Re: [WISPA] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?
Inline On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 6/20/2010 12:32 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: You know your stuff in-side out, hands down there is no argument about that :) Thanks. :-) Getting back to your original quest... You are going to find the following:- The non-licensed wireless world is not as mature as the wire line world... think of today's wire less world being what the wire line world used to be about 10 -15 years back. Most of what you are citing from the Ethernet World, only became available and in common use in the last 10 years or so... before that, everyone was happy doing conversions from TDM ...(speaking loosely). In the wireless world of today, especially what folks here deal with, have some set outer boundaries ... a few of these are things like... performance, based on standard(s) , LOW COST, small in power consumption, etc etc... It is different... in particular, the WISP community knocks a few zeroes off of the allowable costs. I like that... you can put up a node for what your basic Bell would pay for a jumper cable or the like. This is the only way to make service affordable in small clusters, like 50/node. The FCC-blessed approach, in contrast, is to have a rural ILEC spend $20k+ per subscriber to pull glass or hybrid fiber-copper to the neighborhood, and charge the rest of the country for it via the USF. In this case we're in the outskirts of an ATT exchange, so there's no USF for them, and thus no service beyond dial tone. In the wireline world, we look at Vyatta as this super-low-cost alternative to that company that rhymes with Crisco. Here, Vyatta is that high-end alternative to a Latvian import. Those other guys, the ones that basically control the IETF, don't play. I like that too... My opinion is that the major work that is done on routing / network hardware by the companies with deep pockets is also done for companies with deep pockets. So, what you get is stuff designed to solve national problems, not small town needs Internet, and then, if needed, is just scaled down--with varying degrees of success. It's not just a matter of wireless running 10 years behind wireline--wireless really doesn't have anyone with deep pockets addressing these sorts of issues. Large-scale mesh from hard-core networking companies doesn't exist: the major service providers that do wireless pretty much all universally backhaul over wireline and avoid these issues. Unless the trajectory changes, I'd say that these issues aren't on a path to ever being solved, let alone inside of 10 years ;). So, it's probably a matter of roll your own or push back on the wireless vendors (Ubiquiti, Mikrotek), although I'm sure that they run on ridiculously thin margins and would need enough of a coalition to convince them that they could see any ROI by bringing this to maturity; it's also complicated by the fact that a lot of the vendors core expertise is RF, not IP. For what it's worth Fred, I somewhat disagreed with your assertion of IP is just another layer two protocol that made in a previous post. In the end, the power of IP is in its hierarchical nature which lets you summarize, which is critical to the amount of processing that it takes to process network decisions on a network of non-trivial size. That said, as long as you route, not bridge customers onto your mesh network, then the mesh network itself will remain small enough that layer two is perfectly reasonable. If you do HMWPplus, then I'd assume that you'd at some point need to scale by splitting mesh into multiple meshes; OLSRD is probably going to handle a large number of nodes more gracefully. However, as has been pointed out, having link-quality information as part of the routing decision is critical and, in the end, it is a lot more elegant to put that on layer two than on layer 3 like OLSRD does. You nailed a fundamental problem which is the lack of any sort of carrier / metro Ethernet style setup. For most traditional wireline vendors in this space, there are two basic components to making this work--classes of services / QOS (router side) and then the provisioning system which actually knows what's provisioned and what the remaining capacity on various spans is. The missing piece in this puzzle for wireless is the provisioning system, although the algorithms for doing route/bandwidth capacity calculations in a many-to-many mesh architecture are non-trivial to develop, to say the least. If you limited yourself to a ring-architecture, it would be much more doable. ... BTW, Aaron Kaplan was trying to say, in not too many words.. that most of the mesh networks which have utilized the traditional Wireline protocols, (weather they are single frequency or not) have the usual problem .(most wireline protocols are not concerned with link quality...), and this is the reason why they developed the OSLR ... which takes link quality into account as well when making
Re: [WISPA] Urgently need 2 Zx SFP's
Some switches don't work well with copper SFPs because they draw more power. On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Brad Belton b...@belwave.com wrote: To be a bit more specific, we haven't had any issues with our generic fiber SX, LX and ZX SFPs, but the copper GigE SFPs do not seem to work. It's rare we use a copper SFP, but thought I'd clarify further. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Urgently need 2 Zx SFP's Brad: That is interesting... you should mention Dell 6248's... these are the exact units that I am not having luck with the generic SFP's... Gino: Not to step on WISPA Vendor Member's toes.. but these folks may be able to ship ... http://www.fo4all.com/index.html Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 5/25/2010 3:53 PM, Brad Belton wrote: Our Dell 6248s seem to be ok with generic SFPs. I guess YMMV and exactly what generic SFP you source. BTW Gino, I checked our source and he's out of ZX right now. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Urgently need 2 Zx SFP's I guess what Dennis is asking For What Equipment you want these SFP.. Even though they are supposed to be a 'Standard'...but they tend not to 'inter-operate'. e.g. Dell Switches do no like generic SFP's. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 5/25/2010 3:39 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: 1000 base ZX, LC connectors Note, ZX spec is 70km Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Urgently need 2 Zx SFP's We stock SFPs. Specifics? --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Trainer, MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCUME Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List; motor...@afmug.com Subject: [WISPA] Urgently need 2 Zx SFP's Anyone can ship them today? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] T1 pci card
In a word: don't. T1s are incredibly dependent upon timing, and due to technical issues, PCs don't really do this well. They generally work but are typically plagued by lockups / higher error rates than traditional TDM hardware. On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Jason Wallace supp...@azii.net wrote: Anyone know where (if?) I can get a PCI card to connect to a T1 for less than the $400 or so I have found on my own? I'd like to Integrate some of my equipment and eliminate a cisco 2610 that's really doing nothing but converting my T1 to an ethernet port. It's no worth $400 to do this however... Jason 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] 8 Fiber Port Managed Switch
Unless space is a major issue, it is usually much more economical to get a copper managed switch and use media converters to go from copper to fiber. -Clint Ricker On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, can...@believewireless.net p...@believewireless.net wrote: Anyone know of an affordable 8 port managed switch that has 8 fiber ports? 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] 8 Fiber Port Managed Switch
Also, if this is for use for customers, a side benefit is that the the media converter on the CPE end can be used as a good demarc point from which you can do some basic monitoring. This is a fairly common practice for companies doing metro Ethernet offerings. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com wrote: Unless space is a major issue, it is usually much more economical to get a copper managed switch and use media converters to go from copper to fiber. -Clint Ricker On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, can...@believewireless.net p...@believewireless.net wrote: Anyone know of an affordable 8 port managed switch that has 8 fiber ports? 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] IPTV -- Anyone doing it?
You can roll your own middleware until you have to deal with encryption. Most IPTV settop boxes are provisioned via bootp to push out the OS and the channel maps, so it is a trivial matter to provision a STB on your own. Encryption, however, complicates matters a lot and, as Jayson mentioned, even if you could roll your own, it doesn't matter the networks require specific platform and aren't going to trust home-grown solutions. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM, jree...@18-30chat.net jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: Jayson Baker wrote: Echostar's IPTV product is different from DISH Network's wholesale/resellable service. DISH cannot cross ROW's. Echo IPTV can, it was designed to do just that. Middleware was something I wasn't too heavily involved in, to be honest with you. But I do know your IPTV STB won't run without it. Take a look at Minerva - great middleware. You must use an approved middleware to get hooked up with the big boys like Disney -- they want to ensure that only people you sell their picture to are able to get it (i.e. encrypted, with a middleware controlling encryption and access). etc. etc. etc. Bah! Now see that kills the Roku's and other STB's like them. I wonder how they deal with netflix/hulu on xbox/ps3 On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:56 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: Jayson Baker wrote: Building the headend isn't that difficult, you're right. Ours was actually pretty simple. We used multi-channel satellite receivers; each tuned 32 channels I think. It had an ASI output. Thats more channels then I am even really looking to start will, unless I can find a 'prepackaged' setup with more. We'd take the ASI stream, and run it into an ASI-input PCI card. Each card took 4 ASI streams, and was about $1000 each. Linux software on the server pulled each channel out of the ASI and converted it to MPEG 4. Cheap, easy, simple. They'd put out a multicast stream, which our network took and pushed out the fiber ring. We even had it going down some wireless links, so I could get it at my house 20 miles away. The money in the headend comes in when you by the middleware -- this you cannot just roll your own Middleware handles billing, authentication, licenses, guide, etc. I must be missing something. It seams to me that billing and authentication are simple and can be handled by the system that I pretty much have in place now. I am not sure what licenses such software would need to deal with. A guide is pretty easy too, unless there is some form of 'Intellectual Property' BS going on with rolling your own guide capabilities. Making deals with companies to rebroadcast their channels is going to be another major hurdle. Unless you are big (i.e. have $$$) don't think you'll be carrying anything in the Disney/ESPN/ABC family. And forget about HBO. You'll need a fancy (i.e. $$$) lawyer who has been down this road before to negotiate these deals. When we set ours up, we hired a lawyer away from Comcast. After everything was in place, he went on to other things. Yea thats what I figured. Echostar has an IPTV solution, you may want to look into that. AFAIK, you pay them for everything, and they handle it all. Their feed, their headend, their encoders, their middleware, their STB's. One nice thing about that is it's the same DISH Network interface a lot of satellite users are already used to. What I have looked into with them is they have a may not cross public right of way clause making is useless for anything except MDU's, or is that only with dish network label setups? Will check it out. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: Thats the problem, if I had 50K sitting around for gear, I would not be putting it into TV (well, maybe I would be, but more BW, more towers, faster clients, etc come to mind sooner). I can build a head end for far far less then that, If I stuck to the free channels or made my won deals with each channel. There are 1000's (well, close) of free to air channels out there. Some even give explicit permission to rebroadcast the channel, as long as you notify them etc. I was hoping to find a place that would let me purchase channels X, Y, and Z, etc. The locals are easy enough to deal with. So, Looks like I will need to do my own head end, no biggie over all. Who do I talk to about licensing? I knwo some channels are direct, some are not. Is there a list? And, can a person who already has a license sub-license to me? Like MDU style? I know Charter does that, if you have enough people (IE I suspect enough money) If I could sublet off of a existing licensee and do my own IP transport, that would work out pretty well. Anyone have a license contract they can share? (most
Re: [WISPA] IPTV -- Anyone doing it?
Most of the processing stuff can be done on Linux with VLC and/or FFMpeg (for IP to ASI conversion, transcoding/transrating, etc...) -Clint Ricker On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Blake Covarrubias bl...@beamspeed.comwrote: We're operate a small cable TV company in a minor section of our service area and carry about 55 channels which includes most of the major networks. We're interested in deploying IPTV. What middleware software would you recommend? You mentioned you used Linux in your headend environment. Can you elaborate on that setup, such as the software you were using to convert the channels to IP Multicast, set-top boxes being used, software providing channel guides, etc etc? Thanks. -- Blake Covarrubias On Nov 9, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Jayson Baker wrote: Building the headend isn't that difficult, you're right. Ours was actually pretty simple. We used multi-channel satellite receivers; each tuned 32 channels I think. It had an ASI output. We'd take the ASI stream, and run it into an ASI-input PCI card. Each card took 4 ASI streams, and was about $1000 each. Linux software on the server pulled each channel out of the ASI and converted it to MPEG 4. Cheap, easy, simple. They'd put out a multicast stream, which our network took and pushed out the fiber ring. We even had it going down some wireless links, so I could get it at my house 20 miles away. The money in the headend comes in when you by the middleware -- this you cannot just roll your own Middleware handles billing, authentication, licenses, guide, etc. Making deals with companies to rebroadcast their channels is going to be another major hurdle. Unless you are big (i.e. have $$$) don't think you'll be carrying anything in the Disney/ESPN/ABC family. And forget about HBO. You'll need a fancy (i.e. $$$) lawyer who has been down this road before to negotiate these deals. When we set ours up, we hired a lawyer away from Comcast. After everything was in place, he went on to other things. Echostar has an IPTV solution, you may want to look into that. AFAIK, you pay them for everything, and they handle it all. Their feed, their headend, their encoders, their middleware, their STB's. One nice thing about that is it's the same DISH Network interface a lot of satellite users are already used to. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: Thats the problem, if I had 50K sitting around for gear, I would not be putting it into TV (well, maybe I would be, but more BW, more towers, faster clients, etc come to mind sooner). I can build a head end for far far less then that, If I stuck to the free channels or made my won deals with each channel. There are 1000's (well, close) of free to air channels out there. Some even give explicit permission to rebroadcast the channel, as long as you notify them etc. I was hoping to find a place that would let me purchase channels X, Y, and Z, etc. The locals are easy enough to deal with. So, Looks like I will need to do my own head end, no biggie over all. Who do I talk to about licensing? I knwo some channels are direct, some are not. Is there a list? And, can a person who already has a license sub-license to me? Like MDU style? I know Charter does that, if you have enough people (IE I suspect enough money) If I could sublet off of a existing licensee and do my own IP transport, that would work out pretty well. Anyone have a license contract they can share? (most seam to have some NDA stuffs) can...@believewireless.net wrote: When we looked into Avail Media, it was a $500,000 investment to start if I remember correctly. (Headend, set top boxes, etc.) On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote: Have a look at Avail Media. We used them in the past for an FTTH project I was involved in. They will provide you the headend, and satellite feeds from their super-headend (aggregator). They work with the networks and it makes licensing and such a little easier. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:44 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: I have been looking at some IPTV options and basically, there does not seam to be a whole lot of options. I can A) build my own IP headend B) nada . I can not find a single IPTV provider that truly caters to the resident, soho, etc. There is one that does so for huge cable op's but thats not where I am at, yet =) I can build my own head end no problem. Licensing is the primary issues there. I am guessing that is what is stopping the explosion of retail IPTV and instead pushing the more a la carte IP video streamers like NetFlix, HuLu, et al. So, what options exist for IPTV ? WISPA
Re: [WISPA] IPTV -- Anyone doing it?
If you're skeptical about putting $50k into IPTV, you probably need to be looking elsewhere. Even rolling your own, it can easily run you more than that. Satellite receivers are expensive. ASI to IP conversion is expensive. The likely upgrades to your network to handle the increased load is expensive. Then there's the problem that wireless gear and IPTV don't mix very well. Even all the matters of jitter / QOS aside that require some effort to get VoIP over wireless working well, most APs deployed today just don't have the throughput. You're basically talking about sustaining a 2Mbps stream (for mpeg4 SD stream) or, if you try to do HD, 10Mbps for each STB downstream of your access point. Most of the wireless gear in the market breaks down very quickly under that sort of load. On the other hand, if you're talking MDUs, wireless can handle the backhaul to a wired network without an issue. -Clint On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: Thats the problem, if I had 50K sitting around for gear, I would not be putting it into TV (well, maybe I would be, but more BW, more towers, faster clients, etc come to mind sooner). I can build a head end for far far less then that, If I stuck to the free channels or made my won deals with each channel. There are 1000's (well, close) of free to air channels out there. Some even give explicit permission to rebroadcast the channel, as long as you notify them etc. I was hoping to find a place that would let me purchase channels X, Y, and Z, etc. The locals are easy enough to deal with. So, Looks like I will need to do my own head end, no biggie over all. Who do I talk to about licensing? I knwo some channels are direct, some are not. Is there a list? And, can a person who already has a license sub-license to me? Like MDU style? I know Charter does that, if you have enough people (IE I suspect enough money) If I could sublet off of a existing licensee and do my own IP transport, that would work out pretty well. Anyone have a license contract they can share? (most seam to have some NDA stuffs) can...@believewireless.net wrote: When we looked into Avail Media, it was a $500,000 investment to start if I remember correctly. (Headend, set top boxes, etc.) On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote: Have a look at Avail Media. We used them in the past for an FTTH project I was involved in. They will provide you the headend, and satellite feeds from their super-headend (aggregator). They work with the networks and it makes licensing and such a little easier. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:44 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: I have been looking at some IPTV options and basically, there does not seam to be a whole lot of options. I can A) build my own IP headend B) nada . I can not find a single IPTV provider that truly caters to the resident, soho, etc. There is one that does so for huge cable op's but thats not where I am at, yet =) I can build my own head end no problem. Licensing is the primary issues there. I am guessing that is what is stopping the explosion of retail IPTV and instead pushing the more a la carte IP video streamers like NetFlix, HuLu, et al. So, what options exist for IPTV ? 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:
Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for CALEA compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal proceedings. However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA information unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a criminal prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some of the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing lawsuit. Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a subpoena or a CALEA request. This is true in cases of copyright enforcement, which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties than a criminal matter. This breach of privacy could also be abused in other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse. -Clint On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: This actually leads to another question: Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider) supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log access, based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what IP address at what point in time... Faisal Imtiaz Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Adam Goodman Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream? On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote: So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the offending customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this. I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for the server delivering copyrighted information. The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs. Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go. Maybe there is an easier way. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick Olsen Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came from, When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the ISP could become the sole person responsible for that unless you can point fingers at a customer. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: os10ru...@gmail.com os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed? Seems like then more of the burden might fall on you. GReg On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote: To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to protect their copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time. -Adam On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: I agree. I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy. I pass it along and forget it. Not my job. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard studio letter. Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any information. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Adam Goodman Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right
I know this is an unpopular stance to take on this list, but what the hey--so are most of my postings. I actually would say this makes economic sense. If we think it is worthwhile to spend thousands of dollars per child per year to provide them an education (yeah, blatant socialism, I know), then a few hundred dollars a year, if that, per household for Internet is a bargain. -Clint Ricker On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.comwrote: My thoughts exactly. A human right. Duh? On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote: Seriously my brain hurts that is so dumb. A human right? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: Thanks for your post Dave. I didn't know this was going on. David Hulsebus wrote: FYI From SANS Newsbites Vol. 11 Num. 82 : Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right --Finland Declares 1Mb Broadband Access a Legal Right (October 14 15, 2009) The Finnish government has enacted a law making 1Mb broadband Internet access a legal right. The law will take effect in July 2010. The country may eventually guarantee its citizens the right to 100Mb broadband connections. Finland's Transport and Communications Ministry spokesperson Laura Vikkonen was quoted as saying that We think [the Internet is] something you cannot live without in modern society. Like banking services or water or electricity, you need an Internet connection. Earlier this year, France declared Internet access to be a human right. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/10/15/finland-makes-broadband-internet-a-legal-right.aspx Dave Hulsebus Portative Technologies, LLC www.portative.com -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com Sent from my Pizzicato PluckString... 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
? On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.comwrote: Tell that to espn. marlon - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Tom, Your hypothetical about Comcast, etc... creating private networks is unfounded and not likely to happen. In the end, it misses the point that the Internet, from a consumer perspective, is NOT bandwidth and has very little to do with the bits and bytes that you shuffle around your network. The Internet IS the edge, it's the applications and users (since so much content is peer-generated these days). Want proof? Block Google and Facebook for 1 day and see how many people care that your service is working :). Do it for a week and see how many customers you retain. Repeat for any of the other apps that your customers use. The balance of power, in terms of customer retention, is on the application providers side, since, from a customer perspective, the apps are Internet. As I recall, the private networks were tried back in the 90s by AOL, etc... they had a user base of millions and lots of premium content (in terms of dollar investment, the best content was on AOL, Compuserv, Prodigy, etc... for a time). It didn't matter, the users overwhelmingly chose the open Internet. Even the WISPA crowd has been more profitable than the guys that chose to do private networks :) Oh, and there's the small detail that every service provider in the nation is running their network over public assets: whether it's on the poles, in the ground, or running over wireless using licensed (leased) or unlicensed spectrum (which isn't quite the same deal, I realize). If they want to run private networks, then they have to do it on land that they own or that they compensate the government for appropriately--current pole attachment rates and so forth are not applicable to companies that are wanting to build out solely private networks. -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html We need to realize and seperate two things... 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of an open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting. 2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the Internet Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology to attempt preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful to consumers and delivery of most common Internet services from competitive Access providers. What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access providers, or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of access providers. There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's biggest advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). NetNeutrality will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can count on that. More so than in past commissions. Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA will need to get actively engaged in Netneutrality lobbying. It will need to be a combined effort between legislative and FCC committees. The Legislative committee will need to fight bills being plannedd to be introducted to congress, and FCC committee will need to fight for WISP rights in soon to come FCC rulemaking. It is my belief that government policy makers are timming their efforts so legislation and FCC rules will come to effect togeather, as legislation is pointing to the FCC to make rules. We can start to lobby legislators now, while bills are government working groups. And possibly there could be public hearings, where we might be able to request participation in them? For FCC, we most likely would need to wait for the Notice of PRoposed Rule making. Allthough ideally, its technically possible to lobby for proposed rules to never get to rule making stage. (although I dont think its likely for that to occur). We are going to need to decide whether we want to fight the core concept all togeather, or fight for details and wording that make the idealisitic views realistic in a way not to harm ISP. I believe we will likely have a better chance of winning our view, if we all togeather fight netneutrality in its entirely, jsut because we'd ahve cable TV and RBOCs endorsement in addition to our WISP view. But the risk there is that we do not protect ourselve from predator practices of monopoly like providers, and we risk loosing altogeather
Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything? The speech details three points along the subject of prioritization. The Julius Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer to section 5. - This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks (blocking / deprioritizing) - or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers’ homes (prioritizing) - During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?) - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to metro Ethernet with QOS) - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.) Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok? Thanks, -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: Right, which is why I phrased it that way. You can't deprioritize anything, but you can prioritize anything (based upon what I've read on this list). They accomplish the same thing, but at face value, one is permissible the other is not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for You'd have to ask the FCC. Seems like it's the opposite side of the same coin. Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 1:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for What's the difference between prioritizing all traditional services above other and deprioritizing the bad ones below other? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:07 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for The FCC has said that you cannot de-prioritize any type of traffic. You have to do it by prioritizing other types of traffic. Jeff ImageStream -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for I read the Fifth as I cannot discriminate - meaning block this but not that. It says nothing about shaping. Jerry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html In addition to the four classic Network neutrality principles, the FCC plans to pursue two more. Quotes from the speech: * The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. * The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. I love the sixth one, but number five gives me the willies. Nope, doesn't matter that BitTorrent users bring your network to its knees, you're not allowed to do anything about it. Please tell me I'm missing something. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
I am all too aware of the weakness of wireless networks in regards to streaming of video. That said, I cannot see how over the top video is a bad thing for independent ISPs, even if wireless technology has to make some progress to handle it. It removes triple play as a competitive advantage for your competitors and hurts them a LOT more than it costs the independent ISPs. If anything, independent ISPs (especially wireline independent ISPs) should be advertising Internet access, includes 10 million channels for FREE and get people to shift the $1,500-$2,000 a year that they are spending on triple play packages over your way. -Clint Ricker On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:06 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: This is imminent. The questions is: whose network? -RickG On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: One thing you can bank on, it WILL take hold. The need for more Bandwidth won't be stopped anytime soon, I believe. Eventually most if not all communications will run over the same network, which if you think about it, all the communications out there seem to touch the internet at least in part. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality For the mainstream ISPs (the big RBOCs and MSOs), their bandwidth costs are very, very low and are a small fraction of their overall costs. However, that statement does ignore the costs of perpetually upgrading their network to handle larger volumes of bandwidth. From a cost perspective, that is the main motivation for the big players to shape traffic. However, even that is small compared to the potential loss of revenue if over the top video takes hold. -Clint On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews I am just waiting for them to say bitcaps are a no no. When you think about it with a bit cap you cannot really use the Internet to completely replace the catv or dish service. Some consumers I am sure are going to say that's not fair and some clueless law makers will likely believe them. I have already heard some 'expert' IT people on blogs brag that bandwidth costs ISP's virtually nothing and the only reason for bitcaps is to prevent competing video services from taking market share. Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
