Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end
I don’t comment all that often here, but very much pay attention to the voices of experience. On Net Neutrality, I have plenty to say. As with most of my FCC comments, what I filed 2 weeks ago with them went against the grain. I am a purist who has been in telecom since I repaired my first CB radio for a neighbor at the age of 14. I helped launch Metromedia’s cellular system in NY, a company I was a part owner in was the first acquisition of Fleetcall in NY City. Anyone as old as me would remember that Fleetcall became NexTel, and for the real youngsters, they were acquired by Sprint for what turned out to be a total write-off of $35 billion in December of 2004. I have been using unlicensed radio to link communications sites since long before it went digital. One thing my experience and observations have taught me is that nothing promotes innovation like free market. We need not look beyond our own industry to prove that. When no one would service 40% of America, we collectively built an industry that matured into a recognized and respected market sector. I was involved in the previous formation of an industry that is both parallel and intertwined with WISPS, that of home satellite television. Back in the mid 1970’s a band of tenacious, adventurous experimenters took handfuls of surplus junk and built home earth stations. In short order we went from being pirates and thieves to an established medium to reach rural America. It wasn’t long before the big money found us and pushed us out of the way. We went from a place where we could make a respectable income to being lackeys for DirecTV and DISH who generously paid us a few dollars to do the job and then gave us a big residual of 50 cents to about two dollars, on subscribers that ARPU of $100 or more. WISPs have been struggling to keep up with the Netflix demand since they went to Internet delivery in 2009. Systems big and small quickly found their choke points. And like in highway design, if you upgrade one intersection, the traffic jam just moves to the next unimproved intersection. The problem is, unlike the highway department, we don’t run on tax revenue. We have to charge subscribers for a service that is both fair and responsive to their needs. The SPRINT concept in the article is the most fair and responsible way to assure that our infrastructure can meet the demand, and that those creating the demand are the ones paying for it. The FCC needs to stop cow-towing to the illiterate public who are still touting that they need to “protect the FREE Internet”. Who gets this for free? If you are in a coffee shop, the proprietor is paying for it. Public Wi-Fi is advertising or tax subsidized. Do we get power, water, heating for free? Ten years ago we projected a mass movement from the PSTN to VoIP. Even the industry experts never predicted a loss of 48% of copper lines in 10 years. What was built up over a century dissipated in the blink of an eye. We are again on the cusp of a shift in the paradigm that will see cable and satellite users shift to Internet based delivery on any device they desire. The same dramatic reduction witnessed in copper phone lines awaits the traditional Multichannel marketplace. And along with the big guns, we are on the front line. We will be expected to deliver copious amounts of data to subscribers as they stream HD video and music to multiple devices in their homes and offices. We, the WISP industry, need to step up our game if we are going to remain part of this. We are going to have to emulate the cellular industry with frequency reuse like we never imagined. We are going to have to replace our older radios with ones that can deliver the required bandwidth, and our backhauls are going to need enough capacity to handle all this. But how do we justify the cost, who do we charge, and how do we do it? The early agreement with Verizon and Netflix that received the FCC’s blessing was never going to benefit everyone. How long would it take for you and I to get Netflix to pay for our “fast lane”? My guess was never. Netflix, Hulu, and the like have created a business model where they have no cost to deliver a product to their users. They are using the infrastructure built and paid for by others, then stirring up the ignorant masses to complain to the FCC about the free Internet. I have learned the hard way that no matter what is done to increase bandwidth, the increase is negated in short order, often weeks if not days, by savvy users that realize they can pull another stream and waste no time setting it up. The simple answer is, let the market decide. If you want Netflix, each stream will cost you a monthly fee. Likewise for other streaming services. This way the user pays, not everyone. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh
Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption
George went with Vitelity I went with VOIPo I looked at Vitelity, but there were more moving parts and right now I had to get people back up. VOIPo is as plain vanilla as can be, and if it isn't meeting my needs I can always migrateat my convenience --- to another provider. As a FYI for those similarly situated, I was able to port all my numbers out. I had some issues with CSR mismatches. The customer record may have an incorrect zip code or town, which will stop the port. I even had a number of lines that were still under VoX, not the subscriber. VoX can no longer access the CSRs for the numbers, but if anyone needs to verify the CSR on L3, I have a way to do that. Hit me off list and I will share. Joe From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Who is everyone else using/going to? Kevin - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero mailto:joe1...@optonline.net To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Thanks Ralph, I know Lauri for years. At this point migration is my focus. The disruption to business for us and many of our clients, especially business and professionals, is beyond description. I don't know if there is anything left to talk about with them, last I saw their stock was at $0.0007 per share. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:25 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Joe- Dunno if it will help you but I have this contact info from when we were trying to get our deposit back for months: Lauri J. Vertrees Director of Operations Pervasip Corp 75 South Broadway, Suite 400 White Plains, NY 10601 Ofc: 914-750-6626 Fax: 866-214-2532 lvertr...@pervasip.com lvertr...@voxcorp.net www.pervasip.com www.voxcorp.net From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:33 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption No warning, no discussion, note went out at 7pm From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:04 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption What a casual sounding message they sent! How can they act like that isn't serious!?!? So glad we fired them in 2012! Good luck, Joe! Hope you can get those numbers ported. Did they even tell you what upstream carrier has them? From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:25 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Anyone else using VoX for VoIP service? We lost inbound calling today. I just received this from VoX: Dear Customer, At approximately 1:00PM EDT today one of our main suppliers of inbound phone numbers disconnected us. We apologize for this. We know it will cause problems for some customers. VoX did everything it could to keep all services running smoothly. Unfortunately, this was unavoidable. This problem should not affect outbound calls and we urge you to email customerc...@voxcorp.net should you have issues calling out from your VoX service. Due to recent problems the company has had raising funds for continued operations, we have had to make some very tough decisions with the resources and carriers that are currently available to us. If your service was affected because of this issue, you have two options. 1. We can offer you a replacement phone number in your rate center at no cost to you. 2. You can switch your service to another phone company. If you want a replacement phone number, please send an email to customerc...@voxcorp.net. Please be sure to include your account number, or, current VoX phone number. Thank You, VoX Support Team Comments? _ ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption
Also, anyone that needs to migrate the locked VoX ATAs to a new provider, it can be done over the network. It requires the subscriber making a single IVR change, and you having the username and password from VoX. As I mentioned earlier, you should request a complete list of credentials from their billing department ( while you can ). Be sure to ask for all active devices, as well as anything you have in inventory ( you will need to provide a list of MACs). Once the customer makes the change on the IVR, the web server is enabled on the WAN side, so if you can see the device, you can access the device and reconfigure it. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 1:33 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption George went with Vitelity I went with VOIPo I looked at Vitelity, but there were more moving parts and right now I had to get people back up. VOIPo is as plain vanilla as can be, and if it isn't meeting my needs I can always migrateat my convenience --- to another provider. As a FYI for those similarly situated, I was able to port all my numbers out. I had some issues with CSR mismatches. The customer record may have an incorrect zip code or town, which will stop the port. I even had a number of lines that were still under VoX, not the subscriber. VoX can no longer access the CSRs for the numbers, but if anyone needs to verify the CSR on L3, I have a way to do that. Hit me off list and I will share. Joe From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Who is everyone else using/going to? Kevin - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero mailto:joe1...@optonline.net To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Thanks Ralph, I know Lauri for years. At this point migration is my focus. The disruption to business for us and many of our clients, especially business and professionals, is beyond description. I don't know if there is anything left to talk about with them, last I saw their stock was at $0.0007 per share. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:25 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Joe- Dunno if it will help you but I have this contact info from when we were trying to get our deposit back for months: Lauri J. Vertrees Director of Operations Pervasip Corp 75 South Broadway, Suite 400 White Plains, NY 10601 Ofc: 914-750-6626 Fax: 866-214-2532 lvertr...@pervasip.com lvertr...@voxcorp.net www.pervasip.com www.voxcorp.net From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:33 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption No warning, no discussion, note went out at 7pm From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:04 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption What a casual sounding message they sent! How can they act like that isn't serious!?!? So glad we fired them in 2012! Good luck, Joe! Hope you can get those numbers ported. Did they even tell you what upstream carrier has them? From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:25 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Anyone else using VoX for VoIP service? We lost inbound calling today. I just received this from VoX: Dear Customer, At approximately 1:00PM EDT today one of our main suppliers of inbound phone numbers disconnected us. We apologize for this. We know it will cause problems for some customers. VoX did everything it could to keep all services running smoothly. Unfortunately, this was unavoidable. This problem should not affect outbound calls and we urge you to email customerc...@voxcorp.net should you have issues calling out from your VoX service. Due to recent problems the company has had raising funds for continued operations, we have had to make some very tough decisions with the resources and carriers that are currently available to us. If your service was affected because of this issue, you have two options. 1. We can offer you a replacement phone number in your rate center at no cost to you. 2. You can switch your service to another phone company. If you want a replacement phone number, please send an email to customerc...@voxcorp.net. Please be sure
Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption
Thanks Ralph, I know Lauri for years. At this point migration is my focus. The disruption to business for us and many of our clients, especially business and professionals, is beyond description. I don't know if there is anything left to talk about with them, last I saw their stock was at $0.0007 per share. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:25 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Joe- Dunno if it will help you but I have this contact info from when we were trying to get our deposit back for months: Lauri J. Vertrees Director of Operations Pervasip Corp 75 South Broadway, Suite 400 White Plains, NY 10601 Ofc: 914-750-6626 Fax: 866-214-2532 lvertr...@pervasip.com lvertr...@voxcorp.net www.pervasip.com www.voxcorp.net From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:33 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption No warning, no discussion, note went out at 7pm From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:04 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption What a casual sounding message they sent! How can they act like that isn't serious!?!? So glad we fired them in 2012! Good luck, Joe! Hope you can get those numbers ported. Did they even tell you what upstream carrier has them? From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:25 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Anyone else using VoX for VoIP service? We lost inbound calling today. I just received this from VoX: Dear Customer, At approximately 1:00PM EDT today one of our main suppliers of inbound phone numbers disconnected us. We apologize for this. We know it will cause problems for some customers. VoX did everything it could to keep all services running smoothly. Unfortunately, this was unavoidable. This problem should not affect outbound calls and we urge you to email customerc...@voxcorp.net should you have issues calling out from your VoX service. Due to recent problems the company has had raising funds for continued operations, we have had to make some very tough decisions with the resources and carriers that are currently available to us. If your service was affected because of this issue, you have two options. 1. We can offer you a replacement phone number in your rate center at no cost to you. 2. You can switch your service to another phone company. If you want a replacement phone number, please send an email to customerc...@voxcorp.net. Please be sure to include your account number, or, current VoX phone number. Thank You, VoX Support Team Comments? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption
Anyone else using VoX for VoIP service? We lost inbound calling today. I just received this from VoX: Dear Customer, At approximately 1:00PM EDT today one of our main suppliers of inbound phone numbers disconnected us. We apologize for this. We know it will cause problems for some customers. VoX did everything it could to keep all services running smoothly. Unfortunately, this was unavoidable. This problem should not affect outbound calls and we urge you to email customerc...@voxcorp.net should you have issues calling out from your VoX service. Due to recent problems the company has had raising funds for continued operations, we have had to make some very tough decisions with the resources and carriers that are currently available to us. If your service was affected because of this issue, you have two options. 1. We can offer you a replacement phone number in your rate center at no cost to you. 2. You can switch your service to another phone company. If you want a replacement phone number, please send an email to customerc...@voxcorp.net. Please be sure to include your account number, or, current VoX phone number. Thank You, VoX Support Team Comments? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption
No warning, no discussion, note went out at 7pm From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:04 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption What a casual sounding message they sent! How can they act like that isn't serious!?!? So glad we fired them in 2012! Good luck, Joe! Hope you can get those numbers ported. Did they even tell you what upstream carrier has them? From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:25 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] VoX VoIP serevice interruption Anyone else using VoX for VoIP service? We lost inbound calling today. I just received this from VoX: Dear Customer, At approximately 1:00PM EDT today one of our main suppliers of inbound phone numbers disconnected us. We apologize for this. We know it will cause problems for some customers. VoX did everything it could to keep all services running smoothly. Unfortunately, this was unavoidable. This problem should not affect outbound calls and we urge you to email customerc...@voxcorp.net should you have issues calling out from your VoX service. Due to recent problems the company has had raising funds for continued operations, we have had to make some very tough decisions with the resources and carriers that are currently available to us. If your service was affected because of this issue, you have two options. 1. We can offer you a replacement phone number in your rate center at no cost to you. 2. You can switch your service to another phone company. If you want a replacement phone number, please send an email to customerc...@voxcorp.net. Please be sure to include your account number, or, current VoX phone number. Thank You, VoX Support Team Comments? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Favorite replacement for UBNT zip ties?
+1 One clamp, about a buck can save many service calls. Just because they put them in the box, it doesn’t mean you have to use them. Save them for the wiring and you get money back toward the hose clamp! From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ~NGL~ Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 6:19 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Favorite replacement for UBNT zip ties? Why not use stainless hose clamps. NGL From: Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 3:14 PM To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Favorite replacement for UBNT zip ties? Those have never seemed like a good idea so I never tried them. I have a local source for cheap ties - wintronic aka WinElectric. For good tower ties I love the TB. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Apr 28, 2014 5:51 PM, Ben West b...@gowasabi.net wrote: Apologies for the mundane question. Anyone have a preferred brand / source for replacements for the ~12 plastic zip ties that UBNT packages with their AirMax gear? Zip ties of similar thickness from the usual suspects (e.g. Home Depot or Lowes) seem to only be 36 or longer, and their thinner ties embrittle too easily in sunlight. -- Ben West b...@gowasabi.net ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless _ ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Relay agreement
Good morning all, We developed a series of documents in house when we readied launch. This one (attached) is a no cost barter for broadband service. We have others that include phone service as well as a more advances contract allowing for the placement of a tower when needed. Have at it... I hope some of you find it useful. Joe Joe Fiero CEO NuTel Broadband Corporation 1802 North Carson Street Suite 108 Carson City, Nevada 89706 Direct-732-364-4161 joe.fi...@nutelbroadband.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ~NGL~ Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Relay agreement How do I contact him? NGL From: Carl Shivers mailto:cshiv...@aristotle.net Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 7:29 AM To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Relay agreement Nathan Stooke did a presentation on Mini Pops at WispAmerica. He briefly discussed agreements. You might want to check with him. Carl Shivers Chief Information Officer | ARISTOTLE cshiv...@aristotle.net http://www.aristotle.net/ Description: Description: aristotle_email_signature_logo 401 West Capitol Avenue - Suite 700 . Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (P) tel:501.374.4638 501.374.4638 (TF) tel:800.995.2747 800.995.2747 (F) tel:501.376.1377 501.376.1377 http://www.facebook.com/AristotleInc aristotle_email_signature_badge_facbook http://twitter.com/aristotlebuzz aristotle_email_signature_badge_twitter http://aris.bz/ArisLinkedIn aristotle_email_signature_badge_linkedin (W) http://www.aristotle.net/ Aristotle.net (B) http://www.aristotlebuzz.com/ Aristotle Buzz Blog From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ~NGL~ Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:36 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Relay agreement I need an agreement that covers my using a clients roof to relay wifi to other clients. Anyone have one they would share? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! _ ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Relay agreement
It's on the follow up post. Didn't make it on the first one. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ~NGL~ Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Relay agreement Thanx, But I don't see the attachment NGL rom: Joe Fiero mailto:joe1...@optonline.net Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 9:24 AM To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Relay agreement Good morning all, We developed a series of documents in house when we readied launch. This one (attached) is a no cost barter for broadband service. We have others that include phone service as well as a more advances contract allowing for the placement of a tower when needed. Have at it... I hope some of you find it useful. Joe Joe Fiero CEO NuTel Broadband Corporation 1802 North Carson Street Suite 108 Carson City, Nevada 89706 Direct-732-364-4161 joe.fi...@nutelbroadband.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ~NGL~ Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Relay agreement How do I contact him? NGL From: Carl Shivers mailto:cshiv...@aristotle.net Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 7:29 AM To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Relay agreement Nathan Stooke did a presentation on Mini Pops at WispAmerica. He briefly discussed agreements. You might want to check with him. Carl Shivers Chief Information Officer | ARISTOTLE cshiv...@aristotle.net http://www.aristotle.net/ Description: Description: aristotle_email_signature_logo 401 West Capitol Avenue - Suite 700 . Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (P) tel:501.374.4638 501.374.4638 (TF) tel:800.995.2747 800.995.2747 (F) tel:501.376.1377 501.376.1377 http://www.facebook.com/AristotleInc aristotle_email_signature_badge_facbook http://twitter.com/aristotlebuzz aristotle_email_signature_badge_twitter http://aris.bz/ArisLinkedIn aristotle_email_signature_badge_linkedin (W) http://www.aristotle.net/ Aristotle.net (B) http://www.aristotlebuzz.com/ Aristotle Buzz Blog From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ~NGL~ Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:36 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Relay agreement I need an agreement that covers my using a clients roof to relay wifi to other clients. Anyone have one they would share? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! _ ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless _ ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
