracking anymore, so I don't know who's doing what. 4. I know if the one paying the bill leaves, that the other(s) will immediately call and re-up in another name. Potentially lost revenue isn't lost... It's just what you don't have. If we fret ourselves into a stroke over potentially lost, life would be hell. As it is, I have bigger fish to fry and more pressing issues at hand. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 9:56 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Neighbor Sharing Internet What do you do when you find out that a customer is using a wireless router to share Internet with neighbor and splitting the bill? I am sure there are quite a few doing this but when they out right tell you about it when on a tech call is rare. It is against our TOS. What do others do? 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] Neighbor Sharing Internet
It's not fretting myself over potentially lost revenue. It is a customer breaking the acceptable use policy. If you don't have a problem with customers sharing internet by all means don't list that as unacceptable use, your network, your rules. For me I see it as leaving money on the table. It is listed as not allowed in my acceptable use policy and if I find it occurring I remind the customer that sharing internet with neighbors is not allowed and offer to help them secure the network. I spin it as you don't want them 'stealing' your internet, and you don't want them dragging down your speed. If they say they know about it and condone it I remind them again that it is against policy and if it continues I will have to disconnect them. If someone can get something for free, pay half price or pay full price, 11 times out of 10 they will go with free. Will I gain customer #2? Sometimes. Will I lose customer #1? Sometimes, but if don't do anything I will never gain customer #2 and it negatively impacts my network as I now have more resources used and I gain no additional revenue. It also sets the precedent that the acceptable use policy does not need to be adhered to. On 11/1/11 12:38 PM, MDK wrote: I don't do anything. I will do tech support ONLY for the paying person, and won't respond to complaints of slow or anything else. Am I losing money? Mulitple perspectives; 1. I've got a customer that pays a bill. 2. if I prohibit it, there's probably not much chance they'll all sign up. 3. I have no data use tracking anymore, so I don't know who's doing what. 4. I know if the one paying the bill leaves, that the other(s) will immediately call and re-up in another name. Potentially lost revenue isn't lost... It's just what you don't have. If we fret ourselves into a stroke over potentially lost, life would be hell. As it is, I have bigger fish to fry and more pressing issues at hand. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Mattlm7...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 9:56 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Neighbor Sharing Internet What do you do when you find out that a customer is using a wireless router to share Internet with neighbor and splitting the bill? I am sure there are quite a few doing this but when they out right tell you about it when on a tech call is rare. It is against our TOS. What do others do? 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] Net Neutrality
Monday morning I got a phone call from a 202 number and answered it. The name sounded vaguely familiar, but he finally identified himself as the assistant to my congressman. Ahh, now I know why I recognize the name. Been in politics around here for many years. State and federal. Thursday or Friday, I stumbled across a news story of my US Rep praising the FCC's changes to USF, which, from descriptions, look bad for me and most of us, as it involves subsidizing rural wireless (insert cellular for wireless and you get the gist) I was ticked as you can imagine, because he's literally from a small town where WISP's play a signficant role in broadband availablity. Well, I guess I must have used the right combination of words, because he (the assistant to my US Rep) wanted to know what it was I thought. Well, we had 20 minute conversation, where I explained that we as an industry are often the only viable operators for small niche areas where it simply is impossible to string wires or bury cables or whatever, in a cost effective manner (and he knows precisely what I mean, he drives the same roads and knows the same places I do), and now, someone's going to apply to get USF money to come and build right out over us, with subsidized funding. He didn't disagree with that assessment, btw, and asked what I thought should be done. Abolish, of course. In his view, the term of life for continual subsidy of rural telecom via USF has been abruptly shortened, and, they're at least talking about ending any continuous subsidy for anyone. Of course, they can't end USF, because Congress made it law, but ending it is certainly an option in House, he implied. Further, we've reached the point where much of rural broadband is hampered by beaurocratic obstruction as much as anything else. the need to use public land, or telephone pole access, or power pole access, federal land use, and numerous other expensive and complicated matters. I explained that it has traditionally been that people with great skill for beaurocracy get the money, but rarely seem to have great skill at getting customers happy and resourceful at accomplishing the technical challenges. That subsidy causes business models to be built on it, rather than sustainable competitive operations. That we need the markets open to being able to enter the phone, tv, and internet business with whatever the appropriate technology, without endless hurdles in our way. No idea if it did any good, but at least one person, who is at the top of the issues that matter to us in the house, got some input from the ground level. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ 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] Neighbor Sharing Internet