The language of point 3 is targetting heavy users, not applications that may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances. While it seems like a small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked from using bit torrent to download a gutenberg ebook (ie legal small) because my neighbor is doing warez full throttle, 24/7/365? Genachowski specifically alluded to Comcast degrading bit torrent traffic, something that Comcast claimed to be doing for reasons of network management and blocking of illegal content. Waving the illegal content flag is, in my opinion, very short sighted: - Legal video streaming services (hulu, netflix on demand) are rising. These are worse, in a lot of ways, than the bit torrent model since it requires a sustained throughput to provide a usable customer experience. They also often use HTTP or other common protocols. - Bit Torrent itself is trending more legal; major content providers and software companies are using it for legal distribution of content while the illegal content is making its way to other networks that are more secure / private - Last, but certainly not least, content providers are VERY eager to sign up the ISPs as content cops. Once you start down that road, you may very well find yourself as an operator having given away your own safe harbor rights and having the legal obligation to police your network for bad content. In general, it's hard to not see the WISPs taking the side of major MSOs, RBOCs, and content providers as a dangerous game. It's one thing to decide to block bit torrent because it carries a large percentage of illegal content. It's another thing when you have to implement, at your own expense, url / ip filtering, install deep packet inspection hardware (VERY expensive), and other extensive, expensive, and very time consuming process or face repeated and ongoing liability every time some kid on your network wants to duck out on paying 99c for an mp3. The content providers have been pushing for this for years; if ISPs start dancing the same tune to win the right to do some occasional fiddling with some packets, it would likely shift the balance of power. Given that many of the major service providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc...) are also major content providers meaning that the expenses of manditory content filtering carried by the service provider business are offset by potential increases in profitability for the content producing side of the house. You, on the other hand, have nothing to gain here. You thought CALEA was bad? -Clint Ricker On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: Take a look at the third and the fifth bullet points. --C Clint Ricker wrote: Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything? The speech details three points along the subject of prioritization. The Julius Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer to section 5. - This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks (blocking / deprioritizing) - or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes (prioritizing) - During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?) - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to metro Ethernet with QOS) - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.) Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok? Thanks, -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Right, which is why I phrased it that way. You can't deprioritize anything, but you can prioritize anything (based upon what I've read on this list). They accomplish the same thing, but at face value, one is permissible the other is not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for You'd have to ask the FCC. Seems like it's the opposite side of the same coin. Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless
Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
What do you mean by do I think the same things would be happening? I have no love for the FCC under the Bush administration, and I think their actions were either the result of blatant corruption or stupidity. It's hard to look at their regulatory history and not be suspicious of the motivations for such a pro-telco agenda. That said, the competition of the late 90s was largely fake in a lot of ways. One of the fundamental purposes of the Telecom Act of 1996 was to force linesharing as a transitional stage while competitive carriers built out their own networks. Very little last mile buildout by CLECs actually happened--most CLECs just rode Ma Bells lines and were basically just glorified salespeople fronting private label bell products. A lot of money was made through various forms of arbitrage plays--which, given that they sucked a lot of revenue out of the industry without adding any value, weren't good. Unfortunately, this sort of arbitrage mentality still infects a lot of the telecom market. On the other hand, the same arbitrage plays did have the benefit of making dialin PRIs very profitable, making unlimited dialup Internet access feasible and setting the general consumer expectation that Internet should not be metered in the same way as normal telephone calls. I'm not sure what you mean by cable didn't have anything to do with this. The market share, as well as the lack of regulations on the cable companies was one of the main talking points behind getting the Tauzin-Dingell act pushed through Congress. Regardless, I think your general question is would we need forced network neutrality if the provisions of the telecom act of 1996 were still in place to some degree. I think so: - As previously mentioned, no one really pursued last mile buildout except for the MSOs and ILECs. This means that any competition is going to be forced to some degree by regulations. - Eventually, IPTV / triple play would still be the logical evolution of service providers, whether they are ILECs, MSOs, or CLECs. - Once they offer voice / video services, they have every incentive to make sure that competitive services don't perform well on their network. This doesn't change if you go from 2 providers in a zip code to 5, they still have the same incentives. - If CLECs were still viable, then the regular MA trends would have lead to heavy consolidations. and there still wouldn't be that much more competition. - The basic problem that net neutrality solves is that traffic shaping has the potential to fracture the Internet. If application providers need to pay more in general to send content to the Internet, then fine. However, the overhead of requiring application providers to negotiate with each and every network provider in the world to ensure that they have a viable path to the end-consumer essentially kills any innovation from anyone other than the biggest of companies. A standard of sorts is necessary, much in the same way that power companies are regulated to ensure that their voltage is consistent all across the US. Still, I wish the past 8 years of regulatory actions had gone differently. I think business customers, specifically, really got screwed by the last 8 years of regulation: residential Internet access is generally cheap, while millions of small business are still stuck with $700 T1s as their best method for getting on the Internet. Had regulation changes not killed off CLECs and killed line sharing requirements (or, at least cast enough doubt on them to make any investment very questionable), I think CLECs, unrestrained by having a big cash cow of existing T1 customers, would have made that space a lot more interesting. -Clint Ricker On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.comwrote: One question Clint. If you go all the way back to the FCC Computer Inquiries Acts I, II, and III...do you think all the same things would be happening? What if the FCC did not get rid of the enforcement bureau that was handling this? And after that the Tauzin-Dinguall Acts in the late 90's early 2000's? Keep in mind at the time Cable had nothing to do with this. When it comes down to the $$$... The telephone companies were missing out on their own boat ... as to say( back in the days when BBS's became web sites) and VOIP was just a dream. They saw they were missing out and everything since the mid 90's and what the FCC has done has only helped the RBOC's and ILEC's. I can name numerous claims that support this. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:48:53 -0400 The language of point 3 is targetting heavy users, not applications that may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances. While it seems like a small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked from using bit torrent
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
For the mainstream ISPs (the big RBOCs and MSOs), their bandwidth costs are very, very low and are a small fraction of their overall costs. However, that statement does ignore the costs of perpetually upgrading their network to handle larger volumes of bandwidth. From a cost perspective, that is the main motivation for the big players to shape traffic. However, even that is small compared to the potential loss of revenue if over the top video takes hold. -Clint On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews I am just waiting for them to say bitcaps are a no no. When you think about it with a bit cap you cannot really use the Internet to completely replace the catv or dish service. Some consumers I am sure are going to say that's not fair and some clueless law makers will likely believe them. I have already heard some 'expert' IT people on blogs brag that bandwidth costs ISP's virtually nothing and the only reason for bitcaps is to prevent competing video services from taking market share. Matt 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
Tom, Your hypothetical about Comcast, etc... creating private networks is unfounded and not likely to happen. In the end, it misses the point that the Internet, from a consumer perspective, is NOT bandwidth and has very little to do with the bits and bytes that you shuffle around your network. The Internet IS the edge, it's the applications and users (since so much content is peer-generated these days). Want proof? Block Google and Facebook for 1 day and see how many people care that your service is working :). Do it for a week and see how many customers you retain. Repeat for any of the other apps that your customers use. The balance of power, in terms of customer retention, is on the application providers side, since, from a customer perspective, the apps are Internet. As I recall, the private networks were tried back in the 90s by AOL, etc... they had a user base of millions and lots of premium content (in terms of dollar investment, the best content was on AOL, Compuserv, Prodigy, etc... for a time). It didn't matter, the users overwhelmingly chose the open Internet. Even the WISPA crowd has been more profitable than the guys that chose to do private networks :) Oh, and there's the small detail that every service provider in the nation is running their network over public assets: whether it's on the poles, in the ground, or running over wireless using licensed (leased) or unlicensed spectrum (which isn't quite the same deal, I realize). If they want to run private networks, then they have to do it on land that they own or that they compensate the government for appropriately--current pole attachment rates and so forth are not applicable to companies that are wanting to build out solely private networks. -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html We need to realize and seperate two things... 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of an open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting. 2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the Internet Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology to attempt preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful to consumers and delivery of most common Internet services from competitive Access providers. What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access providers, or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of access providers. There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's biggest advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). NetNeutrality will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can count on that. More so than in past commissions. Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA will need to get actively engaged in Netneutrality lobbying. It will need to be a combined effort between legislative and FCC committees. The Legislative committee will need to fight bills being plannedd to be introducted to congress, and FCC committee will need to fight for WISP rights in soon to come FCC rulemaking. It is my belief that government policy makers are timming their efforts so legislation and FCC rules will come to effect togeather, as legislation is pointing to the FCC to make rules. We can start to lobby legislators now, while bills are government working groups. And possibly there could be public hearings, where we might be able to request participation in them? For FCC, we most likely would need to wait for the Notice of PRoposed Rule making. Allthough ideally, its technically possible to lobby for proposed rules to never get to rule making stage. (although I dont think its likely for that to occur). We are going to need to decide whether we want to fight the core concept all togeather, or fight for details and wording that make the idealisitic views realistic in a way not to harm ISP. I believe we will likely have a better chance of winning our view, if we all togeather fight netneutrality in its entirely, jsut because we'd ahve cable TV and RBOCs endorsement in addition to our WISP view. But the risk there is that we do not protect ourselve from predator practices of monopoly like providers, and we risk loosing altogeather, if consumers gain more support than providers do. The risk is that protecting the majority of consumers (cable and RBOC subscribers with 80%+ market share) has greater benefit than protecting the few vulnerable providers (less than 20% market share by small ISPs and WISPs). We need to remind the government that the open Internet originally was a network paid for by the government. In Today's Internet, providers are required to pay for building access
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Then don't run a business that is essential a utility. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: I'm pretty safe with my opinion. Get the hell out of my business, government. BTW: Hulu is owned by ABC, NBC, Fox, and the tech company that came up with it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:23 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP. Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2) Content. Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly. Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There area two (or perhaps more) sides of free speech. 1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is vital. When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the Republicans. When either Democrats or Republicans are in power, I don't want either of them to have the right to keep independent voices from organizing or using the Internet to discuss independent ideas. This is what I mean by protecting and preserving the right to free speech. 2. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE - Currently, we live in a commercialized (possibly an over-commercialized) world. When many journalists write about Network Neutrality they could care less about protecting the political side of free speech. All they focus on is the commercial side of Content - for example Service and Content Provider A is blocking the services of Content Provider B. To me, this is a Restraint of Trade issue rather than a political Free Speech issue but it still falls under the heading of Content and is therefore addressed by NN. Should NN address the commercial side of Content?? Yes, I think it's appropriate that it does. Should one Content and Service provider be allowed to prohibit or unfairly delay the services of another Content provider who is using their network?? No, I don't think so. Every service provider should be required to carry the content of every other content or service provider equally, without restriction AS
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Err, I don't think this summary is accurate. The focus is on net neutrality for applications, regardless of protocol. Considering how often the FCC has referenced VOIP, including Skype (which does use P2P technology), in these discussions, on and off the record, the FCC isn't looking just to make sure that both CNN and Fox News get speedy delivery times. They are looking to make sure that over the top services of all sorts are viable and aren't blocked by the service provider for competitive reasons. This really shouldn't be a problem for service providers. For the past several years, the FCC has been publicizing the standpoint that they are not going to allow discrimination on an application. They have never said that you can't shape on a _per user_ basis. If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. If that isn't the case, then stop buying Linksys routers at WalMart and step up to real gear. Set bandwidth caps. Block your heaviest users. Bit Torrent isn't your enemy and doesn't cost you any more money than HTTP. Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever. -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP. Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2) Content. Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly. Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There area two (or perhaps more) sides of free speech. 1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is vital. When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the Republicans. When either Democrats or Republicans are in power, I don't want either of them to have the right to keep independent voices from organizing or using the Internet to discuss independent ideas. This is what I mean by protecting and preserving the right to free speech. 2. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE - Currently, we live in a commercialized (possibly an over-commercialized) world. When many journalists write about Network Neutrality they could care less about protecting the political side of free speech. All they focus on is the commercial side
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Mike, To clarify what I meant here: If you want to run a business without any government interference, that is fine and understandable. But, considering that for the past century, telecommunications and utilities have been some of the most heavily regulated industries in the US (and around the world), you should have known when you where getting into the ISP game that you'd be subject to this sort of interference by the government. The only reason why independent WISPs get as little regulation as they do is that they, by and large, aren't all that successful and don't pop up very prominently on the radar This isn't an industry for libertarians. Telecommunications companies, by necessity, leverage too much public right of way (whether in terms of pole attachments or spectrum or otherwise) for the government to say you're taking public assets, but what the hell, do whatever you want to maximize your profits at the expense of the public). Telecommunication providers are guests on public right of ways, and the government has every right to put restrictions to ensure that their guests operate with some vague pretension of public interest. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com wrote: Then don't run a business that is essential a utility. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: I'm pretty safe with my opinion. Get the hell out of my business, government. BTW: Hulu is owned by ABC, NBC, Fox, and the tech company that came up with it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:23 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP. Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2) Content. Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly. Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There area two (or perhaps more) sides of free speech. 1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is vital. When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
The key words in the FCC quote is users, not applications. They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address 162.21.25.200 because that IP address is generating spam or running up terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul. They are trying to restrict your ability to say my heaviest users all use bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent. In other words, shape on users, not on user actionsblock/restrict the heaviest users, not the heaviest applications. This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect and is really a better approach in any case. It lets you give the ideal experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers. And you can directly target your heaviest users. This is a lot better than potentially losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service notice? So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on day one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my understanding of this? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed. This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist. I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet. The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it. Reads just I thought it would. It doesn't prevent you from throttling bittorrent uploaders, etc. Everyone should read the speech. Its not as bad as the media makes it out to be. --Curtis Mike Hammett wrote: Worldwide, the US ISPs don't have that much power. See Comcast tell DT, PCCW, NTT, etc. to fly a kite and Comcast will be the odd man out. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:04 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html We need to realize and seperate two things... 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of an open
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
That was exactly my point. You're not bringing the T1 down to it's knees, you're bringing the router down to its knees. The solution is a combination of either getting better routers and/or NOT doing any operations on layer 4 or above. If you are strictly switching / routing (and not natting, shaping, blocking, doing access lists, or anything else that involves anything above layers 2/3), then the # of connections is irrelevant. PPS can matter, but typically the problems with PPS are because you're having the CPU operate on EACH and EVERY packet. Most routers can do amazing throughput if you actually only use them like routers and don't have them do anything above layer 3. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.comwrote: If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. I disagree. The pps/connections that http traffic creates is NOTHING compared to bittorrent! If you want to test it, put you up two AP's of the exact same, and run 1 Mbit of each over that link and see how it affects your browsing experience of 10 other people on each AP. I have seen dial-up users connected at 26kbit with virii that transmitted a high amount of pps/connections bring down a T1 to its knees! Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:09:45 -0400 Err, I don't think this summary is accurate. The focus is on net neutrality for applications, regardless of protocol. Considering how often the FCC has referenced VOIP, including Skype (which does use P2P technology), in these discussions, on and off the record, the FCC isn't looking just to make sure that both CNN and Fox News get speedy delivery times. They are looking to make sure that over the top services of all sorts are viable and aren't blocked by the service provider for competitive reasons. This really shouldn't be a problem for service providers. For the past several years, the FCC has been publicizing the standpoint that they are not going to allow discrimination on an application. They have never said that you can't shape on a _per user_ basis. If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. If that isn't the case, then stop buying Linksys routers at WalMart and step up to real gear. Set bandwidth caps. Block your heaviest users. Bit Torrent isn't your enemy and doesn't cost you any more money than HTTP. Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever. -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Exactly. And, it works better all around since you deliver an ideal experience (including access to ALL internet applications) to your ideal customers. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: So what I think you're saying, we should restrict the user based on a predetermined usage limit then kick the throttling in for the entire connection, not per app. This is okay. Then the users who hit it once in awhile will never reach the bandwidth abuse level and would sail right on through as happy customers. And all of that sounds perfectly doable and as reasonable and fair as it can get. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality The key words in the FCC quote is users, not applications. They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address 162.21.25.200 because that IP address is generating spam or running up terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul. They are trying to restrict your ability to say my heaviest users all use bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent. In other words, shape on users, not on user actionsblock/restrict the heaviest users, not the heaviest applications. This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect and is really a better approach in any case. It lets you give the ideal experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers. And you can directly target your heaviest users. This is a lot better than potentially losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service notice? So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on day one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my understanding of this? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed. This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist. I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet. The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it. Reads just I thought it would. It doesn't prevent you from throttling bittorrent uploaders, etc. Everyone should read
Re: [WISPA] ISP billing/management software.
Platypus is probably the best of the lot. Good support, very easy to self-extend in terms of auto-provisioning, very powerful, and good interface. Also includes helpdesk / etc... so it's a single, well integrated package. Very stable and reliable as well. On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Paul Kralovec pkralo...@unpluggedcities.com wrote: One of the big advantages of Platypus and Wombat is it allows you to maintain separate client information. We provide helpdesk support, billing and payment processing services to other ISPs and city networks. Each account requires detail accounting for their customers. Tucows' products were the only one we could find that would handle this easily and without special programming. Paul D. Kralovec President Unplugged Cities, LLC 511 11th Ave. S Suite 241 Minneapolis, MN 55415 W: 763-235-3001 F: 763-647-7998 C: 952-270-9107 www.unpluggedcities.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hensley Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:38 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISP billing/management software. Use it for both, as well as hosting, email only, fiber customers, etc. Wish I had a way to integrate it for my computer sales and repair customers, but I haven't figured out a good way to do that yet without making Platypus my primary billing system for all of that as well, which I really don't want to do. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISP billing/management software. Jason Hensley wrote: easy integration with Wombat (help-desk that we integrated a few months ago - love it too) Jason Do you use Wombat for dialup or wireless subs? I'm curious because I was going to add wombat a few years ago but held off, Lately I was considering checking out wombat to see if it would be a benefit, but I couldn't find enough info on it. George 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] ARTICLE - What's the U.S. Doing Wrong with Broadband ?
Want to truly take nothing? Seriously? The mere existence of the Internet is due to government funding. The wires that connect your little corner of Oregon to the great wide world? Probably wouldn't have happened without government subsidies. The same is true around the world. A lot of the research that drives the technology getting your bits across the wire...hmmm...government funding, as well. You're in the wrong industry to invent a moral highroad about government subsidisations. Telecomm is considered a utility, and utilities will always be subsidised by governments. Always have been, and always will be. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:29 PM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The fact is, the only things we're doing wrong, is allowing too much subsidy, too many barriers to entry into the business, and too much tax money to be gobbled up. In all of these countries with so-called great broadband, how much is ACTUALLY spent by the consumers and taxpayers? Nobody knows. I will guarantee you it is WELL MORE than anyone pays here.No, not the price of subsidized services, the total spending divided by users and taxpayers. What is the actual return on broadband?I can tell you honestly, that with the exception of a small handful of my customers, the only return is time saved, with no monetary returns.For a few, it does have financial implications, and they do earn or save money.I'd say it was under 10%. Now, that's RESIDENTIAL customers.Business customers have a far different viewpoint... And they often pay well more than residential service prices to get SLA's, etc. Subsidizing the residential users with taxpayers is both economically wrong, and just plain common sense wrong. But as far as the article goes.. We need MORE free market and less interference. Broadband would spread faster, not slower. And be more, not less, competitive. But we have to recognize some things... There are historically created monopolies, and there are current monopolies, and these monopolies exist due to force of law. If there's anything that's held up broadband, it's these monopolies. Local and state laws often create monopolies by placing huge impediments to new startups, or wireless deployments, and often absolutely and totally forbid WIRED competition for phone and cable operators by offering exclusive franchises. The number of competitive wired phone operators is nil, for all practical purposes, for a lot of reasons. Yet, we have no end in sight of the wireless phone guys competing for your dollar. In rural America, far too much land is governmentally owned, and is the single largest obstacle to wireless deployments. Eastern Oregon, for instance is hugely Federal, some state, and tiny spots of private land. Trying to use federal or state land is just simply not feasible, especially if you're provider #2 for a town of 2000 people and you're trying to be cost competitive. And Congress can't seem to figure out that handing out grants to people who are experts at milking the sow in DC isn't cost effective or in any other way effective. Those who can, do, those who can't, get grants or loans. Not universally, but at least around here, that's the case. Here is Eastern Oregon, we have one company that invested minimal money of their own, but bilked the state for millions, and uses state money (mine, no less) to deploy fiber to compete with non subsidized WISP's and other ISP's. And, since their contract is written in a certain way, they use the LEAST cost effective means of reaching people. They get paid by the state to waste money, IMO. And are they friendly to being cooperative iwth other ISP's? Hell no. Every time you offer public subsidy, you simply invite the taxpayers to get screwed endlessly. And we're ALL taxpayers. If you want to lobby DC and get my support, then the following words and this idea will NEVER surface in what you say... Give us money from the taxpayers.If you want to talk tax breaks, if you want to talk legal classifications, if you want to talk about barriers to services, etc, etc... by all means, do so... but you lose me everytime you say we need money. If you can't make the business case for it without subsidy or grants, IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. Period. And those poor whiny souls who bellyache about the position we hold in broadband penetration can have endless bleeding ulcers over it, they have no point worth considering. As I've said before... lots of people here are arguing that since it's going to be spent, get your share. NO! If it has to start somewhere, it starts with me. I take nothing. Zilch. Never. Ever. Just do the right thing. Eventually, doing the right thing will be popular and can be sold to the saps in DC. But it has to start somewhere. Even if it starts AND ENDS with me... I'm doing the right thing, period.
Re: [WISPA] Anyone on the east cost need a 100' ladder truck?
Insurance rates would depend on how often you use the sirens when late to an appointment. -Clint Ricker On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:53 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Wouldnt that be fun! But, I can only imagine what the insurance would run. -RickG On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com wrote: Less than $5k right now! http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/SEAGRAVE-WR-07DF-ONLY-18-049-MILES-TURBO-DIESEL_W0QQitemZ260366134160QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCommercial_Trucks?hash=item260366134160_trksid=p4506.c0.m245_trkparms=72%3A727%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318 marlon --- --- --- --- 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] What does this mean to wisps?