I believe Fred to be correct. Packages based on speed are not the answer. We call our connection a pipe, so lets use a related analogy; You can have two homes with water service. One is an older home that has a ½ inch water main, the other is new construction and has a 1 inch service main. House number 1 has the original fixtures, so the toilet uses 6 gallons per flush, the shower flow is 7 gallons per minute and the clothes washer uses 40-55 gallons per load. House number two, being built under new codes that promote conservation has a low flow toilet that will use 1.6 2 gallons per flush, a low flow shower head that restricts flow to 2.5 gallons per minute and a new clothes washer that uses 20 gallons per load. With a family of 5 in each house, its easy to see that , despite the smaller service pipe, that house number 1 will have many times the water usage as house number 2. A smaller pipe did nothing to control the flow because the flow limit of the pipe was not reached. Those two pipes are exactly like a 3 meg and 5 meg Internet connection. Within reason, the size of the pipe will do little to limit heavy bandwidth usage. It only serves to spread it out, creating a longer period of time that it puts a demand on our networks. Like most, we saw our network performance begin to deteriorate as Netflix switched from a physical to a digital delivery system. The others since then have continued to slow our once speedy connections. Now we, as an industry, are faced with a continued rebuild to meet a voracious demand for bandwidth to deliver content that we never intended, or anticipated. Worse yet, we are being positioned to provide these improvements to support the business model of companies that barely acknowledge our existence. And they are getting smarter in their use of our pipes. There was a time when if you didnt have a good 4.5 meg flow, Netflix would not stream. They have gone to much more advanced encoding that will adjust to feeds of less than 2 megs, rendering a 3 meg rate limit useless in defending against them. The issue of Net Neutrality somehow became synonymous with no caps. It appears we are the only service that is viewed by consumers and governments that should be given away. Services like water, natural gas and electricity are each brought to a home and metered for actual usage, because it is the only fair way for those that use these services to pay their fair share. In most locals, the billing is specifically broken down into two parts. The first addresses the base cost of the connection to the property, and the second reflects the cost of the metered usage. How is Internet different? We are a service that delivers a commodity to be used and never recovered. The bits of data we move for our subscribers are no different than the kilowatt, gallon or therm moved by the others. Could you imagine if consumers demanded there be no metering on these services? We are being restricted by network limits from delivering the full pipe to subscribers. This limitation is a function of cost. Under our current structures we cannot justify the cost of building a large pipe to each subscriber. After all, we are an industry built on contention. This sharing of bandwidth was the impetus of the WISP business for many years, but that concept has outlived its usefulness. Our subscribers no longer want to surf the web or check email. Most now do that on their smart phones. No, our pipe has become an unwilling player on the next pervasive shift in the paradigm, as subscription video shifts to a digital delivery medium. Just as VoIP has been disruptive to POTS, and satellite was to cable, we are on the cusp of the next trend in consumer electronics. Televisions today are being built with Ethernet ports and wireless networking. They are coming with built in apps for all the streaming services. And they want all this to work over OUR pipes. So we need to face reality and understand that if we dont provide these services, we have become useless to our subscribers. Our failure to respond to this trend will throw the doors open for someone to come in to our markets and pluck each of our hard earned subscribers until we are decimated and a faint memory. If you think subscribers are satisfied with basic Internet services today, you are in denial. The answer is we need to build out robust networks that can deliver copious amounts of bandwidth to our subscribers. Our repayment will come by employing the time proven practice of metering for usage. We can divide our subscribers into two groups. The cutting edge-tech savvy type that is creating our issues, and the rest who will be joining them. I am sure that most of us have similar network statistics. If I look at one of my network segments I have the top 4 users consuming 25% of all bandwidth. I hit 50% at the 13th subscriber. This is a change in trend. It used to
Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
Since you mentioned “all you can eat”… I have been asked twice to stop eating at all you can eat Chinese buffets…….. They did it with style. Rather than confront me, they suggested that it was time for me to try their dessert selections. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of heith petersen Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 7:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions Fred, thanks for the in-depth answer. Fortunately for me I have 5 different markets or areas I serve. Once we get a better handle on what people are doing on our network, I might start with my smallest market and look at usage based billing. I remember a WISPAlooza speaker asking why would anyone offer all you can eat service for a fixed price. Soon, hopefully, I will have the tools to implement these options. I have to do something, I don’t have much hair to pull anymore From: Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:55 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions On 9/25/2013 1:00 PM, heith petersen wrote: I just got off the phone with a customer. I made some adjustments to his SM the other day to make netflix work. He called back today to tell me it works good but his direct tv showtime package is OK but not great. I kind of wanted to ask him what the hell gives dish net the right to sell you a service that rides on my back bone where I do not make anymore money for your additional use of my service. Anyways I got that off my chest. So our situation has been for years residential customers pay a flat rate, we have no speed or usage based packages. When the customer calls about netflix I make throttle adjustments in the SM to make them happy. Well eventually I have an overloaded AP, then I have to either sectorize or add a different frequency, add higher capacity BHs out of my pocket, just to keep my customers happy at the same price we have been charging for 10 years. (We recently, since going to new billing service, added a $2 paper fee for non emailed invoices and I get crucified by the same customers every month). Ideally I want to get away from mechanical throttles. We are in the middle running our authentication thru our new billing system, and converting bridged to fully routed. You know, the things we should have been doing from day one. Anyways, once we get things squared away, what’s a common practice on doing packages? If you have basic customers out there that do not stream or use tons of bandwidth would you keep them at the current rate, or drop the rate and throttle them tight? I would assume that we would want to offer an increased package to known streamers, maybe throttle them down to a basic level and wait to hear from them when they are willing to upgrade their package? I would then anticipate that making the expenditures to provide them with the service would be worth the venture. Anyways just looking for some suggestions. There is always time to do it right the second time around http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless This is a really big problem for WISPs. Streaming high-quality video has been the potential elephant in the room of the ISP business for a long time. It is finally starting to show up in the room, thanks to Netflix, Hulu, and others like them. Poisoning the well is the public's paranoia about cable companies, who usually have ample Internet capacity (fiber to a major peering point; high capacity HFC networks). So if they do anything to limit streaming, it's seen as an anti-competitive trick, to get people to buy more channels. This may or may not be true, but that's the public perception, which was a major driver of the network neutrality kerfuffle now in court. Of course most WISPs are nothing like cable! But the public doesn't see the difference, and if the FCC gains authority over WISPs (which they shouldn't have, by law, but what's the law when the public wants their circuses, I mean teevee?), then if WISPs do anything that selectively blocks video, or even UDP, it might be seen as a violation. So your legal authority to act is in question. And who is leading the appeal against the law? Verizon, who is actually behind it (since it hurts Comcast more than them). Hence their arguments are on the lame side. The only things going for us in the DC Circuit are that the DC Circuit dislikes the FCC in general, and the FCC did a really bad job in claiming the authority. Thus the neutral answer is to move towards bandwidth caps. This to me makes more sense, to a WISP, than a rate-based price tier. Somebody can burst at 10 Mbps once in a while and put little load on the network, but somebody watching TV at 3 Mbps all day will clobber you. Gigabytes/month represents a monthly average load. If you do this, you can raise everyone's base
Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