My customer agreement on acceptable use says interfering with proper operation of the network and abuse of bandwidth and breaking the laws of the land as matters that get my attention. It's simple and has yet to be a matter of any contention with any customer. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:51 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Neighbor Sharing Internet It's not fretting myself over potentially lost revenue. It is a customer breaking the acceptable use policy. If you don't have a problem with customers sharing internet by all means don't list that as unacceptable use, your network, your rules. For me I see it as leaving money on the table. It is listed as not allowed in my acceptable use policy and if I find it occurring I remind the customer that sharing internet with neighbors is not allowed and offer to help them secure the network. I spin it as you don't want them 'stealing' your internet, and you don't want them dragging down your speed. If they say they know about it and condone it I remind them again that it is against policy and if it continues I will have to disconnect them. If someone can get something for free, pay half price or pay full price, 11 times out of 10 they will go with free. Will I gain customer #2? Sometimes. Will I lose customer #1? Sometimes, but if don't do anything I will never gain customer #2 and it negatively impacts my network as I now have more resources used and I gain no additional revenue. It also sets the precedent that the acceptable use policy does not need to be adhered to. On 11/1/11 12:38 PM, MDK wrote: I don't do anything. I will do tech support ONLY for the paying person, and won't respond to complaints of slow or anything else. Am I losing money? Mulitple perspectives; 1. I've got a customer that pays a bill. 2. if I prohibit it, there's probably not much chance they'll all sign up. 3. I have no data use tracking anymore, so I don't know who's doing what. 4. I know if the one paying the bill leaves, that the other(s) will immediately call and re-up in another name. Potentially lost revenue isn't lost... It's just what you don't have. If we fret ourselves into a stroke over potentially lost, life would be hell. As it is, I have bigger fish to fry and more pressing issues at hand. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Mattlm7...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 9:56 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Neighbor Sharing Internet What do you do when you find out that a customer is using a wireless router to share Internet with neighbor and splitting the bill? I am sure there are quite a few doing this but when they out right tell you about it when on a tech call is rare. It is against our TOS. What do others do? 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] Net Neutrality, in this case USF
Nice job! You said most of our talking points on this, I only wish all Congress would remember where they come from and give their WISP a call, maybe more members could do what you did and initiate the call to get the dialogue started. While USF is outside of Congress the FCC sure listens to them so it never hurts to educate Legislators to what the lobbyists for our competition fails to do, Fixed Wireless is a major player. Thanks, Forbes On 11/1/2011 10:56 AM, MDK wrote: Monday morning I got a phone call from a 202 number and answered it. The name sounded vaguely familiar, but he finally identified himself as the assistant to my congressman. Ahh, now I know why I recognize the name. Been in politics around here for many years. State and federal. Thursday or Friday, I stumbled across a news story of my US Rep praising the FCC's changes to USF, which, from descriptions, look bad for me and most of us, as it involves subsidizing rural wireless (insert cellular for wireless and you get the gist) I was ticked as you can imagine, because he's literally from a small town where WISP's play a signficant role in broadband availablity. Well, I guess I must have used the right combination of words, because he (the assistant to my US Rep) wanted to know what it was I thought. Well, we had 20 minute conversation, where I explained that we as an industry are often the only viable operators for small niche areas where it simply is impossible to string wires or bury cables or whatever, in a cost effective manner (and he knows precisely what I mean, he drives the same roads and knows the same places I do), and now, someone's going to apply to get USF money to come and build right out over us, with subsidized funding. He didn't disagree with that assessment, btw, and asked what I thought should be done. Abolish, of course. In his view, the term of life for continual subsidy of rural telecom via USF has been abruptly shortened, and, they're at least talking about ending any continuous subsidy for anyone. Of course, they can't end USF, because Congress made it law, but ending it is certainly an option in House, he implied. Further, we've reached the point where much of rural broadband is hampered by beaurocratic obstruction as much as anything else. the need to use public land, or telephone pole access, or power pole access, federal land use, and numerous other expensive and complicated matters. I explained that it has traditionally been that people with great skill for beaurocracy get the money, but rarely seem to have great skill at getting customers happy and resourceful at accomplishing the technical challenges. That subsidy causes business models to be built on it, rather than sustainable competitive operations. That we need the markets open to being able to enter the phone, tv, and internet business with whatever the appropriate technology, without endless hurdles in our way. No idea if it did any good, but at least one person, who is at the top of the issues that matter to us in the house, got some input from the ground level. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ 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/ - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4589 - Release Date: 11/01/11 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] Neighbor Sharing Internet