I don't know the specifics of the Charter bankruptcy, but I've been working in telecom long enough to know that most traditional service providers do have to take on massive amounts of long-term debt to build out their infrastructure. Buildout of wireline networks is very capital intensive, involves large long-term loans, and does have a lot longer ROI than say, a wireless AP (most independent wisps build their ROI around months rather than years). On the other hand, the infrastructure holds its value a lot longer (deployed cable HFC will be commercially viable a lot longer than the current generation of PTMP radios, deployed GPON FTTN even more so (all assuming some swapouts of gear at the CO / headend every few years). Debt is necessary part of most telecom buildout, and lenders knowingly assume some of the risk in return for interest on their loans. The difference between Charter failing and other telco's / cable companies succeeding isn't business model per-se (they all have, at some level, the same business model) but is more likely the mundane issues that usually lead to business success or failure -- execution, etc... -Clint Ricker On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com wrote: Wish I could just write off my debt and still be in business. This kind of thing is just wrong. Go so far in debt that there's no way out. Work off of a bad business model. Then stick everyone else with the bill and walk away in a few years totally in the clear. it's BS marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] What does this mean to wisps? Probably nothing, other than Charter may be more nimble in the future without all of that burden. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:02 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] What does this mean to wisps? Charter is set to file bankruptcy protection on or before April 1 as part of a financial restructuring to reduce its debt by $8bn. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/245062c2-f93d-11dd-90c1-77b07658.html?referrer_id=yahoofinanceft_ref=yahoo1segid=03058nclick_check=1 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/ -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 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] Push to install Mobile Broadband on laptops
Tom, The price structure of WiMax gear is, as you noted, structured such that the cost of the service provider gear is quite expensive (compared to the typical gear that most WISPs use). I disagree with your assessment, though, that this is designed as some sort of protectionist system to keep little players out of the market. Major service providers have typically followed a model where they will invest very heavily in their core infrastructure (headend / central office / data center / cell tower / whatever) if it means that it will save them money on the CPE. They then market the hell out of the product to try to get the density such that the infrastructure buildout cost is relatively small on a per-customer basis. Most WISPs don't ever get high penetration; they also don't, in my experience, focus as much on the marketing necessary to acheive any real penetration. So, they are able to (forced to) shift the cost more on the customer side. If you are able to achieve the market penetration, then 15K (or much more even) for the AP is very cheap if you are able to cut down on or even eliminate engineered CPE deployments, truck rolls, and cut the CPE costs. Of course, if you don't acheive the density, then you're pretty much screwed--no limping by on a handful of customers per tower when your up-front investment is 6 figures... Also, mosts WISPs sort of turn the system on the head by leveraging what is effectively repurposed LAN equipment (ie 802.11a/b/g chipsets) as service provider technology, so they can take advantage of the economies of scale for on the chipset side. When you think about traditional major service provider gear, there's often only a few tens, hundreds or thousands of units of the technology in production (or often even less), so there's very little economy of scale involved, even by the largest of manufacturers. Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The only idea that comes to my mind is for professionally-operated small operators to somehow partner with the least established/most threatened cellular operator which may be Sprint/Clearwire. If professionally-operated small operators could somehow allow their existing tower locations to be overlaid with a licensed WiMAX deployment for example, in return for a chance to be both a sales agent and to receive a share of the revenue then it could work for all parties. That would assume that the WISPs owned their towers or had exclusive control of them, or that WISP tower/networks met the equivellent spec required by Sprint/Clearwire vision. (There becomes QOS guarantee, support issues, and reputation issues, that could outweight revenue from WISP partnerships). I'd argue most WISPs lease, and likely were not able to lease all spectrum rights. If Sprint/Clear wants a WISP's tower, they'll just buy space on it themselves. In order to make a deal with a SprintClearwire, it requires having an asset that Clearwire/Sprint needs, that they can't other wise get. Sometimes tower space can be the asset, if valuable space under a pre-existing good contract. Sometimes its the anonymousness that allows a small provider to get a better deal from a leasor than a large funded company that has the ability to pay up large. But personally, my feeling is the best option is for WISPs to utilize a widely accepted standards based technology, for their own architecture, so they don;t have to partner with goliath Cell companies. It would be great if Whitespace utilized a standardized technology, IF personal portable and mobile devices are allowed in the band. Wimax cards will get built-in to laptops, not only because Intel's investment, but because there will be an acconomy of scale to justify it. To get in on the game, WISPs would have to buy into WiMax. As long as WiMax gear is $15k a AP sector, it won't get traction from WISPs. Its chasing a dream that won;t materialize. This is not an accident. I believe its purposeful to keep Wimax proces high and out of the reach of small operators. Its what allows Wimax to be a special club technology that only the big boys can play in. The best thing taht WISPs can do to get in, is to lobby their manufacturers to make Wimax APs that are affordable for WISPs. There would then be no need to partner, we'd just piggy back on the fact that laptop already had embedded WiMax cards in them. The other hope is standards like 802.22, or 802.11y, or 802.16h, that are standards in the making. As much as I hate bias to a proprietary protocol that is called a standard, it is really the only way to get support from laptop and mobile manufacturers, without paying for that support ourselves. My personal opinion is the last thing a WISP would want to do is partner with a Clearwire, to fund their competitor, until such time that the Sprint/Clearwires of the world realized the value to invest in small
Re: [WISPA] Preventing backwards router problems
Andrew, Really, you're asking the wrong question: the problem isn't that you need to filter out a rogue DHCP server as much as it is poor separation between customers. The DHCP server is a symptom of a larger problem of having all the customers on the same layer 2 broadcast domain. Even if you fix the DHCP problem with filtering, you still have some pretty big security issues here. What you need is for a means for all traffic from one customer to be separate from the other customers, below are some methods for doing that (they aren't necessarily either/or) solutions: - Many APs have client isolation, which keeps traffic from one client going to another. Some switches have this as well. - Doing a routed (as opposed to a bridged) network solves this problem. Generally is easier to troubleshoot, as well - PPPoE or similar between the customer premise and your network core Thanks, -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Canopy NAT and bootP filtering works like a champ to stop the mistake from causing problems upstream. - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Preventing backwards router problems Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote: On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote: How to I prevent SOHO routers from handing out bogus DHCP information when they are plugged in backwards? Filter them upstream? How would I filter upstream? All clients go into a switch so I would have to filter at the switch level, what switches provide this? So what exactly did you mean by plugged in backwards? The WAN port instead of the LAN port? Can you explain your architecture a bit? This was more of a WISP dashboard program. The captive portal stuff was secondary the main part of the program was more of an access controller. It allowed the admin to control IP's maintain MAC ACL's Ah. Well check out ZeroShell for this. Its a very cool distro. Also check out Untangle. -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project 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] Network Monitor
I've never used the DUDE, and probably won't because I generally go out of my way to avoid non-browser based multi-user applications. Somewhat of a philosophical bias, but avoids installation / platform / software / random-networking considerations / security hassles. I highly recommend OpenNMS as well. It's easier to maintain than nagios / cacti, is web based and open source, and provides full monitoring / trending / alarming. Very, very powerful, very scalable, and has a lot of flexibility / functionality that you won't find in other places. It does really good auto discovery and so forth. It also has some very powerful report generation tools if you need to demonstrate SLA compliance, etc. Mostly web-based, although has some text backend configuration stuff if you really want to do some tweaking / customization. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:25 PM, rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I used the cacti/nagios combo for years, but in Feb I switched to OpenNMS. It was tricky to get setup, and the folks on their IRC were invaluable! Now it auto scans multiple ip networks and ranges I specify every 4 hours and sends me a txt msg each time I add customers. For all the normal stuff it runs every 5 minutes and produces graphs for not just ping but 'smoke ping', http, dns, ssh, and other commonly discovered ports. It also collects a good bit of snmp data and graphs it. The time invested and IRC questions this last Feb are paying off in a sweet way now. My system looks at a couple hundred interfaces and a total of about a thousand ports/graphs for the network. Just My 2 cents worth. On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The Wireless Connections app is actually based on Cricket, not Cacti. Huge difference there... I have released Alvarion templates for the Cacti system. They are available from the Cacti forums at: http://forums.cacti.net/viewtopic.php?t=18328 We also run the Nagios/Cacti combo. I have quite a few years of Nagios experience behind me if anyone needs some guidance getting things going. We currently have 631 hosts and 4,382 services being checked every 2 minutes or so on Nagios with average service check latency of 3.06 seconds Yea, it's pretty sweet :P Adam Kennedy Senior Network Administrator Cyberlink Technologies, Inc. Phone: 888-293-3693 Fax: 574-855-5761 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Rock Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitor Check our free application that initiates Cacti graphs and config files can easilly be made and/or updated to adapt to about any SNMP device. All we ask is that you buy all your gear from us... Kidding of course. The system is a bit dated but we can help adapt it to your needs. We also have a free support email list to get your questions answered. Software: http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_ downloadgid=23Itemid=58http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_downloadgid=23Itemid=58 RTFM: http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_ downloadgid=22Itemid=58http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_downloadgid=22Itemid=58 Copy and paste the entire links if the don't work correctly Thanks, John Rock Wireless Connections Director of Operations - Senior Engineer ACCessing the Future Today!! ofc. 419.660.6100 cell 419-706-7356 fax 419-668-4077 http://www.wirelessconnections.net This transmission and any files attached to it, may contain confidential and/or privileged information and intended only for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination, disclosure, copying or any use of the information or files contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete this electronic mail. - Original Message - From: Carl Shivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] Network Monitor We are looking for Network monitoring software. We have been using Solar Winds, but they want another $1400 to upgrade. Any suggestions? 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] Network Monitor
Also, just a note that I forgot to mention OpenNMS also handles SNMP traps very well and with little configuration, something that is a weakness in a lot of the free/open source applications which either simply don't or require some cumbersome configuration (like Nagios). -Clint On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've never used the DUDE, and probably won't because I generally go out of my way to avoid non-browser based multi-user applications. Somewhat of a philosophical bias, but avoids installation / platform / software / random-networking considerations / security hassles. I highly recommend OpenNMS as well. It's easier to maintain than nagios / cacti, is web based and open source, and provides full monitoring / trending / alarming. Very, very powerful, very scalable, and has a lot of flexibility / functionality that you won't find in other places. It does really good auto discovery and so forth. It also has some very powerful report generation tools if you need to demonstrate SLA compliance, etc. Mostly web-based, although has some text backend configuration stuff if you really want to do some tweaking / customization. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:25 PM, rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I used the cacti/nagios combo for years, but in Feb I switched to OpenNMS. It was tricky to get setup, and the folks on their IRC were invaluable! Now it auto scans multiple ip networks and ranges I specify every 4 hours and sends me a txt msg each time I add customers. For all the normal stuff it runs every 5 minutes and produces graphs for not just ping but 'smoke ping', http, dns, ssh, and other commonly discovered ports. It also collects a good bit of snmp data and graphs it. The time invested and IRC questions this last Feb are paying off in a sweet way now. My system looks at a couple hundred interfaces and a total of about a thousand ports/graphs for the network. Just My 2 cents worth. On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The Wireless Connections app is actually based on Cricket, not Cacti. Huge difference there... I have released Alvarion templates for the Cacti system. They are available from the Cacti forums at: http://forums.cacti.net/viewtopic.php?t=18328 We also run the Nagios/Cacti combo. I have quite a few years of Nagios experience behind me if anyone needs some guidance getting things going. We currently have 631 hosts and 4,382 services being checked every 2 minutes or so on Nagios with average service check latency of 3.06 seconds Yea, it's pretty sweet :P Adam Kennedy Senior Network Administrator Cyberlink Technologies, Inc. Phone: 888-293-3693 Fax: 574-855-5761 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Rock Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitor Check our free application that initiates Cacti graphs and config files can easilly be made and/or updated to adapt to about any SNMP device. All we ask is that you buy all your gear from us... Kidding of course. The system is a bit dated but we can help adapt it to your needs. We also have a free support email list to get your questions answered. Software: http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_ downloadgid=23Itemid=58http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_downloadgid=23Itemid=58 RTFM: http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_ downloadgid=22Itemid=58http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_downloadgid=22Itemid=58 Copy and paste the entire links if the don't work correctly Thanks, John Rock Wireless Connections Director of Operations - Senior Engineer ACCessing the Future Today!! ofc. 419.660.6100 cell 419-706-7356 fax 419-668-4077 http://www.wirelessconnections.net This transmission and any files attached to it, may contain confidential and/or privileged information and intended only for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination, disclosure, copying or any use of the information or files contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete this electronic mail. - Original Message - From: Carl Shivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] Network Monitor We are looking for Network monitoring software. We have been using Solar Winds, but they want another $1400 to upgrade. Any suggestions? WISPA Wants
Re: [WISPA] multiple gateway question in mesh scenario
I can't think of a reason why anyone would deploy a layer 2 mesh with an Ethernet based medium (which wifi inherently is). Conventional wisdom in large scale sp architecture is to do anything of any size or complexity in layer 3. Layer 2 is really bad at scalability and really hard to troubleshoot compared to layer 3 as layer 2 routing is inherently quite dumb. If you need l2 functionality or protocol agnostic (although the latter is more of an academic feature than a practical benefit), then go l3 and tunnel. Most l2 services provided by service providers are, in the end, tunneled over a layer 3 infrastructure. Scalabiity and stability are the 2 concerns of a service provider, and both are very weak at layer 2 of any size.. -Clint Ricker On Jun 15, 2008, at 21:00, Matt Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 20:52 -0400, Matt Hardy wrote: Yes a layer 2 mesh is protocol dependent, so you're stuck to IP traffic only. Oops... i mean, Layer 3 is protocol dependent :) Also, when using a layer 3 mesh, roaming and convergence time can also increase (slowing things down) as when things move around, extra things have to happen... layer 3 stuff... OLSR tables updated, IPs updated, ARP entries updated, etc For instance, if a laptop migrates from one mesh AP to a different mesh AP in L3, they will be assigned an IP in a different subnet, while with a Layer 2 mesh, they can use the same IP. -Matt On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 10:08 -0700, Charles N Wyble wrote: Rogelio wrote: Matt Hardy wrote: I guess one question would be is it a Layer 2 or Layer 3 me sh? That would influence what options you have. Good question. Thus far, I've only played with layer 2 meshes. (MobileIP is, I believe, a layer 3 one, right?) Yes that is correct. (Layer 2 meshes, I have heard from others, are better, but I'm not exactly sure why this is the case, to be honest.) Well. It's completely transparent and application/protocol independent. Charles --- --- --- --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- --- --- --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- --- --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- --- --- --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- --- --- 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] Future
Travis, Just a few notes on the economics of this (and, why I think single play providers are in trouble): The ARPU for triple play is generally considerably above $100 per month, most figures put this around $160 per month on an industry basis. Typically, churn is considerably lower as well for triple play customers. A triple play customer generating $160 per month returns almost $20,000 in 10 years. But, given that triple play leverages the same network, you have 3-4 times the revenue to subsidize a common network buildout. That is hard to compete with. Yes, you do have churn and significantly less than 100% penetration--people go to other offerings. But, the economic viability is still very solid. -Clint Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A couple quick things: (1) You don't necessarily have them for life. People can change to DISH and a wireless provider and do VoIP over that. Especially if they can save $5/month, a lot of people will change. DISH is $35/month for decent programming. Wireless is another $40/month and VoIP can be had for $20/month. (2) It looks good with those numbers, but realistically you have costs way above just the install. On a $100/month customer how much gross profit do you actually make after buying bandwidth, transport, TV channels, VoIP service, etc. I really have no idea, so I am asking. Do you make $20 gross? $1,500 / $20 = 75 months breakeven and this doesn't include support costs, etc. Travis Microserv Chuck McCown wrote: FTTH ONT pricing (the unit on the house) keeps falling. They are about $400 now. You can put in fiber for $1-2/foot (if you have a clear ROW). The CO end is about $50K/terminal that is capable of serving thousands. I don't know what the pro-rata single fiber COT card is, but I think they are are around $2K/port with each port serving 32 on a PON. So, if the plowing is good and the ROWs are clear and free, you can probably get a customer installed (in a fairly dense surburban area) for less than $1500 each. Triple play for $100/month. And you have them for life. Of course this assumes you build it yourself and you already have a NOC and you already have access to and IPTV stream etc. But it is doable. There is a business case for building such a system. Main thing is to do it before the ILEC/RBOC does it. - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Future Well Mike, the way I see it is that the sky has been falling my entire time as an ISP (over a decade now). WiMax is still a joke in the market place. 3G is too slow and too expensive. 700 is not deployed in any level that matters and doesn't look like it will be any time soon. Cable is in trouble because they are dying under the load of the high end users they they keep getting. They need all of the capacity they can come up with for HDTV channels but broadband is taking up too much space on the coax. They also JUST put in their networks. The big companies aren't structured to reinvest in new hardware every few years. I'd say that they will continue to grow and continue to piss off their base. I'm not worried about cable. As for ATT and Verizon? People already hate the service and prices they have, so far I can sell against them. Fiber is cool, I have FTTH customers. But man is it expensive! There's just no way to ever make the investment back at today's pricing levels. marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 5:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Future What do you see as the future of our industry over the next 5 years? ATT is expanding U-Verse (will this be available outside of town?) Verizon is expanding FiOS (will this be available outside of town?) Cable will be using DOCSIS 3 3G will gain more steam WiMAX will have larger and larger shares of the market 700 MHz will be in use possibly for data communications by the big guys My banker asked me, so I figured I'd see what other's opinions are. My thought is that the big guys mentioned above will continue to avoid the niche that we currently serve and we'll be able to provide better services with more spectrum (5.4 GHz, additional 2.5 GHz, 3.6 GHz, possibly TV white spaces) and WiMAX. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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] Feasibility of a non-profit WISP
a path back to the Internet. WDS? Don't do it. It is a way of doing mesh, but it doesn't work well at all--not scalable at all and horrible performance. Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've gotten a couple private responses to this thread, so I'd like to throw out a few more things: The overwhelming advice though, seems to be to avoid mesh. ( Also, Tony Morella of demarctech pointed out that I misunderstood the olsrd literature.. sheesh. ) So, I'm basically working in a pretty dense, suburban/urban area, sitting in a valley. From where I'm typing, I've basically got clear LoS to the major areas I'm trying to cover, maybe 20 square miles. My logic was that to provide consistent coverage over all of it, I'd need 3 or 4 overlapping APs.. which seems ideal for a mesh setup. If I'm using a dual radio backhaul/AP setup, am I going to get interference between the units? What's the difference between WDS and mesh? A few people have mentioned that the standard for free access is to have users pass through a portal with some sort of legal disclaimer. Is there actually any legal precedent for suing a hotspot provider over the actions of a user? I guess I'm just being naive, but that seems.. silly. Regarding CALEA - I understand recording VoIP for the authorities, but what are your responsibilities before you receive s request for that? Just to have the tools in place? A lot of people mention using DSL instead of a T1. There is a very large international corporation headquartered here, renting their internet T1s for $20/mo (!!!). Most likely, as a service to the community, they'll be able to negotiate a similar price for me. At a rate that low, it just makes a lot of sense, but I am getting quotes from the DSL providers. On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Chuck McCown - 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question for you is why? 100 users are enough to be a headache and use up all your free time but not enough to even pay you for your time or investment. (Did I mention I'm writing a grant proposal for this? Cue the strings :) It's not really about money. As a state, Michigan is fighting to keep people from moving away, and as a city Benton Harbor is struggling to retain or attract the kind of talented people that can sustain some sort of economy. In the meantime, most of our citizens are poor/unemployed and uneducated. Providing internet access is a good way (imho) to at least open some doors for them, and put another bullet point in the list of reasons to come visit/live. Anyhow, thanks a ton for putting up with stupid questions. The advice from this list is invaluable. Japhy - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Feasibility of a non-profit WISP Hi all- I'm finishing up a grant proposal to build a wireless network for a smallish (2 sq. mile) neighborhood. My only real experience is having read this mailing list for a year or so, and independently researching via the internet, so I'm hoping some of you veterans can offer some insight before I get in too deep! The basic, mile-high premise is to build a 2.4ghz mesh network, using Linux, or at least Open Source Software, wherever possible. I'm pretty comfy with Linux, and it seems like the route a non-profit should take. Since the idea is to be providing access not only to locals, but also to people visiting (it's a mixed commercial/residential area), sticking to the 802.11b/g protocol seems like a good way to make sure strangers can get on with whatever gear they've already got. Specifically, I'm looking at gear that would run olsrd (http://olsr.org); more specifically, demarctech.com's RWR HPG units (https://www.demarctech.com/products/reliawave-rwr/rwr-hpg-15a.htm). The business model is to offer capped speeds for free, and uncapped speeds to subscribers. So, presumably I'm going to need to do some traffic shaping. the RWR unit lists both OLSRD Mesh and Bi-Directional Traffic Shaping with QoS (VoIP) via IP or MAC , so it would seem to be ideal! But how do those features play together? Can I assume that the unit is running some sort of *nix with a shell? More importantly, am I going to be able to script something that will link the traffic shaper with a database of MAC Addresses? (Or script something to assign IP address subgroups based on MAC!) Anybody ever done this before, or have a better solution for a tiered network? I'm estimating that we'll have 100 users tops. A while back I looked up ratios and figured that a T1
Re: [WISPA] For those using IPTrack
This error generally comes from a variable being used in the regex (pattern matching) in the script isn't set for whatever reason. It's usually fairly simple to track down; you could probably pay someone who knows perl to knock this out in an hour or so or track down the variable yourself if you're comfortable with that sort of thing. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:52 PM, rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: did you ever get this resolved? On Wed, Jan 9, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Andrew Niemantsverdriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am trying a new install of IPTrack. I have my router all set up and sending NetFlow data (verified by tcpdump and NTOP) however when I try to start IPTrack I get these errors: Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at /usr/src/iptrack/iptrack_capture.pl line 198. Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at /usr/src/iptrack/iptrack_capture.pl line 205. They flood my terminal, I am guessing they happen every time flow data is received. Has anybody else experienced such problems? What did you do to get around them? I tried contacting the developer but have been unsuccessful. The IPTrack host is a CentOS 5 box. I am wondering if the Perl version is causing conflicts. Any help? Or ideas on where to get help? Thanks, _ /-\ ndrew 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] Comcast will also be offering up to 50 Mbps
Bandwidth management is a tricky topic, very nuanced, and varies from provider to provider. In someways, despite some of the net neutrality discussions focusing around disclosure, this may end up becoming a bit of a secret sauce because it is so heavily tied into quality perception. In the end, everyone has to throttle--pre-emptively or not at least some of the time; who/how/when makes all the difference. If I read between the lines of a lot of what's going on in the industry, I see that most of the bandwidth management is focused around getting the best performance for the best 90%-95%. The fact that cable msos will aggressively throttle some customers in some situations in the end doesn't matter--they can leverage the expanded capacity to give a very good experience to the bulk of their subscribers that can be hard to recreate using much lower capacity connections. And, in the end, it's not like you actually want the 5-10% as customers anyway, since they are typically unprofitable... By and large, their bandwidth management has better: most of the major providers do provide a pretty good experience if you're not in the edge of their model. The small companies will typically be a lot less refined in this process, so it will likely impact a lot higher percentage of their customers. Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just want to point out a couple things... up to 50 Mbps means anywhere from 0 to 50... and The local cable company has automatic throttling even on downloads. One customer said he was downloading a video driver (150MB file) and it started at 3Mbps and by the end was down to 256k. His connection stayed at 256k for about another 2 hours. They are capping people even when they say up to xx speeds. Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: Comcast will also be offering up to 50 Mbps for downloading, or receiving, files. Uploading, or sending, files will be at up to 5 Mbps. The monthly $150 price is available only to residential customers; small businesses will have to pay $200 for a package that includes additional technical support and security software. The existing high-end tier costs $53. Maximum upload speeds for those customers will automatically increase to 2 Mbps, more than doubling the current limits. Downloads will remain at up to 8 Mbps. Maximum upload speeds for the basic, $43 tier will nearly triple to 1 Mbps, while downloads will remain capped at 6 Mbps. Cablevision Systems Corp. already offers a 50 Mbps maximum download service — with 50 Mbps maximum uploads — for about $200 a month but does not actively market it. Cablevision's fastest advertised service costs up to $65 for maximum downloads of 30 Mbps downloads and uploads of 5 Mbps. To offer the new tier, Comcast is taking advantage of a technology called DOCSIS 3.0, which allows service providers to use four TV channels rather than just one to send data over the cables. The industry group CableLabs is nearing certification of DOCSIS 3.0 modems. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_hi_te/comcast_faster_internet;_ylt=Agz9F6XU258ZFxgyO4WbYLYjtBAF 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] pppoe server, Redback capability of other solutions?
Also, if you need help with Redback, just ask around. There's a lot of people with a lot of experience with those guys. Faisal from SnappyDSL who posted earlier could point you in the right direction and hook you up with plenty of spare hardware and setup information if desired. Clint Ricker -Kentis Technologies On Feb 7, 2008 10:24 PM, Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I admit that I'm biased against Mikrotik. It's good for what it is, but it's value is primarily in its price / flexibility. It's not exactly...telco/carrier grade, or however you want to put it. It's fine as edge gear, but, not what I'd put in a core role like this. Perhaps in terms of getting it up and running, you may be quicker with something that you know and have a good feel for--ie intel hardware running Mikrotik. However, in terms of reliability, uptime, and scalability, (and I'd assume configuration options) Redback is the way to go. If you want something that is a little more flexible, go Cisco (but, you'd pay more for comparable performance). Price wise, Redback's are very attractive and very easy to get spare equipment for. Plus, you get _good_ hardware. Not throw CPU cycles at it and keep some extra boxes in the closet for when it chokes good; I mean swap out failed power supplies / Ethernet cards / CPUs without any downtime sort of good. Using PCs / Mikrotik is good when you can't get your hands on good gear at a reasonable cost. That's not the case in this situation... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies ps...Please don't turn this into a flame war :). I realize people here love Mikrotik, and it has its purposes. However, in terms of field tested performance and reliability for PPPoE, Mikrotik is a PC based platform that has relatively few PPPoE deployments running under relatively light loads whereas Redback had a really large install base for high volume PPPoE termination and generally proved itself to be a very solid and scalable platform. On Feb 7, 2008 8:40 PM, Eric Muehleisen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Redback is untouchable in terms of PPPoE aggregation. Cisco is really the only other Router out there that is of Redback's caliber. We currently terminate close to 15,000 subscribers using a Redback SE 400. Attached is our current CPU usage. -Eric rabbtux rabbtux wrote: All I'm in the process of moving over to another upstream provider. I'm working with them closely to get service to my county PUD system that uses pppoe tunnels for virtually all end user connections. ( I know that I can get a vlan, but the cost is prohibitive at the moment) So, I'm their first beta tester in my area and they have this used Redback router. First there were problems that were to be solved with a firmware upgrade, now they have a hardware failure without a spare. I'm not familiar with this router at all, but discussed it with their sysadmin. Apparently the need is for something that can handle 2000 sessions and has full 100Mbps NICs and can support that speed. I'm not a pppoe expert, but would a decent PC, with 4/8GB of RAM and mikrotik SW installed handle something like this??? Butch? or other MT experts? Or is this requirement way out of the MT league? For my own reasons, I want to get them going, promptly! Any suggestions are greatly appreciated!! Marshall Rabbit Meadows Technology 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] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service
Tom, I'd agree. I'm in no way advocating marketing that is deceptive in terms of deliverables. My main point is more that communications in marketing often involves using buzzwords that coopt something someone knows for describing your product. Even if that is, on a technical level, incorrect, on a business and communication and marketing standpoint good practice--the reality is that the end user understands what you are saying and more truth is communicated--they better understand what to expect from your product. Now, using terms that mislead the customer into expecting something that it isn't is an entirely different matter, and one that I don't advocate and, in the end, is very detrimental. I think it comes down to the deliverables, in that sense. Thanks, Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies On Jan 11, 2008 11:56 AM, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, two thumbs up for Matt. 1) He's leading the way to expand with new technologies. 2) He's clever enough to use maximize how he uses of Press Releases. With that said, in response to Clint, I had mixed feelings regarding the release. I didn't see a problem listing Wimax in the press release. Wimax/Non-Wimax, whats the difference, its wireless, its latest state of the art. All the same to the consumer. Where I saw it riding the line was stating Granted a License. I believe that misleads the public to come to a false conclusion. There is a big difference between licensed and unlicensed in the public eye. Licensed has 100% protection, Unlicensed 100% doesn't. Licenses are usualy exclusive, unlicensed is not. 3650 light licensing is experiental and much closer to the characteristics of unlicensed, with registration added. Sure technically 3650 is licensed, but again the reader is misled to think the service is something more than it really is. Is that ethical? Is it deceptive? Could you here the spin? Its not illegal. Nothing was said that could be miscontrued as a lie. Is it any different than typical forward thinking statements of other press releases? Maybe just clever marketing? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service I'd like to make a point in return. This is a press release, and it is generally used for marketing and publicity. Who the flip cares about the exact nuances in technology? If Matt's company expresses their product in terms that their target market understands, then it is good marketing. It's not like their customers are going to do deep layer1 and 2 analysis to see that their bandwidth is coming over the one true WiMax. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and you're talking to kindergarteners, just go ahead and call it a duck and reeducate the 1/1000 of 1 percent who become ornithologists when they grow up and care to learn the subtle nuances. I know companies that sell/sold wireless DSL. Technically, this is a complete absurdity. But, I'd bet that it did a good job of communicating the concept--which is, after all, the point of marketing. I'd imagine that they do better then companies that sell High bandwidth 802.11A/B/G Data Traffic Transport Solutions. There are service providers who still keep on trying to sell VoIP with multi page explanations about how the analog voice get digitized, packetized, encapsulated, and 20 other gazillion processes that no one really cares about unless they like reading RFCs every time they make even mundane purchase decisions. Then there's Comcast who, while definitely not hurt by the existing customer base and financial resources and technical infrastructure, became the fourth largest telco in quite a short amount of time. They did this by having the marketing common sense to sell telephone service, not Voice over IP. If the customers understand what Matt's product is better because he calls it WiMax, then great. It sure sounds better than Modified pre-release quasi 802.16. You're in business to sell products...and, that involves communication. Using language that people can understand sells products and, in the end, gets more truth across--if that is your objective here--by actually communicating with people as opposed to using language that people just don't understand--nor care to. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Jan 10, 2008 7:49 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do your radios have sub channelization? I Congratulate you on the build, but I have to question if stuff like this is not part of the total misunderstanding of WiMAX (what it is and isn't). I really don't think WiMAX is the right term, Maybe WiMAX based
Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service
I'd like to make a point in return. This is a press release, and it is generally used for marketing and publicity. Who the flip cares about the exact nuances in technology? If Matt's company expresses their product in terms that their target market understands, then it is good marketing. It's not like their customers are going to do deep layer1 and 2 analysis to see that their bandwidth is coming over the one true WiMax. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and you're talking to kindergarteners, just go ahead and call it a duck and reeducate the 1/1000 of 1 percent who become ornithologists when they grow up and care to learn the subtle nuances. I know companies that sell/sold wireless DSL. Technically, this is a complete absurdity. But, I'd bet that it did a good job of communicating the concept--which is, after all, the point of marketing. I'd imagine that they do better then companies that sell High bandwidth 802.11A/B/G Data Traffic Transport Solutions. There are service providers who still keep on trying to sell VoIP with multi page explanations about how the analog voice get digitized, packetized, encapsulated, and 20 other gazillion processes that no one really cares about unless they like reading RFCs every time they make even mundane purchase decisions. Then there's Comcast who, while definitely not hurt by the existing customer base and financial resources and technical infrastructure, became the fourth largest telco in quite a short amount of time. They did this by having the marketing common sense to sell telephone service, not Voice over IP. If the customers understand what Matt's product is better because he calls it WiMax, then great. It sure sounds better than Modified pre-release quasi 802.16. You're in business to sell products...and, that involves communication. Using language that people can understand sells products and, in the end, gets more truth across--if that is your objective here--by actually communicating with people as opposed to using language that people just don't understand--nor care to. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Jan 10, 2008 7:49 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do your radios have sub channelization? I Congratulate you on the build, but I have to question if stuff like this is not part of the total misunderstanding of WiMAX (what it is and isn't). I really don't think WiMAX is the right term, Maybe WiMAX based, but it definitely is not WiMAX. We just turned up our first WiMAX base station today. Running 2.5Ghz and using 16e ready hardware. I'm Not trying to steal glory here, just making a point. Mike Bushard, Jr Wireless Network Engineer 320-256-WISP (9477) 320-256-9478 Fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [SPAM] Re: [WISPA] [SPAM] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service Importance: Low Steve Stroh wrote: Fixed WiMAX profiles for 3.5 (non-US), but NOT 3.65 GHz in the US because of the unique contention protocol requirements (systems for 3.65 GHz should be considered proprietary and quite possibly non-interoperable). The lower 25Mhz of 3.65Ghz does not have a contention protocol requirement. However, if the radio implements contention then it won't be restricted to the lower 25Mhz. As of today, only WiMAX radios have been certified for 3.65Ghz. -Matt 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] Issues with MACs
This sounds a lot like an Mtu issue. Either drop the Mtu on the macs or raise it on your gear. (probably best to lower on their gear to start). - Clint Ricker On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:46 PM, John Valenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use an older Mac Powerbook and just setup a new Mac Mini at home. I've can't remember any issues on my wireless net, or special tweaks. I would double check the basic IP settings, DNS etc. Try a few pings and traceroutes. (Applications folder Utilities folder Terminal type ifconfig or alternately look at the Network control panel) It might be interesting to download Firefox and see if that has the same issues as Safari. Is there a home wifi router involved? It should just work. -John On December 20, at 3:29 PM December 20, Mark McElvy wrote: I have a customer running a brand new MAC on my wireless network and he has done nothing but complain. He runs Safari for a browser and it regularly shows server cannot be found for a website but then lets you browse elsewhere. Also gets a lot of sites not showing pictures. When I am there with my laptop running Vista I don't see the issues. I am running a Tranzeo CPE back to a MT AP that has about 18 users. No one else complains. Now I know about nothing on MACs so I am wondering if there are any tweaks that may help. --- --- --- --- 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] PHP Helpdesk
It's definitely not an install for people who don't have a lot of unix experience; it is a little troublesome even with a lot of experience. That said, most of the people I know who do the paid support have a good experience. -Clint On Dec 19, 2007 1:10 PM, Ty Carter Lightwave Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree completely... NO need to rethink.. It is a PITA! Don't even bother! Ty Carter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] PHP Helpdesk Last I knew, Freeside was a PITA to install and I'm too cheap to pay someone to do it. Maybe I ought to try again. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PHP Helpdesk Freeside with built in RT Ticket system. RT is also available as a standalone application, and works well. We use it to keep track of installs, deinstalls, service calls, maintenance work and a few other things as well. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Ty Carter Lightwave Communications wrote: Platypus w/ wombat (www.boardtown.com) Or cerebus (http://www.cerberusweb.com) Ty Carter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] PHP Helpdesk Does anyone have a recommendation for a PHP helpdesk? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] tranzeo challenges
If you haven't already, it would probably be worth: 1. Checking whether the port is showing up on a physical layer (do you have link on the switch?) 2. Check whether you are seeing mac addresses on the port (on Cisco switches, show mac-address-table). This does require a managed switch. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Dec 13, 2007 11:02 AM, Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got one doing a similar thing. Every time a change is made to the unit (two of them now) it shuts off it's ethernet port. Today I'm going to install a different switch. I'm also going to make sure that the other radio on that mast and the switch are on the same surge protector in case there's a goofy grounding or backfeed issue going on. In my case I had a Smartbridges APPro up there, worked just fine for years, then suddenly started dropping customers. Installed the TR6015 and things were fine, till it started dropping them too. Now I have a TR6000 in place with a Maxrad 60* sector and it acts strange too. Gotta be some kind of electrical weirdness. Finding it will be the challenging part :-). laters, marlon - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:48 PM Subject: [WISPA] tranzeo challenges We have a connectorized tranzeo AP set up to feed a couple clients. We've gone through a couple AP radios that have exhibited the same symptoms- They power up fine, clients connect up fine, SNR looks good. After about 10 mins, the AP stops responding. It's still powered up, but you cant get into it on the ethernet side. Rebooting doesnt help. We've swapped everything out. The cable run tests good and is @ 250' long. We are using the 18v power supply that came with the unit. Could the brick not have enough juice to power the unit at that distance? Any suggestions much appreciated. Thanks Chris This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 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] What basic ROI do you target?