Joe, I too built up on an open usage platform and yes, when the subscribers logged into their PowerCode portals and viewed usage charts I got plenty of calls. We have not yet implemented metered billing because the pipe is still not capable of delivery, but soon. What I told the concerned callers was pretty much what I explained previously, that a small percentage of subscribers are utilizing the majority of the systems resources and that it was effecting everyone. I went on to explain how the goal was to charge those that use more services for their usage, and assure resources remain available for low volume users. I also add that based on FCC regulations I can not restrict any specific type of traffic, so this is the only fair way to assure everyone gets what they want. I tell them that our pricing model will not change cost to about 80% of our subscribers, and the other 20% will see increases based on actual usage. Many are fearful because they see the abusive rates charged by cellular carriers for small packages and immediately thing we are going to start hammering them for $150 per month. Like much of what I have read here, I too am looking at about 30-50 GB of transfer as a base with a small per GB cost. The real value to the upgrade for me will be once we demonstrate we can deliver a solid stream that people that are trying to pull multiple streams will have the option to doing so by upgrading to a higher bandwidth package. And that is the point I was making before, that the amount of transfer has little to do with the pipe size, but that size does impact the subscribers ability to have concurrent streams. So we are really focusing on three things; first, we are separating the basic and power subscribers, then we are offering those power subscribers the option to get whatever they want, providing they are paying for it. Sure a few will be pissed because they have this entitlement to unlimited service. Tell them you will start the day the power and gas company remove their meters. In the long run, the decisions made will provide maximum benefit to all subscribers. Perhaps we will see a few that refuse to pay and leave, but we will increase significantly as word gets out about our new capabilities. Remember, all those smart televisions need a pipe to connect to these streaming services. And that is the simplest answer, your changes in billing are to accommodate a market that did not exist when you deployed. When you and I put our systems in place Netflix was not streaming. So we absolutely must accommodate these new high demand users, while acknowledging the long time basic users. Just remember that many of them will move to the other side over the next few years and be very glad you were able to accommodate their new requirements. Joe From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Miller Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:18 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions Joe, I do agree that usage based billing is the way to go. However, when our system was originally built 10 years ago, it was done so on the unlimited platform. The customers that we have I believe will respond in a negative way to the change. So how can we migrate a unlimited system to a UBB system without for a better word, piss off the existing customer base. I have thought about this for quite some time and the billing system I have in place can handle running both at the same time. What would be a good price point per gig of bandwidth? From looking at the current customer usage I think using $1.00 per gig would be a good starting point for discussion. Some customers will see a reduction in monthly cost while most will see an increase in their monthly service. I can see how we can re coup the cost of bandwidth a lot easier. I would like to come up with an email for my customers to ask them what they think in regards to having virtually as much bandwidth as they can use in exchange for billing for that usage. Basically, caped speed with flat rate vs uncapped speed with metered rate. Im looking at expanding into a new area and using the UBB platform will be a lot easier to start out with, but changing out the current customer base to UBB will be a bigger pill to swallow. I think that this is a good discussion for a session in Vegas. We have hundreds of companies that are members of WISPA, and I think with enough minds on this that we can come up with a good solution for everyone. Regards, Joe Miller www.dslbyair.com www.facebook.com/dslbyair 228-831-8881 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:17 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions I believe Fred to be correct. Packages based on speed are not the answer. We call our connection a pipe, so
Re: [WISPA] ethernet and towers with FM transmitters
Tim, I have had 100% success by using a good quality shielded cable and following a strict bonding regiment. Bonding the antenna, radio, mast and cable to the tower at the top is imperative, as is the same process at the bottom. It's also important that the tower be bonded and that the bond is common with that in the equipment room. Make sure the inside end of the cable is bonded as well. In other words, there should be no difference in potential between the ground in the equipment room, the tower or your equipment on the tower. You must carry that bonding through to the rack and equipment you place in the room as well. Also, be sure to use grounded cable on jumpers. And the real trick is putting ferrite beads on both ends of the POE cable. I had a site exhibiting between 50 and 70 percent packet loss between the topside radio and the router in the room when initially installed. The installer never noticed there were two FM stations on the tower ( 55Kw and 30Kw ). We even swapped radio equipment twice because he insisted there were no transmitters in close proximity. Once we discovered the FM stations he did as I described above and we went immediately to 0% packet loss from the router. Joe -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tim Warnock Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:15 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] ethernet and towers with FM transmitters Hi All, I have a question as to how other operators are handling POE radio links and high power FM transmitters. We often see things like a radio will run errors or drop to 10mbps instead of 100mbps until we find a good position on the tower that its happy with. Once its happy we never have an issue again. We've tried earthing, not earthing, STP, UTP. Nothing seems to definitively solve the issue. Does anyone have any advice they'd like to share? It would be muchly appreciated. Thanks Tim ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ethernet Surge Arrestor Bank
Used the original APC device for years. I understand these to be identical. Fast, cheap, easily replaceable and they work. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Eric Rogers Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet Surge Arrestor Bank +1 We use these in all our tower sites. Eric -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Daniel White Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:22 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet Surge Arrestor Bank I'd install a small cabinet and use these http://wbmfg.com/products.cfm?PID=38 I would probably use the DIN rail mounts personally http://wbmfg.com/products.cfm?PID=39 Transtector makes one for Canopy only (at least that is what I remember), but is a major PITA to install. Daniel White -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:50 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Ethernet Surge Arrestor Bank We are adding a fairly large new tower to our network and it will be a central hub. I want to bring a number of STP cat-5 lines up the tower in advance. Will likely be mix of Canopy and Ubiquiti gear on top. At the base I would like terminate them all at a large surge arrestor bank before entering the cabinet or building. We will initially have a cabinet and perhaps later a building. Does anyone know of an outdoor surge arrestor I can put at the base of the tower that accommodates a number of cat-5 runs neatly? Something like the standard outdoor canopy surge arrestor except would protect 8+ cat-5 lines in a larger outdoor enclosure. This would also serve as a termination point if we move from the cabinet to a building in the future. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP
Imagestream has been very good to us as well. Every bit the Cisco experience, but at a fraction of the cost. Reliability has been excellent. They hum along year after year. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Justin Wilson Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP I have used Imagestream routers in what I would consider carrier situations. Have had Imagestreams in VRRP running multiple BGP full feeds and Gigs of traffic per second. Not saying it's a do all solution, but is a serious contender. Add on top the fact you don't need $1000's of dollars a year for smartnet I am happy. Not saying it's your solution, but definitely worth looking at. Justin -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net Aol Yahoo IM: j2sw http://www.mtin.net/blog - xISP News http://www.twitter.com/j2sw - Follow me on Twitter Wisp Consulting - Tower Climbing - Network Support From: Bryan Fields br...@apacimports.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:05:10 -0400 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: Roman consulttele...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP On 7/6/2011 10:52, Roman wrote: I would like to ask for help of wireless community. We have to choose supplier of core router for our WISP projects. I know technical characteristics and price for core routers from Cisco - 7200 and 7600 series. Although these models have impressive possibilities, their price is very prohibitive for small/medium projects. Which models of core router do use in your projects? I would like to get your recommendations, its advantages and disadvantages. Would like to know some cheap and middle-price options. It comes down to the feature set you need and the performance required. Can you share your expected traffic numbers and what features you want to run? The cisco 7200 is a bit long in the tooth, the 7600 is the way to go forward. Each can be found on the secondary market for cheap. From a new device purchase decision, it's hard to beat the Juniper SRX series for smaller deployments. a $1500 router can handle 300 mbit/s of IP/mpls and firewall in hardware is hard to beat. The new MX series can handle 80gb/slot and its the next big competition to the 7600 from cisco. Junos is amazing to work with compared to IOS too. However if you do need multiple line rate 10gb/s interfaces, the ALU 7750/7710 should be considered too. I'd not consider the Imagestream product as it's not a serious carrier contender. As of two years back they just did not have a product, and bowed out of an RFP I was forced into running. It's a neat small office router, but that's all. Again this is all my opinion :) -- Bryan Fields APAC Imports LLC Phone: 800-721-6502 Fax: 727-493-1511 http://apacimports.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] Electric Fence - Ethernet interference
Shielded cable will do wonders. Be sure to ground only one side and remember that ferrite beads are your friend. I would place one on each side. Joe From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Electric Fence - Ethernet interference It's likely the fence power supply. Try putting it in a metal enclosure and ground the enclosure. - Jerry From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Kilton Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 5:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Electric Fence - Ethernet interference We have hopes for a new rooftop repeater just installed. However, after installation we were seeing a lot of packet loss at the router of this new install. There was no packet loss over the wireless link between tower and new rooftop repeater. We are using shielded Cat5e. As soon as I unplug the electric fence, works perfectly. Our patch cables are not shielded so we are going to try that today as well as other suggestions. The equipment is all plugged into the same circuit in a barn and there is no option for a separate circuit. What are your suggestions and experience with this sort of problem. Brand of Electric Fence Controller probably 20 years old: AGWAY - Electric Fence Controller - Model 66B 15 Mile range -- Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3513 - Release Date: 03/17/11 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Remote monitoring/ remote reboot