Can you service those other customers? If not, it opens up an opportunity for yet another revenue stream. We call it the network neighborhood. We all have areas which can't be serviced, and the amount of households do not justify putting up your own equipment. This is where you get the neighbors together and have them foot the bill for a small tower and some radios. We have successfully done this many times now with various ISPs. Either way your customer is in violation in some for or another of most AUP's. Instead of firing the customer turn it into a positive if possible, especially if you can't service the other customer. Justin -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net Aol Yahoo IM: j2sw http://www.mtin.net/blog xISP News http://www.twitter.com/j2sw Follow me on Twitter 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's proposed Remote Areas Fund
I've been following the FCC's Intercarrier Compensation and Universal Service dockets for over a decade now, and have filed a heap of Comments on them. So naturally when an Order comes out, I pay a lot of attention. Usually I send a memo about it to my clients. However, while the FCC adopted an Order last Thursday, they haven't released the Order itself yet! This isn't unprecedented, but is unusual. In 2003, they adopted the Triennial Review Order in February and only finished the text in August. The adoption of the order was fake, to meet a deadline; they fought over it for months. Then it was remanded, and they fought over it some more. I hope this one doesn't take so long. Rumor is that it's about done, so I don't know why it isn't out yet. They did release an Executive Summary, which basically leaves a lot of details to the actual Order. But this one paragraph struck me as interesting to WISPs: 14. Remote Areas Fund. We allocate at least $100 million per year to ensure that Americans living in the most remote areas in the nation, where the cost of deploying traditional terrestrial broadband networks is extremely high, can obtain affordable access through alternative technology platforms, including satellite and unlicensed wireless services.3 We propose in the FNPRM a structure and operational details for that mechanism, including the form of support, eligible geographic areas and providers, and public interest obligations. We expect to finalize the Remote Areas Fund in 2012 with implementation in 2013. The FNPRM means further rulemaking is being opened for Comment; it's not decided yet. Since they're talking about unlicensed wireless, WISPs might be able to play. They will however have to become Eligible. Wireline LECs usually get their ETC status from states, while wireless carriers can get it from the FCC. It's not clear how hard it will be for WISPs to get ETC status. It's not a big fund, and it only applies to really remote areas, but it might be useful for some of this group. So let's see what is in the Order. -- 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] mounting bracket for power supply
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 06:15 -0400, Scott Reed wrote: This is not quite right. Mine all run the battery charge voltage higher than the set voltage. The battery voltage is not settable. Okay, I'm confusing it with the DR series then. Thanks for the clarification. -Kristian WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Glad to hear someone up there in DC is listening. Did you happen to mention anything about our need of access to TVWS? Scriv On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Monday morning I got a phone call from a 202 number and answered it. The name sounded vaguely familiar, but he finally identified himself as the assistant to my congressman. Ahh, now I know why I recognize the name. Been in politics around here for many years. State and federal. Thursday or Friday, I stumbled across a news story of my US Rep praising the FCC's changes to USF, which, from descriptions, look bad for me and most of us, as it involves subsidizing rural wireless (insert cellular for wireless and you get the gist) I was ticked as you can imagine, because he's literally from a small town where WISP's play a signficant role in broadband availablity. Well, I guess I must have used the right combination of words, because he (the assistant to my US Rep) wanted to know what it was I thought. Well, we had 20 minute conversation, where I explained that we as an industry are often the only viable operators for small niche areas where it simply is impossible to string wires or bury cables or whatever, in a cost effective manner (and he knows precisely what I mean, he drives the same roads and knows the same places I do), and now, someone's going to apply to get USF money to come and build right out over us, with subsidized funding. He didn't disagree with that assessment, btw, and asked what I thought should be done. Abolish, of course. In his view, the term of life for continual subsidy of rural telecom via USF has been abruptly shortened, and, they're at least talking about ending any continuous subsidy for anyone. Of course, they can't end USF, because Congress made it law, but ending it is certainly an option in House, he implied. Further, we've reached the point where much of rural broadband is hampered by beaurocratic obstruction as much as anything else. the need to use public land, or telephone pole access, or power pole access, federal land use, and numerous other expensive and complicated matters. I explained that it has traditionally been that people with great skill for beaurocracy get the money, but rarely seem to have great skill at getting customers happy and resourceful at accomplishing the technical challenges. That subsidy causes business models to be built on it, rather than sustainable competitive operations. That we need the markets open to being able to enter the phone, tv, and internet business with whatever the appropriate technology, without endless hurdles in our way. No idea if it did any good, but at least one person, who is at the top of the issues that matter to us in the house, got some input from the ground level. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ 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/