Tom, some good points. Blair, a valid point as well--often, getting _too_ caught up in the numbers early on can be way to time consuming relevant to resources. However, proper accounting doesn't need to be all that time consuming, and, in the end, is the difference between a profitable business and a non-profitable business. Peter from Rad-Info (who does some consulting of these lines) used to relate some stories about accounting practices at NSPs (DSL reseller) who bought circuits at $25, sold for $33, and somehow imagined they were making money despite the fact that their costs of sells, management, support, bandwidth, etc.. as about $12 per circuit (meaning they were losing $2 per circuit). Knowing costs is important. Talk to Peter (on a consulting basis) or other similar people or ask around and you can generally get a good idea for what it typically costs for support and billing and so forth, items that can be really hard to calculate well on a small scale. Some people do get by with casual accounting because they have a good innate sense of costs of doing business. Many--myself included--can really screw themselves over if they aren't careful because if they don't do careful calcuations, they tend to lowball the cost, forget or underestimate a lot of the hidden costs of providing services, and so forth. Small business owners also often don't differentiate between profit and what they pay themselves, which puts themselves in a hole for growing and expanding down the road because their cost structure doesn't allow for them to replace their own labor with hired help. Just an observation that Tom touched on: small service providers tend to calculate on a monthly basis (understandable if you're worried about making payroll next month!) and larger providers tend to calculate based on 1,3, and 5 year models (or longer). The latter is _very_ beneficial and helps make a lot better business decisions in terms of equipment, advertising, and so forth. 6 month ROI or 4 month ROI or whatever is a limiting metric for anything other than ensuring cashflow. I'd say X% ROI over 2 years or 1 year or whatever is far more meaningful in terms of maximizing profit--cash flow problems can be resolved in ways other than going for quick ROI. On Nov 30, 2007 5:24 PM, Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you to a point But, as a small company, 2 man shop with a casual laborer on an as needed basis, we find that considering our 'overhead', (bandwidth, labor, truck, support, rent, utility's and such) as a fixed cost of doing business much simpler to keep track of. So I figure the install costs as equipment+accessory's+supplies+labor. I shoot for the install price to cover equipment and accessory's and figure to recover supplies and labor during the first 3 months of service. The marginal cost of adding another user is nil, once the install costs are covered. The difference between supporting 200 users and 201 users, as an example, is, IMHO, too small to worry about. As expansion occurs, we find it necessary to upgrade our bandwidth and such. This increases our fixed costs per user, but by the time we need to do it, we have the additional users to support it. And when we need to add a person, we will be able to do that as well. There may, likely are, better ways to do it. But I am reminded of the story of the accountant and the peanut rack. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: In my mind, it all has to be counted. At the end of the day each customer has a fixed cost. Breakeven happens when any revenue ABOVE those fixed costs has paid back any customer acquisition costs. I don't think it's honest to say that one breaks even when counting 100% of the monthly customer revenue. There are tech support costs, bandwidth costs, billing costs etc. that are added with every new customer. And, as you say, at some point extra people have to be added to the company and that cost gets spread over all subs. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 5:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] What basic ROI do you target? That's an interesting way of calculating the ROI. You could also take out fixed costs from your calculations and only add in those (variable) costs that relate directly to the new sub. If you aren't adding staff or getting a bigger office, you wouldn't need to factor those costs into the calculation. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] What basic ROI do you target? For AP's it's ok if I pay them off in 3 to 4 years. I try to do 4 year loans for all hardware. For CPE this gets more complicated. Everyone wants to count
Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk
Eric, I don't know of any in the grandstream price range. The Cisco stuff (186) and the adtran gear are very rock solid but pricey; linksys (rebranded sipura Atas are more affordable for soho use pricewise and are quite stable as well) - Clint Ricker On Nov 24, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clint, Speaking of SIP gateways...do you have any that you recommend? I use the Grandstream GXW4104, and it is fairly cheap. I know there has to be a good one out there. I have issues with it hanging up calls randomly (especially if I am on hold), echo cancellation, and several other little quirks. Definitely not something that you would want to put in a non-technical environment, completely un-managed. With us, we are IT guys so it gets us by; but if I would deploy this to a customer...NO WAY!!! Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 8:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk I'd recommend actually just getting an external SIP ATA for starters (basically the same idea, but in an external network device that you connect to over the LAN via SIP. Asterisk can be quite randomly finicky about hardware sometimes and there's a lot of motherboard chipsets out there that Asterisk does not deal well with. This usually manifests itself in terms of lockups when dealing with POTS or TDM cards... Also, POTS cards are pretty worthless to you if you aren't doing Asterisk; a SIP ATA can be useful elsewhere. On Nov 21, 2007 10:41 PM, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Must be inflation :P Jonathan Schmidt wrote: Well, Adam, you weren't far off. The Buy it now eBay 1-FXO PCI card prices are around $20 and I've gotten auctions for just over $10 per card so I accepted your $8 as the price of winning a fortuitous auction. Reputable stores have it typically for a bit more, around $29. It's all in the noise. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk I'm sorry, I mixed up the terminology while typing. The $8 cards on eBay are regular POTS. Scottie Arnett wrote: Thanks Adam. FXO is foreign exchange, correct? At the office, I only have regular POTS lines. Will something work with them, or do I have to have FXO lines? At our POP, I have trunk side T1's that are being used for dial-up...but I am not wanting to hook to those yet. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk There are several cards available on ebay for roughly $8 each. They will let you plug in multiple incoming lines (FXO signalling) to toy around with. Scottie Arnett wrote: Hey All, I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with. Can anyone tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS lines into just to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital card? Not wanting to pour major into this until I have learned a little about it. TIA. Sincerely, Scottie Arnett President Info-ed, Inc. 615-699-3049 931-243-2101 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 10:01 AM --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. -- -- 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/ -- Adam Kennedy Network Administrator Cyberlink International Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352 Fax: 574-855-5761 --- - 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
Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk
I'd recommend actually just getting an external SIP ATA for starters (basically the same idea, but in an external network device that you connect to over the LAN via SIP. Asterisk can be quite randomly finicky about hardware sometimes and there's a lot of motherboard chipsets out there that Asterisk does not deal well with. This usually manifests itself in terms of lockups when dealing with POTS or TDM cards... Also, POTS cards are pretty worthless to you if you aren't doing Asterisk; a SIP ATA can be useful elsewhere. On Nov 21, 2007 10:41 PM, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Must be inflation :P Jonathan Schmidt wrote: Well, Adam, you weren't far off. The Buy it now eBay 1-FXO PCI card prices are around $20 and I've gotten auctions for just over $10 per card so I accepted your $8 as the price of winning a fortuitous auction. Reputable stores have it typically for a bit more, around $29. It's all in the noise. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk I'm sorry, I mixed up the terminology while typing. The $8 cards on eBay are regular POTS. Scottie Arnett wrote: Thanks Adam. FXO is foreign exchange, correct? At the office, I only have regular POTS lines. Will something work with them, or do I have to have FXO lines? At our POP, I have trunk side T1's that are being used for dial-up...but I am not wanting to hook to those yet. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Kennedy Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk There are several cards available on ebay for roughly $8 each. They will let you plug in multiple incoming lines (FXO signalling) to toy around with. Scottie Arnett wrote: Hey All, I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with. Can anyone tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS lines into just to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital card? Not wanting to pour major into this until I have learned a little about it. TIA. Sincerely, Scottie Arnett President Info-ed, Inc. 615-699-3049 931-243-2101 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 10:01 AM --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. -- -- 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/ -- Adam Kennedy Network Administrator Cyberlink International Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352 Fax: 574-855-5761 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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Just out of curiousity, all of you who have AP problems because of bit torrent: what APs are you using? Thanks, Clint On Nov 22, 2007 11:41 PM, Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put a connection limit on all traffic from ports 1024-65535, because the torrent has to use a connection somewhere and usually the bit progs are set to use somewhere above port 1024. That will not help on UDP or the ones using port 80. I have another connection limit set higher on all tcp connections to try to help combat the port 80 users. -- Original Message -- From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:15:14 -0800 Thats my point. I use star and it has all the layer 7 stuff built into the cpe. I can control to my hearts content. Generaly I put a switch in or bridge the linksys wifi router and take control there. If I had to and I did one situation, I can give daddy one set of rules and little abusing johnny another. for the most part, I don't have too much to worry about, it's not being able to tightly control the encrypted stuff that is the issue. CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
The Comcast deal has very little to do with traffic prioritization except for the regulatory liability of ineptness. The Comcast deal, using Sandvine gear, actually _actively_ disrupts the service by inserting spoofed packets into the TCP stream, which is a far cry from the best effort philosophy that that usually applies to residential connections is best effort. Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting, or, in the comcast case, actively disrupting service. The issue we have before us, is are we the operators of our network, or is the government/consumer/application? So, where do you stand on using FCC-certified gear? :) (_please_, don't answer--I'm not wanting to get that started up again) To some extent, the government _does_ have a right to have some say in how utilities operate. You are not a retail shop, you are not an eatery, you are not running a car wash. You are, in at least some sense, a telecommunications utility--and, just like there are regulations that ensure certain guidelines in being able to place telephone calls, watch television, and so forth, there are, will, and should be certain guidelines regulating you as a telecommunications utility. I philosophically don't buy the it's my network, and I can do whatever the hell I want with it idea. What level and what type of regulations is something to be discussed, but that they do, will, and should exist on some level is a given. 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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
On Nov 20, 2007 11:17 AM, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clint Ricker wrote: Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting, or, in the comcast case, actively disrupting service. What if I want to sell various plans each with specific terms? To simplify things, I could have a cheap deal, that gave a high download rate and a low upload rate, or a mid priced plan that had a high download rate and a high upload rate, and a high priced plan that had a high sustained usage upload and download rate. Wouldn't that be fair to both me and the consumer? Can I not rate limit and give the customer a choice of different plans at different prices? Sure. No problem. Just not on a per protocol basis except for some fairly generic and sensible prioritizations. Do you _really_ want an Internet that resembles http://isen.com/blog/uploaded_images/boingboingscreenshot-723474.jpg? If this seems far-fetched to you, go shop for cell phones and evdo service and read the TOS :) Honestly, if the world was full of small WISPs, this would be a different matter. But, consider the following: 1. About 90% (rough guess, I'm not sure of what the statistic is) of the United States Internet users are on connections through providers that offer services (and, indeed, derive most of their profit) that directly compete with services that run through their Internet access. (the RBOCs and major MSOs) 2. Those same service providers constitute, more or less, an oligarchy since they generally act in unison on both regulatory petitions (odd how all major ILECs just happen to file similar FCC petitions on the same day--great minds must think alike) and so forth and pretty much control the market. 3. Now, those same service providers are selectively blocking and filtering traffic, some of which carries content which just happens to undermine the value of their major cash cows. Most of you seem to be saying: so what?. I still maintain that this is _not_ a positive path for the industry and for your interests. Sure, you can squeeze a couple of dollars of margin (if that) off of some resi accounts. But, you undercut the very infrastructure that makes you profitable. Some of you probably are almost hoping to use this to entice customers--ie let Comcast screw their customers over; it'll drive customers my way Consider this, however. In the end, people use your connections to connect to applications and services on the Internet. If your competitors offer voice services but kill off an Internet voice industry, how many people will buy your service to connect to Vonage, etc.. Plenty...until Vonage can't make it with access to only 10% of the market. Video services, collaborative office apps, etc... The application providers that, in the end, drive your business, cannot survive in areas where they only have reasonable access to a fraction of the market. I would prefer that free market _could_ fix this problem. But, when you are dealing with entities that are looking to leverage their horizontal monopoly to build vertical monopolies, the rules of capitalism start breaking down pretty quickly. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Agreed. Sharing is good. But, best effort implies that, well, an effort is being made to deliver the traffic, not we will actively try to stop insert disliked protocol of the month :) On Nov 20, 2007 12:38 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have always thought that if you buy DEDICATED bandwidth you can do what you want with it. If you buy a best effort service then you have to be willing to share marlon Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I've been a firm believer in that the last mile can shoot themselves in the foot if they like, but the next company up in the chain must be neutral. Level 3, ATT, Cogent, Verizon, NTT, etc. should not be doing anything on their end for their wholesale markets again, if they have retail end users, do whatever they want. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC This is not a black or white position - take the time to read the Vuze petition and focus specifically on the last two pages where they outline the goals of what they want to achieve. Then take some time and look at what Comcast did to Bit Torrent - they specifically broke the application. What Vuze is asking for is pretty reasonable - the ability to run their applications without undue interference. If you back Comcast, you are backing the ability for YOUR backbone provider to break the applications you run on their network. The Vuze petition is the position that should be backed, IMHO. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com George Rogato wrote: I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
What's Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc's cut every time you sign up a customer who is getting Internet access to get to Lingo / Slingbox / Netflix? You are making money off of them--no one gets Internet access to get to access to their ISPs portal and only their ISPs portal. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? -- -- 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] P2P Countermeasures
This sort of stuff uses a combination of ports, traffic heuristics (different types of traffic will have different traffic patterns--ie web browsing is intermittent, FTP may be sustained, p2p will have show a lot of simultaneos connections all over, most of which timeout, etc) and deep packet inspection. Deep packet inspection is marketing meaning they'll grab the first few packets from a Tcp or whatever session and analyze to see what type of traffic it is. It's quite simple stuff (once you brush all the marketing jumbo aside); if, for whatever reason (ie encryption) it can't use one of the above methods, it will just rely on the other two with the liability of less accurate results (resulting in some targetted traffic passing unfiltered and some untargetted traffic getting dropped). - Clint Ricker On Nov 20, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be very interested in knowing how they do that. The point of encryption is to mask the traffic, so layer 7 packet inspection should not be able to tell what is there. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Bushard, Jr Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures I haven't specifically tested it, but they say that the Deep Packet Inspection engine will mark and rate limit Encrypted Peer 2 Peer traffic. I know my AC-802 does a very good job of marking and shaping traffic. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC 320-256-WISP (9477) 320-256-9478 Fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:32 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures How does the Allot box handle the encrypted ptp traffic Mike? Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Bushard, Jr Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:48 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures Buy an Allot Box. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC 320-256-WISP (9477) 320-256-9478 Fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:57 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures How do you identify it if it is encrypted? Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures Call Butch, We set ALL ptp traffic to share a single 128k connection. :-) laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Ron Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:58 PM Subject: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures To All, The issue of P2P rears its relatively unattractivehead in my neck of the woods from time to time. This is one of those times. - So, what is everyone doing to'counter' the influx of traffic from P2P? - What are the most effective P2P countermeasures that you have employed, lately? - For those fo you that respond, I will put it all in a file and make it available to all, via Scriv. Heck who should approve the dumpingofthat info onto WISPA - Rick Harnish - I'll checkwith him. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- -- 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
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
business model. If you question my math, feel free to contact me offl-list--there are some specifics that I'm not willing to discuss in a public forum. Thanks, Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies On Nov 18, 2007 10:44 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My strong feeling is that the free market approach is by far the best approach to the Network Neutrality/Network Management. If Comcast wants to degrade the service to their customers, then that is an opportunity for the other providers in the market - they are essentially degrading their own service, especially if they are doing it in a way that breaks specific applications. In markets where there is a monopoly or duopoly and both providers engage in purposefully breaking specific applications, leaving the customer with no choices, the market condition is a result of poor regulatory policy - not poor network management. Competition will take care of that problem. The few remaining independent ISPs have this as one of the few potential advantages that they can bring to the table - a truly different type of service, with the concerns of the provider and the customer in balance and appropriate for both parties. The issue that Vuze seems to be taking is that breaking of applications is unacceptable, but good network management is fine, as long as it doesn't discriminate against specific applications or protocols. I do take issue with the characterization of Vuze/BitTorrent as being a parasite on our networks. They are not forcing the customer to use them for content - our customers paid for connectivity to the Internet, and should be able to use that connectivity for whatever they want to, in a way that does not degrade the performance of the network. It is the responsibility of the network operator to deploy the network is a way to deliver appropriate levels of service, establish clear definitions of the different levels of service and communicate the differences to the customers so that they know what they are getting. I personally love Vuze, I use it to get my favorite Showtime shows and also for downloading OS images and software updates. Using it for these purposes doesn't harm or degrade my network and is a very appropriate set of uses for me or any other user on my network. It does help that I have optimized the software to use a limited number of connections, and have also optimized my network to ensure that no customers are able to open an excessive number of connections to use it. This not a violation of Network Neutrality or an example of Intentional Degradation to an application. It is optimization. It is also the responsibility of companies like Vuze to make sure that their software is optimized for good performance as well - it is in their best interest. Bit Caps are not necessarily the answer, as it introduces levels of billing complexity and doesn't always represent the best solution. If there is extra capacity on the network, and the provider's backbone connection is not subject to bit caps or usage-based billing, then bit caps are not needed because the economic cost of extra bits is inconsequential. However, too many have taken this too far, leading to the idea that bits are free, which is total B.S. There is always an underlying foundational cost of infrastructure connectivity, and that cost needs to be taken into consideration. The free bits exist in the netherland of non-peak hours and the interval between a backbone connection that is too large and one that is saturated. Free bits represent a place for innovation, and some providers are doing just that, with open downloads and service level upgrades during off-peak hours. But not all bits are free. In conclusion, I don't think that the Vuze petition is too far off the mark. Someone SHOULD be raising a stink about what Comcast is doing - it goes beyond prudent network management and right into anti-trust type behavior. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Anthony Will wrote: Here is some food for thought, We may want to approach this issue with a free market approach. We may want to emphasize that the free market can and will self regulate this behavior. If Comcast is discouraging their customers from operating this type of software, that creates an opportunity for another operator to move into the area that does not. We do have to keep in the back of our mind that the main issue for us as wireless operators is that P2P solutions create an burden on our systems not so much for bandwidth but on the amount of connections that are created by this type of software. One P2P application that goes wild with 2000+ connctions can bring an AP to its knees thus effecting 50 - 200 other customers on that same AP. We may also want to empathize that his type of distributed content if allowed to continue likely will lead to bit caps or other types of metered
Re: [WISPA] vlans
Travis, Are you routing or bridging between between the clients, APs, and your router? It would probably be worth doing packet captures and actually seeing what the traffic is. If you are routing between the AP and the router, then it is very unlikely that your problem is broadcast related. Unless you have a _lot_ of CPEs that are bridged back to the router and/or don't route on the CPE, I would be not really think that ARP is really a problem. Broadcast storms generally are the result of 3 things, off the top of my head: 1. having a loop on your layer 2 (Ethernet) (shouldn't be an issue) 2. _way_ too many devices in a layer 2 broadcast domain (may be an issue) 3. Bad and/or malicious network programs generating too much broadcast traffic. If you control the CPE and you route on the CPE, then this can't really be an issue. You are correct on the implementation of VLANs; you will also need to create virtual interfaces for each vlan on the router and setup IPs and routing for each virtual interface. Feel free to ping me offline if you need more assistance. Thanks, Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies On Nov 18, 2007 11:47 PM, Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That should, now in order to do that you will need to have a separate subnet for each AP and the customers off of it (I believe). Have you done any packet sniffing to see if there is a lot of ARP requests? How many hosts do you have off of that tower? Ryan On Nov 18, 2007, at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I will be the first to admit that I know very little about VLANs. I understand the concept and even how to configure them (somewhat). Currently our entire network is fully routed and switched without any VLANs. However, we are starting to see a problem on larger tower locations where we have 6-10 AP's all plugged into the same ethernet switch, and then into a router before it gets to our backbone. I think what we are seeing are ARP broadcast storms, etc. and it affects all the AP's on that switch at the same time. Ping times to customers and the AP's go up to 1500-2000ms, yet we never see the traffic on the router itself. My question is this: Could I enable VLANs on the switch, and put each AP into it's own VLAN and then make the port the router is plugged into the trunk port? Would this stop the broadcasts from affecting other AP's on that switch? Is there a better solution? What is everyone else doing? Travis Microserv 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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Marlon, you are pretty rural :) You probably would have a hard time growing much without heading 500 miles to find a market with more people than cows :). From what I'd guess from your economics, strict bandwidth caps may be a good choice for you--but, for people who either are in or have access to larger markets, more subscribers is a better route for _so_ many reasons and has the nice benefit of making bandwidth much cheaper on a per-subscriber basis--increased oversubscription ratios combined with lower bandwidth costs. Thanks, -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Nov 19, 2007 12:20 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's easy to say when you are in an area with thousands of potential customers ;-) Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
George, No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to customers for them to use full tilt 24x7. Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose. Sell metered. Put caps on. Why restrict based on content type? Marlon includes, if I remember, 6GB of data and then charges for overages. If you are _really_ struggling with people abusing your service, put something like this in your TOS. Then, your customers can take their 6GB a month and transfer 6GB of video or 6GB of MP3s or 6GB of email, or 6GB of web traffic, or any combination, or figure out some crazy use for 6GB a month that no one ever dreamed of. You should not care--it doesn't cost you any more or less, regardless as to what they choose to use their 6GB a month for. You said If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. This isn't true. Comcast is NOT rate limiting, they are filtering specific types of content. True, net neutrality is regulation and does tie your hands. Sure. But, it ties your hands in a fashion that is MUCH more favorable to you than you your competition. You can operate a single pipe/service business model profitably (or at least I assume so); your competition can't. Just out of curiosity, what is your sales pitch? In the end--if you engage in all the negative business practices of your competition, have similar (if not more expensive pricing), and invest much less in network deployment on a per-customer basis, what is your value proposition? I'm not meaning that to be rude--I just have seen most of the traditional arguments I used to use to recommend independent ISPs to people disappear over the past few years as margins have grown smaller (with some very positive notable exceptions). If you keep on down this road, aren't you just a smaller version of your competition who ends up being more expensive and less reliable* (albeit with local tech support)? (* This is just a guess, but I'd guess that most independent ISPs have more outages than most of the major players due to different levels of infrastructure investment. Not an indictment of anyone specifically.) I support regulating Internet access towards Net Neutrality for two reasons: 1. I have a broad understanding of the Internet and it's potential--I view it a little broader than just a means of buying stuff on Amazon and Ebay and sending an email or two (hundred). 2. The vast majority of the Internet subscribers out there are tied to fairly monopolistic providers who offer directly competing services to those provided on the Internet. I prefer Internet-based video because I have access to a much larger selection than the 100 or so (mostly identical) channels provided by a standard cable MSO--however, Comcast's fight is DIRECTLY related to my ability to use these services. BTW, I am relatively a light subscriber in terms of bandwidth :). This fight is _not_ about the ability to profitably offer Internet access--it's about the ability to restrict content to sustain aging business models that are threatened by newer technologies. Also, telecom is not free market :). It is, in the end, a utility, and, as such, should be subject to some regulations and restrictions to ensure that it operates under some pretense of public interest. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Nov 19, 2007 12:47 PM, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may
Re: [WISPA] On-Call Compensation
Generally, somewhere around 1 to 2 days pay for each week on call is typical--it really does depend on what you're paying your employees. Some guy making $10/hr is different than someone making $80,000. It also does depend on your company. If you're a small mom and pop shop and have a very strong team feeling, you may not be able to afford that premium--and your employees will still be fine pitching in for less. If problems are rare, then 1 day, if occasional, 2 days, and if frequent...well, you may want to examine infrastructure and/or hire night shift :) Also, typically there is some sort of comp-time / flexible scheduling involved here. If not done already, put the investment in various remote access and remote reboot setups so that, barring needing to actually replace equipment, everything can be done remotely. Have readily accessible spares, etc. In other words, make it as easy as possible... Having too-frequent on-call issues because of whatever will heavily impact job satisfaction regardless of what you're paying--at some point, money isn't the issue for most employees. Honestly, I would err on the side of generous on this if at all possible just from the standpoint of employee retention. From what I've seen in the industry, on-call is a major cause of burnout and job dissatisfaction. Additionally, because it sometimes directly impacts and interrupts family / personal time at unplanned moments, often spouses of employees start resenting it as well. A lot of companies do have manditory on-call that is not (directly) compensated so you aren't necessarily atypical if you don't directly compensate or you only do a token amount. Just keep in mind that you will decrease job satisfaction. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Nov 14, 2007 12:00 AM, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We talked about this lately in my office. We're talking about $50 if you just pull standby, maybe answer a couple of phone calls. $100 if you have to go out or answer more than a couple of calls. marlon - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 6:40 PM Subject: [WISPA] On-Call Compensation We are wanting to have people be on-call in case of emergencies and for telephone tech support at night on weekends. How do you pay your people for on-call time where they are doing nothing, and how do you then pay them when they work during those time periods? Are there employment rules on this? Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax 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] Politics as Usual
Inline as well :) On 10/27/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Inline. Clint Ricker wrote: To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139 445) simply because there very few people legitimately uses SMB over WAN outside of a VPN. The problem with allowing any blocking, even with full disclosure, is that there is very little choice in the market (2-3 service provider options is typical for most people, and a lot don't even have that). Likewise, the major service providers tend to mirror each other heavily enough that they are more or less interchangeable. In other words, it's not a matter of well, if comcast doesn't allow bit torrent, I'll just go to a provider that does. If they are allowed to block, they will...the negative repurcussions of blocking are quite small compared to the benefit of forcing customers to their own services. 2-3 services providers sounds like a choice to me, I guess I'm not sure what the number would be. I guess if you just have 2-3 DSL resellers in an area that you would not have much choice but if between a DSL, cable and WISP you can't find what you are looking for, you are probably being unrealistic in your expectations. Not really. I use a # of online outlets to view most of my media--I download movies online, I watch Joost occasionally, etc... In aggregrate, I'm a very light user, though, in terms of what I use. I think this can apply to a large portion of the population. If...once...as.. it becomes acceptable for providers to block various services and protocols, these are the services that I expect to get impacted fairly soon, because they heavily impact the bread and butter of the cable MSOs as well as the ongoing investments of ATT and Verizon. And, if one major provider does it, they will all do it soon enough. The problem of disclosure and competition as resolutions to this problem is that the major service providers do act in concert in a lot of these things (I think the correct term is oligarchy, which gives the illusion of choice. When it comes down to it, there is very little substantive difference among service providers. If you want a good example of this, look at most of the major petitions for relief that have been filed at the FCC--is it coincidence that all the RBOCs just happened to file the same petition in the same week? Shop for cell phone service lately? I can't be the only one that feels like it's all just rebranded versions of the same terms of service and pricing with some very small variances in cell phones (and these small variences become even smaller once they are locked down by the carrier). I'm not naive about the economics of the industry--I've been around the block a time or two :). I'm also aware that what makes the Internet so successful IS that it is an open platform. I do feel that service providers have a moral and ethical obligation not to damage the product that they are selling, and, in the end, closing off avenues of innovation does damage the Internet. BTW, I find it odd that independent service providers get sucked into fighting battles that are largely in their competitors interest. YOU win when applications like Movielink, Joost, and yes, even Bit Torrent thrive because they wean customers away from cable tit. The fact of the matter is is that 99% of you do not have the ability to deliver television services and what all to your customers. You LOSE customers now because they can get bundled alternatives from the competition. On the other hand, if there are thriving independent alternatives (ie Joost) to watching television, you win because your customers no longer need traditional television service. (I realize that's not quite there yet--but, for some people, it already is a reasonable substitute and the time will come IF it doesn't get strangled first where it is a viable substitute). Having to slightly adjust your oversubscription ratios is a small price to pay for your customers not needing to go to the competition for the services that you can't possibly offer that they need/want. The only way that you could make actual net neutrality (the banning of any traffic shaping beyond a bit cap) work would be to move to Marlon's method of billing where you charge on a byte transferred basis. I don't know too many people that can survive in the residential model without heavy oversubscription and net neutrality will kill that model because if you oversubscribe 10 to 1 and you get more than 10% P2P traffic you are on the losing end of it. I disagree with this. Do you pay any more for 1MB of P2P traffic than 1MB of, say, http? From your cost perspective, all traffic is equal. The only thing that kills an oversubscription model is customers using beyond the oversubscription. P2P, or any other type of traffic is not the enemy; I think that the idea
Re: [WISPA] Politics as Usual
To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139 445) simply because there very few people legitimately uses SMB over WAN outside of a VPN. The problem with allowing any blocking, even with full disclosure, is that there is very little choice in the market (2-3 service provider options is typical for most people, and a lot don't even have that). Likewise, the major service providers tend to mirror each other heavily enough that they are more or less interchangeable. In other words, it's not a matter of well, if comcast doesn't allow bit torrent, I'll just go to a provider that does. If they are allowed to block, they will...the negative repurcussions of blocking are quite small compared to the benefit of forcing customers to their own services. By and large, I don't agree with the approach that some of the list members have espoused that would seem to suggest that such actions are ok for the small mom pop providers but not for the major service providers. If you are going to provide Internet access, do your part to further the culture of a content-neutral policy. If nothing else, you'll at least be the provider that gives the alternative for customers want a more net netrality-minded service provider. On 10/26/07, Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My take is that this is the that fateful first step on a very slippery slope. Today they rate shape the traffic, next week they out right block it. I agree that any provider needs to use what ever tools they have to keep users in line. The problem that Forbes is pointing out (I think) is that they are not telling customers they are doing this [rate shaping]. It also stems from the bad use of the word unlimited who's root is the heyday of dial-up [in terms of hours, not bandwidth or quantity of data). Regardless of weather I see it correctly or not, Very Good Work and we all should get writing. www.house.gov/writerep On 10/26/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll crack open the can of worms What are you suggesting here Forbes? If it's just truth in advertising then I'm behind you 100%. If however you are suggesting that an ISP should not be able to block traffic of a particular type I will have to disagree. Currently I do not shape traffic beyond bandwidth limits on my customers and blocking netbios traffic at each AP. I would hate to lose the ability to block ports 137-139 though from a security standpoint. I know there are many other ISPs that aggressively shape their bandwidth just to stay in business. Forcing them to open up the pipes will most likely end up with poorer service for more customers. If I were an uninvolved 3rd party it would be interesting to see the market react to legislation that forced no traffic shaping beyond bandwidth caps, but as an independent ISP I don't think I want to try to live through it. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Forbes Mercy wrote: After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a letter to my Republican Congressman. I sent the same to my two Democrat Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :) Anyway I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep the pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this is as good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum: A year ago I wrote you when the ATT purchase was being approved stating we had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what we refer to as Net Neutrality. You wrote back, and I thank you for that, stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic. This despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any Voice over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs. I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is like trusting the prisoners to watch the prison. We're both good Republicans who want to let companies grow as they may to achieve profitability but the exclusionary tactics encouraging monopolistic behavior is alive as always in this industry. Here is a link showing how the wholly unregulated cable industry continues to set the standard of censorship and gradual demise of a free and open Internet: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html?cid=nl_IWK_daily It is my hope you will pay heed to my warning that open enterprise does not include making Internet access different by companies who make no public claims in their terms and conditions to their customers. This constitutes fraud as people buy Internet based on the belief that their subscription entitles them to a free and open network as it was built. I again greatly encourage you to consider Net Neutrality
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth, Best place.