To me as well. Thanks, From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 5:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Remote monitoring/ remote reboot I'd be interested in this. Please send some more info. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Remote monitoring/ remote reboot Hello, We've been working on building a remote monitoring/remote reboot board for awhile now, mostly for internal use. It runs on 9.5-55v, so we are going to be using it at some of our solar sites to monitor battery voltage and send alerts if they aren't charging, as well as the capability to remotely reboot radios. Oh, and it keeps track of temperature and turns a fan on if it gets too warm/ sends alerts at high enough temps. Anyway, we've got a couple out there, and we want to make another fifteen. However, it looks like it'll be WAY cheaper if we order 100... so we were wondering if anyone else would be interested in buying some. I think it'll be around $100 in quantity. If anyone is interested, I can send the data sheet and screencaps of the web interface. Thanks! Kevin WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Recommendations for VoIP Termination services.
We have been using VoX for several years. They are a member. Perfect dial tone replacement product that works over our wireless networks. On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: E911 is typically done with the originating provider, but there are other E911 companies. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com http://www.ics-il.com/ On 1/9/2011 12:20 PM, Christopher Hair wrote: Any recommendations for providers that offer VoIP Termination E911. Shopping around! Thanks in Advance Chris WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ _ Glenn Kelley | Principal | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Google buys NYC carrier hotel - 111 8th Ave.
While we struggle with neutrality issues, Google is buying up the Internet. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/12/22/google-confirms-purch ase-of-111-8th-avenue/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40756299/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/ , Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
Of course I agree that no regulation would be preferable, but when you see the train coming and you know you can't stop it, you are glad to find that you can lie between the tracks and let it pass over you. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of MDK Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 7:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I'm concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero mailto:joe1...@optonline.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40756299/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/ , Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. _ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vox voip
Jeremie, Hit me off list or call me at your convenience. Joe Joe Fiero CEO NuTel Broadband Corporation 769 Basque Way Suite 650 Carson City, Nevada 89706 Direct-732-364-4161 joe.fi...@nutelbroadband.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeremie Chism Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 3:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vox voip Anyone use voxcorp for their voip and have a good billing solution. What we are doing now to bill is not practical. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VoIP
Contact WISPA member - VoX Communications Been using them for almost 3 years. Excellent dial tone replacement product. Great margins, great order entry support. No issue whatsoever over our SkyPilot mesh networks. Not a single voice complaint.Wish I could say the same for the wireless gear ;) You need to do your own billing. Hit me off list about that if you need info on that. www.voxcorp.net Follow the wholesale link. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Sullivan Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 11:33 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] VoIP We'd like to start offering VoIP to our wireless customers, and we've taken a look at a couple of packaged soultions like NetSapiens. What is everyone else using? We'd like to start at a lower $$ than the $17,000 that we've been hearing from the packaged deals. Kevin WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] juniper
We have 7 IS routers and they have been the only component in our systems to deliver 100%, 100% of the time. Even survived a siye-killing tower hit by lightning that took out everything else and fried the Cat-5 coming down the tower. Components were toasted on both sides of the IS an it was untouched. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] juniper You might want to look at ImageStream as well. jp wrote: Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their performance greatly or if they are conservative in their promises. I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it pretty steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't trust their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for something this important. This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs. http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/ -- -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 10/23/09 06:56:00 -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] ImageStream password reset?
Anyone know if there is a way to reset the IS routers when you don't know the password? Just opened a box on one we have had for some time. Shouldn't have a password, but I can't get into it. TIA Joe WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Equip Leasing
American Capital Chet Zeken 1-888-842-2850 x248 As close to a miracle worker as you can find -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:07 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Equip Leasing Does anyone have a good relationship with a reputable equipment leasing firm? If so, who are you using? Thanks Chris Cooper 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/
Re: [WISPA] VOIP Providers
Tread lightly in this arena. I went 9 months waiting for a product and had to start over elsewhere. Be sure to get performance guarantees in any contract you sign if you do business with them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Austin Wright Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:27 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VOIP Providers Hey Randy, contact me off list, I'll direct you to our VoIP product manager. Not only do we integrate with quite a few VoIP solutions, but we can actually become your VoIP solution with very competitive, Golden Corral-like services... Austin W. Product Manager Powercode 801-701-6205 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Cosby Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:19 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] VOIP Providers I've heard some good reviews about VOX as a VOIP provider. I'd like to get some updates as we're in the market. If you use them, would you drop me a line with your experiences? Also, if you have another you would like to recommend we look at, please mention them as well. We're looking for basic residential all you can eat service, soon to be followed up with small business service. Thanks, -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc office: 435-773-6071 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] VOIP Providers
Austin, and list... I feel your comments were unwarranted. First, I did in fact pay you guys in good faith. It was not until several months later that you came to me and mentioned that the ACH portion of your software was not clearing checks through the financial gateway. Certainly, this was fortuitous as I ultimately did not get charged for a product that was not delivered. At least that worked out. Representing me as someone that tried to get something for nothing was grossly unfair and represents me in a bad light among the members and readers here. You know full well that at the time John told me VoIP integration was easily done. It wasn't. My first response was a short and simple statement of fact, and a bit of business advice if you will. I did not get into any of the specifics concerning the myriad of broken promises from your company. I did not discuss the fact that at times I had to chase people in PowerCode for 3 weeks to get them on the phone. I was not going to go there. But if you wish to open discussions I will be happy to oblige. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Austin Wright Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:07 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VOIP Providers Joe is exactly right, he waited about nine months for a personal request to get Powercode integrated with his preferred VoIP solution. As much as we wanted to get the solution integrated, other features and functions requested from our current customer base took priority, as they always have and will. Had he placed an original order, or paid for the service/integration to begin with, we would have willingly signed any performance guarantees or contracts to ensure the integration would take place by 'X' amount of time. Throughout that time, we continuously offered the great VoIP solutions we were already integrated with (Alianza, Bicom, etc), but he was firm on his original decision. We appreciated Joe's patience and we will have integration with his VoIP platform in the near future as we are almost finished with a complete revamp of our software platform, allowing us to look into further integrations in every service category. I don't want this to spark any arguments, but I felt it only fair to rebuttal. Joe, feel free to contact me offlist to talk about the latest developments with your VoIP provider. Randy, looking forward to working with you soon. -Austin W. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:39 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VOIP Providers Tread lightly in this arena. I went 9 months waiting for a product and had to start over elsewhere. Be sure to get performance guarantees in any contract you sign if you do business with them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Austin Wright Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:27 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VOIP Providers Hey Randy, contact me off list, I'll direct you to our VoIP product manager. Not only do we integrate with quite a few VoIP solutions, but we can actually become your VoIP solution with very competitive, Golden Corral-like services... Austin W. Product Manager Powercode 801-701-6205 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Cosby Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:19 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] VOIP Providers I've heard some good reviews about VOX as a VOIP provider. I'd like to get some updates as we're in the market. If you use them, would you drop me a line with your experiences? Also, if you have another you would like to recommend we look at, please mention them as well. We're looking for basic residential all you can eat service, soon to be followed up with small business service. Thanks, -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc office: 435-773-6071 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Guy from Tower Dogs, in my office