Where's the CO located? On 10/1/07, Mike Bushard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Flex OC-3 Direct to the CO. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC 320-256-WISP (9477) 320-256-9478 Fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 9:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth, Best place. How many megs and where are you currently picking it up / getting it delivered? -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 10/1/07, Mike Bushard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I figured I would start a new thread for this. My question is with this type of thing happening, what would be the best way to obtain bandwidth? Get multiple tier 1's, or a mix of tier 1's and tier 2's, or multiple tier 2's? Who would be the best ones to go with? How many carriers do you really need? Currently we have one tier 2 provider, Onvoy, who has bandwidth from multiple tier 1's and 2's. But we have been thinking of adding another provider. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC 320-256-WISP (9477) 320-256-9478 Fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Mike Hammett wrote: The Level3 depeer was caused by Level3, not Cogent. It has the same effect, but a different cause. Whoever caused it; Cogent is the one that made it painful for the entire internet. They could have rerouted traffic instead of blackholing all of Level3. The fact that they offered free transit to Level3 customers only shows their intent to send a message to Level3 et al. -Matt -Matt ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Cable network for Internet, VoIP and Video distribution
Javier, If I'm understanding the question correctly, which is basically Can I send DOCSIS over IP networks (wireless or otherwise), the answer is no. If you think about it in terms of OSI model, it will become a little clearer--the CMTS use a QAM to read the RF signal and pull the Ethernet frames (this is layer one / layer two); your basically asking if that information can be encapsulated inside of a layer-3 IP packet (and the answer is no). There are DOCSIS over wireless solutions (look at various wireless plant extensions for more detail) that basically shove the RF out over wireless instead of out the HFC plant, but that doesn't seem to be what you're looking for... What problem are you trying to solve? I'm assuming there is some reason why you aren't just using IP wireless links directly to the customers -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/25/07, Javier Arigita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The CMTS does have ethernet interface. The problem is the distribution of the video data and voice. The CMTS seem to have an IF (intermediate frecuency) interfaces and coaxial interfaces. The IF if is meant to transmit the CMTS signal over wireless links (not IP ones of course), the coax ifs do the same over coax lines. I would like to transmit that signal using IP wireless links (such as Alv B100 or whatever) to other areas. If we do not manage to do that we will have to install one CMTS for each area and that is really expensive. Many Thanks for your responses. If you have any other clue on how to solve this please let me know. On 9/25/07, Allen Yu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Motorola PTP 600 radio support both Ethernet and T1 interface. Not sure which CMTS you are refer to, but the compact CMTS/Router does have Ethernet interface, does that combination will work? Regards Allen On 9/25/07, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If they're only going to use 1 CMTS then you must get wireless links that shoot video, which will pretty much kill any IP wireless links in the area running on the same channel. A CMTS usually must have a management server for provisioning management, so you could buy several cheaper CMTSs (I purchased a used Nortel/Arris CMTS1000 years ago and it's never had a hiccup) and place them at each site, linking them to the management server via wireless links. I've also investingated DOCSIS wireless radios (they'll just do the data part). The problem with all this is if you don't have some kind of circuits (wired or wireless) between the sites, then you'll have to have feeds for all the channels you're going to provide at each location. Depending on mileage, you may be able to use dry copper circuits. I know that some of this can be done over T-1 circuits, but the project I'm involved in didn't go that route, so I never spent too much time on it. Hope this helps. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Javier Arigita [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:17 AM Subject: [WISPA] Cable network for Internet, VoIP and Video distribution One of my customers is designing a Cable operator network for several estate areas. They plan to use a Motorola CMTS device to serve those areas. The areas are not connected by fiber and the problem they are facing is the way to extend the CMTS service to those areas. They have think in PTP radio links but the CMTS devices are not IP, so they should use 1 CMTS for each area and that is very expensive. Is there any way to extend the CMTS coverage to this areas by using PTP IP radio links? Many Thanks, Javier ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON
Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes?
Allen, So it is just a matter of switching interfaces to a second interface when the best interface goes down (if ever). OSPF is pretty good at that. Not arguing, just curious about all that. To a large degree, you are right with your observations. If you engineer very good point to point links, then there is little advantage to using something more than OSPF. The main advantage to using something else is if you, for whatever reasons (a few legitimate, a few not legitimate) engineer your links knowing that you'll have at least some degregation (ie packet loss). _IF_ you engineer the network to deliver 0% packetloss 99.9% (or 99.99% or whatever) on all of your links, then there really is not much advantage to using something other than OSPF. Generally in such environments (not always, but still, generally), then any link problems would be an up/down scenario--failed AP, whatever, and OSPF would provide just as good of re-routing as anything else... Let's look, though, at the less than 100% scenario with some example numbers. If you engineer your network to deliver 0% packetloss 98% of the time and decide to tolerate 5% packetloss the other two percentage of the time, then using OSPF, 2% of the time, is just as likely to send traffic down the pipe that has 5% packet loss when a perfectly good pipe with 0% packet loss was available... The feature is that OLSR (or Meraki, or whatever) switches when the link is up, but experiencing some packet loss. You are right on, though, that if you do really good wireless engineering, this doesn't provide that much of a benefit. And, to restate a little bit, if you are going to the expense of getting sector antennas and aiming and so forth, then you are likely going to engineer a clean path, so, yes, the advantage of using Meraki's + directionals is, at least from a network traffic standpoint, fairly moot, or actually a detriment, since you can't really tune the wireless settings on Merakis without a lot of trouble. (Cost / relatively turnkey management, perhaps may be attractive to some still). I tend to think the Meraki's are mostly interesting in environments where it is either impracticle or economically unfeasable to engineer each and every wireless link--think entry-level residential MDU settings, where your $20-$30 per month can't cover sending an engineer out to each unit, ensuring good wireless shots, etc..., etc.. Their answer, for better or worse, is just throw enough units in there that can more or less sort the mess out for themselves. Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies Please follow my train of thought for a second. When using directional antennas, then a bit of aiming is required right?. But the benefits are as you say. Now such antennas need to be mounted right? So this is a fixed wireless mesh we are talking here, not a mobile mesh with antennas in motion. What makes this possible is multiple radio systems (3, 4, even 5 radios). So given all this, how would Meraki provide anything that say Mikrotik couldn't do? Choose paths? There isn't much to choose when using directional antennas on each end (PtP) You know what's there already, one radio, the other end of the link. So it is just a matter of switching interfaces to a second interface when the best interface goes down (if ever). OSPF is pretty good at that. Not arguing, just curious about all that. Also I'm brainstorming possible configurations with an omni on one end and a directional on the other. I need a couple of good cheap directional 900MHz antennas for some testing. I have two omni's already and wasn't too impressed going omni to omni. Signal started to drop off after about a quarter mile or so, and that isn't going to cut it. Allen ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register
Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes?
Chris, I'd imagine they would work fine, but keep in mind that you have about 0% control over the wireless settings beyond channels (for all practicle purposes).. In my mind, if you are going to engineer a link, getting something that will give you really good control over the link engineering is desirable. The Meraki's are designed, in the end, to be used in environments where you do little to no link engineering. Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies On 9/15/07, chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Id be interested to see how they worked with high gain directional antennas. With the proper antennas you could pick up some penetration, help pick through noise and change polarities. Anybody used the Meraki boxes this way? Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes? Well, I disagree, in a hippocritical way.. What Meraki has done is package and make it painlessly easy and low cost for any joker in town to spend $100 a house and destroy the RF environement accross town, with noise generating Omnis, without a clue on the engineering that needs to go behind it. The good news about the other common Mesh Boxes that were $4000 a shot (Moto, Tropo, etc) is it kept the MESH boxes in the hand of professionals (if you call Muni network guys- Professionals?) Ventures like Meraki, scare the pants off me, regarding the health of this industry. Locust MEsh on the other hand, is Open Source Software designed to empower developers to go to work to make MESH gear. Sure its OPEN, but the klearning curve is still there, detering individuals that did not have atleast a certain level of minimal technical competence. With that said, I'll have to Buy and Try some of those Meraki's, I see all sorts of applications for them, that have now become affordable to try :-) Could possibly save me tons of money. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes? Carl: Thanks :-) I rest my case. Steve On 9/14/07, Carl Shivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are using Meraki at a local ballpark, the zoo and a river walk area. The ballpark has 1 gw node and 4 mesh nodes. The zoo has 1 gw and 1 mesh node. The river walk area presently has 2 gw nodes and 8 mesh nodes. This will be expanded to 3 gw nodes and 17 mesh nodes. It is very easy to deploy using the Meraki system dashboard. P.S. I am not a Meraki sales person. -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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 incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.19/1008 - Release Date: 9/14/2007 8:59 AM ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San
Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes?
The OLSR wikipedia page doesn't do a very good job of analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of OLSR. The big problem with OLSR is that it's fairly new, immature, and not widely used or supported (mainly open source roll your own solutions and StarOS are the only ones that I know of off the top of my head that use it). Still, why it is attractive... (or could be if more common / standardized) Yes, OLSR does push routing tables to all devices (as does OSPF and BGP)...I call that a feature, not a flaw. Link-state (ie OSPF and BGP) protocols are much better than distant vector (ie RIP) simply because routers will make much better decisions if they can see the entire network at once instead of just what the next node is reporting. Sure, that does take more memory and CPU, but the alternative is much worse... There are some theoretical other approaches, but nothing that, as far as I know, is more than a gleam in the eye of some grad student. The OLSR page failed to mention the main reason why OLSR is theoretically attractive over OSPF--link state quality (there has been some noise about adding this onto OSPF, but, it's largely just noise at this point and nothing that one could really implement). In other words, OLSR (technically via an extension) has the ability to choose routes based not just on link speed, load, link state (is it up or down), but also on how little packet loss is being experienced across the link. So, with OSPF, a 10Mb/s interface that is has no packet loss will lose out to a 100Mb/s interface that has some packet loss (as long as the packet loss doesn't down the interface or is the result of load, which can also be calculated). Which, is great for wired connections, where you're dealing with very low bit error rates and so forth. One wired Ethernet link is, pretty much 100% of the time, pretty much identical to the next. Wireless, of course, does have a wider variance. OLSR performs rudimentary packet loss calculations across the links and takes this information into account to give preference to good links over not so good links. http://www.olsr.org/docs/README-Link-Quality.html is a good writeup on this... OSPF is good for wireless if you are using very well engineered links (think nice point to point connections). So, if you are deploying mesh simply as a way of getting some redundancy in a network, then OSPF is definitely good. For some situations, though, the point of doing wireless mesh is that you make up for quality with quantity. Mesh takes the concept that, to some degree, multiple less than perfect links can, in aggregate, be as reliable as one very solid link...so, if you're going block by block in a city (for example), you may realize that some of your links will be problematic, at best. This is especially true among community wireless networks where your links are based on volunteers, not on design per-se. If that is the reason why you are using a mesh topology, then you would ideally need something that can differentiate based not just on speed and state of a link, but also on the quality of the connection of the link. Still, it is important to note that there are other problems associated with mesh that don't necessarily have anything to do with a routing protocol per-se; relying on multiple unreliable links to synthisize a reliable connection is problematic on other levels, since, if your network topology changes pretty frequently, you'll get packets coming in out of order and so forth... Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Dustin from one of the WISPs down in Florida related a couple of years back the following solution that had worked for him in such situations: 1. Go to the offending provider 2. Relate to them that, if they proceed, they will drive your customers away 3. After which point, you will have nothing better to do with your wireless gear than to turn it around and blast their APs. Is there legal recourse? Perhaps, but civil would be the only way that I can see...not to mention that time / expense / trouble spent in such a pursuit is not to be understated. See a good telecom lawyer if you decide to head down that route; if you are having a major problem, then the money spent getting their viewpoint on the matter is worth it A well drawn up cease and desist letter from a good attorney (if you are out in the boonies, don't use a local guy, pay for a telecom lawyer). It is probably bluffing because I doubt you have the resources for a full on litigation, but, then again, they probably don't either... Remember, one of the liabilities of unlicensed is, well, that it is unlicensed. Which means you don't actually have rights to anything. Which means, as is FCC policy, that take interference is policy... There are reasons why companies are bidding in the GDP of a small country to get licensed over unlicensed On 9/12/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Issue is that if you are using legal 2.4 equipment and the new guy is using legal 2.4 equipment, the fcc is not going to get involved. or any unlicensed frequency Matt Liotta wrote: No need to get into complicated legal territory. If you can prove to a jury that a company is not complying with FCC rules in a way that is interfering with your business then you can certainly win a tortuous interference suit against the company in question regardless of whether the FCC will commence enforcement. Additionally, you should immediately send the company a cease and desist letter with a deadline. After the deadline you file a compliant with state court and ask for an injunction to have the court force the company to cease their interference. A couple hours of your attorney's time should be able to get both done. If you have to litigate the hours will go through the roof. -Matt ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Let me clarify what I was trying to say; if it came across the wrong way, please excuse my irresponsibility of posting at 3:30 in the morning and not necessarily being as coherent as I may like to have been. To some extent, this is a common issue for all sorts of businesses--not just WISPs. Most SMB organizations (be it Rotary, chambers, trade organizations, or likewise) have a heavy emphisis on what can best be summarized by fair business practices. (Rotary's is it fair is a good example) While some may point to this as a moral issue (which it is to some degree), I tend to view this as simply good business practices. While it is not necessarily the most intuitive concept to some new business owners, most people who have been in business for a while learn that engaging in unfair business practices ultimately hurt themselves in the long run and are often not even a good ideal from a fiscal/business sense. (That isn't to say that some people don't profit from this, but by and large, most people suffer). For example (I am in the process of moving), one of the lenders I have been shopping at for a mortgage has been very insulting towards his competition. While, on the surface, I suppose he feels that he is advertising himself as better; most customers take from the experience that lenders are generally a corrupt bunch. Bad mouthing your competition, in the end, bad-mouths the industry as a whole and makes it harder for anyone to get customers in the future. I generally have a bad feel for real estate agents for just this reason; as such, when selling my house, I did a for sale by owner. This is because I've heard enough unprofessional/malicious comments about various real estate agents from other agents that I've generally gotten the idea that I don't have good odds of getting a reliable agent... In any case, what I was relating was not a plan of action, but a brief outline of a conversation that was related to me. New businesses, of all sorts, sometimes do have to be explained some basic principles of doing business...a lot of this is general (ie the basic rotary/chamber stuff), some of it is industry specific (interference on unlicensed spectrum). In the end, the point of the conversation is to make it clear that a good business culture is the only culture in which ANYONE can build a business model. In the case of WISPs, the only way ANYONE has a business model is for EVERYONE to participate in a culture of trust and cooperation--noise is much easier to cause than signal. If a new upstart has the short sighted vision that knocking off the competition using malicious tactics will gain them customers, explaining to them that, in such an environment, no one has any reliability on their business model may be in order. BTW, for the record, I don't advocate actually knocking off, or (tactily or otherwise) threatening retaliation...one, it removes any and all opportunity of legal recourse, two, it is unethical, and three, it is generally bad business practice. However, a face to face conversation explaining that this is really in no ones best interest be in order, and, if conducted tactfully and in the right spirit, may achieve what legal action may not be able to do. This is, in my mind, not too different from one competitor maliciously maligning another--the first option is to be professional, take them out to lunch, and discuss it civilly (not threatening to malign them back, but explaining that they are damaging the integrety of their profession and, subsequently, pushing customers to explore other routes. If a customer has a problem with a WISP not being able to deliver good service, they often will look for a hard-line replacement, not a competitive WISP. Competition is a funny thing, since, there is either an enviroment where WISPs are viable, or there isn't. This is true for any type of business. I hope this clears this up; again, for the record, I wasn't advocating retalitory strike or even really threatening a retalitory strike, but simply having a conversation explaining that there is no win-lose situation based on malicious business practices, simply, in the end, lose-lose. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/13/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clint, You were doing fairly well leading this thread until you stumbled (or smooth fell down) on point #3. If a WISP were to act/re-act in a fashion such as that it would elicit several consequences: 1. Whatever chance the offended WISP had at legal recourse is now defunct and irrelevant. It is the same as throwing in the towel. It is comparable to complete surrender and admission to defeat in the industry that he had chosen. It is admission and belief that the other guy is better than I am and that is a tough pill to swallow. 2. It now opens the original offended WISP to legal battles and lawsuits himself by the originator of the noise. If the WISP turns his AP's around that means he no longer has
Re: [WISPA] IP Assignments
There is some theoretical problems; I've not seen it, though, and have had to announce /24's on a different provider for remote pops in the past. On 9/12/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess that's a good point. I may be able to get it, but will it be routable? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Allen Marsalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IP Assignments At 02:24 PM 9/12/2007, Mike Hammett wrote: I'm not sure when it was changed, but you need one less bit of address space to get your own, direct allocation. http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four222 You now only need two /24s to request your own /22 from Arin. Yeah but will everyone route a /22?? I am no routing guru but in the old days, you had to have a /19 for sprint to route it for instance. I bought a /20 a couple of years later and had no problems out of Sprint or anyone. Perhaps today's routers have so much memory, the BGP views fit with no problem. I remember back when 64M would do the job. Then 256M, etc. But its news to be if a /22 is fully accepted in all router tables. Wow only here for a couple of days and learning stuff already. :) Allen ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
I realize ideas like this aren't a one-size fits all. Geography, topography, and so forth sometimes makes this uneconomical. I will say, though, that usually independent ISPs (non-Wisps) that have gone down this route, whether for server aggregation, bandwidth aggregation, DSL aggregation, helpdesk aggregation, or whatever usually are happy with the results as it often makes a marginal business case viable. There are other advantages as well to working aggressively with each other and peering with each other. Most of the ones above are cost-saving measures, which I'm not always a fan off--independent ISPs sometimes are too fanatacal about cutting costs and not fanatacal enough about growth... Still, there are other advantages. As some/most of you know (and already do this sort of thing), your most profitable and best businesses are usually more established businesses with multiple locations. A lot of you are limited by aggressively targetting these businesses because you have a limited geographical area...and most of these business prefer having a single vendor for this sort of stuff. The more you make deals with each other in terms of being able to go between the networks, the more you can do this sort of thing. In aggregate, Independent ISPs have quite an impressive footprint, and can offer an on-net (as a whole) offering to larger business clients that is rivals many of the national guys. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/11/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Forrest W. Christian wrote: Clint Ricker wrote: Not to be overly provocative here, but why are you paying $60/meg? I'd be more than happy to pay less. Please let me know where I can buy a DS3 or OC3 delivered somewhere within my footprint or at most only a couple of radio hops away for less than the $50-75 I'm paying now (right now I have two full DS3's - one is around $50/meg and the other is around $75/meg). If you're domain is correctly registered, you're ~50 miles from Atlanta. I'm ~400-600 miles from Salt Lake City, Seattle, or Denver - take your pick. I'm *lucky* to get it at $50/meg. If I was paying loop, it would be more. Montana is tough and you probably know you already have the best deal going from a traditional approach. I don't know if a non-traditional approach would work either, but here is an idea anyway. You are correct that doing radio hops to the closest major market is a good way to go, but in your case the mileage is just too high. How far away are you from Microserve, which is in Idaho. I believe they serve Boise, which probably has cheaper bandwidth. Is it feasible to backhaul your network to theirs? In areas with mountains like yours you can go a long way with 5.8/6Ghz. -Matt ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
Not to mention that you can possibly use these intermediate hops as pops for future expansion On 9/11/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Forrest W. Christian wrote: Knowing what I know about the territory out here is that when Microserv said (paraphrasing) 200 miles is the cheap bandwidth, they probably mean Salt Lake City. It's 200 miles from us to him, and just guessing, there would probably be around 8-10 hops to get to him, if we got the *right* sites. At easily $200/month per site - since these are prime sites, this adds $2K of backhaul just go get to Idaho Falls. Then you have to add the 10 hops @20K/hop worth of radios (200K), and pay for them over 36 months (~6K/month), so doing this you end up paying 8K/month for loop, which on a OC3 would equate to $51/meg of loop costs. That's more than I'm paying for bits delivered *here*. I don't know the area, but 8-10 hops sounds high to me as that is only 20-25 miles a hop. Regardless, your ~6K/month figure would go away after 3 years using your numbers dropping your total outlay to 2k/month getting you to $13/meg. Essentially, the difference between buying and renting. Additionally, you may be able to use those additional sites to expand your market. Again, Montana is tough; I was just using you as example for others who aren't in such a tough position. -Matt ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] IPTV
Not ready for prime time...? There's already several hundred thousand subscribers on IPTV platforms in the US alone, so I'm not sure what you're waiting for... what shortcomings are you seeing? The technology IS being deployed in prime time scenarios already (ATT, which is not known for being adventuresome with technology is the biggest, but not the only domestic example; internationally, it is being deployed much more widely). The main problem that WISPs face is that you may have to do some network overhauls to handle that sort of traffic... When you resell DirectTV (unless they have changed their model since 2005, which is the last I looked at their agreements), it is more of a referral/outsourced installation crew than reselling. It does let you offer triple play to a point, but (again, unless it's changed), you can't do single bill and you can't really generate any reoccuring revenue (which, as a service provider, is where your real profit tends to be) Although you do have increased costs in doing your own in terms of network buildout and so forth, you also effectively (if done right, profitably) subsidize the buildout of a better network It probably is not quite viable for ultra-rural WISPs because of really low densities and so forth. In areas with higher densities (definitely MDU), it is viable and deployable -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/10/07, Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed, but IMO just not quite ready for prime time . yet. grin Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV IPTV is also the breaking of the traditional TV mold. You can offer thousands of channels from all kinds of different sources. It doesn't even have to be in the traditional channel format. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Brad Belton wrote: We have (off and on) been looking for the same solution, however we came to a conclusion years ago. Why not just re-sell Direct TV or Dish? For a full channel line-up or in residential settings I would agree with you. However, in a MTU the ability to provide channels ala carte to multiple customers using IP provides different economics. -Matt ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Matt, I'm understanding from you that if there was a good way to do this, you'd definitely be interested? Is anyone else out there potentially interested? This is an area that I've been working in for quite a while now, and the technology is there and deployable. There are two main obstacles, however. 1. Getting programming 2. Upfront costs of deployment (video headend infrastructures are not cheap...) Both of those are not really issues, but do require a bit of scale I'm working on a good platform to be able to do this on a centralized level that can then support multiple, smaller service providers. I'm interested in seeing if this is of interest to a large enough userbase through WISPs to make it worth the effort in building in support for those customers... -Clint Ricker On 9/10/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad Belton wrote: Correct, we see the same requests. However, why try re-inventing the wheel when DirecTV already has a solution in place? Every time this issue has popped up the client was more than happy to pay the DirecTV price even if they only wanted CNN or FOX. Are you reselling DirecTV now? It just didn't seem to make sense (yet) to put additional load on the IP leg into a building when the service is already available from the roof where we already have rights. Yes, but then you are running coax to various tenants and various drops. If it is a business park then you are putting a dish on each building. In our case, we would like to charge them for the channels, but bundle the bandwidth usage into their service just like we do VoIP. As they use more and more bandwidth it gives the customer incentive to upgrade their commit. -Matt ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
We provide symmetrical service to our customers. 2Mb/s down and up... show me a typical Cable or DSL provider who can do that. In fact, most cable plants are severely limited in the upload direction just because of how the return path is configured (it all lives below channel 2). You can on cable, but it is much costlier in terms of equipment and bandwidth usage (but is done for some business class connections over HFC). Still, for a residential customer, does it really matter? Personally, I'd take a 1Mb/s symetrical over a 10Mb/s down, 384Kb/s up, but I'm quite atypical on my network usage. For most customers, asymetrical is perfectly fine, especially for residential... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
Not to be overly provocative here, but why are you paying $60/meg? You're a trade organization...make deals with each other, share your upstream peers, buy in bulk, and get your $60/meg to $30/meg, $20/meg, or even lower... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/10/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Forrest W Christian wrote: we're trying to rid ourselves of exactly the same people that the cable companies are ridding themselves of - those which expect a full bore pipe for less than it costs us to purchase the bandwidth. I just had a guy who wanted to sign up but wanted to define what speeds I was going to give him and what exactly he was expecting. He said, when I buy a 3 meg connection I expect 3 megs all the time. I asked him if he thought 3 megs all the time meant that when he hit the speed test button, that it was going to come back every single time at 3 megs or if he meant 3megs all-the-time constantly consuming bandwidth at 3megs a second. He chose 3megs all-the-time constantly consuming bandwidth at 3megs a second. And he wanted a public ip address and no ports blocked. So I asked him if he thought it was feasible for me to buy bandwidth at $60+ per meg on a dedicated internet connection and then sell him 3x $60 for $40.00 per month and then to boot buy him a public ip and configure my routers to his specification. How long will I stay in business doing that. We argued a bit about bit caps and consumer broadband connection verses dedicated business class connectivity. I kept my cool and was even keel, the guy was getting pissed and disagreeing the deeper I got into explaining what I was going to be providing and he was going to be buying. Finally I sent him on his way to google and told him he should search out comcast and bit caps and give me a call back when he thinks he can operate on my network with my terms of service. The guy called back, apologized and explained he misunderstood and and he expected to pay what he should be paying and would give me a call back when he was ready. I hooked him up a couple weeks ago and we're both happy. He knows the rules. He even offered to pay more for his public ip. I didn't and generally don't charge extra for ip addresses. And he knows to be reasonable about usage. Heck I could care less if he used 50 gigs every now and then, but not all-the-time Now how to explain it to the rest of the market place is going to be the hard thing. George ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
Yeah...I know... been there, done that. The cable companies and the bells compete with each other over millions of dollars of business, and yet can somehow release similtaneous FCC filings, press releases, position papers, and so forth. Most independents don't compete with each other, and yet can't work out deals to reduce their overhead (some out there do this and do this quite well) Matt's post about no one wanting to be the customer is right on as to the reason...but it's a shame. There are some that do this and save thousands or more a monthPride can be expensive... just a thought. On 9/10/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm paying $150, but I only have 1. ;-) Getting together on purchases of things never really seems to get anywhere. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] You're all going to lose ( I hope not) Not to be overly provocative here, but why are you paying $60/meg? You're a trade organization...make deals with each other, share your upstream peers, buy in bulk, and get your $60/meg to $30/meg, $20/meg, or even lower... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/10/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Forrest W Christian wrote: we're trying to rid ourselves of exactly the same people that the cable companies are ridding themselves of - those which expect a full bore pipe for less than it costs us to purchase the bandwidth. I just had a guy who wanted to sign up but wanted to define what speeds I was going to give him and what exactly he was expecting. He said, when I buy a 3 meg connection I expect 3 megs all the time. I asked him if he thought 3 megs all the time meant that when he hit the speed test button, that it was going to come back every single time at 3 megs or if he meant 3megs all-the-time constantly consuming bandwidth at 3megs a second. He chose 3megs all-the-time constantly consuming bandwidth at 3megs a second. And he wanted a public ip address and no ports blocked. So I asked him if he thought it was feasible for me to buy bandwidth at $60+ per meg on a dedicated internet connection and then sell him 3x $60 for $40.00 per month and then to boot buy him a public ip and configure my routers to his specification. How long will I stay in business doing that. We argued a bit about bit caps and consumer broadband connection verses dedicated business class connectivity. I kept my cool and was even keel, the guy was getting pissed and disagreeing the deeper I got into explaining what I was going to be providing and he was going to be buying. Finally I sent him on his way to google and told him he should search out comcast and bit caps and give me a call back when he thinks he can operate on my network with my terms of service. The guy called back, apologized and explained he misunderstood and and he expected to pay what he should be paying and would give me a call back when he was ready. I hooked him up a couple weeks ago and we're both happy. He knows the rules. He even offered to pay more for his public ip. I didn't and generally don't charge extra for ip addresses. And he knows to be reasonable about usage. Heck I could care less if he used 50 gigs every now and then, but not all-the-time Now how to explain it to the rest of the market place is going to be the hard thing. George ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Brad, Here's what I'm looking at, and what would generally be involved... I do a lot of work with cable / video, and, having previously worked in the independent ISP industry, I'm familiar with both worlds. One of the major problems that I see that independents face is that they are trying to build networks getting about 1/2 to 1/3 of the revenue of the competition--when your competition gets $120 per customer instead of your $40 (or whatever), it's hard to build a competitive network and continually stay ahead of the technology curve. Many don't and others just take smaller profit margins or try to leverage other services (like computer support, etc...). Still, it's a harder position to be in. I've started some discussions about getting content. It's really a matter of #s--very few of you have enough subscribers to get very far; but, if I get enough people interested (I'm talking to some rural telco's that want to get into this so that's coming along), then I should be able to push that through, according to the conversations that I've been having. Initially, support for WISPs would be fairly limited to either MDU-setups and limited business programming (like what Matt's looking for). This is because wireless is a VERY challenging medium to deal with since it is basically broadcast and doesn't offer much capacity to boot (so, the worse of cable HFC and DSL in one package). It is also because content providers are particular about protecting their content, and that...is a challenge since wireless does not necessarily have the best reputation (kinda funny for an industry built around RF and satellite). Still, bandwidth for wireless gear is getting better, compression is getting better, and, given the right wireless gear and network design, it is definitely possible to deliver a good IPTV service to customers. Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies On 9/10/07, Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please expand a bit more on your offering. Inquiring minds want to know. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Not ready for prime time...? There's already several hundred thousand subscribers on IPTV platforms in the US alone, so I'm not sure what you're waiting for... what shortcomings are you seeing? The technology IS being deployed in prime time scenarios already (ATT, which is not known for being adventuresome with technology is the biggest, but not the only domestic example; internationally, it is being deployed much more widely). The main problem that WISPs face is that you may have to do some network overhauls to handle that sort of traffic... When you resell DirectTV (unless they have changed their model since 2005, which is the last I looked at their agreements), it is more of a referral/outsourced installation crew than reselling. It does let you offer triple play to a point, but (again, unless it's changed), you can't do single bill and you can't really generate any reoccuring revenue (which, as a service provider, is where your real profit tends to be) Although you do have increased costs in doing your own in terms of network buildout and so forth, you also effectively (if done right, profitably) subsidize the buildout of a better network It probably is not quite viable for ultra-rural WISPs because of really low densities and so forth. In areas with higher densities (definitely MDU), it is viable and deployable -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/10/07, Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed, but IMO just not quite ready for prime time . yet. grin Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV IPTV is also the breaking of the traditional TV mold. You can offer thousands of channels from all kinds of different sources. It doesn't even have to be in the traditional channel format. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Brad Belton wrote: We have (off and on) been looking for the same solution, however we came to a conclusion years ago. Why not just re-sell Direct TV or Dish? For a full channel line-up or in residential settings I would agree with you. However, in a MTU the ability to provide channels ala carte to multiple customers using IP provides different economics. -Matt ** Join us at the WISPA
Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering
What do you mean by not routing friendly? Do you mean that they don't provide BGP peering? Or, that they just don't really know what they are doing... Unless you have multiple upstream connections, there is (rarely) any reason to do BGP peering yourself. If you have your own ARIN block, most upstream providers will announce it for you and route the traffic accordingly. Where are/would you be doing the VPN? This is an expensive route, since it does mean that you are paying twice for traffic--once through your upstream provider, again through the VPN endpoint (depending on your routing this could actually be triple). Especially given that you seem to be in close proximity to Chicago, your best value / option is likely to get Internet access in a data center and then get some sort of loop without Internet from the data center to your network... Most likely some sort of metro-ethernet product is usually the most cost effective if you're dealing with 100Mb/s or more, smaller connections change the economics drastically... Clint Ricker -Kentnis Tecnologies On 9/5/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My upstream isn't very routing friendly. They're also having some issues, but I believe they'll have it figured out soon. A VPN over their network solves all the current issues. Being as though they aren't routing friendly (and don't want to change their whole network to be routing friendly), they are flexible enough where I imagine that I could put a box at their upstream and VPN over their network so I can do BGP. Thoughts? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] BGP Engineering
Call me stupid, but, don't screw around with your upstream. Get good reliable connections, don't get fancier than you have to, don't bother with VPNs, etc... If you want to save money and you have scale (minumum 10-25Mb/s, 100Mb/s definitely), get the bandwidth directly from a carrier and supply your own pipes. But, go with a good carrier and get a good pipe. If smaller, at least get good upstream providers. I can't imagine a cost cheap enough to entice me to start jerryrigging the connection that I'm relying on for my entire customer base You spend too much time and money building your network and your customer base to kill it over a few hundred a month. If you're too strapped for cash to get good connections, spend the time growing revenue (ie sales/marketing) rather than cutting costs... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technology On 9/5/07, Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to bridge to the remote box on the provider's provider's NOC? Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering Mike Hammett wrote: They don't route at all anywhere and have no intention of it. They have to route something somewhere, unless their whole network is one big flat thing, and that just makes me want to weep. If you're presently using their IP addresses, they probably don't want to BGP-peer with you for a host of sound technical reasons. If/when you have your own IP allocation, they may well reconsider that position. I was getting ready to get my own ASN so I could bring in a second upstream for the redundancy and increased performance that BGP provides. I don't yet have my own block as I can't yet justify something that big. As long as you're planning to do so in the near future, that shouldn't be a problem. (The current ARIN guidelines basically say you have to either be multihomed, or intend to be multihomed in the next thirty days, to get an ASN. They're pretty serious about that, so have plenty of paperwork ready.) Just to avoid weird routing filters and such, it's usually advisable to get a direct IP allocation at or about the same time. Yes, this means renumbering your network. No, it's not fun, but in the long-term it needs to be done anyway. As long as you're presently using most of a /22 (four /24s, or about 1000 IPs) that shouldn't be a big deal. I certainly wouldn't want to pay for anything twice. I envision the VPN endpoint being at my provider's provider, so the only thing between my endpoint and my network is my immediate upstream's network. Depending on network topology, though, you may still have to cope with double-billed traffic. Suppose there's a switch somewhere, to which your upstream, their upstream (and the rest of the Internet), and your VPN box are all connected. One of your customers loads a Web page. The page comes in from the rest of the Internet, through that switch, to your VPN box (there's one trip), gets VPN'd up, goes back out through that switch (second trip), and across the switch to your immediate upstream (there's a third trip). If you can get it wired up in parallel with your upstream, so it comes in through that switch and goes out to your upstream, you may be able to avoid that kind of double-billing, assuming you're billed by the bit for traffic in the first place. Of course, if they were clever enough to do that, they'd probably also be clever enough to handle BGP natively and you wouldn't have to do this whole VPN song-and-dance routine. :) David Smith MVN.net ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php
Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering
So, about $750-$900 per month? Anyone on the list have a POP in Chicago to share bandwidth (and bandwidth costs!) with Mike? You may want to call around again on that. You can definitely get a quad bonded T1 up there, I'd imagine for about $1,200 a month; if you have any good metro E providers, you can probably get 5 megs for about $800 or so that would be a lot more accomidating than your current setup. What's the address and npa/nxx of your pop? Thanks, -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/5/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $150 for a meg, though I've routinely hit 5 or 6 megs. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering Call me stupid, but, don't screw around with your upstream. Get good reliable connections, don't get fancier than you have to, don't bother with VPNs, etc... If you want to save money and you have scale (minumum 10-25Mb/s, 100Mb/s definitely), get the bandwidth directly from a carrier and supply your own pipes. But, go with a good carrier and get a good pipe. If smaller, at least get good upstream providers. I can't imagine a cost cheap enough to entice me to start jerryrigging the connection that I'm relying on for my entire customer base You spend too much time and money building your network and your customer base to kill it over a few hundred a month. If you're too strapped for cash to get good connections, spend the time growing revenue (ie sales/marketing) rather than cutting costs... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technology On 9/5/07, Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to bridge to the remote box on the provider's provider's NOC? Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering Mike Hammett wrote: They don't route at all anywhere and have no intention of it. They have to route something somewhere, unless their whole network is one big flat thing, and that just makes me want to weep. If you're presently using their IP addresses, they probably don't want to BGP-peer with you for a host of sound technical reasons. If/when you have your own IP allocation, they may well reconsider that position. I was getting ready to get my own ASN so I could bring in a second upstream for the redundancy and increased performance that BGP provides. I don't yet have my own block as I can't yet justify something that big. As long as you're planning to do so in the near future, that shouldn't be a problem. (The current ARIN guidelines basically say you have to either be multihomed, or intend to be multihomed in the next thirty days, to get an ASN. They're pretty serious about that, so have plenty of paperwork ready.) Just to avoid weird routing filters and such, it's usually advisable to get a direct IP allocation at or about the same time. Yes, this means renumbering your network. No, it's not fun, but in the long-term it needs to be done anyway. As long as you're presently using most of a /22 (four /24s, or about 1000 IPs) that shouldn't be a big deal. I certainly wouldn't want to pay for anything twice. I envision the VPN endpoint being at my provider's provider, so the only thing between my endpoint and my network is my immediate upstream's network. Depending on network topology, though, you may still have to cope with double-billed traffic. Suppose there's a switch somewhere, to which your upstream, their upstream (and the rest of the Internet), and your VPN box are all connected. One of your customers loads a Web page. The page comes in from the rest of the Internet, through that switch, to your VPN box (there's one trip), gets VPN'd up, goes back out through that switch (second trip), and across the switch to your immediate upstream (there's a third trip). If you can get it wired up in parallel with your upstream, so it comes in through that switch and goes out to your upstream, you may be able to avoid that kind of double-billing, assuming you're billed by the bit for traffic in the first place. Of course, if they were clever enough to do that, they'd probably also be clever enough to handle BGP natively and you wouldn't have to do this whole VPN song-and-dance routine. :) David Smith MVN.net ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com
Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS troubles
And to hijack this a bit: I've got four domains hosted on a box with one IP - is it even possible to set up a reverse DNS so that one IP will return multiple (or the correct at any given request) domains? No. However, remember that MX and SMTP don't have to actually have anything relating to the domain involved. So, give the box the name hosting.nolimyn.com or something similar, setup the RDNS for the IP address for hosting.nolimyn.com. Then, on your other domains, set smtp.domainx.com as a cname for hosting.nolimyn.com and set the mx record for domainx.com to hosting.nolimyn.com. I'm having the same problem, with spam filters rejecting some emails, because the reverse DNS for the IP doesn't return the right domain. Or does anyone know of a cheap way to buy extra IP addresses? That is generally up to your hosting/network provider...However, I can provide you some extra IP addresses for fairly cheap; contact me off list if interested. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies Cheers, J On 9/4/07, Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since you are on their network, I would simply relay the email through their server, the lookup will be sent through for server which should have a proper rDNS, you may need to set an SPF record for the mail server, but that should work ( I have done it like that on a dynamic IP before) On Sep 4, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Jason wrote: I was afraid of that. These satellite guys are kind of like an onion. There are layers and layers where no one is sure who to work with or where to go. The ip address space is owned by a company that is three or four layers up in the reseller chain (I'm told that they own the dish on the other end). Is there no work-around (like the dynamic ip guys or something)? I hate to get that cheesy anyway Can you tell I'm desperate?! Jason Mark Nash wrote: You must deal with whoever is authoritative in that address space, probably your immediate upstream provider. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http:// www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:37 AM Subject: [WISPA] Reverse DNS troubles Gang, I have started having trouble with my customers email getting bounced because other servers are checking the reverse dns, which fails to resolve to my domain because my network is served by a satellite connection (I'm the epitome of rural). Does anyone know of a work-around, or do I have to convince my upstream they need to change it to resolve to my domain (which may be hard to get to happen.). If I have to work with my upstream, how should I go about this / approach it. FYI, they are ses-americom.com. The company I purchased the domain through and who handles the regular dns lookup (domain to ip) says they can not help me because the IP is not in their IP address space. Jason -- -- ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** -- -- 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/ - --- ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** - --- 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/ --- AV Spam Filtering by M+Guardian - Risk Free Email (TM) --- -- -- ** Join us
Re: [WISPA] In support of legal operation
Zack, WISPA is a trade organization...if you care what it says, then join. It is not a business (I'll shop there if you offer better customer service), it is not a gym member (I'll join if you get this piece of equipment), it is a trade organization. It is member run, as all trade organizations are. In other words, to influence it, you have to be 1. a member or 2. a LARGE external entity that is in a position to influence such things (ie the government). I'll also say, from experience with these sorts of organizations the money is irrelevant. If you are a WISP, then you should be on WISPA. Period. In general, you should join every and all available legitimate trade and business organizations--it is the cheapest way to give your company a degree of legitimacy as a startup. The question isn't a matter of money (if you have been in business longer than 6 months, definitely a year, and can't find the couple of hundred for this, then you REALLY should examine your business model) It is a matter of time...trade organizations are member run and are not necessarily democratic in a traditional sense (one member, one vote). They are usually democratic in a merit-based sense...whoever is willing to put forth the time and effort and steer stuff in the appropriate direction, however, heckling from the peanut gallery (or, in your case, from outside the stadium) is often ignored. If you want WISPA to publish a position, join, DO WORK (not talk), and you'd be surprised at what you get. This is how trade organizations run...and, regardless of what your business is, they all run the same. The people who drive the bus determine where it goes... BTW, I did not name the discussion a 12 year old level because of the content in it, but because of the lack thereof. I called it that because it quickly degenerated from a discussion that, while misguided in my mind, originated as a call for an official WISPA policy of FCC certification into a stupid chest-thumping exercise revolving around pointing fingers at who is compliant and who is not...as continues to come up again and again and again. I don't recall that you were necessarily involved in that, so no need to feel extra insulted this morning. It is not smart to discuss matters of legal compliance on a public forum. Period. You do not air your industry's dirty laundry in public... it is unprofessional and is pretty much a no-no in any industry except, apparently, among certain members of the independent WISP community. Can you imagine presidents/CEOs of manufacturing companies airing on a public listserv who was not following EPA regulations? Care to also publish lists of who took questionable deductions on their IRS filings? Where does this stop -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/3/07, Zack Kneisley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, List.. anyone else really. I was trying not to get into a discussion at a 12 year old level. I merely support anyone who feels that they want to change something, through a structured method. Although I agree on this particular issue, making a statement look at our code of ethics does not accomplish that Ralph requested. Is there no structure in WISPA? Is there no means to petition an organization that supposedly represents all wisps to entertain the mans request? Is there no sturcture in WISPA that is aimed towards ratifying or creating a documents. I think what it comes down to is a few simple questions. Does a member of WISPA have the right to request such a public stance? Does WISPA have a means of debation these requests? Is there even a process in place that could lead to a document such as Ralph requested? If WISPA is not open to have a democratic way to represent the individual wisps, then this whole debate has no merit. If an individual that comes to the table with an idea, getys shutout by one person What type of organization is WISPA. I've thought of joining WISPA on several occasions, but I have yet to see it as an organization for WISPS, after all, given this thread, it doesn't seem that there is not any self governing process to ask for anything. Unless I'm seriously missing something, there are no processes in place that allow a member or non member to bring a topic to the table, and for it to be considered as an action that WISPA should take. To myself, WISPA looks like an organization controlled by a handful of individuals, not by the WISPS it is supposed to, in its own Code of Ethecs Attempt to represent. WISPA's Goals see:http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=6 6. Political lobbying group – Unified voice for the WISP industry How can this be acheived when the discussion turns to name calling and comparing the thoughts of others to 12 year olds. ** WISPA, at least make an official statement to Ralph. Either, stating that WISPA, (not John), believes that WISPA' ethics statement achieves the same goals as Ralphs
Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS troubles
To see who is authoritative for the address space, run a whois on the addresses in question... If they can't/won't help you (which, given the non-standard connection you seem to be using, is a real possibility), then you're best off running email and such services either on a colocated basis or an outsourced basis. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/4/07, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must deal with whoever is authoritative in that address space, probably your immediate upstream provider. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:37 AM Subject: [WISPA] Reverse DNS troubles Gang, I have started having trouble with my customers email getting bounced because other servers are checking the reverse dns, which fails to resolve to my domain because my network is served by a satellite connection (I'm the epitome of rural). Does anyone know of a work-around, or do I have to convince my upstream they need to change it to resolve to my domain (which may be hard to get to happen.). If I have to work with my upstream, how should I go about this / approach it. FYI, they are ses-americom.com. The company I purchased the domain through and who handles the regular dns lookup (domain to ip) says they can not help me because the IP is not in their IP address space. Jason -- -- ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** -- -- 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] In support of legal operation
All of you are worse than a bunch of 12 year old school girls--on both sides. Give it a rest already. Pretty much, the arguments for being certified speak for themselves. Some people make what they feel are educated business decisions to do otherwise. Fine for them. It's not the end of the world, and something that most business do (large business often calculate the cost of compliance versus the risk/cost of non-compliance and formally decide, on many occasions, to be non-compliant.) It is a standard business practice, some of you like it, some of you don't, but really, knock it off already. Please. This is a public listserv...if you are non-compliant and feel that it is a good business decision to run that risk, than so be it, but have the sense to shut up about it and minimize your risk. If you are compliant and worried about your industry reputation, then have sense also to shut up about it as well and don't draw any more attention to the matter... There's nothing to be gained here so, again, move on...it's a lose, lose situation for everyone involved in these threads. I understand there is a closed, members-only list. If you are truly concerned about the reputation of WISPA and feel this is important to WISPA's reputation and efficacy as an organization, than move this junk there... In the end, the FCC will care a lot more about you if you represent more customers (you know, the real reason why they pay more attention to the big guys than little guys). Large successful business get a lot more attention from policy makes than small marginal shops. Make the decision to be compliant or not and shut up about it and move on. It's not that important. Stop stroking your egos about following the moral high ground through upstanding citizenry or following the moral high ground of doing the right regardless of a bunch of stupid bureaucratic regulations. I think all of you have already made the decision, one way or another, no one is going to convince any one of you of anything. Move on. Spend your time building better networks and getting more customers...get yourself market share, and you'll get the attention, respect of the FCC and, far more importantly, you'll make more money (which, after all, I assume you're wanting). Talk about ways to do that. Talk about ways to get customers. Talk about ways to deliver uptime that will keep the customers. Talk about ways to deliver more bandwidth and better quality of service to your customers. Talk about sharing costs on bandwidth, email systems, etc... to cut costs and increase profits. Talk about your navel hair for all I care--it would be a more productive thread. I think I've been on this list for about three months, have seen this thread at least 10 times repeating the same pride-filled nonsense on both sides. It's embarrassing to watch, and the tenth time doesn't produce anything that the first nine did except give some people a forum to pat themselves on the back and talk about how their way is the best route to take. If you want to make WISPA a respectable organization, spend your time getting customers and building better networks, not prattling on and on about LEGAL MATTERS IN A PUBLIC FORUM... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 9/3/07, J. Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It doesn't really help, when attempting to clarify a misunderstood or confusing statement, to say the same thing over again. You asserted, in your posting, that the position of WISPA as stated in the code of ethics, did not meet the requirement in your opinion of being the official stance of WISPA. You are the one who should clarify just exactly how the official written statement contained in the code of ethics falls short of meeting the bar. If the code of ethics statement cannot be taken to be the official postion of WISPA,... 1. why not?, 2. what would you propose that would be adequate in your view? John Zack Kneisley wrote: Please expand upon this statement... Because you agree that WISPA supports only certified systems through a ethics statement, does not conclude that WISPA as a professional organization supports the use of only certified systems. I do not see how this statement makes any sense. The logic loses me about the does not conclude part. John Ok, I'll be happy to. I'm sorry if the logic in my statement is confusing. - 1.Because you agree that WISPA supports only certified systems through ethics statement, ***You have stated that WISPA, through its code of ethics, somehow assumes the stance that it does not condone the use of non-ceritified systems.. correct? 2.does not conclude that WISPA as a professional organization supports the use of only certified systems. ***This does not mean that WISPA take the same position. - I appoligize if I confused you. Is this the official opinion of WISPA
Re: [WISPA] Managed IT Service