John, My oldest of my 5 boys struck out on his own about 5 years ago. He landed in the tower industry as a climber. Not a real surprise considering he used to watch me do it growing up, and that he is an adrenaline junky. He is one of those people you would see snowboard down a drift and off a rooftop in those extreme videos. After years of training and being fully certified, he is in the same place. He makes a big $12/hour for spending his day in places I never went for less than 10 times that. And in my day it was all simple tower work. These guys today have to deal with structures to hold arrays, platforms, hanging for hours off the top of monopoles and a level of structural tower congestion that we would never have imagined. Yet he tells me how much the boss charges for each job and it's quite upsetting. As someone that has been on the signing side of checks my whole life, I understand the associated expenses to provide insurance, trucks and equipment. But if they quote a job for $18,000 of which $7800 is labor which takes 2 days to do, the labor should see more than $400 for the 2 men for 2 days. Just my opinion, but take care of that guy and you can job him out, making both of you plenty Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John McDowell Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:25 PM To: WISPA General List; Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: [WISPA] Guy from Tower Dogs, in my office Thought this was interesting... Scruffy/greasy looking fellow came into the office today with an application he had filled out. I told him we had just about everybody we needed but we'd keep it on file. He tells me he climbs, and of course, my ears perk up. So we start talking... Long story short, he's been climbing for the past 8 months for that Phoenix company in the Dateline show. He basically built the Clearwire network in Nashville. He's in his twentys, and his brother was the guy that fell 200' and died. His brother was from here as well. Thinking about hiring him...Phoenix paid him $11/hour, and he is Commtrain and OSHA certified. Talk about underpaidI told him we actually respect our employees when they risk their lives for us. How about that? -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Tower site licensing problem
or LA. It was a small town of less than 4000 on the Ohio River that covers less than 1.2 square miles of land. I think we, as a group, need to be proactive in this area before we are shut out of locations. Even existing sites could become untouchable with exorbitant fees and unduly restrictive requirements. It may be time to approach the FCC, in conjunction with other industries such as 2-way radio retailers, to assure that low impact telecommunications facilities are not painted with the same brush as the monoliths built by the cellular companies. Joe Joe Fiero CEO NuTel Broadband Corporation 769 Basque Way Suite 650 Carson City, Nevada 89706 Direct-732-364-4161 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isp Operator Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:38 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not share detailed system information with anybody) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Tower site licensing problem
Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls for us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the right to determine who collocates and what their fair value is for collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up a LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his operation at our site for $10 per month. You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed store that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a WISP, or a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service or operator. In fact, this particular ordinance did not apply to just towers. It included any placement of any radiating device in any spectrum. That means if you deploy a mesh network in this town you are required to obtain permits for each and every node you place. With respect to OTARD, I have had quite a bit of experience with it over the years
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
We have found that most municipalities have not regulated, beyond a building permit, towers below a certain height. Some were very generous at 100-110 feet, some were a bit stingy at 50 feet, but the majority has been open for anything of 70-80 feet or below. That to me is a reasonable ordinance that does not classify the single use tower for a 2-way/WISP as if we were American Tower. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:28 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem So what exactly are the zoning rules for structures in that area- specifically towers? You did not tell us this. Many times any structure of a certain height of any type need a variance or use permit to be there- in our area it is 35 ft. Even applies to a house. Of course if you were a Ham operator and this was a Ham tower and only Ham antennas were on it, you could try the Federal pre-emption PRB-1. But all this does is help force them to create less stringent rules for that tower. For example, after enlisting the help of an attorney, one local Ham got most of the Counties/Cities here to raise that to 70' as long as proper engineering was done and a few other requirements were ment, such as lot size,etc. Raph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isp Operator Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:38 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not share detailed system information with anybody) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Marlon, We never went before the board for a variance. The overwhelming burden placed on us was apparently more of a fight than we needed to take on with alternate locations just a hilltop away. We cut our losses with the $1000 deposit on the property which had a usage-acceptance clause in the contract and moved on. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Hey Joe, What happened when you went before the city council and lined out the fee's vs. your expected income? Is there possibly a DSL or cable competitor already there that didn't want any competition etc.? laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish and there was no means to appeal the action. All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed on a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, A visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 photos be taken. In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own engineering report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good enough. It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his fees as close to $10,000 as possible. They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each antenna both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to place the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control plan. Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included that spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like cellular, SMR, paging, broadcast, or some other specific descriptors. One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls for us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the right to determine who collocates and what their fair value is for collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up a LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his operation at our site for $10 per month. You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed store that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a WISP, or a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Jack, I am a Brooklyn boy that ran a communications business in Midtown Manhattan for 15 years. I had rooftops secured before anyone knew what they were worth. We leased space to Winstar (Ouch!), all the paging companies ( more ouch) and ran several 20 channel SMR systems in addition to about 80 UHF repeaters. I can certainly push when there is a value to it, but this was just too easy to walk away from. This was in West Virginia, and we had reached out to Sen. Jay Rockefeller on this project as he is a champion of rural broadband. The mayor, and entire city council in this town was fully aware of the importance of this to him. They called us to hurry things along. When we asked if that included granting a variance to simplify things, the answer was a resounding no. So much for outside influence. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:43 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem There were many good on-list responses to your post so I'll be short here with my comments. Local jurisdictions can't prohibit your tower but your tower is subject to their local zoning rules and regulations. Co-location requirements are often made to minimize the number of towers in an area in order to avoid ruining the beauty or the character of the area with too many towers. Local officials (just like people everywhere these days) don't know the difference between wireless technologies (Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, cellular... it's all wireless). Educate these local officials about the financial and service differences between your small local company and a large deep-pocketed cellphone company. If you don't educate them about these differences, no one else will. If this tower and this business is truly important to you, don't try to cheap it out. Find a local land use attorney, spend the money to hire them and then use them to push back and help you educate the county planning department. You should only need to do this once before the planning department starts to understand your operation and cooperate with you. If you still get resistance, be ready to go to your local County Commissioners to ask for their support for your efforts to bridge the digital divide and provide broadband Internet access to the people who voted to elect them and who trusted them to do what is right for the local citizens. I hope you find this information useful. jack Isp Operator wrote: Hi Gang, We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this determination. The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind generator, weather station or other application. The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we would not be able to comply. Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks all. (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for some time now and attempting
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Who defines reasonable? In this case the city ordinance. If you want the permit granted, you comply with the provisions. We chose to move on to a more reasonable jurisdiction. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Rogers Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:59 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the construction of the tower, namely permitting and engineering studies required are part of the Rent. Just like a building, I wouldn't rent it less than it costs to construct it. That doesn't make sense. At $1000/mo, it would take nearly 68 months to pay for costs. A 5-year lease is 60 months. I am not a lawyer, and I would definitely involve one if the situation arose. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem And you would be sued, and you would lose. Reasonable accommodations have to be made for collocation. If your competitor is required by the town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him from complying with the city statutes, he has firm legal footing to pursue you. A few quotes for comparable space at other locations and he has you. Of course, this is only where you are required to provide reasonable accommodations - if you build a tower where there are no such requirements tell the guy to pound sand. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter with...Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs. I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of monthly rents and would be justified. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Clear as day in the ordinance. I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of the ordinance. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem They cannot require colocation, that is considered a taking. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure our continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their discretion
Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
OTARD does not apply to any commercial usage. It will apply to a commercial end user, but not a system operator. Statutes that apply to HAM operators are just that, for HAM operators. Certainly you could make a claim, but that's about the same as saying you garage your car in another state to save on insurance premiums. It's not an issue until it becomes one. Then you have one heck of a mess to clean up. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem There are two parts of the telecom act, OTARD and the Ham ruling that should be able to be used to mitigate most of this. Especially of the city attorney doesn't want to do much research. OTARD and the Ham ruling could probably combat the visual impact aspect. I have successfully used the competitive nature of the tower they want me to collocate on to argue that it would give my competitor an advantage over me. Hard to argue that one down. - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem Actually, visual impact CAN be applied. Lambs Knoll MD is a good example of a recent application where the tower company lost. A municipality can heavily regulate tower placement, and if they show that another site without that visual impact, or even multiple sites without that visual impact can do the same job, then the site with the visual impact can be legally denied. The federal rules about siting state that the municipality cannot capriciously or unreasonably deny an application, but the definition of unreasonably has still never been clarified. Insofar as the taking of a tower, only allowing towers that are capable and available for colocation is accepted as a standard codes restriction, and has been backed up in the court. Having the municipality become the leasing agent has not however. They can also DENY your application to build a tower if suitable colocation oppurtunity exists on existing structures, leaving the onus on you to show why that won't work, and a financial argument won't stand up. Case in point, http://tinyurl.com/5clfkt Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, especially RF emissions are federally regulated and wholly prempts local officials. It is actually easier if you call your facility cellular like in most cases because federal code can get most of this off your back. The building code/engineering folks will still require soils analysis and structural engineering but much of the other stuff including visual impacts cannot be applied. - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem My first question is, where is this taking place? I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we had been classified as a telecommunications facility, and been require to go through the extensive permitting process. The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants act as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as their piece of the pie. In this new world order everyone gets to eat. And we are the ones they expect to provide the meals. First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or any other costs they incur for experts to testify at our hearings. As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell below $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. That was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with building or construction permits. After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available funds to, at their discretion, order future inspections
Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem
Tom, Your suggestions are valid for an OTARD situation, but ill advised in this case. The burden of proof is not on the municipality, however compliance is expected. Failure to comply and operating a facility could likely result in fines being assessed daily. The first question is how are they defining a 'telecommunications facility'. Also, what exceptions are specifically allowed for under the ordinance. Certainly some early discussions and education can bear fruit, but if all else fails, they hold the cards, not the operator of the site. The FCC has stated they can not restrict towers being built, but they have capitulated on many aspects including local control as to placement, and visual impact. The municipality can require the facility to be constructed on pre-approved sites, often township property. Of course that's so the revenues stream comes to them and not the guy that owns the collision shop where they want to build the tower. The FCC no longer gets involved. They have pushed these cases into court time and time again. As long as there is SOME provision to build facilities, they are of the mind that the municipality is in compliance. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem You may wanted to argue two points 1) That your company/broadcast site does not match the description of telecom facility as defined in the County Code. And that there is no provision listed in the county code that specifically states your business type and use, and that bundling you into the closest thing is not appropriate because the closest thing is far away from the profile of your company and infrastructure, and therefore appropriate to assume that you should be exempt from the County code requirements as written. 2) Second, argue that you are Grandfathered at that site from any future legislation, as you were installed prior to any new legislation or ammendments that may decide to make to attempt to charge you unfair amounts. You must get the county code, and read it like a hawk, and be clear on exactly what it states. Thinks like telecom facility you re specifically exempt from if you are not a telecom (LEC). Brand X case should have proved that an ISP is a broadband company. A wireless provider is usually portrayed as a broadband company. The key to your defense is in the definitions of terms used in the County code. Additional approached 1) Contact FCC for help. The Otard does not specifically protect the right to build towers, it falls under the jurisdiction of county code (unless a smaller governing intitiy liek an incorporated city).. But there are provisions at the federal level that prevent counties from putting overly stringent demands and delays on broadband/tower owners. There was a really well known and big case on this issue, that was won by the tower owner, after several years of legal trials. (guessing around 3 years ago). The FCC will help you, by putting pressure on the County to play fair. 2) Determine if you have public support for your services and tower, versus a tower that the public wants to seen torn down. If its likely you'd have public support, you can always go to the media. Stories like County plans to shut down local entreprenure, stop economic development, and deprive under served areas and consumers of broadband. Followed by ideas that you might move your business to another county that supports economic development. Etc Etc. Stating the County should be pitching contributing matching funds, instead of burdening you with fees and taxes. Maybe send the rough draft to your local legislators prior to sending it to the local newspaper. Important note In most cases, they do NOT have the right to prevent you from operating and broadcasting while legal trials or appeals are being faught and negotiated, provided you are not causing a significant safety concern. The burden of proof is on them, to get a ruling of why you need to take it down. They do have ways to make life hard for you, so if hard ball occurs, you'll probably need an attorney. For example, even if they just used the dispute to put a hold on your corporate status, that could prevent you from getting a loan until resolved. Another option is that if the site is important enough to you, and it becomes a large enoug problem, you may want to seperate it from your other core business. You could set up a seperate company that owns that tower, so any legislation regarding that tower does not effect your other business operations. Lastly, info is needed like whether you followed the proper proceedure and permitting in building the tower in the first place. In most counties, you do not specifically have the right by default. They just didn't update their code to consider new
Re: [WISPA] VOX Partner program?
Here you go http://www.voxcorp.net/products_wholesale.shtml -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] VOX Partner program? IIRC, VOX is a Wispa member? Anyone could provide me the contact to signup as a reseller? Thanks Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] VoIP deployments?
Agreed Convergence, or unified communications, will be the answer. Our Internet services will be the backbone for the future where people carry a unified device that provides both cellular and IP telephony. These hybrids already exist and the use of femtocells will accelerate their adoption. This puts the WISP clearly in the path of reselling cellular service that gives the user access to a reliable nationwide network when on the road as well as reliable indoor service at their home and office through our broadband offerings. While young mobile singles and couples may survive on cellular only, it becomes a whole different story for families, businesses and farms. They can't run the farm if pop takes the cell phone with him to town. Need to have broadband to access all the goodies from the USDA and other farming sources and VoIP is a natural, providing a dedicated phone with great features and low cost. Best of all they can now use their cell phones as extensions of the home or office phone. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 10:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Businesses cannot run on cell phones. Nor can fax machines. Voip is cheaper than cell service. The quality is better. People like their old numbers and don't want to port them to cell. Voip does not run out of batteries or fade in and out if you go to the basement. Voip doesn't have the arguable threat of causing you brain cancer. Real telephones are more comfortable to use. Lots of reasons. - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? We're just getting started with it. We're going mostly with (keeping another company or two in mind if things don't work out for us) Netsapians. So far they've been good to work with and they have a product that I think I can sell. I still think, in the end, voip will be about as big as muni wifi. That is to say, MOST people will go cell phone for voice. Not voip in any form from any company. Why do most of us need multiple personal phone lines Businesses will likely be different. But I'm not sure that the price wars are over. Doesn't look like there's gonna be much money in MOST services on the internet. The money for those on this list will continue to be transport. marlon - Original Message - From: John McDowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Motorola Canopy User Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 12:59 PM Subject: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Anyone care to give some pithy comments on white label voip product launches? Who did you choose? How many customers do you have? How are you billing? -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] VoIP deployments?