I don't see any possible way that you're making any sort of actual profit on this (or even really breaking even) at this rate, unless you've got some redicuously cheap labor Consider this... If you're doing $40 an hour, and you had a full time person billing 100% of the time (ie 168 hours per month), then you'll max out for that employee at about $80,000 of revenueyou then have to pay taxes, mileage, insurance, etc... Now, take into account that a single full time employee doing this full time in reality will never do more than 100 billable hours a month... This is from experience and even assumes that you're fairly streamlined in terms of paperwork, supplies, travel routes, etc... This means, at $40 per hour, you'll only pull in $48,000 per year in revenue for that full time employeeassuming you have a streamlined operation. There's no room in there to pay them, pay taxes, pay mileage, pay for their portion of office space (and other expense), pay for billing, pay for your time in management, and so forth. I'd double it as a starting point if you're in a rural market, triple if you're urban, and probably more for people who aren't regular customers. Still, a lot does depend on your market and your business model. Are your employees knowledgeable? Do they really know what they are doing on this stuff, or are they just fumbling through... Keep in mind, as well, that small business consulting is not too different from dealing with people in the home construction / repair industry--there are a lot of people who just walked off the farm, so to speak, and claim to be in the business (no insult intended, and some of them do well). They aren't always the best in terms of quality, and they aren't always the best in terms of professionalism. Most businesses that have some sense pay more to get better quality...in some sense, if you price yourself higher, you price yourself into the good customers. You also give yourself the money to do it well... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 8/15/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this sound fair to all parties? My normal rate is $40/hour, with $80/hour for emergencies. I charge $150/month to manage a business's network. This includes 3 hours of support. I also will VPN into the network and ensure that operating systems, anti-virus, etc. are updated, which does not consume any hours. Additional support is available at $35/$70 per hour. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Managed IT Service
Just a few pointers about calculating costs and making profit... a lot of these are learned the hard way by most people starting a business... 1. Employees are expensive. Employer taxes add on about 15% to the cost of employing someone, after all is said and done...so, that $42k per year personl actually will cost you almost $50k a year after taxes. Also, employees are demanding folks these days, often wanting all sorts of stupid stuff like health insurance and so forth. Typical rule of thumb for actual cost of employee for most small businesses (that tend to have pretty lousy benefit packages) is 1.25xbase or higher if they go beyond basic health and offer life, 401k, etc..., in which case it can push almost 1.35x or even a little more... 2. Employees take a LOT of time. Remember that most companies (of the vaguely IT type) often have a manager over groups of 4-8 people, which should give you an idea of how much time it takes to manage people. No, I don't just mean payroll and billing (although both takes more time than you realize--especially the former once you start dealing with customers that like getting service more than they like paying). I mean training, hand holding, ongoing support, problem resolution, retraining, retraining, retraining (ie going over stuff again and again until they have procedures doing pat) and general followup on tasks. This takes a lot of time, and is often an expense that gets forgotten. 3. When starting out, structure everything possible so that you can eventually hire people to take these roles over. So, calculate costs so that it is profitable with an employee doing all the work... 4. How are you selling your services? What is your time as a sales person worth? If, as eventually should happen, how much would it cost to hire a sales person. Are you selling for free? Or, does your time spent selling something have a value...it is a cost... 4. Most importantly, profit is NOT the same thing as owner's salary. $60k/year in revenue against $50k/ of employee costs + gas + whatever leaves $10,000 for you (although I think you're underestimating expenses). This is NOT profit.. This is your salary...Profit is above and beyond what the owner makes as a salary (however this is handled). It is important to differentiate between the owner as employee #1 and the owner as the owner/investor in the company. Let's take Bob's WISP for example. Bob runs a WISP, does it all himself, and, at the end of the month, after paying all of his suppliers, vendors, taxes, bribes (joking), and so forth, has $5,000 left over. What's his profit? His profit is $5,000 MINUS his salary, which means that if he paying himself $60,000, Bob's WISP is LOSING money (remember, Bob's WISP has to pay taxes on his salary). So, even though Bob is making $5,000 a month, Bob's WISPs is losing money. Now, all that said, are you screwing the customer at $80/hour? Perhaps...that really depends on how good of service you provide. I'd check to see what _good_ IT shops in your area charge for on-site work. Still, $80/hour tends to be on the low end of what well run IT shops tend to charge and, having been around this particular block a few times, is not unreasonable...even at that price, it takes fairly good management and fairly low labor costs to have any sort of a profit margins... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 8/15/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently it is only myself, so I pocket 100% of it. I'll expand upon my thoughts not to defend my price, but to say where I'm coming from in an attempt to figure out if my current system won't scale or if everyone else is just screwing their customers. That said, I don't see how all of those things really add up to that much money. At $20/hour, that's just under $42k/year for a full time employee. Make that just over $43k after you figure in unemployment, social security, and Medicare. I only pay income tax on what I profit, so that's not part of the equation. Office space and use is pretty cheap. $250 for the whole office, I have options on other office spaces in the building. Most any problem can be quickly diagnosed and repaired, being able to include travel time within the 1 hour minimum. Otherwise, the $15/hour I make for beyond the included 3 hours surely pays for the $5 - $10 in mileage they would use (until I have my own vehicles). Everything is manual at the moment because there just isn't the volume, but I can't see the minute I spend entering into QuickBooks taking that much time or money to bill them, pay the employee, etc. There haven't been many things that I've encountered that I haven't been able to fix quickly. I know at least one other person that is about as smart as myself and they'd be tickled pink with $10/hour. I greatly prefer people that have gained their knowledge outside of formal education. After going through college, I would have only hired 2 people
Re: [WISPA] Re: How FCC screwed USA boradband
They also don't talk about who's paying for this magical fiber they keep spouting off about. The cost to install fiber in the ground or on a pole far exceeds that mythical $10 rate. Maybe it's that cheap to a HUGE MTU but it won't be to most homes and businesses, at least not around this country. Just as a disclosure, I do a LOT of work with fiber network platforms, so I'm a little biased :) Still, fiber, for most markets, is the long term solution. Do people lose lots of money on it? Sure...people lose lots of money on whatever they screw up, whether it is fiber, wireless, stock trading, lemonade stands, health care, real estate, whatever. If we're being honest about profitability, a lot more people are making real money doing fiber than are making real money with wireless Internet access (by real money, I mean more than marginal returns, but profit margins that attract big investments over a long-term basis), and by wireless Internet access I mean broad installations of generic residential access (since the $40/month price point was quoted). Wireless can be quite profitable in a lot of niche markets and rural markets, but residential wireless does not do terribly well in metropolitan areas Anyone who is selling fiber (or really any connection) for $10/month as an average ARPU is an idiot and will go broke. Tech support ($1-$2 a customer, at best) + billing ($1.25 is the established standard for cost of billing) will eat at least a quarter of that in costs alone, not even counting, well, the actual infrastructure--which is expensive and requires expensive people to do on any sort of scale that gets that cost down that low. $15 dollar DSL, service, btw, is a loss-leader and is only profitable when one considers the other revenue involved...(ie phone service, etc...) For that matter, if the bread and butter of the county over is $40/month Internet access on fiber, it's a miracle that they are only losing $6 million/year. Idiots. Why is fiber so hyped? Because the average ARPU for a FTTH customer is about $150/month, by the time you throw in Internet, voice, and data, and, in the right market, can be much higher. That translates into $18,000 over a ten year period, contrasted with ~$5,000 for wireless customer over the same period. That's $13,000 more on a ten year basis, which makes the extra couple of grand up-front costs a little more bearable :) Given much more frequent equipment upgrades and so forth that is usually necessary with wireless, and fiber can be (if done right) very attractive Now, that does depend on a certain population density and scale...so, for people in the rural and ultra rural market, wireless is the solution. For metro markets, I don't think that wireless (as a residential offering) is going to ever have broad market, but is very good in a lot of niche markets (One Ring in Atlanta is a good example; correct me if I'm wrong, Matt, but you pretty much target multi-tenant customers and use wireless primarily as a backhaul as your business model?). Still, I do know of some fairly rural fiber guys out there who make some pretty good money, so it is doable. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies Every notice also, how they tend to whine about how there is no competition, then brag about how we need one infrastructure in order to really do broadband right? They just don't get it. They are only following the pack mentality that's lead to this broadband deficit myth. We have $40 100 meg to the home fiber in the next county over. It's a joke. The PUBLIC has spent over $130 million and last I knew the program is still loosing $6 million per year! But here I am, selling $40 internet on that network. All the while the propagandists are bragging about what a great deal that's been for local economic development. Never a word about $.015 (not a typo)/kwh electric rates. Cheap power has always been why businesses moved to Grant Co. Think about this for a second. If you needed fiber for your data center, why in the world would you put it anywhere but Seattle or Portland? Cheap land and cheap power that's why. They spent a gazillion dollars on those data centers, dragging fiber the few miles from I-90 to Quincy would be the least of their worries. Somedays my head just hurts. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: John Oram [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 9:09 AM Subject: How FCC screwed USA boradband http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/073007bradner.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070803_002641.html
Re: [WISPA] Managing your network on the go-go-go!
Well, to chime in late and throw in my two cents... Don't bother. Back when I was in that sort of deal, I went down this road a few times and the reality is that it is not worth it. (I've done this on about 6 different devices and none of them are really viable for anything more than a simple service restart...which I've always been able to phone in). Few points, mostly around the screen 1. Do you really want to be editing access lists for BGP or complex config files on a 2 inch screen with a micro keyboard? The reality is (from bad experiences) is that typos are too easy to make with such keyboards and too hard to catch with the screen... 2. Outage resolution? Doesn't work...this isn't the sort of environment you want to be doing diagnostics in... Reading log files where it wraps 5 times for each line and shows 3 lines at a time is an exercise in futility. Switching between hosts is an exercise in futility in this environment. Simple fact--diagnostics is just bad at worse... Couple of points: network/system administration should not be done with both arms tied behind your back--which is exactly the type of environments these end up doing. At best, it is slow and frustrating and often involves overlooking major problems. At worse, you cause more problems than you create. There's not a single network engineer out there who would even dream of editing BGP in such an environment... Are you really telling us that things that you can do things on a two inch screen displaying complex (and lots of!) text with a micro keyboard that your staff can't do guided by phone? You may want to re-evaluate who you hire :) In any case, doesn't that scare you that you are the only one in the world who can possibly do this? Get a good network guy on retainer... you wouldn't (well, shouldn't) tolerate a single point of failure in your network; that applies to the administration as well... At best, get a micro PC (like to OGO) and a cell PCMCIA-based...this doesn't catch I'm in the bathroom and someone just stole my car, but does cover about 90% and gives you an environment that will let you get stuff done, not screw yourself over. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 8/7/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David E. Smith wrote: Ah, but I'm at the baseball game. At best, my laptop's in my car. (If I felt like putting up with traffic, that means it's in a nearby parking lot, ten or fifteen minutes away, plus however long it takes me to find a wi-fi hotspot in an unfamiliar downtown area. Most of the time, when I go to Cardinals games, I leave my car about 45 minutes away and hop on a train. That still leaves the whole no Internet connection problem in addition to waiting for a train, which often adds another half hour.) It's more likely that my laptop is at home, which under ideal driving conditions is an hour and a half. Assuming I'm even fit to drive; it's a baseball game, and I do like my overpriced watered-down beer. If I were gonna drive that far, I'd just drive the extra six minutes it takes to get to the office. And no, I can't phone it in (so to speak...) and have someone else do it. Discarding for the nonce the fact that I'm probably the only one in the office that can even tell you what BGP means, I'm sure you're well aware that, for this kind of troubleshooting, the ability to actually SEE what's going on is amazingly valuable, and no amount of dude on the phone typing stuff in and reading what happens can make up for that. (Disclaimer: I'm exaggerating a bit, for comic effect, but the point remains. First-hand troubleshooting is almost always better than second-hand troubleshooting IMO.) Is it so comical though? You are suggesting that there is a situation where there is a problem so important or complicated that only you can fix it yet you want to be able to fix it remotely via a cell phone at a baseball game. It would appear you are trying to solve the wrong problem. Matt, you have some good ideas, but they're not good for me, or for my network. I'd love to be able to build some super-duper do-it-all widget in-house, but as I'm the only developer here (and that's certainly not what it says on my business card), it's not gonna happen. The odds of finding a developer who can do all this for less than the cost of a handheld gizmo and a couple years of service for said gizmo are very nearly zip. You have convinced yourself of what you need and can't see anything that could compare. The problem with your straw man is that no such device exists. If you've used one of the small portable devices I was asking about - actual first-hand experience - and can comment on compatibility, let me know. Yes, I have a Motorola Q with EVDO that is a very effective device. I have access to our web-based OSS as well as tons of web applications built by the likes of Google et al. I can tell you quite specifically
Re: [WISPA] Business Networking International
I was a member for about a year. In the end, I left because I felt like there were more effective ways of marketing, although that really does depend on the type of business you're running For those of you who don't know, BNI is a business referral organization that revolves around weekly meetings where you trade referrals (ie you may know someone looking to buy a house, in which case you'd refer that person to a realtor in the group; likewise, if a person ran into someone who was looking to change ISPs, they'd (ideally) point the business your direction). A few notes about this: 1. Mostly small businesses (and, on the small side of small businesses) 2. Good way to get small clients; ie DSL-level accounts and computer repair sort of work 3. Not good if you're trying to win bigger accounts (ie $500/month and up), simply because the people who usually come to these meetings don't have the connections (chamber and face to face is much more effective for this). 4. Also only effective if you can/are willing to refer a lot of business to other members in the group 5. The reality is that most of the value is done behind the scenes and most good business people are already doing the jist of this program. In other words, it's good, perhaps, if you aren't feeling like you've been effective in setting up synergistic business relationships with other businesses to swap customers around. On the other hand, you can save yourself a lot of time, trouble, money, and be much more effective by just creating those relationships outside of such an organization...ie start talking to commercial real estate agents, developers, etc... and set up your own referral program and pay them commission for successful leads. Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies In order for it to really work well, you have to devote 5-10 hours a week. On 7/30/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone joined this organization? How well has it worked out for you? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Business Networking International
I guess as a followup, just simply understand that it takes about 5-10 hours a week. Ask your local chapter for the statistics on general number of referrals passed and see if it works for you. I would recommend doing the math on the front-end, since, for a lot of service providers out there, it simply doesn't make sense, even under best-case scenario. On the other hand, for other service providers out there, it can make great sense. A lot depends on your niche market, ARPU, etc... In general, it will work well for you if your target customer is a smaller business with a high ARPU and good margins. (IE you are doing a lot of bundled PC support or such). If you are primarily an access provider with small margins, it will not be worth the time. -Clint On 7/30/07, Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was a member for about a year. In the end, I left because I felt like there were more effective ways of marketing, although that really does depend on the type of business you're running For those of you who don't know, BNI is a business referral organization that revolves around weekly meetings where you trade referrals (ie you may know someone looking to buy a house, in which case you'd refer that person to a realtor in the group; likewise, if a person ran into someone who was looking to change ISPs, they'd (ideally) point the business your direction). A few notes about this: 1. Mostly small businesses (and, on the small side of small businesses) 2. Good way to get small clients; ie DSL-level accounts and computer repair sort of work 3. Not good if you're trying to win bigger accounts (ie $500/month and up), simply because the people who usually come to these meetings don't have the connections (chamber and face to face is much more effective for this). 4. Also only effective if you can/are willing to refer a lot of business to other members in the group 5. The reality is that most of the value is done behind the scenes and most good business people are already doing the jist of this program. In other words, it's good, perhaps, if you aren't feeling like you've been effective in setting up synergistic business relationships with other businesses to swap customers around. On the other hand, you can save yourself a lot of time, trouble, money, and be much more effective by just creating those relationships outside of such an organization...ie start talking to commercial real estate agents, developers, etc... and set up your own referral program and pay them commission for successful leads. Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies In order for it to really work well, you have to devote 5-10 hours a week. On 7/30/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone joined this organization? How well has it worked out for you? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] America's Internet Disconnect
Hehe... just for a technical clarification, most of the video infrastructure these days either is or is becoming IP based; the last mile will be the last part that is converted to IP based in the cable industry because of the expense of switching out 100 million set top boxes. The problem isn't IP; the problem is best effort IP where video (which requires a lot of guaranteed bandwidth in order to not look like your grandma's home videos) has to compete with everything else out there. So, just to clarify, IP as a technology is great for video; the Internet, on the other hand, is pretty lousy... But, definitely right on the rest--for _most_ uses, a reliable Internet connection is much more important than a fast connection. Hence why smart businesses will often eat the cost of a T1 which has a paltry 1.5Mb/s of bandwidth. The even bigger surprise is their utilization of that T1--by and large (on the T1's I've seen) _peak_ utilization is usually around 100-200Kb/s It's amazing how far bandwidth goes when you're not bit-torrenting movies :) On 7/25/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well said! Internet is a rotten technology for video. IP just wasn't designed for it. Cable and Sat are great for video. I honestly don't understand what all of the hubub is about. I'm about to put broadband into a development with 1000++ lots. Almost all are camp trailers for summer residents. Those folks don't even have POWER out there yet! But they'll have broadband. Cheap and, at 1 to 3 megs it'll probably be better than what they really get at home. And why do they want broadband so bad? So they can stay in touch at work (could do that with sat access if it was really that big of a deal to them) and so they can email pics of the kids to grandma and pa. We as techs too often think that the world revolves around access. It doesn't. FEW people make a living via the net. Especially via 50meg access. For MOST people in this country the net is a tool! ONE tool out of many. It makes the job easier, faster and more convenient. The difference in job performance between waiting for fed ex and waiting for an email is night and day. The difference between getting that email in 100 seconds vs. 10 seconds is nothing. They'll still spend MOST of their time DOING something WITH the email! marlon - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] America's Internet Disconnect What a load of fluff. Almost 20 paragraphs from an FCC chairperson criticizing the current policy and not a single concrete suggestion, other than some vague more wireless and BPL suggestion... I'm not necessarily a fan of the direction at the FCC. Still, I'm not really sure that I've seen a smarter suggestion by and large on most of their decision (except for the ATT/BellSouth merger and perhaps their lack of a stance for net neutrality, although that's a complicated issue). Is 1.5Mb/s too slow? Really? The only application that needs faster connections at the consumer level is video; I seriously doubt that an extra bit of lag on the YouTube videos is really going to be a drag on our economy. I'm not against faster broadband. More bandwidth is good and, judging by developments in the cable and wireless industry, the next three years are going to be a watershed point in bandwidth capacity in which we'll see typical go from 3 Mb/s - 50Mb/s for urban areas. Still, I'm even more puzzled by the criticism of slow broadband on the WISPA list...Wireless is a very limited technology in terms of bandwidth (on a consumer, point to multi-point level). If anything, you should be grateful that you're not having to compete against 50 or 100Mb/s fiber connections :) -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/24/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: America's Internet Disconnect By Michael J. Copps Wednesday, November 8, 2006; A27 America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for service that is too slow. It's hurting our economy, and things are only going to get worse if we don't do something about it. The United States is 15th in the world in broadband penetration, according to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). When the ITU measured a broader digital opportunity index (considering price and other factors) we were 21st -- right after Estonia. Asian and European customers get home connections of 25 to 100 megabits per second (fast enough to stream high-definition video). Here, we pay almost twice as much for connections that are one-twentieth the speed. How have we fallen so far behind? Through lack of competition. As the Congressional Research Service puts
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..
Fiber is definitely higher capacity than coax; you would be stupid to do a from-scratch coax buildout. The two main difficulties with coax infrastructure is 1. It's broadcast--meaning that's a shared capacity, and, technically speaking, everything that goes to one subscriber goes to all subscribers (kinda like wireless in a sense). 2. Slow return path. It's hard to do a large capacity on the return path simply because the equipment on the subscriber end usually is fairly low end and has a lot more noise to start out with. If you amp it up to get more power (and capacity) you increase the noise way to quickly. Not really too different from wireless in those ways, just has a lot more theoretical capacity Fiber doesn't have any of these problems (although a lot of FTTH implementations are vaguely broadcast-style as well), and the massive speeds we see out of fiber are only the beginning. Still, for the time being, cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair like the telcos. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coax can do 50 gigabit? Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than that. A 32 channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far off. I have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband.. -- Forwarded message -- From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband.. I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people. If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT. So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint does not grow, but certainly the penetration does. Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they generally had better customer relationships with the customers. These days, Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from the ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco. And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build new facilities? Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as has always been the case... Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions. VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or dial-up. CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is all to often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially interesting on VoIP. Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have evolved in a much different manner. However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs are more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy standpoint)--most of the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas and wireless in rural markets. The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over. I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and can't make people some dough. But, national policy is not structured around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash positive... running the same old tired copper to the same old customers does not increase broadband penetration. National policy! HA! It's about Innovation and Competition. In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame :) Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was invented in Bell Labs in 1965! RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they went the exact opposite way). Agreed...but that was 1998-2002. What have they done for us lately? Does it hurt the ILEC? Heh...probably not all that much. But, are CLECs really helping the consumer? I tend to argue no, by and large...why IS CLEC market share so small? Why are independent ISPs have so little market share? Clint, I could spend days on this. For you even to ask this, . it almost feels like you are trolling (or do I hear the clinking of ice?) I'm honestly not trolling here, although, given the forum, it definitely comes across that way. Definitely, back in the 1990's and early 2000's, CLECs drove costs down and drove in new services that Bell had little
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCCCommissioner'stakeonBroadband..
Yeah, the cost isn't that much higher for the fiber... Still, typical FTTH deployment uses a network architecture known as PON (Passive Optical Network). The wikipedia article on the matter is fairly accurate, for the interested ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network) PON is basically a broadcast-style design that is not too different than a cable HFC plant architecture; the same data gets sent to all connected units by being split out optically at the neighborhood. PON does save a significant amount of money; lower fiber costs just being one. Good fiber equipment (for terminating fiber) is quite expensive still. Management/maintenance is the other. The main disadvantage (long-term) is the upstream capacity The alternative designs would run as follows: 1. Each customer has a unique fiber run all the way back to the head end / co. This is complicated for a lot of reasons (in terms of line maintenance), becomes cost proh. quite quickly just on the fiber (it's not _that_ cheap, even if it's not very expensive). The biggest problem is that you have to have a the optical equipment on each end that can cover the entire span for each customer; this gets quite expensive, of course. 2. Build a single run out to the neighborhood / whatever and then have an actual router / switch split out from there. This isn't really much more expensive, but does require a lot more management and more stuff that can fail. This is, however, often done for commercial customers in MTUs. Doesn't really make sense for resi or small business environment. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/26/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. It costs about the same labor to run anything and the material cost doesn't vary much either. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:04 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCCCommissioner'stakeonBroadband.. But if you're running fiber anyways, isn't the labor cost per mile the same with single fiber vs. say, 100 fibers in a single cable? Virtually limitless, I would think. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner'stakeonBroadband.. Fiber is definitely higher capacity than coax; you would be stupid to do a from-scratch coax buildout. The two main difficulties with coax infrastructure is 1. It's broadcast--meaning that's a shared capacity, and, technically speaking, everything that goes to one subscriber goes to all subscribers (kinda like wireless in a sense). 2. Slow return path. It's hard to do a large capacity on the return path simply because the equipment on the subscriber end usually is fairly low end and has a lot more noise to start out with. If you amp it up to get more power (and capacity) you increase the noise way to quickly. Not really too different from wireless in those ways, just has a lot more theoretical capacity Fiber doesn't have any of these problems (although a lot of FTTH implementations are vaguely broadcast-style as well), and the massive speeds we see out of fiber are only the beginning. Still, for the time being, cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair like the telcos. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coax can do 50 gigabit? Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than that. A 32 channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far off. I have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband.. -- Forwarded message -- From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband.. I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people. If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT. So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint does not grow, but certainly the penetration does. Back when
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..
-- Forwarded message -- From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband.. I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people. If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT. So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint does not grow, but certainly the penetration does. Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they generally had better customer relationships with the customers. These days, Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from the ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco. And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build new facilities? Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as has always been the case... Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions. VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or dial-up. CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is all to often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially interesting on VoIP. Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have evolved in a much different manner. However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs are more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy standpoint)--most of the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas and wireless in rural markets. The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over. I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and can't make people some dough. But, national policy is not structured around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash positive... running the same old tired copper to the same old customers does not increase broadband penetration. National policy! HA! It's about Innovation and Competition. In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame :) Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was invented in Bell Labs in 1965! RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they went the exact opposite way). Agreed...but that was 1998-2002. What have they done for us lately? Does it hurt the ILEC? Heh...probably not all that much. But, are CLECs really helping the consumer? I tend to argue no, by and large...why IS CLEC market share so small? Why are independent ISPs have so little market share? Clint, I could spend days on this. For you even to ask this, . it almost feels like you are trolling (or do I hear the clinking of ice?) I'm honestly not trolling here, although, given the forum, it definitely comes across that way. Definitely, back in the 1990's and early 2000's, CLECs drove costs down and drove in new services that Bell had little interest in offering. That was 5 years ago, though. By and large, the bells are usually fairly competitive price wise in the business market and by far the best value out there in the residential / SOHO market. Now, it is largely the cable/telco competition that is keeping prices down, not the CLECs... I worked for several years at an ISP that did the whole BellSouth DSL NSP stuff. The FISPA list, etc...continually trashed BellSouth DSL service and their poor customer service, and so forth, and espoused the the glories of independent ISPs, which I largely agreed with until one day when I setup a friends self-install DSL kit from BellSouth. It was a very slick automated installation procedure that was _much_ better than what we were doing. The Independent ISP community did _way_ too much talking about their own value and their own great customer service while, by and large, doing very little to actually improve workflows, improve the customer experience (in terms of ease of turn up) and way too little time / effort spent actually selling and marketing. Simply put, by 2005 the telco offering by and large was, for most people, a better product. Again, this isn't a universal indictment, but a lot of their problems were self-inflicted and not the result of FCC meddling. Too much talk, too little action... Way, way too much time was and is still spent blaming the government and the evil ILECs and too little time / effort spent actually selling, improving business operations, and reinvesting in better infrastructure / services. In the end, the market share for the CLECs and independents is small because more consumers chose to go with someone else. Some of the better-run ones that actually do have a compelling product
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..
I'll duck after this post, but I by and large tend to agree with the basis of the article. Scottie, exactly what regulation would you recommend? What has regulation solved in the past 11 years? By and large, I've not seen a single bit of FCC regulation that has had a net positive impact for getting access to the consumer, especially post 2000 (it was probably a good force behind making dialup Internet access widely available and affordable). We had over 11 years of forced network unbundling for the ILECS (ie where the ILECs are required to sell the bare copper at cost). The idea, of course, was to help service providers get on their feet while they were building out their own network. By and large, for a policy standpoint, it did very little to actually increase network buildout. Almost all of the CLECs took the easy money of reselling the Bell networks and ran, making agreegates of billions of dollars and not really building out any network to speak of. (Yes, there are some exceptions, but, this sums up the general problem). Forced wholesale access of the physical layer / network layer does absolutely nothing to increase availability and, in fact, actually hurts availabilty. The ISP / CLEC that is basically reselling ILEC copper is not connecting anyone who wouldn't / couldn't have been connected via the ILEC. However, because the ILEC is less profitable due to forced reselling, then they can't buildout as much infrastructure (theoretically). The only real change in FCC policy in the past 11 years (fundamentally) is that more people actually have to provide the services that they are selling. It's harder now to buy Bell DSL service, stick your own label on it, and say that you're competing with Ma Bell. All in all, I think that's a good thing. I understand that it isn't necessarily economically efficient to have multiple sets of copper / coax going to the same house / office building, and that telecommunication companies often constitute a natural monopoly of sorts. Forced selling of the network layer still doesn't get any new people access to the Now, if they wanted to successfully regulate the market, force a separation of the network layer and the physical layer into two separate companies, a model that is being vaguely adopted for some muni-funded developments. The fact of the matter is that the US is doing pretty damn well at broadband deployment, and, corruption aside, most of the current administration's policies have been fairly benificial towards making broadband more widely available (with some very major exceptions). The US is fairly far down on the list statistically; however, comparing US to Japan or European markets is not an accurate comparison. Sure, there is fiber available for $25/month in many countries...can you profitably deploy fiber in Idaho at $25ARPU? Montana? Kansas? North Dakota? Is bad FCC policy to blame? Or the fact that this is a big country with a lot of empty space...something that doesn't affect most of the countries that are beating us in broadband development. Is the government policy hurting the independent ISPs? Really? Given the huge regulatory requirements that exist on the ILECs, and the relative freedom that the independents operate under, I can't really see the independent industry as being hurt by government policy. BTW, I do agree that the FCC is in the pocket of the telco's...and so on and so forth. However, most of the changes have, nevertheless, been positive changes. The industry does need less regulation, IMHO. As long as there is interconnection is manditory, there really doesn't need to be much more regulation. Don't like ATT? Build your own network...(as most of you are doing). Expand. Grow. Acquire customers...you know, compete and all that sort of good capitalistic stuff... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/24/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Hammett wrote: 3 mbit is not fast. The US IS behind other countries, there's no point in whining about it. Yes, there are very substantial reasons why our numbers don't look as good as theirs, but there's no need to skew the system to make us look better... just solve the problem. Fixed wireless is broadband. WIFI hotspots, cell phones, etc. are not broadband (maybe the cell broadband cards). The reason our numbers are climbing is because this has been a problem for some time and we're working on fixing it. It takes a lot to change things like that for the third most populous country in the world. Perhaps it should be measured per household and not per capita, I dunno. The reason why there's less competition elsewhere is because what is present is doing a good enough job! Their telcos have delivered 15 meg DSL for years, while ours don't yet offer it. That's why cable is taking on so well here. It surely isn't because anything connected to Comcast has a good price point (DSL and satellite TV are both better values
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..
Sam, I agree with your observation 100%. Given most of the oversubscription models in place in the industry, it is not even a matter of having cheapskate customers. Internet access (broadly speaking) is NOT very bandwidth intensive. Filesharing, video, etc... is bandwidth intensive. Other than that, it's all overkill. Voice? 30Kb/s per line. Web surfing? 100K once every couple of minutes. Email? A brief surge of 100K a few times a day. For most users, 256Kb/s will provide the same user experience as 100Mb/s. People pay 6Mb/s connections for the same reasons they pay for faster cars, even though the speed limit is the same for a Ford Pinto as a Ferrari. Not an entirely apt analogy, but pretty much sums it up. Honestly, I'd pay a lot more money for a connection with nearly 100% uptime and consistently low latency...you know, like a T1 :). Having a good quality broadband connection would do MUCH more for business and Internet usage than having a higher capacity connection--after all, our fear of voice over IP is not that we are going to run out of bandwidth, but that the connection is going to drop. Our reluctance to rely too heavily on Internet-based applications, be it voice, video, or office applications, is MUCH more the worry that our Internet connection will be out right when we need to access it (or receive that important call) than the worry that our tubes are too small and will get clogged. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/24/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter R. wrote: Mike Hammett wrote: 3 mbit is not fast. The US IS behind other countries, there's no point in whining about it. Yes, there are very substantial reasons why our numbers don't look as good as theirs, but there's no need to skew the system to make us look better... just solve the problem. Fixed wireless is broadband. WIFI hotspots, cell phones, etc. are not broadband (maybe the cell broadband cards). The reason our numbers are climbing is because this has been a problem for some time and we're working on fixing it. It takes a lot to change things like that for the third most populous country in the world. Perhaps it should be measured per household and not per capita, I dunno. The reason why there's less competition elsewhere is because what is present is doing a good enough job! Their telcos have delivered 15 meg DSL for years, while ours don't yet offer it. That's why cable is taking on so well here. It surely isn't because anything connected to Comcast has a good price point (DSL and satellite TV are both better values). - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com If they change the definition to 1MB, EVDO won't count and neither will IDSL and DSL Lite. The numbers of BB users in the stats will drop - the telcos will look like they have very few BB subs since about 10-20% buy Lite (depending who you believe). So the FCC will never voluntarily change the definition. BTW, in countries with deep BB penetration, the regulators are TOUGH - as in the FCC Chairman does not have Ivan and Ed's hands up his butt so he can talk like Charlie McCarthy. But ALL of that is beside the point. End of the day, YOU guys have to find, acquire and retain profitable customers. No matter what the regulatory or competitive environment looks like. - Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. I know it has been brought up before, but I'll bring it up again, the majority of my customers are plenty happy at 1mbit service. How do I know this? The upgrade is only $10/month to go from 380K to 2M on my system, but less than 10% of my customers have opted for the higher cost plan ($40/mo instead of $30/mo). In fact if I remove business accounts from the equation then less that 5% opt for the 2 meg plan. What is even more telling is that 15% of my customer base is unwilling to pay $5/month more to upgrade from 128K to 380K Are we ranked so low because we actually only provide service that is requested by our customers instead of over providing? I wonder of the 14 other countries above us if their consumers were given the ability to halve their ISP bill for half the speed if they would be willing to still pay the higher rate. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
John Vogel, Disagreeing with you does not make this a less-than-professional discussion. There was nothing in my post that was unprofessional or uncivil; I simply disagree with the use of magnet-mounting equipment onto towers. If discussion on such stuff is unprofessional, then these lists have no purpose. You stated in your earlier post regarding magnets I don't completely trust them. I don't either, so we are in agreement on the matter :). Call it unprofessional of me, but I tend to think that one should avoid using mounting methods that one doesn't trust when one is dealing with big, heavy chunks of metal and what-all hundreds of feet in the air. As a general side note, any statement about mounting that involved some statement of I don't completely trust it would get the same response from me. I don't like the idea of people mounting big heavy objects above my head using methods they themselves have some doubt about. Best practices does not necessarily entail commercially available solutions or degreed engineering solutions. Best practices are simply that--the optimal way(s) of achieving a particular task. I don't completely trust methods are a long-ways off from that. My point is not to increase regulation and such--quite the opposite. My point is that using practices that aren't completely trusted will, in the end, lead to regulation. As an industry, the wireless industry will have to learn to regulate itself to a moderate degree or it will be regulated to a heavy degree. There's a lot that goes by everyone on that is not necessarily as well done as it could be--which is understandable--business may require concessions to some degree. Nevertheless, better practices should be used in places that are highly visible or potentially impact the public community. Does it need to involve a degreed engineer? Of course not. But, considering that even you had your doubts, 200 feet above everyone in plain sight of an entire town is a heck-of a place for a we'll see approach which was the feeling I got from your original postings. I don't think that engineering needs to take into accounts stupid misuse (ie antennas being used as footholds). Still, I don't see how a mounting solution that you were almost surprised that there hadn't been slippage on a year later is a good thing. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies ps. I'm not against magnets in general. Magnets on my fridge? Guilty as charged :) Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
Sorry for the late reply on this; sometimes life takes presedence :) Doug, you definitely hit a number of things on the head, there. There is a _definite_ need for some much more...shall we say, mature network platforms in the wireless industry, and then for that equipment to be available at affordable prices. Still, I don't necessarily agree with you (Doug) on the pricing. Good stuff like you're describing will never be cheap simply because there aren't enough units produced and sold to make it profitable at lower prices. Is it expensive? Yes. Still, do keep in mind that multi-tenant solutions in the non-wireless world are considerably considerably much more expensive that what you mentioned, not necessarily in terms of gear but definitely in terms of infrastructure (fiber or whatever). This is, btw, done again and again at very lucrative profit margins in aggregate...it would be worth your while to study your competition in the industry and see how they make money :). I wouldn't really expect for the price of such equipment to fall considerably, btw, simply because a large portion of the independent market often is price-conscious to a fault, meaning that too often, a lot of the providers out there deploy less-than ideal systems simply to save a few dollars. As a little inside/outside observation about the independent provider industry, the guys who tend to do better are the guys who, at least when it counts, will pay major money to get the right platform in place, and then sell the hell out of that platform. In a weird sort of way, I sometimes wonder if the ebay / jerry-rig approach that often goes on (which, is often quite technically sound) almost hurts simply because it allows service providers too often to deploy platforms that don't really have a critical mass. Sometime, if you're up for either some humor or hurting (depending on where you're standing), talk to Peter (rad-info Peter) about cost and pricing and profit in the industry. He's got a lot of good insight on the busness operations side of service providers about all the stupid ways that independents often do very bad calculations in their business planning (for example, forget to figure that it costs you money to bill and invoice). The same thing goes into the technical platforms as well. A lot of you guys tend to fixate on the cost of the routers or APs or whatever (ie central networking equipment). If you do a total cost of ownership to your platforms, it often becomes clearer why doubling the cost of your router doesn't really raise your costs all that much and often provides much better value. Anyway, back to my point, whatever that was :). Definitely more mature platforms will have to come in the wireless industry. As a general observation, the biggest difference between the wireline service provider gear and the wireless industry stuff is 1. bandwidth to some degree 2. lack of mature provisioning systems and mechanisms. The wireless industry is still very focused on the connection rather than a service. (for those who haven't really dealt with the other) Provisioning by the service means that you provision services on your platform. Your platform tracks usage, capacity, and so forth, and gives you the ability to provision a service that has some guarantee of bandwidth on an end-to-end basis. For the most part, the wireless industry still operates a little too heavily as just a series of dumb pipes (wireles or not) without no non-overly-cumbersome methods of provisioning across the infrastructure including various classes of services across the infrasrtucture as well. As a result, WISPs networks tend to be an entirely best effort approach end to end. Anyway, just some thoughts and ramblings. Back to other stuff for now... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 6/18/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For Last Mile- FreeSpace Optics can be had now up to 1/2 mile for as low as $5K. GB manufacturers are going to realize soon, the day of the huge profit margin will be a thing of the past. The competition is here on all fronts. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Yep, I just did a 100meg FSO link and it was around $5k for the link. I wuld have preffered to do fiber and I'm sure it would have been not much more, but the beaurocracy to get where I needed to go was slow moving. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
Not even close. The telco's aren't stupid enough to pay billions of dollars ($23 billion expected total cost for Verizon's FTTH project) simply to close off line sharing requirements. Total revenue for other providers of local service nationwide (not just Verizon territory) was a total of $22 billion last year. Peter, you may have more exact stats, this is pulling from the FCC Annual Telecommunications revenue report. Considering this includes a lot of stuff that doesn't fall under CLEC status, this isn't enough to really justify Verizon and ATT's move to fiber. I'm not arguing that line sharing isn't an annoyance. But, the reality is that it is simply an annoyance. Most of the players who really count in terms of major threats to revenue either are moving to fiber or fiber/coax hybrid because we are no longer in the 1990s. 5Mb/s was great technology in 1998. We are in 2007, and by the end of the decade most of the major cable companies will be pushing DOCSIS 3 with 50-100Mb/s (with much higher theoretical capacity). The telcos have their backs up against the wall in a lot of respects. The cable companies are rolling out voice, which is a piece of cake these days (well, compared to the challenge of deploying video services, voice is a piece of cake) and are getting their act together in a big way about going after the business market. The telcos are on an old copper network which simply can't handle much data (max even for the next generation is ADSL2 is 25Mb/s down, 5 up +-). The simple reality is that copper pairs can't handle much data. The cable companies don't really have that liability--a coax plant can push about 50Gb/s (albeit broadcast rather than point to point) for residential and are doing metro-ethernet stuff as well on the business side. Smart CLECs that target business customers are dropping fiber into multi-tenant buildings and grabbing up lucritive business customers that way. Sticking with copper simply means that the telco's don't have the technical basis to compete. Plain and simple. The market is evolving. Sure, telcos don't like line sharing. However, CLECs buying what is/will be legacy connections (T1s, POTS, etc...) are the least of the ILECs worries these days. They are rolling out fiber because the technology is advancing to the point that it is increasingly a necessitity to offer the services neccessary to gain and keep customers on that level. Now, that's only about 1/3 of the story :). My comments above are mainly centered around the urban markets. You could reasonably make the argument that the copper plant will be dead in major metropolitan areas by 2013, and I might even believe it (although I doubt it will be quite that quick from ATT side, but not too far off). Rural markets will remain on copper for a _long_ time. If I'm not mistaken, this is the market that most of you on the list (although not in terms of subscribers) operate in. Verizon is rolling out FTTH across its market, sure. Don't forget that Verizon also spun off much of its rural market for the simple reason that rural is less profitable and fiber is not really profitable for rural markets (for the major ILECs--there are some people out there making good money at fiber in rural areas). Many of these areas are still running copper between central offices, if that is any indication. In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter why the market is moving away from copper into fiber--it is (although not really in rural). Still, I think you're flattering yourself and the CLECs a little too much if you think that the ILECs are doing a multi-billion dollar fiber rollout simply to get rid of them... even if copper stayed around, the CLECs relying on it would obselete themselves about as quickly. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 6/15/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: correct George Rogato wrote: Isn't the reason they are replacing some of their copper with fiber is because they then do not have to allow competition to ride their wires? Old wires old rules, new fiber new rules? George Peter R. wrote: The ATT (originally SBC) VDSL plan requires copper to the home. Fiber to the neighborhood. In VZ region, they are pulling out copper as fast as they can replacing it with fiber. (FiOS is FTTH not FTTN). VZ even clips the copper when they install your FiOS. And what VZ isn't replacing, thieves are stealing, since copper is easy to sell. VZ's union is even claiming that VZ is not maintaining the copper plant in some areas. If you watch the FCC network notifications, there is more copper replacement being done this year then ever before. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
ATT is betting on copper for the next 5-10 years for the next 5-10 years. I think that, alone, about disbunks this article. -Clint On 6/15/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last month, Tom Evslin, the co-founder of Internet service provider ATT Worldnet and voice-over-IP wholesaler ITXC, created quite a stir by making the bold prediction that the twisted copper pair to the home won't exist in 2013. By 2012 [there will be] no more reason to use our landlines--so we won't, Evslin wrote in his blog. I don't think the copper plant will last past 2012. The problem is the cost of maintaining and operating it when it has very few subscribers. Obviously [it's] a huge problem for ATT and Verizon. And an important social issue as well. Those comments provoked quite a reaction from readers, most of which were along the lines of, Wha-huh? Most people were eager to bet against Evslin's prediction. At the same time, his words echoed in my mind as I read recent complaints from the Communications Workers of America and the West Virginia Public Service Commission that Verizon Communications is neglecting its copper plant as it focuses on fiber-to-the-home deployment. The CWA told Virginia regulators that Verizon is foregoing preventative maintenance on much of the state's copper lines and ordering Band-Aid repairs for major problems. Verizon refutes that charge that copper has, in essence, become its redheaded stepchild. But those complaints highlight the way that copper becomes increasingly onerous for Verizon as its fiber network grows. Copper lines will require more care than passive optical networks and yield less revenue. In some cases, it might behoove Verizon for that copper to fail sooner rather than later to accelerate fiber migration. So I can't help but wonder if Verizon would bet against Evslin. Or on him. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Matt, I'm not a WISP (I do network design, deployment, and consulting for service providers), but, seeing as how none of the WISPs are answering, I'll give it a shot as to percieved advantages of MT or StarOS. 1. I don't think the FCC certification is a huge issue. This is largely because any of the certification stuff needs to be done once, and can then be replicated. Regardless of how you look at it, the initial cost of deploying a platform (any platform) is quite expensive especially once you start factoring in all of the things that are usually ignored by smaller service providers (ie their own time for RD). This is true whether you are doing Cisco, Moto, Alvarion, Trango, etc...--you have to (should!) do bench testing, draw up network diagrams, figure out all the specifics to getting install processes and so forth down pat), figure out how you are going to manage hundreds or thousands of these things, and so forth. The effort for certification is not a huge deal, then, since you can amoratize out the time across all of your systems, just like you're already doing for all the other aspects of your network. Is it an increased cost? Sure...but, in the end, not that big of one on a per-unit basis, especially since the whole concept of a business is to scale big (right?). That said, the irony is that the guys that tend to run MT or StarOS are often the small providers where there simply isn't the return of scale that makes this even vaguely a good idea. 2. The main advantage is (theoretically) the ability to have a single platform across the entire infrastructure. I say theoretically because there are areas where most providers diverge from this because they don't feel that it really fits. Still, the idea of having a unified platform across the infrastructure can potentially be very powerful and very good. Still, I tend to find the MT management app kinda weak in this regard; it hasn't (IMHO) sufficiently evolved from a mass managment app to a platform management app. Still, while these are criticisms, if MT can cover a sufficiently large portion of your infrastructure needs, then having a single (or 2 or 3) platforms can really reduce operational costs considerably. Conceptually, the idea of upgrade the hardware, not the platform is great. 3. Some degree of freedom. This is somewhat seperate from #2, but along the same lines. I can think of several instances of larger service providers being left with millions of dollars of infrastructure with no support and no future because a particular product line no longer fit into their vendors roadmap. Divorcing the hardware from the software makes this less of a possibility, although does not totally negate the possibility, especially given that most of the hardware vendors that MT stuff typically ends up running on (ie the embedded PC market) are often, well, not the most financially stable operations. I hope this helps. Just for the record, while I do think MT can be a good choice for some people, I would make the observation that there are providers out there who could have better allocated their resources elsewhere--most of the advantages don't really work until there is some degree of scale, but at that point there are other considerations that often take MT out of consideration. Thanks, Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 6/10/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George Rogato wrote: Matt there is a tool for every job. Just because someone uses MT or Star does not mean they don't use canopy, trango or alvarion as well. And nobody needs to explain why. I am well aware of that, which is why we use so many different vendors' radios. We first started with Canopy on a recommendation and over time various operators (mostly WISPA members) introduced us to other vendors' radios. Every time we learned about a new vendor from the experiences of others. I respect the experience of my peers and find it quite useful in vendor selection. Why everyone is so defensive about MT I don't know. I personally don't care what equipment anyone uses. I am just curious why people use it in case it would be useful for us. But, no one seems willing to answer that. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPv6 - anyone using it?
IPv6 is pretty much free to run on a play level. In the next couple of months, I'm planning on having some equipment up on IPv6, and I will be happy to offer tunneling services at a near free cost (just a token amount to avoid dealing with people who aren't really interested) to anyone who wants to play around with it. The basic idea is that you will be able to take a router (or a server) capable of IPv6, give it a normal IPv4 address on your network, and tunnel in (basically using the same concept as a VPN, sort of). There are also free services out there as well, albeit with nominal support. From a few discussions I've had on this, it is good to know sooner rather than later. While widespread adoption is a few years away, there are carriers who will be transitioning to IPv6 on the transit level before that point. It doesn't affect your ability to offer IPv4 services through them, but, your interconnect will be IPv6, so on and so forth. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 5/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Windows XP supports IPv6. There is a separate IPv6 Internet. You need to buy your IPv6 service from a different provider that support it. Once I get settled and can afford the separate IPv6 feed without an immediate return, I'll be getting it. Everything I have is Mikrotik and they should have IPv6 implemented at some point. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Bushard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:59 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] IPv6 - anyone using it? I really dread IPv6.so much more complicated. I probably would run it, but from my understanding there is a ton of equipment on the internet backbone that won't route it. Not to mention how many SOHO routers and PC's are ready for it? Will your CPE support it? And the list goes on, I foresee a mad rush for upgrades and implementation the day v4 space is gone, and not a second before. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC 320-256-WISP (9477) 320-256-9478 Fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan Langseth Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] IPv6 - anyone using it? With the recent announcement by ARIN to start pushing IPv6 uptake, and the run out date of v4 is as soon as 2010, I was wondering is anyone are here using v6 in some form or planning the switchover? Since it is much more than renumbering customers, the needed time for deploying it will be much longer, is your infrastructure ready for it? http://www.arin.net/announcements/20070521.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070521-arin-its-time-to- migrate-to-ipv6.html Have a great evening, Ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPv6 - anyone using it?
I definitely would recommend learning it or at least getting familiar with it. There is not enough on it yet to transition your entire network over to it, but, it is definitely doable for transit within your network and replacement for private IPs for your customers. Not that any of these are marketable--yet. However, three or four years down the line, I think that you'll start seeing this as creeping into transit connections as well as requested by some business customers; for the latter, being able to say yeah, we've been doing that for 4 years instead of I think I can learn that by the time your circuit is provisioned is a good thing :) David, would you mind contacting me off-list (or on) with the name/model of the router that doesn't support IPv6? I work as a consultant for a company that fits the description, so I'm kinda curious--most of the stuff out there can support IPv6 (well, in the core router category). As mentioned, there are a number of free tunnel connections; these are useful for playing, although keep in mind that you don't own the space or the connection--don't deploy anything serious on it. (Although, as a side note, usually the small chunk of addresses, at least through HE.net, is 18,446,774,073,709,551,616 IP addresses (/64). ie 1.84x10^19 !) You can also get a block for free from ARIN if you pay your dues regularly; I believe that renewal is also free if you have an IPV4 block through them. BTW, if you don't have your own ARIN block, you definitely should strongly consider getting one. $2000-4000 / year is a small price to pay for having provider independent IP space and the freedom to switch carriers at will without having to worry about transitioning. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 5/25/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Hammett wrote: There is a separate IPv6 Internet. You need to buy your IPv6 service from a different provider that support it. If you can find one :( There's a few places (Hurricane Electric, SixXS, OCCAID) that are more or less involved in IPv6 stuff, but they generally only work by way of tunneling. There's also the issue of network gear that supports it. In the next few days, I'm deploying a brand new core router that we just paid about three large for (brand name intentionally left blank, but it's a big enough company that you've probably heard of 'em). As near as I can tell, it doesn't support IPv6 in any form or fashion. Once I get settled and can afford the separate IPv6 feed without an immediate return, I'll be getting it. Everything I have is Mikrotik and they should have IPv6 implemented at some point. For small-scale experiments and such, this should be nearly (or totally) free. I've had an IPv6 tunnel on my desktop for a couple years now. Never used it for anything besides looking at the dancing turtle, really, but it's there. If you don't feel like getting a direct IPv6 allocation from ARIN (assuming you already get direct IPv4 allocations from them), SixXS can set you up with a small chunk of addresses, more than enough to play around with, and unless it's changed very recently they'll do this for free. As an aside: http://www.ipv6experiment.com/ -- THIS is the way to promote IPv6 ;) David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