I had Vonage for 4 years and Fax was more miss than hit. During testing, and now that we pored the office lines to VoX, it's been 100% hit. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Fax machines don't run over VoIP either. They just don't, T.38 doesn't really work. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Businesses cannot run on cell phones. Nor can fax machines. Voip is cheaper than cell service. The quality is better. People like their old numbers and don't want to port them to cell. Voip does not run out of batteries or fade in and out if you go to the basement. Voip doesn't have the arguable threat of causing you brain cancer. Real telephones are more comfortable to use. Lots of reasons. - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? We're just getting started with it. We're going mostly with (keeping another company or two in mind if things don't work out for us) Netsapians. So far they've been good to work with and they have a product that I think I can sell. I still think, in the end, voip will be about as big as muni wifi. That is to say, MOST people will go cell phone for voice. Not voip in any form from any company. Why do most of us need multiple personal phone lines Businesses will likely be different. But I'm not sure that the price wars are over. Doesn't look like there's gonna be much money in MOST services on the internet. The money for those on this list will continue to be transport. marlon - Original Message - From: John McDowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Motorola Canopy User Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 12:59 PM Subject: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Anyone care to give some pithy comments on white label voip product launches? Who did you choose? How many customers do you have? How are you billing? -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/
Re: [WISPA] VoIP Deployments....I'm serious
International is disables, but can be activated. If you have the ability to bill it, they provide rate tables. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy Davis Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 4:14 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP DeploymentsI'm serious We don't care about CDRs as we give an all you can eat long distance feature. We will look at the totals month by month to see if we are making out OK or loosing our shirt. If that is the case then about any billing solution can handle your needs. Out of curiosity does Vox charge extra for international calls or are they disabled? Sincerely, Jeremy Davis Maximum Technologies, LLC Office 318.303.4725 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] VoIP deployments?
John, We tested with and subsequently signed on with VoX early this year. Excellent white label service. Call quality is consistently excellent, no issues with dropped calls, great pricing ( they offer a WISPA members discount). You can be up and running with them in about 30 days. However, they do not offer a billing solution, but they do provide an FTP site that can be swept by a billing server for call and account records. ' With respect to the number of lines, we are at a very low number because we made a poor choice concerning our billing. We purchased ImageStream routers with the intent of running a very popular wireless billing/BMU that they consider a technology partner. I spoke at length with the software company, let's call them PC, back in November/December. At the time I was assured they could integrate any VoIP service into their billing. So I signed on with them on December 11, 2007. As of yesterday I was told they can't be bothered to complete the integration with VoX because VoX will not partner with them. Translation, they want to bill us for VoIP services as they are doing now with a few others. Somewhere along the way, PC went from being a software company to wanting to be a VoIP reseller and dictate terms to the industry as to who we should be using. I can't even begin to calculate how much revenue we lost in this debacle, but I make the decisions as to who I choose to use as a vendor, not another vendor. We are currently bringing this to an end with what so far appears to be a very knowledgeable billing company that feels they can have this done in just a few weeks, including integration with a BMU. The team at VoX told me months ago I was being strung along by PC, but I stuck it out based on their reputation, and felt they would meet their commitment. Of course I felt I had no choice due to the tie in with the ImageStream routers. I know this integration was discussed a short time ago on this list and there was some concern about all this integration that it would start to limit the choices for WISP operators. I believe this is a perfect example. Joe Fiero NuTel Broadband Corporation Carson City, Nevada -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John McDowell Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 3:59 PM To: Motorola Canopy User Group; WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] VoIP deployments? Anyone care to give some pithy comments on white label voip product launches? Who did you choose? How many customers do you have? How are you billing? -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Cell Tower Density Maps
This one takes the FCC database and maps it: http://www.antennasearch.com/ Joe Fiero -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CHUCK M Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 6:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cell Tower Density Maps Here is a question for your all How would one find a cell tower density map. Specifically the TYLER TEXAS // Longview Texas area Just tower density in general. Not specific to any one carrier... Any help is greatly appreciated. Chuck === ATTENTION: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately. Thank you. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ __ NOD32 3255 (20080709) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.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] TOWERS
For infrastructure items such as towers, it's hard to beat Tessco. I have used them for over 30 years of wireless builds. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CHUCK PROFITO Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:02 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] TOWERS Who are you guys buying free standing towers from these days. Looking for new or near new 25G or 45g 60 foot or something similar. We are looking for a distributor in the western US Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Small unmanaged switches
I concur, the 5 port Netgear is a workhorse. We use them exclusively at all our AP's, hops and customer locations. Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small unmanaged switches On Fri, February 15, 2008 11:56 am, Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I'm looking to purchase some small unmanaged switches (5 ports) [ snip ] You may want the Netgear ProSafe FS105. http://www.netgear.com/Products/Switches/DesktopSwitches/FS105.aspx The current crop are basically as small as physically possible (or at least are the smallest five-port switches I've seen), and the metal case just looks and feels sturdy, as compared to the cheap plastic ones. (Here, things get a little tricky, as Netgear uses the same model number on a couple different switches; I don't have any experience with the silver-plastic FS105 switches. They're probably the same, internally, but I've also never ripped one open to see.) Netgear FS105s and the big brother FS108s run about 3/4 of our towers, and have for several years. I can't recall a single instance of a problem with a switch that was found to be a defect in the switch itself. Lightning making a switch go foom, sure, but that's not the switch's fault. :) David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid
As close as I can get you to your desired antenna is this one: http://www.pacsat.com.au/PACSAT-PDF-FEB06/GA5830A.pdf It has 30 dBi gain and is a 24 x 36 grid. Website: http://www.pacsat.com.au/5-8GHz-Antennas.htm Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid Those are dishes; not grids. -Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just ordered 7 4' Dual Pol Andrews dishes. They are rated at 34.9 db. Rick Harnish President Supernova Technologies, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office [EMAIL PROTECTED] Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid 32-34dbi -Matt Blair Davis wrote: What kind of gain is that gonna have? Say maybe 40db? Matt Liotta wrote: Anyone know where to find such a thing? -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] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid
Sorry, Closer look shows it is not dual polarity -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Back bone
Ross, I am currently building out from my hub in St Louis which is fed by a OC-3. I use both regional fiber and microwave backhaul to reach my partner's markets. I am bringing 20 Megs into Litchfield for a partner who will service that town, as well as Hillsboro. Our initial capacity is 45 Megs. It appears we could get to you with little difficulty and certainly at a fraction of the $12k monthly. If you are interested contact me off list. We can discuss my network in more detail. Joe From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Cornett Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:54 AM To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization Subject: [WISPA] Back bone Gentlemen and Ladies, Just curious if anyone outside the major mets have a back bone of DS3 either partial or full and what they are paying for them. I have been quoted $12000 per month for mine from ATT who has to lease lines from IL Consolidated. and I don't see now that is a workable figure in the wireless world. Any help would be appreciated. Ross Cornett VP 217 342 6201 ex 7 HofNet Communications, Inc. www.HofNet-Communications.com HofNet-Communications.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT Hard Drive Failure
Brian, If the data is of importance to you, DO NOTHING! Do not attempt any additional boots. You have head damage, and each RPM is causing pitting on the platter surface, literally taking bits of your data with it. Send it only to a lab wit a clean room and one with credentials. Be prepared to spend a minimum of $500 and possibly as much as $2000, depending on the damage, and the amount of data you wish to recover. If it is more than a few Gb, you will also have to send them another hard drive to put it on. I hope you have better luck than I did. I decided that I was as good as the experts and before sending mine to I even tried putting the platters into a good working identical drive I had ling around. It was a fatal error and I lost over 2 years work (for experts, we sure screw the pooch often, don't we ;) I was provided with the above advice by the lab I sent mine to after I was told the data was unrecoverable due to excessive surface damage. Good luck. Joe From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:33 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] OT Hard Drive Failure -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
